Climate Change Alarmists Get Funding From Energy Corporations

[Constructive Anarchy]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

 

[ding]

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

I believe he is trying to say independent of utility companies.

 

[ding]

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Ok, so if everyone was energy independent what would happen to the utility companies?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Ok, so if everyone was energy independent what would happen to the utility companies?

Everyone independent? I wouldn't anticipate anything like that. But obviously the technology exists to supplement the grid, and to bring power to all kinds of rural and otherwise remote locations where electrical lines on towers will never go.

 

[Crick]

Whatever the truth might or might not be about climate change it's doubtful this country will change it's energy policy any time soon. We can continue to disperse our over valued money and spread our debt around just as long as dollars continue to be the primary international currency for buying petroleum.

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

You know I am also pro nuclear power, but in regard to your comment about freeing the salmon, with what are you thinking to cool your steam condensors? Nuclear power plants need water. They don't pollute it, but they do need it.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

You know I am also pro nuclear power, but in regard to your comment about freeing the salmon, with what are you thinking to cool your steam condensors? Nuclear power plants need water. They don't pollute it, but they do need it.

Thorium based reactors that require no water for cooling are currently under development at Lawrence Livermore.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I've seen big oil's name on the credits for DOZENS of papers on the effects of Global Warming. Papers that are "pro warming", but stop short of screeching about death and destruction predictions. OTH -- I've only seen 2 or 3 renown GW scientists who accepted big oil money to write "skeptical" papers about GW.

I love it when a faithful catastrophic GW believer shoves a paper in my face and I find Shell Oil on the credits.
Makes them rethink the program and the players in this complicated "industry".

Still, I'd really like to know what motivates energy corporations to invest so much into what is perceived as counter to their interests. Why promote an alternative explanation at all? It makes no sense.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

You know I am also pro nuclear power, but in regard to your comment about freeing the salmon, with what are you thinking to cool your steam condensors? Nuclear power plants need water. They don't pollute it, but they do need it.

Florida nearly killed off the manatee population by requiring cooling on the water into the inland waterways. The animals would winter very near the plants and it encouraged the comeback of the species. That applies to most all water boiling plants. And by design, the discharge can be minimized.

At any rate, the newest generation of nuclear has redundant fuel packs. Can be BURIED for 50 years before recycling the pods and DO NOT require water cooling.

 

[flacaltenn]

The only viable alternative to maintaining our civilized way of life is really nuclear. And it would be the most effective hedge against GW and reduce actual pollution at the same time. There is no "big nuclear" to lobby and game the system. So the stalemate comes about because wind and solar are NOT real "alternatives". They are supplements. And their costs SHOULD include the MANDATORY capacity to bring on line coal and gas when the supplements take the day or the week off. It's false expectations that keep this public propaganda campaign on the road.

OIL --- has no place in the discussion about "renewables". They do NOT compete. It's a separate discussion about power for transportation. And adding capacity ON GRID for Electric vehicles is a non-starter. Because you do not EXPAND electricity generation with supplements like wind/solar. It's only being sold now because DEMANDS have fallen everywhere in the world except China and a couple other Asian countries.

If folks want to play this GW game of pushing wind/solar to it's limits, it will be a very expensive and maybe lethal exercise.. Show down time at the OK corral..

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Having home solar is really a commitment to be in the energy biz. You gotta wade thru the screwing that you get on surcharges for line maintenance, reduced reimbursements on the EXCESS the energy that you sell back into grid and design your system for energy "independence". Which means it has to be SCALED to provide WAYY more than what you need for the home. The game is to BE an energy provider during the peak day, to subsidize the 14 hours per day, when you must draw power from the grid. The math is NOT in your favor in MANY regions of the country. It's a REGIONAL option.

And then there is the reality that by YOU be an energy mogul for 6 or 8 hours a day -- you make it SOMEONE ELSE'S problem, to provide YOU energy for the other 18 or 16 hours of the day.. It's nice to THINK you've solved a problem, but solar is a Daytime PEAKING source. Meaning that the grid demand can be reduced only by the amount that the NOON PEAK is HIGHER than the usage at perhaps 10PM at night. And all the analysis of this "optimization" says that is about 15 to 20% of Daytime peak. Because the summer usage at 10PM is about 80% of Noon Peak. That's where the initial 20% renewable goal came from.

But SOMEONE has to invest in the MAIN GENERATORS that get you thru the night and thru a totally cloudy week like I've had in Tenn for the last 10 days. A week BTW -- where I'd be a solar popsicle if other adults weren't interested in backing up my home solar installation. Probably one of the HIGHEST energy bills for this winter that I'm gonna see.

 

[flacaltenn]

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

You know I am also pro nuclear power, but in regard to your comment about freeing the salmon, with what are you thinking to cool your steam condensors? Nuclear power plants need water. They don't pollute it, but they do need it.

Thorium based reactors that require no water for cooling are currently under development at Lawrence Livermore.

Hyperion is on my list of investments to look into. How many HOAs across the country might be interested in taking entire subdivisions off the main grid?? Large factories?

http://phys.org/news/2008-11-mini-nuclear-power-homes.html

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

It seems to me that we should be making every effort to utilize all viable and reasonably safe methods of energy production. While wind and solar may never replace fossil fuel and nuclear power, it certainly can go a long ways toward supplementing energy output. And who doesn't like the idea of being at least partly energy independent? I know people who never tap into the grid at all, but they do sell energy back to the utility company.

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Having home solar is really a commitment to be in the energy biz. You gotta wade thru the screwing that you get on surcharges for line maintenance, reduced reimbursements on the EXCESS the energy that you sell back into grid and design your system for energy "independence". Which means it has to be SCALED to provide WAYY more than what you need for the home. The game is to BE an energy provider during the peak day, to subsidize the 14 hours per day, when you must draw power from the grid. The math is NOT in your favor in MANY regions of the country. It's a REGIONAL option.

And then there is the reality that by YOU be an energy mogul for 6 or 8 hours a day -- you make it SOMEONE ELSE'S problem, to provide YOU energy for the other 18 or 16 hours of the day.. It's nice to THINK you've solved a problem, but solar is a Daytime PEAKING source. Meaning that the grid demand can be reduced only by the amount that the NOON PEAK is HIGHER than the usage at perhaps 10PM at night. And all the analysis of this "optimization" says that is about 15 to 20% of Daytime peak. Because the summer usage at 10PM is about 80% of Noon Peak. That's where the initial 20% renewable goal came from.

But SOMEONE has to invest in the MAIN GENERATORS that get you thru the night and thru a totally cloudy week like I've had in Tenn for the last 10 days. A week BTW -- where I'd be a solar popsicle if other adults weren't interested in backing up my home solar installation. Probably one of the HIGHEST energy bills for this winter that I'm gonna see.

The efficiency of solar power seems to vary depending on what part of the country you live in. Also, the number of hours per day depends on what kind of battery storage you have. There are an increasing number of people who rarely ,if ever, tap into the grid. Millions of people live in areas where solar energy works quite well. In fact I know someone who is completely off the electrical grid, powering a large house,using solar with a large battery capacity, he also has a backup generator that runs on propane, just in case. He's had this setup for a few years and has only run the generator for a few hours in all that time.

 

[flacaltenn]

The electrical generation side has been "energy independent" for DECADES without wind and solar. Like I've been repeating -- virtually NO oil involved in the grid generation. And in fact, the market itself has recently reduced US GHouse emissions back the 1990 levels by just exploiting the rich nat gas of this country. IN SPITE of government energy policy to thwart new nat gas reserves and pipelines. So it's the only BACKBONE type of electrical generation that has expanded since the 90's replacing coal and aging nuclear generation..

Neither wind nor solar can power a single supermarket or hospital reliably. Not on a 24/7/365 schedule that won't get people killed or set back to Dark Ages standards. The cold and dark realities are much less joyful than the oversold hype of "alternatives".

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Having home solar is really a commitment to be in the energy biz. You gotta wade thru the screwing that you get on surcharges for line maintenance, reduced reimbursements on the EXCESS the energy that you sell back into grid and design your system for energy "independence". Which means it has to be SCALED to provide WAYY more than what you need for the home. The game is to BE an energy provider during the peak day, to subsidize the 14 hours per day, when you must draw power from the grid. The math is NOT in your favor in MANY regions of the country. It's a REGIONAL option.

And then there is the reality that by YOU be an energy mogul for 6 or 8 hours a day -- you make it SOMEONE ELSE'S problem, to provide YOU energy for the other 18 or 16 hours of the day.. It's nice to THINK you've solved a problem, but solar is a Daytime PEAKING source. Meaning that the grid demand can be reduced only by the amount that the NOON PEAK is HIGHER than the usage at perhaps 10PM at night. And all the analysis of this "optimization" says that is about 15 to 20% of Daytime peak. Because the summer usage at 10PM is about 80% of Noon Peak. That's where the initial 20% renewable goal came from.

But SOMEONE has to invest in the MAIN GENERATORS that get you thru the night and thru a totally cloudy week like I've had in Tenn for the last 10 days. A week BTW -- where I'd be a solar popsicle if other adults weren't interested in backing up my home solar installation. Probably one of the HIGHEST energy bills for this winter that I'm gonna see.

The efficiency of solar power seems to vary depending on what part of the country you live in. Also, the number of hours per day depends on what kind of battery storage you have. There are an increasing number of people who rarely ,if ever, tap into the grid. Millions of people live in areas where solar energy works quite well. In fact I know someone who is completely off the electrical grid, powering a large house,using solar with a large battery capacity, he also has a backup generator that runs on propane, just in case. He's had this setup for a few years and has only run the generator for a few hours in all that time.

Being completely off-grid completely is a different and noble goal. The massive amount of limited lifetime batteries is an ecological problem tho. And for grid-tied systems, The stuff I wrote still applies. System must be oversized to fill the batteries and still operate the home for 6 or 8 a day. So if you're "filling the battery", you've got virtually nothing left to SELL back to the grid to offset your costs. I just hope people do the math correctly on their own, without being oversold and realize that they are becoming energy moguls with on-grid solar.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Not quite what I mean by the word "independent."

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Having home solar is really a commitment to be in the energy biz. You gotta wade thru the screwing that you get on surcharges for line maintenance, reduced reimbursements on the EXCESS the energy that you sell back into grid and design your system for energy "independence". Which means it has to be SCALED to provide WAYY more than what you need for the home. The game is to BE an energy provider during the peak day, to subsidize the 14 hours per day, when you must draw power from the grid. The math is NOT in your favor in MANY regions of the country. It's a REGIONAL option.

And then there is the reality that by YOU be an energy mogul for 6 or 8 hours a day -- you make it SOMEONE ELSE'S problem, to provide YOU energy for the other 18 or 16 hours of the day.. It's nice to THINK you've solved a problem, but solar is a Daytime PEAKING source. Meaning that the grid demand can be reduced only by the amount that the NOON PEAK is HIGHER than the usage at perhaps 10PM at night. And all the analysis of this "optimization" says that is about 15 to 20% of Daytime peak. Because the summer usage at 10PM is about 80% of Noon Peak. That's where the initial 20% renewable goal came from.

But SOMEONE has to invest in the MAIN GENERATORS that get you thru the night and thru a totally cloudy week like I've had in Tenn for the last 10 days. A week BTW -- where I'd be a solar popsicle if other adults weren't interested in backing up my home solar installation. Probably one of the HIGHEST energy bills for this winter that I'm gonna see.

The efficiency of solar power seems to vary depending on what part of the country you live in. Also, the number of hours per day depends on what kind of battery storage you have. There are an increasing number of people who rarely ,if ever, tap into the grid. Millions of people live in areas where solar energy works quite well. In fact I know someone who is completely off the electrical grid, powering a large house,using solar with a large battery capacity, he also has a backup generator that runs on propane, just in case. He's had this setup for a few years and has only run the generator for a few hours in all that time.

Being completely off-grid completely is a different and noble goal. The massive amount of limited lifetime batteries is an ecological problem tho. And for grid-tied systems, The stuff I wrote still applies. System must be oversized to fill the batteries and still operate the home for 6 or 8 a day. So if you're "filling the battery", you've got virtually nothing left to SELL back to the grid to offset your costs. I just hope people do the math correctly on their own, without being oversold and realize that they are becoming energy moguls with on-grid solar.

Does this mean you're not interested in becoming a solar energy salesman? You may wish to reconsider later, it's an expanding market and a money maker for smart investors. Of course you can't go wrong with oil futures as a long term stable investment, but solar and wind will continue to grow as the technology advances.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh -- you meant independent of coal and nat gas and nuclear and hydro -- or something to that effect?
Because those the things that power the grid today. The things that wind/solar merely supplement.

With sufficient amounts of NEW 3rd gen nuclear we could shutter the coal plants and tear down the hydro plants.. Thus freeing the salmon and the rivers, cutting REAL pollution, and making a HUGE dent in CO2 emissions. Could do that in 4 or 5 years if we really wanted to..

Despite the obtuse response I would guess that you still understand this logic: Each house that has solar panels means one house less dependent on the grid and that much more power available for other uses That should be simple enough math for anyone to grasp.

Having home solar is really a commitment to be in the energy biz. You gotta wade thru the screwing that you get on surcharges for line maintenance, reduced reimbursements on the EXCESS the energy that you sell back into grid and design your system for energy "independence". Which means it has to be SCALED to provide WAYY more than what you need for the home. The game is to BE an energy provider during the peak day, to subsidize the 14 hours per day, when you must draw power from the grid. The math is NOT in your favor in MANY regions of the country. It's a REGIONAL option.

And then there is the reality that by YOU be an energy mogul for 6 or 8 hours a day -- you make it SOMEONE ELSE'S problem, to provide YOU energy for the other 18 or 16 hours of the day.. It's nice to THINK you've solved a problem, but solar is a Daytime PEAKING source. Meaning that the grid demand can be reduced only by the amount that the NOON PEAK is HIGHER than the usage at perhaps 10PM at night. And all the analysis of this "optimization" says that is about 15 to 20% of Daytime peak. Because the summer usage at 10PM is about 80% of Noon Peak. That's where the initial 20% renewable goal came from.

But SOMEONE has to invest in the MAIN GENERATORS that get you thru the night and thru a totally cloudy week like I've had in Tenn for the last 10 days. A week BTW -- where I'd be a solar popsicle if other adults weren't interested in backing up my home solar installation. Probably one of the HIGHEST energy bills for this winter that I'm gonna see.

The efficiency of solar power seems to vary depending on what part of the country you live in. Also, the number of hours per day depends on what kind of battery storage you have. There are an increasing number of people who rarely ,if ever, tap into the grid. Millions of people live in areas where solar energy works quite well. In fact I know someone who is completely off the electrical grid, powering a large house,using solar with a large battery capacity, he also has a backup generator that runs on propane, just in case. He's had this setup for a few years and has only run the generator for a few hours in all that time.

Being completely off-grid completely is a different and noble goal. The massive amount of limited lifetime batteries is an ecological problem tho. And for grid-tied systems, The stuff I wrote still applies. System must be oversized to fill the batteries and still operate the home for 6 or 8 a day. So if you're "filling the battery", you've got virtually nothing left to SELL back to the grid to offset your costs. I just hope people do the math correctly on their own, without being oversold and realize that they are becoming energy moguls with on-grid solar.

Does this mean you're not interested in becoming a solar energy salesman? You may wish to reconsider later, it's an expanding market and a money maker for smart investors. Of course you can't go wrong with oil futures as a long term stable investment, but solar and wind will continue to grow as the technology advances.

Hey C.A. I truly appreciate hot leads. I love to evaluate and invest in good solid technology. Unfortunately, the market charts don't reflect your "optimism". Not your fault, the media has done a wizard like snow job on overselling the potential and the POWER of solar/Wind.

Back in the REAL WORLD --- I assume you know what an ETF stock is -- Here's one of the solar ETFs..
Looks like that classic "dead cat bounce" ...

 

[flacaltenn]

Just so you don't think that was a fluke. Here's another solar ETF for this past year..

The election and Hillary's impending win didn't even make a dent in the tragectory..

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

As with most things these days you can get at least fifty different opinions and diverging sets of facts for every unresolved question.

These 4 solar-power stocks will leave fossil fuels in the dust