The global warming thread. Is it for real?

Reported price data for more than 150,000 installed PV systems (Section 2) show that, among systems installed in 2011, the median reported price was $6.13/W for residential and small commercial systems 10 kW capacity or less, and $4.87/W for commercial systems larger than 100 kW (Figure 1).1 The capacity-weighted average reported for installed price of utility-scale PV systems completed in 2011 was $3.42/W. These data are a lagging indicator relative to the price of systems being installed or quoted today.
• The reported prices for systems installed in 2011 correspond closely to the results of bottom-up modeling of the overnight capital cost of PV systems quoted in the fourth quarter of 2010 (Q4 2010), which estimate an installed price of $5.90/W for 4.9-kW residential systems, $4.74/W for 217-kW commercial rooftop systems, and $3.93/W for 187.5-MW fixed-tilt utility-scale systems.2 Owing to installation time requirements, Q4 2010 price benchmarks are the most appropriate comparison for 2011 reported price data.
• Reported installed prices of U.S. residential and commercial PV systems declined 5%– 7% per year, on average, from 1998–2011, and by 11%–14% from 2010–2011, depending on system size. Preliminary data and bottom-up analysis suggest that the price reductions have continued in 2012. Specifically, bottom-up analysis for systems quoted in Q4 2011 (and installed in 2012) yields installed prices of $4.39/W for 5.1-kW residential systems, $3.43/W for 221-kW commercial rooftop systems, and $2.79/W for 191.5-MW fixed-tilt utility-scale systems, corresponding to a 25%–29% year-over-year reduction compared to Q4 2010 benchmarks.
• These figures are in line with analyst downward-trajectory projections for expected market pricing of PV systems and components in 2012, which also anticipate continuing reductions in component and system pricing beyond 2012. Analysts estimate that the global module average selling price will decline from $1.37/W in 2011 to approximately $0.74/W by 2013 and that inverter prices will also decline over this period. Analyst projections do not exist for balance of system (BOS) costs; however, the fact that PV system prices are substantially lower in Germany than in the United States, despite having similar module and inverter prices, suggests that substantial BOS cost reductions are possible for U.S. systems as well.

From: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56776.pdf
 
CultureCitizen said:
Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .[/QUOTE]

When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.
 
CultureCitizen said:
Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .

When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.[/QUOTE]

We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more.

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.
 
CultureCitizen said:
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?

I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .

When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.

We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more.

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.[/QUOTE]








As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.
 
We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more.

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.

Thank you, Miss South Carolina! :lol:
 
L.....M.....B.....O


Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".

yuk......yuk.........

Climate change: The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat : Nature News & Comment

Do you understand what "near term" means? Or does everything just kinda mush up into one fuzzy mess in your mind?


Actually s0n......since the science really doesn't matter, not a lot to mush up, thus, I don't give a rats ass about "near term"......"long term" or "terminal". Only care that I'm winning!!:2up:





most-studies-show-that-renewable-energys-per-unit-costs-are-well-above-fossil-fuel-costs-1.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]




























20 years of nutter bomb throwing about the impending catastrophy and how much have the goalposts been moved?

zero inches!!!:eusa_dance::fu::eusa_dance::fu::eusa_dance::fu:




Heres to mush winning!!!!
 
Last edited:
I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.

If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .

When there is a genuine monetary gain to be had by producing workable green energy, then we will have workable green energy...not before.

We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more.

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.








As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.[/QUOTE]

Do you have any idea what the word "sustainable" means?

Given that,do you think that temporary solutions are superior to permanent solutions?
 
So PMZ believes that we will have green energy when we value it.. When it can be monetized..

I say it has to EXIST first...


Sheeeezzzzzzzzzzz.

Keep those eyes shut tight. If you don't see it, it doesn't exist.
 
We're there now when you assign all of the attributable costs to fossil fuels. The only advantage that they have now is that they are existing plant. The costly disadvantages are fuel, fuel transport, the consequences of waste disposal and supply security.

We'll need more energy in the future because of growth and the transition to electric cars.

Nobody is or will invest in fossil fuel energy any more.

All growth is and will be sustainable.

The only question is how long before we tear all of the obsolete plant down.

Thank you, Miss South Carolina! :lol:

You continually clarify why you are irrelevant to any discussion here. Your avatar, your name, your idiocy, your home brewed science. The world left you behind decades ago for good reason.
 
L.....M.....B.....O


Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".

yuk......yuk.........

Climate change: The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat : Nature News & Comment

What are all of the non-climatologists predicting?






Continued cooling for the next 20 years at minimum. Worst case scenario is a 200 year cold trend leading to another Maunder Minimum. We'll have a good gauge on that within the next 5 years.....though based on how rapidly the climatologists have been backing away from their "onward and upward" temp meme, they may already think it's happening.
 
As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).
 
Heres to mush winning!!!!

I took a look at your charts . Strange I've got other costs for 2017

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So acording to my link solar is 2.5 times more expensive than gas.
And wind is 50% more expensive than gas but has a price which can be comparable with coal.


If solar can go down from 0.15 to 0.10 it will be cheaper to have cars fueled by solar + electricity than gasoline.

Convert gallon to kilowatt-hours - Conversion of Measurement Units

1 gallon @ 3.6 ( the average us price ) = 36 kwh
This means the price of energy 1 kwh using gasoline is 0.10.

And please , don't get me started with batteries. I expect they will not be needed by 2015.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News
 
Last edited:
As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).






ALL societies from antiquity would classify as sustainable. Read about them and learn....
 

Forum List

Back
Top