<p>Now Kluge, where did I ever equate the two. Your dreaming or fabricating. I said PV had a payback problem. I never said it was equivalent to roof top tanks anywhere.</p>
<p>Bandit_TX and Kluge:</p>
<p>To help settle the differences, may I suggest to read a few articles in magazines such as Home Power or Home Energy</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.homeenergy.org/[/url]”>http://www.homeenergy.org/</a>
<a href=“http://www.homepower.com/[/url]”>http://www.homepower.com/</a></p>
<p>There are stories -sometimes with the full economics of the project- about how people did transform their houses. You may also find this type of stories interesting: <a href=“http://www.solartoday.org/2006/may_june06/plugging_in.htm[/url]”>http://www.solartoday.org/2006/may_june06/plugging_in.htm</a></p>
<p>Again, in some cases, the economics do not work, but in others the benefits go beyond the “do-go” syndrome. </p>
<p>Lastly, I want to addrress two small points: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>The availability factor (not the same as capacity factor) or those expensive European wind turbines is actually excellent, and often superior to conventional power. There are tons of statistics (of actual project) that show the availability factor to exceed 95%. Availability factor is the percentage of time a generating piece of equipment is ready to produce energy, after discounting maintenance and repair downtime. The problems of the farmer with the one machine might be foreign to the wind turbine itself. Companies such as Vestas, Bonus, Enercon, and maybe GE have not been built based on faulty technology. </p></li>
<li><p>The penetration of wind and PV energy in the US is far from creating issues. Countries like Denmark, Germany, and even Spain have seen massive installations of wind parks that have not caused unpredictable grid issues. As far as percentage of energy produced developed by renewables, the same countries have established mandates that are as high as 10% or 20% of all electricity produced. We are far, very far for reaching similar numbers. FWIW, there are issues regarding ourg grid and transmission bottlenecks that are far more pressing than worrying about Kluge neighbors turning their meter backwards.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Our local papers just had a article on an energy-conscious homeowner. A few years ago, he spent close to $100k for a large PV system. That, of course, did nothing for his heating bills so this year he spent $70k for a geothermal heating system. I guess his utility bills are pretty minimal.</p>
<p>LOL!!! great post.</p>
<p>I’m not really sure where to post this, but it needs to be posted everywhere and shared with everyone you know. If you haven’t seen Al Gore’s movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ bike or walk to a theatre and see it right now. It’s well done and it’s horrifying, but more than anything, it’s beyond important and time sensitive. Some of the charts he shows of recorded data of the linear correlation between carbon emissions, temperature and the ice ages that have occured over the past 650,000 years are staggering. It’s easy to understand coming out of the movie that atmospheric catastrophes that would kill literally tens of millions of people are almost certain within the next 50-60 years if drastic measures aren’t taken to reduce carbon emissions greatly.
I just saw it with some friends and we all felt a little numb leaving the theatre. No one really knew what to say. We’re all riding bikes and walking anywhere we can. I’m actually shutting down my computer tonight. I don’t really know what to say, other than that this is so, so important, and it says very bad things about our culture, our education system, our media and our values that this isn’t at the forefront of everyone’s conciousness.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.crisisclimate.net%5B/url%5D”>www.crisisclimate.net</a></p>
<p>I agree with you - we saw this movie as a family and it spurred my college-age kids to find out how to become more politically involved to help effect change. The horrifying information was presented in a thoroughly compelling manner and I wish that it could be presented to a wider audience than the tiny percentage who will see it in a movie theater. </p>
<p>My kids are too young to really remember much about Al Gore’s earlier political career and are seeing him with fresh eyes. They remarked on the stark contrast between Gore’s insight about global warming and Bush’s utter indifference to this critical issue.</p>
<p>All of us left the theater thinking, “If only . . .”</p>
<p>Do a search or just check the back pages. This issue was beat to death a week ago.</p>
<p>I don’t know, Edad. The horse might still be kicking, albeit a bit reluctantly.</p>
<p>I might go and see this movie with a few friends since there are no decent comedies coming out. Of course, we will carpool in my one friend’s Suburban :)</p>
<p>No need to carpool, Ilove. In keeping with your philosophies, I would suggest you and each of your friends drive your own Suburban! After all, it’s all about the individual!</p>
<p>Most of the folks who don’t believe in global warming seem to have a passionate need to <em>not</em> believe in because they might have to change the way they live if it’s true. There’s a putting hands over eyes, fingers into ears, saying nah-nah-nah-I-can’t-<em>hear</em>-you effect to all of it.</p>
<p>The cumulative weight of scientific opinion is increasingly clear. Of course, there’s probably a lot of overlap among the naysayers with those whose approach to science embraces “creation science.”</p>
<p>Ha, exactly, TheDad. Go read some of the comments in the same thread I started in college life. They’re acutely disturbing.</p>
<p>I can’t drive my own Surburban. Some of us have to work for our money you know. Maybe I should take Gore’s example and spend a million pounds of jet fuel, and then a few hundred gallons of 93 octane for my limo on my way to a ‘Save our Planet’ conference. Global warming zealots should hook up with creation ‘science’ zealots. There is a lot in common.</p>
<p>The cumulative weight of scientific opinion???
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2516414#post2516414[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2516414#post2516414</a></p>
<p>Bandit–those sites are a riot; thanks for the laugh!</p>
<p>references to " the political forces that view the theory of CO2-induced global warming as a mighty lever for moving the nations of the earth in the direction of global governance - via the establishment of an entity with power to regulate nearly all forms of human enterprise in the guise of protecting the planet from the climatic consequences of CO2-producing activities - " are pretty hilarious.</p>
<p>Yup, it’s those one-world’ers at it again!</p>
<p>My son saw the movie, but he said he didn’t learn anything new because he’d seen all the same graphs and info in the required freshman science course that all Columbia students take.</p>
<p>It’s a shame those pointy-headed no-nothings have taken over the science departments of that school–hope your D isn’t running into the same anti-intellectualism at Harvard!</p>
<p>
Is there some rule that when the righties can’t come up with a coherent argument on point they’re required to make an ad hominem attack on a democrat - any democrat - or “liberals” in general? Or is it just a function of general intellectual bankruptcy?</p>
<p>Bandit, poor methodology on your part. I looked at most of the sites you cited and aside from the popular press citations–which hardly count–the sites themselves are about as valid as “creation science” sites. </p>
<p>The effects of atmospheric CO2 are pretty well understood. What’s happening with the ice caps is documented, verifiable, and unprecedented in human history. </p>
<p>If you take a survey of serious scientific organizations and the geophysics departments of universities around the globe, you will find very little disagreement about the broad brushstrokes, lots of squabbling about the details.</p>
<p>Of course, you probably think it’s a conspiracy of the men and women in white coats.</p>
<p>kluge: We surrender. Leftists never, ever, ever make ad hominem attacks. Never. Especially not Ted Rall.</p>
<p>Ted Rall posts here? What’s his CC screen name? Or is that just another way to change the subject, by… oh! - attacking someone perceived as somehow “representing” the opposing view? Or to put in another way, an ad hominem attack? </p>
<p>Is this a new form of irony?</p>
<p>So, the Russian scientist are in the right wing pocket as well?</p>