400 ppm

[hazwoper]

Nfl - Absolutely! And the main driver for this advancement has been private dollars helped by the PTC (the carrot at the end of the stick so to speak).

Being in the industry I would for all renewables to work, but we are very far from that point.

Yes, turbine technology (even in the last few years in fact) has grown tremendously to where we now have larger turbines that can produce at lower wind speeds, BUT with increased cut-in speeds for listed bats (which btw we are going see a few more most likely listed soon which will only increase the number of projects subject to increased cut-in speeds) these low wind speed turbines may have very little effect as they won't be able to spin at those speeds. Especially in the NE where the load (and issues with bats) is located.

[hazwoper]

I will say this though......I do look forward to helping wind and other renewables continue to grow. I LOVE my job

[bluewave]

It is NOT nonsensical!, and it really isn't that off topic. There is no denying that capitalism and consumerism is the main blame for most of the AGW and human issues we face today globally. Capitalism teaches we should compete against each other at all cost and to consume random products that end in the landfill a few months to years later. It is inefficient, it is wasteful, and it promotes inequality. Our political system is to blame for the slow actions taken against AGW!! Yes, individual humans are also to blame, but the system allows for markets to be in control of everything, and if it isn't PROFITABLE, nothing good ever gets done without legislation. People shouldn't even be given a choice between fossil fuels and renewables, it should be RENEWABLES only period! Just like our government shouldn't allow landfills and garbage produced by useless consumerism that drives the capitalistic machine of inefficiency. We destroy ourselves and our environments! Why? because of the system we live in and the economic and social injustices that exist. Sad thing is, it doesn't even remotely have to be like this, we only do it to ourselves

 

The main problem isn't the type of economy that we have, it's that civilization is still at a type 0 level. Hopefully, we 

successfully graduate to type 1 over the next hundred years and put the fossil fuel age behind us.

 

[Jonger]

I have one motive, human prosperity and sustainability for the planet... I have no political agendas or money tied into fossil fuels. I might be considered a "denier", but I'm more of a AGW moderate.

Some people really just use AGW as a tool for some other cause, that's fine, but call it what it is.

[Jonger]

It is NOT nonsensical!, and it really isn't that off topic. There is no denying that capitalism and consumerism is the main blame for most of the AGW and human issues we face today globally. Capitalism teaches we should compete against each other at all cost and to consume random products that end in the landfill a few months to years later. It is inefficient, it is wasteful, and it promotes inequality. Our political system is to blame for the slow actions taken against AGW!! Yes, individual humans are also to blame, but the system allows for markets to be in control of everything, and if it isn't PROFITABLE, nothing good ever gets done without legislation. People shouldn't even be given a choice between fossil fuels and renewables, it should be RENEWABLES only period! Just like our government shouldn't allow landfills and garbage produced by useless consumerism that drives the capitalistic machine of inefficiency. We destroy ourselves and our environments! Why? because of the system we live in and the economic and social injustices that exist. Sad thing is, it doesn't even remotely have to be like this, we only do it to ourselves

 

The main problem isn't the type of economy that we have, it's that civilization is still at a type 0 level. Hopefully, we 

successfully graduate to type 1 over the next hundred years and put the fossil fuel age behind us.

 

Didn't Carl Sagen invent that terminology? We are currently at level 0, we burn dead plants. :]

[ORH_wxman]

It appears like most of this discussion is probably for PR.

[bluewave]

Didn't Carl Sagen invent that terminology? We are currently at level 0, we burn dead plants. :]

 

Yes, Carl Sagan was known for saying that we are at 0.7 now and it will take another hundred years to make it    

it to type 1. He based it on the Kardashev scale. So It's going to take a good while to move past a fossil fuel  

dependent economy to one which will halt the increase of CO2 emissions. So the 400ppm number will end up

being just another signpost along the road to a warmer world.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[icebreaker5221]

Potter, I work for one of the largest renewable energy companies in the world. And I must tell you everyone of them is out to make a profit. Also, everyone at my company would literally fall off their chair laughing at your comment that it should be renewables only. Solar is still well behind as a utility scale generating source. Wind, well as we all know, it isn't always blowing. Renewables are certainly no where near apoint where they can possibly be the ONLY choice. Add to that the increasing difficult permitting landscape with increased cut-speeds at many sites located nearest the load centers to decrease take of federally listed bats and our precious renewable generation plan finds itself in an ever increasingly uncertain world.

Don't fool yourself. Renewable technologies have not made the leaps and bounds they have in the past decade due to companies wanting to save mankind, they made those leaps with legislation put in place to make renewable energy profitable. Without that legislation (a distinct possibility) we will see advancement fall dramatically. The biggest issues besides legislation at this point, natural gas prices.

 

 

Yes, the US and most of the world are far, far from being capable of depending soley upon renewable energy, but that has to be the ultimate goal, right?  Eventually the non-renewables will run out, or dwindle to the point that they can no longer keep up with growth. 

 

And getting a very high percentage of total energy from renewables is not complete fantasy.  Take Costa Rica for example, which is 93% renewable - 76% of which is hydroelectric and much of the rest is geothermal (http://insidecostarica.com/2013/01/09/costa-rica-seeks-to-futher-diversify-renewable-energy-sources/).  Of course Costa Rica has 2 orders of magnitude less population than the US, but if there is a sufficient committment, such progress is possible.  Note that the incentive for becoming carbon neutral in Costa Rica is ecotourism, so that actually goes with your argument of capitalism driving advancement. 

 

 

The Federal govt would never be able to take on technological advancement. Just look at the quasi government agency NASA. They have fallen so far behind they are looking to private for profit companies to get them to space.

What Friv is proposing as far as I am concerned is communism. And guess what, it has failed miserably. Sure, Capitalism isn't perfect, but to this point it most certainly has been the best system. Allowing this country, and the world for that matter, to have made the incredible strides we have even in my lifetime.

 

 

True, and I'm a strong believer that in today's day and age, we'll need big help from the private sector to drive new space technology.  To be fair tho, NASA was making amazing advancements back in the 60s when they were ~4% of the federal budget.  Now they only get 0.4%!

[SVT450R]

The Federal govt would never be able to take on technological advancement. Just look at the quasi government agency NASA. They have fallen so far behind they are looking to private for profit companies to get them to space.

What Friv is proposing as far as I am concerned is communism. And guess what, it has failed miserably. Sure, Capitalism isn't perfect, but to this point it most certainly has been the best system. Allowing this country, and the world for that matter, to have made the incredible strides we have even in my lifetime.

It's all about the budget. 

[bluewave]

Agreed they need to do something and fast i don't think they really have much of a choice look at Beijing for example it's getting out of hand over there with air quality having to walk around with a mask on it's a shame.

 

You can see how much more coal that they burn than all the other countries.

 

http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/global_coal_risk_assessment.pdf

 

 

According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China account- ed for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).

2. According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.

3. New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 de- veloping countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.

4. Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).

5. The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of pro- posed new coal-fired plants.

[TerryM]

Quebec has long been coal free & Ontario's last large coal fired generator will be decommissioned this year - next year the last small peak energy plant will close and Ontario will be the first large manufacturing based entity on the continent to wean itself completely from coal.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_ontario_is_putting_an_end_to_coal-burning_power_plants/2635/

From 18.6 million metric tons to 0 in less than a dozen years. It can be done.

 

Terry

[PottercountyWXobserver]

Quebec has long been coal free & Ontario's last large coal fired generator will be decommissioned this year - next year the last small peak energy plant will close and Ontario will be the first large manufacturing based entity on the continent to wean itself completely from coal.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_ontario_is_putting_an_end_to_coal-burning_power_plants/2635/

From 18.6 million metric tons to 0 in less than a dozen years. It can be done.

Terry

YES! It is a first victory for humanity in a long time. California is also almost if not completely away from coal. Hopefully we can start making faster progress towards renewables. That is one thing I love about my job. Everyday I'm personally adding 10kW of clean solar daily!

[SVT450R]

You can see how much more coal that they burn than all the other countries.

 

http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/global_coal_risk_assessment.pdf

 

 

According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China account- ed for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).

2. According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.

3. New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 de- veloping countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.

4. Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).

5. The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of pro- posed new coal-fired plants.

Wow yea china is basically on the path to an environmental disaster it makes you glad that we have the EPA.

[Jonger]

You can see how much more coal that they burn than all the other countries.

 

http://sa.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/global_coal_risk_assessment.pdf

 

 

According to IEA estimates, global coal consumption reached 7,238 million tonnes in 2010. China account- ed for 46 percent of consumption, followed by the United States (13 percent), and India (9 percent).

2. According to WRI’s estimates, 1,199 new coal-fired plants, with a total installed capacity of 1,401,278 megawatts (MW), are being proposed globally. These projects are spread across 59 countries. China and India together account for 76 percent of the proposed new coal power capacities.

3. New coal-fired plants have been proposed in 10 de- veloping countries: Cambodia, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Laos, Morocco, Namibia, Oman, Senegal, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan. Currently, there is limited or no capacity for domestic coal production in any of these countries.

4. Our analysis found that 483 power companies have proposed new coal-fired plants. With 66 proposed projects, Huaneng (Chinese) has proposed the most, followed by Guodian (Chinese), and NTPC (Indian).

5. The “Big Five” Chinese power companies (Datang, Huaneng, Guodian, Huadian, and China Power Investment) are the world’s biggest coal-fired power producers, and are among the top developers of pro- posed new coal-fired plants.

Wow yea china is basically on the path to an environmental disaster it makes you glad that we have the EPA.

Hopefully coal starts drying up soon. I read somewhere that high energy content coal has been mostly exhausted, hope its true.

[bluewave]

Hopefully coal starts drying up soon. I read somewhere that high energy content coal has been mostly exhausted, hope its true.

 

The sad part is that coal is the cheapest form of energy right now for many countries. But the damage to health

and the environment is very high. This won't change until cleaner forms of energy come down in price for them.

 

http://science.time.com/2013/01/29/the-scariest-environmental-fact-in-the-world/

[LocoAko]

It appears like most of this discussion is probably for PR.

Yeah, this is pretty awful.

Also, FWIW, it is official: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

[hazwoper]

^ awful??

What's your problem?

[LocoAko]

^ awful??

What's your problem?

We apparently agree here?

Good lord. Can someone move Friv's nonsensical post to off topic please?

[hazwoper]

Ohhhh

I thought you were speaking about me and some of the others speaking about renewable energy sources and their advancement over the past decade, not Friv's terrible ranting. I apologize.

[LocoAko]

Ohhhh

I thought you were speaking about me and some of the others speaking about renewable energy sources and their advancement over the past decade, not Friv's terrible ranting. I apologize.

It's cool. I just had to scroll past pages and pages of rainbow text and increasing font size.... lol.

[Jonger]

OhhhhI thought you were speaking about me and some of the others speaking about renewable energy sources and their advancement over the past decade, not Friv's terrible ranting. I apologize.It's cool. I just had to scroll past pages and pages of rainbow text and increasing font size.... lol.

It's a crescendo styled post.

[TerryM]

It's amazing how fast they come out of the woodwork to divert the topic when more bad news is announced. We hit 400 PPM for the first time in human history today - and a new study came out showing that the last time the earth hit 400 PPM the Arctic was 8C warmer.

 

Not the kind of thing the "burn baby burn" crowd wants to hear & not the kind of thing they want others to hear

 

So we concentrate on someone posting style instead of discussing the topic. Brilliant

 

Terry

[LakeEffectKing]

It's amazing how fast they come out of the woodwork to divert the topic when more bad news is announced. We hit 400 PPM for the first time in human history today - and a new study came out showing that the last time the earth hit 400 PPM the Arctic was 8C warmer.

 

Not the kind of thing the "burn baby burn" crowd wants to hear & not the kind of thing they want others to hear

 

So we concentrate on someone posting style instead of discussing the topic. Brilliant

 

Terry

Some of "they" aren't as smart as you....so cut 'em some slack.

[PottercountyWXobserver]

It's amazing how fast they come out of the woodwork to divert the topic when more bad news is announced. We hit 400 PPM for the first time in human history today - and a new study came out showing that the last time the earth hit 400 PPM the Arctic was 8C warmer.

 

Not the kind of thing the "burn baby burn" crowd wants to hear & not the kind of thing they want others to hear

 

So we concentrate on someone posting style instead of discussing the topic. Brilliant

 

Terry

And it will be near that in another century or two, especially if the arctic melts out by 2025. Once the arctic melts out, it will be off to the races of increased arctic temperatures that will speed up the recent lull in global temperature rise. Just wait until the next couple of major El Ninos, and really watch the ignoramuses dance. Once the arctic melts out, the Greenland melt will also hasten the sea level rise.

[ben4vols]

And it will be near that in another century or two, especially if the arctic melts out by 2025. Once the arctic melts out, it will be off to the races of increased arctic temperatures that will speed up the recent lull in global temperature rise. Just wait until the next couple of major El Ninos, and really watch the ignoramuses dance. Once the arctic melts out, the Greenland melt will also hasten the sea level rise.

 

Your post reminds me of a documentary series about international terrorism titled "The Power of Nightmares".  The quote below really describes people like yourself and others who use your tactic.  Just insert climate change for terrorism and it fits the maniacal portion of AGW supporters to a t. 

 

 

In the past, politicians promised to create a better world. They had different ways of achieving this, but their power and authority came from the optimistic visions they offered their people. Those dreams failed and today people have lost faith in ideologies. Increasingly, politicians are seen simply as managers of public life, but now they have discovered a new role that restores their power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians now promise to protect us: from nightmares. They say that they will rescue us from dreadful dangers that we cannot see and do not understand. And the greatest danger of all is international terrorism, a powerful and sinister network with sleeper cells in countries across the world, a threat that needs to be fought by a War on Terror. But much of this threat is a fantasy, which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It's a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media. This is a series of films about how and why that fantasy was created, and who it benefits. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world, and both had a very similar explanation of what caused that failure. These two groups have changed the world, but not in the way that either intended. Together, they created today's nightmare vision of a secret organized evil that threatens the world, a fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. And those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

 

 

[TerryM]

And it will be near that in another century or two, especially if the arctic melts out by 2025. Once the arctic melts out, it will be off to the races of increased arctic temperatures that will speed up the recent lull in global temperature rise. Just wait until the next couple of major El Ninos, and really watch the ignoramuses dance. Once the arctic melts out, the Greenland melt will also hasten the sea level rise.

You're an optimist.

 

Ten years ago anyone claiming that the Arctic would melt in less than a thousand years was seen as certifiable by the same people that now claim you're optimistic forecast to be "scaremongering'. Reality doesn't seem to faze the no nothing deniers now claiming to be "skeptics'. They've been proven wrong so often that they've lost the ability to feel humiliation, and they never did experience humility. Hubris is a poor substitute for observation, but they've been blinded by the outlandish hope that someday, somehow, they'll be right about something.

 

With 81% of the Arctic Sea Ice gone, they advocate BAU - it's a natural cycle - it's sunspots ( or the lack of them) - never admitting that pumping CO2 to 400 PPM just might have something to do with the crisis we face.

 

Terry

[ORH_wxman]

You're an optimist.

 

Ten years ago anyone claiming that the Arctic would melt in less than a thousand years was seen as certifiable by the same people that now claim you're optimistic forecast to be "scaremongering'. Reality doesn't seem to faze the no nothing deniers now claiming to be "skeptics'. They've been proven wrong so often that they've lost the ability to feel humiliation, and they never did experience humility. Hubris is a poor substitute for observation, but they've been blinded by the outlandish hope that someday, somehow, they'll be right about something.

 

With 81% of the Arctic Sea Ice gone, they advocate BAU - it's a natural cycle - it's sunspots ( or the lack of them) - never admitting that pumping CO2 to 400 PPM just might have something to do with the crisis we face.

 

Terry

 

 

You're using one variable to support a completely disingenuous claim that skeptics are the wrong ones most or all of the time. How about all the times that the predictions based on AGW have turned out to be wrong or changed in the past decade? Variables such as:

 

1. Winter snow cover decreasing....it is now increasing and the new explanation is that the decreased sea ice will continue to make the probability for high snow cover and cold outbreaks in the middle latitudes higher than previously.

 

2. Global temperatures: Obviously running lower than thought. Newer peer reviewed literature has been supporting more and more the lower side of sensitivity to the doubling of CO2 versus the higher estimates earlier.

 

3. Tropical cyclones were originally thought to become more numerous and much stronger than before. Now the scientific literature says that TCs will actually slightly decrease in frequency and only marginally increase in strength (by about 1-3%) in a warming world.

 

Those are just 3 off the top of my head, but there are certainly more. This is in no way denying that the arctic sea ice has dwindled much more rapidly than previously thought, but the arctic sea ice is not the only variale in which we judge climate change. Through all of this, there is natural variability as well which tends to throw a lot of wrenches at us.

[ben4vols]

 They've been proven wrong so often that they've lost the ability to feel humiliation, and they never did experience humility.

 

Terry

 

 

 

How is that glass house working out for ya Terry?  What if anything has the hysterical side of AGW supporters been right about?   Even those with much more moderate views (vs the hysterical) on AGW have admitted their predictions haven't worked out. 

[ben4vols]

With 81% of the Arctic Sea Ice gone, they advocate BAU - it's a natural cycle - it's sunspots ( or the lack of them) - never admitting that pumping CO2 to 400 PPM just might have something to do with the crisis we face.

 

Terry

 

There is no crisis.  Which is why most people have tuned out the alarmist portion of AGW. 

 

[Jonger]

With 81% of the Arctic Sea Ice gone, they advocate BAU - it's a natural cycle - it's sunspots ( or the lack of them) - never admitting that pumping CO2 to 400 PPM just might have something to do with the crisis we face.

 

Terry

 

There is no crisis.  Which is why most people have tuned out the alarmist portion of AGW. 

 

That is interesting.