Obama praises Paris climate deal as 'tribute to American leadership'
Could this guy be any more arrogant??
Summit concludes with feckless, unenforceable agreement
Sort:
What will be used instead of fossil fuels? Has progress been made on the corn oil engine?
"Obama praises Paris climate deal as 'tribute to American leadership'
Could this guy be any more arrogant??"
Obama's a politician...don't trust a single one.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#5
newengland7 wrote:
What will be used instead of fossil fuels? Has progress been made on the corn oil engine?
They failed to harness all that hot air at the conference.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#6
Part of what's missing from your perspective is an understanding of the technology curve with respect to renewable sources, particularly solar. The cost to produce 1W of power with photovoltaics is decreasing by a factor of two every three years. Current costs per Watt are under $0.10 USD. Compare that to 1970s when the cost was over $70.
Contrast that with oil generation, which has improved relatively recently with fracking technology, but does not have the same long term potential.
Currently, total estimated cost of a power plant per kWH for photovoltaics is roughly double the estimated cost for oil or coal based technologies. However, that curve is falling drastically. The change in these metrics fell over 60% since 2010 in the U.S.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
[COMMENT DELETED]
Dec 13, 2015
0
#8
@Mohammed-al-Baydaq:
When looking at this post, you should see, at the top right a large green "Post New Forum Topic" button (it will look like the one below). This button should be available any time you are viewing a forum topic. If you have follow-up questions, feel free to message me.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Thanks so much for the help Mr. Bill.
billprovince wrote:
Part of what's missing from your perspective is an understanding of the technology curve with respect to renewable sources, particularly solar. The cost to produce 1W of power with photovoltaics is decreasing by a factor of two every three years. Current costs per Watt are under $0.10 USD. Compare that to 1970s when the cost was over $70.
Contrast that with oil generation, which has improved relatively recently with fracking technology, but does not have the same long term potential.
Currently, total estimated cost of a power plant per kWH for photovoltaics is roughly double the estimated cost for oil or coal based technologies. However, that curve is falling drastically. The change in these metrics fell over 60% since 2010 in the U.S.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Try driving across country in an Electric Car.
Try designing an Electric Motor to power all the huge trucks that carry all the food an other things you expect everyday.
So do freight trains that bring tons of things to people come to a halt?
Air travel would cease.
Sea travel would cease.
The only good thing would be that maybe Terrorism and wars would cease.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#12
billprovince wrote:
Part of what's missing from your perspective is an understanding of the technology curve with respect to renewable sources, particularly solar. The cost to produce 1W of power with photovoltaics is decreasing by a factor of two every three years. Current costs per Watt are under $0.10 USD. Compare that to 1970s when the cost was over $70.
Contrast that with oil generation, which has improved relatively recently with fracking technology, but does not have the same long term potential.
Currently, total estimated cost of a power plant per kWH for photovoltaics is roughly double the estimated cost for oil or coal based technologies. However, that curve is falling drastically. The change in these metrics fell over 60% since 2010 in the U.S.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Alternative energy sources are worthwhile, but not when they have to be heavily subsidized. They need to be economically self-supporting.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#13
HessianWarrior wrote:
billprovince wrote:
Part of what's missing from your perspective is an understanding of the technology curve with respect to renewable sources, particularly solar. The cost to produce 1W of power with photovoltaics is decreasing by a factor of two every three years. Current costs per Watt are under $0.10 USD. Compare that to 1970s when the cost was over $70.
Contrast that with oil generation, which has improved relatively recently with fracking technology, but does not have the same long term potential.
Currently, total estimated cost of a power plant per kWH for photovoltaics is roughly double the estimated cost for oil or coal based technologies. However, that curve is falling drastically. The change in these metrics fell over 60% since 2010 in the U.S.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Try driving across country in an Electric Car.
Try designing an Electric Motor to power all the huge trucks that carry all the food an other things you expect everyday.
So do freight trains that bring tons of things to people come to a halt?
Air travel would cease.
Sea travel would cease.
The only good thing would be that maybe Terrorism and wars would cease.
There would still be sailing ships!
The Cutty Sark
JamieDelarosa wrote:
HessianWarrior wrote:
billprovince wrote:
Part of what's missing from your perspective is an understanding of the technology curve with respect to renewable sources, particularly solar. The cost to produce 1W of power with photovoltaics is decreasing by a factor of two every three years. Current costs per Watt are under $0.10 USD. Compare that to 1970s when the cost was over $70.
Contrast that with oil generation, which has improved relatively recently with fracking technology, but does not have the same long term potential.
Currently, total estimated cost of a power plant per kWH for photovoltaics is roughly double the estimated cost for oil or coal based technologies. However, that curve is falling drastically. The change in these metrics fell over 60% since 2010 in the U.S.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
Try driving across country in an Electric Car.
Try designing an Electric Motor to power all the huge trucks that carry all the food an other things you expect everyday.
So do freight trains that bring tons of things to people come to a halt?
Air travel would cease.
Sea travel would cease.
The only good thing would be that maybe Terrorism and wars would cease.
There would still be sailing ships!
That's true, but it would take a lot longer to vacation overseas or destroy another country.
JamieDelarosa said:"Alternative energy sources are worthwhile, but not when they have to be heavily subsidized. They need to be economically self-supporting."
Note, wind, solar power, etc.--the question I had asked was simply addressing machines that run on engines. There are electric cars but AFAIK, they don't run for very long before they have to be charged up again. Long distance trips would be complicated (as well as for "electric planes" which longer charges would be needed to sustain safe flight and there's a whale of a lot of electricity in airliners already--shall we do away with flight now?).
Solar, wind, etc., works great for powering home systems but it ain't going to be working for cars and buses and planes. Some other form of power is needed. Hence, engine fuel is required. If electricity cannot suffice for engine fuel, another alternative source must be supplemented. As solar and wind power produce electricity, these cannot be maintained as sufficient sources for travel vehicles that have to go through all sorts of conditions.
@ JamieDelarosa Just think of all those phone happy clowns that can't get their newest and greatest Apple Phone from China.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#17
@HessianWarrior:
It's true that the current driving experience with EVs is limited in length. Why assume that will be eternally true? With respect to power, electric motors actually generate very powerful torque. Witness the Tesla. Also, just because the value does not fit your notion of a cross-country drive does not mean it would not be useful. Most driving is short-range, not long range.
@Jamie:
Fossil-fuel-based industries are subsidized as well. As of 2015, they are subsidized $550 billion per year whereas renewables are about 1/3 of that world-wide. In the U.S., the ratio is reversed: renewables have higher subsidies, but fossil fuel industries are also heavily subsidized. In 2013, the allocation for subsidies according to the congressional budget office is broken down as follows:
Renewable energy: 7.3 billion (45%)
Energy Efficiency: 4.8 billion (29%)
Fossil Fuels: 3.2 billion (20%)
Nuclear Energy: 1.1 billion (7%)
(The percentages are approximate - roundoff errors show an extra 1%, but you can do the calculations yourself if you are concerned about this).
As far as economically self-supporting, just check out the energy sector in the market. It's been hit pretty hard in the last six months or so, but that's mostly because OPEC has been pumping out increased volumes of oil, which has deflated the oil prices. The stock for the renewables have not been hit nearly as hard as the fossil fuel based industries. Go to Google Finance tool and compare "Energy Sector Index" search results with "Renewable Energy Sector Index" search results.
More to the point, the long term view for renewables is much stronger than for fossil fuel based energies. Much of the reason is predictably due to politics, but that's not the whole story: their efficiency will soon be greater than the efficiency for fossil fuels.
Dec 13, 2015
0
#18
the latest Apple i-watch gets bad reviews from cnet ,but all owners just love it . "Twentieth first century schizoid man : nothing he has, he really needs"
@ billprovince You half-assed defended the car, now defend the trucks, the freight train, and the all important airlines which the damn politicians use constantly to promote this happy Horsesh#t.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/world-leaders-hail-paris-climate-deal
World leaders hail Paris climate deal as ‘major leap for mankind’
Almost 200 countries sign historic pledge to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels
A historic, legally binding [sic - no it's not] climate deal that aims to hold global temperatures to a maximum rise of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, staving off the worst effects of catastrophic global warming, has been secured.
The culmination of more than 20 years of fraught UN climate talks has seen all countries agree to reduce emissions, promise to raise $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries adapt their economies, and accept a new goal of zero net emissions by later this century. [The standard transfer of wealth "solution"]
Formally adopted in Paris by 195 countries, the first universal climate deal will see an accelerated phase-out of fossil fuels [no, it won't], the growth of renewable energy streams and powerful new carbon markets to enable countries to trade emissions and protect forests....
“The current contributions that all countries are making actually takes us to [a] 2.7 [degree increase in global temperatures],” said [UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary Amber] Rudd. “So we need to do better than that, and what this did was set us on a pathway to try and achieve that.
“It is ambitious, but it is legally binding in some ways, and not in other ways. But we had to get the balance of being totally inclusive, getting 200 countries to sign up, but also not having such a tough compliance regime which you could say we had at Kyoto, which didn’t succeed, that some countries would step away....
Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford, cast doubt on the 1.5C target: “Human-induced warming is already approaching one degree and is predicted to be at 1.2C by 2030, so 1.5C will be a challenge....” [The back-sliding has begun - LOL]
The only previous UN climate agreement, the Kyoto protocol, required a number of rich countries to cut emissions marginally and was rejected by the US; the Paris deal applies to all nations. And while there will be no legal obligation for countries to cut emissions, the agreement includes a five-yearly global stocktake and a review mechanism to assess each country’s contributions.... [The agreement will not be ratified by the US Senate and will not apply to the United States]