It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
originally posted by: Grimpachi
We have enough geothermal energy in this country to run it many times over. The cost associated with geothermal is on par or as many studies have shown less than that of coal.
There are zero co2 emissions with geothermal yet the coal industry has people thinking they can build clean coal plants. There are 2 clean coal plants up and running and they are expensive just as expensive as nuclear and it is not even certain if the co2 pumped into the ground will stay there.
We could still have cheap electric maybe even cheaper electric and we could do it without polluting with co2 but at some point people will need to demand the change because you bet your arse the coal companies are not going to willingly change.
Coal prices must have really dropped? Four years ago I did a series of RFQ's for 295 megawatts of distributed ethanol powered turbine generators (including feed processing/refining systems) at a price of about $265 million, turnkey for export. The nearest geothermal quote that I saw was just over $510 million, or just under double the cost. They did get coal quotes as well, even though coal was not spec'd as usable alternative, however the lowest coal quote came in at about $225 million which makes geothermal more than double cost.
Have things changed that much in the energy sector?
Cheers - Dave
Any study of anything which uses a number of instruments to take measurements involves allowing for inaccuracies in the instrumentation. The bias being referred to is a tendency for an instrument to have a consistent error in a particular direction. When that bias can be identified adjustments can be made to the data to compensate and provide more accurate corrections (or a least a consistent margin for error). Without such corrections there can be no standardization when a number of different instruments are used to collect data. Your solution would be to just not use the data at all? I guess that's a "solution". Sort of.
When the very basis of any study is corrupted by "adjustment for bias" it is just that---corrupted and should be thrown out.
The peak of both human ignorance and arrogance is in the belief that we can somehow change the climate of our planet.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: beezzer
The climate is dynamic.
It is always changing.
That doesn't mean that we don't have something to do with what is currently happening.
That doesn't mean we can't mitigate the rate of change.
If we really wanted to alter the climate on a permanent basis, what could humans do?
Our solar system is also dynamic, as is our galaxy and the universe. There are many cyclical dynamics we have yet to discover that can impact our climate
Sure we can mitigate our negligible influence on the climate, but it will do nothing to avoid the climate change that is coming....
What is causing it? Has solar irradiance increased significantly? Have ocean currents dramatically changed? What has changed in the past 100 years to account for the increase in global temperatures? What's different now from 100 years ago, besides CO2 levels? What's changed besides the level of radiative forcing and its associated feedback effects?
It is rapid and accelerating change that we are not causing, nor can possibly mitigate that is the problem.
When has the development of new technology (as in alternative energy production) weakened any economy? When has increased efficiency in use of resources increased human misery?
Any efforts to do that now would serve to adversely impact already weakening global economies and dramatically increase the stress and misery for humanity needlessly...
What do you think it is that will make people more miserable? Not being able to burn all the fossil fuels they want? Why?
Why make people more miserable when it will not save them all in the end?
originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Metallicus
There is more to this story being trumpeted by murdoch's financed science and media empire.
"... was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal's required acceptance criteria. As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper."
There is more at this link: Murdoch-owned media....
The company had a great quarter with strong margin and geographical diversification -- but the more interesting news came from Arturo Herrero, Jinko's Chief Strategy Officer. During Monday's earnings call, Herrero noted, "Basically, if you look at our Q2 to Q4, our ASP is around $0.63. Our non-silicon cost is, I think, $0.39, and plus the silicon cost of $0.09, it is around the $0.48 mark."
Shyam Mehta, Senior Solar Analyst at GTM Research, notes, "I believe this is the first time in human history that a module company has recorded cost under 50 cents per watt -- although the cost may go back up a bit in 2014."
In fact, a forecast from one of Mehta's recent reports shows top Chinese manufacturers making solar modules for 36 cents per watt by 2017. "There was a reaction from some people that our projection for 36 cents per watt is crazy. To that, I offer the point that our forecast only implies an annualized reduction of 6.3 percent from 50 cents a watt today," he said. "It's not exactly a game-changer; it's 14 cents. But the industry has had a mental block because people didn't think we could produce modules for less than 50 cents per watt."