Skip to main content

View Diary: The most anti-solar reporter in the mainstream media? (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Please feel free to add me to the list. (0+ / 0-)

    I've likewise been free to take a contempt bath because of my unpleasant habit of telling the truth, here and elsewhere.

    The toxic solar scam has sucked hundreds of billions of dollars (in various currencies around the world) and has become effectively a religious talisman for people who hear only what they want to hear and think only what they want to think.

    It's a tremendously expensive failure on this planet, sucking money that could have been used in billions of more useful ways to satisfy an unthinking myth held by an unthinking public.

    It's now 2012, nearing the end, in what will prove to be one of the 10 worst years for climate change gas increases in history.     It is almost 60 years since the mindless cheering for solar energy began.

    How come the endless cheering for solar has no signature in the atmosphere?

    How much energy does the solar industry produce, for all of it's waste - including the hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide dumped so people can tell us how wonderful solar energy is?

    The EIA offers figures up to 2010 - 56 years after the invention of the PV cell:   It's 31.22 billion kwh hours.

    Sound like a lot of energy?   Not really, if you understand energy on scale, which zero solar advocates do as they ask us to indulge their wasteful wishful thinking strategy.   31.22 billion kwh amounts to 0.12 exajoules on a planet that uses 520 exajoules, despite the fact that 2 billion people have no access to toilets or even primitive sanitary conditions.    In average continuous power the power output is 3,560 MW, the output of 3 or 4 conventional power plants, for the entire planet.

    What the solar industry is, similar to the wind industry, is nothing more than a fig leaf for the gas/coal/oil industries, which have managed to have themselves advertised - in a total denial of reality - as "transitional."

    Mostly journalists are as scientifically illiterate as the membership of say, Greenpeace, but I would be the last one to criticize a journalist for an unexpected outbreak of rationality in criticizing the solar scam.

    The fact is, that the "solar will save us" myth is as pernicious as the work of other denialists, say for instance, James Inhofe.

    The reason that climate change is now irreversible, and will now inevitably make tragedies like the one I just lived through, Hurricane Sandy, look like a walk in the park, is just as much attached to the irrational belief that "solar will save us" - as is clearly incapable of doing in spite of decades of cheering - as it is to the crap put out by other dogmatists, like, again, Inhofe.

    Have a nice day.

    •  If you view climate change as irreversable (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RLMiller, Calamity Jean, SolarGuy

      why do you spend so much time advocating for nuclear power? Why not just advocate for fossil fuels and spare the middle-man of your normal argument?

      Interesting comment. Really. Comparing the pro-solar posters on the Daily Kos to Inhofe. Well, at least this is one of the nicer comments that I've seen from you.

    •  I can't figure out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mahakali overdrive

      what list you want to be added to.

      Green is good: http://www.greenasteroid.com

      by bogmanoc on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 12:49:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  what you perceive as a failure (6+ / 0-)

      is perceived by most of us as a start.

      Texas got 26% of its electricity from wind the other day.

      Denmark is getting 50 to 80% of its electricity from wind at any given moment - realtime map here.

      I'm choosing not to respond to the more incendiary claims re solar/wind being a figleaf, etc.

      Congress can't redo the laws of physics. Do the math. @RL_Miller

      by RLMiller on Sun Nov 25, 2012 at 01:00:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
        Denmark is getting 50 to 80% of its electricity from wind at any given moment - realtime map here.
        Got any evidence for "50 to 80% at any given moment"? When I checked your link (14:00 CET 25.11.) wind was less than 10% of consumption. The latest IEA data show wind at 18,5% in 2009, and that relatively high wind fraction is largely being achieved by being able to use Norwegian and Swedish hydro as virtual storage. It's possible that 80% wind has been reached instantaneously, but "50 to 80% at any given moment" is a flat out lie.
        •  Date should be 26.11. (n/t) (0+ / 0-)
        •  um (0+ / 0-)
          It's possible that 80% wind has been reached instantaneously, but "50 to 80% at any given moment" is a flat out lie.
          WTF is the difference between instantaneously and at any given moment?

          Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

          by jam on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:16:16 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not a native english speaker (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jam

            ...so some nuances may be lost.
            I understood "at any given moment" to mean always, i.e. pick any random moment and wind will be between 50 and 80%, which is clearly not the case. It occasionally may be between 50 and 80% however.

            A quick search on the definition of "any given moment" seem to support my interpretation.

            •  I am a native English speaker (0+ / 0-)

              and now that I think about it, I'm not exactly sure what it means. I do believe that I understand the commenter's intent and it was not what you perceived.

              In any event, it is possible to produce between 50% and 80% at some arbitrary instantaneous moment. It does not always produce 50%-80%. Since I have read a lot of the commenter's writings, I know that RL Miller knows this.

              Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

              by jam on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 08:48:18 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  If I understand you correctly (3+ / 0-)

      You are complaining not much solar energy output is a failure on the part of solar advocates.  The interference of Big Oil and Gas, with their billions in subsidies plus an entire military structure to enforce its commercial operations simply doesn't exist.  In fact, you believe all solar and wind energy is a diversion by oil companies rather than a threat to their obscenely high profits. And that's why they spend so much money and effort hiring people to trash it. Gotcha.

      In the meantime, I'll continue advocating for solar energy despite your having a sad over it.

    •  At least (0+ / 0-)

      you could thank Obama for approving a couple of new nukes, after 30 years without getting one built in the US. That's the all of the above energy policy; Solar plus nukes plus everything else.

    •  couple of things (0+ / 0-)

      first, you didn't use the "fossil fuel heat rate" for converting kWh to BTUs, as per EIA standard policy, so it should be about 0.32 exajoules, not 0.12. If you change the units to quads on the page you link to, it will show 0.305 quads total.

      Second, you used 2010 numbers which makes sense since they are already totaled for you. However, if you use the 2011 numbers - even as they are without all countries reporting, you can see that there is 58.476 billion kWh, which amounts to 0.60 exajoules. Given the on-going growth of solar, I imagine that it will pass that magical 1 exajoule mark you've been carping about sometime in 2013. Won't that be fun?

      If you do the same for wind, you get 3.3 quads for 2010 and 4.3 quads for 2011. Looks like wind will probably hit 5 quads for 2012.

      Doesn't sound like much in a world that uses 520 exajoules, does it? Does it sound like more if you say 6/26=23% or wind+solar produces 23% of the amount of energy as nuclear? That's right, folks. In a world that uses 520 exajoules of energy, nuclear produces a paltry 5% of that total, or 26 EJ. After 50 years of mindless cheering, billions upon billions of subsidies, the nuclear industry produces only 5% of the world's energy.

      Javelin, Jockey details, all posts, discontinue

      by jam on Mon Nov 26, 2012 at 02:10:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site