Slashdot Mirror

Solar panels do not produce much more energy than they take to make.

I don't know where you got this information, but the best I can say is that you are way out of date.
The energy payback time for solar panels is, depending on location, between 0.4 and 1.4 years. Since the lifetime of solar arrays is usually warrantied for 30 years, they produce much more energy than they take to make.
See e.g., https://cleantechnica.com/2013...

I do knot know what GP believes or knows, but one would have to be have been living under a rock for the past one and a half years not to know that the use of defeat devices is very widespread in the industry. Some reports and articles easily found with your favourite search engine:

The emissions test defeat device problem in Europe is not about VW
Dieselgate At GM? Defeat Devices Claimed To Be Found In Opel Cars
Test of Fiat diesel model shows irregular emissions: Bild am Sonntag
Report on France’s Renault emissions probe omitted crucial details
French government ordered to hand over full details of Renault emissions study
PSA Group Raided by French Fraud Office in Emissions Probe
Nissan faces suit over alleged emission fraud
#Dieselgate continues: new cheating techniques
RDW emission test programme - Results of indicative tests for the presence of an unauthorised defeat device
VW, Daimler, Nissan, Mitsubishi, GM: Can We Finally Agree That Dieselgate Is An Industry Problem?
Revealed: nearly all new diesel cars exceed official pollution limits
Many car brands emit more pollution than Volkswagen, report finds

Defeat devices are hardly a recent phenomenon:
How Common Are EPA “Defeat Devices” In The Auto Industry?
Carmaker Cheating on Emissions Almost as Old as Pollution Tests

There are different ways to cheat, too:
`Shameful' Mitsubishi Fraud Risks Pushing Carmaker to Brink
This is the world now: Suzuki also admits to cheating on fuel-economy tests

It's not hard to find more. Pretty much every manufacturer cheats or has cheated in one way or another.

My bet is they won't be putting up a local wind farm to actually use renewable energy.

Cause that would require investing In America - instead of china.

You're right, Apple is not putting up wind farms in the US. They're putting up (mostly) solar farms

This means Apple will now be able to sell renewable power it does not need but it owns or has under contract — note that 93% of Apple facilities worldwide run on renewable electricity.

According to the FERC filing, Apple holds positions in these solar properties:

• 20 MW Ft. Churchill solar farm in Lyon County, Nevada,
• 50 MW Bonnybrooke solar facility under construction in Pinal County, Arizona
• Two behind-the-meter generating plants totaling 18 MW on its California campus.
• A long-term firm power purchase agreement with First Solar for 130 MW from a California solar farm under construction
  67.5 MW of facilities in North Carolina

A no vote would equate to a vote of no-confidence for stock which is largely driven by speculation. As of this exact moment, neither Tesla nor SolarCity are super-profitable or dominant in their industries. But we're hoping it gets big. Why would we tank stock we own?

As an employee I probably shouldn't say anything - but I'm willing to quote others:
https://cleantechnica.com/2015...
(as of 2015):
The market share of the leading US residential solar installers in this period are listed as follows:

SolarCity 34.1%
Vivint Solar 11.6%
Sunrun 2.6%
NRG Home Solar 2%
Sungevity 1.9%

Maybe triple the next largest installer isn't dominating?

Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation

You will find that this is because utilities in many states have been able to push anti-net-metering changes, making residential solar uneconomic. On the other hand, CA residential solar capacity recently hit 5% of peak capacity, triggering a change from one net metering plan to another.

As for the idea that Solar cannot be economic, let me destroy that idea by asking what technology can provide power at 2.99c per kWh? Answer: Solar

Solar is only failing because regulators and politicians have been bought off by utility companies who are heavily invested in fossil fuels.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Yes, utility grade solar can provide 3 cnt/kWh, or maybe a bit higher price in the US South West, it is not Dubai. Yes, this is going down quickly. It has nothing to do with residential rooftop nonsense that is barely economical at unsustainable retail electricity rates due to excessive labor cost to put few panels on roof and service them there. It is pushed by aggressive greenwashers like solarcity that are not competitive in normal wholesale solar market where most solar electricity is generated and can't survive without leaching ratepayers. Nevada and Hawaii got rid of netmetering subsidy, California will follow. There are no free backup plants in grid and commercial customers pay $42/kW/month demand charges in Sand Diego for good reason. Try sell residential rooftop solar at 3 c/kWh while paying demand charges and see if it pays off next century.

Solar if flailing with by far the largest subsidies ever seen for any power technology on a per MWH basis. After a decade still only about 1% of US generation

You will find that this is because utilities in many states have been able to push anti-net-metering changes, making residential solar uneconomic. On the other hand, CA residential solar capacity recently hit 5% of peak capacity, triggering a change from one net metering plan to another.

As for the idea that Solar cannot be economic, let me destroy that idea by asking what technology can provide power at 2.99c per kWh? Answer: Solar

Solar is only failing because regulators and politicians have been bought off by utility companies who are heavily invested in fossil fuels.

So far, the US government has launched a massive campaign against VW, looting billions of dollars and severely damaging the company's until recently almost spotless reputation. However, there is plenty of evidence that most other car manufacturers, including the 2.5 US domestic majors, have been pulling similar tricks for years. Except from a few stern words from the German transportation minister and a few 'voluntary' recalls, there have been exactly zero consequences. No suits, no fines, no withdrawals, no buybacks, no criminal prosecution, no exaggerated claims from government officials, no media outcry. Nothing.

The other manufacturers seem to get away with it scott-free, even though the cheating is often relatively easy to detect and the NOx emissions are in many cases several times larger than from the VW EA189. The simply continue to deny even after getting caught, or they attempt to cover it up, and government authorities let it pass, or even help covering it up. Meanwhile, they all get to steal sales from the scapegoat, the only manufacturer that actually admitted and recalled the affected vehicles (except in the US, where the authorities are dragging their feet) and, ironically, makes the cars with the lowest real-world NOx emissions.

The anti-VW campaign has nothing to do with the environment and everything with economic interests. The Americans found something and exploited it to the maximum extent in every possible way, just like they did with Toyota's 'sudden unintended acceleration'.

Here you go: http://cleantechnica.com/files/2015/05/image14-e1431849359184.jpg

The Tesla Model S90D has a range of 302 miles. That is an up-market car, but when the Tesla Model 3 comes out, it will have a base range of more than 200 miles, and will certainly have options for increased range with a larger battery. The Model 3 is set to cost $35000 base.

Doesn't really replace offroaders though, maybe one day they'll make a viable offroad vehicle with decent range and towing power but I think it's more likely that we'll see a split between those who can get by with electric vehicles and those who switch to fuels like biodiesel and ethanol fuels. I'm not fussed if it costs a bit more and by all means as I said if there comes a decent electric vehicle that suits my needs I'm all for it. But you can't sell me on a solution that doesn't exist.

From a physics point of view, hydrogen is fundamentally inefficient. It is difficult to compress, store, and transport.

This was the same case with batteries once upon a time. If it doesn't work out, no biggy but I'm hopeful.

Try to understand I'm not advocating any solution, electric doesn't solve it for me now but if it does one day then i'm all for it.

And I did not even start on the fact that you need to replace the battery of your EV every 7 years or so

Perhaps if you live in Arizona, otherwise, it's unlikely to need a new battery that often. Nissan changed its battery chemistry in 2015 to improve battery life in hot climates.

Basically, you have been taken in by the fossil fuel industry's bogeyman. There is lots of evidence of very long battery lives on Teslas.

The Tesla Model S90D has a range of 302 miles. That is an up-market car, but when the Tesla Model 3 comes out, it will have a base range of more than 200 miles, and will certainly have options for increased range with a larger battery. The Model 3 is set to cost $35000 base.

As for batteries, the life of the batteries is actually quite good, if the battery packs have a cooling system. Heat kills lithium ion batteries, so if you keep them cool they last a long time (btw. don't buy a Nissan Leaf...last I heard, they don't have battery cooling). Tesla makes their own batteries, and they are aiming for the batteries to last the life of the car. I have heard of Tesla Model S cars with 250000 km on the original battery.

As for hydrogen, please not this again. Read this or this. TL/DR: From a physics point of view, hydrogen is fundamentally inefficient. It is difficult to compress, store, and transport. It is also made from fossil fuels as a bi-product, which is one reason why the idea doesn't seem to want to die, in spite of having problems that CANNOT ever be solved...the fossil fuel industry is pushing it.

Even in China, nuclear is lagging and facing the habitual delays and cost overruns. http://cleantechnica.com/2016/...

If you have a fruit tree in Ras al Basit that bears no fruit, you might want to plant another tree. If you have a fruit tree in Qatrun that bears no fruit, you might want to find a different location for planting fruit trees. The rain that falls on mountains comes from moisture in the air. If the moisture is there, the rain will fall. If you see a big mountain and rain does not fall, this is a pretty clear indication that the moisture isn't there.

UAE has access to large amounts of sea water, large amounts of carbon and of methane (inside hydrocarbons). As it turns out a carbon product, graphene, is really efficient at desalination. UAE could build the world's biggest graphene factory and use some of that graphene to make lots of fresh water. The rest of the graphene could be used for the ninety zillion other fantastical miraculous things that graphene does amazingly well.

all the EPA grants on climate change research already presume that it is happening and that it needs to be stopped

Well yeah, that was firmly established long ago. It's been taken for granted in the science community for ages (hence TFA), and issuing grants to determine if it's still actually happening would be like researching whether the sun will shine tomorrow.

people who don't agree with the party line on climate change find it almost impossible to publish, get academic positions, or get research grants.

That isn't true, or at least the first part isn't. Further research establishing the (non)existence of AGW would never be ignored - if it's sound. If (and only if) your methodology is good and your evidence is strong, you'll get published, even - nay, particularly if you can actually show clearly that current warming is natural or not happening (and of course explain all the existing evidence to the contrary). Journals would love to publish a bombshell like that - if it's bombproof, and not just a bomb. Granted, for funding you may have to look outside mainstream sources unless you've got a strong case to start with, but I don't doubt Exxon, the Heartland Institute, Koch bros et al would happily pony up. For academic positions, likewise. Of course, that would change fast if you were The Guy who published evidence strong enough to be taken seriously.

government budgets that run into the trillions

Right, because the government would devote trillions to overblowing a crisis so that they could put a price on carbon /s. They already did that with SO2 emissions for far less money, and nobody freaked out. While it's true the government could potentially pressure researchers (as Bush did), that would come to light very quickly - and would have minimal effect all those climate researchers everywhere else in the world...

But the fossil fuel industry's very existence is at stake. They really are risking trillions, so their motive for pushing back is huge. And the industry isn't exactly short of funds either, so they have means as well as motive. When you add in the existing examples of them already funding misinformation, the case against them is far from laughable. So it's curious that you put more stock in unfounded claims of climate researchers falsifying results, despite the only specific accusations being thoroughly cleared of any wrongdoing.

Let ME be clear about it: the people speaking out against the "AGW FUD" have yet to show any good evidence to back their claims. All they've been doing the whole time is attempting to cast doubt on the reams of evidence that the climatologists have produced over the last forty years. That is the very definition of FUD. You might be one of the rarer people who accepts AGW yet thinks the consequences aren't so bad, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against that too. If you want people to listen, end your own FUD & vague accusations, and come up with real evidence for a change - if you can.

I scanned your comment history and didn't see a single citation, just more unsourced claims like the above.

I cited two specific examples (waived fuel tax and 100% deductible exploration expenses), with links to more, of fossil-fuel industry tax incentives that don't fall under any of your 3 categories. Can you cite any tax breakdowns that contradict the studies I linked?

And I'm not sure how you reconcile your agreement that carbon is a "huge problem", yet deny the many externalised social costs of emitting that carbon (i.e. the "made-up number" from your point #2).

Luckily, I disagree with your pessimistic assumption that we'll end up burning all our fossil-fuel reserves. That might be a risk if we assumed that
    a) politicians continued to give fossil-fuel industries free reign, even if unsubsidised (actually not that unlikely),
    b) the afore-mentioned externalised social costs of fossil fuels continue to be ignored (depends on how much more money the industry pumps into fueling that denial),
    c) direct costs of fossil fuels don't rise significantly, and
    d) that alternative energy prices stop falling, and never drop below current fossil fuel prices.

I think that, at this stage, point d) is highly unlikely, so even if all the others turn out to be the case, it simply won't make business sense to use the more expensive option of fossil fuels. For example, renewable energy plants have been cheaper to build than new coal plants in many parts of the world for some years now, and of course they have zero ongoing fuel costs, so there the transition is inevitable, once existing coal power stations get old enough.

China is also dumping coal. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... and http://www.smh.com.au/business...

India is investing 1.2 billion in solar: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

The third world was the last hope for the coal industry.

California hopes to have 50% of their electricity from renewables by 2030. If Scotland has already achieved this then it is likely California lacks ambition.

... or so says their energy minister.

Of course, their original plans for massive solar power plant got skuttled because the US threw a snit-fit in the WTO over India's "source in India first" plan.

So yeah, as long as the US can gouge India on parts, suppressing development of local industry, they can have all the solar power we can sell them...

Lets assume that is true. So what replaced the missing 6% of power? It wasn't wind and solar. They went up slightly, maybe half a percent each. So lets say 1% of the missing 6% is wind/solar. Where did the other 5% come from? Natural gas.

While it is true most of the replacement was natural gas, you're wrong on the solar/wind growth numbers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_the_United_States). In the last decade, non-hydro RE (which is primarily wind/solar) has increased its share of production by an additional 4% of the total mix. While still smaller than nat gas, it isn't the ~1% you're claiming. And the adoption slope remains upward for renewables. Some 60+% of all new energy capacity additions last year was renewables: http://cleantechnica.com/2015/...

In summary, as coal plants phase out due to age retirement, at least 50+% of the capacity pickup year-to-year will come in renewables. Frankly, if the cost dynamics continue to appreciate for solar (and I've seen no sign of them slowing down), renewable could conceivably get 100% of the annual capacity replacement.

Better than coal, but not really a solution if AGW is your concern.

I disagree. The total picture (worldwide in fact) for coal is pretty damning. And natural gas done right (i.e. without leaks) is a far sight better for the environment. Moreover, the "total energy picture" is very rosy for the future adoption of green energy atm. Even without government incentives. As is the fact energy consumption has been flat for over a decade. Frankly, I believe if they ever perfect the residential home battery, solar adoption will just go nuts. We're on the correct trajectory. Change just takes time.

Wind costs so high? maybe a decade ago, not now.

How Low Can Wind Energy Go? 2.5Â Per Kilowatt-Hour Is Just The Beginning | CleanTechnica

And there is plenty of competition in the wind turbine market.

First it was this is physically impossible.

then it was there isn't enough wind or solar - Germany is sunnier than the USA.

Can you provide a reference to any of those? I never heard those claims before. I think you just made them up in an attempt to sound clever.

I think I didn't make that up just to sound clever. I gave the link below in another post, but ask and you shall receive again:

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

And of course, the issue is that once on Fox, there are a lot of people who take it as gospel truth.

In fact, Germany recieves a remarkably small amount of solar insolation, similar to coastal Alaska in the USA.

In short, I've been told in the past that in the middle of Pennsylvania - another cloudy place, that it would be impossible to use photovoltaics.

If you don't care about actual production, then what do you care about?

I care about production, but I don't pay much attention to the concept that the present situation, whatever it is, is static, and will remain so forever and ever, world without end, amen.

That sort of viewpoint would have us still using stone olive oil lamps and oxcarts, because all of the technology after that wasn't 100 percent perfect from inception.

How much does the battery cost to replace?

Or is the battery non-expendable?

This is what a special-interest framing argument looks like. It puts the question into the reader's mind, and without context (and noting that most readers don't take the time to think about things) it makes it seem like an insurmountable problem.

(Viz: "Ted Cruze's Canadian birth will be a problem for him, I'm just 'sayin".)

Tesla is addressing the battery issue directly, with a buy-back program.

Also note that Lithium batteries have an exponential usage lifetime ('sorta), which means that once you've depleted your battery to 90% of it's capacity, it'll stay at that level for a long time.

Also also note that a battery which is taken out of service will still have 85% of it's charge capacity for a really long time, and there are a lot of uses for such storage. A factory building filled with old Tesla batteries could help smooth out electrical grid demand - supplying power during peak times, and recharging at night.

(Put that building full of batteries next to a wind farm, or inside the industrial area of a large city.)

Again, the batteries will keep 85% of their capacity for a long time, and if the application doesn't care much about space or weight, this makes a good use for older batteries.

Also, no one has even begun thinking about recycling the batteries. Ten years from now we might start thinking about reforming batteries, and making removable/reusable cases with the option to recycle the lithium inside. Like we now do with lead.

And finally, all of this information is just a click away using this neat new service called "Google".

Implanting doubts, uncertainty, and fear in the minds of readers is so much harder nowadays.

How much does the battery cost to replace?

Or is the battery non-expendable?

This is what a special-interest framing argument looks like. It puts the question into the reader's mind, and without context (and noting that most readers don't take the time to think about things) it makes it seem like an insurmountable problem.

(Viz: "Ted Cruze's Canadian birth will be a problem for him, I'm just 'sayin".)

Tesla is addressing the battery issue directly, with a buy-back program.

Also note that Lithium batteries have an exponential usage lifetime ('sorta), which means that once you've depleted your battery to 90% of it's capacity, it'll stay at that level for a long time.

Also also note that a battery which is taken out of service will still have 85% of it's charge capacity for a really long time, and there are a lot of uses for such storage. A factory building filled with old Tesla batteries could help smooth out electrical grid demand - supplying power during peak times, and recharging at night.

(Put that building full of batteries next to a wind farm, or inside the industrial area of a large city.)

Again, the batteries will keep 85% of their capacity for a long time, and if the application doesn't care much about space or weight, this makes a good use for older batteries.

Also, no one has even begun thinking about recycling the batteries. Ten years from now we might start thinking about reforming batteries, and making removable/reusable cases with the option to recycle the lithium inside. Like we now do with lead.

And finally, all of this information is just a click away using this neat new service called "Google".

Implanting doubts, uncertainty, and fear in the minds of readers is so much harder nowadays.

Thanks, I was crunching the numbers in my head, and I was heading to the same conclusion you detailed.

That said, I think batteries become viable, if not today, maybe soon:

[...] a research team at the University of Tokyo School of Engineering has announced a new lithium ion battery [...] energy density â" at 2,570 watt-hours per kilogram [...]

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

This is a couple years old...but its clear the tech is moving forward.

Obviously stability/reliability, production scalability, and cost are all obstacles. But 2570 w-h/kg is almost 10MJ/kg which changes the viability substantially.

Your point about jet fuel expenditure being front loaded on the trip ... I read somewhere that the most fuel efficient flight for a jet is around 4300 miles. It seems that an alternate fuel for short hops could make sense.

Fossil fuels are great, and there's no reason to stop using them anytime soon; I am not anti fossil fuels.

But unless we find a way of producing it cheaply we do need to move on eventually. Growing crops to turn into fuel, it amounts to an *extremely* inefficient solar solution (months of solar collected in the form of plant biomass) which then has to be processed into fuel... better perhaps to take those fields grow food in them, and throw up panels in the deserts to charge batteries.

As for your comments about the charging issues, I imagine a battery swap solution being viable for fleets of aircraft.

thats not quite true. if you have a look on this site, you'll find out more about how much china and india are really doing
http://cleantechnica.com/?s=ch...
http://cleantechnica.com/?s=india

I'm all for building one (india is working on one) .. one! to see if they can be made safe and commercially viable. But, it's not nearly as safe as enthusiasts claim. And because it's not safe, so far it's too expensive to be commercially viable. And while it consumes some radioactive waste, it produces new highly radioactive waste with much longer half lives which must be geologically sequestered for longer than humans have existed as a species.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Peter Karamoskos,
'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'

http://www.nnl.co.uk/assets/_f...
A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report concluded the thorium fuel cycle 'does not currently have a role to play in the UK context [and] is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead' â" in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were 'overstated'.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 â" 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

More here:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/...

Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight, and long-term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium-only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long-lived fission products like technetium-99 (half-life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository.

If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very-long lived (half-life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium.

Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. for more than half a century.

Neither is CO2 emission increasing

They do. Just lookie here: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

The 2020 goal of 20% less emissions is already unrealistic. I've heard that for the last year there's going to be a mild decrease in CO2 production because of the unusually warm winter, but that's it. Nothing fundamental has changed in Germany's energy outlook - nuclear is still being replaced by coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy_storage

Working right now in the USA, and Spain:
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-storage-comes-online/

You're welcome.

What I'm saying is that implementing energy efficiency measures plus replacing coal with wind and gas turbines hasn't negatively impacted how Minnesota ranks nationally in terms of what it pays for electricity. In 1999, Minnesota paid more for it's electricity than did other states (on average). Now it pays less in spite of being a leader in cutting emissions from electricity generation. I suppose it could be paying 5 c/kWh if Minneapolis didn't mind looking like Shanghai, but that would have required removing controls that were already in place and replacing nuclear plants with coal plants.

Forget CO2 for a minute and just look up the term "externalities". There are lots of studies on the costs to society of generating electricity by various means. If you want one in particular, here's one from Harvard that says that the true cost of electricity generation from coal is 500 Billion annually. http://cleantechnica.com/2011/...

Other potential solutions haven't seen serious consideration and funding because so far there's not enough evidence that they are more practical than the approaches already being pursued. Perhaps if the Koch brothers quit funding campaigns to discredit climate scientists and instead poured money into geoengineering research, it would be farther along.

Yep! But we need to spend $13.5 TRILLION over the next 15 years so we can cut the predicted temperatures by 0.05 deg C - an unmeasurable amount. So spend trillions, wait 85 years, get nothing. That sounds like a great plan - if you want to force massive wealth redistribution....

Indeed, renewables hasn't failed what-so-ever, installations are growing exponentially whilst the costs of renewables are at the same time plummeting.

Over 50% of new electrical power generation installations are now renewables, pretty fkking bizarre to call that a failure!!!.

For example: Renewables = 84% of New Electricity Generation Capacity in 1st Quarter of 2015

Battery based cars tend to do very poorly in very cold countries.

Absolute rubbish.

And since when is USA a 'very cold country'.

23% Of New Cars In Norway Now Electric Cars | CleanTechnica

At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly.

Maybe you should try researching what's going on before posting then.

A very disingenuous post - taking the cost from the middle of the nuclear life-cycle.

$50 for nuclear does not include initial costs and quite likely also omits some waste storage costs and is hugely optimistic about decommissioning costs. The $50 is for power stations that are roughly 30 years old and so have paid off their construction costs and haven't yet hit the age where increasing maintenance costs makes them prohibitively expensive. Some nuclear power stations apply to extend their licenses and then still close done because of the escalating maintenance costs.

NEW Nuclear from $100-200 per MWh and $100 is highly optimistic rather than realistic.
NEW Wind starts at $36 per MWh ($25 + 10 years of subsidy). Price is falling, but so cheap now, not much room to fall further.
NEW Solar starts at $50 to $70 per MWh and that price is plummeting.

Going forwards there is no comparison between today's wind and solar or nuclear, renewables are far cheaper including without subsidy.

Nuclear and renewables are both inflexible, both need solutions for this. It's either one or the other, they do not complement each other.

And this is without going into waste issues or the crazy high reprocessing costs or the fact that humans are clearly not capable of working with nuclear power without making a constant stream of mistakes and corner cutting..

A very disingenuous post - taking the cost from the middle of the nuclear life-cycle.

$50 for nuclear does not include initial costs and quite likely also omits some waste storage costs and is hugely optimistic about decommissioning costs. The $50 is for power stations that are roughly 30 years old and so have paid off their construction costs and haven't yet hit the age where increasing maintenance costs makes them prohibitively expensive. Some nuclear power stations apply to extend their licenses and then still close done because of the escalating maintenance costs.

NEW Nuclear from $100-200 per MWh and $100 is highly optimistic rather than realistic.
NEW Wind starts at $36 per MWh ($25 + 10 years of subsidy). Price is falling, but so cheap now, not much room to fall further.
NEW Solar starts at $50 to $70 per MWh and that price is plummeting.

Going forwards there is no comparison between today's wind and solar or nuclear, renewables are far cheaper including without subsidy.

Nuclear and renewables are both inflexible, both need solutions for this. It's either one or the other, they do not complement each other.

And this is without going into waste issues or the crazy high reprocessing costs or the fact that humans are clearly not capable of working with nuclear power without making a constant stream of mistakes and corner cutting..

I doubt the energy density of the fluid is anywhere near the same volume that a lithium ion battery displaces. If so, either you're going to have to refill your Tesla ever 50 to 100 miles (or whatever), or build a car with a larger tank to increase range.

Land is cheap, and its trivial to bury large tanks underground. This flow battery technology combined with some flywheel capacitors is really the way to go for buffering energy at the grid level.

Lead-acid batteries work reasonably well for homes, but aren't a good option for grid-scale installations. Try the numbers with a Redox Flow Battery. The operating costs (after up-front installation costs) are more favorable:

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

I'm a great fan of back-of-the-envelope calculations... but these aren't calculations; they are merely assertions. And worse, not merely assertions, but assertions that seem to be based on random pseudo-facts not really understood.

Europe has the longest history of solar panel installation, and has good data for energy payback time. Energy payback time for silicon panels is between 0.5 and 1.4 years. Depending on location, it can be as high as 3 years in northern Europe.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...

plus the whole poisoning China thing with harvesting rare earths

Do you even know what rare earth elements are? Almost all solar panels manufactured today are crystalline silicon. Silicon isn't a rare earth element.

In the end, I have faith in the species to adapt or to invent technologies that actually will be helpful. We're not there yet. Band-aid solutions in the short term are meaningless..

I agree with you there. I'm a technological optimist; if we can identify problems, we can solve them. However, ignoring and belittling the existence of problems isn't going to help, and dismissing possible solutions with slogans and sound-bites is counterproductive.

So are gotcha-type articles about Exxon.

The point of this article was that Exxon was a major funder of the campaigns to discredit the science of global warming in the '90s and early 2000s, even though a decade earlier their own scientists were telling them that this was significant. They spent about $30 million dollars funding climate denial.

On the other hand, they did stop most of their funding to the climate-change deniers in 2007, so it does seem to me to be mostly an article about a company that isn't really the problem any more.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...
http://www.scientificamerican....
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/17...

asked then answered: it's a commercially viable option already: http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...

Rowing from Oregon where I live to Australia is not something that feels totally out of the realm of possibility to me but at 63 years old it would not be something my doctor and family would be happy about.

I don't think your 747 analogy works. It's like saying if we can't figure out how to do it in one step it's not worth starting. But the challenge of reducing and eventually eliminating CO2 emissions has a lot of different parts that will require different solutions and there is no need to wait for all of them to be available to get started.

China is building a new coal fired power plant every month, they have 50 under construction right now.

I see people saying this a lot but I've never seen any solid evidence that it's still true. In 2014 and so far in 2015 China has actually reduced its coal use by a significant amount. China coal use continues to fall precipitously. Maybe they're replacing older inefficient plants with newer ones or maybe they're not using so much for home heating, etc. but any drop in coal use by them is a good thing.

Won't be long.
The Last Time Oceans Got This Acidic This Fast, 96% of Marine Life Went Extinct

Worst Case Climate Change (2008 TED Talk)

Long story short:
350 tonnes per second of CO2 being absorbed by the ocean is acidifying it.
If we don't stop 96% of ocean life dies.
Dead life rots. Rotting life in water emits nasty toxic gases.
Also melting permafrost releases giant amounts of methane dwarfing climate warming gasses releases by humans, this causes run-away warming.
Methane clathrates under ocean also melt and release billions more tonnes of methane.
Resulting gases make air unbreathable, humans and 95% of life on earth die.

^none of this stuff is included in IPCC models YET.

Global warming is clearly happening, the permafrost is already melting, the sea is already acidifying. The human species days could well be numbered.

Acid Test: Rising CO2 Levels Killing Ocean Life | Conservation Climate

99.996% of climate scientists now say global warming is happening, not 97%.

Sarcasm aside, take a look at some of the recent studies

45% of energy coming from Solar? What happens at night, you know when people actually want to use electrcity?

Sarcasm aside, take a look at some of the recent studies

45% of energy coming from Solar? What happens at night, you know when people actually want to use electrcity?

I heartily support the construction of all nuclear plants that have an competitive lifecycle cost. I'm sure they will a fill a niche in the market that the currently endless flood of solar, wind, and grid-storage bids at a quarter the cost cannot possibly fill.

Sarcasm aside, take a look at some of the recent studies showing how to decarbonize electricity production in the next 20 to 40 years with no new research, and coincidentally, very little new nuclear capacity. The ONLY barriers are social and political--even now the economics are so compelling that every call for projects solicits more than regulators and utilities want to accept. In another 2-5 years, battery tech will invalidate every last excuse they have been using to discourage wind and solar, and the fuel-free future will finally take off.

I heartily support the construction of all nuclear plants that have an competitive lifecycle cost. I'm sure they will a fill a niche in the market that the currently endless flood of solar, wind, and grid-storage bids at a quarter the cost cannot possibly fill.

Sarcasm aside, take a look at some of the recent studies showing how to decarbonize electricity production in the next 20 to 40 years with no new research, and coincidentally, very little new nuclear capacity. The ONLY barriers are social and political--even now the economics are so compelling that every call for projects solicits more than regulators and utilities want to accept. In another 2-5 years, battery tech will invalidate every last excuse they have been using to discourage wind and solar, and the fuel-free future will finally take off.

It's thanks to those 'selfish pricks' who took a risk putting solar on their roofs that R&D in solar continued. Solar panels cost ten times less now because of the subsidies and R&D, and the prices are still falling fast.

Whilst the subsidies may have cost a few billion, solar panels in the future will save literally trillions in energy costs.

Battery technology is also progressing fast, in a few years we will have home battery systems that cost a fraction of the Tesla home battery system - several companies are about to join that market - a market that practically never existed before.

You're looking at it wrong, the politicians and the 'greenies' aren't. The exponential growth of solar is about to change the world.

Price history of silicon PV cells since 1977 - Price per watt

Cost Of Solar PV Will Fall To 2 Cents/kWh In 2050, Says Fraunhofer Study

and this is just the coal industry over 8 years http://cleantechnica.com/2015/...

And yet, numerous studies by EIA, and others, show that you have no clue of what you are talking about. Over and over, they have said that the grid can EASILY handle converting 100% of our vehicles to EV, so long as more than 85% of the cars charge at night.
Here you go. Here is a link explaining the most CURRENT study proving you wrong.

Solar and wind are not the only sources of renewable energy.

100% renewables is perfectly possible and would highly likely be a lot cheaper than nuclear.

The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says

â- Powering the World With Wind, Water, and Sunlight: Mark Jacobson at TEDxPaloAltoHighSchool - YouTube

Cost Of Solar PV Will Fall To 2 Cents/kWh In 2050, Says Fraunhofer Study

Maybe from this other recently discovered process?
http://cleantechnica.com/2013/...