Not that "upend our entire economy" nonsense again.
Your calling it nonsense doesn't further your argument. Nor does it attract anyone who wasn't already on your side.
You don't owe me an explanation, and I don't owe you any support. If you want my support, it'll cost you an explanation that isn't filled with insults and personal attacks.
---
For what it is worth, I'm perfectly willing to change my behavior and views when presented with reasonable information that actually makes sense.
I recently replaced every bulb in my house with LEDs, when someone posted the math on the price of the bulbs and how much power they were using. I was not aware that LEDs had dropped in price so much or how much power the older bulbs were using.
Once shown new information, changing was easy.
I have seen no such information that we could do the same with our overall CO2 emissions in such a way as to make a difference to the outcome, without crashing the economy. And yes, I've read up on the subject on both pro and con web sites, and yes, I'm above average in intelligence.:)
I'm not against CO2 being a problem, but I am against changing our whole way of life if it doesn't even solve the problem. I'd rather spend the money to adapt to the future that is coming, than fight against it when we can't stop it.
"Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH (than coal)"
solar is about to become cheaper right now.
Not even close...
From the above: "Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces."
You are wrong about the power bill, you are also wrong about the heat or coldness of germany. The summer here is more or less like yours.
What parts of Germany regularly hit 40c and spend about a month at that temp?
Last time you talked about your bill you said you spent like $300 per month. I spend 120EURO per month.
So despite the fact that my price per kWh is higher, I pay less... and yes you already told me your house/flat is much bigger. Does not change the fact about our bills and that you likely waste a lot of energy.
My house is 353 sqm, how big is yours? The total bill doesn't matter nearly so much as the cost per sqm.
So I'm paying about 85 cents per sqm per month in power, on average. What is your per-sqm average?
And I'm not even taking into account that I work from home, thus use more power than the average person does anyway, since I'm here all day.
Regarding the standard of living, only the upper 5 or 10 percent of the americans have a comparable living standard of an average european.
You build hills dozens of meters in the air strong enough to hold a billion gallons of water and have enough protection in place to make sure it doesn't get out of the reservoir and flood the surrounding area?
How much do you think that costs? Do you have a link to an example?
The science is settled in as much as any scientific findings have to be in order to inform public policy.
I don't see anyone debating the speed of light, the mass of water, or a hundred other things...
There are a LOT of people, including a lot of SMART people, who aren't convinced of man made climate change.
Yes, there are plenty of smart people who ARE convinced, and that's fine.
Clearly you're convinced. I'm not, so convince me. If you don't think you have to, that is fine as well, but then don't be shocked when I don't come along with you on your journey of "change the world".
I'm not alone there either. You need to do more to convince me otherwise if you want my support.
Those types of replies are why you get the same back in return.
Why don't you try and tell me how much we have to cut to undo that change, in what time period, and how much that will cost.
Pretend for a minute that everything is true and we're on a runway CO2 binge. Now what?
Will cutting 10% make any real difference to the outcome? Is it worth the money spent?
Saying "well anything we do helps" is nonsense, because if it doesn't make a real difference to the outcome, but crashes the economy in the process, then it was a stupid choice. Accepting the outcome and spending the money to adapt to it would make more sense.
It is quite possible that the time to make real changes passed 20 years ago and we're well past that point.
Kinda like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic 30 min after it hit the ice berg. Way, way past the point of mattering. Actually, in that case, getting people in the life boats "helps", but if the Carpathia had not come to their rescue, that wouldn't have mattered either, would it?
What I see and hear in the media is a whole lot of "well we should do SOMETHING", except sometimes you shouldn't do something... it is a bunch of waving arms without any real conversation.
So, if as you say, the science is not accurate enough to say one way or another, then we can't really look at the cost of guessing right, but instead, must look at the cost of guessing wrong.
There are lots of things that we "could be doing", and aren't.
How about searching for killer asteroids that could do to us what was done to the dinos?
Even if we found one tomorrow, we haven't developed anything to deal with it.
Perhaps the money would be better spent building a permanent colony on Mars to give us a backup to Earth. That would be expensive, but it also would help us develop many new technologies that we can only dream of today, and the process of transforming Mars would teach us much about Earth.
There are a variety of strategies that we could try but the simplest, easiest, and cheapest solution is to apply a price to carbon emissions. Any economist can tell you that charging for emissions will reduce them.
Ok, lets say we tax carbon... how much do we have to tax it to make a difference that will matter?
How do we get the whole world to do this?
What level of CO2 output do we have to reduce the planet to, to make a difference?
---
From what I've read (and yes, I have read up on it), we'd need to, more or less, cut our current CO2 emissions in half, and do it pretty soon, to change the long term outcome.
Would that money be better spent preparing for the change which, in all honesty, is likely coming anyway?
We might cut the future increases, but cutting to half of current levels? I don't see that happening, you'd need FAR more than a carbon tax to make that happen.
That's not even the right question. The right question is: how much money will we save by reducing CO2 emissions by X, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy? How much will it cost to make that reduction, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy?
We don't know shit when it comes to that sort of prediction, and without that, policy is pure fashion statement and political posturing, not science-informed.
Well yes, that too...
But I've been saying for awhile now that the efforts being made won't make enough of a change to matter and the changes that WOULD be required will result in WWIII.
It really is that simple. So we're screwed either way, if man-made climate change is real.
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to show the results of all your experiments proving climate change is not happening. The overwhelming evidence we have is that *is* occurring - so any disproof of this needs presenting far more than any more corroboration.
Which is how science works, BTW.
No, you have it backwards...
Climate change IS happening... It has been changing since the Earth was formed and it will keep changing, regardless of what we do.
The question is, how much of it is man-made?
THAT is the part that you leave out. Why don't you show how the current climate changing has anything to do with mankind. The burden of proof of that is on you.
The difference is that creationists deny science because of their faith. These guys deny science because of greed.
As long as you continue to make that your refrain, nothing will change.
I am not convinced the science is accurate, we simply don't know enough to say one way or another.
That isn't greed, it is logic and practical.
Now as far as making reasonable changes to reduce our use of fossil fuels, I'm all for that.
Do I think raising the average MPG of cars and trucks over time makes sense? Yes, at a reasonable and steady rate.
Do I think removing incandescent bulbs from the market and replacing them with LEDs makes sense? Yes, that should be done today.
Do I think appliances and HVAC systems should be required to be more efficient? Yes, and that should be raised over time as well.
---
Do I think we should just upend our entire economy and throw ourselves on a burning fire because "oh noes, the world is ending"? No.
But that is how the climate nuts like to paint it.
Slow and steady gentle changes are fine, but if you insist on moving the moon, then frankly you can take a long walk off a short pier.
And that is why, at the end of the day, so many people are resisting the whole man made climate change thing, it reeks of "money and power" rather than science.
I really do not understand the hate involved here. Let's assume that climate change is NOT happening. We still have the following facts:
1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.
2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us.
3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing. If Muslims want to kill Muslims, that sounds like their problem. There is no "right" side in a conflict like that.
For all of these reasons, we should be decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change.
So, what is the problem?
There isn't any, most reasonable people would agree with all of the above...
Then the global warming/global cooling/global climate change people go nuts and take it WAY to far. It becomes about money and power and redistribution of wealth more than the planet.
It is like the environmentalists who are AGAINST EVERYTHING!
The average person is so sick of it that he/she is just tuning them out.
They are against EVERYTHING. For frack sake, they probably want us all to go live in caves, or just die... I can't find anything they are actually FOR...
I think it's time to stop calling these people "skeptics". They are science denialists, just like creationists. Skeptic would imply that they have found fault with the current science and attack that line of reasoning, but they don't. Instead, they have already come up with the conclusion that climate change is no issue and it is not caused my man, which goes against all current evidence.
You say all that with a degree of certainty that is not due.
The science is not NEARLY as "settled" as you would like to think. Just because you believe it is doesn't make it so.
Gravity, the speed of light, the mass of water, those are "settled". Climate change? Nope.
Yes, that is how a state works and how a state or government influences the economy and the population to change behaviour in a certain way.
That's fine, but it doesn't make solar cheap, it just makes everything expensive. Don't lie about it, be honest.
Gasoline is highly taxed so people get convinced they don't need to use the car for every bullshit.
Come try that in America where we actually have some land and room to live. It is not possible to live in most of America without a car, our whole country was largely built based on them, with a handful of exceptions.
Now should it have been? That is another conversation, but it is largely beside the point. It wasn't, it won't be changed within our lifetimes, and that is that.
CO2 is taxed, so everyone tries to avoid to produce to much CO2.
And that is part of why your above comment about the "renewable revolution" being paid for by consumers is so off the mark.
Your government is playing with the markets and using taxes to move the needle. Now that's fine if that is what you want to do, but don't pretend that solar and wind somehow make a lot of sense on their own. Well, actually wind is getting there, it has a place as a nice reserve of power. Solar is still rather nuts in terms of costs.
As I already said in many other posts, especially to you: my... and that includes most germans... power bill is much lower than yours. With a similar or as most here believe: superior life style than yours.
It isn't hard to have a low power bill when you live in a cold country in small homes.
I live in a very hot part of America in a very large home, you can't remotely compare our power bills.
The comment about "superior lifestyle" is an opinion and it shows your arrogance and programming by German propaganda.
(that isn't to say I'm not subject to American propaganda, it is just that I'm aware of it)
It does not matter that I pay 17cent per kWh (something like 25cent if you include the base costs)... because I use so few of them.
I pay less than half for my power that you do. I also live in a much larger house than you do, so the monthly cost for power is not a material concern.
I would imagine that if my power price were more than doubled, then wind and solar could be deployed on a much larger scale here. But then your comment of the "renewable revolution" being paid for by consumers is true, only in the sense of power prices being raised high enough to fund this via your power bill.
But that isn't going to happen here. While I could afford to have my power bill double, a whole lot of Americans could not.
Neither could the average Chinese person pay twice as much for power, so it won't happen there either.
The point was, the water reservoirs could have been built with pumped storage in mind.
Well sure, if the land was a different shape...
But it isn't, so no... they couldn't have...
I'm not quite sure what is so hard to understand. Let me try simple words:
"there isn't enough water in the lake at the height that it is built to provide enough storage to be worth the trouble"
Or if they need another reservoir, they could keep that in mind.
Sure, they could... except... THERE AREN'T ANY HILLS TO BUILD THEM ON.
Sheesh...
And of course, that ignores the fact that we've been trying to build a new reservoir for 20 years now, but the problem is not technical, it is political.
"But environmental advocates and northeast Texas residents have argued that the Dallas-Fort Worth area needs to focus more on water conservation before embarking on expensive reservoir projects."
For frack sake, the damm enviromentalists are BLOCKING IT!
Yea, yea, conserve water, that's great. The Dallas area has added a million people in the past 15 years, but no new water sources. We'll add another million people in the next 15-20 years.
We need another reservoir, but the stupid fracking environmentalists don't want one.
This is why so many people have stopped listening to them, they are against EVERYTHING. There is no reasonable compromise with them.
I get that we need to conserve, I get that we can't just consume everything. But we have to be able to consume something. There is a happy middle ground there somewhere.
E.g. a simple system with a 200l tank (that is about 50 gallons) costs less than 1000EUR, with a lifetime of about 20 years that is less than 50EUR per year.
That is quite cheap, but that isn't an installed cost...
I just looked up the average cost, and it is closer to $4K to have it professionally installed.
However over a course of 20 to 50 years coal burning will go down as close to zero as possible.
It is possible that might happen.
I wouldn't put money on it, but it is possible. However, if you think solar and wind will replace it all, I personally think you're mistaken... but we shall see...
Slashdot Mirror
Not that "upend our entire economy" nonsense again.
Your calling it nonsense doesn't further your argument. Nor does it attract anyone who wasn't already on your side.
You don't owe me an explanation, and I don't owe you any support. If you want my support, it'll cost you an explanation that isn't filled with insults and personal attacks.
---
For what it is worth, I'm perfectly willing to change my behavior and views when presented with reasonable information that actually makes sense.
I recently replaced every bulb in my house with LEDs, when someone posted the math on the price of the bulbs and how much power they were using. I was not aware that LEDs had dropped in price so much or how much power the older bulbs were using.
Once shown new information, changing was easy.
I have seen no such information that we could do the same with our overall CO2 emissions in such a way as to make a difference to the outcome, without crashing the economy. And yes, I've read up on the subject on both pro and con web sites, and yes, I'm above average in intelligence. :)
I'm not against CO2 being a problem, but I am against changing our whole way of life if it doesn't even solve the problem. I'd rather spend the money to adapt to the future that is coming, than fight against it when we can't stop it.
Wind is cheaper than coal, since a decade more or less.
Citation needed
Wait, how about I provide one:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs...
"Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH (than coal)"
solar is about to become cheaper right now.
Not even close...
From the above: "Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces."
You are wrong about the power bill, you are also wrong about the heat or coldness of germany. The summer here is more or less like yours.
What parts of Germany regularly hit 40c and spend about a month at that temp?
Last time you talked about your bill you said you spent like $300 per month. I spend 120EURO per month.
So despite the fact that my price per kWh is higher, I pay less ... and yes you already told me your house/flat is much bigger. Does not change the fact about our bills and that you likely waste a lot of energy.
My house is 353 sqm, how big is yours? The total bill doesn't matter nearly so much as the cost per sqm.
So I'm paying about 85 cents per sqm per month in power, on average. What is your per-sqm average?
And I'm not even taking into account that I work from home, thus use more power than the average person does anyway, since I'm here all day.
Regarding the standard of living, only the upper 5 or 10 percent of the americans have a comparable living standard of an average european.
Citation needed.
You build hills dozens of meters in the air strong enough to hold a billion gallons of water and have enough protection in place to make sure it doesn't get out of the reservoir and flood the surrounding area?
How much do you think that costs? Do you have a link to an example?
The science is settled in as much as any scientific findings have to be in order to inform public policy.
I don't see anyone debating the speed of light, the mass of water, or a hundred other things...
There are a LOT of people, including a lot of SMART people, who aren't convinced of man made climate change.
Yes, there are plenty of smart people who ARE convinced, and that's fine.
Clearly you're convinced. I'm not, so convince me. If you don't think you have to, that is fine as well, but then don't be shocked when I don't come along with you on your journey of "change the world".
I'm not alone there either. You need to do more to convince me otherwise if you want my support.
Those types of replies are why you get the same back in return.
Why don't you try and tell me how much we have to cut to undo that change, in what time period, and how much that will cost.
Pretend for a minute that everything is true and we're on a runway CO2 binge. Now what?
Will cutting 10% make any real difference to the outcome? Is it worth the money spent?
Saying "well anything we do helps" is nonsense, because if it doesn't make a real difference to the outcome, but crashes the economy in the process, then it was a stupid choice. Accepting the outcome and spending the money to adapt to it would make more sense.
It is quite possible that the time to make real changes passed 20 years ago and we're well past that point.
Kinda like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic 30 min after it hit the ice berg. Way, way past the point of mattering. Actually, in that case, getting people in the life boats "helps", but if the Carpathia had not come to their rescue, that wouldn't have mattered either, would it?
What I see and hear in the media is a whole lot of "well we should do SOMETHING", except sometimes you shouldn't do something... it is a bunch of waving arms without any real conversation.
Umm... That $600 is for the BATTERY, not the whole bike...
What size/weight vehicle will that move 30km? Which is about 20mi, which is about 1/10th of what is needed.
And it isn't a car, it is a bicycle, that you have to pay for.
We're just talking about different things. :)
That was the first rational, fact filled reply I can recall reading...
I will do some reading up on that...
So, if as you say, the science is not accurate enough to say one way or another, then we can't really look at the cost of guessing right, but instead, must look at the cost of guessing wrong.
There are lots of things that we "could be doing", and aren't.
How about searching for killer asteroids that could do to us what was done to the dinos?
Even if we found one tomorrow, we haven't developed anything to deal with it.
Perhaps the money would be better spent building a permanent colony on Mars to give us a backup to Earth. That would be expensive, but it also would help us develop many new technologies that we can only dream of today, and the process of transforming Mars would teach us much about Earth.
There are a variety of strategies that we could try but the simplest, easiest, and cheapest solution is to apply a price to carbon emissions. Any economist can tell you that charging for emissions will reduce them.
Ok, lets say we tax carbon... how much do we have to tax it to make a difference that will matter?
How do we get the whole world to do this?
What level of CO2 output do we have to reduce the planet to, to make a difference?
---
From what I've read (and yes, I have read up on it), we'd need to, more or less, cut our current CO2 emissions in half, and do it pretty soon, to change the long term outcome.
Would that money be better spent preparing for the change which, in all honesty, is likely coming anyway?
We might cut the future increases, but cutting to half of current levels? I don't see that happening, you'd need FAR more than a carbon tax to make that happen.
That's not even the right question. The right question is: how much money will we save by reducing CO2 emissions by X, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy? How much will it cost to make that reduction, to at least 1 significant figure of accuracy?
We don't know shit when it comes to that sort of prediction, and without that, policy is pure fashion statement and political posturing, not science-informed.
Well yes, that too...
But I've been saying for awhile now that the efforts being made won't make enough of a change to matter and the changes that WOULD be required will result in WWIII.
It really is that simple. So we're screwed either way, if man-made climate change is real.
If he can criticize the deaths caused by poverty or extremism, he can criticize global warming.
That is silly, he might as well be criticizing the weather, or earthquakes, or the sun rising...
Allow me to quote from your link:
"Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
Ok, great... how much of that is man-made change?
What can we do about it if so? What does that cost? What does it cost to adapt to it rather than try and change it the other way?
I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you to show the results of all your experiments proving climate change is not happening. The overwhelming evidence we have is that *is* occurring - so any disproof of this needs presenting far more than any more corroboration.
Which is how science works, BTW.
No, you have it backwards...
Climate change IS happening... It has been changing since the Earth was formed and it will keep changing, regardless of what we do.
The question is, how much of it is man-made?
THAT is the part that you leave out. Why don't you show how the current climate changing has anything to do with mankind. The burden of proof of that is on you.
The difference is that creationists deny science because of their faith. These guys deny science because of greed.
As long as you continue to make that your refrain, nothing will change.
I am not convinced the science is accurate, we simply don't know enough to say one way or another.
That isn't greed, it is logic and practical.
Now as far as making reasonable changes to reduce our use of fossil fuels, I'm all for that.
Do I think raising the average MPG of cars and trucks over time makes sense? Yes, at a reasonable and steady rate.
Do I think removing incandescent bulbs from the market and replacing them with LEDs makes sense? Yes, that should be done today.
Do I think appliances and HVAC systems should be required to be more efficient? Yes, and that should be raised over time as well.
---
Do I think we should just upend our entire economy and throw ourselves on a burning fire because "oh noes, the world is ending"? No.
But that is how the climate nuts like to paint it.
Slow and steady gentle changes are fine, but if you insist on moving the moon, then frankly you can take a long walk off a short pier.
And that is why, at the end of the day, so many people are resisting the whole man made climate change thing, it reeks of "money and power" rather than science.
I really do not understand the hate involved here. Let's assume that climate change is NOT happening. We still have the following facts:
1) Fossil fuels are a limited supply. Maybe enough for another 50 years. Maybe 100. But still limited.
2) We purchase large amounts of oil from countries that, in general, do not like us.
3) If it were not for oil, our interest in the middle east would decline greatly, which would be a good thing. If Muslims want to kill Muslims, that sounds like their problem. There is no "right" side in a conflict like that.
For all of these reasons, we should be decreasing our dependency on fossil fuels. More fuel efficiency and alternative fuels just simply make long term sense, even without considering climate change.
So, what is the problem?
There isn't any, most reasonable people would agree with all of the above...
Then the global warming/global cooling/global climate change people go nuts and take it WAY to far. It becomes about money and power and redistribution of wealth more than the planet.
It is like the environmentalists who are AGAINST EVERYTHING!
The average person is so sick of it that he/she is just tuning them out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lo...
http://save-as.org/GreenNews/N...
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo...
And on, and on...
They are against EVERYTHING. For frack sake, they probably want us all to go live in caves, or just die... I can't find anything they are actually FOR...
I think it's time to stop calling these people "skeptics". They are science denialists, just like creationists. Skeptic would imply that they have found fault with the current science and attack that line of reasoning, but they don't. Instead, they have already come up with the conclusion that climate change is no issue and it is not caused my man, which goes against all current evidence.
You say all that with a degree of certainty that is not due.
The science is not NEARLY as "settled" as you would like to think. Just because you believe it is doesn't make it so.
Gravity, the speed of light, the mass of water, those are "settled". Climate change? Nope.
Depends on the vehicle. I can almost buy that now for an electric bicycle.
Citation needed
However in Germany pumped storage plants are usually considered "nice lakes" and "nature". As long as no one needs to relocate, they get accepted.
Germany is not a flat country, it is covered in hills and elevation changes.
And again: the USA are literally full with ideal spots for pumped storage.
You might consider looking at a topographical map of the US.
Besides the two main mountain ranges, the vast majority of the country is rather flat.
Power plants and storage can only be so far from the point of use.
If a price is today cheaper than two years ago: we call it cheap.
In a vacuum, yes... but it isn't cheap if another option remains cheaper...
Actually, the renewable revolution is not payed with tax money but by the consumers.
That's funny, you keep thinking that...
https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Yes, that is how a state works and how a state or government influences the economy and the population to change behaviour in a certain way.
That's fine, but it doesn't make solar cheap, it just makes everything expensive. Don't lie about it, be honest.
Gasoline is highly taxed so people get convinced they don't need to use the car for every bullshit.
Come try that in America where we actually have some land and room to live. It is not possible to live in most of America without a car, our whole country was largely built based on them, with a handful of exceptions.
Now should it have been? That is another conversation, but it is largely beside the point. It wasn't, it won't be changed within our lifetimes, and that is that.
CO2 is taxed, so everyone tries to avoid to produce to much CO2.
And that is part of why your above comment about the "renewable revolution" being paid for by consumers is so off the mark.
Your government is playing with the markets and using taxes to move the needle. Now that's fine if that is what you want to do, but don't pretend that solar and wind somehow make a lot of sense on their own. Well, actually wind is getting there, it has a place as a nice reserve of power. Solar is still rather nuts in terms of costs.
As I already said in many other posts, especially to you: my ... and that includes most germans ... power bill is much lower than yours. With a similar or as most here believe: superior life style than yours.
It isn't hard to have a low power bill when you live in a cold country in small homes.
I live in a very hot part of America in a very large home, you can't remotely compare our power bills.
The comment about "superior lifestyle" is an opinion and it shows your arrogance and programming by German propaganda.
(that isn't to say I'm not subject to American propaganda, it is just that I'm aware of it)
It does not matter that I pay 17cent per kWh (something like 25cent if you include the base costs) ... because I use so few of them.
I pay less than half for my power that you do. I also live in a much larger house than you do, so the monthly cost for power is not a material concern.
I would imagine that if my power price were more than doubled, then wind and solar could be deployed on a much larger scale here. But then your comment of the "renewable revolution" being paid for by consumers is true, only in the sense of power prices being raised high enough to fund this via your power bill.
But that isn't going to happen here. While I could afford to have my power bill double, a whole lot of Americans could not.
Neither could the average Chinese person pay twice as much for power, so it won't happen there either.
The point was, the water reservoirs could have been built with pumped storage in mind.
Well sure, if the land was a different shape...
But it isn't, so no... they couldn't have...
I'm not quite sure what is so hard to understand. Let me try simple words:
"there isn't enough water in the lake at the height that it is built to provide enough storage to be worth the trouble"
Or if they need another reservoir, they could keep that in mind.
Sure, they could... except... THERE AREN'T ANY HILLS TO BUILD THEM ON.
Sheesh...
And of course, that ignores the fact that we've been trying to build a new reservoir for 20 years now, but the problem is not technical, it is political.
http://www.texastribune.org/20...
"But environmental advocates and northeast Texas residents have argued that the Dallas-Fort Worth area needs to focus more on water conservation before embarking on expensive reservoir projects."
For frack sake, the damm enviromentalists are BLOCKING IT!
Yea, yea, conserve water, that's great. The Dallas area has added a million people in the past 15 years, but no new water sources. We'll add another million people in the next 15-20 years.
We need another reservoir, but the stupid fracking environmentalists don't want one.
This is why so many people have stopped listening to them, they are against EVERYTHING. There is no reasonable compromise with them.
I get that we need to conserve, I get that we can't just consume everything. But we have to be able to consume something. There is a happy middle ground there somewhere.
E.g. a simple system with a 200l tank (that is about 50 gallons) costs less than 1000EUR, with a lifetime of about 20 years that is less than 50EUR per year.
That is quite cheap, but that isn't an installed cost...
I just looked up the average cost, and it is closer to $4K to have it professionally installed.
At that cost, it is less attractive.
However over a course of 20 to 50 years coal burning will go down as close to zero as possible.
It is possible that might happen.
I wouldn't put money on it, but it is possible. However, if you think solar and wind will replace it all, I personally think you're mistaken... but we shall see...
NH is full, no vacancies. You should never come here. It's awful.
I was born there, if the weather didn't indeed suck, I'd move back in a second.
It is a single year with a prediction of the next year.
It is not "falling for several years", as was originally stated.