2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

Nothing gets deferred because the metrics we ultimate use measure the whole instead of its parts. Things like life expectancy, food security, etc. Anything that affects such things - good or bad - gets accounted for when we take those measurements.When we measure life expectancy today vs in the past, everything that affects life expectancy ends up in the resulting measurement. We aren't only taking coal smoke into account; we're also taking diseases, warfare, famine, and everything else into account.When we measure food security today vs in the past, everything that affects food security ends up in the resulting measurement. We aren't only taking desertification into account; we're also taking acid rain, soil depletion, warming, and everything else into account.So we don't have to worry about whether we can separate out the parts, because we're measuring the whole. And on the whole, we're better off now than we used to be. And where we're at now is almost entirely because we burn a lot of fossil fuels.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

We are better off because we have pipes to move our water around when compared to not having pipes. Making our water pipes out of lead is very cheap and easy to do and the pipes work very well. Why would we every want to spend more resources on making our water pipes out of copper?We are better off because we have gasoline to move our vehicles around. Burning gasoline is cheap and easy. Why would we want to spend more resources to move our cars with electricity?

Yes. We should look for energy sources that have fewer costs. Not doing so would be ridiculous and immoral.But what if those energy sources don't exist? Or what if they can't provide the same volumes of power that generate all the benefits of modern civilization?I am very much in favor of going the route of lower costs - if we can.Hence the challenge I've laid out repeatedly, here and elsewhere: Demonstrate the existence of those alternatives and show they are capable of providing the power we need.Renewable and cleaner energies obviously exist, so the first half of that challenge is easily met. The second half seems to be where the difficulty lies. No one has even come up with a plan whereby a single city can rely on renewable energy to meet its electricity demand.And so my melancholy doubts persist. Because it seems to me that to continue to reap the benefits of copious and reliable power we are going to have to continue to pay the costs of generating that power with dirty fossil fuels.

Seriously, Jon. Your argument is to let someone else make your argument?If we manage to reduce our carbon footprint by even 30%, that would be a significant outcome as far as climate change is concerned. Why do you continue to insist that we have to either replace all fossil fuels with renewables?

The evidence regarding the capabilities of solar is really for those promoting solar as a wonder fuel to present.Those folks should be grateful I've presented any myself. I've been doing all their work for them so far. It's not unreasonable to expect them to do at least something.If the point isn't important enough to them to back it with evidence, then they can leave it sit. I'm not. But my objections and challenges issued in this thread have been directed at those who think we can, folks like LNA and RAZD.I've repeatedly said renewable energy is the right choice where it makes sense. Even though it does nothing to reduce overall GHG emissions. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

You guys keep harping on about the efficiency and scalability of the generators, but if you really want to be convinced then you should look more towards the storage. Battery technology is getting better.I asked you about Tesla Powerwall earlier, in Message 165. I ran across a Vox article here that goes into detail and has a bunch of graphs n'stuff about how you need solar plus storage to make it work.I still haven't seen you talk about that storage side much. Don't you think that's key to the capability you are looking for?

Earlier the issue of solar power in Hawai'i was discussed (Message 78).I was trying to figure out why Hawai'i hadn't made the shift to renewable energy, especially solar.When I run the numbers, it seems to make sense. The islands use about 10,000,000 Mwh/year of electricity. A plant like Topaz generates about 1,100,000 Mwh/year while covering an area of 9.5 mi² (see Message 219 for sources). Just assuming that Hawai'i is equally as sunny as the location of Topaz (it isn't, at least not everywhere) tells us it should only take 86 mi² of Topaz-style solar panels to generate the electricity used by the whole state. And that works out to about one hundredth of a percent of the island chain's total land area.So why doesn't Hawai'i use more solar power?I know that my calculations don't account for the storage system, but certainly a storage system can't be that large that it would make solar power impossible on the islands. Or is the storage of electricity at even that scale simply not workable with current technology?I honestly don't know. But there must be something stopping Hawai'i. I'd like to figure out what it is.

I think you mean wouldn't. *ABE* wait, do you mean large as in capacity? Or large as in size?I was thinking you meant capacity, in that a larger capacity would mean more possibility, but upon re-read I think you might mean that a larger size would mean more impossibility. I wrote the following up on the first impression, it's not about the physical size of the battery as it is the capacity that it has (both in charge rate as well as amount) *ABE*Storage is important for off-setting the cost difference between peak and non-peak usage, as well as the between the generating and usage needs between peak and non-peak demand. In the case of soalr, peak is when the sun's shining bright, and non-peak would be when its dark or cloudy or whatever. The People can be trained to know when and when not to have a heavy load on the system.While I'm at work and it's sunny, and I have most of power consumption turned off, I can be charging my system up. And then when I get home, and it's dark, I can pull from the storage instead of the generators and get all the power I need. Having an "amount" of storage in your systems can help The People realize when they need to start considering lowering their consumption because they have unneeded uses and they're getting low on power (and will have to start buying it).The cost side of it helps the transition from the grid to not-on-gird in that you can "buy" the power that you're not getting and need to use to charge your system only during the times of the day or week when the usage and therefore prices from the grid are lower.Those are some of the problems with solar that aren't going be solved with the generators, but instead with the batteries. You should consider them more, and realize that it could make solar to not be a bad option.

I missed that post.But as I look at this technology, I can say it is not the answer to the storage problem.Cost will have to come down and storage capacity go up.Ultimately renewable energy will have to be workable on a grid-scale.

That is not an option. Again. Not an option. You can't make power scarce and dear.Two hundred years of recent history have shown us that the societies with the cheapest and most abundant power are the ones that have the happiest, healthiest, and wealthiest people. What transition?The grid is the only way.The future doesn't involve me making my own clothes; building my own cars; growing my own food; spinning my own dishes; forging my own silverware; chiseling my own pencils.And it doesn't involve me generating my own electricity. Part of the reason I've neglected the storage is that it doesn't really exist on anything near the scale required for calculating the kind of feasibility we've been talking about, like supplying large cities with power generated entirely from the sun's energy. It's hard to get numbers.Did you see my response to NoNukes, though? Message 269

In Ontario there are now 3 different rates for power. Peak, mid and off peak. $0.175/kwh, .0.128/kwh and $.083/kwh respectively. In the last year or so we have personally managed to use 67% of our power during off peak hours 7pm to 7am.edit; Another program available is to install a smart thermostat that is controllable by the utility company. They can raise the temperature setting of your AC during peak hours to reduce overall load. I wouldn't go for this as it seems a little too big brotherish. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

All the evidence needed lies in the fact that the sun dumps about a kw on every m2 of the earth every day. The fact that we are only beginning to collect it at low efficiencies doesn't support the idea that we shouldn't be doing it.Again it is the contrived economics of the thing that are forcing the calculations. It wouldn't take much of a price on carbon to change the results. Why not? Everybody gets a replicator and a solar panel.A grid with many more points of power generation will be better in every way. More robust and lower transmission costs. Outages could only be local and it would serve as a giant battery itself.

I never said we shouldn't. I simply said we currently can't do stuff like power Maryland or NYC with solar panels. And that's a true statement. You can't. And not I, the country, or the world as a whole will ever accept a plan that makes power scarce and dear. Nor should we. Cheap, abundant power is not just essential to modern life. It is modern life.And it is simply immoral to make any proposal that involves denying people access to this essential component of wellbeing. I agree. But then who maintains this shit?

Why not? I'm not making it scarce, it's still abundantly available from the grid. You just gotta pay the power company for that energy. The energy you get from solar is "free" (sans intallation costs), and The People will want to minimize how much they have to buy.I'm also not making it dear, it's the unneeded uses that are the ones that would get turned off.Like, you may decided to turn off the TV in the living room while you're making dinner so you're not wasting your "free" energy that you will then end up having to buy from the power company later. Not for everybody. There are people today who are off the grid. Well, I do grow some of my own food in my garden, and I am intriged by the idea that I could rely less on the grid, especially if it is to the point that I hardly need it.I'm with you in that I just don't think the generators are there. But with the improvements to the storage technology that I am seeing, I beginning to see that solar is not an impossibility. You don't have to limit what you're talking about to just switching NYC into a fully solar operation. There other more interesting discussion to be had in the topic of solar energy.

Exactly. It certainly is an option. In fact, in many locations, the power company will install devices that manage some of your large energy users for you so that they get cut off during peak demand[1]. If you agree to that, you get a lowered power bill. Of course Jon will tell you that conserving power results in having a Kenyan type economy.[1] If peak demand exceeds some amountEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.