View Full Version : Fog in August and other Winter Weather Warnings
Simply Bananas
08-21-2008, 09:16 AM
Take it for what its worth:
MaineToday.com | News Update: Brrr! Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead (http://news.mainetoday.com/updates/031815.html)
chong
08-21-2008, 05:07 PM
Funny, but I thought some famous non-scientist person said there was global warming?????? It's been raining here in the past 3 days in Seattle, WA and to quote a radio announcer, "Look at the calendar and it says spring, look outside and it says,'Autumn' ". That pretty much sums it up for our weather here.
momoese
08-21-2008, 05:36 PM
Funny, but I thought some famous non-scientist person said there was global warming?????? It's been raining here in the past 3 days in Seattle, WA and to quote a radio announcer, "Look at the calendar and it says spring, look outside and it says,'Autumn' ". That pretty much sums it up for our weather here.
And yet one can now sail through the North Pole. Hmm
Arctic ice melt shocks scientists | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20448107-1702,00.html?from=public_rss)
Because that last link is dated here is more.
Discovery News : Discovery Channel (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/01/18/arctic-ice-melt.html)
chong
08-21-2008, 06:40 PM
And yet one can now sail through the North Pole this year. Hmm
Arctic ice melt shocks scientists | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,20448107-1702,00.html?from=public_rss)
Since it is now highly imaginable to sail from Northern Siberia TO(not through) the North Pole, he must be right. Particularly that in Seattle we hit 62°F this past week at the height of summer, 52°F in July, too. Wish I could convince my bananas that there is global warming so they'd perk up. There are distinct differences in growth between plants that are in my greenhouse and those outside in the yard.
momoese
08-21-2008, 10:54 PM
It may not be warmer in your hood, but "globaly" it really is warmer, hence the term, "Global Warming"
From the NCDC-NOAA website:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-spm-5.gif
Precipitation is also expected to increase over the 21st century, particularly at northern mid-high latitudes, though the trends may be more variable in the tropics, with much of the increase coming in more frequent heavy rainfall events. However, over mid-continental areas summer-drying is expected due to increased evaporation with increased temperatures, resulting in an increased tendency for drought in those regions.
harveyc
08-25-2008, 02:33 AM
I don't know what will happen in the years ahead and don't place much reliance on so-called experts as everyone has some sort of vested stake in industry, research grants, etc. I remember looking a year or so ago at sensor locations and there sure did not seem to be enough of them to give an accurate "picture" of global temperatures and the ones that are in place are not evenly spread about. Some countries seemed to have a hundred more sensors for the same land mass as other countries.
I've read what seemed to be credible reports that we've been cooling for almost 10 years now, thus the more common term of "global climate change" is used in discussions instead of "global warming".
It seems there will be a debate that will be interesting to read about:
DailyTech - Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate (http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm)
(note, the title of that article isn't very clear; it's just one division that is having the debate)
Here is an interesting article that a friend sent me recently:
No smoking hot spot | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)
This isn't meant as an argument to your post, Mitchel. I do spend time thinking about this and do enjoy reading some of this. I don't trust anybody to know what's really going to happen.
Richard
08-25-2008, 08:38 AM
There is a large misconception of what climate researchers mean when they say global climate change. To them, "global warming" has a very narrow definition, referring to a one-degree increase in the average earth temperature in 100 year intervals going back 1,000's of years. Further, their discussions center around geological data and mathematical models, not measurements someone makes with thermometer in the last 100-400 years.
harveyc
08-25-2008, 09:38 AM
Richard, what sort of "geological data" are you talking about if there are not temperature readings? I've seen reports with data of such temperature readings to show global warming has taken place, some on land and some in oceans. Predictions of future warming has obviously been based on models.
Richard
08-25-2008, 12:45 PM
Richard, what sort of "geological data" are you talking about if there are not temperature readings? I've seen reports with data of such temperature readings to show global warming has taken place, some on land and some in oceans. Predictions of future warming has obviously been based on models.
Models that only use temperature readings are concerned with changes in the interval of decades, and are concerned with localized impacts (specifiic regions of the planet). These are certainly interesting and the level of detail is something that a good portion of the general public can understand.
Global warming: the study of the average temperature of the whole earth in 100-year intervals is a different matter. Since each data point represents 100 years, you can see that 20 data points was 2,000 years ago -- at which time no one was taking thermometer readings on a global scale. Further, the level of detail and skill is so severe that only a few dozen people world-wide understand all the details of a single model, and the number of people world-wide who are capable of accurately discussing the merits of any model is probably in the 10's of 1,000's. It is silly for members of the general public to debate global warming -- it is comparable to us debating a proposed proof of Fermat's Last Conjecture.
I say all this from my experience as a team member assisting with the implementation of a global warming model on supercomputers. As an applied mathematician, I had a good grasp of what and how the mathematics and software were doing -- and little if any grasp of "why" and "interpretation of results". I feel those subjects are completely out of my league.
harveyc
08-25-2008, 02:06 PM
Since the whole matter has been taken up by so many politicians and the actions of our governments can have great impacts on our lives, I believe the general public should discuss this and become informed about it as much as possible even if they cannot understand it at a scientific level. I know with fairly good certainty that we have previously been cooler and warmer before.
chong
08-25-2008, 05:03 PM
Since the whole matter has been taken up by so many politicians and the actions of our governments can have great impacts on our lives, I believe the general public should discuss this and become informed about it as much as possible even if they cannot understand it at a scientific level. I know with fairly good certainty that we have previously been cooler and warmer before.
Yeah, I have observed that in the last 5 years, the NW has been cooler than before. In the past, I used to just wear a raincoat over my suit, or just my suit during the winter. Now, I have to wear at least a sport coat all the time, even during most of the summer.
Biggest testament to this are that my plants have not fared well because of the cold weather. Even my 8 Asian pear varieties have not been very productive. As late as it is in the season, the biggest fruits on them are only 1" diameter. It's even worse with my tropical fruit and other trees, e.g., bananas, star fruit, white sapote, perfume trees, etc. The same types that are inside the greenhouse are doing exceptionally well.
That goes true for my pepper plants, too.
Richard
08-25-2008, 05:48 PM
Since the whole matter has been taken up by so many politicians and the actions of our governments can have great impacts on our lives, I believe the general public should discuss this and become informed about it as much as possible even if they cannot understand it at a scientific level. I know with fairly good certainty that we have previously been cooler and warmer before.
It is helpful to recognize that the politicized term "global warming" is different from the intended meaning of a physical scientist studying "global warming".
Here is something to consider: there is a branch of physical science that studies the average electric charge on the surface of the earth over many millenia -- and geologic epochs. These studies concern the average static electric charge on the surface in say, 1000 year periods (measured in Coulombs/square meter) going back millions of years. It is not location-specific, but an average over the entire earth surface. There are important applications in mineral deposits and biology in specific historical/geological time periods.
Physical scientists studying historical/geological temperatures of the earth are not too different in focus from those studying static surface charge. Of course their training is different, and the physical media being studied is often different, but the focus is on estimating a single quantity averaged over the entire surface of the earth.
chong
08-25-2008, 06:37 PM
It is helpful to recognize that the politicized term "global warming" is different from the intended meaning of a physical scientist studying "global warming".
................................................................ .............................
........................................................ but the focus is on estimating a single quantity averaged over the entire surface of the earth.
The reason people are debating this issue is because of the politicized term and the politicians who foment it, who are neither scientists nor engineers, but have some kind of agenda to promote. I am in the building environmental control system design business, and the bible for our industry is published by ASHRAE. If we have global warming, the design conditions for all localities throughout the world would have been adjusted by them by now. Yet the only time that I can remember that those tables were adjusted was during President Carter's time when he signed that 1979 Energy Bill (EBTR) requiring thermostats to be set back in commercial and governmental buildings. But instead of adjusting the design temperatures for summer conditions upward, ASHRAE adjusted them downwards. Seattle's summer design conditions, prior to then, was 88°F at 2.5% design. Since then, it's been 83°F.
I doubt if they'll adjust it upwards anytime soon.
harveyc
08-25-2008, 06:40 PM
Hi Richard,
I understand there are differences and wish politicians would stay out of it. Even still, there are just too many assumptions made in many sciences that leave too much room for error for me to take any of the published reports at face value. About the only thing anyone knows for sure is what they don't know. There are many instances when things proclaimed as fact were later misproven. Further, I believe there are few, if any, pure scientists as there are just too many outside pressures from funding sources, etc.
There was an article, perhaps in the Wall Street Journal, a year or so ago about how research reports on drug studies were so heavily influenced by the funding of drug companies. Everyone knows that pomegranate juice is a very healthy juice, right? Well, Stuart and Lynda Resnick, owners of the Roll Corp. which owns FTD, Franklin Mint, and the 72,000 acre Paramount Farms (of which Pom Wonderful is a subsidiary), funding millions towards research that helped give them the kind of data they wanted to sell their product. I've never read it in a research report, but I'm certain too much of it will kill you by drowning! I'm growing a small plot of pomegranates but focusing on enjoying the fruits, not on any real or perceived health benefits.
Richard
08-25-2008, 07:09 PM
Harvey, you bring up another good point about research reports and research agendas. There are also intelligent researchers who are employed at some safe-haven University or Institute and are satisfied enough with their salary (and outside consulting) to avoid the biased funding sources. For the general public to figure out whos-who is an intractable task.
Chong, even if all the physical scientists studying "global warming" agreed it was occuring, you would not see an increase in the estimate for your area. After all, the real debate is concerned with a 1-degree (centigrade) increase over the last 100 years.
harveyc
08-25-2008, 07:35 PM
Richard, I don't believe anybody can name a completely unbiased scientist, from the general public or otherwise.
Richard
08-25-2008, 08:10 PM
Richard, I don't believe anybody can name a completely unbiased scientist, from the general public or otherwise.
Oh, I can name several who are unbiased by funding source. As for personal biases, we all have them!
harveyc
08-25-2008, 08:35 PM
That was my point, though I still would question the funding source independence. Universities are big beneficiaries of corporate funding. At least one report touting the benefits of pomegranate juice, namely a potential cure for impotence (really!), was from UCLA which has received millions of dollars from the Resnicks. Stuart has also contributed to USC, his alma mater.
Also, just because someone is "comfortable in their position" does not make them immune from financial influences. In my prior off-farm career I was involved in lending to businesses and many of these owners were extremely wealthy but still would expand because they wanted more. I remember one owner who was making over $1 million per month, but that was still not enough to satisfy the challenge to make more. About the closest thing I can think of for someone with true financial independence might be a cloistered nun or monk who has given up everything and makes nothing. Almost all of us are heavily tied to our possessions and we want more of them. I am constantly reminded of this when I have this nagging desire to upgrade to a Canon 1D Mk III camera. I know of a Stanford research scientist that, at last count a few years ago, had spent over $70,000 to satisfy his photography hobby and I am nowhere near that, at least! :)
chong
08-25-2008, 11:58 PM
That was my point, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Almost all of us are heavily tied to our possessions and we want more of them. I am constantly reminded of this when I have this nagging desire to upgrade to a Canon 1D Mk III camera. I know of a Stanford research scientist that, at last count a few years ago, had spent over $70,000 to satisfy his photography hobby and I am nowhere near that, at least! :)
You're talking about photography/cameras, but what about how much you have spent on bananas, including greenhouse, land, etc. ? ? ? ? ? ? (I think I gotcha on this one!)
harveyc
08-26-2008, 12:48 AM
The bananas and greenhouse don't count.....those are farm expenses! :) Still, those amount to far less than I've spent on photography gear. A photographer friend and I were just chatting a bit ago about more gear! ;) I've only bought two bananas this week so I'm not being too bad! lol
momoese
08-26-2008, 01:21 AM
With all this talk of fancy camera gear where are the photos at Harvey? Break out with the goods Mr!
harveyc
08-26-2008, 09:05 AM
Honestly, I do have a lot of photos on my hard drive! :)
Okay, here is one from a couple of years ago I once hopped to even make money on, but it was too expensive to print a 60" photo! The original version is about 2GB and 60" wide at full resolution. Yosemite Valley immediately after a snow storm cleared. It's comprised of 36 photos stitched together (don't waste time trying to find seams, they are not apparent even at full resolution).
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/YosemitePano4023b.jpg
I don't know how many people trust me enough to click on an .exe file, but here is a one hour video made from over 400 photos of when our family went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land (Israel and Jordan) for Christmas 2005:
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/video/HolyLandFamily.exe (135MB, save to your hard drive and then play)
Something much less serious!
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4114.jpg
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4116.jpg
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4120.jpg
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4124.jpg
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4131.jpg
www.ImagesInChrist.com/images/birdbath4132.jpg
I've got so busy with farming, bananas, etc. the past two years I haven't really done much shooting. Maybe if I get a new camera I'd get motivated! ;)
momoese
08-26-2008, 10:30 AM
None of the links are working.
dablo93
08-26-2008, 10:53 AM
I also cant see them..
Richard
08-26-2008, 10:56 AM
That was my point, though I still would question the funding source independence. ... :)
It sounds like you have been heavily influenced by a series of unpleasant encounters. A little paranoia is healthy, but you seem a bit overboard. I worked inside the research industry and was a service provider (supercomputing) to a broad spectrum of people. I traveled extensively and served on review panels for technology proposals, peer-publications, and federal funding. It became easy to recognize the folks biased by funding source. For example, there are "beltway bandits" -- people who lobby the Washington D.C. beltway for money from anyone who will listen. There are people working on "Beg-a-buck" programs -- underfunded research, perhaps only with one federal souce of money: these are desperate, defensive people. Another group are new PhD's (post-docs) who are trying to bolster their resume by increasing the number of grants they can obtain per year. And so on.
But there are others (a minority) who are independent-thinking. Some are at Universities, others are at instututes like the Salk. These folks make their living by their accomplishments. Typically they have some sort of "holy grail" in mind such as a "cure" for multiple sclerosis or a complete understanding of the Caribbean ecosystem. All of their research is driven to that end. They only publish in peer-reviewed journals -- primarily for the valuable feedback from anonymous peers. If they are at a University, many of the publications will be in journals outside the University administrations "formulary list" for maintaining tenure. Further, they are highly skilled and successful in their endeavors. If industry comes knocking on their door, they will oversee a group of post-docs and graduate students designing a better sensor, a better analysis method, a new drug design, etc. under industry funding. However, the researcher in question remains focused on their holy grail. Many of them never quite reach it, but I'm happy to report that a new drug for multiple sclerosis is in trials which both stops and reverses (in young people) the disease and its effects.
:goteam:
harveyc
08-26-2008, 11:52 AM
I've fixed the links for my photos above, sorry as I was rushed before taking my son to school. I also edited a couple of comments to explain things better.
Richard, have I gone overboard or are you a little light on objectivity since you've been part of the research system? I'll stick with my claim and say that pure science is very scarce today. That does not mean that good results cannot happen.
Richard
08-26-2008, 12:47 PM
... I'll stick with my claim and say that pure science is very scarce today. ...
I agree with that 100%
:woohoonaner:
Tropicallvr
08-26-2008, 05:49 PM
The reason people are debating this issue is because of the politicized term and the politicians who foment it, who are neither scientists nor engineers, but have some kind of agenda to promote. I am in the building environmental control system design business, and the bible for our industry is published by ASHRAE. If we have global warming, the design conditions for all localities throughout the world would have been adjusted by them by now. Yet the only time that I can remember that those tables were adjusted was during President Carter's time when he signed that 1979 Energy Bill (EBTR) requiring thermostats to be set back in commercial and governmental buildings. But instead of adjusting the design temperatures for summer conditions upward, ASHRAE adjusted them downwards. Seattle's summer design conditions, prior to then, was 88°F at 2.5% design. Since then, it's been 83°F.
I doubt if they'll adjust it upwards anytime soon.
Not another global warming debate.
I disagree that the reason people are debating this is because of politicians. Exxon the biggest money making corpiration(in world history) for three years running has donated generously to think tanks contridicting scientists findings. They have even gone as far as paying "scepitical" scientists 10 grand a piece for agreeing with their think tanks.
I can't say that I know one way or the other, but things like polluting corpirations that stand to loose a whole lot if the combustible engine is change or rendered obsolete by new technology contributing vast sums to one side of the argument is troubling, as is the many articles I read in National Geographic about the effects of climate change(polar bears, pollution, ect).
harveyc
08-26-2008, 06:01 PM
Kyle, I'm not about to defend Exxon, but it's not just the corporation that is polluting. We little folks love to drive our cars around and are doing most of the polluting but people like to point the finger at faceless corporations. I see the enemy and.....it's us!
You point out one side of the corruption of "science" by corporations. There is also corruption by people endorsing the global warming theory so that they themselves can get research grants. I don't trust any of them!
Politicians getting involved does seem to corrupt the process even more, IMO. I don't trust any of them either!
Harvey
Tropicallvr
08-26-2008, 07:14 PM
I can't say that I know one way or the other, but things like polluting corpirations that stand to loose a whole lot if the combustible engine is change or rendered obsolete by new technology
I agree we are to blame, wish it wasn't so. But when you watch documentaries like "who killed the electric car", it becomes very obvious who's fighting new technologies (Oil corps). So it is us doing it, but it's them stopping us from having the choice.
Have you seen the Tesla Roadster electric cars? 0-60mph in 4 seconds, 200 miles per charge(quick charge time too), and they'll even install it's own solar panel at your house so it won't feed off the grid at all. 100K and they can't keep up with demand, but they are also going to make a family car for 30K. The maker(co-founder of Pay-Pal) is supposed to open up some new factory in detroit soon too. If this was just another gas car company(Ford, Chevy, ect) they'd have the big oil guys breathing down their back for sure, and the may even still.
YouTube - Tesla Roadster (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1C44JQU7Pc)
I agree there may be people wanting grants, but when you have scientists on one side who won a Nobel Peace Prize(for work on global climate change), as well as basically all mainstream news except for FOX( as well as National Geographic, and countless other magazines). It makes me think they may be onto something.
Richard
08-26-2008, 07:24 PM
Oh, it hasn't been just the oil companies. Even prior to world war II, Ford and GM were buying up any patent for more efficient engines -- and then putting them to sleep. While JFK was president, he signed an executive order for the reorganization of the DoE and AEC. Hundreds of engineers and scientists were hired (through companies like the Aerospace Corp.) to review a couple of aircraft-hangers worth of documentation dating back 200 years. During the Reagan administration the findings were assimilated and this is when (1) the reports of patent-killing first came to light, and (2) the super-fund cleanup initiatives began.
momoese
08-26-2008, 08:20 PM
Well now your talking! Here is something you might enjoy.
2mTLO2F_ERY
Richard
08-26-2008, 10:15 PM
Well now your talking! Here is something you might enjoy.
Thanks, that was great! Now if the CA state government would reverse the statute that relieves utility companies from paying for extra power people generate in their homes, I could actually afford to install solar and wind at my house.
:goteam:
momoese
08-26-2008, 10:49 PM
Thanks, that was great! Now if the CA state government would reverse the statute that relieves utility companies from paying for extra power people generate in their homes, I could actually afford to install solar and wind at my house.
:goteam:
So how do we get this done?
harveyc
08-26-2008, 11:58 PM
I think utility companies should be required to purchase excess electricity generated but they should be allowed to pay wholesale rates, not retail rates. Man consumers think otherwise but that is, in effect, borrowing their infrastructure for free and making money off of it. I've been thinking of checking out solar and/or wind generation more seriously. Joe Real has done quite a bit of research already.
momoese
08-27-2008, 12:07 AM
Prop 7 What do ya think?
harveyc
08-27-2008, 12:52 AM
Prop 7 What do ya think?
I'll be honest and admit I have not looked into it much but it does not sound like something I'm in favor of even though I believe it's a great idea for utilities to increase their use of renewable energy sources. Placing a mandate of 50% renewable by 2025 is an arbitrary figure that is has too much potential for problems, IMO. I could see such a mandate automatically boosting the costs of equipment needed to fulfill such requirements simply by the increased demand. Suppliers would literally have utility companies over a barrel (of oil?).
I could actually benefit from such a proposition, but that still wouldn't make me vote for it if I decide it's not a good proposition. The largest windmills in the USA are located just a few miles from my place (operated by the municipal district SMUD even though it is located outside of their district and locals get no direct benefits from these huge windmills). Other companies are negotiating options to develop other properties, including ones adjacent to my farm. I could potentially make $8,000-$24,000/year off of wind royalties if they put windmills on my farm based on some of the forecasts I've seen. With such a mandate, the liklihood of me being approached would probably be pretty high.
I don't even like the huge subsidies that are in place for renewable energy sources, though I do realize their is some justification for it. When it comes to huge companies taking advantage of it like Pickens (PickensPlan (http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php)), I am troubled with it.
What do you think about it, Mitchel?
harveyc
08-27-2008, 01:24 AM
Oh, and there are environmental drawbacks to windmills, even with the ones with newer designs. This guy really hates them! index.html (http://www.darrylmueller.com/)
SMUD put their windmills in the Montezuma hills which hardly has any trees so there are probably few raptors that will get chopped up. But one of the generators shorted out last year and caused a big grass fire that was visible from quite a distance. When a short takes place 300 feet in the air, sparks really go flying!
momoese
08-27-2008, 10:22 AM
I still researching it too, that's why I asked. I think the environmental groups will be disclosing more info shortly on their opposition to it.
One thing I find odd is that the opponents claim: Increase consumer electric bills and taxpayer costs by hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
But the prop says there will be a 3% cap on consumers bills. Is that 3% going into effect immediately and is that the hundreds of millions the opponents speak of? It doesn't sound that way when they say "each year"
I certainly don't like this:
Prop. 7 would exclude renewable power facilities smaller than 30 megawatts from counting toward the measure’s new requirements. Why? That makes no sense to me.
As for natural gas vehicles, I have friend who works for the city doing maintenance on the cng buses and he says it's a nightmare to keep them running.
Again I think the future of individual transport is home generated solar/wind powered electric cars. One issue with that will be how to power cars in apartment complexes and who will pay for the solar or turbines they will need? I'm sure it can be worked out though. Maybe a pay per charge, or a monthly service charge per car worked into the rental agreement. Possibly the equipment for all homes and large complexes who can't afford to buy their own can be rented/leased with a service contract included. Where there's a bill there's a way!
:2722:
Richard
08-27-2008, 11:00 AM
I think utility companies should be required to purchase excess electricity generated but they should be allowed to pay wholesale rates, not retail rates. <snip>
Yes, I'm o.k. with that. I wouldn't mind receiving an invoice showing charges for my share of leasing the transmission lines, charges for electricity I've consumed, and credits for electricity produced.
Gov. Schwarzenegger has stated that the utility exemption impeded the implementation of the million solar roofs initiative.
Richard
08-27-2008, 11:15 AM
... Again I think the future of individual transport is home generated solar/wind powered electric cars. ...
Actually a 5 to 7 square mile area of desert in the southwest U.S. could meet the present U.S. electric consumption, using present-day solar technology. So generating the electricity is not a problem. The question of who owns the generators and where the power originates is what all the political wrangling is about. If a majority of residences or businesses in "sunshine" communities install solar/wind/whatever generators on their sites, this presents two issues for existing utility companies:
1. their business changes from generation (profitable) to transmission lines (less profitable)
2. their transmission lines need major upgrades, because they are currently set up for delivery (big gauge lines at the source, small gauge lines at the destination) instead of an interactive and variable load grid.
momoese
08-27-2008, 11:17 AM
Yes, I'm o.k. with that. I wouldn't mind receiving an invoice showing charges for my share of leasing the transmission lines, charges for electricity I've consumed, and credits for electricity produced.
Gov. Schwarzenegger has stated that the utility exemption impeded the implementation of the million solar roofs initiative.
Speaking of, how about AB 1920. It lets home owners and businesses install more panels than needed to for personal power needs. Prop 7 if passed conflicts with 1920.
momoese
08-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Actually a 5 to 7 square mile area of desert in the southwest U.S. could meet the present U.S. electric consumption, using present-day solar technology. So generating the electricity is not a problem. The question of who owns the generators and where the power originates is what all the political wrangling is about. If a majority of residences or businesses in "sunshine" communities install solar/wind/whatever generators on their sites, this presents two issues for existing utility companies:
1. their business changes from generation (profitable) to transmission lines (less profitable)
2. their transmission lines need major upgrades, because they are currently set up for delivery (big gauge lines at the source, small gauge lines at the destination) instead of an interactive and variable load grid.
But if the utilities own the equipment on our roofs then they stay profitable. I of course would much rather own my own equipment.
Richard
08-27-2008, 11:28 AM
But if the utilities own the equipment on our roofs then they stay profitable. I of course would much rather own my own equipment.
Yes, the Economist recently mentioned one utility company (in Arizona ?) that is picking up the cost of installations on consumer roofs in exchange for not paying the consumer for excess electricity generated. In terms of real cost to the company, its about $2500 per home for parts and labor. Consider though that many people in Arizona pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars per month in air-conditioning bills.
momoese
08-27-2008, 11:31 AM
Yes, the Economist recently mentioned one utility company (in Arizona ?) that is picking up the cost of installations on consumer roofs in exchange for not paying the consumer for excess electricity generated. In terms of real cost to the company, its about $2500 per home for parts and labor. Consider though that many people in Arizona pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars per month in air-conditioning bills.
Wow! I'll have to research that!
harveyc
08-27-2008, 11:38 AM
I don't like the idea of residential rooftop installations because of the potential for roof repair problems 10-25 years down the road. Fortunately, I have options that most people don't have. I would probably build an equipment storage shed to support any solar panel installation I would put in since a few leaks would not be very harmful. A parking garage in Chico, CA has solar panels which provide shade for cars and that's a great idea, IMO. Most large installations are on the ground though some are on commercial buildings, etc.
momoese
08-27-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't like the idea of residential rooftop installations because of the potential for roof repair problems 10-25 years down the road. Fortunately, I have options that most people don't have. I would probably build an equipment storage shed to support any solar panel installation I would put in since a few leaks would not be very harmful. A parking garage in Chico, CA has solar panels which provide shade for cars and that's a great idea, IMO. Most large installations are on the ground though some are on commercial buildings, etc.
I remember seeing a house in the desert that had an added canopy over the roof for shade from the sun. What if the panels were above the roof held by supports that are not even attached to the house at all. You get power and shade! I also have to think at some point the roofing tiles will become the actual solar panels using the new super thin flexible solar films.
Richard
08-27-2008, 03:57 PM
Mitchel, I have also been pricing solar. My roof tiles are under warranty, and the local roofing contractor would cheaply install a solar array and not modify the warranty. My electrician would hook up the rest for $100. However, when I look at the cost of what I consider quality solar arrays plus the cost of an inverter, etc. it keeps coming out to about $10,000 a kW. At that price, the warranty on the arrays would expire long before the system had paid for itself.
momoese
08-27-2008, 05:26 PM
Believe me I'm fully aware of how costly it is. We looked into it for our current house and about choked! I'm more thinking towards the future when the newer technologies and manufacturing methods will bring the cost down.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.