Again I can see his point, solar in it's current form will not be a long term solution to the worlds energy crisis. What I have a hard time understanding is that you think it's not going to improve. The world does not stand still. No offense, but I will definitely take the word of people actually knowledgeable about this subject and who are doing research at one of the best Chemical Engineering schools in the country over random articles from random researchers. I am pretty sure there are still articles supporting fuel cells as the future of the automotive industry as well. The problem with Hydrogen fuel cell based cars is not the explosion that would be a result of an accident, they have already solved that problem. The problem is that almost all hydrogen comes from fossil fuels and that when taking account for the amount of energy it takes to process the hydrogen, the fuel celled cars would have a larger carbon footprint than most small cars. Then you have the billions and billions of dollars it would take to build the infrastructure and delivery system that would make hydrogen readily available. It's pretty much a lose lose situation either way.
In 2005, solar panels were 10% efficient. With $billions more in research, they may become 15% efficient. The mathematical formula in play here is: Yearly average solar intensity for the US is 200 W/m**2, for Albuquerque is 240, for Hartford is 160. People doing research at the best ChemE schools in the world are doing so on massive govt. grants. They're not going to kill their golden goose. And they are in search of a holy grail! I don't mean to be argumentative, but you can make hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis using plain water and electricity. We have a water distribution system and electrical grid already in place, so that's not the issue. The issue is the first law of thermodynamics again - it costs more energy to make the electricity to use in that electrolysis than you get out of the fuel cell, forever. I'm not studying or doing research at one of these ChemE schools, but I have had plenty of advanced physics, chemistry, and calculus courses to get this stuff. In fact, the biggest lesson I learned in my physics classes is that anyone who passes freshman level physics at a state school is 100% qualified to operate a nuclear plant.
This whole debate over solar being a feasible alternative is false dilemma, no serious scientist or researcher has ever suggested that we should switch our economies over to 100% solar and nothing else. Solar can and should be part of a multi-pronged approach to reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The other end of the equation in energy is the efficiency side of the equation; right now most of our buildings are horribly inefficient when it comes to heating and cooling and there are most assuredly architectural and design choices that can help reduce energy consumption. The real way out of this mess is simultaneously developing multiple energy technologies (wind, geothermal, wave, passive solar, hydro-electric, etc.), and researching into ways of improving efficiencies in structures, appliances, lighting, and all of the other sundry ways we utilize and consume energy. Bottom line: I suspect we're eventually going to have to change our consumption habits regardless of improvements in energy technology and increased efficiencies built in to our infrastructure.
I disagree with most of this. Our best approach is to come up with a single blueprint for mass producing nuclear power plants. The blueprint assures cost reduction, safety inspections are easier, anyone trained to operate one can operate another, etc. Nuclear power is nearly limitless, not reliant on the sun or wind, and requires no batteries. The three issues I see with it are fuel source (how much uranium, etc., is there?), waste management (France has been solved this and been storing waste for decades), and getting over the absurd hysteria over accidents (they can be enormously safe, see the one they built on a fault line near San Diego!). The solution is not conservation - the more energy we can use, the better off the whole world will be. Consider we use 25% of the world's oil, but generate 33% of the world's GDP. The future is tied to plentiful and cheap energy! Using all this cheap energy, you can charge batteries to run cars (and homes and businesses and...). The best 100% electric cars get you a range of 200 miles per charge, and recharge is 4 hours. For the vast majority of people, this is sufficient to commute and run errands and that kind of thing. We're still going to need gasoline for a small % of the people who need more range, long distance travel, for construction vehicles, for trucks to take food from California to Chicago, and that kind of thing. A nuclear power plant the size of a city block can power much of a city. A solar farm 600 sq. miles does the same, and is an absurd undertaking. Why divert our focus from obvious and tested technology that is low hanging fruit?
Again you don't seem to understand that a successful large scale deployment of solar cells has already occurred in Germany and much of the "costs" that you are focusing on were more than offset by economic impact of the creation of whole new industry. Think of the impact that miniaturization had in high tech in the middle 1980's (probably won't be on that scale but you never know). Like any new technology that is trying to be taken mainstream, profits (if there are any) are hard to be found, however as the technology brings down the costs this should change in the next five years. The beauty of solar research is that there are a number of ways to attack the problem, many of which look to have fairly promising results and look to become marketable in near future. I may be wrong but producing hydrogen using electrolysis uses a large amount of energy and is not even close to being feasible for the mass production of the gas which defeats the whole purpose of lowering the carbon footprint.Also, Transporting Hydrogen is a very delicate task because of how it makes a lot of metals (especially steel) very brittle. So transporting through water pipes would not work unless you poured money in to provide some type of lining to protect the pipes. Little known fact is that Reed College has its own reactor.....now that that is a scary thought. Most modern reactors run themselves. Three mile island was a result of human error.
I am fully aware of the German experiment and it's not a real success. The heavy subsidies by the German govt. are already too much to bear. See article below. I beg to differ, but no approach to solar can make the sun shine more, shine at night, or violate the first law of thermodynamics. Electrolysis is 50% to 70% efficient, WAY better than solar cells The reason I talk about nuclear as the answer is that it is a nuclear reaction, not a chemical one. Due to the chain reaction, it produces orders of magnitude more energy than is put into the system. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis http://seekingalpha.com/article/79378-german-subsidy-fears-trigger-solar-downgrades
Though I am not huge supporter of nuclear power I definitely think it is the lesser of two evils when compared to fossil fuels. I would not have a problem with implementing a more comprehensive nuclear power policy From your last line, it would seem that you think that we should stop all research in alternative energy sources. Without conservation we are putting ourselves in a very precarious position environmentally. I know from reading your other posts that you don't believe in Global Warming, but this is how I look at it Exponential Increase of carbon emissions from Industry + plus the increase from consumer usage + dramatic decrease in photosynthesis due to deforestation and decrease of blue green algae = massive C02 cycle imbalance and more C02 = more heat being retained in our atmosphere. Anyway I agree about electric cars being a part of the solution. Honestly I think an big jump in battery efficiency will make as big of an impact as any of these other technologies as it would impact every aspect of our life. On that note, I am calling it quits and would need a beer in hand to continue this debate.
Nuclear power is obviously the best option for the future. It is self-sustaining and self-reliant. Yet it has become demonized by those who also demonize "Big Oil". Why?
Get a beer! I DO believe in global warming. It's obvious the Earth was much colder during the ice age than it is now. The Earth has been warming since then. The glaciers that covered much of north america and europe have melted! The ice is still melting. The Occam's Razor explanation is simply that ice reflects heat from sunlight and water absorbs it. As the glaciers have receded, the Earth has to get warmer. And it's a geometric progression. Another explanation would be that ozone hole (the chemistry behind that cannot be disputed) that allows more UV at the polls to melt the ice (duh?). The question of whether man is adding to this in any significant way is debatable at best, though pollution in general is not a good thing and there's no reason to seek cleaner ways to do things. I agree with you about deforestation. Satellite photos of the Amazon rain forest before and after massive deforestation is mindboggling. If less trees converting CO2 to O2 raises the CO2 level in the ecosystem, then I suppose that might be a man-made thing. I would also suggest that if we're going to spend $1.2T on improving our energy sources as T.Boone Pickens suggests, that money should go exclusively into battery research.
Huh. I ask you to identify specific mainstream science magazines that support your proposition, and this is what you came up with? You site a book available on Amazon that's one step away from being published on a vanity press. The publisher only has 12 books in its entire catalog. This book has a sales rank on Amazon of 1,500,000th most popular. I've actually written a novel that's on Amazon myself, and it's ranked 1,700,000th most popular, and it hasn't sold a copy in 16 months. (Turns out I'm a crappy novelist. But that's besides the point.) So basically you are citing a book produced by a nobody publisher that isn't selling to anybody. Wow. Now your second source is coming from a site with this in its "About" page: So basically it's a libertarian advocacy site. Which is fine. But not exactly a science journal. Man, you seem to have cornered the market on bad sources. How's that Zogby poll working for you, by the way?
I see. Sales figures determine the quality of the science! No wonder it's important for Gore to win an Oscar and a Nobel - it makes his silly powerpoint based upon shoddy science into good science. Thanks!
I was thinking about what I wrote here and it wasn't terribly classy. Had a few beers before posting. Sorry about this.
Of course, by apologizing, I get to make the snide comment yet still come off as a cool guy. Hmmm. That's not terribly cool. I feel even worse now. I recommend everybody say something real smart ass in this thread to somebody else and then apologize. If only to make me feel less guilty. Fucking Zima. There's been four Zimas sitting in the back of my fridge for about 3 months. So I said fuck it and finally drank the wretched stuff, for want of better alcohol. And now here I am being conflicted asshole/introspective/environmentalist/drunk dude. Fucking Zima.
Hey, man, you're libertarian. You of all people should know that real science is proven in the free market. Seriously, though, I've never seen Gore's powerpoint, but I'd guess it's been it's seen more scientific peer reviews than either of the guys you cited above. In fact, I'd bet more scientists have seen his movie, just here in Boise, than scientists have seen both of the sources you listed combined. On opening weekend.
Denny that part I bolded is way off. I`m not arguing about the effectiveness of solar panels. Because the efficiency of electrolysis is not creating energy like solar panels do. It ìs merely converting energy from electrical energy into the potential energy that Hydrogen holds. Whenever you perform electrolysis you are losing net energy. However a fully operational solar panel is producing energy. So in pure production terms, a solar panel has to be considered more efficient in terms of energy production than electrolysis. However if you were talking about purely the automotive industry (which solar is terrible at), and were talking Nuclear in conjunction with Electrolysis (hydrogen fueled vehicles). Then it makes sense.
Uh, you don't quite understand the first law in this application. I'm not a solar fan, but your argument above for why it isn't a strong option is far off base. If you are proposing building solar panels, and then burning them to take out the energy, then yes, you are fighting the first law. You won't get as much energy out as you put in. I don't think anybody is proposing building devices in order to pull the energy out by burning them or letting them decompose. Solar panels are not producing energy, they are CONVERTING energy to a usable form.
One of the reasons I like posting here is that many of the posters talked about the classes they had in critical thinking, and yet when it comes to this man made global warming hysteria, it sure looks to me like insufficient science to come to the conclusion that man has much to do with it. Without critical thinking and skepticism, science isn't science but a belief system akin to religion. I doubt either one of us wants science to be that. Science isn't a democracy, either. It's completely irrelevant if some majority of scientists believe something if the scientific truth is something else altogether. Again, I doubt either one of us wants science to be that as well. History is full of stories of scientists who found the scientific truth, or the best explanation of something, who were rejected by peer review. A recent example is the discovery that the first Americans were here thousands of years earlier than the consensus of scientists believed, and even though the geologic and carbon dating evidence clearly showed the consensus to be wrong, the scientists presenting the truth were assailed and ridiculed by their peers. There is a terribly corrupting force in science when massive government grants are involved. When you have many scientists living off those grants and the power they achieve and access to expensive toys, there's an understandable resistance to finding a truth that made years of this kind of investment bogus. The real danger in Gore's kind of science (he's not a scientist, but a celebrity and fairly stupid in general) is in popularizing it and particularly his claims that anyone who has an opposing view should be stifled. I don't claim to know if global warming is man made. I see a lot of "evidence" that it is, but I am dubious of a lot of it. Climate models that can't predict the past given really accurate data are being used to predict the future. The evidence is actually disparate and not necessarily related in any way, let alone the ways that some scientists demand. All this is neither here nor there when it comes to whether solar energy is truly viable. It's been only viable with massive government subsidies, and the actual science isn't that hard to figure out why it isn't viable otherwise. Massive government subsidies make all kinds of unviable things viable - like sending a man to the moon. In case you do think consensus is what makes something scientific truth: Ignoring celebrities, here is a list of scientists who have, at some point or another, shown scepticism towards the climate change orthodox. The biggest name on this list is probably Reid Bryson who has been dubbed by many as the "Father of Scientific Climatology". I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of each individual on the list. A. Alan Moghissi, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Technical University of Karlsruhe, Germany Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, Professor of Geophysical Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Albrecht Glatzle, Ph.D. Agricultural Biology, University of Hohenheim, Germany Alfred (Al) H. Pekarek, Ph.D. Geology, Associate Professor of Geology, St. Cloud State University, USA Allan M.R. MacRae, B.Sc., M.Eng., P.Eng, Canada Andreas Prokoph, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University Tubingen, Germany Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Purdue University, USA Antonino Zichichi, Professor Emeritus of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, USA Arthur Rorsch, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands Ben Herman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona, USA Bjarne Andresen, Ph. D. Theoretical Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Bob Durrenberger, Retired Climatologist, Former President of the American Association of State Climatologists, USA Boris Winterhalter, Ph.D. Geology, Helsinki University, Finland Brian Pratt, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Bruce N. Ames, Ph.D. BioChemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA Bruno Wiskel, B.Sc. Geology, University of Albert, Canada Bryan Leyland, M.Sc. Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, New Zealand Carl Johan Friedrich (Frits) Böttcher, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Chemistry, University of Leiden, The Netherlands Charles Gelman, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Public Health, University of Michigan, USA Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, USA Chris de Freitas, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, New Zealand Christiaan Frans van Sumere, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, University of Gent, Belgium Christoph C. Borel, Ph.D. Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts, USA Christopher Essex, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada Christopher Landsea, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, USA Claude Allegre, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France Cliff Ollier, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geology, University of Western Australia, Australia Clinton H. Sheehan, Ph.D. Physics, University of Western Ontario, Canada Craig D. Idso, M.S. Agronomy, Ph.D. Geography, Arizona State University, USA Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. Wildlife Biology Consultant, Specializing in Animal Ecology in Arctic and Subarctic Regions, Canada Daniel B. Botkin, Ph.D. Biology, Rutgers University, USA David Deming, B.S. Geology, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Utah, USA David E. Wojick, B.S. Civil Engineering, Ph.D. Mathematical Logic, University of Pittsburgh, USA David Evans, B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Statistics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford, USA David G. Aubrey, B.S. Geological Sciences, Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA David H. Douglass, Ph.D. Physics, MIT, USA David J. Bellamy, B.Sc. Botany, Ph.D. Ecology, Durham University, UK David Kear, Ph.D. Geology, New Zealand David L. Hill, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA David Nowell, M.Sc. Meteorology, Royal Meteorological Society, Canada David R. Legates, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA Dennis P. Lettenmaier, Ph.D. Professor of Hydrology, University of Washington, USA Dick Thoenes, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands Don J. Easterbrook, Ph.D. Geology, University of Washington, USA Donald G. Baker, Ph.D. Soils, Geology, University of Minnesota, USA Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist, Retired, Raytheon, USA Duncan Wingham, Ph.D. Physics, University of Bath, UK Eckhard Grimmel, Ph.D. Geography, University of Hamburg, Germany Edward Wegman, Ph.D. Mathematical Statistics, University of Iowa, USA Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Elliot Abrams, M.S. Meteorology, Penn State, USA Eric S. Posmentier, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences, Dartmouth, USA Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany Fred Goldberg, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden Fred Michel, B.Sc. Geological Sciences, M.Sc., Ph.D. Earth Sciences, University of Waterloo, Canada Fred W. Decker, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, USA Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, Princeton University, USA G. Cornelis van Kooten, B.Sc. Geophysics, Ph.D. Agricultural & Resource Economics, Oregon State University, USA Gabriel T. Csanady, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, University of New South Wales, Australia Garth Paltridge, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia Gary D. Sharp, Ph.D. Marine Biology, University of California, USA Gary Novak, M.S. Microbiology, USA Geoff L. Austin, Ph.D. Professor of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand George E. McVehil, B.A. Physics, M.S. Ph.D. Meteorology, AMS Certified Consulting Meteorologist, USA George H. Taylor, M.S. Meteorology, University of Utah, USA George Kukla, Micropalentologist, Special Research Scientist of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, USA George V. Chilingarian, Ph.D. Geology, University of Southern California, USA George Wilhelm Stroke, Ph.D. Physics, University of Paris, France Gerd-Rainer Weber, Ph.D. Consulting Meteorologist, Germany Gerhard Gerlich, Ph.D. Physics, Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD Geology, New Zealand Gordon E. Swaters, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics and Physical Oceanography, University of British Columbia, Canada Gordon J. Fulks, Ph.D. Physics, University of Chicago, USA Graham Smith, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Western Ontario, Canada H. Grant (H.G.) Goodell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA H. Michael (Mike) Mogil, M.S. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA Hans Erren, B.Sc. Geology and Physics, M.Sc. Geophysics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Hans Jelbring, Ph.D. Climatology, Stockholm University, Sweden Harry N.A. Priem, Professor Emeritus of Isotope and Planetary Geology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands Hartwig Volz, Geophysicist, RWE Research Lab, Germany Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, The Netherlands Henrik Svensmark, Solar System Physics, Danish National Space Center, Denmark Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, Illinois Institute of Technology, USA Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA Hugh W. Ellsaesser, Ph.D. Meteorology, Formerly with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, USA Ian D. Clark, Ph.D. Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada Ian R. Plimer, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, University of Adelaide, Australia Indur M. Goklany, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, India J. Scott Armstrong, B.A. Applied Science, B.S. Industrial Engineering, Ph.D. MIT, USA Jack Barrett, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Manchester, UK James J. O’Brien, Ph.D. Meteorology, Texas A&M University, USA James R. Stalker, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, USA Ján Veizer, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. Groundwater Hydrology, University of Arizona, USA Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. Biology, University of Queensland, Australia Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Organic Chemistry, MIT, USA Joel Schwartz, B.S. Chemistry, M.S. Planetary Science, California Institute of Technology, USA John Brignell, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Electronics & Computer Science, University of Southampton, UK John E. Gaynor, M.S. Meteorology, UCLA, USA John E. Oliphant, B.A. Mathematics and Physics, M.S. Meteorology Penn State, USA John K. Sutherland, Ph.D. Geology, University of Manchester, UK John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, USA Joseph Conklin, M.S. Meteorology, Rutgers University, USA Joseph D’Aleo, M.S. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA Joseph (Joe) P. Sobel, Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA Keith D. Hage, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta, Canada Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany, Arizona State University, USA Kelvin Kemm, Ph.D. Nuclear Physics, Natal University, South Africa Kenneth E.F. Watt, Ph.D. Zoology, University of Chicago, USA Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, University of Leningrad, Russia Klaus Wyrtki, Ph.D. Oceanography, Physics, Mathematics, University of Kiel, Germany Lance Endersbee, Professor Emeritus of Engineering, Monash University, Australia Lee C. Gerhard, Ph.D. Geology, University of Kansas, USA Lee Raymond, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Minnesota, USA Louis Hissink, M.Sc. Geology, Macquarie University, Australia Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physics, Rutgers, USA Madhav Khandekar, B.Sc. Mathematics and Physics, M.Sc. Statistics, Ph.D. Martin Livermore, B.S. Chemistry, University of Oxford, UK Meteorology, Florida State University, USA Manik Talwani, Ph.D. Physics, Columbia University, USA Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France Mel Goldstein, Ph.D. Meteorology, NYU, USA Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard, USA Michael D. Griffin, B.S. Physics, M.S. Applied Physics, Ph.D. Aerospace Engineering, University of Maryland, USA Michael E Adams, Ph.D. Meteorology, Lyndon State College, USA Michael Savage, B.S. Biology, M.S. Anthropology, M.S. Ethnobotany, Ph.D. Nutritional Ethnomedicine, USA Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, University of Washington, USA Michel Salomon, M.D. University of Paris, Director, International Centre for Scientific Ecology, France Noah E. Robinson, Ph.D. Chemistry, California Institute of Technology, USA Neil Frank, Ph.D. Meteorology, Florida State University, USA Nils-Axel Mörner, Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden Nir J. Shaviv, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel Norman Brown, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Ulster, UK Ola M. Johannessen, Professor, Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center, Norway Olavi Kärner, Ph.D. Atmospheric Physics, Leningrad Hydrometeorological Institute, Estonia Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Ph.D. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, USA Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. Agronomist, Canada Paul Copper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada Paul Driessen, B.A. Geology and Field Ecology, Lawrence University, USA Paul Reiter, Professor of Medical Entomology, Pasteur Institute, France Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology, University of British Columbia, Canada Peter Stilbs, Ph.D. (TeknD) Physical Chemistry, Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden Petr Chylek, Ph.D. Physics, University of California, USA Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography, University of London, UK Piers Corbyn, B.Sc. Physics, M.Sc. Astrophysics, Queen Mary College, UK R.G. Roper, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA R. Timothy (Tim) Patterson, B.Sc. Biology, Ph.D. Professor of Geology, Carleton University, Canada R. W. Gauldie, Ph.D. Research Professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawaii, USA Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Ph.D. Physics, University of Hamburg, Germany Randall Cerveny, Ph.D. Geography, University of Nebraska, USA Reid A. Bryson, B.A. Geology, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA Richard C. Willson, Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, USA Richard S. Courtney, Ph.D. Geography, The Ohio State University, USA Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT, USA Rob Scagel, M.Sc., Forest Microclimate Specialist, Canada Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, USA Robert C. Whitten, Physicist, Retired Research Scientist, NASA, USA Robert E. Davis, Ph.D. Climatology, University of Delaware, USA Robert G. Williscroft, B.Sc. Marine & Atmospheric Physics, M.Sc., Ph.D. Engineering, California Coast University, USA Robert Giegengack, Ph.D. Geology, Yale, USA Robert H. Essenhigh, M.S. Natural Sciences, Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, University of Sheffield, UK Robert L. Kovach, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University, USA Robert (Bob) M. Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia Robin Vaughan, Ph.D. Physics, Nottingham University, UK Roger A. Pielke (Sr.), Ph.D. Meteorology, Penn State, USA Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, University of Wisconsin, USA S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University, USA Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Harvard, USA Sherwood B. Idso, Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota, USA Simon C. Brassell, B.Sc. Chemistry & Geology, Ph.D. Organic Geochemistry, University of Bristol, UK Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Ph.D. Department of Geography, University of Hull, UK Steve Milloy, B.A. Natural Sciences, M.S. Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, USA Stephen McIntyre, B.Sc. Mathematics, University of Toronto, Canada Stewart W. Franks, Ph.D. Environmental Science, Lancaster University, U.K. Sylvan H. Wittwer, Ph.D. Horticulture, University of Missouri, USA Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Ph.D. Geophysics, University of Alaska, USA Tad S. Murty, Ph.D. Oceanography and Meteorology, University of Chicago, USA Thomas Schmidlin, Ph.D. Professor of Geography, Kent State University, USA Timothy (Tim) F. Ball, Ph.D. Geography - Historical Climatology, University of London, UK Tom Harris, B. Eng. M. Eng. Mechanical Engineering (thermo-fluids), Canada Tom V. Segalstad, B.S. Geology, University of Oslo, Norway Ulrich Berner, Geologist, Federal Institute for Geosciences, Germany Vern Harnapp, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Geography, University of Akron, USA Vincent Gray, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Cambridge University, UK Vitaliy Rusov, Ph.D. Physics and Mathematics, Professor of Physics, Odessa Polytechnic University, Ukraine W. Dennis Clark, Ph.D. Botany, Sacramento State College, USA Walter Starck, Ph.D. Marine Science, University of Miami, USA Warwick Hughes, B.S. Geology, Auckland University, Australia Wm. Robert Johnston, B.A. Astronomy, M.S. Physics, University of Texas, USA Wibjorn Karlen, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Willem de Lange, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer, Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Waikato University, New Zealand William B. Hubbard, Ph.D. Professor of Planetary Atmospheres, University of Arizona, USA William (Bill) Bauman, B.S., Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, North Carolina State University, USA William Cotton, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, USA William E. Reifsnyder, B.S. Meteorology, M.S., Ph.D. Forestry, Yale, USA William J.R. Alexander, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa William M. Briggs, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Statistics, Cornell University, USA William (Bill) M. Gray, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, USA Willie Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, USA Wolfgang Thüne, Ph.D. Geography, University of Wuerzburg, Germany Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D. Ph.D. D.Sc., Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Poland
I'm not proposing building solar panels and then burning them. But to make a solar panel, you are burning something somewhere in the manufacturing process. The panels cannot ever produce more energy than is put into making them. That is not even accounting for the batteries which need to be manufactured and replaced every few years (burning something somewhere). If these things were viable, all you'd have to do is make one and use all the energy it produces to make another, then use the energy they produce to make 2 more, etc. It's not at all working that way. In fact, the more solar panels are put up, the less a % of energy produced is from solar. See attached graph.
Weiner was a respected scientist and author until he decided to change his name to Savage and rant on the radio.