We don't have "a shitload more" to spend. We're already well over $17,5T in debt so we can't afford all the things we "need" to spend on as it is. We're already spending a shitload. http://www.american.com/archive/201...t-burning-up-taxpayer-money-land-and-wildlife Huge costs. The Ivanpah capital cost is $2.2 billion for 392 megawatts (MW) of gross generation capacity (potential power output per hour). (That 392 MW is a number not comparable to 392 MW of, say, gas-fired capacity, because of a sharply lower “capacity factor,” discussed below.) Accordingly, the nominal capital cost per kilowatt (kW, one one-thousandth of a MW) of capacity for Ivanpah is about $5600, a figure that ignores some costs that are important but hidden. In comparison, the Energy Information Administration publishes estimates of the capacity costs per kW for coal, combined-cycle natural gas, nuclear, and on-shore wind capacity: respectively about $2700, $885, $4800, and $2075. For solar thermal plants in general, the EIA estimate is about $4750. (Bear in mind that these figures are for capacity costs only; they exclude fuel, operations and maintenance, and other costs.) The per-kW capacity cost of Ivanpah is well over twice that of wind power, which cannot compete economically without the federal production tax credit, guaranteed market shares, and other subsidies.1 Lest you suspect that this unflattering comparison suffers from some sort of frontloading bias or the like, consider the EIA estimates of capacity costs per megawatt-hour (mWh) of power generation on a “levelized” basis (smoothed over the expected lives of the facilities): about $195 for solar thermal, $60 for conventional coal, $15 for natural gas, and $71 for nuclear. The EIA estimate for on-shore wind power is about $64, again an implausible figure. That the estimate for solar thermal facilities is three times that for wind is telling given that wind power is not competitive. http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2013/09/23/stop-subsidizing-solar-power/ Solar energy is one of the worst ways to reduce carbon emissions. McKinsey and Company’s analysis found that nuclear, wind and even coal with carbon capture are more effective. Bloomberg New Energy Finance found the same result, ranking solar panels 28th out of 33 carbon-reduction options. Then why is solar popular? Huge taxpayer subsidies hide the actual cost. Other renewables receive a subsidy of about one cent per kwh, solar energy receives about 96 cents per kwh. We pay solar’s cost in the form of taxes instead of as electric rates. A new study co-authored by William Nordhaus, a man Krugman calls a “mentor,” noted how ineffective subsides are, saying “very little if any GHG reductions are achieved at substantial cost.” Finally, as a recent study reveals, people desire solar panels because they convey “green” status. Solar panels increase home prices “in communities with more registered Prius” owners. Although solar panels yield tiny environmental benefits, some pay the price to look “green.” This misconception is not harmless. Billions are spent propping up wasteful solar energy instead of projects that effectively reduce carbon emissions.
I'm not playing that game of you bringing up one time something didn't work (there are a ton) and thinking that means it never does, or in general it doesnt. As an example, This research just came out showing that for every pound invested in cancer research in Britain it generates 40p in the years to come. This has been shown to be the case over and over. Invest in research (of just about any kind) and it pays off. It pays off financially and in this case it would help the environment.
You know cancer research. It's not energy research or even similar. http://data.instituteforenergyresearch.org/tax-subsidies/oil-gas-coal/
further, I'm not talking about one-time anything. The government has been spending massive amounts of money on research and tax incentives for at least a decade. Instead of it being one-time, it's accumulated over all the years. How about you come up with a figure for how much we should spend and on what. http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/2012/03/12/what-does-the-u-s-government-really-spend-on-energy/ Says we're spending $240B-$560B in public investment for energy already. I'm all ears. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure the reality is liberals say "let's invest" and the required amount is in the many $trillions and unrealistic.
If you would like people to accept what you say then you do need to say logical things. You use the word "invest" over and over with out saying whom should do the investing. Nobody invest in general themes, they invest in specific profit making ideas that create marketable products. Geez, I do hope you do not mean our government invests in anything. Barrack Obama has an abysmal record of investing. Our debit is now just about twice what it was when he began calling the shots. I only hope we can survive his remaining time. God help us if he begins to do more investing. BTW, are you rejecting the idea that more people, more energy usage, more emissions? If there were some things to invest in that could solve these issue, I should think the smart money would be all over it. But I think you want the not so smart money invested, maybe by Obama and his boys heh? Is this true?
While I don't associate with as many scientist as you, I run into the same thing you are saying . . . it seems undisputed among the scientist I have talked to (including my sister who is a geology professor at UC Santa Cruz). If anyone has an agenda . . . it's the posters in this thread, not the scientists you talk to. I was recently put to the test and got into a big debate with sis as I am buying a house on the coast She has warned me with all her heart to take into account the sea level is rising and beware! She even sent me link to sites showing predictions in 10, 20 and 30 yrs. Damn her. I decided against beach front and buying a house in the hills (still get my views)
I'd say the second to last episode of Cosmos pretty much laid this issue to rest. Only a fool would argue that man isn't increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to dangerous levels, thus heating the atmosphere and causing climate change. So I guess we know who the fools are.
Is she predicting Seaside will be submerged? By what year will this be completed? How high do you expect you need to be? I figure 200 feet will be safe from most Tsunamis.
I have the link at work . . . I'll post it tomorrow. I was looking at Rockaway (only place I can afford beachfront). Nedonna Beach area is where I was considering . . . until I looked at the damn site. Tsunami is different than the sea level rising. Tsunami is also concerning and pretty much takes Mansanita out of play. Now that I'm considering a home on a hill, it has opened up my search to a lot of different areas. I went to Neskowin and feel in love with the beach there. Not a huge Seaside fan (although big coast fan in general). Seaside is close to Ptd, but expensive area. I'm more into areas where you get good bang for your buck which keeps bringing me back to rockaway. Any suggestions? Needs to be within 2 hrs of Ptd . . .
Well the South Coast is my favorite, much better weather down here. But it is 4 1/5 or 5 hours from Portland. I don't know if the sea is going to rise, I hear that tale but one thing is for sure, every beach in Oregon is vulnerable to a Tsunami and that is why I chose to be up about 200 feet. Unlike all the predictions you may hear, it is not the Cascadia fault that worries me. it is the shallow plains all around the Pacific that can generate the Tsunami. The gulf of Alaska being the biggest threat. Chances are quite high that a Tsunami will clear the beaches of Oregon long before they return to the sea.
This lays out the problem with accepting the solutions put forth by the Progressives. http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...te_change.html See solution # 2 is where they want to go. and there are big problems with this solution. 1. Concessions to China and India??? WTF?? China is already emitting more GHG than the next three top emitters on the list. India is projected to be number two with in a few years. So if the US shoulders this burden, the best we could possible reduce would have little change to the total GHG but it would drastically change the lives of the US citizen. 2. Has anyone here actually read the Cap and Trade bill that was not enacted several years ago? Read it (I have) then tell me you want to sign up for this BS. In short the average US Citizen will be paying heavy taxes on many things under this bill. However the "Poor" will make out like a bandit. The taxes will be used to upgrade the inner cities with all new energy using devices, new refrigerators, heating the apartments, cooling the apartments, new energy efficient windows, all wonderful if you have nothing. Not so damn good if you are a normal working person on the paying end instead of receiving. 3. Part of the higher fees you will pay will go to other countries to compensate for using their air The US is not on the receiving end of this any where. 4.Obama would have us doing this while hoping China and India join in some day. Read the damn thing before you are sucked into this scam. This is another wealth distribution scheme , to collect money to distribute for energy used. Not to reduce energy use. Reducing energy use in a meaningful way, means less footprints much more than smaller footprints. This scheme just taxes the footprints more, even if their are smaller.
The science on man made global warming can only be inconclusive at best. However, you've pretty much affirmed what I wrote about pressure being put on scientists to toe the line. Further should need no more evidence than the behavior of the Believers in this thread.
FWIW: (An e-mail from someone who knows what they are talking about) Sea level has risen about 8 inches in the last 100 years, but projections are for a more rapid sea level rise in the future. Depending on how much fossil fuels we burn, the sea level predictions for the year 2100 (~85 years from now) range from about 1.3 - 2.3 feet. So, if you hold onto your property for 20 years, you might expect about .3 - .6 feet of sea level rise in that time. This is the GLOBAL sea level rise, and Oregon may be a bit different then global. In this report: http://slr.s3.amazonaws.com/factsheets/Oregon.pdf they say that you can expect about 1 foot of sea level rise on the coast of Oregon by 2050. And, they predict that if you think of the worse case scenario whereby you get a winter time storm surge during a high tide, then even with modest sea level rise, the water will reach the 1 foot mark by 2020. Here are maps (see the links below) that shows how much of the land in Lincoln City and in Rockaway Beach is under 1 foot of elevation, so this is the portion that will be essentially under sea level by 2050. This is not a perfect way of understanding how the sea will look with sea level rise since it doesn't take into account how the sand will move around, but generally, when sea level rises, then the storm surges are higher and more sand gets eroded away. http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...nter=13/44.9671/-123.9974&show=cities&surge=1 http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/...43819#center=14/45.6132/-123.9438&show=cities It looks like the beachfront property that you are looking at are all above the 1 foot mark, so they won't be flooded by sea level, but the sea level rise will eat away a lot of the beach, and the ocean will be sitting closer and closer to the front of the houses. So, I think that would mean that there's a danger of flooding these houses during storm surges. They say there's a 1 in 6 chance that by 2020 that sea level, plus high tide, plus storm surge, would reach the 1 foot mark. And, I guess the chances probably increase with time. It might be best to not get a house that is near present day sea level, or not get a house that is on a cliff where the storm surges will reach. I found the links interesting . . ..
