How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

solarix · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

This discussion is a great example of my signature line:
"Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith
If the polluting industries would be responsible (along with us customers) then our overly socialist leaders wouldn't have to be controlling and "power grabbing". Freedom and responsibility go together. If we wait till everyone is convinced about smoking, big macs, fiat money and CO2, then it will no doubt be too late to avoid the consequences.

South Africa · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Why can we not simply live within our resource means with respect to nature and all natural resources instead of using them all the time?

Stupid me, that cannot work for there are no profit in that for XXXX! :-) (fill in the XXXX's the name you please for there are many)

verdigo · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Then there is the story of Chicken Little and The Boy Who Cried Wolf

solarix · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

One common misconception of climate change is that it will be only in one direction. Even though the average temperature is rising (putting more energy into the weather), it will cause weather events to be more extreme in both directions, with droughts, tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as blizzards and slowing of the gulf stream. Of course, until something unprecidented happens like New Orleans flooding, you won't be convinced.

verdigo · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

solarix wrote: »

One common misconception of climate change is that it will be only in one direction. Even though the average temperature is rising (putting more energy into the weather), it will cause weather events to be more extreme in both directions, with droughts, tornadoes and hurricanes, as well as blizzards and slowing of the gulf stream. Of course, until something unprecidented happens like New Orleans flooding, you won't be convinced.

New Orleans is built below sea level. The effects of Katrina were not unprecedented. A quick Googling shows that New Orleans has had significant flooding due to hurricanes 38 times. The average global temperature has not risen in the last 15 years. Before the last "Little Ice Age" that started in the middle ages there were vineyards in England, and they produced their own wine. Greenland was really green. Oh and check out this ancient map of Antarctica with no ice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map .

Cariboocoot · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

I suppose I could give a lecture here on Earth's "weather engine" just to give people an idea of why it's difficult to predict these things. Maybe even toss in a few words on the physics behind climate change. But I'm not going to bother because some people already understand and others don't want to know.

BB. · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

New Orleans is built on a river delta... Soil compaction. Ground water pumping. Pumping oil. Lack of sediment rebuilding land levels (flood control, water diversion projects). All of those serve to reduce ground height relative sea level.

Geophysical Research Abstracts
Vol. 16, EGU2014-14606, 2014
EGU General Assembly 2014
© Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.
Sinking coastal cities
Gilles Erkens (1,2), Tom Bucx (1), Rien Dam (1), Ger De Lange (1), and John Lambert (1)
(1) Deltares Research Institute, Utrecht, The Netherlands, (2) Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Physical Geography,
Utrecht, The Netherlands (g.erkens@geo.uu.nl)
In many coastal and delta cities land subsidence now exceeds absolute sea level rise up to a factor of ten. Without
action, parts of Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok and numerous other coastal cities will sink below sea level. Land subsidence increases flood vulnerability (frequency, inundation depth and duration of floods), with floods causing major economic damage and loss of lives. In addition, differential land movement causes significant economic losses in the form of structural damage and high maintenance costs. This effects roads and transportation networks, hydraulic infrastructure – such as river embankments, sluice gates, flood barriers and pumping stations, sewage systems, buildings and foundations. The total damage worldwide is estimated at billions of dollars annually.

Excessive groundwater extraction after rapid urbanization and population growth is the main cause of severe land
subsidence. In addition, coastal cities are often faced with larger natural subsidence, as they are built on thick
sequences of soft soil.
Because of ongoing urbanization and population growth in delta areas, in particular in coastal megacities, there is,
and will be, more economic development in subsidence-prone areas. The impacts of subsidence are further exacer-
bated by extreme weather events (short term) and rising sea levels (long term).Consequently, detrimental impacts

will increase in the near future, making it necessary to address subsidence related problems now.
Subsidence is an issue that involves many policy fields, complex technical aspects and governance embedment.
There is a need for an integrated approach in order to manage subsidence and to develop appropriate strategies
and measures that are effective and efficient on both the short and long term. Urban (ground)water management,
adaptive flood risk management and related spatial planning strategies are just examples of the options available.
A major rethink is needed to deal with the ‘hidden’ but urgent threat of subsidence.
As subsidence is spatially different and can be caused by multi processes, an assessment of subsidence in delta
cities needs to answer questions such as: what are the main causes, how much is the current subsidence rate and
what are future scenarios (and interaction with other major environmental issues), where are the vulnerable areas,
what are the impacts and risks, how can adverse impacts can be mitigated or compensated for, and who is involved
and responsible to act?
In this study a quick-assessment of subsidence is performed on the following mega-cities: Jakarta, Ho Chi Minh
City, Dhaka, New Orleans and Bangkok. Results of these case studies will be presented and compared, and a
(generic) approach how to deal with subsidence in current and future subsidence-prone areas is provided.

Measuring ocean level is not easy... Between wave height and tides that range in feet or more vs millimeter per year values, and that the earths crust is elastic (since the last ice age, ice has moved, as water, to the oceans--In many areas, land elevation is rising relative to sea bed).

Even in "recent" history (in geological terms), we have seen massive sea level changes. In the last 20,000 years:

http://geosci.sfsu.edu/courses/geol103/labs/estuaries/partii.html

San Francisco Bay's History Like most estuaries, San Francisco Bay is a very young feature, geologically speaking. Twenty thousand years ago there was no bay. At that time the world was in the grip of the last ice age, and much of the planet's water was frozen into glaciers that covered a large part of the northern continents. With less water to fill the oceans, sea level was nearly 150 meters (over 400 feet) lower and the Pacific coastline was 30 km (20 miles) west of where it lies today. Imagine having to travel all the way to the Farallon Islands to go walking on the beach or surfing in the ocean! The Bay itself was dry land, with rivers running through the low-land areas on their route to the sea.

As the glaciers melted over centuries, the ocean waters rose and the shoreline crept back eastward, toward land. By 10,000 years ago the ocean had spread inland through a gap in the outer Coast Ranges that we know today as the Golden Gate (Figure 1), and seawater began to fill the Bay. For thousands of years, sea level rose rapidly at nearly 2.5 cm (one inch) per year, advancing the shoreline progressively inland. Several thousand years ago, the rate of rise slowed and sediments began to accumulate in the shallows faster than the sea could cover them. These sediments supported the expansion of tidal mudflats and marshes along the Bay's shores, whose vast extent was recorded in the last century, before modern civilization began to reshape the Estuary. We will look at the effects of human modifications on the Estuary in subsequent parts of this exercise.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

Global warming could affect storm formation by decreasing the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. That temperature difference fuels the mid-latitude storms affect the Earth’s most populated regions. Warmer temperatures could increase the amount of water vapor that enters the atmosphere. The result is a hotter, more humid environment. At the equator, where conditions are already hot and humid, the change isn’t expected to be large. At the poles, however, the air is cold and dry; a little extra heat and water vapor could raise temperatures greatly. As a result, global warming may cause the temperature difference between the poles and the equator to decrease. and as the difference decreases, so should the number of storms, says George Tselioudis, a research scientist at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University.

The forecasts of what changes in CO2, sun's output, orbital mechanics, changes in cosmic ray levels, land mass reconfigurations, etc... will be and how they will affect our "climate" are dicey at best.

Of course, there is always a chance that some "crack pot" organization will sometimes be more accurate than Weather/Climate Scientists... But when it happens, it shows that either the scientists do not understand what is happening and/or politics have damaged the scientific method (some politicians are more likely to fund research that confirms their world view vs the Farmer's Almanac which needed to be accurate to help farmers plan their crops for the upcoming year(s)):

Farmers' Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

Bad Science: It turns out that a 200-year-old publication for farmers beats climate-change scientists in predicting this year's harsh winter as the lowly caterpillar beats supercomputers that can't even predict the past.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S. The Farmers' Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.

The Maine-based Farmers' Almanac's still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.

But we have lots of history of how the earth has changed (some records better than others), and we know that a 1-2 degree C change over 100 years is almost nothing. Ask our Canadian friends the differences between winter and summer temperatures.

In my area (SF penisula) we see a 10C swing in average temperatures (summer/winter) every year. And we have recorded high/low range of 34C and we are still here (over ~100(?) years of recorded temperatures).

There are real problems that need to be addresses (land drop in New Orleans), pollution (chemicals, soot, air/water/land) that we need to address.

A "rich country" can afford to clean up the environment. In my lifetime, there has been huge improvements in the reduction of "real" pollution and increase in food supplies, etc... Pretty much "cheap energy" has funded this for us.

Poor countries cannot afford the higher (and sometimes less efficient) methods to reduce their pollution.

-Bill

PS: I have moved the thread--RSS feeds are deleted after a few weeks/months. -Bill

South Africa · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

I said years ago on a another site, where the same discussion took place, that the day the insurers start to react, you can take it as granted, we have a problem brewing. See, a insurer is there to make a profit, and if a cities coastline is destroyed, they all take a knock.

Seeing what happened in New Orleans, the tornado's in the U of SA a while back and the storm surges in England / New York, serious hail storms in Johannesburg 2 years in a row, the insurers locally and internationally have started to react. As a matter of fact, the system we develop for the local insurance industry, has a new question:

Is your property less than 100m from a river, ocean?

If it is the rate is higher and in some cases, at the insurers discretion, you cannot purchase cover for the risk.

Why now after 100+ years of providing cover do they now change? :-)
Some insurers have even created new departments to study the scientists reports.

So the actual cause of it all could be argued till death do us part, the fact is, New Orleans / New York / Manhattan has had a taste of storm surges.

I think we need to face the fact that if you are close to a river or a ocean, that you may want to contemplate the effect it may have on you and your families safety for that a problem is brewing ... the insurers have started to ever so subtly, react.

Insurers financial losses talks loader than any scientist, for or against, global warming.

Cariboocoot · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Sometimes people focus on the wrong problem too.
The Vancouver area is all psyched up about Earthquake preparation. Any time one happens anywhere in the world the alarmists start shouting "We're next!" and insisting the government "do something" (i.e. spend money). So the schools are receiving seismic upgrades. This despite the fact there has never been a noticeable (really) quake in the area in recorded history (unlike LA or Japan for example).

Meanwhile the floods come about every year (because the land is low) but no one thinks about investing any money into reducing the damage that causes. They've become inured to the repetitious destruction and accept it as 'normal'.

If you build in a flood plain, expect damp. If you build in an Earthquake zone, expect shakes. If you build in a desert, expect heat. If you build on a mountain top, expect strange visitors asking you what the secret of the universe is.

BB. · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Things change--People will have to adjust to the changes.

There is no way to prevent the large scale changes to our coast line, etc.

20,000 years and 150 meters of sea level change. There will be know way to protect against changes on a 10-20,000 year cycle.

humans have been around as organized societies for >5,000 years.

Just look at coastal erosion over the past few decades. The city I lived the first three decades of my life in:

http://www.mercurynews.com/pacifica/ci_22037282/different-ideas-controlling-erosion-pacificas-coast-floated-at

Terms such as "managed retreat" and "beach nourishment" became talking points last Wednesday at a workshop attended by Pacificans and residents of neighboring communities who came out to express their opinions about how to manage erosion problems on the coast.A study organized by the Estuary Partnership in conjunction with the Association of Bay Area Governments is being done to see how coastal erosion can be controlled. Pacifica is part of the so-called San Francisco Littoral Cell study, which focuses on the stretch of coast from here all the way up to San Francisco.
The idea is to plan for sediment management over the next 50 years, taking into account current conditions as well as projected sea level rise and extraordinary events such as a 100-year storm.
Bob Battalio, principal engineer on the study, examined Pacifica's problem spots, including the seawall at Sharp Park that abuts the golf course. He explained how, in years past, that section of Sharp Park beach was wider before the seawall was constructed.
"Are we going to armor our shores and lose beaches?" he asked, showing a cartoon drawing of a sad child forced to walk on rocks instead of sand.

There used to be a train that ran from San Francisco, south down the coast side (including along the cliff faces south of Pacifica) at the beginning of the 1900's... They could not keep it running for more that a few decades (due to erosion, earthquakes, etc.).

http://www.cityofpacifica.org/about/history/ocean_shore.asp

The state of California ran Highway 1 up along the coast and followed some of the original track bed--They finally gave up and built a new tunnel (opened in the last year) as it was too costly to keep the road stable/safe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil%27s_Slide_%28California%29

Has nothing to do with CAGW--Just has to do with change.

For many years, flood insurance was subsidized by the US Federal Government--Including only paying out if the beach homes were rebuilt on the same property.

And, as you say, that is changing. The federal government is running out of money, and private insurance would never offer the high coverage with low rates. Over the last year, there have been huge increases in flood insurance and lots of cities redoing their flood control to ameliorate these problems.

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/articles/lnews/2014-04-22/flood-insurance-woes-san-mateo-residents-in-fema-flood-zone-still-contending-with-escalating-rates/1776425121922.html

When the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued its new Flood Insurance Rate Map, she and thousands of homeowners in the northwest corner of San Mateo and next to the San Francisco Bay were identified as susceptible to a 100-year flood. The 100-year flood is a FEMA standard for areas where there is a 1 percent chance of a major flood every year. No one can recall any major flooding in the area and the designation more than a decade ago shocked the city and those in the new flood zone. Getting nearly 10,000 residences off the flood map has cost millions through expensive public works projects. Now the city is setting its sights on the last affected area — North Shoreview and portions of North Central San Mateo. In the meantime, Newton and other homeowners with federally backed mortgages contend with costly flood insurance rates that can range from a few hundred to thousands of dollars a year.
“We were all pretty much in shock,” Newton said. “I don’t understand why they’re focusing on floods only when every area in this country is subject to some kind of natural disaster. And I think we, in our area, are probably prone to more earthquakes than floods. I don’t know why every homeowner in the country doesn’t have to pay something for tornadoes, hurricanes, floods; there’s just so many disasters that do, and can happen.”
She bought insurance prior to the map’s release and was grandfathered in at about $300 a year. But her rates have increased over the years; she paid $1,200 last year and expects it to increase again, Newton said.

For those who bought their homes in recent years, many were unexpectedly hit with estimates nearing $10,000 per year.
Her story is one of many in the area who are considered at risk and required to carry flood protection and reduce the burden of claims paid through the agency’s National Flood Insurance Program, according to FEMA officials.
...
It is a lengthy and costly process that will involve city infrastructure improvements at two pump stations and along the Coyote Point Bayfront levees, estimated to cost $22.35 million in 2009 and 2010, said Susanna Chan, deputy director of the San Mateo Public Works Department.
...Anna Solorzano lives on the 800 block of North Idaho Street in the North Central neighborhood. While closing escrow in 2012, Solorzano said she learned her future included rising flood insurance payments. Her shock didn’t end there, this year she paid $1,000 for an elevation certificate and the news it brought was infuriating — her property was in the flood zone by mere inches, Solorzano said.

“I questioned it over and over again … but I was at the mercy really of FEMA and I still am. It’s whatever they designate, it’s whatever they determine,” Solorzano said. “It’s been nerve-racking because you don’t know what you’re dealing with and as you start to go through these layers and still keep hitting walls, you come to the conclusion it’s a bigger monster; it’s out of your control.”

FEMA rates inevitably increase. Although her first annual payment was $2,500, she shopped around in 2013 and found a cheaper $1,800 annual plan. But this year’s annual quotes jumped to $4,600 to $7,200 to $9,600 before her lender found a $2,800 plan, Solorzano said.

...“Our (insurance) bill was unbelievable. We were speaking to multiple insurance agencies and quotes were coming in for total coverage, which was around $10,000 a year. Isn’t that crazy? It was far beyond anything we anticipated when we bought this (house) and there was no disclosure at all,” Dave Jordan said. “Had we known that ... initial challenge would have been something we’d have to face, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have purchased this house.”
This year, they paid $2,300 for the cottage and $4,500 for the main house. The latter amount would have been $1,000 higher but the provider made a mistake and decided to give them the lower rate, Dana Jordan said....

I applaud when risk/rewards are actually respected--Instead of subsidizing, what turns out to be, risky behavior funded/regulated by the government (or even corporations, etc.).

-Bill

westbranch · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

BB. wrote: »

Things change--People will have to adjust to the changes.

-Bill

How true, I remember being told in grade school when we studied 'geography' that there were some 'natural miracles' such as the annual flooding of the Nile river (until they built the Aswan dam) that rejuvenated the fertility of the farmlands of the Nile basin...

Seems we are back to the problems caused by finding a solution to a problem man created by solving a different problem>>>> ad nauseum... like our current, incessant demand for more power ( electrical, fossil fuel, Nuclear, etc).

South Africa · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Seems that with Co2, plants do grow better, but there may be a side effect: http://www.simplygreen.co.za/international-news/lifestyle-and-food/climate-change-will-make-our-scarce-food-less-nutritious.html

niel · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

solarix,
i have my doubts about the salinity changing that much in a negative way. yes, the glaciers are putting more fresh water into the oceans, but we at the same time are putting more salt into the oceans by tapping the salt from old seas buried underground and have been doing so for many decades at least. all norther cities throw salt onto road surfaces and the culmination of all of that salt goes to the oceans and the gulf of mexico sooner or later and that's just the input from the u s as other nations elsewhere probably do this at times to varying degrees too. eventually it circulates to all reaches of the worlds oceans and seas. how do we know we haven't made the oceans more saline that could be eating away at some of the sea bound ice? the world is a complex thing with many variables with mankind's input to it as having the biggest and most numerous variables.

Cariboocoot · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

When I took botany a million years ago we were taught that green plants take in CO2 and emit O - during daylight. The process actually reverses at night. So we shouldn't expect plants to handle all the CO2 we pump out day and night. Especially if we factor in a reduction in flora world-wide.

Okay, the man-made climate change may be wrong. Perhaps it is all natural. Perhaps it doesn't exist at all.

But what if it does exist and is man-made? If we do nothing about it we suffer. If take action and it turns out to have not been a concern what's the worst that can happen?

Consider the fuses and breakers we put in our circuits. They are not necessary to function; they are reasonable precautions to prevent disaster should something go wrong. So why be so reluctant to take precautions against a potential global disaster? We can see and understand the science the theory is based on and it is sound. Ignoring it doesn't change that, it just makes you look stupid for having done so.

Yes, it's all about money and we know it. People with money do not necessarily know what they are talking about, but money is the all-driving factor behind everything these days, not knowledge. You can listen to the money talk or you can listen to education talk. Your choice. I know which one works, and which one manipulates.

pleppik · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

niel wrote: »

solarix,
i have my doubts about the salinity changing that much in a negative way. yes, the glaciers are putting more fresh water into the oceans, but we at the same time are putting more salt into the oceans by tapping the salt from old seas buried underground and have been doing so for many decades at least. all norther cities throw salt onto road surfaces and the culmination of all of that salt goes to the oceans and the gulf of mexico sooner or later and that's just the input from the u s as other nations elsewhere probably do this at times to varying degrees too. eventually it circulates to all reaches of the worlds oceans and seas. how do we know we haven't made the oceans more saline that could be eating away at some of the sea bound ice? the world is a complex thing with many variables with mankind's input to it as having the biggest and most numerous variables.

The mass of the Earth's oceans is about 275 times the mass of the atmosphere, and global CO2 production is about 150 times global salt production.

That suggests that human activity is changing the salinity of the oceans only 0.002% as fast as we are changing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Or, put another way, it would take about 40,000 years (of current activity levels) to change the ocean salinity by the same amount we change the CO2 levels every year. Even that probably overstates the case, since a large fraction of salt production comes from evaporating ocean water.

Cariboocoot · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

pleppik wrote: »

The mass of the Earth's oceans is about 275 times the mass of the atmosphere, and global CO2 production is about 150 times global salt production.

That suggests that human activity is changing the salinity of the oceans only 0.002% as fast as we are changing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Or, put another way, it would take about 40,000 years (of current activity levels) to change the ocean salinity by the same amount we change the CO2 levels every year. Even that probably overstates the case, since a large fraction of salt production comes from evaporating ocean water.

And does that factor in melting the ice caps?

pleppik · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Cariboocoot wrote: »

And does that factor in melting the ice caps?

Nope, just raw inputs. Ice cap melting works in the other direction, of course, so it could be that the ocean's salinity is more likely to decrease than increase near term. Salinity also varies a fair amount from place to place and with depth in the oceans.

Every winter I wonder what we're doing to the oceans with all the salt we dump on the roads. This time I was inspired to look it up.

niel · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

glad i inspired you and i did many aware of a human variable by our dumping of salt on the roads that many never thought of.

verdigo · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

I am not an expert by any means but like many of you I read. I don't have a political dog in the fight either so to speak. I will say with confidence that the debate is not over. I tend to lean toward normal cyclical climate change as opposed to man made global warming. Wiki has a good write up on the little ice age http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age that is pretty interesting, and insightful.

In the end if we do wind up with a warmer planet, what does that say for longer growing seasons, expanded areas dedicated to agriculture, less disease, and the list goes on. Of course there are some that say famine, and disease are an acceptable means to reduce or eliminate population growth.

Just too many angles to look at this, and too many "IMO" shady characters pulling for cap and trade and the like. Some might say I'm paranoid but you only have to look to recent history to find the name Adolf Hitler and maybe feel the need to listen to those who are considered conspiracy theorists once in a while.

Last but not least is the accuracy of the data and the sampling. I once had a mathematics professor who had a saying that "If you torture the data long enough you can make it say anything you want".

BB. · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Lets not go down the thread into A.H. and such. There are a lot of bad people out there (past, present, and I am sure, future).

It does bother me that much of what is happening now is politics and politics driving science (and even industrial policies). The result follows very nicely the law of unintended consequences.

-Bill

westbranch · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Yes, there is that old statistician's saying, "liers make statistics and statistics makes liers"

verdigo · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

BB. wrote: »

Lets not go down the thread into A.H. and such. There are a lot of bad people out there (past, present, and I am sure, future).

-Bill

I don't mean to be offensive with the A.H. But it just goes to say that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.

BB. · May 2014

Re: How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Not a problem. Just remember, we are a very public face of our founder/host, NAWS, and we respect their wishes to avoid overtly political discussions.

-Bill

How to Phase Out Incentives and Grow Solar Energy

Comments

Categories