Comments on: Global recession? Must be time for the media’s alternative-energy backlash http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 12:18:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: serial catowner http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20920 serial catowner Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:51:33 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20920 Articles in the WaPo are good practice for talking back to the thumb-sucking media. And that's all they're good for. Articles in the WaPo are good practice for talking back to the thumb-sucking media. And that’s all they’re good for.

]]> By: John Spradley http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20887 John Spradley Wed, 22 Oct 2008 16:31:38 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20887 My electric vehicle has not used a drop of oil in 27 years. And water for the batteries and window washing is condensate from my air conditioner. My roof-top solar system charges my EV for it's 40 miles per day commute, and partially powers my house. Guess who the major advertisers are in the MSM. My electric vehicle has not used a drop of oil in 27 years. And water for the batteries and window washing is condensate from my air conditioner. My roof-top solar system charges my EV for it’s 40 miles per day commute, and partially powers my house. Guess who the major advertisers are in the MSM.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20870 David B. Benson Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:37:09 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20870 Rick C --- Reclaimed and semi-closed loop are sensible in any case. Rick C — Reclaimed and semi-closed loop are sensible in any case.

]]> By: Rick C http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20868 Rick C Wed, 22 Oct 2008 00:16:20 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20868 Joe, I heard a of study conducted by Carey W. King and Michael E. Webber of the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology that EVs would increase the use of water. The study contends that approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/2008/42/i12/html/es0716195.html What about this? Is this true and if so would speeding the development of renewable sources of energy offset this quickly enough for the anticipated growth in PHEVs and EVs or would the use of saline, reclaimed and closed loop cooling be a better choice to counter the anticipation for increased water consumption? Joe,

I heard a of study conducted by Carey W. King and Michael E. Webber of the University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology that EVs would increase the use of water. The study contends that approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation.

http://pubs.acs.org/ cgi-bin/ sample.cgi/ esthag/ 2008/ 42/ i12/ html/ es0716195.html

What about this? Is this true and if so would speeding the development of renewable sources of energy offset this quickly enough for the anticipated growth in PHEVs and EVs or would the use of saline, reclaimed and closed loop cooling be a better choice to counter the anticipation for increased water consumption?

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20866 paulm Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:54:57 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20866 It really is disappointing that this sort of article is allowed in a major national paper in a "progressive" place like Canada. I quickly scanned back and you just see where the paper's interest lie. It really is disappointing that this sort of article is allowed in a major national paper in a “progressive” place like Canada. I quickly scanned back and you just see where the paper’s interest lie.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20862 David B. Benson Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:49:52 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20862 paulm --- No. Even if the percentages happen to be correct, it certainly is not insignificant. paulm — No. Even if the percentages happen to be correct, it certainly is not insignificant.

]]> By: darth http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20861 darth Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:41:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20861 To elaborate: according to this data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html Global CO2 has increased from roughly 320 to 380 over the past 50 years. That's around 15% or so, so more like 0.3% per year, not 0.0168%. And oh yeah, the rate of increase is going up, not down. That article is funny. Sad, but funny. To elaborate: according to this data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/ gmd/ ccgg/ trends/ co2_data_mlo.html

Global CO2 has increased from roughly 320 to 380 over the past 50 years. That’s around 15% or so, so more like 0.3% per year, not 0.0168%. And oh yeah, the rate of increase is going up, not down. That article is funny. Sad, but funny.

]]> By: darth http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20860 darth Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:35:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20860 No. No.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20858 Joe Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:03:22 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20858 Human emissions are raising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 about 2 ppm a year. Concentrations are currently about 385 ppm. Human civilization emerged over a very narrow range of CO2 concentration and temperature, as I have blogged. If you are going to excerpt cryptic denier talking points, you'll need to do a better job. Human emissions are raising atmospheric concentrations of CO2 about 2 ppm a year. Concentrations are currently about 385 ppm. Human civilization emerged over a very narrow range of CO2 concentration and temperature, as I have blogged.

If you are going to excerpt cryptic denier talking points, you’ll need to do a better job.

]]> By: paulm http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20857 paulm Tue, 21 Oct 2008 20:30:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/21/global-recession-must-be-time-for-the-medias-alternative-energy-backlash/#comment-20857 Is this really true? Skeptics, unite! http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=892370 <i>....worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year "equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun's radiation. This is an insignificantly small number."</i> Is this really true?

Skeptics, unite!
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=892370

….worldwide manmade CO2 emission each year “equals about 0.0168% of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration … This results in a 0.00064% increase in the absorption of the sun’s radiation. This is an insignificantly small number.”

]]>