• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am reading a book written in 1978 that is singing the alarmist siren call and using NOAA data to back it up. Artic Ice is increasing. We may be on the cusp of a new Ice Age.... wow. Didn't see that coming didja?
 
Jimmy Carter's Energy Speech of April 1977 (Is President Obama going Carter's way?)
...
The oil and natural gas that we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are simply running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about 6 percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last 5 years. Our Nation’s economic and political independence is becoming increasingly vulnerable. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980’s the world will be demanding more oil than it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day, and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every 9 months, or a new Saudi Arabia every 3 years. Obviously, this cannot continue.
...

Our national energy plan is based on 10 fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the Government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems—wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both problems at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, by making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and by developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, and every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve just as consumers will. The energy. producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way that we can buy a barrel of oil for about $2. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement cost of energy. We are only Cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that Government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason that I’m working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are plentiful. We can’t continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption, as we do now, when they only make up 7 percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal, while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth and last principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy that we will rely on in the next century.
https://www.masterresource.org/carter-jimmy/jimmy-carter-energyspeech-april-1977/

Obama’s speech on solar energy April 3, 2015
...
Since I took office, solar electricity has gone up twentyfold. And our investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency haven’t just helped to cut carbon pollution, they’ve made us more energy independent. And they’ve helped us create a steady stream of high-wage, good-paying, middle-class jobs.

This morning, we learned that our businesses created another 129,000 new jobs in March. And that adds up to 3 million jobs over the past year, more than 12 million new jobs over the past five years — and that’s the longest stretch of private sector job creation on record. But we’ve got to be relentless in our work to grow the economy and create good jobs.

Parts of the globe have seen their economies weaken. Europe has had a weaker economy; Asia has been slowing down. We have had the strongest economy, but we’re impacted by what happens around the world. And that’s why we have to redouble our efforts to make sure that we’re competitive, to make sure that we’re taking the steps that are needed for us to be successful.
...
And what I’m doing here today is to highlight the fact that the solar industry is actually adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. They’re paying good jobs — they’re good-paying jobs that are helping folks enter into the middle class. And today what we’re going to try to do is to build on the progress that’s already been made.

I’m announcing a new goal to train 75,000 workers to enter the solar industry by 2020. As part of this, we’re creating what we’re calling a “Solar Ready Vets” program that’s modeled after some successful pilot initiatives that have already been established over the last several years. It’s going to train transitioning military personnel for careers in this growing industry at 10 bases — including right here at Hill.

And as part of this effort, we’re also going to work with states to enable more veterans to use the Post-9/11 GI Bill for solar job training. And it’s one of the many steps that we’re taking to help nearly 700,000 veterans and military spouses get a job. In fact, about 30 percent of the federal workforce is now made up of veterans. I’ve said it before, and I think employers are starting to catch on, if you really want to get the job done, hire a veteran.
...
http://fox13now.com/2015/04/03/read...r-energy-as-delivered-at-hill-air-force-base/

As of November 2014, the solar industry employs 173,807 solar workers, representing a growth rate of 21.8% since November 2013.
Over the next 12 months, employers surveyed expect to see total employment in the solar industry increase by 20.9% to 210,060 solar workers.
Of the 173,807 solar workers in the United States, approximately 157,500 are 100% dedicated to solar activities.
The installation sector remains the single largest source of domestic employment growth, more than doubling in size since 2010.
http://www.thesolarfoundation.org/solar-jobs-census/national/

Yeah, not when the tax subsidizes are up next year.

A bit of creative accounting in the sales pitches though.

.

.
.
 
Early on I stated that I am a Conservationist. If it was possible for everyone in the US to be a conservationist certainly this would result in less emissions that supposedly are killing the environment. This is not the way Obama is trying to send us. I live by its not how much money I make, but rather how little I can spend. Its a hobby of sorts for me. I recycle. I repurpose stuff I have. Its fun actually. This does not feed capitalism. I finally bought a 'I phone'. It was out of necessity really, my old (8 years) flip phone was dying.

There in lies the problem for the solar movement. Nothing wrong with it actually. The problem is the sells pitch is mostly Hyperbole. Solar is not the total answer, it never will be.

There is always hold outs. Pittsburgh Pete and others that live up his way Talk the Walk but apparently are not walking the talk. I say to him and others of his ilk clean up your own house before you preach to me. Stop pointing fingers and look yourself in a mirror.
 
Its interesting to me when I hear the constant drum beat of the left; "Its for our Children" Really! You might start working on the National Debt. You might start working on self constraint on your penchant for spending by borrowing! Now that's a cause I can get 100% behind. Think of how much could have been done for the good of the people if we were more responsible with our money.

Now the Right is no better. They are all Liars also.
 
It's not vanity,

It's propaganda to move economies.

.

Gov. Brown's link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say
October 18, 2015

The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.

The wilderness fire was "a real wake-up call" to reduce the carbon pollution "that is in many respects driving all of this," he said.

"The fires are changing.... The way this fire performed, it's not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds."

"It's a new normal," he said in August. "California is burning."

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

He had just challenged Republican presidential candidates to state their agendas on global warming. He was embroiled in a fight with the oil industry over legislation to slash gasoline use in California. And he is seeking to make a mark on international negotiations on climate change that culminate in Paris in December.

But scientists who study climate change and fire behavior say their work does not show a link between this year's wildfires and global warming, or support Brown's assertion that fires are now unpredictable and unprecedented. There is not enough evidence, they say.

University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke said Brown is engaging in "noble-cause corruption."

Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.

"That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, "but sometimes the science really has to matter."

"I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," Halsey said.

At a U.N.-sponsored panel on air pollution last month, Brown again linked wildfires and global warming.

"In California, our forest fires are more frequent, [of] greater magnitude and display completely unique characteristics," the governor said. "We're already being affected by climate change."

A study published in August by a Columbia University team led by climatologist Park Williams concluded that global warming has indeed shown itself in California, by increasing evaporation that has aggravated the current drought. But Williams said his research, the first to tease out the degree to which global warming is affecting California weather, did not show climate change to be a major cause of the drought.

Even climate ecologists who describe a strong tie between fire frequency and weather say they cannot attribute that connection to phenomena beyond normal, multi-decade variations seen throughout California history.

A team of researchers at UC Irvine recently reported that in 25 years, climate change will increase the size of fires driven by Santa Ana winds in Southern California. But their models varied on how much increase to expect: from 12% to 140%.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html

This story is very funny. Governor Brown is doing what Pete does after reading all that propaganda put out by the 97% of climate scientists linking drought and fire to global warming aka climate change. The irony of some climate scientists contradicting the governor and calling what Brown is saying "noble-cause corruption." Even better is the phrase, "... sometimes the science really has to matter." And concluding, "I don't believe the climate change discussion is helpful," which has to be a disclaimer to any natural disaster.

The best admission to no cause and effect is this: the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.
 
The idea that “Climate science is settled” runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.” Steven Koonin, former Professor. Theoretical Physics, and Provost, California Institute of Technology, and Under Secretary for Science, Department of Energy.

Some scientists are beginning to see a problem with settled science. The irony becomes if it is settled, it needs no further discussion or debate. Therefore what more can they contribute that will be heard or valued?
 
It is becoming evident that the push by some government entities to reach a binding agreement at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP-21) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change scheduled between November 30 and December 11 in Paris is having a few difficulties, in spite of slick promotion and fancy footwork. Among other issues, China is circumspect and India is demanding “climate justice” – payments from the west for supposed damage to the climate caused by past emissions of carbon dioxide. No doubt, Indian economists can develop the imaginative “social costs of carbon” as well as the western economists and track them to industrial civilization in the west.

To make issues more uncertain, President Obama may try to claim that a binding agreement will not require the consent of the Senate, which is not impressed by his efforts. Many of Mr. Obama’s former claims are being rejected by the federal courts, and it is doubtful if he can evade the clear Constitutional language that Senate consent is required for an international agreement to be binding on the United States.

Add to this, the new head of the IPCC, Hoesung Lee, is a South Korean economist who said: “If you ask me to choose the most important work in climate change issues, then I’ll choose carbon price. That’s because it is the driver to put us into the right track.” Having governments determine a tax on carbon dioxide emissions creates a market distortion favored by economists, who falsely called it a “market-based solution.” No doubt, some may consider night-time satellite photographs of the Korean Peninsula, with South Korea and parts of China lighted and North Korea dark, an example of the social cost of carbon. Others may consider North Korea energy-bankrupt.
 
Oh, there's propaganda out there. Randy cuts and pastes it daily!!:rof:
 
Oh, there's propaganda out there. Randy cuts and pastes it daily!!:rof:

Some scientists are beginning to see a problem with settled science. The irony becomes if it is settled, it needs no further discussion or debate. Therefore what more can they contribute that will be heard or valued?

Run out of anything of value on the subject, eh Pete? :ROFLMAO:
 
Writing in Climate Etc., climate scientist Judith Curry expresses her views that the attempts by global warming promoters to use courts to silence skeptics is wrongheaded. She writes: “This whole notion of a climate ‘consensus’, 97% and all that, has been very cleverly, and arguably dishonestly, marketed. These people are still thinking that ‘speaking scientific consensus to power’ is actually going to work in terms of radically reducing global carbon emissions. At this point the science is almost irrelevant; the big issues in play are that India, Africa, etc. want electricity for its population and for economic development, and coal is the most economical way to accomplish that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top