All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Randolph Kinney]

Can solar cookstoves help reduce greenhouse emissions in developing countries?
Concern over burning charcoal, wood, animal dung generating copious amounts of greenhouse gases.


Since Hillary Clinton announced the creation of a Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves in 2010, the public-private partnership has helped raise more than $400m for cleaner stoves and cooking fuels, enlisted more than 1,300 partners and, by its own accounting, helped drive about 28m cookstoves into the world’s poorest countries.

The vast majority of those cleaner cooking devices are powered by biomass – wood, charcoal, dung and agricultural waste. Millions more are powered by cleaner fuels like liquid propane gas (LPG), ethanol and electricity. At most, the alliance reported, 2% of the stoves distributed in 2013 relied on solar power, the cleanest fuel of all.

Although the alliance’s eight priority countries – Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India, China, Guatemala and Uganda – are blessed with ample sun, solar technology gets barely a mention in the alliance’s business plan. At its last big global conference two years ago in Thailand, solar was not even on the agenda; its boosters had to demonstrate their designs in the conference center parking lot. When the alliance convenes its next global summit in November in Ghana, solar again will be absent from the program.

Despite such odds, a Cincinnati, Ohio-based startup called GoSun is betting that it can make a business out of selling solar cookers in the developed world and providing them at a lower cost to the global poor. GoSun sells solar stoves for $280 and more in developed countries, including the US, EU, Australia and Japan, and it plans to use the proceeds to subsidize the sale of a solar cookstove to the people who can benefit the most in the developing world.

Cleaner cookstoves aim to solve an important global health problem. More than 4.3 million people die prematurely every year from inhaling smoke generated as they cook over open fires, according to the World Health Organization. An estimated 2.8 billion people cook over smoky, polluting biomass fires daily.

Solar powered stoves, however, have not generally been viewed as a viable solution by the alliance because, according to detractors, they take too long to heat up and are bulky. More importantly, they don’t work at night or under heavy clouds. Solar advocates respond by saying that solar should be the first choice for cooking when the sun shines, and when it doesn’t, a stove that burns a fuel cleanly should be employed. Many people in developing countries already use multiple cooking methods – the open fire pit remains ubiquitous, even in homes with cookstoves – but it’s yet to be seen whether the poor would be willing and able to pay for two cookstoves.

http://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...es-global-alliance-for-clean-cookstoves-ghana

I wish these green people would practice what they preach. Confine them to solar cook stoves. In fact, make the entire U.S. population subject to law requiring that everyone must buy a solar cook stove along with their ObamaCare insurance. It is for a good cause; save the planet from global warming and for those who need health insurance and can't afford it.

 

[Meandering]

'Climate plans do not go far enough': UN warns that national pledges must go further to prevent dangerous warming of over 2°C

• The United Nations (UN) has assessed the climate plans of 146 countries
• Concludes carbon emissions will continue to grow, albeit at slower rate
• Warns current plans don't go far enough to prevent 2°C temperature rise
• But there is hope that national initiatives could cap it below danger level

National plans designed to limit climate change do not go far enough to keep global temperatures from rising by more than the 2°C (36°F) danger threshold, officials say. The United Nations (UN) has assessed the plans of 146 countries, to conclude that total carbon emissions will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate than the past two decades.

However, the report says national initiatives leave the ‘door open’ to capping global warming below the danger threshold. It has been released a month ahead of crunch talks in Paris, where the UN believes the plans, known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), will form the foundation of a binding global treaty on climate change. Its assessment is arguably optimistic about the plans, despite saying that in their current form, global temperatures look set to rise 2.7°C (37°F) above pre-industrial levels. Scientists have previously warned that if temperature rises exceed 2°C (36°F), the planet could be subject to more extreme weather, droughts and flooding, which could hit poor countries especially hard.

While the report says INDCs will bring down per capita emissions by nine percent by 2030, it notes the overall amount of carbon in the atmosphere will continue to grow over the next 15 years. Overall emissions could be as much as 22 per cent higher in 2030 when compared to 2010 levels, the UN says. UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, said the plans were an excellent first step.

‘The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7°C by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.’ Observers say the 2.7°C (37°F) figure is a substantial improvement on 3.1°C (38°F), which was the estimate when the plans were assessed last December.

But even if these 10-to-15 year plans are fulfilled, humanity will have used up three-quarters of its carbon ‘budget’ by 2030 and must slash greenhouse gas output even more to avoid devastating climate impacts, the UN's Climate Change Secretariat warned. ‘An unprecedented world-wide effort is underway to combat climate change, building confidence that nations can cost-effectively meet their stated objective of keeping a global temperature rise to under 2°C,’ it said in an assessment of the country pledges.

At the same time, ‘much greater emissions reductions efforts... will be required’ to meet the 2°C (36°F) target endorsed by the UN 195-nation climate body, it said. The longer we wait, the harder and more expensive it will become to cut back the fossil fuel emissions that drive climate change. The Secretariat's 66-page review comes exactly one month before the November 30 to December 11 Paris summit tasked with finalising a historic global pact.

More than 190 nations will discuss a new agreement at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) aimed to cutting carbon to avoid the threat of dangerous warming due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and destroying rainforests. If countries commit in Paris to periodically revising ambition upward, the goal stays within reach, Figueres added.

Taryn Fransen from the World Resources Institute, told the BBC that 105 of the INDCs contain concrete greenhouse gas mitigation targets, in contrast to just 27 at the failed Copenhagen conference in 2009. ‘You have quite a few more countries that are now specifying absolute decreases in emissions levels. You have countries like China, South Africa and Singapore talking about peaking emissions through a hard cap. ‘Even much smaller countries like Ethiopia, Bhutan and Costa Rica are identifying absolute limits on the quantity of emissions. I think that signals a real evolution.’


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3296517/Climate-plans-not-warns-national-pledges-prevent-dangerous-warming-2-C.html#ixzz3q6ocykaT

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

But even if these 10-to-15 year plans are fulfilled, humanity will have used up three-quarters of its carbon ‘budget’ by 2030 and must slash greenhouse gas output even more to avoid devastating climate impacts, the UN's Climate Change Secretariat warned.

The essence of futility is to admit that failure is guaranteed by the agreed upon plan. Government has fulfilled its policy objective: the policy of failure has succeeded.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Malfunctioning solar panels spark Boston blaze

BOSTON —Malfunctioning solar panels are to blame for sparking a fire on the roof of a Boston building Friday afternoon that sent at least one person to a hospital.

Fire crews were called to 518 Tremont St. just before 1 p.m. after getting reports of a roof fire.

Several solar panels caught fire on the roof, but fire crews were able to extinguish the blaze a short time after arriving at the building.

Portions of the solar panels dropped down during the fire, and portions of the rubber roof also ignited, according to Boston fire officials.

One person was taken to a hospital to be treated for smoke inhalation.

Damages as a result of the fire are estimated to be around $50,000.

It's unknown why the solar panels ignited, and an investigation is underway.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/malfunctioning-solar-panels-spark-boston-blaze/36155806

MALFUNCTIONING SOLAR PANEL

 

[Meandering]

Solar Panels Growing Hazard for Firefighters
Concerns over electrocution and a lack of roof access hampered firefighting efforts at Dietz & Watson blaze
Firefighters battling the massive 11-alarm blaze at the Dietz & Watson distribution center in South Jersey faced an unlikely foe during the fight -- solar panels.

A solar array with more than 7,000 photovoltaic panels lined the roof of the nearly 300,000 square-foot refrigeration facility which served as a temporary storage center for the company’s deli meats and cheeses. But the panels, while environmentally sustainable and cost-saving, may have led to the complete destruction of the warehouse.

Fighting the fire under bright blue skies Sunday, Delanco Fire Chief Ron Holt was forced to keep firefighters from attacking the blaze from the roof because of electrocution concerns.

"With all that power and energy up there, I can't jeopardize a guy’s life for that,” said Holt. Those electrocution fears combined with concerns of a collapse forced firefighters to simply spray the building with water and foam from afar.

Ken Willette from the National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit that develops standards for firefighting, says electrocution is one of the hazards firefighters are increasingly facing fighting blazes at structures where solar panels are deployed.

“Those panels, as long as there’s any kind of light present, whether it’s daylight or it’s electronic lamp light, will generate electricity,” he said.

A 2011 study from the Underwriters Laboratory found solar panels, being individual energy producers, could not be easily de-energized from a single point like other electric sources. Researchers recommended throwing a tarp over the panels to block light, but only if crews could safely get to the area.

“Very often they’re not wired like your home, where you have a master breaker. Even if you turn the breaker off, the panels still generate electricity and you need to cover them and prevent any light from getting into them,” Willette said.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...rowing-Hazard-for-Firefighters-222085811.html


.

 

[Meandering]

Call Kurtis Investigates: Hundreds Of NorCal Solar Homes Could Catch Fire

A Call Kurtis investigation looked into a potential fire hazard on hundreds of Northern California homes. His team started looking into solar panels after an El Dorado Hills home caught fire.

We’ve learned these solar panels are on roof tiles of more than 200 homes in Northern California, including the Blackstone Community in El Dorado Hills. But homeowners say no one is doing anything to replace these potentially dangerous tiles.

The fire happening even though his solar tiles were repaired 11 months earlier, in June 2012, after the Consumer Product Safety Commission warning surrounding certain “solar power systems manufactured by Applied Solar, Inc…. using Solarsave OE-34 solar panels.”

“The electrical connectors between the solar roof tiles can become loose, posing a fire hazard…”

And “three fires have been reported.” The manufacturer, Applied Solar, went out of business in 2009. The builder, Centex, carried out the repairs on Aaron’s home. But then his home caught fire.

“So we’re all supposed to sit back and do nothing and just wait for them and how long is that wait going to be?” asked Alexis Moore, El Dorado Hills resident, who has been spearheading the effort to get these solar tiles fixed.

Homeowners have been told to shut off their solar systems until repairs are made. But the city’s fire prevention chief says that may not cut down the risk.

“They’re always live, they’re always generating power. As long as sun rays can reach the solar panels, they’re always going to produce power,” said Michael Lilienthal, Battalion Fire Chief, El Dorado Hills Fire Dept.

“It’s not enough to just say hey, turn off your solar system,” said Eric Ratinoff, consumer attorney, KCR Legal. Ratinoff says under the home’s 10 year warranty, Centex should replace all of these potentially dangerous solar tiles.

“There are families that put their kids to bed every night in these homes and it’s a safety issue, and it’s one that can’t be ignored,” said Ratinoff.

Centex spokeswoman Jacque Petroulakis told us it “was making the solar recall repairs at no cost to homeowners, even though the responsibility lies with the companies that manufactured and warrantied the product.” After we got involved, Centex agreed to replace every single one of these homeowners’ solar tiles with another brand, at no cost.

Aaron’s insurance already replaced his.

He’s just glad his fire was contained to the roof.

“No one lost their lives, our house was saved,” said Aaron.

Centex says it plans to finish all the repairs by February 2014.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2013...-danger-affects-hundreds-of-california-homes/

.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

I suspect that as time goes by, we will have more stories about defective solar panels. Just like auto recalls, years later, more solar cells and panels will be discovered to be defective. I wonder, aluminum wire, polypropylene plumbing pipes, garage door openers, microwave ovens, teflon coatings on cookware, etc. all were discovered to present health or safety problems years later.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Lights Out in Britain for the Coal Industry

KELLINGLEY, England — Tens of thousands of British coal miners have lost their jobs in recent decades, during the steep decline of an industry that stoked the nation’s industrial rise, sustained it through two world wars and once employed more than one million people.

Chris Jamieson will be one of the very last.

In December, his job is set to disappear when Kellingley colliery, Britain’s last deep coal mine, is scheduled to close for good.

Although it feeds nearby coal-fired power stations, UK Coal buys and sells on the international market in dollars because most coal used in Britain is imported, the company said.

More than a fifth of Britain’s energy needs are still met by coal. When Kellingley closes, the Drax coal-fired power station, a few miles away, “will burn Russian coal for the next 10 to 15 years, because it’s needed so that the lights don’t go out,” Mr. Poulson said. He said he was angry that money from the mineworkers’ pension fund had not been used to help keep the colliery going, while other energy sectors, including nuclear, receive substantial state aid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/w..._th_20151101&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=50329110

Sad that some Russian company is making profits on selling coal to the UK to burn to make electricity while the coal industry in the UK goes under. But, in the name of global warming, the Russians enjoy exporting more oil, gas and coal to Europe that enhances their standard of living at the expense of Europe. Solar does not supply energy at night and wind is not reliable so burning imported fossil fuels is the result of shutting down the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

San Francisco has be cheated, hoodwinked on green energy

In a few months, San Francisco will automatically enroll residents in a new, city-run program called CleanPowerSF, which is a Community Choice Aggregation system. It may be named CleanPowerSF, but there’s no guarantee the energy will be clean or green.

More often than not, we’re finding that real clean and green energy is not what CCAs are actually delivering.

Since Marin County’s CCA, Marin Clean Energy, began serving customers, it has bought more than 80 percent of its energy from Shell Oil, which has one of the worst environmental records and human-rights records in business today. The energy Shell sells to Marin is called “green” because Marin buys credits called Renewable Energy Certificates — in effect, greenwashing dirty fossil fuel power.

RECs are not real green energy — they are pieces of paper that represent the fact that green energy was created somewhere in the Western grid. Using RECs as the basis of a green energy program is a bad idea for two reasons.

First, relying on certificates, as opposed to actual green power, means no new green power is generated. Second, it means we lose well-paying local jobs that would have been necessary to sustain the demand for new green power.

RECs are favored by big oil companies and politicians because they are able to claim they’ve invested in green power, but customers receive the same dirty brown power as before. When PG&E wanted to offer a REC-based energy program in 2012, a coalition led by The Utility Reform Network and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers stood up and fought them — and won.

Developing new sources of real renewable energy will lead the way forward on climate change — not phony energy credits that harm the environment and destroy family-sustaining jobs. And, as a city, we should acknowledge that our energy isn’t sustainable if energy workers are disposable. As the green economy grows, it is possible to have true green power without settling for disposable, low-wage jobs for the people who create and deliver that power.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/prop-h-ensures-power-is-green/

Green energy in San Francisco cannot be built because of environmental regulations and laws. Green energy will be built in southern California or Nevada. Once that green electron is put on the grid along with the dirty brown electrons, everyone gets a mixture of both. So, the grid has 80% dirty brown electrons and you paid a higher price for the green electrons but were delivered 80% dirty brown electrons. You were cheated!

 

[Randolph Kinney]

NC Residents Revolt Against The State’s Green Energy Mandate

Perquimans County, N.C. placed a four-month ban on a massive wind energy farm last week after residents complained the planned 100 to 150 turbines will be ugly and noisy.

“When these things come in, it will end the beauty. I’ll have 600-feet-tall turbines on three sides of my house.” local resident and farmer Tommy Harrell told The Virginian Pilot, echoing the opinion of many locals that the 60-story wind turbines could ruin their neighborhoods.

Electricity rates in North Carolina have increased 2.5 times faster than the national average because of the green energy mandate, according to the conservative John Locke Foundation. The mandate has also cost the state’s economy $14.4 billion in income losses and 24,000 jobs annually because new wind power is much more expensive than existing coal, nuclear, or natural gas power.

The state legislature is considering freezing the mandate as evidence mounts it’s hurting job growth and causing energy prices to spike. The current freeze being discussed will keep the state’s green energy goal at 6 percent of total electricity production, preventing it from reaching the original goal of 12.5 percent green energy production by 2021.

In 2014, Ohio froze its mandate at 2.5 percent for two years, pushing the final target of 12.5 percent back to 2026. West Virginia overturned its mandate outright in February.

When North Carolina passed its mandate in 2008, 28 other states had similar policies forcing more green energy onto the grid. But with more state legislatures in the hands of Republicans, green energy mandates are being repealed or scaled back across the country. States like Kansas, Ohio, West Virginia, Texas, Michigan, New Mexico and Colorado have repealed their renewable energy mandates.

Kansas’ green energy mandate caused 5,500 fewer jobs and $4,367 less income per household, according to a Utah State University study.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/19/nc-residents-revolt-against-the-states-green-energy-mandate/

Gee, lost jobs, lower incomes, high electric price is too much for green energy to save the planet.

People wonder why there is such a large income inequality.