• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

For the naysayers-Germany sets solar power record

LTC8K6 said:
Yes, the glaciers never melted before man arrived on this rock. They stayed the same all the time.

The Earth stayed at the same average temperature all the time until man started building fires. It never got warmer before, and it never got cooler.

Germany will come to it's senses sooner or later.

What's the point of not having nuclear reactors if you are surrounded by them anyway?
Click to expand...

oh wow didn't think you are a science denier.... well get happy with that.....

:rolleyes:
 
LTC8K6 said:
What about the Germans who want reasonably priced electricity? :D
Click to expand...

whats with them? many german energy supliers offer normal energy to normal prices and the slightly more expensive but greener energy.

i dont get your problem. maybe because there is no problem ouside your head.
 
DC said:
is that impact more dangerous than the CO2 they released from burning coal?
Click to expand...

The sad irony here is that the more solar energy is produced in Germany, the more coal is burned as well and greater CO2 emissions right along with it. Because Germany is going solar, their need to burn coal is also increasing including brown coal
 
portlandatheist said:
The sad irony here is that the more solar energy is produced in Germany, the more coal is burned as well and greater CO2 emissions right along with it. Because Germany is going solar, their need to burn coal is also increasing including brown coal
Click to expand...

can you show me those numbers pls?
 
LTC8K6 said:
Why should the Earth's temperature or climate be steady?
Click to expand...

oh pls i had the impression you were smarter than the science deniers like Mhaze, but you do you best to show me wrong on that.
leave me alone with your science denial pls.
 
DC said:
whats with them? many german energy supliers offer normal energy to normal prices and the slightly more expensive but greener energy.

i dont get your problem. maybe because there is no problem ouside your head.
Click to expand...

Attack the argument, not the person.

My problem is that I don't want the silly idea of solar power, at it's present state, to spread to my country.

Fortunately the poor news from Germany's effort will help to prevent it.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Attack the argument, not the person.

My problem is that I don't want the silly idea of solar power, at it's present state, to spread to my country.

Fortunately the poor news from Germany's effort will help to prevent it.
Click to expand...

even i think Nuclear power is the better solution over Solar energy, but that is not what the Germans want, and i just don't get the objections from people like you. it is what they want, and they are doing it and atm it looks as if they are on a way to get what they want.
 
DC said:
even i think Nuclear power is the better solution over Solar energy, but that is not what the Germans want, and i just don't get the objections from people like you. it is what they want, and they are doing it and atm it looks as if they are on a way to get what they want.
Click to expand...

They will go nuclear again.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Blocking sunlight from large tracts of land must be having an effect on the Earth and the climate. You can't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...
Actually that's a very interesting perspective, but don't expect to get a rational discussion of it from a bunch of rabid Warmers.

The first thing that comes to my mind is food production, if the PV arrays were placed in locations for which that was an alternative possibility. Many of those in the USA are in desert, for which, arguably, no detrimental effect on the biosphere would occur. The issue is when that array is placed over an active biosphere, whether it is weeds, crops, trees, or whatever. I have seen that done but had not thought about the environmental consequences.

Briefly thinking about it, there should be two direct consequences.

(1)The change of the albedo of the land from 0.1-0.3 to nearly black, meaning that section of land heats up as the black creates IR, and the corresponding decrease of reflected visible light into the sky where it has various effects on weather and clouds

(2)The direct effects on lowered levels of photosynthesis, planet and animal life, and lowered biomass levels.

It deserves it's own thread, in my opinion, as it should not be limited to a discussion about German policy primarily based on German politics.

DC said:
oh pls i had the impression you were smarter than the science deniers like Mhaze, but you do you best to show me wrong on that.
leave me alone with your science denial pls.
Click to expand...
When you see this sort of snot brained immaturity, you know you are dealing with Warmers.

DC said:
no you aren't.
btw, the Germans going green energy protects us far more than you ever could. they are protecting our melting glaciers for example.
Click to expand...
And our polar bears. And the little puppies and kittens.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Does solar power have to generate "enough" for absolutely everything? Is using solar power to merely significantly reduce the amount of coal that needs to be burned for instance morally reprehensible or something? What does this all-or-nothing mentality of solar energy detractors stem from?
Click to expand...

All alternative energies are subject to the same style of argument, each (wind, rain, wave, sun, biomass, efficiency) compared against the total and found wanting. This avoids looking at the combined contribution, actual or potential.

It's clear that for heels-dug-in conservatives no alternative contribution will ever be significant if involves displacing fossil-fuels and affecting the socio-economic system which has developed from them in the last two centuries. Nuclear was accepted because with it came Military Might, and conservatives now cling to that too. It's all terribly predictable.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Did they replace a factory, or did they replace a bio-diverse field of plants and animals and insects?
Click to expand...

Germany is the heartland of green activism, and of a substantial green movement which predates Teddy Roosevelt. What possible chance do you imagine there is that this would happen? That's quite apart from the price of land in Northern Europe.

If it was a nice field that used to be warmed by the sun, what affect is blocking that sunlight having?
Click to expand...

It wasn't, was it? This is an inane idea.

My own headquarters has gone totally solar with a heavy subsidy. The roof is covered with solar panels.
Click to expand...

This is the norm for solar installations.

They could never have done it without the subsidy and the tax breaks.

But that is a private company that can do what it wants with it's money.
Click to expand...

And look what it wants to do - spend money on a productive asset. At least they're not putting the capital out on Wall St for the vig.
 
I think its important to encourage Germany's silly foray into solar power.

Its cheaper than trying to rule the world, and less Jews, homos, commies, intellectuals and gypsies die in the interim.

Germans playing with photo-voltaics is like Jeffery Dammer playing with pottery.
You really want to encourage it. Try to ignore the costs. The alternative is always more expensive.

One of the disturbing aspects, to me, of these cost analysis, is that they never get compared to all the other totally loser economic boon-dogles.

Its unfair in this regard. We should be comparing massive failures with astronomically absurd failures. Although, we are uncomfortable digesting the foolish expenses of our past hubris. Hence, they tend not to enter the accounting math.




Imagine what my great country could have done with the money it took to win the war in Korea; Vietnam; Iraq; Afghanistan, as well as all those other wars we waged in Central and South America, which don't really count, I guess, because we ignore that stuff. And now, we must be parasitized by bankers and lawyers and Supreme Justice.


Point being, almost any avenue of hopefulness is justified in comparison to the normal, cynical adventures of the human condition.
 
mhaze said:
Originally Posted by LTC8K6
Blocking sunlight from large tracts of land must be having an effect on the Earth and the climate. You can't get something for nothing.
Click to expand...
Actually that's a very interesting perspective, but don't expect to get a rational discussion of it from a bunch of rabid Warmers.
Click to expand...
You would be wrong: there are no "rabid Warmers" here so we will get a rational discussion.

Your 2 effects, mhaze, (change of the albedo and ecology changes) are unlikely to have a significant impact globally.
A solar power plant has an impact analogous to an airport. The albedo change will be greater so the local area will get warmer than an airport of the same size.
The environmental impact will be less since many solar power plants include agricultural use. They are not usually built on prime arable land. Old airbases and military training areas are often used.

Solar power plants replace fossil fuel plants and reduce CO2 emissions.
 
Reality Check said:
....A solar power plant has an impact analogous to an airport. The albedo change will be greater so the local area will get warmer than an airport of the same size.
The environmental impact will be less since many solar power plants include agricultural use. They are not usually built on prime arable land. Old airbases and military training areas are often used.

Solar power plants replace fossil fuel plants and reduce CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...
You are on a thread where what is being discussed is solar power plants replacing nuclear power plants.

Given that, I don't see any of your other famous hand waving has much to do with anything. But just for grins here ya go:

A solar power plant has an impact analogous to an airport. The albedo change will be greater so the local area will get warmer than an airport of the same size.

Right, so they are not like airports.

The environmental impact will be less since many solar power plants include agricultural use. They are not usually built on prime arable land. Old airbases and military training areas are often used.

I've seen them in all kinds of places ranging from worthless desert to prime farmland. I imagine everyone else here has also. I've never seen any in old airbases or in military training areas.

Not that any of that would have anything to do with the basic issue which is energy into the panel, IR out of the panel. And whether that IR is higher or lower than than the equivalent heat produced by the electricity output from the panel.

Second, take half or two thirds the sunlight from a field, obviously it's agricultural use diminishes. And easy way to measure that would be to assume the field was planted in switchgrass, yielding 15 tons per acre. Or with the solar panels, yielding 5-8 tons per acre.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Okay.

Maybe someday I will get an answer.

I can wait.
Click to expand...

what answer do you want? yes the climate has been changing always.
does that mean our huge impact on it can be ignored?
 
Reality Check said:
You would be wrong: there are no "rabid Warmers" here so we will get a rational discussion.....
Click to expand...
Technically you are correct, it's likely none of the Warmers here have the rabies virus. However this thread itself is an excellent introduction into articles of faith of warmers and disregard for both cost effectiveness of alternative energy equipment in favor of a supposed greater good.

In other words, the thread displays how Warmers avoid critical thinking in favor of "universal and simple solutions", which is essentially, argument from belief and faith. As such it seems a comment regarding that would be in order.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom