the biofuel thing was just an example to show unintended consequences of a push for something that sounds really cool but turns out works against stated goals. I am not against solar energy plants. But I do not find it criminal to use other energy sources like natural gas. There is alot of disinformation about so-called "fossil fuels." and the lengths of time to produce them. For instance natural gas can be used to produce crude. Whenever we have given into the peak resource argument it almost always fails. I'm not saying that we do not look for alternatives. Yes! But governments should get out of that business. Policies and agendas are always first about money then power. Good intentions aren't even on the table

Well, I wasn´t talking about biofuels. Never liked them, for when you use food for something else it´s a crime in my opinion. Solar energy is and always will be the past, the present and the future. Fossil Fuels are morally just as extinct as the dinosaurs themselves. To continue to invest in extraction of raw isn´t only acute, it´s wrong. Anyone can see how the whole middle eastern intervention is about oil and nothing more, just as the desire to intervene in Venezuela and the ALCA plan for latin america (which also includes a new currency, sweet water).

Come to think of it, we could use solar energy for electricity and the production of drinking water, all at the same time. Just imagine, using the reflected radiation for separating salt from sea water and then, after the steam activates the generators, it´s condensed and used as drinking water (after, let´s say, five or six cycles). Dunno, creativity is key in science, otherwise it´s just math...

well it's newer than the wheel. :) Think of it this way. the technology to do something can be around long before it's implemented. Usually costs and market viability or regulations are involved. I do not mean to downplay the tech as a way of discrediting the plant. My argument is simply economic viability and opportunity costs. If we can do game changer stuff with solar I'm all for it-but I don't want it rammed down our throats because a bunch of politicains say it's an important investment. The market will decide most efficiently and usually correctly. Did you see the post on production of biofuels "harming" the environment more than alternatives? The farmers knew all along they wanted the corn byproducts fertilizing and protecting their fields. Why did they sell it? Because of the artificial market for biofuel out of corn. Why artificial? Because ethonol is propped up by the govt-thereby allowing biofuel manufacturers to offer good money for the by-product. and now for the opportunity cost. While we were taking the by-product to make fuel for an artificial market-which has been proven to destroy engines btw:http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/e15-gasoline-damage-engine
the fields were yielding less. So less food production for more alternative fuel production. We still have people starving on the planet. No one thinks about opportunity costs!

Well then nothing´s new since the wheel and the quest for fire I guess. Or since the relativity theory and nuclear energy (the new fire). Ivanpah is new, for it uses reflection to generate heat and electricity. Not the best way to do so, but creative nevertheless. Check out CAREM nuclear systems, that´s another novelty to have in mind. Have a nice week.

In solitude, there is time to read, expand one's horizons expanding one's knowledge. You're asking me to socialize with people who for the most part have an average IQ of 80 ? No Thank you. And if scientists can't even predict weekly weather are you really going to trust them with the global weather system? Please.......

not new because I am speaking in a technological sense. we hang out in the tech world...so

Well tell me then, what new energy system isn´t based on credit? Thermal, open air coal energy plants too are in debt you know, for it takes alot of investment to get them going. Damns as well, for that matter. And Ivanpah isn´t new you say? Why, ´cause it wasn´t inaugurated in the spring of 2014? Please...

yes, I'm well aware of it. that tech is not new.
and they are in DEBT. big debt
http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/rfk-jr...
to provide some balance to the argument this is an article recently from a green tech site-obviously they are biased in favor:
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/13/cont...

Dear Lord, you´ve got a cutting edge example of Solar Power in the State of California and you don´t even know it. It doesn´t use solar panels at all, just mirrors in a physics effect we know all too well called reflection that activates boilers for good old fashioned steam powered palets (just as thermal stations and it´s newest variation, nuclear power plants). Since it´s located in the dessert, radiation is pretty much constant and it uses variations for night meaning that it does not go idle at all. It´s name is IVANPAH, please check it out (critics such as yourself are crying about how the heat concentration from the mirrors is killing birds in plain flight). Good luck, I suggest some tea for digesting this small proof that you´re just talking ´cause the air is free...

as well, there are almost no new innovations in solar since the 70s when we tried it before. the only real innovations have occurred because of the semi-conductor industry so I reject "cutting edge." same with wind energy.

vanguard adventurers tapped into govt subsidy. If you want to take the risks-go for it! Instead, solar company after solar company fails at a good business model-but not until every penny of govt backed loans and grants and forced market incentives are exploited.

I don´t see much rebutle of what I have said now, friend. And no, a solar investor is not a moocher, as you say. They´re cutting edge, vanguard adventurers that dare go against the status quo, those who are the real moochers. Diesel engines are out of date nowadays, as you have clearly said so yourself. And well, I recommend you do some research for solar power and nuclear energy are not only the way of the future, they are a kickstart in the right direction. Happy Easter...which means nothing to me in particular, just another tall tale of the most fit and dominating moochers of all.

He said that the GW hypothesis - that there is a warming trend that is global, man-made, dangerous to man and significantly damaging to the enviroment - has been essentially disproven.
The hypothesis - as presented by environmentalists - does not merely say that there is warming and cooling. Further, what warming we have had has not been truly global.

If you want to generate and sell electricity and already have investment in one technology, it makes no sense to invest much more money in another technology, even one that has lower running costs.

If you want to invest in solar, go ahead. But if you want to sell the electricity generated, you have to accept the market price set by the cheapest option which is coal. That price will cover the operating cost but will not be sufficient to justify the investment. There is a way out, get government to extract the difference from taxpayers and give it to you, what we call a subsidy. Everyone, except the solar investor (moocher), loses. without those subsidies there would next to no solar generation.
Trains. Electric trains are as you say, clean quiet and generally cheaper than coal or diesel. You will not find many coal powered steam trains today. Diesel has the great advantage of not requiring big investment in infrastructure such as overhead power lines and high voltage transmission lines. This is not an advantage in densely populated areas but is important for freight lines covering long distances in areas remote from electricity generation and power lines.
For passenger travel, I doubt you could find a single line in Europe, Japan or Australia that is not government subsidized.

Other points. The USA is not (yet) a centrally planned economy so saying the US "should" or "allow" does not apply.
Yes, solar panels deteriorate with age, I have seen the figure of 1% pa of capacity used.
Crisis: yes the globe is in crisis, it is political from the application of fallacies in economics, and trying to be altruistic inappropriately. There is no climate crisis, there is no energy crisis.
"Woods" I know you used this word in a different context but it is relevant to point out that politically driven and artificial high energy prices are causing deforestation as people chop trees for fuel, this is happening in Europe.

Let´s see, hmmm. It seems to me you know little about what you´re talking about. Solar Panels, my friend, are just one form of converting radiation from the sun to electricity. There are many others, but the most efficient is reflection towards boilers that use the same system as thermal and nuclear plants, steam. And no, solar panels have nowadays a life span of over fifteen years without dregrading, have become alot more efficient and use different forms of designs and shapes (curved panels, for instance, produce an optical effect that can use and concentrate more solar power by, again, reflection).

Nuclear Plants are in vogue again, and there are new technologies that produce "batteries" of low powered, naturally cooled systems that are alot safer than those major domes. You can look into to it. The fact that the US doesn´t want to use Nuclear Energy is beyond me, but the crisis is about the world and not just one part of the woods.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the railway system in the US is so primitive? Being there incredible electric powered train systems in europe, Japan and other countries; why doesn´t the US allow trains to become a major means of transportation? The problem, appart from being cultural (my car, my time, my sofa with wheels) is also quite political and financial, since all those "puppeteers" that really run the show (Obama, George W., Bill and the rest are all puppets) well, the real masters of the game have already invested alot of money on fossil fuel based industries such as the automobile, the extraction of raw oil and, yes, the grand federal reserve. Weapons of mass destruction? Why doesn´t the US destroy their own, having the largest arsenal on earth the question still stands, doesn´t it?

Do some research and then argue with facts, not ancient history...

You responded to my one sentence; what else would you be criticizing?
Note that warming and cooling have existed, but not GW as a warming trend over time. GW has a broader meaning in today's political climate; in that context: no evidence, BOP is on the environmentalists.

Solitude, you need to find some Bliss. To paraphrase your statement: "It is the utter Hubris of Humans to think that they can understand and predict a gravitational (electro-magnetic; chemical; biological; physcial; metaphysical; astronomical; geological; cosmological; subatomic;...) system that's been around for 4.5 Billion years !" Can we understand a literary tradition only 5,000 years old? Can we understand and predict the behavior of beer-producing yeasts (also about 5,000 years old)? The fossil evidence for eohippus has come under question, raising the deeper problem of how we can understand and predict the behavior of modern horses...

Actually, Solitude, maybe you should cast off that bliss and seek out some serious discomfort among people who know something you do not.

Is it arbitrary to say that "warming" is not "cooling"?
That if warming is not everywhere, then it is not "global"? Don't get defensive.

GW cannot mean cooling and cannot mean periodic or regional warming.

You're dropping context. "GW" in our political culture means there is a trend, it is global and is man-made. None of these is true.

The burden of proof is always on the believer; e.g. It is appropriate not to believe in a god without proof.

Nuclear Power Stations are under construction as we speek, it´s just that you can´t see beyond the border. Solar Power has become extremely efficient, superior to Damns even. Sustainability is using these sources today as power sources, again partly in the USA and more and more so in other countries. And, finally, the scientific proof hasn´t been debunked Robbie, and in the 19th Century there was alot less CO2 emissions. This is measured accurately with ice in both the Artic and Antartic regions, that can go back alot further than 100 years. They can go back thousands of years. Have a nice day.