Another carefully chose black pebble.Huseng wrote:Here's an article worth reading:
http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/12/19/wh ... ts-missed/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
From a blogger who, as I said when you last posted something of hers, has no expertise or credibility in climate science and (as I may have said) is so close to the fossil fuel industry that she can't see anything else.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion but it is completely false.Huseng wrote:So, renewables are uneconomical for the time being (perhaps forever?) and reduction of fossil fuel use would likewise be unacceptable to the global community.
Start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_ ... mic_trends for a more balanced view:
All forms of energy are expensive, but as time progresses, renewable energy generally gets cheaper, while fossil fuels generally get more expensive. A 2011 IEA report said: "A portfolio of renewable energy technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."
Or here - http://thinkprogress.org/tag/renewable-energy/page/2/ -The incentive to use 100% renewable energy is created by global warming and ecological as well as economic concerns, post peak oil. The first country to propose 100% renewable energy was Iceland, in 1998. Proposals have been made for Japan in 2003, and for Australia in 2011. Norway and some other countries already obtain all of their electricity from renewable sources. Iceland proposed using hydrogen for transportation and its fishing fleet. Australia proposed biofuel for those elements of transportation not easily converted to electricity. The road map for the United States, commitment by Denmark, and Vision 2050 for Europe set a 2050 timeline for converting to 100% renewable energy, later reduced to 2040 in 2011. Zero Carbon Britain 2030 proposes eliminating carbon emissions in Britain by 2030 by transitioning to renewable energy.
It is estimated that the world will spend an extra $8 trillion over the next 25 years to prolong the use of non-renewable resources, a cost that would be eliminated by transitioning instead to 100% renewable energy. A 2009 study suggests that converting the entire world to 100% renewable energy by 2030 is both possible and affordable, but requires political support. It would require building many more wind turbines and solar power systems. [emphasis added]
Huseng, please pick up the occasional white pebble for yourself.WIND AND SOLAR MAKE UP 100% OF NEW U.S. ELECTRICITY CAPACITY IN SEPTEMBER | September was tied for the hottest of any September on record globally. It was also a very hot month for renewable energy in the U.S. According to figures from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, wind and solar accounted for all new electricity capacity added to America’s grid in September.
The projects consisted of five wind farms totaling 300 megawatts and 18 solar installations totaling 133 megawatts:
Renewable energy Analyst Kenneth Bossong initially reported on the figures.
“The remarkable expansion of renewable energy’s contribution to the nation’s electrical supply reflects continuing declines in costs, the impact of state renewable electricity standards, and the mix of tax and other incentives provided by the federal government,” said Bossong in an emailed statement.
As the chart above shows, the U.S. has seen 4,055 MW of wind, 936 MW of solar, 340 MW of biomass, 123 MW of geothermal, 9 MW of hydro, and 3 MW of waste heat projects come online since January. This represents a 29 percent increase over the same period in 2011.
If you can't bring yourself to do that, at least look carefully at those I find for you. They are much prettier than the black ones.
Oh, and can you remember to answer the questions I asked at http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... ad#p143148, i.e.
Can you - no messing about or prevaricating, please - present canonical sources from your own school for your claim that this (2012 +/- 50 years, let's say) is the kaliyuga?
Can you even find canonical sources that all major schools agree on (e.g. as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Poin ... e_Mahāyāna) which predict the coming of the kaliyuga?
and those "relevant texts supporting your views [on the degeneration of the physical world and the human condition]"