Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

And can you build unbreakable solar panels or ones that are impervious to sand storms, hail, vandalism?

Im not certain to what you are alluding .

However, I must say, I never actually checked beyond the articles on IPCC and the 2007 peace prize on Wikipedia. Never mind that, the point is that S F SInger is not a schlub. Hes been a respected scientist for several decades and is coferred with degrees and experience.
Being a skeptic, as far as Im concerned, (especially since this topic is NOT settled science as many assert), is no cause for personal attackes on a persons credentials , especially when it comes from a bunch of anonymous critics on a chat line.

Good question! The development of unbreakable solar panels or ones that are impervious to sand storms, hail, vandalism has not yet been accomplished. I bet it won't be accomplished any more than the development of solar panels, that if they were unbreakable, would generate enough energy to replace 25% of a 1200 square foot house's 25 year electrical requirements at a cost that justifies their purchase and use.

Really ican?

I know someone that recouped the cost of their solar array just by putting it in. It would have cost more for them to hook to the grid than it did to put in a solar array and batteries. It more than justified the purchase and use.

Of course. Solar panels only work if they are perfect.

Its a good thing we don't require cars, houses, roads, etc meet the requirement that they be impervious to hail, sand storms and vandalism before we use them.

Who is S. Fred Singer?

Note:

Expertise: Global climate change and the greenhouse effect, depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer, acid rain, air pollution, importance and future of the U.S. space program, energy resources and U.S. energy policy.

S. Fred Singer is internationally known for his work on energy and environmental issues. A pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone and was principal investigator on a satellite experiment retrieved by the space shuttle in 1990. He was the first scientist to predict that population growth would increase atmospheric methane--an important greenhouse gas.

Now President of The Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit policy research group he founded in 1990, Singer is also distinguished professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).

Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He frequently testifies before Congress.

Singer did his undergraduate work in electrical engineering at Ohio State University and holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton University. He is the author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs, including Is There an Optimum Level of Population? (McGraw-Hill, 1971), Free Market Energy (Universe Books, 1984), and Global Climate Change (Paragon House, 1989). Singer has also published more than 400 technical papers in scientific, economic, and public policy journals, as well as numerous editorial essays and articles in The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New Republic, Newsweek, Journal of Commerce, Washington Times, Washington Post, and other publications. His latest book, Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate, was published in late 1997 through the Independent Institute.
*************************************************************
I would say that Mr. Farmerman is correct. As he said--- There is no reason to make personal attacks on a person's credentials. However, there seem to be some who post on this topic who think that they rationally rebut a position by writing, for example--"The Wall Street Journal is crap" but it seems to me that the correct way to respond to Dr. Singer's comments is to prove, using accepted science, that he is wrong.

I am amazed that there are so many posters who either can't or won't do that!

"Perfect" is your word and not one that I used or even suggested.

I don't think solar planels work well if they are broken, however, and it occurs to me that 90 square miles of them would offer a lot of opportunity for natural damage, for mischief, and other hazards requiring a great deal of monitoring and maintenance that would also have to be factored into the cost.

It would appear, according to some sources, that though solar cells arfe not quite competitive yet, it is predicted that the price will drop further and it is expected that by 2030(TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW)it will drop to 3.1 cents per Kwh.

However, this will not curtail the use of petroleum products since less than 5 % of petroleum products are used in heating.

In twenty years, given our current political leadership, we will be a second rate country anyway, so there is really no need to work so hard to create energy sources in a country which will have lost its world leadership!

How many windows have you had to replace on your house in the last 20 years Fox because of broken glass?

Consider that the average glass on a household window is 1/8" and the average glass on a solar panel is laminated glass which is a lot less likely to break than window glass and if chipped or broken stays together and functions quite well.

It occurs to me that you are just blowing smoke.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5636297.ece

"Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions. "

Polar bears can now breath easy again!

I've noticed that quality in her, too.

A gaggle of Luddites.

Is this really true, Genoves?It doesn't seem possible. Is electrical generation that is used in heating and cooling factored into this 5%?

patrol is insignificant in America: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

Who generates with it? Maybe in the middle east or Russia???

That still doesn't seem possible, 5%

For 2005, 21% of electrical generation was done with natural gas and petroleum liquids. Electric heat/air conditioning, fuel oil, natural gas, is common throughout the US so, again, that 5% just doesn't seem right.

natural gas is not a petroleum product. In any case I suspect that the claim is that 5% of the heat comes directly from patrol, as in oil filed furnaces like America has on the east coast. I buy the claim, in today's energy market only a fool would volunteer to burn oil for heat. Look at how we have stopped using oil for electricity.....in 2008 less than 50,000 megawatts from Petrol products out of 4,100,000.....1%

Perhaps my life-experience isn't as long as yours, Foxfyre. And most certainly ours are different. But as far as I know, most -if not all. 'stuff' doesn't work when broken.

Well, 90 square miles is a huge area - I have to admit that our largest area with solar modules is only as little 0.9 square miles: a power plant, 40 Mega Watts, to be opened this year.

What kind of maintenance costs much in the USA? Monitoring?

However that is 40 mw at peak (midday) power. The average power output over time, counting day & night & cloudy days is certainly less than about 17mw. Thus it would take only about 70 such plants (63 square miles) to equal the average output of a single standard nuclear plant (or coal fired steam plant).

Worse, it costs much more per unit of net power output.

Maintenance, repairs, service parts, damage etc are calculated here with 1% of the total costs of a solar plant. (The first couple of years it costs nothing because nothing has to be done.)
Insurance isn't that much compared with other plants: about 70€ ($90) per 100,000€ ($129,000) per year. (That covers hail, storm, water, etc ). Private plants are insured via the normal home insurance with a small surcharge.

the new flexible (and low-cost) solar panels will not break under normal usage .

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/ctp/ren/solpan-tr-eng.php

from a publication by the government of canada :