Global Climate Talks Need Sense Of Urgency

Next week’s global climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, need to be guided by a new sense of urgency. After more than 20 years of talking about climate change, it’s time for the nations of the world to start putting a meaningful plan in place to fight it.

If all goes well, the U.N. sponsored talks – known as COP 19 (short for the 19th Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change) – are expected to lay the groundwork for reaching a long-awaited and much-discussed global climate agreement by 2015, which would then take effect five years later.

But if the past is any indication, it’s hard to get your hopes up. What will be the process and timeline for cutting greenhouse gas emissions worldwide? How do you enforce any agreement? And who pays what to whom in the way of financial aid, recognizing the economic dilemmas faced today by most developing nations? These are extraordinarily difficult questions with no easy answers.

And to compound the problem, let’s not forget one other thing: the United States never ratified the 1997 Kyoto accord. So, yes, this is going to be a long, tough row to hoe.

But what choice do we have? Global warming shows no sign of abating. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Project, the temperature in the U.S. has increased by 2 degrees in the last 50 years. In the last century, sea levels have risen roughly 7 inches after not having changed noticeably in the previous 2,000 years. And scientists say there is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today than at any point in the last 800,000 years.

This is not, as the Flat Earth Society would lead you to believe, a debate between clean energy and a robust economy. Today, we can have both – and solar, along with other renewable energy sources, are showing how to make this possible.

But you would never know it by listening to the rants of nay-sayers, who have called plans to fight climate change everything from “sheer fantasy” to “massive self-sacrifice.”

From an environmental perspective, few things threaten our nation’s future prosperity more than climate change. That’s why it was so encouraging to see President Obama launch his Global Climate Change Initiative earlier this year.

This is a watershed moment in our nation’s history. Today, climate change is a real and growing threat to America and the rest of the world. It’s indisputable. Sea levels are rising. Artic ice is disappearing. We’re experiencing more intense and unpredictable storms. And droughts plague the world.

Clearly, climate change threatens our economy, our future progress, our health and safety, and even our way of life. Every day, the Earth suffers a little more from human neglect. We can’t wish this problem away, and pointing fingers won’t solve it, either.

America’s solar energy industry is uniquely poised to help. Today, solar is one of the fastest-growing sources of new energy in the United States. More than 30 utility-scale, clean energy solar projects are under construction, putting thousands of electricians, steelworkers and laborers to work and helping to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. These facilities, along with rooftop solar on homes, businesses and schools, will generate electricity for generations to come.

There is now more than 9,400 megawatts (MW) of cumulative solar electric capacity installed in the U.S. – enough to power more than 1.5 million American homes. In the first quarter of 2013, more than 48 percent of all new electricity added to the grid was solar, while through the first half of this year, solar ranked third among all fuel sources when it comes to new capacity.

In addition, SEIA recently released a comprehensive new report outlining ways to create 50,250 new American jobs and save more than $61 billion in future energy costs by expanding the use of innovative and cost-effective solar heating and cooling (SHC) systems across the nation.

Today, solar employs nearly 120,000 Americans at more than 6,100 companies, most of which are small businesses spread across the United States, making solar one of the fastest-growing industries in America. Part of this amazing growth is attributed to the fact that the cost of a solar system has dropped by nearly 40 percent over the past two years, making solar more affordable – and more popular – than ever. And as solar continues to scale up, costs will continue to come down.

Yet the debate about climate change isn’t simply about money. It’s also about our legacy, as a people. Abraham Lincoln said it best: “You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

It’s time for the nations of the world to understand that.

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

Rhone Resch is the President and CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the national trade association for the solar energy industry representing over 1,000 companies that manufacture, develop and install solar systems of...

View the original article here

EVs make good cents or sense?

David Herron torque news explained in his article "60 kWh Tesla model S at 208 mile electric driving range of EPA rated:"

"85 Kilowatt hour model S, $77.400 for 265 kilometers range, or $292 / mile of the area." The kilowatt hour 60 S model, $67.400 for 208 km range, is $324 / mile of the area. The electric cars cost much more per mile of driving range.

See this comparison the next logical step, conducted a cost analysis of EVS and petrol driven vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, to determine their comparative life-cycle costs. This analysis included 30 vehicles (2013) between a Mini Cooper and a Ferrari F12. A selection of the manufacturers of high end and low end models represented vehicles.

Only the Tesla model S all electric vehicle was considered in this study. Results can look differently with other manufacturers bottom end all electric cars.

Evaluated members include:

Motor power (HP or kWh), EPA MPG fuel economy rating or kWh 100 mile RatingFuel combined capacity (gallons).MSRP of less supply, tax, title, and LicenseRange (= combined EPA rated x fuel tank) costs per mile (EIA / area) cost over 60,000 miles of petrol [x cost of gasoline = (60,000 / MPG)]
Electricity costs more than 60,000 [(60.000 100) = X (kWh / 100 km x electricity cost)]

Total cost (= EIA + cost of fuel) cost difference by Telsa S 60 kWh (= total cost - total cost Telsa S).
The manufacturer was received by the EPO and technical specifications data for each vehicle. The cost of gasoline ($3.257 per gallon) obtained from the EIA - U.S. national average for regular grade, was 24.12.2012. The cost of electricity ($0.1187 per kWh) price obtained from the EIA - average retail retail of electricity to ultimate; rolling 12 months ending in October 2012.

Cost for routine service, tax, title, license, unplanned maintenance and costs for discharged batteries or run out of gasoline not tow the analysis included. The fact that produced electricity mainly from fossil fuels was not taken into account in this study.

It is recommended that the entire spreadsheet (.xls) see here.

The summary is as follows, from the largest to the smallest cost savings or differential of Tesla S 60 kWh at a cost of 60,000 miles:

Dodge Charger Daytona R/T plus

Ferrari F12 Berlinetta Coupe

Finally, the data for itself speaks. From a pure cost basis only Teslar make little S with 60kWh or 85kWh versions of financial sense. Acclaimed cars such as the Audi A6 and Q7, BMW and Cadillac CTS even the base Corvette are better deals.

The problem is the society requires, fossil fuels rise. With high cost EVs, which show little or even no cost savings, it is difficult to motivate consumers to buy EVs - even if it benefits us all in the long term.

EVs make good cents or sense?

David Herron torque news explained in his article "60 kWh Tesla model S at 208 mile electric driving range of EPA rated:"

"85 Kilowatt hour model S, $77.400 for 265 kilometers range, or $292 / mile of the area." The kilowatt hour 60 S model, $67.400 for 208 km range, is $324 / mile of the area. The electric cars cost much more per mile of driving range.

See this comparison the next logical step, conducted a cost analysis of EVS and petrol driven vehicles used for the carriage of passengers, to determine their comparative life-cycle costs. This analysis included 30 vehicles (2013) between a Mini Cooper and a Ferrari F12. A selection of the manufacturers of high end and low end models represented vehicles.

Only the Tesla model S all electric vehicle was considered in this study. Results can look differently with other manufacturers bottom end all electric cars.

Evaluated members include:

Motor power (HP or kWh), EPA MPG fuel economy rating or kWh 100 mile RatingFuel combined capacity (gallons).MSRP of less supply, tax, title, and LicenseRange (= combined EPA rated x fuel tank) costs per mile (EIA / area) cost over 60,000 miles of petrol [x cost of gasoline = (60,000 / MPG)]
Electricity costs more than 60,000 [(60.000 100) = X (kWh / 100 km x electricity cost)]

Total cost (= EIA + cost of fuel) cost difference by Telsa S 60 kWh (= total cost - total cost Telsa S).
The manufacturer was received by the EPO and technical specifications data for each vehicle. The cost of gasoline ($3.257 per gallon) obtained from the EIA - U.S. national average for regular grade, was 24.12.2012. The cost of electricity ($0.1187 per kWh) price obtained from the EIA - average retail retail of electricity to ultimate; rolling 12 months ending in October 2012.

Cost for routine service, tax, title, license, unplanned maintenance and costs for discharged batteries or run out of gasoline not tow the analysis included. The fact that produced electricity mainly from fossil fuels was not taken into account in this study.

It is recommended that the entire spreadsheet (.xls) see here.

The summary is as follows, from the largest to the smallest cost savings or differential of Tesla S 60 kWh at a cost of 60,000 miles:

Dodge Charger Daytona R/T plus

Ferrari F12 Berlinetta Coupe

Finally, the data for itself speaks. From a pure cost basis only Teslar make little S with 60kWh or 85kWh versions of financial sense. Acclaimed cars such as the Audi A6 and Q7, BMW and Cadillac CTS even the base Corvette are better deals.

The problem is the society requires, fossil fuels rise. With high cost EVs, which show little or even no cost savings, it is difficult to motivate consumers to buy EVs - even if it benefits us all in the long term.

The information and opinions in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily the RenewableEnergyWorld.com or companies, the advertising on this Web site and other publications. This blog has been directly by the author and has not been reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

Obama: Oil and gas subsidies no sense

(WASHINGTON, May 14, UPI) - US - President Barack Obama demanded Saturday an end that $4 billion in annual subsidies to the oil industry, said they are not fair and not make sense.

"In the last months the largest oil companies made $4 billion in profits every week." And yet, they have $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies every year. 4 Billion dollars at a time when Americans to fill their tanks hardly. "Four billion dollars at a time when we try to reduce our deficit, said Obama in his weekly radio and Internet address, outlining steps that takes place his Government curb the rising cost of gasoline."

"It is not fair, it makes no sense." Before I was President, the CEOs of these companies also acknowledged that the tax subsidies made no sense. Now, next week, it a vote in Congress this oil company of giveaways a for once stop. And I hope that Democrats and Republicans come together and get this done.

"The American people should be not oil companies subsidies at a time when she make profits in the next record." As a nation, we should be in the clean, invested in renewable energy sources, which are the ultimate solution for high gas prices. The is why we are investing in clean energy technology, help companies, the production of solar cells and wind turbines, and to ensure that our cars and trucks on a container of Gases--a step further can, the families could save as much as $3,000 at the gas pump. "

The President announced the formation of a task force, led by Attorney General Eric holder, with the express purpose rooting out fraud and market manipulation. He led also to the "safe and responsible" domestic oil production, including leasing annual sales in Alaska National Petroleum Reserve, the acceleration of the offshore oil and gas exploration in the Central and Southern Atlantic Ocean and the extension of all leases in the Gulf of Mexico of last year's deepwater horizon oil spill affected.

A senior administration of official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Friday the plans of the Government to speed up the environmental assessment in the Gulf of Mexico lease to facilitate sales in the Western and Central Gulf by mid 2012. The official said leases in Alaska Orlik for potential activity that happened in the last year "to ensure companies not by, that are corrupted", add the Government is "tailor-made" lease conditions and the introduction of fee structures to early development to promote and further incentives already rented lands access to Castle.

View the original article here