news-record.com

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

'A new day' for power in N.C.

Sunday, November 22, 2009
(Updated 7:46 am)

At first glance, the thousands of glimmering panels erected on a former farm in southwest Davidson County seem like a brigade of energy soldiers, poised to vanquish America’s environmental bugaboos.

But construction manager Greg Cunnington knows the pollution-free electricity that Maryland-based SunEdison generates from the 64,000-panel solar array will be just a drop in the bucket compared with the state’s total energy use.

“If you don’t put any drops in the bucket,” Cunnington said, “then you never have a chance of getting it filled up.”

The construction scene where Cunnington works looks like any other, full of hard hats, forklifts and dusty utility vehicles, except the workers won’t leave behind the typical industrial park or subdivision when they finish. Steel columns hold rows of rotating blue and silver panels that track the sun’s movement from east to west.

The cells in the panels will absorb sunlight and convert it into direct-current electricity, which a device then will convert into the more practical alternating-current electricity. A Duke Energy substation near the farm will change the voltage of the AC power before distributing it through power lines to homes and businesses.

The company began construction in July and expects to start generating about 3.5 megawatts of usable power by year’s end. The operation should power more than 2,600 homes .

“It’s like nothing I’ve ever done before,” said Karli Christman , an assistant project manager from High Point. “It’s a great opportunity to be part of a green project.”

Meeting state targets

Duke Energy will purchase the output — a planned 16 megawatts of the roughly 20 megawatts generated — over a 20-year period as part of its goal to meet the state’s interim and long-term renewable energy requirements. The utility provider needs to sell 12,000 megawatt-hours of solar energy per year by 2010 and 10 times that amount by 2018 .

That solar mandate covers fewer than 1 percent of the 8 million megawatt-hours of renewable-based electricity Duke needs to sell by 2021 . And all of this must cost residential customers no more than $10 to $34 more per year.

The company believes it can meet its near-term goals without hitting cost caps, said Owen Smith , managing director of regulated renewable energy and carbon strategy . Among other things, Duke plans to spend $50 million building mini solar farms on the rooftops of buildings in Greensboro and other cities. It also will purchase credits for the energy generated by two North Carolina companies that build solar heating and cooling systems.

“There’s a lot we need to do between now and then,” Smith said about meeting the goal. “There’s a lot we don’t know about what renewable resources will cost.”

Despite its modest contribution to our energy needs, renewable energy will have a substantial effect on utilities’ management practices and North Carolinians’ sense of control about their energy future.

Residents and business owners will see more, and possibly get paid for operating, solar arrays atop roofs, near parking lots, on farmland and in their neighborhoods. Duke estimates that it could oversee 750 renewable energy projects throughout the state by 2021 , compared with the 17 conventional power plants it’s managed in the past, Smith said.

Solar is clean but costly

Installation costs — not lack of availability — are the biggest obstacle to solar energy meeting a larger portion of the country’s energy needs . Component prices have steadily declined over the years, but large, grid-connected systems can cost 28 to 42 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 5 to 10 cents for natural gas power plants and 9 to 12 cents for wind turbines, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change .

Still, solar’s flexibility — it can go anywhere the sun is shining — and its ability to harvest the planet’s largest renewable resource keep it high on the list of ways to reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Even after initial enthusiasm for solar energy waned in the late 20th century, firms continued to research and install panels across the country.

Now, the U.S. has at least 8,800 megawatts of installed solar heating and electrical capacity, with more than 18,000 individual photovoltaic systems going up in 2008, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Helping the industry were long-standing tax credits and groups such as N.C. GreenPower, a 6-year-old nonprofit that offsets system costs for home and business owners who sell their renewable energy to utilities. The group contracts with almost 300 solar electricity generators, including Leon’s Beauty School , which installed a 165-panel rooftop array in October as part of its efforts to adopt green practices.

“I’m doing this for my grandchildren,” said Parker Washburn , owner of the Greensboro school. “When you finally have grandkids, you want to change your legacy.”

State renewable energy quotas created openings for utility-scale projects, and SunEdison rode North Carolina’s policy wave into the Piedmont, purchasing a 356-acre farm on New Jersey Church Road in Davidson County and promising to invest $173 million on a massive array that, at the time, would have been the largest in the country. The company also sells or plans to sell output from a 1.2-megawatt operation in Wilmington to Progress Energy and a 1-megawatt array in Alexander County to EnergyUnited Electric Membership Corp. in Statesville .

The solar farm carries modest economic benefits for Davidson County, at least in the short term. SunEdison, sold to a larger company in October, will employ about 80 people during construction and three permanent workers. The county will receive $7,800 more per year in land-related taxes, but SunEdison will pay only 20 percent of the system’s appraised value, thanks to a state tax incentive.

Still, county leaders believe the project’s greatest promise is its potential to draw other green industry; County Commissioner Larry Potts noted that “the PR far exceeds the job creation.”

Can solar stand alone?

Tax breaks and policies can take the solar industry only so far, especially if the economy stays weak and federal lawmakers don’t pass a climate bill limiting carbon emissions. The assistance gives companies and researchers time to bring their costs down, so the technology can eventually stand on its own, said Mark Preston , chief operating officer for MegaWatt Solar in Hillsborough .

“Nobody in this industry believes it’s viable unless we’re able to be competitive without those subsidies,” Preston said.

MegaWatt Solar designed a photovoltaic system with the potential to cut costs by up to 30 percent and generate significant job growth in North Carolina. The company wants to build large-scale systems for utilities and it sells output from one pilot project in Caswell County to the 31,000-member Piedmont Electric Membership Corp.

“Not only does it look good, but it’s a new technology that optimizes the rays from the sun and reduces the use of silicon,” said Susan Cashion , the cooperative’s manager of public relations .

The “solar trees” use readily available components, including mirrors, precast concrete pads, aluminum frames and circuit boards, and only 5 percent of the system’s cost comes from imported solar cells, Preston said.

“Because the things we are using are simpler and more conventional technologies and we don’t need an investor to spend millions developing something, that means we can have a lot of local suppliers who can do these things easily,” he said.

Contact Morgan Josey Glover at 373-7078 or morgan.josey@news-record.com

 

Renewable energy at Duke Energy

Duke Energy serves about 2.4 million customers in the Carolinas. The company needs 12.5 percent, or 8 million megawatt-hours, of its North Carolina sales to come from renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs by 2021 to comply with state law. These are the company’s current N.C. projects:

Solar: Duke has a 20-year agreement to purchase from a 20-megawatt solar farm in Davidson County. The company plans to own and maintain 10 megawatts worth of solar electric capacity from systems installed on leased roof space of North Carolina homes and businesses. The company also will buy the output from solar thermal projects owned by Vanir Energy in Fletcher and FLS Energy in Asheville.

Wind: The company will fund up to three wind turbines in the Pamlico Sound as part of a UNC-Chapel Hill research project.

Biomass: A landfill gas project in Durham aims to supply about 1,600 residential customers by the end of this year. Duke and other utilities have struggled to meet state quotas for supplying electricity from swine and poultry waste.

Hydroelectric: Duke has seven conventional plants in North Carolina that supply 578 megawatts of electrical capacity.

Energy efficiency: Duke received state approval this year for its Save-a-Watt program, in which customers can now participate. The program aims to help people plug energy leaks at home, and so far includes a basic online energy audit and coupons for compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Source: Duke Energy

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

mikec

November 22, 2009 - 7:44 am EST

Last year, before the economy tanked, I purchased my childhood home and did an extensive remodeling project. While I replaced the windows, added insulation and converted to tankless hot water, I really wanted to include solar panels on the roof. After researching the project, I found a company who could do a turnkey job for almost $25,000. The best case scenario would be a payback in 21 years (at the current rates) as state and federal tax credits had expired.

Since then, the world has changed. With my employment in flux, the economy poised for a second inflationary dip as the president mentioned day before yesterday and the specter of inflation looming, this homeowner would not be comfortable entertaining such an expense at this time. I’m glad, however, the technology is progressing so it will hopefully be available to the masses when we exit these stressful economic times.

Mike

jbcarper

November 22, 2009 - 7:58 am EST

This is a nice, upbeat article about a potential future for solar energy generation. Unfortunately, it is long on optomism and short on reality.
The references to tax credits, government imposed quotas, subsidies, carbon credits abound throughout the article. Solar energy has been a dream for as long as man has made use of power. It's an interesting experiment, but far short of a practical solution.
Just look at Duke Energy's reference that they will manage hundreds of solar collection sites in order to gather a very small fraction of the power generated at 17 traditional generation sites. That is not an efficient use of our resources.

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 8:04 am EST

Tax credits for people installing so called 'green' improvements is nothing more than a euphemism for the government taking your money and giving some of it back to you. There ain't no free lunch. The only power source that is capable of efficiently producing the required power is nuclear. Not building more nuclear power plants only serves as a reminder of how dumb we the people can be.

Highlander

November 22, 2009 - 12:11 pm EST

I agree with you about nuclear energy being the primary solution, but to disregard solar and wind energy altogether would be a missed opportunity in a time where we need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. Tax credits are a good way to spur these two industries.

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 2:05 pm EST

Tax credits to the end user are simply a way to let me and you pay for Joe to install something that he other wise would not find economical. Promoting an energy source that is un-economical in order to 'feel good' poor fiscal management. The euphemism 'fossil fuel' is one of the all time big scams. Oil is being created as we speak as is natural gas. We will never run out, but we will deplete the economically recoverable sources - if we choose to recover those sources. Other countries will do so - even if we won't - check out Brazil. When we deplete oil to the point where it becomes as or more expensive than other fuels, the market will make the shift to other fuels. Where and when solar, wind and other energy options become economical, the market will cause them to be used. If the government wants to use it's influence, the government should help fund basic research into economical wind and solar for example.

InventorNC

November 22, 2009 - 9:47 am EST

I pray that the politicians will sober up and allow nuke. France is generating 80% of its power with nuke. We could too.

Let's release Duke (who must get licenses to operate) from having to participate in the unwise green charade. Let them get back to investment-wise nuke and fossil.

Duke should be allowed to make their own decisions - they have shown their judgement to be correct throughout their history. Don't let the pseudo wise men screw things up for the rest of us.

Let's remember that when the sun goes down the nuke and fossil power plants go online - after idling all day long! Green is expensive for sure and the net benefits are negative.

Our nation is going downhill fast - we cannot afford to be generous to everyone and defend the rest all on our nickel. We cannot afford to dilly dally with unwise schemes while our country falters.

Have you seen "Not Evil Just Wrong" That's the answer to Gore's painful environmental guff? See it. Let our teachers see it too.

I have an inside staight on 3 Mile Island if anyone is interested. The accident was (sigh) government inspired.

Finally, no government regulation and no government subsidy is a substitute for honest economics. Just a politician's ego trip - at our expense.

Highlander

November 22, 2009 - 12:02 pm EST

I consider myself an "Environmentalist" but have decided that nuclear energy is a necessary evil. It CAN be produced safely. The problem lies with disposal. That's where the Dept of Energy plays a vital role. Coal and other fossil fuel burning need to be minimized.

Jeremiah

November 22, 2009 - 10:27 am EST

If new technologies can prove to be efficient and cost-effective, I am all for it. Going "green" because some people think man is evil and destroying the planet is another argument altogether. Economics and energy independence need to fuel the conversion to new energy-based technology, not the unproven and (I believe) false premise that man is somehow killing the planet. That is simply a tactic for seeking more government control.

Highlander

November 22, 2009 - 11:59 am EST

I have not personally done any scientific research on global warming or other environmental hazards, but I believe that the thousands of scientists that say we are killing the planet are correct, and the handful of scientists who disagree are incorrect.

The free market does not protect human rights or the planet we live on. It never has and never will - it's only function is to make money. Since the market-driven energy industry won't make the necessary changes on it's own, it is the responsibility of the people (via their government) to make sure the changes are made. Now we just have to decide on which changes are necessary.

JGALT

November 22, 2009 - 7:42 pm EST

Free markets are the most efficient means of allocating capital and pricing goods and services. Markets don't make money they provide the mechanism for desirable products and services to be exchanged. They make money if sale price exceeds cost of production.

balance

November 22, 2009 - 9:01 pm EST

Markets? Efficient? We've been hearing about a market utopia for the past 30 years, and it's done nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Chicago school economist and their rational choice ideology have been proven wrong again and again; yet, their radical ideology still drives public opinion. Geez people, that's how we got in this economic mess to begin with. It's time to dump this market dream and face the fact: we need a balanced capitalism -- not some radicalized, neoliberal BS that only benefits the rich.

tledford

November 22, 2009 - 10:11 pm EST

The "free market" is an illusion, or more frankly, an hallucination suffered by Ronnie Raygun and perpetrated upon an hapless US citizenry for the last 30 years.

Markets are created and maintained by government for the benefit of corporations and the super-rich. Plain and simple.

Please provide your address so that Duke energy will know where to deliver their nuclear waste.

opec

November 22, 2009 - 11:34 am EST

How nice. If I had the privilege to double dip (taxpayer funded and increases on light bills) I'd put some of them thangs up in my yard. Actually, if it were just affordable to do it, I'd do it. But the cost to do it is so much. That's so that the common person can't afford it, and has to rely on the utility providers. And your in bondage to them because you either pay what they want, or do without.

tonymo

November 22, 2009 - 12:08 pm EST

This should end up on the Best Seller list under FICTION! Before buying into these pipe dreams the writer should have invetigated the monumental "success" of the San Diego schools move to solar energy! As with most of the "renewable energy" dreamers, none of this is about "energy" independence, or "clean" energy. There is no more cleaner energy source than nuclear power, yet we refuse to expaned our use. Why? it makes no sense. Are the French more "innovative" than us? hardly! But the zealots own the Democrat Party.

The writer should have also researched the unmitigated disaster of Spain's head long foray into a "green" economy. Their unemployment rate is 17-18%. A University of Madrid study showed that for every "green" job created, 2.2 real jobs were lost! Yet our president names a "green" jobs czar, who by the way was a self-described Communist. How many great jobs are created in Communist countries these days!

Environmentalism is the last bastion of Stalin style Communism. It is not about reducing emissions, or saving the planet, but rather about the destrucition of Capitalism, and control over our lives. The environmentalists in California are trying to stop wind farms in the Mojave Desert, yes wind farms, yes in the Mojave Desert, because obviously the wind must be transmitted to the cities from the farms, and building the transmission lines adversely affects the habitat of some innocous little animal beloved by the zealots.

Whether you care to believe it or not oil, by far the least expensive energy source, is a RENEWABLE source of energy. Were have been told since the 1970's that we are "running out of oil. In 1978, famed geologist Jimmy Carter said the world had 10 years of oil left! Actually, if you follow the news you've heard about the many massive oil finds, the latest in Brazil. Has anyone read, or heard lately about oil shortages despite the massive increase in demand since the 70's, especially from the developing countries. So where is all of the newly discovered coming from? Also, according to an energy research company more than 60% of oil in the world's waters are NATURAL, 4% from transport, and ONE percent from offshore drilling! So please explain why oil is NOT a RENEWABLE source of energy!

We, the United States, are the Saudi Arabia of coal, but the president during the campaign promised to "bankrupt the coal industry." He said his Cap&Trade scam will, "necessarily make electricity prices skyrocket.? To what end? Saving the planet? Hardly! It's about total control over our lives, and the destruction of Capitalism. Look around you folks. We are on the precipitous already without new, and very costly pipe dreams that at best are many years into the future, and more importantly we are aready broke as a country!

Highlander

November 22, 2009 - 12:17 pm EST

You're sounding like a paranoid lunatic. Environmentalism does note equal Communism.

tonymo

November 22, 2009 - 4:03 pm EST

Highlander, "Paranoid Lunatic." Really, read on genius:

These jewels are contained within the first 41 pages of a 300 page book,"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism." Perhaps the best expose' of these Charlatans, and their agendas written to date. Much, or at least some information from the book shows up in the documents from Hadley, gotten to a hacker, or perhaps a whistle blower. To e determined!

Paul Erlich: "Giving society cheap, abundant energy....would be giving an idiot child a machine gun."
Paul Erlich: "We've already had too much economic growth in the U.S. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure."
Paul Erlich: "Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles. The oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979. The U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics."
Paul Erlich: "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 70's and 80's hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now." (This lunatic had a huge following with his famous book, "The Population Bomb" in the late 60's)

Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot the birds."

Reuters: Green activists insist that world leaders must not allow concern for energy security to distract them from taking promised action on global warming.

Lamont Cole from the book Toxic Terror: "To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."

Ecotge (as in sabotage): "We must make this an insecure, and uninhabitable place for Capitalists and their projects."

Charles Wursta, chief scientist for the environmental defense fund in response to the millions that would likely die if DDT were banned (it was, they did, but blamed it on global warming!): "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any."

Susan Sontag: "The white race is the cancer of human history. It is the white race, and it alone, its ideologies and inventions, which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself"

UC Berkley professor Aaron Wildavsky: "Warming, and warming alone, through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."

Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept: "The right to have children should e a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state."

Canada's environmental minister: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits to gloal warming policies. Climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." (one of my personal favorites!)

Peter Chylek, Prof of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhouse U. Nova Scotia: "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, to attract great funding to themselves have to find a way to scare the public, and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (another personal favorite and an answer to your naive question why would.....?)

Climate alarmist Stephen Schneider in Discover magazine: "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us have to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest."

This is a TINY sampling from the real LUNATICS that litter our society!

Highlander

November 22, 2009 - 7:56 pm EST

So you use a non-scientific, poorly-written conservative piece of propaganda for your counterpoint? I still stand by my paranoid lunatic analysis. Try again, genius.

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 8:43 pm EST

Let's suppose, for a moment, that the alarmist are correct and the globe is warming. Is that all bad? Read a bit. You can start here: http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/Global_Warming_Benefits.htm

balance

November 22, 2009 - 9:04 pm EST

Global warming is only debated in the US where the energy companies control the media and public opinion. The rest of the world understands the science. We're like Spain under franco and Mexico under Diaz. Dogmatism holds us back while the rest of the world advances.

tledford

November 22, 2009 - 10:19 pm EST

Not just dogmatism, but the calculated and deliberate attempt to render our education system useless and thus our populace ignorant and uninformed. Much easier to herd and control if they're stupid.

tledford

November 22, 2009 - 10:17 pm EST

"Paranoid lunatic" is not the same as "paranoid imbecile." Close enough, though.

tledford

November 22, 2009 - 10:16 pm EST

The only "Communist" country (per the label, if not fact) left in the world is China. Where have all the US jobs gone, if not to Central America, Vietnam, the Phillipines or Mexico? China.

The unemployment rate in China is lower than that in the US.

Thank for the chuckle, nonetheless.

jeffjet

November 22, 2009 - 9:01 pm EST

I read these comments with some keen interest, because it is obvious there are still some sensible people left out there. I was beginning to think everyone was marching in step to the current drummer's beat. It is refreshing to see that there are a number of people that do not believe the diatribe constantly assaulting nuclear power. I worked in nuclear power for seven years and I stand with my thoughts that there is no other form of energy available that we can use that will yield the immense power at extremely low costs.

To those that got off track a little regarding global warming: As a scientist and engineer I spend countless hours reading about many scientific subjects, but none get my blood heated like this so-called global warming epidemic. What a joke and a sham. I would invite anyone to go to the local library and pull any scientific peer-reviewed journal they wish to use and locate 10 articles discussing global warming and the data used to make their conclusions; then do the same for the opposing viewpoint against global warming. See if you can convince yourself that this is occurring by the professional people that spend their lives studying this topic and what they say, not what some egotistical politician that is trying to sell a book and gain some level of name fame. I think you know who I am speaking of; look at what an English judge has ruled regarding that non-scientific piece of trash. And yes, I am biased when it comes to my livelihood.

I'll give you a personal example of what I remember from the early 1970's. This newspaper printed in the comic pages on Sunday a short column called "Mark Trail." There was a story one Sunday about the French Concorde jet coming on the scene at that time and that this jet's contrails would block out the sun and create global warming. We are almost 40 years later and the same paranoid lunatics that were espousing this are still at it today. If they are right then where's the proof? Just today a large number of scientists have stated that they are being snubbed for denouncing global warming and making a strong case for the contrary, that the earth is actually cooling. If you want to be stupid and follow the naked Emperor, then by all means, have at it. One day you'll all be disappointed at what you find.

balance

November 22, 2009 - 9:11 pm EST

There is no debate in the scientific community on this issue. The science is solid. A quick review of scientific literature makes it clear that only science illiterate deniers believe it is a facade.

Global warming potential, global warming commitment and other indexes as characteristics of the effects of greenhouse gases on Earth’s climate.Citation Only Available
By: Frolkis, Victor A.; Karol, Igor L.; Kiselev, Andrey A.. Ecological Indicators, Nov2002, Vol. 2 Issue 1/2, p109, 13p; (AN 8619678)
Database: Academic Search Premier

Low-level ozone, plants and global warming.Full Text Available
Ecos, Oct/Nov2007, Issue 139, p8-8, 1/5p; (AN 27478022)
Database: Academic Search Premier

Sensitivity of global warming to the pattern of tropical ocean warming.Full Text Available
By: Barsugli, Joseph J.; Sang-Ik Shin; Sardeshmukh, Prashant D.. Climate Dynamics, Nov2006, Vol. 27 Issue 5, p483-492, 10p, 1 chart, 1 graph, 8 maps; DOI: 10.1007/s00382-006-0143-7; (AN 22029149)
Database: Academic Search Premier

Anatomizing the Ocean’s Role in ENSO Changes under Global Warming.Full Text Available
By: Yang, Haijun; Zhang, Qiong. Journal of Climate, Dec2008, Vol. 21 Issue 24, p6539-6555, 17p, 9 graphs, 5 maps; (AN 36003435)
Database: Academic Search Premier

Dynamical greenhouse-plus feedback and polar warming amplification. Part II: meridional and vertical asymmetries of the global warming.Full Text Available
By: Ming Cai; Jianhua Lu. Climate Dynamics, Oct2007, Vol. 29 Issue 4, p375-391, 17p, 5 charts, 10 graphs; DOI: 10.1007/s00382-007-0238-9; (AN 25559019)
Database: Academic Search Premier

Ecosystem change in the western North Pacific associated with global warming using 3D-NEMUROCitation Only Available
By: Hashioka, Taketo; Yamanaka, Yasuhiro. Ecological Modelling, Mar2007, Vol. 202 Issue 1/2, p95-104, 10p; DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.12.002; (AN 24143293)
Database: Academic Search Premier

IMPACT OF GLOBAL WARMING ON SOIL ORGANIC CARBON.Citation Only Available
By: Smith, Pete; Changming Fang; Dawson, Julian J. C.; Moncrieff, John B.. Advances in Agronomy, 2008, Vol. 97, p1-43, 43p, 3 diagrams, 3 graphs; DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2113(07)00001-6; (AN 32187714)
Database: Academic Search Premier

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 9:27 pm EST

As long as you are content to read only one side of an argument, you will only know and therefore believe only that side. As your nom de plume suggests, seek balance - http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

balance

November 22, 2009 - 9:32 pm EST

There is no scientific argument here. The empirical evidence has mounted over decades. The only alternative is non-peer-reviewed, ideologically driven propaganda. If you don't believe the literature, read the research and critique the methodology. Figure it out for yourself. You seem to be a smart person.

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 9:44 pm EST

Do you even try to read the evidence against? You must be aware that the earth has actually been cooling since 1998. One prominent proponent of anthropogenic global warming, Prof. Mojib Latif of Germany's Leibniz Institute, admits that the earth has entered a one to two decade period of cooling......

histrion

November 23, 2009 - 10:47 am EST

"Admits". Good verb choice there, Dr. Spin. That's a lot like looking at the recent recession as an indicator of the long-term prospects for the financial market. Not smart as an investor, and not smart as a steward of your planet.

balance

November 22, 2009 - 9:23 pm EST

If you have enough money, you SHOULD be able to poop in the pool that we all swim in. If we get enough money out of it, we'll all love to swim in poop water. How's that for rational economics?

johnodrake

November 22, 2009 - 9:28 pm EST

It is completely irrational. It is like saying that if you have enough money you should be able to commit murder... makes no sense at all.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: CLOUDY
  • Current Temperature: 37°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 37° L: 24°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search