Comments on: Renewable Energy No More Expensive

By: Feld

Feld — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:11:45 +0000

This study has been pulled from RAND’s website. http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR384/

A phonecall reveals that the document is due for release this month (DEC 2007). It’s been over a year. It will be interesting to compare the 2 versions.

By: Mohammad Mansouryar

Mohammad Mansouryar — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:16:18 +0000

Hi there, (sorry for not being related to this post)

What’s up? See my newest paper please: (in External links)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

I think you’d like it! And maybe you’d want to write about it?

Cheers,
MM

By: Anthony Kendall

Anthony Kendall — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:25:56 +0000

Jeff,
Here’s the link to the summary review that then links to chapter-by-chapter reviews if you’re interested:
Summary Review

By: Jeff

Jeff — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:49:59 +0000

Hi Anthony -

I read your comment on an old realclimate.org post (re: reviewing Bethal’s Politically Incorrect…).

Is it available anywhere yet?

Thanks,

Jeff

By: Noblesse Oblige

Noblesse Oblige — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:48:00 +0000

Renewable vs Nonrenewable Energy…

The real point is that Energy Independence for the US is just not enough — we must instead have energy abundance for the entire world. We do not want to be the lone island of energy wealth in a sea of misery, and it’s a simple formula for s…

By: Thanos

Thanos — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:28:27 +0000

Interesting study, but.. the time for studies has stopped. Over the new fifty years I believe we will find ourselves using all sources. I’ve been a firm proponent of zero-emission sources since the eighties because burning hydrocarbons puts carcinogens in the air. To me the jury’s still out on man-made global warming (glaciers recede on mars in synchronicity with those on earth, newly discovered carbon sinks have been disturbed [June Nature, Antarctic deep ocean cold water carbon sinks ] couple that with the recent spate of undersea volcanoes which dumped whole ice shelves, and you gain alternative theories.) Regardless, burning hydrocarbons == bad.
That leaves us Hydro, Nuclear, Wind, and Geothermal. I like all four, and all four are viable in the right environments, with nuclear being viable in all.
Like it or not we are a high-energy society, regardless of how we save or scrimp on energy without it we cannot support the population of the earth anymore. To try for a low-energy future is to create incalculable human suffering and grief.

By: Auto Parts Resources

Auto Parts Resources — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:44:07 +0000

Renewable Fuels to Provide US 25% Energy by 2025…

In the news: Rand Corp. study has recently showed decreasing costs of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy. The said sources of energy are predicted to provide US with at least 25% conventional energy by 2025 and the good news is t…..