Tesla’s Elon Musk Proposes Solving Puerto Rico Electrical Crisis with Solar Power and Microgrids
2GreenEnergy super-supporter Cameron Atwood writes: Hey, Craig – did you see this? Tesla’s Elon Musk Proposes Solving Puerto Rico Electrical Crisis with Solar Power
No, I hadn’t, but I’m dubious. I swore I’d never bet against Elon Musk again, but it’s hard to imagine that he could build and operate the Puerto Rican electric company profitably given all the conditions that militate against it:
• Rising incidence of hurricanes; winds are particularly injurious to solar.
• Crushing debt.
• Huge poverty rate.
• Diminishing tourism.
• Depreciating real estate values that will eventually approach zero as that part of the world sustains ever-increasing amounts of climate-related damage and becomes so expensive to repair constantly that it becomes uninhabitable.
There are lots of places that microgrids can work. And, though I wouldn’t say this is impossible here, but it has so much going against it.
Craig,
I agree, Solar or even Wind Micro-grids are not the best solution for low income, hurricane prone islands, but your alarmist assertion that depreciating real estate values will eventually approach zero as that part of the world sustains ever-increasing amounts of climate-related damage and becomes so expensive to repair constantly that it becomes uninhabitable, is wildly inaccurate!
Tropical Islands, indeed large area’s of the oceans have always been subject to Cyclones,Hurricanes, gales and wild tempest, but there is no evidence of these locations losing popularity.
From Japan to NZ, Hawaii to California, the entire Pacific rim of fire is unstable and prone to horrific earthquakes and volcanic activity, yet it’s some of the most expensive and sought after real estate.
Gloomy predictions of apocalyptic Armageddon, don’t really help gain credibility for the environmental message. On the contrary, people just shrug and ignore such rantings, treating them like all the other “end of world ” prophesies that occur every decade or so.
Craig,
Are you aware of the latest research proving the often despised and belittled, climate change skeptic, Australian Professor Ian Plimer might be correct after all ?
For 20 years Professor Plimer has been arguing that Climate change models omit underwater volcanic activity, and the lack of these omissions renders all Climate Change, (especially NASA’s) predictions inaccurate ?
Well, surprise, surprise, researchers at Edinburgh University announced that frigid West Antarctica contains at least 138 active volcanoes concealed within an ice sheet up to two kilometers thick in some places.
A team of scientists from New Mexico Tech, Dartmouth College, and Vermont Technical College confirmed evidence of volcanic eruptions occurring with increased energy levels under the West Antarctic ice sheet . Their extensive findings published in paper submitted to Scientific Reports, supports to a remarkable degree the theories espoused by Ian Plimer all those years ago.
Now the question that must be decided is: has the loss of ice in recent years awakened the volcanic activity, or has volcanic activity contributed to the ice melt ?
As always, I’ll let science sort this out, but I’ll be surprised is this changes the calculus here. Are these people saying that the volcanoes near the south pole are causing the ice on Greenland to melt too?
Craig,
Hmmm,…I don’t know if you notice, but whenever a member of the scientific community publishes a paper that coincides with your beliefs you are outraged if they are not afforded the dignity of being refereed as dedicated ’eminent scientists’.
However, when the same scientists publish a paper questioning your beliefs or ideological position, the mysterious get downgraded to “these people” !
(We’re all human 🙂 )
I don’t think the latest studies are conclusive.
Arctic melt is very different since the Arctic is just an ice cap which over the millennia has advanced and retreated many times. Arctic melt may be influenced by warmer southern currents, but without more definite evidence it’s still very much a matter of conjecture.
As you know, the Antarctic is a frozen continent possessing all the geological qualities of any other continent. The level of Antarctic volcanic activity hasn’t previously been measured, assessed or included.
Between 1917 and sometime into the 1970’s a large magna rift (similar to a volcano) opened in the Pacific ocean, killing sea life and creating a deep warm current, it disappeared as mysteriously as it began.
The event was largely misinterpreted and not properly assessed due the secrecy surrounding French nuclear testing etc, but this sort of phenomenon is more frequent than has been realized to date.
In rely to your query, the current evidence for sea level rise and any real warming is very contentious. Percentages are still very fractional and quite capable of being rationally explained by factors inherent in faulty modelling, data collection techniques etc.
A new factor such as the discovery of greater warming phenomenon being created by volcanic activity in Antarctica, is likewise open to different theories, all equally valid until more research is conducted.
Climate Alarmist will interpret the new revelations as evidence of global warming is exposing new dangers. Skeptics can argue the discoveries are evidence of natural phenomenon creating errors in climate modelling, while the real scientist’s (untainted by political/ideological agenda’s) can just get on with the scientific task of assessing how these discoveries affect existing calculations by continuing research.
One thing these studies do prove, is no scientific debate is immune from discoveries of previously unknown information, and nothing is 100% certain or written on tablets of stone !