Desal Go Solar

Nice try but the CO2 emissions caused by the mining of needed material, transportation of same and manufacturing of solar panels plus the installation and maintenance to power the desal plant are only slightly less than the CO2 released by the use of natural gas to do the same thing.

And for that tiny CO2 savings the cost is 400-600% more.

Unfortunately for the Left realitycheck88 has the facts correct.
However, if going solar was enough to get the enviro nuts to get out of the way of restarting the desal plant I would support this supposed "green alternative".
And before anyone comments about the price of desal water, please remember that we gave over $50mil to the State of California for ZERO WATER.

I realize my vision is pretty much head-in-the-clouds but just wanted these options to become part of the debate. Meanwhile I have a MUCH more realistic idea:
Using the Miramar Hotel property for a magnificent desal plant with solar array, big enough to generate power for SB as well as Montecito, with property donated by Caruso for all the incredible headaches he's caused our communities over the years. And the plant construction could be financed by Ty Warner for all the years of headaches he also caused. The landscaping around the plant could be beautiful, with pathways for tours through this exemplary forward-thinking project. And both magnanimous donors could have a clear conscience, green feathers in their caps, and ovations of gratitude from us Santa Barbarians. Do you think it will fly?

so if we are to believe fantasy, coal is cleaner than solar. You have a point in the here and now (still, slightly less as you admit), down the line, over time, your slightly less turns into a hell of a lot more. Good thing your head is only in the clouds Peter. JFK had his focused on the moon and look where that got us.

realitycheck88 - but once the panel is constructed and in use, then emissions for that panel are zero. Gas emissions never stop.

While true tabatha, natural gas is pretty darn clean, incredibly cheaper, faster to get in place, and will not require the consumption of a ton more of land and the time it takes to buy that land for a solar farm.
We may very well need water immediately. Whether we infill or sprawl, those of us that have been here for decades know we cannot sustain even our current population and usage over the long run. We could kill every lawn in SB and we will still be short.

tabatha: Not true. Solar panels have a finite lifespan, and a large percentage of panels currently manufactured contain material that's been recycled using petroleum products, although the majority of petroleum products probably aren't derived from fossils but are continously produced in the earth's core.
Chinese solar panel manufacrtures have used recycled material for at least a decade.

it's so exorbitant, and horrendously redundant, that let's can this white elephant now -- we paid a fortune for the first one, never used it, mothballed it right away... the answer here,folks, is REDUCE DEMAND. It can be done.

There is no model that shows we can reduce demand enough to meet our potential for long term drought.
What is your fallback strategy DD for having wildly insufficient supply if we do not magically cut back enough?

Progressive fall back position:

Money will come from sonewhere
Water will come from somewhere
3BR ranch homes for everyone will come from somewhere
Retirement savings will come from somewhere
Talented young people to take over will come from somewhere

Photo-voltaic conversion systems have a finite life-time too and finding service repair people is next to impossible when the P-V conversion breaks down. Then you learn your system is out of date, no parts and you must replace it whether you like it or not.

Solar is not a passive let-the-sunshine in system. The conversion apparatus is an expensive operation to keep going and one that is not holding up well from practical experience. I suspect tabatha, you have not gone solar yourself. Beware of SunnyBoy - F minus.

JarvisJarvis: Inverters don't last as long as solar panels. I've already replaced my inverter and still have 17 years of warranty on my panels. My experience is that they're always replaced, not repaired. Sunny Boy is an inverter model made by SMA, a German company. They're not a big deal, just 240-120V DC-AC inverters. Solar is great, and Alan Heeger's flexible panels are awesome. The real problem is that the NWO agenda, which is primarily a depopulation agenda, is explicitly anti-technology, and returning to the Stone Age is incompatible with the continued development of green technology.

nomoresanity: Geoengineering is contributing to the current drought, though. Any water vapor in the atmosphere condenses on the large quantity of nanoparticulate aluminum and barium present in the stratosphere, and the small size and large quantity of the particles prevents condensation large enough to form raindrops, according to many sources I've read.
This link has a good international chronology, but it's incorrect about the use of geoengineering to reduce global warming; there really hasn't been any in over 17 years, only alteration of historical records. There are more recent record low temperatures than record high temperatures, and no heat stored in the oceans according to temperature measurements; it's all stored in climate models.
http://www.willthomasonline.net/chemt...

Getting lousy service on our new Sunnyboy. Any solar inverter repair people in town to recommend? SunnyBoy does not make individual recommendations.

We've had solar for our home with SunnyBoy converter since 2001 and have NEVER needed repair or maintenance. The only snag is Edison charging more incomprehensible fees every year despite us selling power into the grid.

You might know that birds are being killed by solar panels. Right? These bird-cookers are much more dangerous then you may think. What is really going on is that the government is havesting UV rays to use them for mind control experiments on political dissenters.

Wow - look at all that geoengineering:

http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/outpos...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-envir...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4BPO...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014...

"A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345...
Salinity changes are effected by increased melt.

Is mankind now sinking aluminum and barium into the depths of the ocean to cool the planet? Wow, that is some engineering feat.

As for the current drought, the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge is the major cause of the drought, and the RRR is partly thanks to AGW.

But, hey, what does science matter, when all CT bumper sticker phrases are much easier and simpler to spout.

Hence my expansion and evolution from a simple foil hat to my new heavy duty foil jump suit.

In response to growing accusations from both conservationists and conservatives that renewable energy sources like solar and wind kill too many birds, U.S. News and World Report has compiled data on which energy industries are responsible for the most bird deaths every year.

For each power source — wind, solar, oil and gas, nuclear, and coal — the data on bird deaths is gathered from different advocacy and industry groups, academic institutions, and government sources. Because estimates vary so widely on solar, wind, and oil, U.S. News included both low-range and high-range estimates for how many birds are killed by those electricity sources.

Either way, the results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind. Note the chart below:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014...

**** fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind ****

Solar Power Poses Lower Risk to Birds Than Cats or Cars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08...

Solar Panel Degradation Rates

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) performed a meta-analysis of studies that examined the long term degradation rates of various PV panels. They found that the 1% per year rule was somewhat pessimistic for panels made prior to the year 2000, and today’s panels, with better technology and improved manufacturing techniques, have even more stamina than their predecessors. For monocrystalline silicon, the most commonly used panel for commercial and residential PV, the degradation rate is less than 0.5% for panels made before 2000, and less than 0.4% for panels made after 2000. That means that a panel manufactured today should produce 92% of its original power after 20 years, quite a bit higher than the 80% estimated by the 1% rule.

http://www.engineering.com/Electronic...

Solar energy has long been touted as better for the environment than fossil fuels.

Increasingly, however, there are fears that making solar cells might release more hazardous pollution than fossil fuels would.

To ease those concerns, scientists studied the matter closely and now conclude that manufacturing solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil-fuel-burning power plants.

The researchers gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 manufacturers of four major commercial types of solar cells in Europe and the United States from 2004 to 2006.

Making solar or photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium. It even produces greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, that contribute to globalwarming. Still, the researchers found that if people switched from conventional fossil fuel-burning power plants to solar cells, air pollution would be cut by roughly 90 percent.

http://www.livescience.com/2324-solar...

This is 2004 to 2006. Solar panel manufacture has been cleaned up since then (probably not in China).

WSJ today has comprehensive article front page article: "Germany's Expensive Energy Gamble - p. 2 Germany's Big Gamble on Renewable Energy" (8/27/14)

.....
Analysis of Germany's tirllion euro energy revolution plan to wean off nuculear nad fossilb fuels ....Average electricity costs have jumped 60% ..Prices now double those of the US. German industry is gradually going to lose competitiveness if this course isn't reversed soon.
.....

Wrap-up sentance: "Initially there was this enthusiasm that Germany would be at the head of the parade. ......... But now the Germans look back and see there aren't that many people behind them."