Table of Contents
The parts to be installed (on page 1)
Figuring out where to put things and mounting the inverter, E-Panel and charge controller (on page 1)
Wiring the solar panels and running the cable into the E-Panel (on page 2)
The AC wiring and making a 240VAC outlet work with a 120VAC inverter (on page 3)
Wiring the Outback turbo fan for sealed inverters (on page 3)
The battery bank, battery temperature sensor and venting (on page 3)
Powering DC Loads (on page 4)
Controlling and monitoring – Outback Mate (on page 4)

The AC wiring and making a 240VAC outlet work with a 120VAC inverter

In the RV or motorhome world, whenever you plug into the grid to get power we say you are plugging into “shore” power. This term comes from the boating world where you plug in when you get to shore (land.)

This motorhome accepts either 120 volts (V) AC or 240V, at 50 amps. The problem with this system was that the Outback 2012 inverter takes only 120V and puts out only 120V (i.e. never 240V.) Also, the inverter’s maximum input and output is only 30 amps. So somehow I had to make this all work even when the shore power is 240V.

Here’s how the wiring worked in this motorhome before changes were made.

– AC wiring diagram before rewiring –

The thing to realize is that all the breakers in the breaker panel and hence all the loads in the motorhome are 120V. The breaker panel doesn’t even allow a 240V appliance. There’s no way to put in a breaker that is connected to both L1′s power bar and L2′s power bar at the same time, unlike with breaker panels in houses which do provide a way.

So the solution to make it work with the inverter was simple. For the input to the inverter from shore power, I took L2 and neutral and sent those to the inverter. For the output from the inverter I sent this to the breakers that L2 had previously powered. Meanwhile, I left L1 unchanged.

– AC wiring diagram after rewiring –

As shown at bottom/left in the above wiring diagram, when connected to shore power, the Outback inverter passes thru the shore power directly to the output (1, 2, 3, 4), using any leftover to charge the batteries as needed (1, 2, 5). When not connected to shore power, the inverter converts DC power from the batteries to AC power to feed to the output (5, 3, 4), i.e. it’s inverting.

That means that the breakers previously powered by L2 would get their power from shore power when the motorhome was plugged into shore power and would get their power from the inverter when the motorhome was not plugged into shore power (e.g. when it was on the road). This also means that the breakers powered by L1 would get power only when plugged into shore power (6). When not plugged into shore power whatever loads were connected to the L1 breakers would not work. This was actually the case for all the breakers before this solar system was installed.

This also addressed the 30 amp maximum output issue with the inverter. Since the inverter would only ever power the L2 half of the breaker panel it would never be asked to supply more than 30 amps.

Notice that the neutral wire has been split into two independent wires that both go to the inverter. This is a special requirement of the mobile versions of the Outback inverters.

The inverter bypass switch (bottom/right in the above wiring diagram) allows the inverter to be removed from the circuit in case the inverter breaks down. It puts things back the way they were before. It consists of two breakers that work together. Notice that the left one is upside down, so for it, up is OFF and down is ON. This is just the opposite of the right breaker. The above diagram shows the normal position with the left breaker OFF and the right breaker ON, meaning that the output of the inverter is going to the breaker panel. If it were in the down position then the left breaker would be ON and the right breaker would be OFF, meaning shore power would be going directly to the breaker panel.

– Wiring between the E-Panel and the inverter. – The junction box (see AC wiring diagram above.) – – The AC wiring done in the E-Panel. – – The AC wiring route through the RV. – Wiring the Outback turbo fan for sealed inverters

The Outback FX2012MT inverter is a sealed inverter and comes with a fan in the cover that has to be wired up. The difficulty is that the fan is embedded in the metal cover and the wires go in the AC wiring compartment. This is difficult because the AC wiring compartment cover is partially under the metal cover. So you need to connect the wires in the AC wiring compartment while holding on to the metal cover, then screw on the AC wiring compartment cover and then screw on the metal cover.

The fan is a 12 volt DC fan. The negative (black) wire goes to the AUX- port and the positive (red) wire goes to the AUX+ port. The inverter’s default setting is to use the AUX port for the fan so no programming is needed, though I always check. This is done from the Outback Mate after everything has been installed (the inverter runs off of the batteries so you’ll need to get at least that far before any programming can be done.)

The battery bank, battery temperature sensor and venting

The batteries were 8 Trojan T-105 Plus deep cycle flooded lead acid batteries. They are 6 volts each with a capacity of 225 amp hours (AHr) at the 20 hour rate. This means that they will deliver 225 amps total if discharged over 20 hours.

Since the Outback FX2012MT inverter is a 12V inverter, I had to wire the batteries together to make up a 12V battery bank. To start with, each battery is 6V. Just like with solar panels, connecting batteries in series (positive to negative) causes the voltage to add while the current (AHr) stays the same. So I connected the positive of one 6V, 225AHr battery to the negative of another 6V, 225AHr battery to end up with a 12V, 225AHr series string of batteries. That gave me my 12V. So I repeated this with the remaining 6 batteries giving me 4 separate 12V, 225AHr series strings. Since connecting them further in series would give me too high a voltage, all that was left was to connect these strings in parallel. Connecting in parallel leaves the voltage the same but the current (AHr) adds. So now I had 4 parallel connected strings for a total battery bank size of 12V, 900AHr (4 x 225). Unfortunately I was too busy installing the system to remember to take a photo but the following diagram illustrates what I did.

– Battery wiring diagram. –

All the very thick grey cables shown above are 4/0. 4/0 is about 12mm (1/2″) in diameter. It needs to be around that thickness in case there is a short in the battery wiring somewhere. If a 900AHr battery bank starts dumping due to a short then the current could be hundreds of amps so thick wiring is need to handle that current without melting and starting a fire.

The inverter – battery disconnect switch is a 250 amp DC breaker. Besides safety, it’s also used to disconnect power from the inverter since the inverter runs off of battery power (the Outback inverter will also run off shore power if shore power is connected when this inverter-battery disconnect switch is turned off.)

The temperature sensor is glued (and I also strapped it) to the side of a battery somewhere in the middle of the battery bank. It gives the inverter some idea of the temperature of the batteries so that it can compensate appropriately when charging.

Also of note above is the way the battery bank’s negative terminal is grounded. This is done indirectly using the green thick 4AWG wire in the E-Panel between the shunt’s busbar and the ground bar (see wiring diagram above.) Theoretically the wiring in the path to ground for the batteries should be the size of the largest wire used in the batteries, 4/0, which is about 12mm (1/2″) thick. This is a little unreasonable and so the Ontario Electrical Code says it would be safe enough to use at least 4AWG wire.

Lastly, note the CAT5e communication cable connecting the inverter to the Outback Hub. This is so that the inverter can be monitored and controlled from the Outback Mate which I installed on a wall inside the motorhome’s living area.

– DC wiring between E-Panel and inverter plus BTS and Hub. – – DC wiring in the E-Panel and entry to battery box. – – Customer built battery box. – – The battery box in place. –

Unfortunately I don’t have a good enough photo but the cover for the battery box that the customer made had a hole in the front left corner for venting (see photo below.) Batteries that are being used to power loads or are being charged produce hydrogen, the heavier the use the more the hydrogen. This hydrogen must not be allow to accumulate otherwise a spark might set it off, causing an explosion. A 2 inch flexible hose was run from the hole in the battery box cover, through the wall between this compartment and the adjacent small battery compartment, to an existing grill (see photo below.)

The four holes in the bottom front of the battery box are necessary to allow fresh air in (see photos above.) At the same time as the batteries are generating hydrogen, they also generate heat, heating the air in the battery box. Since hot air rises it will rise into of the vent hose in the top of the cover, pulling fresh air in from the four holes in the bottom front.

In one of the above photos you can see the cables and temperature sensor wire entering the battery box on the side near its top. Since I didn’t want hydrogen coming out of here I sealed the gaps in this hole with silicon caulking.

The box was wedged into the storage compartment snuggly with angle iron at its base. From the above photo on the left you can see spacers that keep that batteries from moving around much, though they are not perfectly snug. Air does have to be able to circulate around the individual batteries to prevent them heating up too much.

– Venting the battery box. –

Prev – Page 1, 2, 3, 4 – Next

Comments – Connect here with Facebook Connect.

Leave a Comment

• Tweet

• Tweet

Each battery features high quality and reliability, exceptional deep discharge recovery, no corrosive gas generation, long service life, quick changeability, high power density, and virtually maintenance-free operation.

A global research and battery manufacturer has introduced a special series of batteries for wind turbines. The LC-WTV and LC-WTP series of batteries are the latest iteration of Panasonic’s Valve-Regulated Lead Acid (VRLA) technology adapted to the specific and demanding needs of wind turbine applications.“These customized batteries provide superior performance in the tough environment of wind turbine energy systems. It continues our commitment to productive ‘green technologies’,” notes Dennis Malec, Senior Applications Engineer at Panasonic Industrial Company. Analysts project that total installed wind generating capacity, buoyed by renewable energy standards and other pro-wind policies, including those contained in economic stimulus packages in the United States, China, and elsewhere, will more than double by 2013.

Four new 12V batteries for blade pitch drives are key to Panasonic’s initial offering to this dynamic market. All feature flame-retardant cases of UL94V-0 resin. In more detail:

• The LC-WTV127R2 is a 7.2Ah VRLA battery while the LC-WTV1212 is a 12Ah VRLA unit. Their expected life is 5 years at 20 C and 3 years at 25 C based on a weekly discharge cycle of max 15 seconds•

The LC-WTP127r2 is a 7.2Ah VRLA battery with an expected life of 10 years at 20 C and 5 years at 25 C based on a weekly discharge cycle of max 15 seconds.

• The LC-WTP1212 is a 12Ah VRLA version with the same life expectancies as the WTP127r2.

Panasonic Industrial Co.www.panasonic.com/batteries

About Paul Dvorak Windpower Engineering Editor Paul Dvorak is an experienced mechanical engineer. Paul has seven years of hands on mechanical engineering experience and 23 years of technical writing. Paul is constantly in correspondence with wind turbine manufacturers and wind power researchers. Thanks to this correspondence, he is able to write about wind engineering topics before any other editor in the wind space.

View all posts by Paul

In the first quarter of 2011 renewable energy sources accounted for 11.73 percent of US domestic energy production. Renewable sources include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, biomass/biofuel. As of the first quarter of 2011, energy production from these sources was 5.65 percent more than production from nuclear.

As Bossing further explains from the report, renewable sources are closing the gap with generation from oil-fired sources, with renewable source equal to 77.15 percent of total oil based generation.

For all sectors, including transportation, thermal, and electrical generation, renewable energy production grew just over 15 percent in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010, and fully 25 percent over first quarter 2009. In a break-down of renewable sources, biomass/biofuel accounted for a bit more than 48 percent, hydro for 35.41 percent, wind for nearly 13 percent, geothermal 2.45 percent, and solar at 1.16 percent.

Looking at just the electrical generation sector, renewable sources, including hydro, accounted for nearly 13 percent of net US electrical generation in the first quarter of 2011, up from 10.31 percent for the same quarter last year. Non-hydro renewable sources accounted for 4.74 percent of net US production.

Electrical power generation from renewable grew by almost 26 percent in the first quarter of 2011 over the same quarter in 2010. Solar power generation was up 104.8 percent, wind generation increased 40.3 percent, and hydro expanded by 28.7 percent. Electricity generated from biomass decreased by 4.8 percent. By comparison, natural gas generation increased by 1.8 percent, nuclear by 0.4 percent, and coal-fired electrical generation declined by 5.7 percent.

“Notwithstanding the recent nuclear accident in Japan, among many others, and the rapid growth in energy and electricity from renewable sources, congressional Republicans continue to press for more nuclear energy funding while seeking deep cuts in renewable energy investments,” said Bossong. “One has to wonder ‘what are these people thinking?’”

Related articles

• Renewable Energy Could Supply Most of World’s Energy Demand by 2050 – Special IPCC Report (globalwarmingisreal.com)
• Wind Energy Production Hits New Record in California Last Week (globalwarmingisreal.com)
• Renewable Energy Investments Set New Record, Up 32% in 2010 (triplepundit.com)

On the surface, algae is an attractive fuel source, especially since it doesn’t cut into food crops. The problem isn’t that the algae doesn’t grow quickly–the high yield is remarkable–it’s that production still requires lots of water and nutrients. An unlikely resource might be the answer.

Earlier this year, a group of scientists from the University of Virginia made waves when they found that between the water and nutrients, algae fuel production can end up generating more greenhouse gas emissions than it promises to prevent. Groan. Not what algae fuel proponents wanted to hear. Andres Clarens, an assistant professor of environmental and water resources engineering at the university who worked on that research, told me that his group is now evaluating two leading techniques for producing the fuel: closed photobioreactors and open ponds.

Open ponds are self-explanatory but photobioreactors tend to be large transparent tubes, often arranged in arrays, where the algae is cultivated. The idea behind these reactors is that since the process is closed there won’t be evaporation, therefore saving water so algae can grow at higher concentrations. While Clarens is careful to say that their research is ongoing, preliminary results are showing that the reactors might not be as advantageous as they seem. For logistics reasons, the largest swaths of land that could house them affordably would be in sparsely populated areas.

“Imagine putting a large glass tube out in the desert,” Clarens says. “You’d have algae soup.” Keeping the reactors at the right temperature requires energy, adding to the expense. Open ponds have their own drawbacks, too, including that you probably wouldn’t want to live right next door to one.

So where’s the good news? Well, Clarens and his fellow scientists suggest that a smart way to reduce costs would be to pair production with wastewater bioremediation. Algae can handle chemicals that we want to avoid, making it a useful filter. “It’s a two-for-one benefit,” Clarens says. While securing acres of land for algae production next to wastewater treatment plants won’t be easy, this is a case where constraints are leading to creative problem-solving. A first-of-its-kind pilot facility that was announced last year in Logan, Utah, aims to turn a 460-acre money-draining wastewater lagoon full of phosphates into an algae farm. There are thousands of these problematic lagoons across the country just waiting for help. I’m confident that a mixture of technology and algae can come to the rescue.

Photo: A tubular photobioreactor. Credit: California Polytechnic State University’s Controlled Environment Agriculture & Energy Working Group.

PV Design & Installation Intensive A five day, hands-on course, costing $750,

This workshop provides a great foundation for those looking to find employment in the ever expanding PV market, as well as for homeowners who want to immerse themselves in the concepts.

Intro to Off Grid Systems This two day course will set you back $250,

Are you ready to declare you energy independence by taking an active role in installing your own residential of commercial off-grid renewable energy system? This two-day workshop provides an introduction to off-grid solar, wind and hydroelectric systems, which—individually or in tandem—allow homeowners to generate electricity without dependence on the utility grid.

In addition to these two courses, the course catalog covers a wide range of green topics, from “How to Build a Straw Bale House”, to “Build Your Own Biodiesel Processor”, to “Ecological Urban Gardening”. More information is available: Solar Living Institute.

NC State Renewable Energy Technologies Diploma The NC State diploma program is a bit more serious, in terms of time commitment, than the stand-alone courses offered by the Solar Living Institute. Program participants complete 105 contact hours and cover a range of renewable energy topics. To complete the diploma you take three of the following four courses, in any order.

Renewable Energy 1 covers Solar and Radiant Heating (the next class is offered December 1-5 of this year). Renewable Energy 2 tackles the “Basics of Business and Technology of Biofuels and Photovoltaics” of which you choose one of the two. The third course in the series, appropriately titled Renewable Energy 3, covers green building and solar thermal. Renewable Energy 4 covers the Basics of Renewable Energy in the first two days, and then either 3 days of photovoltaics or 3 days on wind power.

Each course costs $1399 ($749 if you’re a North Carolina resident); you are eligible for a 10% discount if you’re a small business owner. More info is available from NC State.

Renewable Energy Education SimCity, the Green Energy Edition: Website Unveils Alternative Energy Educational Video GameIllinois State University Approves Renewable Energy Degree Program Wind Applications Center at Montana State University Receives Federal Funding

Check out TreeHugger for 30+ fresh, green stories every day!

Instead of oxidizing the copper by brazing it with a torch, I stumbled upon the reduction of copper sulfate with a sugar (any aldose) to produce the copper(1) oxide. My understanding is that the copper(2) oxide (CuO) still exhibits semiconductance but doesn’t show the photoelectric effect with light that is commonly available.

So, by creating a solution of copper sulfate and added glucose (i have some dextrose), and mixing this in a substrate that prevents the particles from accumulating should result in a microfine powder of copper(1) oxide. I have seen work to this effect utilizing polyacrylamide that achieves particle size from 4-8nM, however I have been looking at more commonly available materials such as gelatin and agar.

At these sizes, peculiar effects have been observed including the stimulation of multiple excitons from a single quanta of light. I’m not sure if this is a wave phenomenon or what but if this stimulates multiple molecules or groups of molecules of copper(1) oxide, efficiency of the solar energy collection should greatly improve.

I have been defining the parameters of my experiments (standardizing my testing methodology to isolate single variables) and am waiting on a the arrival of the copper sulfate, leds, and glass microscope slides to study it further. My approach is to prepare the cu2o solution and fix it to the microscope slide where it is radiated by LEDs emitting light largely within a range of frequencies and observing the effects of this light on the photoelectric solution.

The idea is then to use a parabolic dish or trough to focus sunlight onto a larger cell containing this photoelectric solution and extract energy.

I know that Cu2O has low absorption in the infrared and I am interested in ways to split the focus of a paraboloid (with a beamsplitter/mirror?) such that the light that can be absorbed by the photoelectric solution is directed at that cell and infrared light is focused on a blackbody or infrared absorbing material for heat sequestration or use in another cycle (steam, sterling, etc.).

If anyone has additional thoughts about this, I would LOVE to hear them. I would especially be interested in methods of accumulating energy for rapid exhaustion later. I know if I pass current through platinum electrodes in water, I can cleave the water and form gaseous hydrogen and oxygen and later recombine those in the presence of the platinum electrodes extracting electricity but how do you store large quantities of hydrogen while reducing risks of explosion and without spending all my gathered energy to compress it into pressurized cylinders?

Have you actually conducted the experiment using oxidized copper sheeting? If so, how would you improve the process?

This concept stock picture shows an energy saving flourescent light bulb exploding. This is a great image to illustrate new developments and products for the energy industry, for green building, and editorials about conservation, energy savings, exploding myths and so forth. Any viewer who sees this image immediately wants to know whats going on, why is this bulb exploding, why is an energy saving bulb exploding? It compels the viewer to take the next step, to read the copy, and after all, isn’t that the mark of a great photograph?

Creating a concept stock picture of an energy saving light bulb in mid-explosion

To create this picture illustrating various energy, conservation, and green concepts, I had a friend shoot the bulb with a pellet gun while I fired off a sequence of shots. We used continuous lighting (tungsten) as opposed to the more traditional studio light of strobes because standard strobes do not recycle quickly enough to fire off a sequence of captures. The second exposure of the sequence was the one we ended up choosing. The bulb remains intact enough to immediately identify it but there is plenty of flying glass and debris to impart a real sense of action and movement.

A flexible and effective Image For Illustrating Green concepts and energy topics

This is a very versatile and flexible stock photo image. It can be cropped equally well as a vertical for use as a magazine cover, or horizontal for uses such as magazine spreads and billboards. The photo reads quickly and easily even at thumbnail sizes on the Internet. There is plenty of room for copy and headlines, and even though there is a lot going on, there still is a simplicity to the image that helps for a quick read, a very important trait in this ever-increasingly fast-paced world we live in. It is important for us photographers to provide effective imagery to help illustrate energy, conservation and “green” concerns. That is one way we can continue to do our craft and still help make a positive difference in the world.

Keywords associated with this image:,all,background,Backgrounds,business,challenge,challenging,change,changing,concepts,concept,conceptual,creativity,creative,danger,energy,future,idea,ideas,the way forward,technology,technical,environmental,environment,power,Green,Conservation,Light bulb,lightbulb,exploding,exploding light bulb,explosion,bulb,CFL,Florescent bulb,concepts,,,

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, March 3, 2005 (ENS) – A major study of Arctic lake sediments provides new evidence of human-induced climate change and concludes it may soon be impossible to find “pristine Arctic environments untouched by climate warming.”

Arctic lakes have undergone dramatic ecological change in the past 150 years, the study finds, and the timing of these changes mirrors the warming trend that commenced when humans began the widespread burning of fossil fuels.

The findings, which represent the largest study of its kind, were published this week in the “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

Coauthor Alexander Wolf said the new research provides key data on a region that is on the frontlines of climate change but can be difficult to study.

“Polar regions are expected to show the first signs of climatic warming, and are therefore considered sentinels of environmental change,” explained Wolf, an earth scientist from Queen’s University in Canada. “Unfortunately, long term monitoring data are generally lacking in these areas, which makes it difficult to determine the direction and magnitude of past environmental changes.”

Lakes are abundant in the Arctic and scientists say the hold ample evidence of global warming. (Photo courtesy SF University) But microfossils of aquatic organisms preserved in lake sediment offer an archive of the lake’s history – and lakes are abundant in the Arctic.

“If you look at one lake at a time, you still get important information, but it is hard to make large scale, regional assessments,” said lead author John Smol, an Arctic lake expert from Queen’s University. “Once you compile the larger dataset of all these lakes and ponds, striking and consistent patterns become evident. Taken together, it is a very powerful message.”

To determine that message, the international team of 26 researchers analyzed lake sediment from 46 Arctic lakes in four polar nations.

They produced 55 historical profiles of algal and invertebrate animals, covering an area that extends halfway around the world and 30 degrees of latitude spanning boreal forest to high arctic tundra ecosystems.

Changes in the community composition of freshwater algae, water fleas and insect larvae in the majority of lakes reflect the impact of warming, the researchers said.

The study reports little change in these communities until the mid-1800s, with dramatic shifts occurring in the past three decades.

These organisms make up the base of most aquatic food webs, the researchers said, and impacts are likely to trickle up the food chain and affect larger animals.

Arctic lake expert John Smol is the Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change and 2004 winner of Canada’s top science award, the Gerhard Herzberg Gold Medal. (Photo courtesy Canada Research Chairs) The findings are consistent with data that show climate change has lengthened summers and reduced lake ice cover across much of the Arctic.

These changes in turn prolong the growing season available to highly sensitive lake organisms, the researchers said, and opens up new habitats for others.

The researchers also found the most intense population changes occurred in the northernmost study sites, where the greatest amount of warming appears to have taken place.

Changes in the Arctic are considered bellwethers of what is to come further south, the study’s authors said, and should sound an urgent environmental wakeup call.

It shows that “human interference is affecting ecosystems on a profound scale,” Smol said.

“We are crossing ecological thresholds here, as shown by changes in biota associated with climate related phenomena like receding ice cover in lakes,” he added. “Once you pass these thresholds it is hard to go back.”

Findings from one area in the Canadian sub-Arctic did not show similar patterns of biological change.

But this area appears not to be warming to the same extent as other areas, the researchers said, and this actually boosts the overall conclusions of the study.

The region represents an important control region, according to researcher Reinhard Pienitz from Université Laval in Quebec City.

The Arctic is considered the front line for global warming. (Photo courtesy Arctic Council) It supports the determination that the changes observed in lakes where warming has occurred “have not been primarily caused by, for example, atmospheric deposition of contaminants,” Pienitz explained.

Smol noted that an earlier lake sediment study he coauthored, published in the journal “Science” in 1994, caused controversy with its interpretation of climatic warming in three high Arctic ponds.

But now “the tide has turned,” Smol said, “and some of the strongest skeptics of that 1994 study are co-authors on this paper.”

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 F (0.6 C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Click Here For Full PDF Version
Contact:
Robert Ferguson
202-288-5699

However, the drum beat of world’s largest, world’s biggest, world’s best in the renewable energy industry sometimes can be too much. It’s all needed, but we still have a long way to go. Especially if the goal is all-renewable electric generation in 10 years, as Al Gore envisions.

Where are we now, in the United States, in terms of renewable energy capacity? At the end of 2007, the electric generating capacity of the United States was 1,089,807 megawatts. Of that 2.5% came from renewable sources such as wind, solar and geothermal, with an additional 5.8% coming from hydro.

So announcing that you have created the world’s largest something when that something is fractions of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of overall demand seems absurd. We might as well start creating world’s largest categories for power plants whose construction was done only on Tuesdays by men wearing red hats.

A 10 megawatt thin-film solar plant may be important for thin-film solar plants, but is a drop in the ocean of overall energy demand.

Genuinely large projects on the drawing board Not to mention that there have been some genuinely large renewable energy facilities announced recently: The 1,000 MW London Array and T. Boone Pickens’ 4,000 megawatt wind farm spring to mind. And I also don’t mean to discount the potential of microgenerated power to compete with fossil fuels. But when everything is billed as the largest, biggest and best, it is easy to miss the importance of each project in the wider scheme of things. It also leads to a bit of world record fatigue.

So when Sempra president Michael Allman says, “We look forward to helping the region’s utilities meet the state requirements calling for them to include solar, wind and other renewable energy sources in the power portfolios,” I can’t help but think ‘you’re really not helping that much’, at least not yet.

CORRECTIONSempra Energy has contacted me and pointed out that I was incorrect in saying that they claimed this was the world’s largest thin-film solar PV plant. Sempra says that this will be the largest such plant in North America.

:: CNET

Renewable Energy Biofuels Have Pushed Thirty Million People Into Poverty Could Microgeneration Be as Powerful as Nuclear Energy?T. Boone Pickens Gets Into the Texas Wind: 4,000 Megawatts Worth World’s Largest Offshore Windfarm, The London Array, is Back On

Update: If you are interested in solar power, also check out 15 Photovoltaics Solar Power Innovations You Must See.

Check out TreeHugger for 30+ fresh, green stories every day!