Orthodox On Climate Science [W: 138]

[LowDown]

They share datasets but they use the data differently. GISS interpolates into missing areas while HAD drops them altogether. So GISS's coverage is broader.

No, interpolating data does not increase coverage. It increases uncertainty.

And your source for this misinformation is what?

Look it up yourself.

Global coverage was 37% by the end of 1880 and had topped 50% by 1883. Hardly miniscule.

Global coverage has never been higher than 27%. I suspect you don't know what "coverage" means if you think that interpolating creates data.

It's normal science working normally.

Trying to fix firm numbers when the data is inadequate isn't science at all.

In industrial regions of the globe CO2 levels are high and fluctuate widely. That's why they measure background CO2 levels at places far from industry. But globally you're not even close. Citation, please.

Modern satellite measurements show that the highest CO2 levels are in sparsely populated, forested areas like the Amazon, Central Africa, etc. But you are correct, measurements varied quite a bit.

[clipped for length]

No, it's your claim that is false. And you have provided no evidence for it.

Here's HADCRUT with confidence intervals:



There is overlap in CI between the earliest and latest temps, hence no significant increase.

Obviously not. GISS temperature in 1957 was .03° and so far in 2015 it's .77°, a difference of .74°, a near perfect match with the LOESS smooth. The HADCRUT4 raw difference between 1957 and 2015 so far is 0.68, so you're still far off, in spite of using HADCRUT4 which misses much of the fast-warming Arctic.

Fast warming Arctic. Creating "data" by interpolation again.

Since you persist in quoting too high a figure for CO2 increase and too low a figure for temperature increase, it's no wonder you can't get the right answer for sensitivity. Plus, you've also ignored the thermal inertia of the oceans. When an energy imbalance occurs, the temperature of the ocean doesn't respond to that imbalance instantly; it takes time, and in the case of the oceans that timeframe is decades. So using current CO2 levels isn't actually correct, you have to used lagged CO2 levels, as I did in the graph.

No, not if we are talking about TSR. And I'm not interested in ECS, which is a theoretical figure that can never be measured directly. And the effects of global warming are going to depend on what the temperatures actually are, not what the theory is.

If you insist on ignoring valid data, that means that we use MLO CO2 levels from 1958-2005, and HADCRUT4 temperatures from 1968-2015. That's a raw temperature change of .787° and a raw CO2 change of 64.52 ppmv, or 0.286 of a doubling. So .787 / .286 = 2.92°C per doubling of CO2. But 1968 was a rather cold year, so instead of using raw temps, we should smooth them instead. If we do that, the temperature difference is .649 and the sensitivity is 2.42°C per doubling. Both of which are close to the number from GISS, and well within the accepted range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per doubling.

So a change in CO2 produces an energy imbalance, and it takes time to establish a new equilibrium. What you are saying is that you are calculating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the transient climate response (TCR), which is that temperature that we'd see on the day that CO2 reaches 540 ppm, or whatever figure you use for doubled CO2. That's a solid number that can be checked.

The trouble with ECS is that it's a theoretical figure. We are never going to be able to measure it, it can only be inferred. TCR is something that we can measure and check against the predictions. It would actually take hundreds of years to reach equilibrium, and it is assumed that during that time everything remains the same. So you might calculate 2.42, but that's not a figure we'll likely ever see.

And all of this assumes that the basic GW theory is correct. There are alternatives that ought to be considered, such as the idea that CO2 is responding to a temperature trend caused by something else.

By the way, they are predicting an imminent ice age now: Link.

 

[tuhaybey]

We have to do that regardless.

Right. That's what I pointed out. So it doesn't really matter if you accept climate science or you believe in peak oil. Either way, what we need to do is the same- get off fossil fuels. Both peak oil and AGW describe strong reasons to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible and both explain why we can't wait for the market to do it. In the case of AGW, it is because climate change is a negative externality and markets don't account for externalities. In the case of peak oil, it is because the whole premise of the theory is that we will hit a sudden tipping point where all of a sudden prices will explode up and it will be too late to do much to avoid the catastrophe by that point. So, we should basically be in agreement on the best policy approach. Subsidize green tech, tax fossil fuels, pour research dollars into nuclear and renewables, etc.

 

[Jack Hays]

Right. That's what I pointed out. So it doesn't really matter if you accept climate science or you believe in peak oil. Either way, what we need to do is the same- get off fossil fuels. Both peak oil and AGW describe strong reasons to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible and both explain why we can't wait for the market to do it. In the case of AGW, it is because climate change is a negative externality and markets don't account for externalities. In the case of peak oil, it is because the whole premise of the theory is that we will hit a sudden tipping point where all of a sudden prices will explode up and it will be too late to do much to avoid the catastrophe by that point. So, we should basically be in agreement on the best policy approach. Subsidize green tech, tax fossil fuels, pour research dollars into nuclear and renewables, etc.

So long as the supply of fossil fuel is enumerated in centuries there's no reason to act with urgency.

 

[dpcal]

Right. That's what I pointed out. So it doesn't really matter if you accept climate science or you believe in peak oil. Either way, what we need to do is the same- get off fossil fuels. Both peak oil and AGW describe strong reasons to get off fossil fuels as soon as possible and both explain why we can't wait for the market to do it. In the case of AGW, it is because climate change is a negative externality and markets don't account for externalities. In the case of peak oil, it is because the whole premise of the theory is that we will hit a sudden tipping point where all of a sudden prices will explode up and it will be too late to do much to avoid the catastrophe by that point. So, we should basically be in agreement on the best policy approach. Subsidize green tech, tax fossil fuels, pour research dollars into nuclear and renewables, etc.

I don't understand the logic of taxing fossil fuels or subsidizng "green technology". I'm all in on for dramatically increased funding of non-fossil fuel energy R&D, and small demonstration projects.

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't understand the logic of taxing fossil fuels or subsidizng "green technology". I'm all in on for dramatically increased funding of non-fossil fuel energy R&D, and small demonstration projects.

Well, if you knew the incredibly effective track record for cap and trade to curb SO2 emissions, maybe you'd understand.

The Market is a very, very powerful force to affect change. Making people pay for the environmental costs of what they use, versus kicking the costs down the road to future generations will be sure to increase efficiency and use of alternative energies.

 

[dpcal]

Well, if you knew the incredibly effective track record for cap and trade to curb SO2 emissions, maybe you'd understand.

The Market is a very, very powerful force to affect change. Making people pay for the environmental costs of what they use, versus kicking the costs down the road to future generations will be sure to increase efficiency and use of alternative energies.

I do understand and am familiar with cap and trade for sulfur dioxide. That was used to achieve an outcome that had a very high degree of certainty and significant value. Taxing fossil fuels to encourage or subsidize "green energy" that is not very close to being cost competitive with fossil fuels, only delivers warm fuzzy feelings. The future of GHGs will be determined by the developing world, not the developed countries. If we want to change that, it will need to be through cost competitive alternatives to fossil fuels. On the other hand, if a carbon tax were to be used for R&D, demonstration projects, and increasing the talent pool of researchers, I would view it quite differently.

 

[Threegoofs]

I do understand and am familiar with cap and trade for sulfur dioxide. That was used to achieve an outcome that had a very high degree of certainty and significant value. Taxing fossil fuels to encourage or subsidize "green energy" that is not very close to being cost competitive with fossil fuels, only delivers warm fuzzy feelings. The future of GHGs will be determined by the developing world, not the developed countries. If we want to change that, it will need to be through cost competitive alternatives to fossil fuels. On the other hand, if a carbon tax were to be used for R&D, demonstration projects, and increasing the talent pool of researchers, I would view it quite differently.

Actually, a good solution is to return the carbon tax to people, making it revenue neutral.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

 

[dpcal]

Actually, a good solution is to return the carbon tax to people, making it revenue neutral.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

Given that those on the lower levels of the income scale, spend a far greater portion of their incomes on gasoline, electricity, NG etc., and the lack of competition that generally exists when it comes to the company that provides someone with electricity or NG, I have a fundamental problem with carbon taxes or regulations that increase the cost of energy. While I haven't seen any polls, I am relatively certain that if you asked those with family incomes of $30-$40k or less whether they were willing to pay 10-20% more for electricity or gasoline to decrease GHG emissions, a significant majority would say no. So it's hard for me to envision a carbon tax I "like", The closest I can come to one I "like" might be based on the inherent coast advantage of coal vs NG vs nuclear vs "alternarnative", and would only be in favor if there was a moratorium in terms of contracts for new alternative energy that was cost competitive at least with natural gas. Even then, if at least part of it didn't go to increasing funding for R&D, my support would be lukewarm. I fully recognize that my position is out of step with almost everyone, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Its simply how I see it.

 

[Poor Debater]

No, interpolating data does not increase coverage. It increases uncertainty.

It increases coverage too. Why pretend there is zero information in the blank space, when we actually have information in the blank space?

Look it up yourself.

In other words, you have zero evidence to support your false assertion. And rather than go through the embarrassment of having to withdraw such an obviously false statement, you have decided to value your personal dignity above simple honesty. It's nice to know where your priorities lie.

Global coverage has never been higher than 27%. I suspect you don't know what "coverage" means if you think that interpolating creates data.

Well let's try this again and see if we get the same result. Can you tell us the source of your misinformation?

Trying to fix firm numbers when the data is inadequate isn't science at all.

On the contrary, that's the essence of science. Every scientist always wishes for more data, and yet every scientists still determines numbers with the data he's got.

Modern satellite measurements show that the highest CO2 levels are in sparsely populated, forested areas like the Amazon, Central Africa, etc. But you are correct, measurements varied quite a bit.

So once again you have no citation to support your claim, even though I specifically asked for one.

Here's HADCRUT with confidence intervals:

So, asked to provide evidence for your claim about CO2, you respond with data about temperature? Fail. Next time, read for content.

Fast warming Arctic. Creating "data" by interpolation again.

Nope. The Arctic is warming more rapidly than any other part of the globe, even using HADCRUT data. Fail again.

No, not if we are talking about TSR.

I assume you meant TCR?

And I'm not interested in ECS, which is a theoretical figure that can never be measured directly.

TCR is just as theoretical as ECS, and just as difficult to measure directly. So you don't have a leg to stand on.

And the effects of global warming are going to depend on what the temperatures actually are, not what the theory is.

Which is why I used actual temperatures. Why didn't you?

So a change in CO2 produces an energy imbalance, and it takes time to establish a new equilibrium. What you are saying is that you are calculating the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the transient climate response (TCR), which is that temperature that we'd see on the day that CO2 reaches 540 ppm, or whatever figure you use for doubled CO2. That's a solid number that can be checked.

Well gee, TCR has already been checked empirically by Tung et al. 2008 and found to be about 3°C per doubling, so apparently the 10 year lag I used is too short.

The trouble with ECS is that it's a theoretical figure. We are never going to be able to measure it, it can only be inferred. TCR is something that we can measure and check against the predictions. It would actually take hundreds of years to reach equilibrium, and it is assumed that during that time everything remains the same. So you might calculate 2.42, but that's not a figure we'll likely ever see.

The actual sensitivity seen in my figure is 2.7°C per doubling of CO2. You get that by multiplying the slope of the regression line (3.89) by ln(2).

And all of this assumes that the basic GW theory is correct. There are alternatives that ought to be considered, such as the idea that CO2 is responding to a temperature trend caused by something else.

That's utter nonsense. The rise in CO2 is absolutely known to be 100% anthropogenic. You're violating conservation of mass otherwise.

By the way, they are predicting an imminent ice age now: Link.

Oh my goodness! The Daily Mail! Such an excellent source of peer-reviewed science!

Though I can't complain too much, since even the RAS seemed to get this one wrong. Suffice it to say, however, that no scientist actually made such a prediction.

 

[Threegoofs]

Given that those on the lower levels of the income scale, spend a far greater portion of their incomes on gasoline, electricity, NG etc., and the lack of competition that generally exists when it comes to the company that provides someone with electricity or NG, I have a fundamental problem with carbon taxes or regulations that increase the cost of energy. While I haven't seen any polls, I am relatively certain that if you asked those with family incomes of $30-$40k or less whether they were willing to pay 10-20% more for electricity or gasoline to decrease GHG emissions, a significant majority would say no. So it's hard for me to envision a carbon tax I "like", The closest I can come to one I "like" might be based on the inherent coast advantage of coal vs NG vs nuclear vs "alternarnative", and would only be in favor if there was a moratorium in terms of contracts for new alternative energy that was cost competitive at least with natural gas. Even then, if at least part of it didn't go to increasing funding for R&D, my support would be lukewarm. I fully recognize that my position is out of step with almost everyone, and I don't expect anyone to agree with me. Its simply how I see it.

Maybe you should read the link....

 

[dpcal]

Actually, a good solution is to return the carbon tax to people, making it revenue neutral.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

I appreciate your pushing me to look at the link. I haven't previously seen any proposal, that addressed my major concerns about a carbon tax. Politically, don't believe it would have a prayer. For example, utilities in states like California, that have already pushed up their electric rates considerably through alternative energy generation mandates, will obviously be in favor, as the people there would see their electric rates go up less than other places and would likely to get back more than their rates would go up. In localities where the electricity rates would go up, and people would get back less than their increase in rates, and the majority are likely to oppose. While it would provide tariffs to prevent businesses here from losing market share to imports from places with lower electricity costs, it would be a nightmare to implement. Assuming somehow the political issues could be overcome and workable tariffs were in place, the question is how much "time" would the decrease in GHGs provide, as it does nothing to change the trajectory of the developing world. Again, without dramatically increasing funding for R&D, I see this providing warm fuzzy feelings, but with a small and uncertain length of delay, till reaching the CO2 levels that the GHG community feels will result in increased temperature.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

I don't understand the logic of taxing fossil fuels or subsidizng "green technology". I'm all in on for dramatically increased funding of non-fossil fuel energy R&D, and small demonstration projects.

wait. what?

 

[dpcal]

wait. what?

see #156

 

[SlevinKelevra]

see #156

your self-contradiction made as little sense in that post as well.

 

[Threegoofs]

I appreciate your pushing me to look at the link. I haven't previously seen any proposal, that addressed my major concerns about a carbon tax. Politically, don't believe it would have a prayer. For example, utilities in states like California, that have already pushed up their electric rates considerably through alternative energy generation mandates, will obviously be in favor, as the people there would see their electric rates go up less than other places and would likely to get back more than their rates would go up. In localities where the electricity rates would go up, and people would get back less than their increase in rates, and the majority are likely to oppose. While it would provide tariffs to prevent businesses here from losing market share to imports from places with lower electricity costs, it would be a nightmare to implement. Assuming somehow the political issues could be overcome and workable tariffs were in place, the question is how much "time" would the decrease in GHGs provide, as it does nothing to change the trajectory of the developing world. Again, without dramatically increasing funding for R&D, I see this providing warm fuzzy feelings, but with a small and uncertain length of delay, till reaching the CO2 levels that the GHG community feels will result in increased temperature.

You don't need to speculate.

It's already been tried out.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...-tax-it-works/article19512237/?service=mobile

 

[dpcal]

You don't need to speculate.

It's already been tried out.

The shocking truth about B.C.?s carbon tax: It works - The Globe and Mail

I read the link and sounds encouraging, but its light on details. The one thing it mentioned that was particularly interesting was a decrease in corporate taxes. While I still don't see where a carbon tax is going to make any significance difference in outcome, if cost effective alternatives for the developing world are not developed, if a carbon tax doesn't hurt those on the lower end, and doesn't make business less competitive vs foreign, I could support it. However, I can't see it getting done politically given, and see the benefits as only a small delay in the day or reckoning if the current estimates are correct. My belief is that you could generate a much broader base of support for a carbon tax devoted for R&D and demonstration projects. While there's no guarantee that even you put $100 billion a year into R&D, a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels could be developed. But with that level of R&D for 15-20 years, you'd have the workforce and expertise, to get the costs as close as possible.

 

[longview]

I read the link and sounds encouraging, but its light on details. The one thing it mentioned that was particularly interesting was a decrease in corporate taxes. While I still don't see where a carbon tax is going to make any significance difference in outcome, if cost effective alternatives for the developing world are not developed, if a carbon tax doesn't hurt those on the lower end, and doesn't make business less competitive vs foreign, I could support it. However, I can't see it getting done politically given, and see the benefits as only a small delay in the day or reckoning if the current estimates are correct. My belief is that you could generate a much broader base of support for a carbon tax devoted for R&D and demonstration projects. While there's no guarantee that even you put $100 billion a year into R&D, a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels could be developed. But with that level of R&D for 15-20 years, you'd have the workforce and expertise, to get the costs as close as possible.

The real problem is energy storage. alternative energy sources, (Photovoltaic, Wind, ect) are already quite
efficient, they just don't provide power when and where you need it.
In the last 5 years, technology that started in Germany for storing energy as man made hydrocarbon fuels
has made significant progress.
Cars That Run on Air and Water? Audi Rolls Out E-Diesel
The Naval Research Labs are working on Jet Fuel.
The oil companies represent the best and the brightest in this arena, but do not publish their work.
Audi purchased an old refinery to set up the process, and is now claiming 70 % efficiencies.
It can only get better.
A carbon tax would set an artificial floor to the price, (why should they sell their product for any
cheaper than necessary?).

 

[Threegoofs]

I read the link and sounds encouraging, but its light on details. The one thing it mentioned that was particularly interesting was a decrease in corporate taxes. While I still don't see where a carbon tax is going to make any significance difference in outcome, if cost effective alternatives for the developing world are not developed, if a carbon tax doesn't hurt those on the lower end, and doesn't make business less competitive vs foreign, I could support it. However, I can't see it getting done politically given, and see the benefits as only a small delay in the day or reckoning if the current estimates are correct. My belief is that you could generate a much broader base of support for a carbon tax devoted for R&D and demonstration projects. While there's no guarantee that even you put $100 billion a year into R&D, a cost effective alternative to fossil fuels could be developed. But with that level of R&D for 15-20 years, you'd have the workforce and expertise, to get the costs as close as possible.

Well, I think the concept of demand side works much better than supply side.

What you are saying is invest money in R and D and eventually you'll make the product cheaper and better so it will be used over fossil fuels. I think thats kinda like pushing a string.

What this approach does is makes fossil fuels more (actually, appropriately - you are not deferring environmental costs to your grandkids anymore) expensive, and makes alternative energies much more desireable based upon cost. This will spur R and D all by itself, the money for development exists.. we just use it for drilling oil fields now instead of developing better solar cells or researching fusion.

The developing world will also benefit from these advances, because as the economies of scale rise with things like solar, it will become more appealing for the developing world too. The developing world is trying to reduce emissions, but without leadership from developed nations, all they can do is use existing dirty technology. Besides, its the developed world who has the massive CO2 footprint per capita.

 

[dpcal]

The real problem is energy storage. alternative energy sources, (Photovoltaic, Wind, ect) are already quite
efficient, they just don't provide power when and where you need it.
In the last 5 years, technology that started in Germany for storing energy as man made hydrocarbon fuels
has made significant progress.
Cars That Run on Air and Water? Audi Rolls Out E-Diesel
The Naval Research Labs are working on Jet Fuel.
The oil companies represent the best and the brightest in this arena, but do not publish their work.
Audi purchased an old refinery to set up the process, and is now claiming 70 % efficiencies.
It can only get better.
A carbon tax would set an artificial floor to the price, (why should they sell their product for any
cheaper than necessary?).

Thanks for the link. However, the article doesn't identify the cost of the hydrolysis process that's being used to generate the hydrogen. Unless the plant utilizes high temp nuclear, then they're using electricity to split the water molecules to obtain the hydrogen. That has previously been very expensive using electricity. If they have somehow found a way to do this close to the cost of diesel, it will be stunning... but the details count and the article is very short on details.

I have followed the technology aspect of alternative energy relatively closely for the past 7-8 years, and haven't seen anything close enough to the cost of coal and natural gas to be competitive without the subsidies. I don't know what the exact number is, but as an estimate would suggest about 2 billion people are living in the "developed world" and by 2050 the estimate of global population is upwards of 9 billion. Those 7 billion will be insisting on joining the energy intensive lifestyle party that's been going on the developed world. During their development process, they will use the cheapest energy possible. If there is not a non-fossil fuel energy source as cheap as or very close to as cheap, the reductions that the developed world is dumping hundreds of billions into currently may give people warm fuzzy feelings, but is worth little else, if current predictions are even halfway close to accurate. I realize that there are very few that share my view, but that's simply a matter of time. BTW: if you are interested in alternative technology, would suggest MIT Technology Review as a resource.

 

[longview]

Thanks for the link. However, the article doesn't identify the cost of the hydrolysis process that's being used to generate the hydrogen. Unless the plant utilizes high temp nuclear, then they're using electricity to split the water molecules to obtain the hydrogen. That has previously been very expensive using electricity. If they have somehow found a way to do this close to the cost of diesel, it will be stunning... but the details count and the article is very short on details.

I have followed the technology aspect of alternative energy relatively closely for the past 7-8 years, and haven't seen anything close enough to the cost of coal and natural gas to be competitive without the subsidies. I don't know what the exact number is, but as an estimate would suggest about 2 billion people are living in the "developed world" and by 2050 the estimate of global population is upwards of 9 billion. Those 7 billion will be insisting on joining the energy intensive lifestyle party that's been going on the developed world. During their development process, they will use the cheapest energy possible. If there is not a non-fossil fuel energy source as cheap as or very close to as cheap, the reductions that the developed world is dumping hundreds of billions into currently may give people warm fuzzy feelings, but is worth little else, if current predictions are even halfway close to accurate. I realize that there are very few that share my view, but that's simply a matter of time. BTW: if you are interested in alternative technology, would suggest MIT Technology Review as a resource.

From what I understand the 70% efficiency includes cracking the hydrogen from the water.
This technology started as a way to store surplus summer photovoltaic power for winter heating.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
The Navy also got the idea, that making their own jet fuel on carriers would be good.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Energy storage really is the key! We have more than enough energy hitting the ground, it is just not where
and when we need it, or in the density needed.
A storage method, allows the accumulation of energy over time, in a high density medium.
Consider a small photovoltaic system,
16 Panel SolarEdge / SolarWorld Grid-tie System - Wholesale Solar
Roughly $10,000. and at the efficiency cited could produce about 600 Kwh per month,
enough for a modern home, or produce about 10 gallons of Diesel.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

From what I understand the 70% efficiency includes cracking the hydrogen from the water.
This technology started as a way to store surplus summer photovoltaic power for winter heating.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
The Navy also got the idea, that making their own jet fuel on carriers would be good.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Energy storage really is the key! We have more than enough energy hitting the ground, it is just not where
and when we need it, or in the density needed.
A storage method, allows the accumulation of energy over time, in a high density medium.
Consider a small photovoltaic system,
16 Panel SolarEdge / SolarWorld Grid-tie System - Wholesale Solar
Roughly $10,000. and at the efficiency cited could produce about 600 Kwh per month,
enough for a modern home, or produce about 10 gallons of Diesel.

If you believe that, the key is not in storage, it's in transmission-- which means we need RTSCs.

 

[longview]

If you believe that, the key is not in storage, it's in transmission-- which means we need RTSCs.

RTSCs ???
Once the energy is stored as a hydrocarbon, there are other types of transportation.
Audi's original approach was the natural gas grid for both transport and storage.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

RTSCs ???
Once the energy is stored as a hydrocarbon, there are other types of transportation.
Audi's original approach was the natural gas grid for both transport and storage.

smh, Room Temperature SuperConductors.

 

[dpcal]

From what I understand the 70% efficiency includes cracking the hydrogen from the water.
This technology started as a way to store surplus summer photovoltaic power for winter heating.
Energy storage really is the key! We have more than enough energy hitting the ground, it is just not where
and when we need it, or in the density needed.
A storage method, allows the accumulation of energy over time, in a high density medium.
Consider a small photovoltaic system,
16 Panel SolarEdge / SolarWorld Grid-tie System - Wholesale Solar
Roughly $10,000. and at the efficiency cited could produce about 600 Kwh per month,
enough for a modern home, or produce about 10 gallons of Diesel.

My reservations regarding current large scale subsidized solar installation has nothing to do with the lack of energy available from sunlight. The problem with solar is the cost of solar electricity generation at the current state of the technology. The system you pointed to, is $10k to purchase, installation costs??. 600kwh from a 4k system, would likely require a location with somewhat better than average sun exposure. I'm assuming you calculated the 10 gallons of diesel based on the 70% efficiency, and doing an energy comparison between Kwh and gallon of diesel. Assuming that 's valid, (I don't know anywhere near enough to determine whether if that captures the all the inputs).. Assuming that's correct, the question is the cost of the 60kwh used, and the cost of the other inputs, and production facilities. Even at 4 cents per kwh, that's $2.40 in electricity costs alone.

 

[longview]

smh, Room Temperature SuperConductors.

They would help a lot, but storage is the key.
Electrical power much have a sink within a few ms of creation, or it is wasted.
Being able to store and accumulate that energy for later use becomes very important.