Global warming vs our economy

[MacRR]

Has this been discussed here before?

I just watched "an inconvenient truth" and aside from the politicizing of it- I found it to be informative. One would have to go through the fact checking- but it appears many many international scientists have and concur that there is a huge problem. And after seeing the issues so concisely- the connecting of dots- how can our administration ignore this? How can they deliberately try to debunk such damning information? Why is our administration so hell bent on twisting science into religious morals when it is clearly so unethical?

It would seem we are quickly headed towards a pretty bad disaster. Now- if katrina stretched us so horribly, how could we possibly deal with this?

We have so many of our politicians worried about how reducing emissions will affect our economy. How can you weigh the long term damage to our economy that would be far worse than anything we've seen before vs the short term gain of putting it off?

[Chris Cuilla]

Has this been discussed here before?

Yes. Ad nauseum. But...here we go again.

[e1618978]

We have so many of our politicians worried about how reducing emissions will affect our economy. How can you weigh the long term damage to our economy that would be far worse than anything we've seen before vs the short term gain of putting it off?

These global warming threads all seem to end up in the same spot. My position is that conservation is useless in combating global warming, because conservation lowers the price of fuels, which increases consumption in other areas - seems like a no-brainer that this is true, but nobody seems to agree with me. And anyway, even if you believed that conservation had an effect, how could that hold up in the face of population growth and the wealth-building taking place in the 3rd world (largest mall in the world just built in China, for example).

Since I think that conservation is useless, I take the "go with the flow" approach. We need to be accurately predicting the effects of the unstoppable global warming, and re-structuring our society to deal with the effects. We should also be putting plans into place to stop any big events we might trigger (release of Methane from ocean, end of gulf stream, deoxygination of oceans).

The other controversy that spring up is "wet world vs dry world". Every past climate that was warmer than now was also wetter, once you exclude the epochs that had a supercontinent. Warmer world = larger oceans, warmer oceans, greater moisture capacity of atmosphere = more rainfall. In the end, tropical jungles will cover most of the earth, with Seattle like temparatures at the poles. The temparature will not rise that much at the equator, but a lot at the poles (unless we build a boatload of windmills, which will stop the wind enough to cool the poles and heat the equator resulting in a different climate pattern).

[Chris Cuilla]

These global warming threads all seem to end up in the same spot. My position is that conservation is useless in combating global warming, because conservation lowers the price of fuels, which increases consumption in other areas - seems like a no-brainer that this is true, but nobody seems to agree with me.

I do. :-)

[Outsider]

Who cares about the environment? When Jesus comes he'll set everything straight.

[MacRR]

lol- i figured as much.

man- why doesn't AI just keep more than two pages of history? storage is so cheap!

Yes. Ad nauseum. But...here we go again.

[MacRR]

I know conservation won't work. It is just not in human nature to do it- especially not on a large scale.

I honestly think we probably crossed the event horizon on global warming the day we figured out how to use petroleum products as an energy source. So we'll greedily and humanly scream at an accelerated speed headlong into a disaster before the people left with the earth's correction pick up the pieces and move on. This has been demonstrated in our nature as recently as Katrina.

So there is no argument that the jury is out on global warming- just that there is no way to stop it?

[FormerLurker]

man- why doesn't AI just keep more than two pages of history? storage is so cheap!
Yeah, but it contributes to global warming - I'm sure AI is just doing their part!




:D

[jamac]

I know conservation won't work. It is just not in human nature to do it- especially not on a large scale.

I honestly think we probably crossed the event horizon on global warming the day we figured out how to use petroleum products as an energy source. So we'll greedily and humanly scream at an accelerated speed headlong into a disaster before the people left with the earth's correction pick up the pieces and move on. This has been demonstrated in our nature as recently as Katrina.

So there is no argument that the jury is out on global warming- just that there is no way to stop it?

Conservation:
I grew up in Europe and had relatives in East Germany. Individuals do conserve if there is no food, no luxury items, no medical care and no media. In 1970 the stores there had only 1 or 2 food items and if you were at the end of the line around 2 blocks and they ran out you just didn't eat that day.

Waste is luxury.

I agree that the horizon has been crossed and in a way I support Hummers and cars that get 2 miles to the gallon, so we could rid our world of oil as fast as possible. Unfortunately the planet is at the brinck of not beeing able to support the number of humans. Maybe we are not the intelligent species we think we are? Rain forests are still being cut down and we are facing a death spiral of CO2 increase versus O2 production elimination.

As to Rain:
Much rain causes tremendous erosion. To believe the earth will be covered in rain forest is a very optimistic view. Heavy rains can wash away top soil within hours.

[MacRR]

And most likely- we won't even be able to predict all the damage that will occur once the ball really gets rolling.

[Chris Cuilla]

Unfortunately the planet is at the brinck of not beeing able to support the number of humans.

This predication has been out there for centuries now. Malthus is probably considered the "father" of this idea based on his essay from over 200 years ago (though there is some suggestion that even he picked (plagerized?) it from earlier writers, scholars and thinkers). This Malthusian law (or fallacy as some say) is highly debated to this day.

Maybe we are not the intelligent species we think we are?

Well, there is certainly plenty of evidence for that! ;)

[MacRR]

I would think we'll debate the limits of how much our planet can support until it buckles in our faces and shows us exactly how much it can take.

It's far easier to debate the edge than take measures to keep from going over it....

Reminds me of an awesome HST quote:

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

[e1618978]

Much rain causes tremendous erosion. To believe the earth will be covered in rain forest is a very optimistic view. Heavy rains can wash away top soil within hours.

Only where there is no plant cover. I grew up in a rain forrest (2 meters of rain/year), and I never saw an erosion problem. My island was made up of gravel covered by dirt, and no erosion.

We might have erosion problems with the thawing permifrost, but eventually southern plant species will move North, and we can treat the soil with nets and such in the mean time (I have actually done this on my land, the net stopped all erosion while plant life took hold on a cliff I had dug out).

If we are worried about erosion as the primary effect of global warming, time to stop thinking about it and move on to more serious threats.

[jamac]

Only where there is no plant cover. I grew up in a rain forrest (2 meters of rain/year), and I never saw an erosion problem. My island was made up of gravel covered by dirt, and no erosion.

We might have erosion problems with the thawing permifrost, but eventually southern plant species will move North, and we can treat the soil with nets and such in the mean time (I have actually done this on my land, the net stopped all erosion while plant life took hold on a cliff I had dug out).

If we are worried about erosion as the primary effect of global warming, time to stop thinking about it and move on to more serious threats.

Wow, growing up in the rain forest...

I live in the desert now and even little rain will wash away a lot of soil. I am looking out on a runoff and in just minutes the water will dig a new channel if there is some obstruction.
My friend in Washington state had no electricity for 5 days after the recent storm and there is wide spread infrastructure damage.
Let's not forget Yugoslavia where the Greeks had deforested miles of coast to build their ships, nothing grows there since the 2000BC.

[Splinemodel]

There's still not really anything in the way of conclusive evidence that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact, there's probably more evidence that it's not.

[Chris Cuilla]

And maybe the 3 feet of snow in my yard is evidence it isn't even happening at all!

;)

:lol:

[jamac]

There's still not really anything in the way of conclusive evidence that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. In fact, there's probably more evidence that it's not.

This no longer matters. Its here and its real.
If we ever do have 100% proof and there were severe consequences it will not make sense to beat up on ourselves. If there were extremely positive changes we can always congratulate ourselves.
There are several cities in the USA in which chances of getting Asthma or other loung deficiencies if outside for 2 hours per day are 90%. In the end this will cost so much money, it will truly not matter what or who caused it.
To believe that man has absolutely nothing to do with it is flat out insane.

[hardeeharhar]

Re: Chis's comment about snow...

This is tantamount to saying that god must exist because you saw a plastic baby jesus in a church's manger...

Just about that idiotic...

[Chris Cuilla]

Re: hardeeharhar's comment about Chris' comment about snow...

This is tantamount to someone being complete devoid of a sense of humor...

Just about that idiotic...

[hardeeharhar]

Re: hardeeharhar's comment about Chris' comment about snow...

This is tantamount to someone being complete devoid of a sense of humor...

Just about that idiotic...


So you say...

[jamac]

And maybe the 3 feet of snow in my yard is evidence it isn't even happening at all!

;)

:lol:

the funny thing is... Global Warming has the same initials as GW.

[Mac on a Mac]

Our leaders are waiting for good, solid evidence. They don't want to jump to conclusions based on a limited data set....wait WMD? A forget it.

[spindler]

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient. Look at microprocessors. They double in power every 18 months, but this is only because billions are spent to design them and for the factories. With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it. The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

Let's say solar power is 9 cents a kilowatt hour. If you offer $1 billion of profits guaranteed to the first company that can get it down to 8.9 cents you would get real competition going, like you have between AMD and Intel.

[MacRR]

Aww shit!

thx Shawn!




Should we tell him? ;)

Okay:

[Splinemodel]

This no longer matters. Its here and its real.
If we ever do have 100% proof and there were severe consequences it will not make sense to beat up on ourselves. If there were extremely positive changes we can always congratulate ourselves.
There are several cities in the USA in which chances of getting Asthma or other loung deficiencies if outside for 2 hours per day are 90%. In the end this will cost so much money, it will truly not matter what or who caused it.
To believe that man has absolutely nothing to do with it is flat out insane.

People already have a disproportionate amount of lung problems, obesity, etc. It's not government's job to be nanny. In fact, it's quite likely that subsidized antibiotic drugs have led to these problems in the first place (another topic). If the geography changes, that's life, and we'll have to learn to deal with it. I don't see how this matters except to the people who live in the catastrophe areas.

Believe me, I live in Florida right now, and I own real estate. I wouldn't like to see the seas rise. But if they do, that's life, and chances are, it won't happen overnight, anyway. The information is out that global warming exists, and that it could lead to problems. It's not productive for people to fret about a future that we cannot really alter.

[MacRR]

I think hardheehar and Chris should just make out and get it over with.... :)


Anyways- IMO- regardless of the cause (which is hard to really imagine it not being humans with all the dots you can connect and all) it just plain out can't hurt to set out on all the changes spindler outlined. We need to do such things anyways with petroleum being a finite resource and all. We could easily have this kind of infrastructure in place within ten years time. And just think about how much a better place our country would be. I am certainly going to get a bio-diesel car next (it would be fukn sweet to have a bio-diesel SUV that would be capable of taking me into the california wilds without worrying about fuel all the time), and have solar panels on my home. It makes no sense not too.

As it goes with the solar panels- in california if you put solar panels on your home, you get a rebate form the Cali government. So basically we all pay taxes on giving people solar panels as of today- so why not take advantage and reap some benefits to your tax money. I can't remember exactly how the conversation went, so I am not sure if this is how it should be or if this is how it is as of today. But, any house that has solar panels should be put on a grid where you can resell energy you don't use back. Then you have an opportunity to recoup costs for installing the panels (albeit slowly). It's all about incentives.

My boss has a bio-diesel VW, and gets 300 gallons of bio fuel delivered to his home. Considering he gets 25-30 MPG that's 7500-9000 MPG per delivery. The problem is that it costs about $5 a gallon right now, but the more people who use it, the cheaper it gets. And it's like having your own gas station on your property with none of the hazards. While this is great for rural/suburban areas- you need a better infrastructure in urban areas.

Then there is the issue that this means only the USA is changing (which is good anyways), but we still have to contend with China and India ramping up into the modern age en masse. And en masse indeed. That 1/3 of the earth's population awakening to the fact that you can have a Hummer and forced air heat, and air conditioning- etc etc...

[MacRR]

Actually it's not productive to disregard the future and do nothing to make it for the better.

And if it did happen overnight?



Believe me, I live in Florida right now, and I own real estate. I wouldn't like to see the seas rise. But if they do, that's life, and chances are, it won't happen overnight, anyway. The information is out that global warming exists, and that it could lead to problems. It's not productive for people to fret about a future that we cannot really alter.

[Splinemodel]

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. ...

I have no problems with alternative energy. In fact, I support it just as I support environmental conservation. But cutting emissions by half is a drop in the proverbial bucket. The overwhelmingly greatest sources of greenhouse gas emission are active volcanoes, which as far as I know are entirely natural processes.

Personally, I say the United States should reform social security to provide benefits to the oldest X percentage instead of everyone after 65 (let's face it, in 1938 not many people lived past 65) and use the savings, which will be massive, to fund a massive project towards the development of fusion reactors. At this point fusion power hits home on so many levels: conservation, national security, energy exporting, etc.

[e1618978]

I am certainly going to get a bio-diesel car next (it would be fukn sweet to have a bio-diesel SUV that would be capable of taking me into the california wilds without worrying about fuel all the time)

I don't think that you realize that there is no difference between a diesel car and a bio-diesel car - you just buy a different fuel for the same old diesel cars that you could always buy.

And how would you not worry about fuel all the time? You still have to re-fuel. Do you think you put banana peels in the tank or something?

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels. Hybrid cards could quickly double American's gas mileage. As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient. Look at microprocessors. They double in power every 18 months, but this is only because billions are spent to design them and for the factories. With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it. The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

Let's say solar power is 9 cents a kilowatt hour. If you offer $1 billion of profits guaranteed to the first company that can get it down to 8.9 cents you would get real competition going, like you have between AMD and Intel.

I agree with an alternative energy push - I don't think that it will help global warming because conservation lowers prices of oil, but I think that it may save us from a peak oil energy crisis. Nuclear power is better than solar, though. Hybrid cars are a waste of time, fit only to make greenies feel good about themselves.

Biofuel is a disaster waiting to happen - if we transition to biofuel it will use up the 3rd world's food supply causing massive famine (we can afford to pay more for fuel than they can pay for food, and even the whole world's food supply converted to biofuel would not be enough to replace oil). Massive famine would be a good way to help global warming, though...

[SDW2001]

I would think we'll debate the limits of how much our planet can support until it buckles in our faces and shows us exactly how much it can take.

It's far easier to debate the edge than take measures to keep from going over it....

Reminds me of an awesome HST quote:

The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
Hunter S. Thompson

As a person that is not at all on the Global Warming bandwagon, it might surprise you to know I agree with you to an extent. We should transition to non-fossil fuels and energy sources over the next 50 years.

[Splinemodel]

Actually it's not productive to disregard the future and do nothing to make it for the better.

And if it did happen overnight?

1. I'm not disregarding the future. I suggest that people should be diligent to keep up with the information so that they may sell low-lying properties, or simply move out, at opportune times. I'm all for reducing emissions, but I don't think that would do a thing to prevent global warming.

2. It's not going to happen overnight. Unless you're writing a B movie, it's pointless to consider it.

[MacRR]

I do know that-- I never said you had to have a biodiesel car- I could get a used Iraq war Hummer and throw bio-diesel in it.

Anyways- I also know I still have to refuel.

Maybe I mislead you- but yes, I realize these particulars. ?


?


I don't think that you realize that there is no difference between a diesel car and a bio-diesel car - you just buy a different fuel for the same old diesel cars that you could always buy.

And how would you not worry about fuel all the time? You still have to re-fuel. Do you think you put banana peels in the tank or something?

[MacRR]

Yea- it's kind of hard to shit on a win-win two birds with one stone no brainer solution. :)

As a person that is not at all on the Global Warming bandwagon, it might surprise you to know I agree with you to an extent. We should transition to non-fossil fuels and energy sources over the next 50 years.

[MacRR]

1) true. It would have to encompass many facets of reduction of green house gases. So you selling at some point?

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

1. I'm not disregarding the future. I suggest that people should be diligent to keep up with the information so that they may sell low-lying properties, or simply move out, at opportune times. I'm all for reducing emissions, but I don't think that would do a thing to prevent global warming.

2. It's not going to happen overnight. Unless you're writing a B movie, it's pointless to consider it.

[SDW2001]

1) true. It would have to encompass many facets of reduction of green house gases. So you selling at some point?

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

Perhaps you can explain why we had so few storms this year, hmmm?

[Chris Cuilla]

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

When was the last time everyone in the path of a hurricane didn't have about a week's notice that a) it was happening, b) it was going to hit, and c) an amazingly accurate prediction of where it was going to hit?

[MacRR]

Of course I can- I am actually Satan, and I wanted a light year. I am tired of fukin everything up all the time. I just wanted to chill on a beach instead of wrecking it.

:)

At any rate- I wasn't making commentary on storms per se. I am sure spline remembers 2005 even if 2006 was a light year. And that still won't make a difference if 2007 is an active year, no?

Since my local meteorologist can't even get weather right most of the time, and he is supposedly an expert, I am not going to purport to know why weather works in the way it does. :)

But if one can measure that say the Gulf is warmer than it was last year- and they know warmer water provokes stronger storms- then......


Perhaps you can explain why we had so few storms this year, hmmm?

[Chris Cuilla]

Half of our emissions could be taken care of quickly. Put solar panels on everything. More wind power. More biofuels.

Don't you think that we'd already be going to these things if the cost/benefit trade-offs supported doing so?

As you spend more on these fuels, they get more efficient...With some billions of dollars spent on alternative fuels, it would not be hard to get them down to reasonable prices.

Possibly.

The only way to do this is through taxes since individuals may be too lazy to do it.

:lol: I love it. People aren't making the choices I want them to make so let me try and force them to do it through government policy.

The government should buy all available alternative energy but only at a price to give moderate profits so as to give incentive for companies to produce the energy more efficiently.

:lol: You have a lot to learn about economics and how effective your little plan would be.

[SDW2001]

Of course I can- I am actually Satan, and I wanted a light year. I am tired of fukin everything up all the time. I just wanted to chill on a beach instead of wrecking it.

:)

At any rate- I wasn't making commentary on storms per se. I am sure spline remembers 2005 even if 2006 was a light year. And that still won't make a difference if 2007 is an active year, no?

Since my local meteorologist can't even get weather right most of the time, and he is supposedly an expert, I am not going to purport to know why weather works in the way it does. :)

But if one can measure that say the Gulf is warmer than it was last year- and they know warmer water provokes stronger storms- then......

Well you just said it yourself. There are factors beyond water temperature. Yes, existing hurricanes tend to feed on warm water. But there are other variables that may cancel out that "given."

[franksargent]

Perhaps you can explain why we had so few storms this year, hmmm?

:smokey:

RETURN OF EL NIÑO YIELDS NEAR NORMAL 2006 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2748.htm)

:smokey:

[SDW2001]

Don't you think that we'd already be going to these things if the cost/benefit trade-offs supported doing so?



Possibly.



:lol: I love it. People aren't making the choices I want them to make so let me try and force them to do it through government policy.



:lol: You have a lot to learn about economics and how effective your little plan would be.

What's more amazing is how he reaches for the tried and true "tax 'em" mentality before he considers other options. How about tax incentives? How about government funded research on these technologies so that people have choices to make?

The moment I can get the same convenience, performance and price out of an electric or biofuel car, I'll sign on the dotted line. But now...who can blame me for making a choice to use a conventional vehicle? Hybrids cost much more. Biofuels are just beginning to be deployed into the market. Electric cars are a joke in terms of performance. You've got to give people a real choice. When you do, they'll do the right thing for the environment.

[MacRR]

But the damage happens in the time it hits- which ...


Wait! Semantics my friend.... :) Why argue them?



When was the last time everyone in the path of a hurricane didn't have about a week's notice that a) it was happening, b) it was going to hit, and c) an amazingly accurate prediction of where it was going to hit?

[Chris Cuilla]

But the damage happens in the time it hits- which ...


Wait! Semantics my friend.... :) Why argue them?

I guess I didn't think I was arguing semantics. You seemed to be suggesting that hurricanes can develop instantly. Maybe I missed your point.

[MacRR]

All of which goes out the window as Spline is nailing boards to his windows as another cat 5 hurricane is barreling at him.



Well you just said it yourself. There are factors beyond water temperature. Yes, existing hurricanes tend to feed on warm water. But there are other variables that may cancel out that "given."

[SDW2001]

All of which goes out the window as Spline is nailing boards to his windows as another cat 5 hurricane is barreling at him.

What?

[MacRR]

California has great incentives to put solar panels on yur home- but it still costs about 9k out of pocket.... but hey- it's a start.

Biofuel cars, electric cars.... man, compare the model T to today's nissan maxima. Tech will get better... :). It's at the early stages, but it's coming along...

What's more amazing is how he reaches for the tried and true "tax 'em" mentality before he considers other options. How about tax incentives? How about government funded research on these technologies so that people have choices to make?

The moment I can get the same convenience, performance and price out of an electric or biofuel car, I'll sign on the dotted line. But now...who can blame me for making a choice to use a conventional vehicle? Hybrids cost much more. Biofuels are just beginning to be deployed into the market. Electric cars are a joke in terms of performance. You've got to give people a real choice. When you do, they'll do the right thing for the environment.

[MacRR]

Anything we say, purport, rationalize, surmise about weather won't mean much as the next hurricane hits FL and spline is in it's path.

What?

[Splinemodel]

1) true. It would have to encompass many facets of reduction of green house gases. So you selling at some point?

2) Hurricanes sucka! They can happen overnight- especially the ones ramped up and supercharged by warmer waters. I am sure you've been in FL long enough to know that's not a B movie type of plot.

Are you interested in buying? I have a nice condo, built of steel and concrete, right on the lagoon, and it can probably resist a nuclear blast, much less a hurricane. It has hurricane shutters, so no need to nail up boards. My town (melbourne) actually got a direct hit from Frances in 2004. This was inconvenient, because I'm from the Northeast and had just moved down that summer. But I had plenty of time to evacuate. In fact, I waited until the last moment. Hurricanes go like 15mph. My car (of the time) could go much faster, especially when I-95 was empty.

Hurricanes are something Floridians know all about. There's a known, documented 27 year cycle. (I think it's 27 years, or about that). The only thing that upsets me about Katrina is that the government is so inefficient about fixing anything. They knew it was coming, they lived in reclaimed land. . . you have to expect that sometimes things aren't going to go your way.

[JupiterOne]

And JupiterOne... :( :( :(

[MacRR]

Well, whatever helps you sleep at night. I am glad you have the best building materials to mitigate your risks and stay safe.

I live in California, so I hear ya about living with risks. We just had a 3.7 yesterday!

It will suck when we have a 7.0+ for sure.

[Splinemodel]

Meh, by the time that severe hurricanes might become byproducts of global warming (if that actually occurs, hurricanes are caused by temp gradients, which may well be reduced by global warming) I'll probably be living closer to you, in NoCal.

And yes, I have given myself license to use the frowned-upon term, "NoCal." ;)

[MacRR]

Nice- it's great here. The water sucks tho- not clear blue and warm like you're probably used to!

Also- it's NorCal- not NoCal :).

[jamac]

:smokey:

RETURN OF EL NIÑO YIELDS NEAR NORMAL 2006 ATLANTIC HURRICANE SEASON (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2748.htm)

:smokey:


Most of the storms stronger than normal occured in the Pacific this year but they are called Taifoons. Vietnam was hit badly lots of damage there, Japan had several huge storms. The US is not the world. Take of your blind fold maybe that'll help.

[jamac]

California has great incentives to put solar panels on yur home- but it still costs about 9k out of pocket.... but hey- it's a start.

Biofuel cars, electric cars.... man, compare the model T to today's nissan maxima. Tech will get better... :). It's at the early stages, but it's coming along...

I have solar panels and a hybrid car. cost for 2.6kW system consiting of 18 BP solar panels 14,000.-(21,000.- invoice) installation included. I make 14 - 21 kwH/day. The panels have a 25 year warranty. (it is not known how long they last, the first ones from the 60s are still operating)
If I put 14,000 into a savings account @ 5% I only get 700/annum. My panels make me about 1,400/annum or about 10% return, completely inflation proof. When energy prices go up my divident goes up as well.

1 kwH solar saves about 1 pound of CO2 emission.

[Splinemodel]

I have solar panels and a hybrid car. cost for 2.6kW system consiting of 18 BP solar panels 14,000.-(21,000.- invoice) installation included. I make 14 - 21 kwH/day. The panels have a 25 year warranty. (it is not known how long they last, the first ones from the 60s are still operating)
If I put 14,000 into a savings account @ 5% I only get 700/annum. My panels make me about 1,400/annum or about 10% return, completely inflation proof. When energy prices go up my divident goes up as well.

1 kwH solar saves about 1 pound of CO2 emission.
Nice. I think my dad is looking to install some solar panels, but the sunshine and the incentives in Maryland are less appealing.

[iPoster]

http://www.outatime.it/public/40-mr_fusion.jpg

*Sits and waits for this technology to mature* ;)

Seriously though, the home solar panel tech is looking better and better. Unfortunately I don't remotely have the money to install it any time soon. Would be interesting to have solar panels on a house built in 1912 though, talk about advancing technology! The roof faces east/west, would that be a negative factor? I know solar hot water panels benefit greatly from a southern alignment.

[SDW2001]

Most of the storms stronger than normal occured in the Pacific this year but they are called Taifoons. Vietnam was hit badly lots of damage there, Japan had several huge storms. The US is not the world. Take of your blind fold maybe that'll help.


T-Y-P-H-O-O-N

Learn how to come even close to spelling it and maybe I'll take you seriously.

[SDW2001]

California has great incentives to put solar panels on yur home- but it still costs about 9k out of pocket.... but hey- it's a start.

Biofuel cars, electric cars.... man, compare the model T to today's nissan maxima. Tech will get better... :). It's at the early stages, but it's coming along...

That's my point...it's not even close to being "there" yet.

[franksargent]

Most of the storms stronger than normal occured in the Pacific this year but they are called Taifoons. Vietnam was hit badly lots of damage there, Japan had several huge storms. The US is not the world. Take of your blind fold maybe that'll help.

:smokey:

Are you talking to me specifically, or the original poster I replied to? I am well aware of tropical storms, or tropical cyclones, or Typhoons, seeing as I am a coastal engineer (or Research Hydraulic Engineer) for the last 20+ years or so! Also know a fair amount about ENSO, and it's potential consequences, ocean buoys used to measure ENSO (the only current surefire way to predict occurence and intensity of ENSO's BTW).

:smokey:

[MacRR]

Ah- so you can resell your extra energy to the grid...

nice.

I have solar panels and a hybrid car. cost for 2.6kW system consiting of 18 BP solar panels 14,000.-(21,000.- invoice) installation included. I make 14 - 21 kwH/day. The panels have a 25 year warranty. (it is not known how long they last, the first ones from the 60s are still operating)
If I put 14,000 into a savings account @ 5% I only get 700/annum. My panels make me about 1,400/annum or about 10% return, completely inflation proof. When energy prices go up my divident goes up as well.

1 kwH solar saves about 1 pound of CO2 emission.

[MacRR]

But my point- you have to start somewhere.....


and it's definitely close- it's becoming not only more attractive- but more viable. I see hybrids all day out here in Cali. They made it so you can drive in the car pool lane as well.

It's all about incentive sin the mean time- but soon enough it will be the norm and incentives won't be necessary.





That's my point...it's not even close to being "there" yet.

[MacRR]

LOL.. he is right though.

T-Y-P-H-O-O-N

Learn how to come even close to spelling it and maybe I'll take you seriously.

[e1618978]

I have solar panels and a hybrid car. cost for 2.6kW system consiting of 18 BP solar panels 14,000.-(21,000.- invoice) installation included. I make 14 - 21 kwH/day. The panels have a 25 year warranty. (it is not known how long they last, the first ones from the 60s are still operating)
If I put 14,000 into a savings account @ 5% I only get 700/annum. My panels make me about 1,400/annum or about 10% return, completely inflation proof. When energy prices go up my divident goes up as well.

1 kwH solar saves about 1 pound of CO2 emission.

Electricity costs 0.07 / kWH, so your calculations are off

17.5 kWh/day = 6392 kWh/year = $447/year (3.2%/year, even after a government subsidy that gets added to your tax bill).

[franksargent]

LOL.. he is right though.

:smokey:

It basically means "big wind." There are numerous spellings, "taifoon" is neither usual or unusual, but can be tai'fun or tai'foon, and a whole bunch of other miscellaneous asian origin spellings for "big wind." Of course, typhoon will get you tens of millions of hits on google versus hundreds for the other forms, AFAIK.

:smokey:

[ronaldo]

Build more nuclear power plants. There is absolutly no co2 emissions from a nuclear reactor. The new design light water reactors will be much cheaper to build and maintain.

[hardeeharhar]

Build more nuclear power plants. There is absolutly no co2 emissions from a nuclear reactor. The new design light water reactors will be much cheaper to build and maintain.

But there are CO2 emissions from the extraction and processing of fuel prior to use in a reactor, there are CO2 emissions from the perpetual need to store the waste products afterwards. Nuclear is even less sustainable than coal...

[ronaldo]

But there are CO2 emissions from the extraction and processing of fuel prior to use in a reactor, there are CO2 emissions from the perpetual need to store the waste products afterwards. Nuclear is even less sustainable than coal...

Here is a little more info before you all start bashing me.

• Two 1MWe power stations, one nuclear, one coal
• Stations need 27 tons of uranium fuel (200 tons of U3O8), 3.3 million tons of black coal annually
• Nuclear waste is 3% of the 27 tons, treated by the supplier at its cost
• Coal waste is 7 million tons of CO2, 200,000 tons SO2, plus toxins in ash
• Nuclear industry saves 2.4 billion tons of coal waste pa. Coal plants still emit 7 billion tons pa
SAFETY: Coal plant deaths 6,400; Hydro 4,000; Natural Gas 1,400; Nuclear 31 in 13,000 reactor-years

And I forgt something. Just think of thousands of high paying jobs that would be created. Talk about a boost for the economic future of the country and the world for that matter.

[hardeeharhar]

Here is a little more info before you all start bashing me.

• Two 1MWe power stations, one nuclear, one coal
• Stations need 27 tons of uranium fuel (200 tons of U3O8), 3.3 million tons of black coal annually
• Nuclear waste is 3% of the 27 tons, treated by the supplier at its cost
• Coal waste is 7 million tons of CO2, 200,000 tons SO2, plus toxins in ash
• Nuclear industry saves 2.4 billion tons of coal waste pa. Coal plants still emit 7 billion tons pa
SAFETY: Coal plant deaths 6,400; Hydro 4,000; Natural Gas 1,400; Nuclear 31 in 13,000 reactor-years

And I forgt something. Just think of thousands of high paying jobs that would be created. Talk about a boost for the economic future of the country and the world for that matter.

All this is moot. There is not enough nuclear fuel to last us past our current fossil fuel deposites...

[ronaldo]

All this is moot. There is not enough nuclear fuel to last us past our current fossil fuel deposites...

Plutonium which is a by product of nuclear fission could be used as fuel for reactors.

[franksargent]

All this is moot. There is not enough nuclear fuel to last us past our current fossil fuel deposites...

:smokey:

Welcome to the fossil fuel club!

In that case all alternatives are moot, since those fossil will always exist until used. The point is to reduce rates of CO2 emissions, by substituting lower CO2 emission fuels, nuclear is one option towards that path. Nuclear is available to us today, and if plant construction/operations are standardized, is the next cheapest alternative to fossil fuels.

If you are serious about attempting to solve the global warming problem, all options must be on the table.

Remember that it took nature several hundred million years to build up that stored carbon, that potential energy, man wants to consume that in a span of several hundred years, that's six orders of magnitude faster than it was deposited!

We can't stop that, but perhaps we can slow it down!

:smokey:

[ronaldo]

All this is moot. There is not enough nuclear fuel to last us past our current fossil fuel deposites...

Here is some info on the worlds supply of uranium.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

[e1618978]

All this is moot. There is not enough nuclear fuel to last us past our current fossil fuel deposites...

Only because we aren't using breeder reactors yet, which would reduce our uranium consumption by 60 times. Nuclear fission is the way to go.

[ronaldo]

Only because we aren't using breeder reactors yet, which would reduce our uranium consumption by 60 times. Nuclear fission is the way to go.

As I recall, breeder reactors were the up and coming next generation of the nuclear industry in the late seventies, but they were deemed to dangerous because the fissel material is excellent weapons grade material. Our nuclear phyisist president Jimmy Carter put the kabosh on them.

[hardeeharhar]

Only because we aren't using breeder reactors yet, which would reduce our uranium consumption by 60 times. Nuclear fission is the way to go.

We are still pushing up to a wall... at least fossil fuels have the chance of being regenerated in 4 M years...:p

Solar is the way to go, be it wind, direct photovaltic current, etc....

[ronaldo]

We are still pushing up to a wall... at least fossil fuels have the chance of being regenerated in 4 M years...:p

Solar is the way to go, be it wind, direct photovaltic current, etc....

These technologies you speak of may be economically feasable for residential consumers of electricity, but I do not believe they are for heavy industry. Maybe in seventy years when we will have exhausted the known supplies of uranium.
The ammount of wind mills and solar panels that would be needed to make the ammount of energy produced at one 500 mwe nuclear plant would be way too many.
I really don't know enough about photovaltic current to commet on that.

I know that GE makes wind generators that produce drom 1.5 to 3.6 mwe, but where are we going to put all of these wind mills. You need a lot of acerage for a wind farm. And lots of people do not like the eyesore that they are. I believe it to be the same for solar panels

[hardeeharhar]

These technologies you speak of may be economically feasable for residential consumers of electricity, but I do not believe they are for heavy industry. Maybe in seventy years when we will have exhausted the known supplies of uranium.
The ammount of wind mills and solar panels that would be needed to make the ammount of energy produced at one 500 mwe nuclear plant would be way too many.
I really don't know enough about photovaltic current to commet on that.

I know that GE makes wind generators that produce drom 1.5 to 3.6 mwe, but where are we going to put all of these wind mills. You need a lot of acerage for a wind farm. And lots of people do not like the eyesore that they are. I believe it to be the same for solar panels

Do people like the eye sores of Nuclear power plants? or the large areas that are made uninhabitable by their presence?

That is a retarded argument.

Put wind farms on the US highways, for example.

[ronaldo]

Do people like the eye sores of Nuclear power plants? or the large areas that are made uninhabitable by their presence?

That is a retarded argument.

Put wind farms on the US highways, for example.

All I am saying is, it going to take one hell of a lot of wind mills to make almost 97,000mwe which is produced in the USA by nuclear now.
Is wind power reliable? I don't know.

[hardeeharhar]

All I am saying is, it going to take one hell of a lot of wind mills to make almost 97,000mwe which is produced in the USA by nuclear now.
Is wind power reliable? I don't know.

The weakest link would not be the generation stations...

All I am saying is that Nuclear is not THE answer. There isn't even An answer...

[ronaldo]

The weakest link would not be the generation stations...

All I am saying is that Nuclear is not THE answer. There isn't even An answer...

I think nuclear is the answer for the short term, because of the jobs and the additional tax base that will be created.

[hardeeharhar]

I think nuclear is the answer for the short term, because of the jobs and the additional tax base that will be created.

How is this different from Wind/Solar?

[Splinemodel]

Do people like the eye sores of Nuclear power plants? or the large areas that are made uninhabitable by their presence?

That is a retarded argument.

Put wind farms on the US highways, for example.

Really, no worse that fossil fuel plants, and less (no) emissions. The area around the Calvert plant in MD, I believe, is a protected wetlands. There also would seem to be plenty of Uranium and Thorium to go for quite a while -- at least until better technology is available.

"Renewable" energy source are ridiculous to consider, since we as humans can mark our progress by our ability to utilize energy. If the entire surface of the earth were coated with solar panels, it still would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy needs expected for 22nd century human development. And please don't give me the "we should just use less energy" spiel: there's no shortcut, for example, for building and operating an elevator to space.

[ronaldo]

How is this different from Wind/Solar?
Wind generator farms are good for temporary construction jobs, but they only require a small workforce for maintenance. Nuclear plants on the other hand will create thousands of tempoarary construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs per plant and hundreds of temporary jobs for re-fueling and maintenance.

[MacRR]

lol... no no no- i was laughing about the english common usage and how diverse and educated this board is. Re-fukn-markable actually. At any rate- despite spellings, Jamac was right in substance despite his spelling. SDW neglected the meat of the substance, and attacked his grammar.

Ah well. Best to ignore someone's fact solely due to their lack of American english usage of a weather phenomenon. That's a great blinder, no? No reason to take some one serious on that merit whatsoever.

sheeiit!

:)



:smokey:

It basically means "big wind." There are numerous spellings, "taifoon" is neither usual or unusual, but can be tai'fun or tai'foon, and a whole bunch of other miscellaneous asian origin spellings for "big wind." Of course, typhoon will get you tens of millions of hits on google versus hundreds for the other forms, AFAIK.

:smokey:

[hardeeharhar]

Really, no worse that fossil fuel plants, and less (no) emissions. The area around the Calvert plant in MD, I believe, is a protected wetlands. There also would seem to be plenty of Uranium and Thorium to go for quite a while -- at least until better technology is available.

"Renewable" energy source are ridiculous to consider, since we as humans can mark our progress by our ability to utilize energy. If the entire surface of the earth were coated with solar panels, it still would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy needs expected for 22nd century human development. And please don't give me the "we should just use less energy" spiel: there's no shortcut, for example, for building and operating an elevator to space.

The best we can expect is the worst case scenario. No new improvements in energy production with a 100-fold increase in world use per half century. Nuclear alone isn't sufficient, nor are the newest of the new fossil fuel plants, nor (perhaps) are solar panels or wind farms. The point is that we have to do everything, and this one plant fits all approach is just another fumble of our future by people with their own crushing market interests...

[franksargent]

Really, no worse that fossil fuel plants, and less (no) emissions. The area around the Calvert plant in MD, I believe, is a protected wetlands. There also would seem to be plenty of Uranium and Thorium to go for quite a while -- at least until better technology is available.

"Renewable" energy source are ridiculous to consider, since we as humans can mark our progress by our ability to utilize energy. If the entire surface of the earth were coated with solar panels, it still would be a drop in the bucket compared to the energy needs expected for 22nd century human development. And please don't give me the "we should just use less energy" spiel: there's no shortcut, for example, for building and operating an elevator to space.

:smokey:

w00t!

There is no shortage of solar-derived energy on Earth. Indeed the storages and flows of energy on the planet are very large relative to human needs. Consider the following:
The amount of solar energy intercepted by the Earth every minute is greater than the amount of energy the world uses in fossil fuels each year.
Tropical oceans absorb 560 trillion gigajoules (GJ) of solar energy each year, equivalent to 1,600 times the world’s annual energy use.
The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricity—more than one and one-half times the electricity consumed in the United States in 2000.
Annual photosynthesis by the vegetation in the United States is 50 billion GJ, equivalent to nearly 60% of the nation’s annual fossil fuel use.
Plants, on average, capture 0.1% of the solar energy reaching the Earth. The land area of the lower 48 United States intercepts 50 trillion GJ per year, equivalent to 500 times of the nation’s annual energy use. [44] This energy is spread over 8 million square kilometers of land area, so that the energy absorbed per unit area is 6.1 million GJ per square kilometer per year This results in potential biomass production of 6,100 GJ per square kilometer per year. Compared to the 0.1% efficiency of vegetation, roof installable amorphous silicon solar panels capture 8%-14% of the solar energy, while more expensive crystalline panels capture 14%-20%, and large scale desert mirror-concentrator heat engine based setups may capture up to 30-50%.

Availability of solar energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power#Availability_of_solar_energy)

Please, we need to consider ALL alternatives of energy production and ALL methods of capitalization of said alternatives.

:smokey:

[Splinemodel]

:smokey:

Please, we need to consider ALL alternatives of energy production and ALL methods of capitalization of said alternatives.

:smokey:

Considering is fine, but ultimately I see solar & wind power fulfilling much less centralized roles. The economics of the situation are hard to justify any other way: the amount of energy required to produce and maintain the solar or wind infrastructure (i.e. building the fixtures) is high. With fusion power seemingly well within the grasp of the next 100 years, I would be tremendously upset if I were forced to shell out for high energy costs in the name of renewable infrastructure.

[hardeeharhar]

Considering is fine, but ultimately I see solar & wind power fulfilling much less centralized roles. The economics of the situation are hard to justify any other way: the amount of energy required to produce and maintain the solar or wind infrastructure (i.e. building the fixtures) is high. With fusion power seemingly well within the grasp of the next 100 years, I would be tremendously upset if I were forced to shell out for high energy costs in the name of renewable infrastructure.

Fusion is as much a pipe dream as biohydrogen is at this moment...

And I work in a DOE funded biohydrogen lab...

[jamac]

T-Y-P-H-O-O-N

Learn how to come even close to spelling it and maybe I'll take you seriously.


Learn maybe one other language to train your brain. So I can come even close to taking you seriously.
So ein blöder Arsch.

[e1618978]

The best we can expect is the worst case scenario. No new improvements in energy production with a 100-fold increase in world use per half century. Nuclear alone isn't sufficient, nor are the newest of the new fossil fuel plants, nor (perhaps) are solar panels or wind farms. The point is that we have to do everything, and this one plant fits all approach is just another fumble of our future by people with their own crushing market interests...

1. The projections that I have seen are a 5-fold increase in energy usage by 2050, where did you get 100-fold from?

2. Solar and wind are too expensive, and they don't scale well. Wind power is twice as expensive as nuclear power, and solar is even more costly.

Right now petrochemicals produce 85% of our power, and we get 15% from Nuclear. Nuclear has the capacity to expand to fill the void, and just because Carter was a pussy does not mean that breeder reactors are not going to be used - they are the only available thing that will scale to the required usage, and they are fine for the western world.

[jamac]

1. The projections that I have seen are a 5-fold increase in energy usage by 2050, where did you get 100-fold from?

2. Solar and wind are too expensive, and they don't scale well. Wind power is twice as expensive as nuclear power, and solar is even more costly.

Right now petrochemicals produce 85% of our power, and we get 15% from Nuclear. Nuclear has the capacity to expand to fill the void, and just because Carter was a pussy does not mean that breeder reactors are not going to be used - they are the only available thing that will scale to the required usage, and they are fine for the western world.

Wind, solar and wave power are only expensive initially. As I said earlier, solar panels have an unknown lifespan. Wind turbines run for about 30 years without major maintenance issues (I own a few turbines). Wave generators are too new to know.
Nuclear power has this pesky "what to do with the trash" problem.
The only real deciding factor should be: how can we produce energy without the stink. We should reserve Oxigen for breathing. Do we really need to burn it up so we can post our thoughts on this forum?

Oil = dead things. I never thought filling the air with death is the best idea, it's working for now but will suffocate us all eventually.

[e1618978]

Wind, solar and wave power are only expensive initially. As I said earlier, solar panels have an unknown lifespan. Wind turbines run for about 30 years without major maintenance issues (I own a few turbines). Wave generators are too new to know.
Nuclear power has this pesky "what to do with the trash" problem.
The only real deciding factor should be: how can we produce energy without the stink. We should reserve Oxigen for breathing. Do we really need to burn it up so we can post our thoughts on this forum?

Oil = dead things. I never thought filling the air with death is the best idea, it's working for now but will suffocate us all eventually.

It does not matter when the expense is incurred - hydro electric is very expensive initially also, but that does not make the power free after that. The initial expense is amortized over the life of the device, and when you do that with wind or solar then you realize that it is cost prohibitive.

Breeder reactors produce much less waste than conventional, and even conventional reactors produce very little waste (particular compared to coal based power plants).

[jamac]

It does not matter when the expense is incurred - hydro electric is very expensive initially also, but that does not make the power free after that. The initial expense is amortized over the life of the device, and when you do that with wind or solar then you realize that it is cost prohibitive.

Breeder reactors produce much less waste than conventional, and even conventional reactors produce very little waste (particular compared to coal based power plants).

Unfortunately we have to find de-centralized solutions. distribution is a big problem and expensive. It can be knocked out by one big storm. This year alone millions of people in the US had no electricity for weeks. I will have juice while the net is out. I feel much safer haveing my own generating equipment and not rely on anyone for my electricity.
Wind energy is great business and so is solar.

Maybe a scenario where big industry is fed by a local reactor but individual residences have private generation would make sense.

[e1618978]

Unfortunately we have to find de-centralized solutions. distribution is a big problem and expensive. It can be knocked out by one big storm. This year alone millions of people in the US had no electricity for weeks. I will have juice while the net is out. I feel much safer haveing my own generating equipment and not rely on anyone for my electricity.
Wind energy is great business and so is solar.

Maybe a scenario where big industry is fed by a local reactor but individual residences have private generation would make sense.

Distribution is not a problem, and underground power lines solve most of the reliability issues. Not only that, but maintenance on distributed systems is much higher than on central systems - storms that can rip down power lines can also rip pannels off your roof.

Distributed power generation will never be as efficient as central power generation, due to efficiencies of scale. Your solar pannels are much more expensive than a central nuclear power plant, and the voltage drop over the length of the electrical main is not enough to compensate.

[jamac]

Distribution is not a problem, and underground power lines solve most of the reliability issues. Not only that, but maintenance on distributed systems is much higher than on central systems - storms that can rip down power lines can also rip pannels off your roof.

Distributed power generation will never be as efficient as central power generation, due to efficiencies of scale. Your solar pannels are much more expensive than a central nuclear power plant, and the voltage drop over the length of the electrical main is not enough to compensate.

You are either a communist or your wife's name Uranium?:lol:

I want my own power. I don't give an f what it costs. I am a capitalist.
If I want pink solar panles with bells and a print of Pamela Anderson's boobs I will get them.

[Gilsch]

Solar tech is advancing rapidly. Prices will naturally come down. There is no definitive solution and there shouldn't be. In a few years you won't be able to tell solar cells from "normal" building materials. Even the paint on the walls will be a form of solar cells.

[e1618978]

You are either a communist or your wife's name Uranium?:lol:

I want my own power. I don't give an f what it costs. I am a capitalist.
If I want pink solar panles with bells and a print of Pamela Anderson's boobs I will get them.

I don't want to prevent people from generating their own power, I'm just pointing out that it is not cost effective compared to centralized power generation. I have a 45 KW propane generator and 3000 gallons of propane tanks at my house, but I can't afford to run them all the time - it is much less expensive to use centralized nuclear power plants (which is what I do 99.9% of the time).

Also, per-house power generation puts maintenance costs on the end user, and most end users are not up to the task. It is a pipe dream to think that we will end up with distributed power.

[MacRR]

I see them all over in Norcal.

The less energy we use- the less demand from the central utlility- thus lower prices. And if there's a shortage that drives prices up- you have that hedged.

Since in california it's subsidized in the form of a rebate- you may as well invest in solar panels and get your tax dollars back with benefits.

It just makes sense to invest in solar panels- and the more people who invest the cheaper it will become.



I don't want to prevent people from generating their own power, I'm just pointing out that it is not cost effective compared to centralized power generation. I have a 45 KW propane generator and 3000 gallons of propane tanks at my house, but I can't afford to run them all the time - it is much less expensive to use centralized nuclear power plants (which is what I do 99.9% of the time).

Also, per-house power generation puts maintenance costs on the end user, and most end users are not up to the task. It is a pipe dream to think that we will end up with distributed power.

[franksargent]

I see them all over in Norcal.

The less energy we use- the less demand from the central utlility- thus lower prices. And if there's a shortage that drives prices up- you have that hedged.

Since in california it's subsidized in the form of a rebate- you may as well invest in solar panels and get your tax dollars back with benefits.

It just makes sense to invest in solar panels- and the more people who invest the cheaper it will become.

:smokey:

Yes, also here in rural Mississippi, all the trailer trash are getting solar panels, because solar technology is just, you know, so cheap! I can't drive by a trailer park without seeing crackers having solar cell construction parties. Also in the Delta solar cells are really taking off. And look at the tax break those people get, each and every one of them gets a $0.02/yr tax break to offset their solar cell investment, of course they don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway, but nevermind that.

The technology is just so affordable, it's just so obvious. And all this time the entire world has been fooled by a grand conspiracy by the utility industries, globally. Centeralized distribution, what a load of bunk. Mom and Pop energy stores, coming to a street corner near you, because it's cheaper! Centeralized maintenance, another load of bunk. Power grid for redistribution of energy where needed, another load of bunk. Economics of scale, another load of bunk! 24/7 power availability, another load of bunk, why we all can afford a room full of lead batteries and the power management system needed to regulate said power, why, because it's so cheap.

The EPA has just issued a Smug Alert for this thread!

:smokey:

[MacRR]

Well, save the lack of putting econ 101 together- I applaud your wit. well, nah...

:)

You realize computers used to be the domain of the rich.....

Cars too.....
...an cell phones.


nah-- let's pretend to stay in the exact present because this today is how everyday going forth will be. Nothing ever changes. Never ever ever. The economics of supply and demand don't apply to solar panels. In ten years, no matter how many people adopt the technology- even poor people in Mississippi won't in tarnation know and love the benefits of solar power. There's no way the tech will get better, cheaper, and more efficient. Never ever EVER. That tech will stay exactly the same as it presently is.

And since I can afford it- I should stifle it's growth and pass on purchasing solar power just so I am never ever better than some poor piece of hiller ass in Mississippi.... oh wait.... :) I already am better, so I may as well bust out the check book. They'll thank me in ten years.....




:smokey:

Yes, also here in rural Mississippi, all the trailer trash are getting solar panels, because solar technology is just, you know, so cheap! I can't drive by a trailer park without seeing crackers having solar cell construction parties. Also in the Delta solar cells are really taking off. And look at the tax break those people get, each and every one of them gets a $0.02/yr tax break to offset their solar cell investment, of course they don't earn enough to pay taxes anyway, but nevermind that.

The technology is just so affordable, it's just so obvious. And all this time the entire world has been fooled by a grand conspiracy by the utility industries, globally. Centralized distribution, what a load of bunk. Mom and Pop energy stores, coming to a street corner near you, because it's cheaper! Centralized maintenance, another load of bunk. Power grid for redistribution of energy where needed, another load of bunk. Economics of scale, another load of bunk! 24/7 power availability, another load of bunk, why we all can afford a room full of lead batteries and the power management system needed to regulate said power, why, because it's so cheap.

The EPA has just issued a Smug Alert for this thread!

:smokey:


There's your smug alert in effect, sarge :smokey:

[franksargent]

Well, save the lack of putting econ 101 together- I applaud your wit. well, nah...

:)

You realize computers used to be the domain of the rich.....

Cars too.....
...an cell phones.


nah-- let's pretend to stay in the exact present because this today is how everyday going forth will be. Nothing ever changes. Never ever ever. The economics of supply and demand don't apply to solar panels. In ten years, no matter how many people adopt the technology- even poor people in Mississippi won't in tarnation know and love the benefits of solar power. There's no way the tech will get better, cheaper, and more efficient. Never ever EVER. That tech will stay exactly the same as it presently is.

And since I can afford it- I should stifle it's growth and pass on purchasing solar power just so I am never ever better than some poor piece of hiller ass in Mississippi.... oh wait.... :) I already am better, so I may as well bust out the check book. They'll thank me in ten years.....







There's your smug alert in effect, sarge :smokey:

:smokey:

We are pretty much DOOMED to stay in the same place. Why? Because it's CHEAPER TODAY!

It's called GLOBAL WARMING, it's a GLOBAL problem, it needs a GLOBAL solution.

I talked to the SMUG people in this thread about poor people here in the USA and what they will ever be able to afford. Solar will never replace fossil fuels, solar will always cost more, no matter what economics of scale you apply, as long as fossil fuels exist. It's basic physics, low energy density fuel versus high energy density fuel!

The GLOBAL population largely consists of POOR people.

Where do most of those POOR people live? India, China, Indonesia, Africa, etcetera.

What are India and China doing to meet their energy needs? Bringing online coal fired power plants at a pace of better than one per week! Coal is by far the worst fossel fuel in terms of CO2 emissions. High sulphur coal (the most plentiful) produces 4 tons of CO2 for each ton burned! China and India are also increasing per capita usage of petroleum at a higher rate than any other countries. Who got a pass in the Kyoto accords? China and India, which last time I checked had the largest populations!

Dude, you need to do some basic math, do some basic homework, before you think solar power is the magic pill to the global warming problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar R&D and general investments in solar infrastructure and tax credits/incentives, but at THIS time (particularly) it would need heavy government subsidies to create a large reasonably cost effective market here in the USA, notwithstanding the rest of the 3rd world, which is, you know, basically POOR!

So in closing, based on your reply, the EPA still hasn't lifted their Smug Alert for this thread!

PS - To all those smug people (and anyone else) who can afford more costly energy alternatives that have lower CO2 emissions, by all means, make my day!

:smokey:

[ronaldo]

I still say nuclear is the way to go. Yes nuclear waste disposal is a problem, but if the government would get off their asses and get the Yucca Mtn project going, that would help with the problem of nuclear waste.

I know the people of Nevada don't want it, but it will be a safe and secure place to dipose of the waste.

[icfireball]

Addressing global warming creates a multitude of new industries with a very high money potential. The problem that some people see with addressing global warming and the economy is that it may ruin their industry. To be very specific, the oil, gas, and natural resources industries will suffer and those industries are not ready to let go of their market control. In total, the impact on the economy will be positive, just not for the oil people if they refuse to move forward and take advantage of new opportunities before someone else does.

[icfireball]

I still say nuclear is the way to go. Yes nuclear waste disposal is a problem, but if the government would get off their asses and get the Yucca Mtn project going, that would help with the problem of nuclear waste.

I know the people of Nevada don't want it, but it will be a safe and secure place to dipose of the waste.

Nuclear is not the way to go. There are much better alternatives.

New flexible solar panels with the constancy and look of shingles.
Fission energy which in principal would have a lot less waste than nuclear energy.
New technology that captures energy from ocean tides.
Wind power, other methods of hydro power.

You could even potentially harvest the energy from the sway of a tall skyscraper.

[Gilsch]

Exactly. Different "alternatives" added together. Including nuclear already in place. Nuclear could be phased out eventually. The key will be when the technology is in place(we're almost there) to be massified and people realize they can save(and even make money) just by being green. We need to move past the "being green is for treehuggers" mentality. That's so passé.

LIke I said earlier. The short term future solar panels won't even look like solar panels. Think spray on solar power cells thanks to nanotech for example. Etc etc.

[MacRR]

I agree with everything you just laid out, sarge.

But as I said before- it's a multi-faceted approach... no one tech is a magic pill. On a local level- completely insulate your home down to the attic windows, install solar panels, energy efficient appliances, energy efficient car- of which having a nice bio-diesel or hybrid car, etc etc....

all of these technologies are within reach of a lot of americans. And as this tech progresses even less wealthy people will have a choice to use it.

Now picture our country producing the same emissions along with all these up and coming countries- or the USA falling back on our emissions to make room and buy time so that mayhap we can get other countries on board.

Hell, maybe we can even reduce the trade deficit by becoming one of the world's leading green technology/product exporters....

:smokey:

We are pretty much DOOMED to stay in the same place. Why? Because it's CHEAPER TODAY!

It's called GLOBAL WARMING, it's a GLOBAL problem, it needs a GLOBAL solution.

I talked to the SMUG people in this thread about poor people here in the USA and what they will ever be able to afford. Solar will never replace fossil fuels, solar will always cost more, no matter what economics of scale you apply, as long as fossil fuels exist. It's basic physics, low energy density fuel versus high energy density fuel!

The GLOBAL population largely consists of POOR people.

Where do most of those POOR people live? India, China, Indonesia, Africa, etcetera.

What are India and China doing to meet their energy needs? Bringing online coal fired power plants at a pace of better than one per week! Coal is by far the worst fossil fuel in terms of CO2 emissions. High sulphur coal (the most plentiful) produces 4 tons of CO2 for each ton burned! China and India are also increasing per capita usage of petroleum at a higher rate than any other countries. Who got a pass in the Kyoto accords? China and India, which last time I checked had the largest populations!

Dude, you need to do some basic math, do some basic homework, before you think solar power is the magic pill to the global warming problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for solar R&D and general investments in solar infrastructure and tax credits/incentives, but at THIS time (particularly) it would need heavy government subsidies to create a large reasonably cost effective market here in the USA, notwithstanding the rest of the 3rd world, which is, you know, basically POOR!

So in closing, based on your reply, the EPA still hasn't lifted their Smug Alert for this thread!

PS - To all those smug people (and anyone else) who can afford more costly energy alternatives that have lower CO2 emissions, by all means, make my day!

:smokey:

[franksargent]

I agree with everything you just laid out, sarge.

But as I said before- it's a multi-faceted approach... no one tech is a magic pill. On a local level- completely insulate your home down to the attic windows, install solar panels, energy efficient appliances, energy efficient car- of which having a nice bio-diesel or hybrid car, etc etc....

all of these technologies are within reach of a lot of americans. And as this tech progresses even less wealthy people will have a choice to use it.

Now picture our country producing the same emissions along with all these up and coming countries- or the USA falling back on our emissions to make room and buy time so that mayhap we can get other countries on board.

Hell, maybe we can even reduce the trade deficit by becoming one of the world's leading green technology/product exporters....

:smokey:

A "free" market of energy alternatives is in order, but it may take some government assistance to accelerate the process in a timely fashion. Remember there's a boatload of coal out there waiting to be burned. The western world (in particular the USA) should lead the charge in seeking low cost (or lowering the cost of) alternatives, because basically I don't think anyone else will. It has the potential to (partially) solve a number of trade/economic issues.

PS - The EPA has lifted their Smug Alert.

:smokey:

[e1618978]

Nuclear is not the way to go. There are much better alternatives.

New flexible solar panels with the constancy and look of shingles.
Fission energy which in principal would have a lot less waste than nuclear energy.
New technology that captures energy from ocean tides.
Wind power, other methods of hydro power.

You could even potentially harvest the energy from the sway of a tall skyscraper.

"Fission energy" is what we are talking about when we say "Nuclear power" - what are you talking about that is different that what we are already doing?

And those other alternatives are not going to ever supply enough energy - it is Nuclear, coal or the fall of civilization, you have only three choices.

[MacRR]

you might find this interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/business/21pollute.html?ex=1324357200&en=3cc7d8f20bf8a449&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

:smokey:

A "free" market of energy alternatives is in order, but it may take some government assistance to accelerate the process in a timely fashion. Remember there's a boatload of coal out there waiting to be burned. The western world (in particular the USA) should lead the charge in seeking low cost (or lowering the cost of) alternatives, because basically I don't think anyone else will. It has the potential to (partially) solve a number of trade/economic issues.

PS - The EPA has lifted their Smug Alert.

:smokey:

[MacRR]

or something else ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm





"Fission energy" is what we are talking about when we say "Nuclear power" - what are you talking about that is different that what we are already doing?

And those other alternatives are not going to ever supply enough energy - it is Nuclear, coal or the fall of civilization, you have only three choices.

[e1618978]

or something else ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

ITER is a research reactor only, it will not generate electricity, and it will only run for a maximum of 500 seconds at a time.

[icfireball]

"Fission energy" is what we are talking about when we say "Nuclear power" - what are you talking about that is different that what we are already doing?

And those other alternatives are not going to ever supply enough energy - it is Nuclear, coal or the fall of civilization, you have only three choices.


Sorry, I meant FUSION not FISSION. Yes it is nuclear because it involves reactions of nuclei, but it is not the same as the Nuclear energy we have today (Nuclear Fission). At any rate, Fusion (or even Cold Fusion but that is less likely) could be a possibility within a few decades, and it produces significantly less waste than nuclear Fission.

As as far as sources of power other than coal or nuclear being viable, you are ENTIRELY wrong. You are right that the current technologies would not be able to power the world's civilizations but advances in alternative energy sources are coming very rapidly.

Until recently the only way to produce hydrogen was to burn fossil fuels and coals making it a net loss. But now there are new ways to create hydrogen. The Electrolysis of water using solar generators is one. Second, certain kinds of algae can be used in an hydrogen farm to produce hydrogen naturally.

When there is a will, there is a way; and there certainly is a will.

[icfireball]

Excerpt about fuel cells from a paper I had to write about Global Warming.

New technologies have great possibilities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and lowering other pollutions. One of these is fuel cell technology. With emissions from
fossil fuels increasing over the next decade by 243% to 2.4 million tones of carbon
dioxide equivalent, fuel cell technology is one very plausible solution that would almost
eliminate most carbon dioxide emissions (Earth Science Australia, 2005). Fuel cells burn
hydrogen instead of fossil fuels and the only byproduct is drinking water in the form of
water vapor. Currently, there are five major types of fuel cells. Proton Exchange
Membrane (PEM) Fuel Cells fuel cells are much superior to other fuel cells in several
key areas. They operate at a relatively lower temperature than most other fuel cells (70-
90 degrees Fahrenheit), are highly efficient, pose high power density, offer high
reliability, and have a long operating life. PEM fuel cells are most often used in public
transportation and are being developed for stationary power plants (Transportation
Energy Technology Program, 2005).

Since fuel cells come from hydrogen, and hydrogen can come from water, fuel
cell technology is considered renewable. Fuel cell technology can be used in public
transportation, motor vehicles, marine applications, space programs, industrial factories,
and power plants. Fuel cells are useful for public transit and motor vehicles because the
demand for no emission and no pollution vehicles is increasing rapidly. PEM fuel cells
were first used in some buses in Canada since 1993. In 1995, Chicago Transit tried an
experiment with 3 fuel cell buses. PEM fuel cell powered buses do not lack the power
that many other vehicles have, and operation is highly efficient with engines nearly two
times as efficient as spark ignite engines. Fuel cells are used in submarines because they
have low noise and low heat emissions. The endurance of the vehicle also increases
tenfold. The space program uses fuel cells in part because they have a high efficiency,
high capacity, and pure drinking water is the byproduct. NASA used fuel cells to help
power space crafts since the 1960’s (Transportation Energy Technology Program, 2005).
Right now, the main problem with fuel cell technology is producing the hydrogen.
In order to produce hydrogen, you either have to extract it from hydrocarbons and this
burns the same amount of carbon as you burn anyway, or use electrolysis, which requires
electricity. Hydrogen fuel cells can be practical if reliable solar, wind, or water power
can create enough energy for electrolysis of water. A few other ways of creating
hydrogen is through biomass gasification and prolysis, or through enzymes like bacteria
and algae (Earth Science Australia, 2005).

One might think that water vapor from fuel cells would be bad for the
environment and agitate global warming and the greenhouse effect. Actually, water vapor
emissions from hydrogen fuel cells are not a problem because while it’s true that water
vapor is a greenhouse gas, it remains constant on average due to precipitation (Ondrus,
2005).

Fuel cell technology would be fairly hard to adapt to so in the meantime, biodiesel
fuel is a good and practical alternative. While biodiesel fuel does emit some carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide, it is significantly less than emissions from normal diesel fuel.
Biodiesel is also good because it has the same weather durability as regular diesel. When
biodiesel is home-produced, it costs about 50 to 60 cents per gallon, much less than
regular diesel fuel today. Biodiesel would be very easy to adopt because it runs in
regular diesel engines and is actually better on the engine than regular diesel fuel
(University Laboratory High School, 2005).

[franksargent]

or something else ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4629239.stm

:smokey:

Yes, I've been to the ITER website several times, but viable fusion energy production seems to be a long way off, perhaps by 2060 or so at the earliest under the current R&D effort, and that's if all goes well.

:smokey:

[franksargent]

you might find this interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/business/21pollute.html?ex=1324357200&en=3cc7d8f20bf8a449&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

:smokey:

Mitigation serves a purpose, if applied correctly, but I don't know if the current UN program will ultimately serve to reduce total global warming gas emissions. I'd like to see capital investments via mitigation folded back (100%) into global warming gas emission reductions. But the UN program is a start, it just needs to be pointed in the right direction.

:smokey:

[e1618978]

Fuel cells are batteries, not sources of energy (you need to use electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and you get less electricity back out of the fuel cell than you put in).

Fusion is a future technology, I agree that fusion will probably take over - but in the meantime there is only Nuclear and Coal (with hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and other technologies likely to supply less than 1% of global energy - maybe they could get as high as 10% by 2050, but I doubt it - that would imply 20% annual growth in alternative energy deployment for 40 years just to get to 10%).

[franksargent]

Excerpt about fuel cells from a paper I had to write about Global Warming.

.
.
.

Fuel cell technology would be fairly hard to adapt to so in the meantime, biodiesel
fuel is a good and practical alternative. While biodiesel fuel does emit some carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide, it is significantly less than emissions from normal diesel fuel.
Biodiesel is also good because it has the same weather durability as regular diesel. When
biodiesel is home-produced, it costs about 50 to 60 cents per gallon, much less than
regular diesel fuel today. Biodiesel would be very easy to adopt because it runs in
regular diesel engines and is actually better on the engine than regular diesel fuel
(University Laboratory High School, 2005).

:smokey:

Fuel cells are often promoted as being potentially emission-free if they burn hydrogen, in contrast to currently more common fuels such as methane or natural gas that generate carbon dioxide. However, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy source. Electrolysis, which requires electricity, is used to extract hydrogen from water. As of 2004, 50% of the electricity produced in the United States comes from coal, 20% comes from nuclear, 18% from natural gas, 7% from hydroelectricity, 3% from petroleum and the remaining 3% mostly coming from geothermal, solar and biomass. [8] When hydrogen is produced through electrolysis, the energy comes from these sources. Though the fuel cell itself will only emit heat and water as waste, pollution is produced to make the hydrogen that it runs on. Hydrogen production is only as clean as the energy sources used to produce it.
A holistic approach has to take into consideration the impacts of an extended hydrogen scenario. This refers to the production, the use and the disposal of infrastructure and energy converters.

Hydrogen economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Hydrogen_economy)

The Carbon Club is still lurking in the background WRT fuel cell technology.

Don't know what to say about biofuel, other than it's a low energy density fuel.

If you haven't seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" you might want too, it has an interesting take on the politics (public/private sectors) of energy alternatives. This also has some relevance on the politics of energy alternatives in the public sphere, one day it's biofuel, the next day fusion, the next day it's fuel cells, etcetera. No good answers, so change the subject, sate the public's anxiety/concerns, don't solve the "problem!"

:smokey:

[MacRR]

So?

I mean, what's your point?



ITER is a research reactor only, it will not generate electricity, and it will only run for a maximum of 500 seconds at a time.

[MacRR]

There ya go....

It's a future tech- but a very promising one that is right around the corner.




Fusion is a future technology, I agree that fusion will probably take over - but in the meantime there is only Nuclear and Coal (with hydroelectric, wind, geothermal, and other technologies likely to supply less than 1% of global energy - maybe they could get as high as 10% by 2050, but I doubt it - that would imply 20% annual growth in alternative energy deployment for 40 years just to get to 10%).

[Aquatic]

Birth control will be the most effective technology to combat global warming, as well as ALL the rest of the world's ills. IMHO. Spline were you joking?

[franksargent]

Birth control will be the most effective technology to combat global warming, as well as ALL the rest of the world's ills. IMHO. Spline were you joking?

:smokey:

Yes mankind should just stop all that PP (pronounced Pee-Pee), AKA People Pollution!

To that end the UN will issue two types of "magic" pills (Ex-ter-min-ate™ (Dr. Who© & Daleks) and Ster-il-ize™ (Star Trek© & Nomad)), a spray product (Fu-mi-gate™ (under the Green Acres© brand name)) to be delivered in large canisters and dispensed from crop dusting airplanes, and two shampoo products (Final Solution™ and Adolph™ (under the Hogan's Heroes© brand name))!

And I'm going home.

:smokey:

[icfireball]

Birth control will be the most effective technology to combat global warming, as well as ALL the rest of the world's ills. IMHO. Spline were you joking?

Technically very true. But does anybody have the right to say who should have to take birth control and who shouldn't?

[jamac]

Technically very true. But does anybody have the right to say who should have to take birth control and who shouldn't?

Evolution? Could it be that people will loose the abilty to reproduce when the environment does not allow for any more individuals to be sustained?

[hardeeharhar]

Evolution? Could it be that people will loose the abilty to reproduce when the environment does not allow for any more individuals to be sustained?

No. That isn't how it works. Evolution functions at 10s to 100s of generations, humans can die off in 1 or 2...

The crash, as it were, will more than likely be disease related than resource related...

[icfireball]

Evolution? Could it be that people will loose the abilty to reproduce when the environment does not allow for any more individuals to be sustained?

Nature's birth control. But I don't think that will happen. It is very hard wired in all animals: Have sex and die. No kind of HUMAN evolution will stop over population, but disease from over population and being to crowded will kill of some people, other reproductive diseases like AIDS might be a big factor, natural disasters, and disasters we bring upon ourselves: Global Warming. Throughout history though, we have been working towards stopping more and more of nature's ways of killing us.

[jamac]

No. That isn't how it works. Evolution functions at 10s to 100s of generations, humans can die off in 1 or 2...

The crash, as it were, will more than likely be disease related than resource related...

Could it be that our brain allows us to instantly evolve? i.e. putting on clothes when cold = evolving fur over several generations. This instant evolving is needed to deal with rapid environmental changes, this could be the reason for the evolution of intelligence, mother nature needs beings to be able to instantly evolve or life is in jeopardy.
Unfortunately this intelligence has not been enough to completely eliminate instincts like greed.

[jamac]

Distribution is not a problem, and underground power lines solve most of the reliability issues. Not only that, but maintenance on distributed systems is much higher than on central systems - storms that can rip down power lines can also rip pannels off your roof.

Distributed power generation will never be as efficient as central power generation, due to efficiencies of scale. Your solar pannels are much more expensive than a central nuclear power plant, and the voltage drop over the length of the electrical main is not enough to compensate.

If my panels come off my roof the entire roof is gone. The panels weigh nothing.

Underground distribution problems:
Taiwan earthquake: underground communication and powerlines are damaged and will take weeks to be repaired.....

Copper: People die to steal copper (those idiots who try and steal life copper wire). longest "hot" superconductor made of Yttrium, copper and oxigen is only 322 meters but at least a very good start.

[e1618978]

If my panels come off my roof the entire roof is gone. The panels weigh nothing.

Underground distribution problems:
Taiwan earthquake: underground communication and powerlines are damaged and will take weeks to be repaired.....

Copper: People die to steal copper (those idiots who try and steal life copper wire). longest "hot" superconductor made of Yttrium, copper and oxigen is only 322 meters but at least a very good start.

Where I live I a solar-panel ripping hurricane is way more likely than an earthquake, and most power lines are aluminum now. You have battery maintenance, inverter maintenance, lower efficiency and higher cost - you would be better off just relying on the central power companies.

[jamac]

Where I live I a solar-panel ripping hurricane is way more likely than an earthquake, and most power lines are aluminum now. You have battery maintenance, inverter maintenance, lower efficiency and higher cost - you would be better off just relying on the central power companies.

The inverter does not need any maintenance. My system is grid tied with a no maintenance closed battery backup. I have to look at the terminals once a year, and check a gage which tells me if things are OK.

I am wondering why you are so much against energy that is completely free (as long as there is sunshine) and after my panels amortized will mostly likely make free juice for another 50 - 1000 years...?
You have not completely informed yourself in either solar or nuclear energy or energy distribution?
The future is now and all speculation as to how we will end up solving the problem is moot. I feel I am doing something already no matter what will happen. My 40 wind turbines keep me and my family in the money for many years to come and have cut CO2 emission by many tons since 1997.

You are lobbying only one solution with very shaky arguments, a very Republican thing to do.
What if you are forced from your property for a new powerline? Will you readily go in the name of progress?

[franksargent]

The inverter does not need any maintenance. My system is grid tied with a no maintenance closed battery backup. I have to look at the terminals once a year, and check a gage which tells me if things are OK.

I am wondering why you are so much against energy that is completely free (as long as there is sunshine) and after my panels amortized will mostly likely make free juice for another 50 - 1000 years...?
You have not completely informed yourself in either solar or nuclear energy or energy distribution?
The future is now and all speculation as to how we will end up solving the problem is moot. I feel I am doing something already no matter what will happen. My 40 wind turbines keep me and my family in the money for many years to come and have cut CO2 emission by many tons since 1997.

You are lobbying only one solution with very shaky arguments, a very Republican thing to do.
What if you are forced from your property for a new powerline? Will you readily go in the name of progress?

:smokey:

Battery maintenance INCLUDES replacement, no? How often do you clean your solar panels? Are you 100% off the existing power grid? Have you EVER had to make due with less than 100% of your power needs/wants? You do have an energy efficent home, at what cost delta versus conventional stick built?

Demand and storage requirements for solar/wind are big issues, since when you want/need to use power may not be the times it is available.

In your last 3 sentences do the following, replace very with extremely, replace Republican with tree hugging liberal, replace powerline with solar/wind farm. GET IT!!!

Please show me ONE UNBIASED source/study showing a TRUE cost benefit analysis over say a 30-year (i. e. same time period as you're 30-year fixed rate mortgage for your typical home financing) of existing stick built/power grid versus solar/wind power/efficient built? Please, because all these things you advocate are up front costs amortized over some lifetime, yes?

:smokey:

[e1618978]

The inverter does not need any maintenance. My system is grid tied with a no maintenance closed battery backup. I have to look at the terminals once a year, and check a gage which tells me if things are OK.

I am wondering why you are so much against energy that is completely free (as long as there is sunshine) and after my panels amortized will mostly likely make free juice for another 50 - 1000 years...?
You have not completely informed yourself in either solar or nuclear energy or energy distribution?
The future is now and all speculation as to how we will end up solving the problem is moot. I feel I am doing something already no matter what will happen. My 40 wind turbines keep me and my family in the money for many years to come and have cut CO2 emission by many tons since 1997.

You are lobbying only one solution with very shaky arguments, a very Republican thing to do.
What if you are forced from your property for a new powerline? Will you readily go in the name of progress?

Without battery backup your system makes even less sense - your hypothetical earthquake would have just as much effect on you as anyone else, because you have no storage facility or way to feed the electricy back to the utility.

It does not matter how long your equipment lasts, you will never earn your money back (it would have been much better to invest the money in treasury bills).

[MacRR]

But he does have a battery backup......

And actually- if you eliminate your electricity bill because you 100% generate your own electricity, and if you eliminate a $100 a month bill- and after rebate it costs 17k to install.... then of course you'll have earned your money back at some point. And since you don't have to worry about energy price spikes, you might make you money back quicker if you take that into account. Saudi Arabia's oil fields rumored to collapse next January? Well, you won't have to worry about that news in regards to your electricity bill.

And if there is a major earthquake- he'll have power. that means refrigerator, music, TV... until the infrastructure is repaired.

you make a no brainer win win choice seem like it has no merit...when that seems to stem from your lack of knowledge on the subject.

And show me a treasury bill that's put $1700 a year back in your pocket off a $17k investment with no tax considerations, or broker fees as well. You couldn't! Most people can't even invest in stocks with that kind of return. (FYI- these numbers pulled from an estimate of a typical california home given as an example)

It's a shame you're holding onto misinformation so tightly, you might get some real eye opening information if you give it a chance.

Without battery backup your system makes even less sense - your hypothetical earthquake would have just as much effect on you as anyone else, because you have no storage facility or way to feed the electricy back to the utility.

It does not matter how long your equipment lasts, you will never earn your money back (it would have been much better to invest the money in treasury bills).

[e1618978]

And show me a treasury bill that's put $1700 a year back in your pocket off a $17k investment with no tax considerations, or broker fees as well.

He isn't getting that kind of return, as I showed in a previous post. He would need to be generating 28000 kWh/year to get
$1700, and he is only generating 6392 (= $447/year).

[edit - make that $800, not $447 - I didn't realise how badly Californians get ripped off with $0.11/kWh electrical prices, so his return is 5.7%]

[jamac]

Without battery backup your system makes even less sense - your hypothetical earthquake would have just as much effect on you as anyone else, because you have no storage facility or way to feed the electricy back to the utility.

It does not matter how long your equipment lasts, you will never earn your money back (it would have been much better to invest the money in treasury bills).

You don't read too well do you?

How many tons of CO2 have you taken out of the atmosphere in the last 10 years with your investments...?

Battery replacement is scheduled every 7 years. They of course are completely recyclable.
How much money have youmade with supplying energy to people. Well I invested 1.2 mill into wind energy and it's making me 123,000.- /year (+- energy price adjustments) one more year and I will have recouped my investment and from then on it's 123,000/year income without me bending a finger. Show me a fund that will do that. Oh BTW I also still own the 40 wind turbines....worth still about 25k each.

You guys are communists. You are trying to tell me what's better for me and don't know at all what you are talking about a very typical thing for communists indeed.

[e1618978]

YWell I invested 1.2 mill into wind energy and it's making me 123,000.- /year (+- energy price adjustments) one more year and I will have recouped my investment and from then on it's 123,000/year income without me bending a finger.

Very nice, makes much more sense than your solar panel investment, which was a financially boneheaded move. You still have not made your investments back on the windmills, though, once you count opportunity costs and inflation.

The only reason that you are doing so well is the screwed up nature of California. If you had better centralized power stations, then the price of power would drop down to the same as mine (0.06/kWh) and your $123K would drop to $60K.