or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming vs our economy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global warming vs our economy - Page 3

post #81 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo View Post

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?
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #82 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #83 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #84 of 135
Thread Starter 
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!





Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



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.

post #85 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #86 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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.



w00t!

Quote:
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 worlds annual energy use.
The energy in the winds that blow across the United States each year could produce more than 16 billion GJ of electricitymore 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 nations 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 nations 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

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

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



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


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.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #88 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splinemodel View Post

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...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #89 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

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.
post #90 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #91 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.
post #92 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

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).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #93 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.
post #94 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #95 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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?

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.
post #96 of 135
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.
post #97 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

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

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #98 of 135
Thread Starter 
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.
post #99 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

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.



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!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #100 of 135
Thread Starter 
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.....




Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



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!



There's your smug alert in effect, sarge
post #101 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

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



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!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #102 of 135
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.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #103 of 135
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.
post #104 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronaldo View Post

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.
post #105 of 135
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.
post #106 of 135
Thread Starter 
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....

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



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!

post #107 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

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....



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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #109 of 135
Thread Starter 
you might find this interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post



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.

post #110 of 135
Thread Starter 
or something else ....

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





Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

"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.
post #111 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

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.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #112 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

"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.
post #113 of 135
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).
post #114 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

or something else ....

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



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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #115 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

you might find this interesting...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/21/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss



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.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #116 of 135
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%).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #117 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by icfireball View Post

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).



Quote:
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

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!"

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 135
Thread Starter 
So?

I mean, what's your point?



Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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.
post #119 of 135
Thread Starter 
There ya go....

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



Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

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%).
post #120 of 135
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?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Global warming vs our economy