Message boards :
Politics :
Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 . . . 27 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
Today the government forces the utility to buy the power they generate at the same rate as the utility sells you power. But the utility buys is much cheaper from a hydroelectric dam. So that 0.5Mwh shortage is picked up several times over by a government subsidy. Big deal. In exchange, the utility continues to enjoy a local or regional monopoly. This is a good deal for the utility. Know how you can tell? They're taking the deal, all over the country. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30593 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Different reputable studies using different methodologies arrive at different numbers, but they all show that solar PV is cleaner, including the CO2 used to manufacture the panels. I see now you changed the question being asked. Nice slight of hand. I'll give you a point for your underhanded trickery. Now do you have a cite for the original question? |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 18996 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
I see nobody has made a comment about nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that I brought up earlier. So from the Wiki for nitrogen trifluoride greenhouse gas. Applications Today nitrogen trifluoride is predominantly employed in the cleaning of the PECVD chambers in the high volume production of liquid crystal displays and silicon-based thin film solar cells. Greenhouse gas One of the reasons that is used it is NOT on the list of Kyoto-recognised greenhouse gases. If it was it would be 2nd on the list of worse greenhouse gases. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
I think we have a very long way to go before alternative power becomes really viable. I believe. But you shall surely diss me. That our government has posession of pure power simple solutions that we might never know. They cannot let the populace know, or billions of dollars in their control would be lost. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
Different reputable studies using different methodologies arrive at different numbers, but they all show that solar PV is cleaner, including the CO2 used to manufacture the panels. I think it's perfectly clear that solar photovoltaic cells are cleaner than the average mix used in utility power around the United States. Your WAG #s are made up and willfully dishonest and everybody knows it. Exactly what "original question" do you still consider unanswered? |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
I see nobody has made a comment about nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) that I brought up earlier. That same article would have already told you why it isn't as important as you seem to believe, if you had just read and comprehended it. 1. "Elemental fluorine has been introduced as an environmentally friendly replacement for nitrogen trifluoride in the manufacture of flat panel displays and thin film solar cells.[3]" 2. "NF3 is a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of CO2 when compared over a 100 year period.[8][9][10]... Since 1992, when less than 100 tons were produced, production has grown to an estimated 4000 tons in 2007 and is projected to increase significantly.[11] World production of NF3 is expected to reach 8000 tons a year by 2010." So simply multiply the 2010 estimate by 17,200 for an estimate of how much annual NF3 emissions are warming the Earth compared to CO2. 17,200*8000 = 137,600,000 (CO2-eq tons of NF3) Relative to numbers normal people normally work with, 137.6 million seems quite a lot. But it's much less than 8738 million, which is the number of tons of CO2 emitted in 2009. Even though NF3 is a more potent greenhouse gas pound-for-pound, so many fewer pounds of it are emitted per year that it just doesn't matter. 3. "Instead, the contribution of the nitrogen trifluoride to the CO2-budget of thin film solar cell production is compensated already within a few months by the CO2 saving potential of the PV technology.[17]" |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
used in production also does NOT necessarily mean released unchanged into the atmosphere. Janice |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
used in production also does NOT necessarily mean released unchanged into the atmosphere. Like the amount of mercury in 'environmentally pleasant' flourescent lightbulbs won't ever come back to haunt us? Gawd, soft^one. Just once in a while, your head is so buried in the sand I wonder if it shall ever see daylight again. The production of LED lightbulbs? I dunno yet, what's your take on THAT? The next wave. BTW, there IS no 'greenhouse effect'. The minor effect, if any, of what man is doing today is swamped by what the planet has been doing on it's own for millions of years, and we are not going to sway it one way or the other by one iota. It's just politics and the transfer of MONEY. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20084 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... Unfortunately yet more unfortunate, the time when enough obvious disasters have enraged enough people to force a positive and rapid shift in policies is likely to be rather too late to avoid continued expensive calamities... And perversely, we are encouraging our own fossil fuelled demise: http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ ... How much money does the U.S. government give oil, gas and coal companies? In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to $52 billion annually, while even efforts to remove small portions of those subsidies have been defeated in Congress... OECD Fossil Fuel Subsidies (recent press releases) ... The work on fossil fuel subsidies by the international organisations was in response to a request by G-20 Leaders when they met in Pittsburgh in September 2009. At that time, leaders agreed to “rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumptionâ€. ... Fossil-Fuel Subsidies of Rich Nations Five Times Climate Aid ... In 2011, 22 industrialized nations paid $58.7 billion in subsidies to the oil, coal and gas industries and to consumers of the fuels, compared with climate-aid flows of $11.2 billion... And that as compared to the cost of going green...? And what of the full cost and consequences of all the pollution? All on our only planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Mark, a great many chemical reactions occur in the production of solar cells. What goes in is not what goes out most of the time. As far as we are having no effect, that is what the pundits would have you believe, the science shows otherwise. If you have any evidence from a reputable source to the contrary, please share it with us. Scientific evidence only please. Janice |
ML1 Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 20084 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 |
... BTW, there IS no 'greenhouse effect'. The minor effect, if any, of what man is doing today is swamped by what the planet has been doing on it's own for millions of years, and we are not going to sway it one way or the other by one iota. It's just politics and the transfer of MONEY. Good on the conspiracy theory there. Unfortunately, you are spot on for the games of corporate corruption and lobbying. However, you seem to be blind to the effects of two centuries of industrial might. We are radically changing our planet on an industrial scale. Just look around you. Where you live is very different to what was there just a few hundred years before. And further afield there are many examples. How long did the buffalo survive just a handful of settlers for just one example?... Our atmosphere is an amazingly thin shell around our planet. You skim near space on an everyday jet airliner... All on our only one small planet, Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 18996 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
It would seem some of you think I am not a supporter of green technologies. I can assure you that I am. But I do not think it is yet time to start a headlong rush into solar panels. If you read the Bloomberg report I linked, that doesn't also. The Chinese where anything goes, including unsafe use of toxic chemicals, have virtually closed down all production of solar cells in the US and EU. Where there might have been some chance of clean energy producing them. China, and I did some work on contact for Joy Mining, is using coal at an enormous rate. From its own unsafe mines and buying as much as it can from Australia. Joy Mining is talking of opening a second mining equipment factory in China. So my thoughts are unless you install them in the SW of the US, southerm Europe or similar sunny places don't expect to to see the energy gains they say are possible, and they are not as green as you are lead to believe. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
First off I ALWAYS recommend people do their homework. I also stand firmly against people spouting nonsense. I do not think anyone here stated that thin film solar Photo-electric are the complete and total answer. For many in home use they are an excellent investment as well as seriously helping the situation. For large scale warm climate solar, reflective concentrated thermal solar panels are much more cost effective. Win installations where practical are THE cheapest addition to electric grids. Tide energy is very useful in some locations, as is wave energy. Some (not all) think additional nuclear installations are a good idea. But the fact that if we keep digging up and burning fossil fuels we are conducting an EXTREMELY dangerous experiment with the worlds environment should not be minimalized and trivialized. We have alternatives and we NEED to start putting them to work. There MIGHT still be enough time. Just maybe. Janice |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
Although nuclear plants seem less bad to me than coal plants, neither are necessary. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
The climate has been getting warmer since 1850 when the little ice age ended, whether man has had an impact or not. So arguing whether or not man did this is e relevant. The question is should we do something about it now? The simplest solution would be to make clouds to reflect sun light before it hits the ground and is re emitted as infrared or heat energy. In the short term this is problematic in that the largest super computers would have to be 100 to 1000 times larger to begin to be large enough to do weather prediction without changing the models with artificial clouds. So we almost can fix it if we have to just not yet. solar only work close to its end use and only if you can afford significant loss, so for a home yes for a major industry not yet. As for wind power for us to extract the level of power the us uses and will use you would have to put up so many of them that, that this would effect weather were it could be done,which is by no means every were. As to tidal and wave power there is enough to meat the needs of the US but only if deployed on a massive scale then we are back to changing the environment and weather. Nuclear only makes since because we have already do most of the work and we have a huge waste problem. The best number have been able to get for this is about 7 million metric tons now and projected to be 14 to 20 million by 2020 Phase three nuclear the kind we know in the US was primarily designed to enrich plutonium for bomb's and only use's up about 2% of the power in the fuel rod's. Phase 4 reactors extract an additional 97.7% and in the process convert almost all of the nasty long lived radioactive to either fuel or short lived one's. bear in mind the current plan is to store high level waste a yucca mountain at 750 degree's for a minimum of 20,000 years without leaking. the waste from phase 4 would be no more radioactive at the end of 200 year's, than uranium our and would generate almost no heat. Then maybe yucca mountain makes since. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
Too many opinions and crackpot plans, not enough facts and not one reliable source. |
dancer42 Send message Joined: 2 Jun 02 Posts: 455 Credit: 2,422,890 RAC: 1 |
Too many opinions and crackpot plans, not enough facts and not one reliable source. -------------------------------------------------------- To true but the point is to put your opinion forward answer any questions you can and hope others will not take you at your word and go out and look. bringing back what they have learned and so on. with this kind of discourse everybody learns and some consensus can be reached and plans can be moved forward. For myself I thing we are 5 to 7 years away from the computational power to do real climate modeling even with (climateprodition.net) to start monkeying with planetary climate control. But that will be there soon if we need it. burning petroleum because it is cheap energy is silly if it is not cheap. wind and solar have their place but in the 100 terra watt range we will soon need you start screwing with global weather again. same for tidal or wave power It can work but would be massive to meat demand. We need to rethink how the UNITED STATES does business,the out come of this could be the forming of entire new industry's millions of jobs and the envy of the world if we so choose. |
Reed Young Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 122 Credit: 81,383 RAC: 0 |
You call that simple? The simplest How would you do that, and how do you conclude that's the "simplest solution"? |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
In the time I have been on this planet the two main scenarios for its end have been "Global Warming" and "Nuclear Winter". The latter being caused by either an actual nuclear war or a super volcano blowing its top with atmospheric particles produced blocking the sunlight from the Earth's surface producing massive global cooling. Therefore, if the technology could be developed there is no reason why artificial clouds could not be used to control global temperature. What has to be considered using this method is the effect it would have on solar farms. A massive band of artificial clouds would cut their output considerably. My own feelings on the matter of "alternative energy" is that wind and solar are just "feel good" solutions suitable only for small scale power production. At 10 acres per Megawatt, the physical size of solar power stations becomes an environmental issue in itself. Wind farms sound good but the turbines can only operate over a limited range of wind speeds. No wind equals no output and at wind speeds of more than 40kph they have to be shut down so the turbines do not spin themselves to destruction. I used to work on the Eyre Peninsular at the bottom of South Australia. Down there, just about every suitable mountain top has a wind farm on it. Yet every time I drove past one, at most, only one or two of the turbines would be operating. These windfarms had cost millions of dollars to construct, the owners were government subsidised, yet almost no use was being made of them. Why ? In the 1960's there was a Science Fiction story published called "The Subways of Kazoo". In this story it was found that a dead civilisation had produced power by building wind farms where the generators used a bow string that vibrated in the wind to drive a piezo crystal. Maybe this is an option that could be explored ? I believe in "Alternative Energy" but I feel that the present concentration on wind and solar is counter productive. They have their uses but are not the answer. T.A. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
[quote] My own feelings on the matter of "alternative energy" is that wind and solar are just "feel good" solutions suitable only for small scale power production. At 10 acres per Megawatt, the physical size of solar power stations becomes an environmental issue in itself. Wind farms sound good but the turbines can only operate over a limited range of wind speeds. No wind equals no output and at wind speeds of more than 40kph they have to be shut down so the turbines do not spin themselves to destruction. [/url] This is the type of bad information that the alternative energy field is constantly being bombarded with. http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/CSI-CS6P-245P-245W-Solar-Panel-STD-Frame#datasheets-lnk I show these fairly randomly selected panels (NOT the most efficient on the market) to be rated at over 600KW per acre. This would be less than 2 acres per MW. An area off 100 miles square (10,000 square miles) can produce more electricity than the USA currently uses. This would be about the size of.. oh an old nuclear test site. Janice |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.