Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 29 · Next
Author Message
Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1322531 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 7:54:24 UTC - in response to Message 1322167.

As I said, Solar and wind are nothing but "feel good" solutions promoted by those who have no idea of the realities of the engineering problems and the practicalities involved.

Solar and wind cannot provide more than about 5% into the renewable energy mix. It all helps but not a viable long term solution.






---------------------------------------------------

the number could be as high as 15% but onlt with high environmental cost.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1322533 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 8:11:18 UTC - in response to Message 1322175.

The only way forward is nuclear. OK, we have had Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima. But it has to be the only sensible solution.





these were phase 2, or phase 3, plants, phase 4 plants can be built so that

they unfocused as they get to hot and not melt down no water needed.

phase 4 plant's can also use the waste from phase 3 plants as fuel with

a small plutonium button to start the process.

Thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone, getting rid of nuclear waste and

providing safe power.

Remember the fly ash from coal fired plants produces more nuclear waste each

year, than all of the nuclear plants and accidents combined for the whole

history of nuclear power, if we do something with the high level waste.

____________

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 13204
Credit: 7,982,869
RAC: 16,234
United States
Message 1322735 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 17:39:23 UTC - in response to Message 1322195.

So... Why the very highly skewed subsidies for fossil fuels and not other fuels? Why the zero cost imposed for the obvious pollution? Why the zero cost imposed for the environmental damage for extracting the fossil fuels in the first place?

So today make them pay the full cost of pollution. Instant bankruptcy and the cessation of extraction and as soon as everything already extracted is burned, all commerce stops. Within a few days massive worldwide riots. It is just as critical in our daily lives as water to drink, and air to breathe. That is why.

You ask about subsidies for other fuels. Nuclear is another fuel that is burned. Tell me it doesn't have a subsidy. Coal is fossil. Natural gas is fossil. Wood, look at timber subsidies. There are subsidies for alternative fuels like biodiesel. I think you are spewing a talking point.

It will take a century to wean us off fossil fuel. It is just too damn good as a fuel. We also need to find a battery that doesn't depend on super toxic rare earths. You know the saw about R&D. There are three things: What you will find, How long it will take, How much it will cost. You can only specify two of the three.

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,647,395
RAC: 516
United States
Message 1322764 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 18:56:21 UTC - in response to Message 1322735.


fos·sil

/ˈfäsəl/





Noun




1.The remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock: "sites rich in fossils".
2.derogatory. An antiquated or stubbornly unchanging person or thing: "he can be a cantankerous old fossil at times".




More info - Wikipedia - Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster

__________________________________________

Please stop trying to confuse the term "fossil".
____________

Janice

Reed Young
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 06
Posts: 122
Credit: 81,383
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1322801 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 20:11:04 UTC - in response to Message 1322735.

So... Why the very highly skewed subsidies for fossil fuels and not other fuels? Why the zero cost imposed for the obvious pollution? Why the zero cost imposed for the environmental damage for extracting the fossil fuels in the first place?

So today make them pay the full cost of pollution. Instant bankruptcy and the cessation of extraction and as soon as everything already extracted is burned, all commerce stops. Within a few days massive worldwide riots. It is just as critical in our daily lives as water to drink, and air to breathe. That is why.

Straw man. Nobody has suggested that, ever. We all know that our current standard of living requires a lot of energy. We're debating how it should be produced, not whether it should be produced. Do you have a case to make against simply eliminating the handouts and tax subsidies that oil and coal companies continue to receive, or don't you?

You ask about subsidies for other fuels... There are subsidies for alternative fuels like biodiesel. I think you are spewing a talking point.

What, if any, do you believe is the legitimate purpose of a subsidy? Or, to be a reasonable policy, what must be the purpose of a corporate subsidy? Do you really mean to defend the subsidies, or just to attack the people calling for reform?

It will take a century to wean us off fossil fuel.

Several countries in western Europe are showing faster progress than that. They may yet reach a wall, but the evidence currently available does not support your assertion.
____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,065
RAC: 1,435
United Kingdom
Message 1322804 - Posted: 31 Dec 2012, 20:12:59 UTC - in response to Message 1322224.
Last modified: 31 Dec 2012, 20:15:21 UTC

To get some idea of the problems of using solar and wind energy read these.

Germany Rethinks Path to Green Future
and also read the other articles from the link - German Energy Revolution

Germany's wind power chaos should be a warning to the UK

Wow!

What a good example of media articles showing that wind and solar do work, and sometimes too well, and yet making rabid sensationalism out of known problems from suffering too rapid a change-over and too slow adaptation to new practices.

The example for Germany shows that when giving similar subsidies to 'green' sources as given to the fossils, they are getting a 'gold rush' too hasty change-over! That does give an unfortunate and expensive mess of not being coordinated well. The whole system has to work right through to the consumer.

So, the old fossils need kicking into touch and old ideas throwing out so that you move to the renewables generating baseload and the fossils demoted to balancing fluctuation. The way that is paid for must also change to give a value to availability. Unfortunately, old ideas, old business practice, old bureaucracy, and the old ways of costs/charges is incompatible with that...

All workable. The problem is the change-over.


As for the Telegraph article... WARNING! WARNING! A beautiful example of denialist kicking the boot into a propaganda piece!


Such is the case and such is the surrounding FUD.

All just a question of politics and lobbying and corruption?


The technology is certainly workable. The transition to going clean has to be steady and balanced.

All on our only planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1323200 - Posted: 1 Jan 2013, 13:08:13 UTC

I have said a lot of things here and I would like to clarify some of them here.

First I think big power while necessary is bad for a lot of things.

Second small power fixes a lot of the problems with big power.

Third thinking out of the box is now necessary.


Too the first, big power concentrates too much in 1 place physically and

politically forcing a 1 size fits all solution on everybody.

It is also to vulnerable to attack, or acts of nature.


As to the second small power enough for say 1 to 6 houses, if a lot

of people do this then not just the utility's will be setting the rules for

how the power grid is built. And when bad things happen at least some people

will have power to start rebuilding afterwards. Also small power provides

peak power capacity for big power at no cost to the utility's.


AS to 3 thinking out side the box thinking, my first thought is that wind mill's are

lousy at making electricity but grate at pumping water so if you put a catchment

under a hydro power electric plant and put wind mills there they could pump

a vary predictable amount of water back up behind the dam per year for a second run

though this form of power storage is possibly the cheapest possible.

The second out side the box idea is, if the battery's in electric cars were

treated as as power grid resource then the excess capacity could be used

for off peak storage at home and used for peak power return while plugged in at

work. This could be done under the complete control of the car owner, need the

extra charge on Friday to get to the lake for the weekend pay a little extra

to charge at work, going strait home on Friday get paid a little extra for

making that capacity available.



____________

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,065
RAC: 1,435
United Kingdom
Message 1323428 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 1:15:11 UTC - in response to Message 1323200.

Good ideas there, thanks.

There are many ways to do things. The problems appear to be very much more political and that of industrial monopoly rather than anything intractably practical...

Where there is the willingness, there is a way forward...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,065
RAC: 1,435
United Kingdom
Message 1323431 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 1:20:44 UTC

And the costs for others already are piling up:

Farmers urge minister to provide extreme weather insurance

National Farmers Union estimates rains in 2012 cost the industry £1.3bn from poor harvests and higher food bills for cattle...


And for quite a mixed bag of positivity and wow:

Gratitude for Environmental Wins in 2012

... Here are just a few examples of environmental triumphs that we can all celebrate from 2012:

[...]

This year Australia -- the largest coke coal producer in the world -- brought into effect a carbon tax. And if they can do it, so too can every other nation on the globe. ...



Indeed, if the fossils pushing Australia can turn the tide, then there may be a glimmer of hope for politics yet... Canada next?!


All on our only one planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1323490 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 6:33:10 UTC - in response to Message 1323428.

Good ideas there, thanks.

There are many ways to do things. The problems appear to be very much more political and that of industrial monopoly rather than anything intractably practical...

Where there is the willingness, there is a way forward...

All on our only one planet,
Martin




willingness is just that willingness.

it takes action to move forward, and means to convert willingness.


____________

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1759
Credit: 206,876,465
RAC: 22,859
Australia
Message 1323516 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 8:02:17 UTC - in response to Message 1323431.

This year Australia -- the largest coke coal producer in the world -- brought into effect a carbon tax. And if they can do it, so too can every other nation on the globe. ...

The Australian Carbon Tax is nothing more than a political stunt to keep The Greens (who hold the balance of power in the Senate) pacified. As a matter of fact, the first time the legislation was put to the Senate, the Greens knocked it back because it was so toothless. Even the final version was only grudgingly supported by them.

Power generation companies get most of what they pay back as a rebate (to keep the politically sensitive price of electricity down) and there is no tax payable on our coal and gas exports.

T.A.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32670
Credit: 14,561,388
RAC: 15,344
United Kingdom
Message 1323529 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 10:27:31 UTC

The price of energy has always been politically sensitive, particularly for pensioners on fixed incomes, and legislation has now been introduced by an Energy Bill, to make energy companies put people on the cheapest tariff automatically. Also collective switching is being introduced where for e.g. a whole town or neighbourhood will join together and all buy their power from a single source in bulk, thus driving the price lower than for individuals. The first such schemes are due this Spring.

But the whole shebang is a vicious circle like petrol prices. People can only afford to spend so much on energy after they have paid the rent and bought food. Therefore they turn the heat down or use less. The energy companies see their income drop for their shareholders, so they put up prices to compensate, so again people use less, up goes the price again.

It's the same for petrol. In the UK people by petrol (gas) in multiples of £10 that they can afford. This gives them so many miles per fill up. If the price goes up, they get less petrol for their money, so they drive less miles. Petrol companies income stays flat, so up goes the price again, and people drive even fewer miles. People cant spend what they don't have, governments might do, but the man in the street can't.

There is a case for Energy companies to be Nationalised, so that they don't make profits for shareholders, but the government couldn't afford to buy them out.



Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1323537 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 11:32:20 UTC - in response to Message 1323529.
Last modified: 2 Jan 2013, 11:34:04 UTC

The price of energy has always been politically sensitive, particularly for pensioners on fixed incomes, and legislation has now been introduced by an Energy Bill, to make energy companies put people on the cheapest tariff automatically. Also collective switching is being introduced where for e.g. a whole town or neighbourhood will join together and all buy their power from a single source in bulk, thus driving the price lower than for individuals. The first such schemes are due this Spring.

But the whole shebang is a vicious circle like petrol prices. People can only afford to spend so much on energy after they have paid the rent and bought food. Therefore they turn the heat down or use less. The energy companies see their income drop for their shareholders, so they put up prices to compensate, so again people use less, up goes the price again.

It's the same for petrol. In the UK people by petrol (gas) in multiples of £10 that they can afford. This gives them so many miles per fill up. If the price goes up, they get less petrol for their money, so they drive less miles. Petrol companies income stays flat, so up goes the price again, and people drive even fewer miles. People cant spend what they don't have, governments might do, but the man in the street can't.

There is a case for Energy companies to be Nationalised, so that they don't make profits for shareholders, but the government couldn't afford to buy them out.





you have it backwards the pressure on the power company means that they use

all available power generating capacity even the expensive ones.

small power builds out peak power that the utility's do not have to pay for.

allowing expensive plants to be idled dropping the cost to generate.

the same goes for gas there is currently a world wide glut on unleaded gas

putting grate pressure on opec to drop the price, if enough people use less

or move to electric cars opec's price will collapse to the actual market

value. But bare in mind China and Africa are industrializing so more gas will

be used soon. Collective bargaining will only work if there is more than 1 pie.

And nationalization would be even worse what you want is to encourage new power

company's so that you have more choice and there is more competition.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,160,474
RAC: 80
United States
Message 1323538 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 11:45:23 UTC

As to the folks on fixed incomes, there are company's in the US that will

lease solar panels to you for 20 years and guarantee a fixed rate for that

period. Something like this could be done for the needy for a 1 time cost

until the battery's need replacing.
____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,647,395
RAC: 516
United States
Message 1323641 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 16:37:45 UTC - in response to Message 1323538.

As to the folks on fixed incomes, there are company's in the US that will

lease solar panels to you for 20 years and guarantee a fixed rate for that

period. Something like this could be done for the needy for a 1 time cost

until the battery's need replacing.


Grid connected solar panels do not require batteries. Possible exception might be in the control unit, something along the lines of a motherboard battery.
____________

Janice

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32670
Credit: 14,561,388
RAC: 15,344
United Kingdom
Message 1323688 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 18:33:02 UTC

Solar power is the "in thing" at the moment, but the up front prices just don't cost in at present. The original UK subsidy to feed in tariffs, to encourage take up, have already markedly dropped because solar panels are becoming substantially cheaper to manufacture in the Far East. Nevertheless it costs at present £6000 for a 4KW system.Solar costs How many years will that take to break even. And of course assuming that you have a south facing house with sunshine all year round.

Still, it keeps the green tree huggers happy .....

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,263,065
RAC: 1,435
United Kingdom
Message 1323713 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 19:23:06 UTC - in response to Message 1323688.

Solar power is the "in thing" at the moment, but the up front prices just don't cost in at present. The original UK subsidy to feed in tariffs, to encourage take up, have already markedly dropped because solar panels are becoming substantially cheaper to manufacture in the Far East. Nevertheless it costs at present £6000 for a 4KW system. ...

That begs the question of why so costly in the UK when solar panels are priced at 50p per Watt(peak) or less... That £6000 should be £2000 + grid inverter + labour. And grid inverters are not that expensive, and the wiring is trivial.

Green profiteering somewhere along the line...?


All on our only planet,
Martin

____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32670
Credit: 14,561,388
RAC: 15,344
United Kingdom
Message 1323732 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 19:53:19 UTC

You tell me Martin, you tell me .....

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8781
Credit: 25,970,302
RAC: 16,994
United Kingdom
Message 1323760 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 20:48:31 UTC - in response to Message 1323713.
Last modified: 2 Jan 2013, 20:49:49 UTC

Looking at my old list of suppliers of electronic parts, the best UK wholesale price of a solar panel I could find was £450 for 180W panel un-mounted.

Of the list of 10 makes of panels only 3 makers have current listings.

For kits of mounted panels, incl the securing kit, cableing and inverter the price looks to be about £6/watt. One thing struck me was that the life expectancy of the inverters was about 5 years. No suprise there if you consider that the technology is not that much different to PC PSU's.

(my a/c number still works, even if not used for 3 years.)

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,647,395
RAC: 516
United States
Message 1323820 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 21:55:52 UTC - in response to Message 1323760.

Looking at my old list of suppliers of electronic parts, the best UK wholesale price of a solar panel I could find was £450 for 180W panel un-mounted.

Of the list of 10 makes of panels only 3 makers have current listings.

For kits of mounted panels, incl the securing kit, cableing and inverter the price looks to be about £6/watt. One thing struck me was that the life expectancy of the inverters was about 5 years. No suprise there if you consider that the technology is not that much different to PC PSU's.

(my a/c number still works, even if not used for 3 years.)

http://www.affordable-solar.com/store/solar-panels/CSI-CS6P-245P-245W-Solar-Panel-STD-Frame It must be significantly less in North America

USD 220.50 for 245Watt I do not keep up on exchange rates but.. I am going to guess about 100 UK?
____________

Janice

Previous · 1 . . . 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 . . . 29 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects, Environment, etc part III

Copyright © 2014 University of California