Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 35 · Next
Author Message
Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,274
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1335480 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 16:20:48 UTC - in response to Message 1335478.

sorry but they are businesses. businesses do what they do for profit. Clearly, they want a lot of profit. Oh, and I live in the oil belt. They don't pump at all unless the oil hits a certain level. You wouldn't believe how many wells just sat idle when Oil was under (god forbid we see it again) $40 a barrel. Now they run them as much as physically possible.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12489
Credit: 6,800,061
RAC: 6,268
United States
Message 1335493 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 17:00:10 UTC

did someone say subsidy? wash your mouth out ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses

This one is huge ...
One of the largest subsidies is the cap on liabilities for nuclear accidents which the nuclear power industry has negotiated with governments. “Like car drivers, the operators of nuclear plants should be properly insured,” said Gerry Wolff, coordinator of the Energy Fair group. The group calculates that, "if nuclear operators were fully insured against the cost of nuclear disasters like those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, the price of nuclear electricity would rise by at least €0.14 per kWh and perhaps as much as €2.36, depending on assumptions made".

An nuclear power is "green"
____________

Profile James SotherdenProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8788
Credit: 34,066,058
RAC: 58,354
United States
Message 1335498 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 17:23:39 UTC

So why do some complain that solar and wind get a subsidy and then dont complain that oil companys get the same?
____________

Old James

Message 1335510 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 17:48:59 UTC

So why do some complain that solar and wind get a subsidy and then dont complain that oil companys get the same?


Because WE Put The Oil/Gas in our Heating Oil Tanks for our Oil Burners; Gas and Oil in Our Cars; Nat Gas into Our Stoves; AC into Our ACs; Kerosene into Our Portables, etc. etc. etc., and We Gots Go Time Juice 24/7.

And Our Beautiful Fossil Fuel Power Plants and Usually Nukes Go 24/7.

24/7/365 POWER

IGNORE Say: Yep 24/7 Power. Can't IGNORE IT. heaheaheahe hehe
____________


Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,138,906
RAC: 2,615
United States
Message 1335520 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 18:17:14 UTC
Last modified: 7 Feb 2013, 18:18:47 UTC

the us congress has seen fit to micromanage the american people with

73,608, pages of tax code this is just for a standard filing.

special interests abound, no one person has been able to understand it for a very

long time. until the mindset that does this is removed from dc you will be

limited to what you and friends can do on your own.

solar has been killed 3 times since the early 70's by the inconsistency in

funding. solar has high front end cost and a long payback how this is financed

is directly related to how much is installed.

constant change to the rules radically affects what is financially possible.

subsidize it, companies jump in to fill the need, remove the subsidies companies

dependant on them fail. policy for solar needs to be a minimum of 20 years.
____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1335635 - Posted: 7 Feb 2013, 23:01:26 UTC

I have also noticed the more solar is offered credits, the higher the retail prices go.

It is quite possible to create the technology for approx $1.00/watt(2.??kwh per year, 20-40 year typical) without any government effort. Retail around $2.??.
It is impossible for the technology to NOT be worthwhile. Wind remains THE CHEAPEST form of energy to add and maintain.

And this thread is again being hijacked by the naysayers.


____________

Janice

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2542
Credit: 1,177,225
RAC: 119
United States
Message 1335661 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 1:25:24 UTC - in response to Message 1335635.

Cheapest is coal, next gas.

Wind, geo-thermal, solar far too costly to implement.

Nuclear can be made competitive if we quit messing around and get on to building the damn things.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12489
Credit: 6,800,061
RAC: 6,268
United States
Message 1335679 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 4:34:31 UTC - in response to Message 1335635.

I have also noticed the more solar is offered credits, the higher the retail prices go.

It is quite possible to create the technology for approx $1.00/watt(2.??kwh per year, 20-40 year typical) without any government effort. Retail around $2.??.
It is impossible for the technology to NOT be worthwhile. Wind remains THE CHEAPEST form of energy to add and maintain.

You have to have an error in the math ...

"$2.??kwh." Present coal/gas retail price is $0.20 Kwh. So you are talking about a 10 times increase in the price of electricity!

____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1335687 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 5:55:52 UTC - in response to Message 1335679.

I have also noticed the more solar is offered credits, the higher the retail prices go.

It is quite possible to create the technology for approx $1.00/watt(2.??kwh per year, 20-40 year typical) without any government effort. Retail around $2.??.
It is impossible for the technology to NOT be worthwhile. Wind remains THE CHEAPEST form of energy to add and maintain.

You have to have an error in the math ...

"$2.??kwh." Present coal/gas retail price is $0.20 Kwh. So you are talking about a 10 times increase in the price of electricity!

You misquoted me. My math is fine, how is your english?

2.?? KWH per installed watt per year, price RETAIL(and you can certainly find cheaper)approx $2.?? per installed watt. By reducing(my high end rate is .33/kwh) 2KWH per year over 20+ years would pay back approx $8.00 using your .20/kwh oil figure.

That should cover interest and other expenses. And TRY to help save the planet.


____________

Janice

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,027,394
RAC: 21,049
United Kingdom
Message 1335731 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 8:38:17 UTC
Last modified: 8 Feb 2013, 8:41:15 UTC

The problem with solar panels is that unless it is an industrial site in AZ or NM the actual output is liable to be a small fraction of the rated value. Ohio about 70%, Washington State about 50%.

1. As the panel is glass covered it can only be 95% max efficiency. If clean, in a damp industrial area it can be less than 80% efficient within a month of the last clean.

2. The output from the inverter is probably going to be ~80% of panel output.

3. Assuming the panel(s) are mounted flat to the roof, then the tilt angle is going to be wrong. it should be approx the same as Latitude. 45 degree roof is classed as steep. Therefore a guestimate would be again 80% of quoted.

4. The output is also going to be significantly lower than quoted if not south facing, or close to. So on average 90% of quoted.

5. Five hours/day is also about the average max you can expect.

So output for an infrequently clean panel in Ohio would be,

quote * 0.95 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.8 * 0.9 * 0.7 = ~30% of quoted rate for 5 hrs/day.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8408
Credit: 4,126,212
RAC: 1,357
United Kingdom
Message 1335874 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 19:14:20 UTC

Back to some real-world positivity:


Wind now cheaper than coal in Oz: Bloomberg

Let the market decide

... noting that wind farms are out-competing coal and gas in a country with “some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources”.

According to BNEF, a new wind farm in Australia can now deliver electricity at $AU80 per megawatt-hour, while electricity from a new gas baseload plant costs $AU116 per MWh, and coal-fired power arrives on the grid at $AU143 per MWh.

While those figures include the impact of the Australian government’s carbon price, the analysis suggests “wind energy is 14% cheaper than new coal and 18% cheaper than new gas”.

The sunk cost of existing power stations – most of which date to the 1970s and 1980s – means they are still the cheapest power source. Bloomberg predicts that large-scale solar PV will overtake both new coal and gas generation by 2020. ...




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 soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1335878 - Posted: 8 Feb 2013, 19:35:57 UTC - in response to Message 1335731.

Using Ohio as an example? Far from optimum but okay let us play that.

Steep roofs are of benefit in such areas, they help the snow slide off. Steep roof is an excellent idea.

Inverters are in excess of 90% efficiency. And if placed inside the byproduct is heat. Which can reduce other heating the dwelling requires. Using this loss will negate it.

5 hours a day is the "full" efficiency rating. The rest of the sunlight will still produce electricity. From 1-99%. So there should be at LEAST another hour or two of effective power from sunlight averaged over those times.

And snow will also slide off of solar panels at such an angle much like it does from metal roofs.

The large installations for the most part do not tend to use photo-voltaics, at least in warmer climates, as it is more effective on a cost basis to use "less" efficient systems, such as powering turbines from heat focused from the sun.

The angle of the panels is optimized by lattitude. the optimum is degrees. at 45 degrees the proper angle is 45 degrees.

And your initial 70% efficiency takes into account the rest of your made up information.




____________

Janice

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8408
Credit: 4,126,212
RAC: 1,357
United Kingdom
Message 1337041 - Posted: 11 Feb 2013, 14:14:56 UTC

Is this where we also gain some financial and political solutions?


Al Gore backs growing fossil fuel divestment campaign

A US campaign to encourage universities and cities to drop their investments in fossil fuel companies is gaining momentum

A months-old national campaign to convince U.S. colleges, universities and city governments to withdraw investments from the world’s largest oil and gas companies has seen some notable initial successes. ...

... In fact, the divestment movement here in the U.S., which has burgeoned following the November presidential election, took its inspiration from the anti-Apartheid experience. ...

... “We’ve been blown away by how quickly the campaign has spread – right now it’s the fastest-moving student environmental campaign of the past decade, maybe ever,” Henn says.

“And an increasing number of students are also increasing pressure on politicians to take action. Look at these numbers – Harvard’s endowment is 32 billion dollars. That perks up the ears of a lot of people.”...



What is the state of international climate talks?

Despite near collapse at each of the last four annual conferences of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the international negotiations always pull back from the brink. Why? Because no country is willing to abandon the goal of an international regime which will effectively combat dangerous climate change. ...

... the 2011 conference achieved an unexpected breakthrough, subsequently cemented at the 2012 conference in Doha. It was agreed to begin a new round of negotiations towards a new "protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force", to be concluded by 2015 and to take effect after 2020. At the same time the Kyoto protocol, thought by some to be on the verge of collapse, was kept alive until at least 2020. This was remarkable...



Carbon tax v cap-and-trade: which is better?

Economists argue that, if the market is left to operate freely, greenhouse gas emissions will be excessive, since there is insufficient incentive for firms and households to reduce emissions. As such, they recommend applying the polluter pays principle and placing a price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This can be implemented either through...



Soon enough and effective enough?

This is 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)

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,027,394
RAC: 21,049
United Kingdom
Message 1338104 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 15:31:35 UTC
Last modified: 14 Feb 2013, 15:36:51 UTC

The Guardian says it has more evidence of secret funding to cast doubts on Climate Change.

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Bit more detail at How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8408
Credit: 4,126,212
RAC: 1,357
United Kingdom
Message 1338172 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 19:10:25 UTC - in response to Message 1338104.

The Guardian says it has more evidence of secret funding to cast doubts on Climate Change.

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Bit more detail at How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups

Thanks for those. That's a LOT of 'secret funding' to buy a lot of FUD and lobbying...

Meanwhile in the great USA:

Democrats offer long-shot bill to meet Obama’s climate change challenge

Democrats in Congress wasted no time in taking up President Barack Obama’s challenge Tuesday night that lawmakers take a "market-based" approach to addressing climate change, even if their effort has little hope of success...

... The American Petroleum Institute released a poll Wednesday that found widespread public support for the [proposed Keystone XL] pipeline. ...

... "Millions of people are still looking for jobs in the United States, and we still import nearly half our oil, much from suppliers far less reliable and friendly than Canada," he said.

There’s a "Cheerio effect" to climate change, said J. Marshall Shepherd, the president of the American Meteorological Society and a professor at the University of Georgia. Ordinary people see the consequences, from rising sea levels that threaten coastal communities, more severe droughts and rainfall in places that are unaccustomed to them, and higher food costs thanks to disrupted weather patterns, he said.

"It’s not just about polar bears," he said.




And we have only this one planet for everyone...
Martin

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

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 8915
Credit: 252,342
RAC: 121
Canada
Message 1338349 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 6:14:56 UTC


Colourful 'solar glass' means entire buildings can generate clean power

____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,027,394
RAC: 21,049
United Kingdom
Message 1338371 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 7:03:46 UTC - in response to Message 1338349.


Colourful 'solar glass' means entire buildings can generate clean power

So maybe soon, we can have art and science coming together to create beautiful power generators. kewl as my son would say.

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,631,059
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1338374 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 7:12:23 UTC

http://www.lumetasolar.com/Pages.aspx/Solar-S-Tile

Solar shingles for residential roofs.


____________

Janice

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2542
Credit: 1,177,225
RAC: 119
United States
Message 1338464 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 14:50:14 UTC - in response to Message 1338374.

One of my great ideas. Now get the cost down--including the entire installation so that it will pay off in 5 years vis-a-vis 10 cents/KWH from the power company.

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8644
Credit: 24,027,394
RAC: 21,049
United Kingdom
Message 1338519 - Posted: 15 Feb 2013, 16:51:25 UTC

More from the Guardian on funding to campaign against wind farms in the USA.

Media campaign against windfarms funded by anonymous conservatives

Secretive funding network channelled millions to stop state governments moving towards renewable energy

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 35 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: Solutions

Copyright © 2014 University of California