The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 22 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1063350 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 6:28:15 UTC - in response to Message 1063346.  

This thread has gone in about 500 different directions. I can't respond to it all.

Wind and solar will never meet baseload. Not to mention, wind and solar are built in China and wind requires the use of rare earth metals, something China is about to cut the rest of the world off from, unless you want to start mining it here which will drive the envirowhackos bats**t.

http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2009/08/wind-world-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/159155-chinese-rare-earth-rationing-shouldn-t-sink-wind-power-sector

Plus, you would need an area the size of California to power us fully on solar panels and wind. Not gonna happen. Not a chance. Burning sh*t from farm or Mcdonalds vegetable oil? Again, not a chance.

Focus on natural gas or coal which at least we have plenty of, or nuclear. France has reprocessed uranium and plutonium successfully for four decades and all of its waste from nuclear fits inside the space of 3 large high school gymnasiums. About 70% of their power comes from nuclear with very low co2 emissions if "that's your thing". But the tree huggers don't want nuclear, thanks to a piss-poor decision by Carter almost 40 years ago. What to do?

http://theweek.com/article/index/98230/Frances_nuclear_solution

Yea, let's just keep jumping on the "oil is bad" because it promotes terrorism bandwagon. A little clue. There's not enough oil in the world to satisfy all needs today because of lack of exploration and drilling and if we gave it all up, the rest of the world would suck it all up and continue to use it. Would you rather have it burned in a modern U.S. emissions controlled vehicle here or a 50 year old Russian LADA plowing through the streets of Cairo? Yes, Cairo, Egypt, where the locals replace brake pads every two months because local labor is less than cheap brake pads and where they drive at night without lights on to save the car's electrical system (facepalm). Would you rather have us run on a low priced fuel for our everyday needs and manufacturing or have the rest of the world run on it while we pick the most expensive way we possibly can to power ourselves, just so the Sierra Clubbers can feel good about themselves? We don't even have the distribution system to put a significant percentage of the population in electric vehicles today if we wanted, not to mention all the nasty chemicals created in manufacturing of batteries. It's gonna take a while folks. In the meantime, there's OIL, it's plentiful and we can get at it right here at home.

Seriously, get this fact through your heads:

We already can't compete in the global economy because of our expense.
There's no need to make us look worse on the balance sheet with more regulation, corporate taxes and job killing feel good gubment policy.

What more would you like to do to unilaterally hobble us economically whilst whining that more jobs are going overseas and the rest of the world looks out for itself? Have you heard about China locking up oil contracts around the world left and right while the EPA bureaucrats wear their tinfoil hats? How do you expect that to affect us 20 years from now when resources REALLY get scarce? You haven't seen anything yet.

Start getting a clue of the multitude of economic challenges we face and not just your idealogical "green is awesome at all cost" thought. Just look at the BRIC countries (our future competition) and get real. Start reading something a little more diverse than just Mother Jones, the Nation and High Times.

I get absolutely incensed at the cluelessness of the modern left.

I'm not exactly sure what your trying to suggest people do here.

Because fossil fuels are going to run out, so whatever your opinions on climate change, the US should do something about moving to alternate energies anyway.

So what exactly is your point?
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1063350 · Report as offensive
keith

Send message
Joined: 18 Dec 10
Posts: 454
Credit: 9,054
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063351 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 6:38:17 UTC - in response to Message 1063350.  
Last modified: 4 Jan 2011, 6:41:44 UTC

Gee, I dunno. Fossil fuels are going to run out? Really? What a revelation!

In the meantime, be smart about the direction we move in, not what makes you "feel" good.

I've had enough of "doing something". How about doing the right thing? A little less "believing" and a little more "thinking".

Touting untenable ideas like wind and solar are for believers, not thinkers.
ID: 1063351 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063384 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 11:26:25 UTC - in response to Message 1063346.  

This thread has gone in about 500 different directions. I can't respond to it all.

Wind and solar will never meet baseload. Not to mention, wind and solar are built in China and wind requires the use of rare earth metals, something China is about to cut the rest of the world off from, unless you want to start mining it here which will drive the envirowhackos bats**t.

http://climateerinvest.blogspot.com/2009/08/wind-world-faces-hi-tech-crunch-as.html

http://seekingalpha.com/article/159155-chinese-rare-earth-rationing-shouldn-t-sink-wind-power-sector

Plus, you would need an area the size of California to power us fully on solar panels and wind. Not gonna happen. Not a chance. Burning sh*t from farm or Mcdonalds vegetable oil? Again, not a chance.

Focus on natural gas or coal which at least we have plenty of, or nuclear. France has reprocessed uranium and plutonium successfully for four decades and all of its waste from nuclear fits inside the space of 3 large high school gymnasiums. About 70% of their power comes from nuclear with very low co2 emissions if "that's your thing". But the tree huggers don't want nuclear, thanks to a piss-poor decision by Carter almost 40 years ago. What to do?

http://theweek.com/article/index/98230/Frances_nuclear_solution

Yea, let's just keep jumping on the "oil is bad" because it promotes terrorism bandwagon. A little clue. There's not enough oil in the world to satisfy all needs today because of lack of exploration and drilling and if we gave it all up, the rest of the world would suck it all up and continue to use it. Would you rather have it burned in a modern U.S. emissions controlled vehicle here or a 50 year old Russian LADA plowing through the streets of Cairo? Yes, Cairo, Egypt, where the locals replace brake pads every two months because local labor is less than cheap brake pads and where they drive at night without lights on to save the car's electrical system (facepalm). Would you rather have us run on a low priced fuel for our everyday needs and manufacturing or have the rest of the world run on it while we pick the most expensive way we possibly can to power ourselves, just so the Sierra Clubbers can feel good about themselves? We don't even have the distribution system to put a significant percentage of the population in electric vehicles today if we wanted, not to mention all the nasty chemicals created in manufacturing of batteries. It's gonna take a while folks. In the meantime, there's OIL, it's plentiful and we can get at it right here at home.

Seriously, get this fact through your heads:

We already can't compete in the global economy because of our expense.
There's no need to make us look worse on the balance sheet with more regulation, corporate taxes and job killing feel good gubment policy.

What more would you like to do to unilaterally hobble us economically whilst whining that more jobs are going overseas and the rest of the world looks out for itself? Have you heard about China locking up oil contracts around the world left and right while the EPA bureaucrats wear their tinfoil hats? How do you expect that to affect us 20 years from now when resources REALLY get scarce? You haven't seen anything yet.

Start getting a clue of the multitude of economic challenges we face and not just your idealogical "green is awesome at all cost" thought. Just look at the BRIC countries (our future competition) and get real. Start reading something a little more diverse than just Mother Jones, the Nation and High Times.

I get absolutely incensed at the cluelessness of the modern left.


Funny.. Did you read anything or do you have a single idea what you are talking about?

100 miles by 100 miles, roughly the size of.. oh an old nuclear blast site in nevada. Solar alone could power ALL of the USA needs. No, I am not saying it should all be put in one place. I am saying it can be done if we get off our dead tushes.

Wind: Major manufacturers are General Electric, and Vestas wind farms. There are others up and coming, because a lot of it IS GOING IN RIGHT NOW. Rare earth materials? That used in magnets. Rare earth being really not being that "rare". And far from cornered. Oh yes, Vestas Manufactures in Europe, GE does at least some manufacturing in the USA.

Solar: too many technologies to corner any market. Silicon? comes from sand. If there is a market, production can be ramped up. CIGS? Obtainable, or bypassable. Manufactured in China, Phillipines, Malaysia, United States, Europe, and I am sure I am leaving several out.

Oh and without rare earth magnets, (materials REALLY are not that rare) you have less effecient.

Besides, ramping up these industries means a LOT of JOBS for 'MErcans.

It can be done, it IS being done. But of course that would not stop someone from saying it can't be done. And it will not stop someone from saying it should NOT be done.

But I do find it pretty funny. Especially when it ends up being a shill.
Janice
ID: 1063384 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20411
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1063398 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 12:23:38 UTC - in response to Message 1063346.  
Last modified: 4 Jan 2011, 12:30:25 UTC

... Wind and solar will never meet baseload.


Already done in the Canary Islands, and largely just from one wind farm in an industrial area. They use excess generation capacity to power desalination plants for fresh water. All instead of burning oil.

Lots can be done yet.


Not to mention, wind and solar are built in China and wind requires the use of rare earth metals, something China is about to cut the rest of the world off from, unless you want to start mining it here which will drive the envirowhackos bats**t.


Well then, by your own argument, the good old idle and dumb U-S-of-A had better get educated, less fat, and do something useful... Yes?

More seriously, less TV and more education could go a long way to improve a lot more than just the environment. The woefully low target 'age level' for most TV programs should give you a clue...


...Plus, you would need an area the size of California to power us fully on solar panels and wind. Not gonna happen. Not a chance. Burning sh*t from farm or Mcdonalds vegetable oil? Again, not a chance.


So... Go for how wasteful can you get and burn the planet even faster?

Obviously, you'd be amazed at how much 'green' energy is available all around you. It is only ignorance and laziness that goes for dumb unsustainable 'slash and burn' techniques.

1kW per sq m per daylight hours should be enough for anyone. And that's just for solar...

OK, so you also need to educate builders to build for the environment instead of super-cheap tin shacks that then need MegaWatts of aircon so that the occupants can enjoy their iced tea...

Education and better living isn't going to happen overnight, but there's lots that can be easily done, immediately, now.


Focus on natural gas or coal which at least we have plenty of, or nuclear. France has reprocessed uranium and plutonium successfully for four decades and all of its waste from nuclear fits inside the space of 3 large high school gymnasiums. About 70% of their power comes from nuclear...


Just because we have 'plenty of' doesn't mean there is any excuse to pollute ourself to an early death. Or is it just a different version of the tobacco addiction excuse and befuddlement?

Big oil/gas/coal could go clean if they collected all their pollution. Ofcourse, there is intense lobbying to put off that requirement for as long as possible. If included, that's where many other energy sources, and energy efficiencies, make much better sense.

Aside: A coal fired power station is actually more radioactive than the same sized nuclear power station. It's just that a coal fire plant spews vast volumes of slightly (naturally) radioactive waste over a vast area that is then conveniently ignored.

Nuclear (but designed for full life cycle including end-of-life decommissioning) is just one of a number of options.


Yea, let's just keep jumping on the "oil is bad" because...


Because you want to stay dumb, uneducated, and polluted?

China is rushing through all the industrial revolution development and mistakes but at breakneck speed. Hence, the Olympic games were stymied by smog! And that's despite most of Beijing and surrounding industry being shut down to try to let the air clear!!

OK, so let's sit back, let big oil make there big profits and make us all pay for cleaning up their mess also. OK, so you get to drive around in your Cadillac or whatever hot-rod...

Unfortunately, too many have no care for tomorrow and actually want to burn their world today.


Seriously, get this fact through your heads:

We already can't compete in the global economy because of our expense.
There's no need to make us look worse on the balance sheet with more regulation, corporate taxes and job killing feel good gubment policy.

What more would you like to do to unilaterally hobble us economically...


What's happened to the USA enterprising spirit to blaze ahead with new technology and new ways and to lead the world?

Or are you really stuck back in the 1800's?


Start getting a clue of the multitude of economic challenges we face and not just your idealogical "green is awesome at all cost" thought...


Going 'green' should save you money AND save the environment. A quick start is just to be more efficient in the first place. For example, spend a few dollars on better insulation and a heat exchanger instead of adding yet another aircon guzzler to brute force cool your super-cheap leaky tin shack. With what you save, then invest in further improvements/development...


I get absolutely incensed at the cluelessness of the modern left.


Shame it has to be blamed on politics.

Do something instead of all the bitching?


Blindly burning oil is not the way. We've used it to start the industrial revolution. We must now evolve from that or meet an early demise... The question is more a case of "when".


We have consequences.

Regards,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1063398 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063417 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 14:06:29 UTC - in response to Message 1063411.  

When it becomes economically feasible.


If you make the oil and coal industries pay all the damages, for all the wars fought on their behalf, for cleaning up all the mess they make, and fair prices for use of federal lands, it not only becomes economically feasible, but economically imperative.
Janice
ID: 1063417 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063456 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 15:59:56 UTC - in response to Message 1063443.  

You mean, make the consumer pay for all the damage...

Well all right then. Let's do a little more math.

I've already shown who pays taxes and how much they pay in other posts. So let's spread the cost IAW those 2008 IRS numbers. (Those IRS folks... they're so efficient...)

And I've already shown (not perfectly) that when gas gets up to around $24/gallon, those telsa's will *begin* to look attractive.

And I've already shown how much 10,000 square miles of PV solar cells would cost (thanks Kong for correcting my math), not including costs for installation, maintenance, or the required upgrade to the current electrical grid. 9.3 Trillion Dollars

Income group - % of returns - % of total tax
$0 - $25K-------41.3%-----------1.2%
$25K - $50K-----24.1%-----------6.4%
$50K - $100K----21.7%----------17.9%
$100K - $500K---12.1%----------41.3%
> %500K----------0.6%----------33.3%

So from the same web page spreadsheet (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=134951,00.html#_pt3), cell B9 states there were 85,418,967 returns. So...

Income group---# of returns---Fare share of 9.3T---Average each pays
$0---$25K-------35,278,033-----$111,600,000,000----$3,163
$25K---$50K-----20,585,971-----$595,200,000,000----$28.912
$50K---$100K----18,535,915---$1,664,700,000,000----$89,809
$100K---$500K---10,335,695---$3,840,900,000,000----$371,615
> %500K------------512,513-----$309,600,000,000----$6,042,578

Ok, let's go ahead and do it. We'll worry about the installation, maintenance, and upgrade costs later.



Solar and Wind capacity is already being installed across the country. It is going in piece at a time. Some low interest LOANS to the industry could really speed it up. Note I said loans. Not bailouts, not grants.

If you had done a bit of research, you would note on performance the TESLA Roadsters are high performance sports cars. Which is wny I said compare it with Ferrari. The Model S Sedans should be available for test drives late 2011,
Pricing in the nighborhood of 50,000. Again, compare to high end luxury sedans, not the latest version of the K car.

Why are you so afraid of moving forward? Especially when doing things the old way has done some VERY bad things to us??

For the homeowner, it works pretty much like this. You put 5-6 KW of solar on your roof and if you are a bit conservative with your electric usage, you do not pay for additional electricity. You may even get a check back in the mail.
This also insulates you from future electric increases. I consider this a sound investment for in the neighborhood of 20-30K. Southern California and Arizona have already sprouted many solar farms. Wisconson, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, And many other places have sprouted many wind farms. These are all producing energy WITHOUT FUEL!!!

The Chevy volt will allow people to Commute WITHOUT FUEL. And can be charged from those same farms!!

And do you honestly believe the government (if it did decide to build such location(s) would pay full retail? Let alone the economies of scale, The cost would be instantly reduced to less than $1 per watt.

So please, Well I can not say can we stick with it because this thread certainly did not start to it, but can we move to meaningful math?


Janice
ID: 1063456 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1063459 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 16:14:22 UTC - in response to Message 1063351.  

Gee, I dunno. Fossil fuels are going to run out? Really? What a revelation!

In the meantime, be smart about the direction we move in, not what makes you "feel" good.

I've had enough of "doing something". How about doing the right thing? A little less "believing" and a little more "thinking".

Touting untenable ideas like wind and solar are for believers, not thinkers.

I'm not seeing a lot of thinking on your part.

There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is causing climate change.

We are running out of fossil fuels.

No matter how much you don't like it, it's not going to go away just because you don't want to pay the costs. As Soft Spirit already pointed out, oil isn't as cheap as you think because someone else is paying the costs of the damage done already.

Renewable resources are advancing all the time, but the research won't be done until there is an imperative to do so. If we wait until all the fossil fuels have run out and the climate has been tipped over to a point where it can't recover then it will be far too late.

It is funny how the same people that go on about having to make hard choices and make huge government cutbacks can't see that now is the time to make hard choices and cut back in fossil fuel consumption. We are running up a debt that can't be paid back.
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1063459 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063465 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 17:14:12 UTC - in response to Message 1063351.  

Gee, I dunno. Fossil fuels are going to run out? Really? What a revelation!

In the meantime, be smart about the direction we move in, not what makes you "feel" good.

I've had enough of "doing something". How about doing the right thing? A little less "believing" and a little more "thinking".

Touting untenable ideas like wind and solar are for believers, not thinkers.



I do a lot of thinking. and wind/solar are not 'untenable'. Granted, as has been pointed out, they are not suited for 'baseload'... But consider peakload. Peak loads tend to happen during the day... Hey, solar could help with that. And wind could surely help out much of the time.

The key is not to replace everything with just one or two alternatives, but to use a mix of ALL of the alternatives.

For Baseload, the best is nuclear fission reactors (at present). Yes, the tree-huggers will object, but its necessary.

Oil/Gas/Coal just have too many other uses to continue to burn them as fuel.

Lubrication for oil, and chemical synthesis for all 3. There are not any viable alternatives for these uses. Things like corn/vegatable oil have been hyped as alternatives, but they just are not suitable. Totally different type of molecule.


I am not saying OGC use of any sort is bad... I AM saying they are too valuable to burn as fuel.

And as far as alternative energy goes, well I don't have room at my house for any of those to be installed locally... But I do buy my electricity at a premium, putting a preference on alternative sources.
ID: 1063465 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063467 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 17:22:44 UTC - in response to Message 1063465.  

If you own your home, and have equity in it (questionable in the last couple of years to many).. AND it comes time to re-roof, it is definately worth considering adding solar panels or shingles at that point in time, and may well be financed to cost effective. This does vary regionally, but even if it does not completely pencil out(depending on the construction costs in what area you are in can be a major factor) considering that $100/bbl oil for power costs is not all priced in yet, it could very well pay off quickly. At the very least to eliminate "over baseline" usage rates, which can be extreme.

I am not advocating dang the cost full speed ahead and rip up the existing roof to do it. Always.. do your own math.
Janice
ID: 1063467 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20411
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1063507 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 22:46:24 UTC - in response to Message 1063477.  
Last modified: 4 Jan 2011, 22:52:26 UTC

By heck! You do like your cold showers don't you!

Wind generators: Kills too many birds, so that's out.

Really? Just like power lines, power stations, and gulf oil spills?

There's a number of glass faced skyscrapers that are infamous for bird kills also...

If bird kill really is a problem, then using different colours or other tricks can be used to reduce or eliminate (bad pun!) the kills.

Next excuse please?


Plus, people like Ted Kennedy (when he was alive) prohibited any wind farms in *his* sailing area.

As did Bush... Anything to do with oil connections?...

I guess you're instead in favour of the highly destructive open cast mining for your power, and the resultant slag heaps, or of many oil derricks and oil spills?...

Alberta Canada anyone? Get there quick before it is all gone!

And what of the subsequent pollution of the existing power industry?...

Next excuse please?


Plus, the aviation industry doesn't like wind farms because it removes emergency landing areas

WHAT?! What do you go flying on?!

The only conflict on that count is that wind turbines if placed on ridges for increased windiness may conflict with glider flying along the same ridge. However, as with all big structures, I would hope that planning permission would be required where any conflicts can then be argued out.

There's more of a problem with urban sprawl taking up large chunks of land!

Next excuse please?


and ATC says it clutters up their radar screens.

That's an old problem of old radar sets. Civil aviation fly high enough and use transponders for there to be no problem. The military can be paranoid about enemy aircraft flying hugging the ground being screened... But then I would expect the military not to allow anything near their operations...

Next excuse please?


Geothermal: $10K-30K to drill, + ~$7.5K for the system, plus the proliferation of CC&Rs and HOAs prohibit systems like this.

Like with most things, how well a system works depends on the system and the location and how it is to be used.

A parallel system to consider is that of heat pumps. We have a visitor centre nearby in an area of wetlands. They have gained a x10 payback on using a ground loop heat pump for space heating. They use solar thermal for water heating.

Another example is the spa baths at Bath (UK). They are completely geothermal for the entire complex, including saunas and so on.

Next excuse please?


Thermal solar: Used one of these when I lived on Crete for two winters and one summer. One luke warm shower a day for one person during the summer. Nothing but cold water during the winter.

That's also true of a 10 litre tank with a 1kW electric heater. One girlie shower and the hot water is all used up...

Perhaps I've stayed in better accommodation than you for my holidays around the Mediterranean and islands. Solar water heating is widely used and I've always found it to work well. The only exception was once for a very obviously corroded and dirty broken down system on one of the Canary Islands.

Solar water heating use is becoming more widespread even in wet 'n' windy UK.

Next excuse please?


PV solar: Already discussed this. At least one of you in this group needs to learn the difference between KW and KW-H.

And?

Like all technology, it has its place. For off-grid use, it is very worthwhile despite the present relative inefficiency. PV works better and cheaper than laying miles of cable to a single point. On-grid feeding requires large systems to gain payback compared to other 'alternatives'.

Next excuse please?


Nuclear: Nobody wants this kind of waste located anywhere near them, including those who live in Nevada.

Less waste and pollution than coal and oil!

As mentioned earlier, nuclear is a good idea provided the full cycle costs are designed for from the outset. New power plant designs are including that. Shame the full costs for coal, gas and oil are never costed in.

Next excuse please?


Tidal energy: "expensive", "involves the construction of a barrage across an estuary to block the incoming and outgoing tide", " few studies that have been undertaken to date to identify the environmental impacts". I'm sure if the idea were bought up, there would be an outcry for the mollusks.

Barrages are just one of a number of ways. As with any dam, due concern for all the environmental/habitat effects must be made.

Much more widely usable are tidal stream turbines ("underwater windmills") and various wave and sea swell energy capture devices. They alone could power the entire world many times over...

Next excuse please?


Hydro-electric: Too many people already complaining about damming up rivers, flooding vallies, removing water sources, and generally messing up nature. Slim chance of adding to this.

Isn't that already being done for farming and irrigation?...

Same concerns as for tidal barrages, they can have their place but due sympathy for the environment is required.

Next excuse please?


I don't think we have any choice but to continue to burn fossil fuels until we begin to exhaust the supply. Besides, there are about 199 other countries, most of whom wouldn't want to participate in the cost of switching to alternative energy sources before they've had a chance to advance economically like those of us who have through the use of fossil fuels.


Very wrong. We do have a choice.


So why are the big energy companies lobbying so hard to continue to burn fossil fuels?... They must be worried about something...

It's our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1063507 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063508 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 22:46:28 UTC - in response to Message 1063467.  

If you own your home, and have equity in it (questionable in the last couple of years to many).. AND it comes time to re-roof, it is definately worth considering adding solar panels or shingles at that point in time, and may well be financed to cost effective. This does vary regionally, but even if it does not completely pencil out(depending on the construction costs in what area you are in can be a major factor) considering that $100/bbl oil for power costs is not all priced in yet, it could very well pay off quickly. At the very least to eliminate "over baseline" usage rates, which can be extreme.

I am not advocating dang the cost full speed ahead and rip up the existing roof to do it. Always.. do your own math.


Yes, I do own my home. No, my roof isn't suitable. One reason of many is I have a lot of trees shading my roof. But, I do agree with the concept.

As far as 'over-baseline rates'... I don't know how your electricity is billed, but on mine.. Once a month the electric the electric company company comes out and reads my meter. The difference between the number of KW-H this month and last month is the number of KW-H used for the month. Then that is multiplied by a flat rate per KW-H (around $0.17/KW-H). Then, the company adds a simple low monthly service charge (well less than $10.00), and that is my bill.

None of this peak/off-peak billing or this over-a-certain-amount-of-KW-H gets a higher rate stuff for me. I won't have it. Anyone that does is a sucker and deserves the high bill they get.

Now, I am careful with electricity use, and use high effencicy appliances and light bulbs when I can. Keep the lights off as much as possible too. But, I don't need some company (or even the Govt.) acting like a nanny on me to do it.

I handle my own bidnizz.
ID: 1063508 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063510 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 22:53:19 UTC - in response to Message 1063477.  

Wind generators: Kills too many birds, so that's out.

They do need to be sensitive to where they are placed. The problem with most of the designs is that birds like to sit on top of them, which gets them slapped.
But they are going in anyway so they are obviously not "out".
Plus, people like Ted Kennedy (when he was alive) prohibited any wind farms in *his* sailing area.

There are NIMBY's everywhere. They can (like an oil derek) create a nav hazard.
This does not by any means wind "out".
Plus, the aviation industry doesn't like wind farms because it removes emergency landing areas and ATC says it clutters up their radar screens.

Their placement does need cleared for radar hazards, and they are cleared of that on a frequent basis.

Geothermal: $10K-30K to drill, + ~$7.5K for the system, plus the proliferation of CC&Rs and HOAs prohibit systems like this.

This would make it difficult for a home system. Not for a commercial operation.


Thermal solar: Used one of these when I lived on Crete for two winters and one summer. One luke warm shower a day for one person during the summer. Nothing but cold water during the winter.


That is not thermal solar, that is passive solar water heating. Thermal solar refers to massive reflection onto pipes to create steam to provide electrical generation. It is done very effectively, although it does work better in hot climates, of which this country has no shortage. By the way, obviously they had a very bad design in Crete.

PV solar: Already discussed this. At least one of you in this group needs to learn the difference between KW and KW-H.

And you need to learn KWH over what period of time. Installed PV: Watt*hours of effective sun*365= KWH/year. So per per installed watt, over 3KWH per year.



Nuclear: Nobody wants this kind of waste located anywhere near them, including those who live in Nevada.

I am not a fan of nuclear. Mostly I am not a fan of utilities installing them on ratepayers backs, making ratepayers clean up the mess, and giving the in between profits(win or lose) to a select group of bond holders.


Tidal energy: "expensive", "involves the construction of a barrage across an estuary to block the incoming and outgoing tide", " few studies that have been undertaken to date to identify the environmental impacts". I'm sure if the idea were bought up, there would be an outcry for the mollusks.


This works well in some locations. There are many types. Others it does not.
Tidal energy in Colorado is not effective. You do the math.

Hydro-electric: Too many people already complaining about damming up rivers, flooding vallies, removing water sources, and generally messing up nature. Slim chance of adding to this.

There is no point in turning off what exists, the damage is long since done.
There is limited opportunity for growth, mostly to small scale situations. Again, one size does not fit all.


I don't think we have any choice but to continue to burn fossil fuels until we begin to exhaust the supply. Besides, there are about 199 other countries, most of whom wouldn't want to participate in the cost of switching to alternative energy sources before they've had a chance to advance economically like those of us who have through the use of fossil fuels.

It is obvious you will say or do anything to avoid even seriously considering anything else. My question is "Why?"

This country has long been a leader in industrial innovation. Why do you want to stop? We should lead by example. Several countries are taking the lead and leaving us in the dust and laughing at us. You are happy about this?

In 1900 if you asked someone what they needed for better transportation, they would probably have told you that they needed a horse that ate less and went further to a bucket of oats. Or maybe a faster horse.

Over 100 years later, That same mentality stands behind the horseless carriage.
Janice
ID: 1063510 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063511 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 22:57:35 UTC - in response to Message 1063508.  
Last modified: 4 Jan 2011, 22:59:20 UTC

If you own your home, and have equity in it (questionable in the last couple of years to many).. AND it comes time to re-roof, it is definately worth considering adding solar panels or shingles at that point in time, and may well be financed to cost effective. This does vary regionally, but even if it does not completely pencil out(depending on the construction costs in what area you are in can be a major factor) considering that $100/bbl oil for power costs is not all priced in yet, it could very well pay off quickly. At the very least to eliminate "over baseline" usage rates, which can be extreme.

I am not advocating dang the cost full speed ahead and rip up the existing roof to do it. Always.. do your own math.



Yes, I do own my home. No, my roof isn't suitable. One reason of many is I have a lot of trees shading my roof. But, I do agree with the concept.

As far as 'over-baseline rates'... I don't know how your electricity is billed, but on mine.. Once a month the electric the electric company company comes out and reads my meter. The difference between the number of KW-H this month and last month is the number of KW-H used for the month. Then that is multiplied by a flat rate per KW-H (around $0.17/KW-H). Then, the company adds a simple low monthly service charge (well less than $10.00), and that is my bill.

None of this peak/off-peak billing or this over-a-certain-amount-of-KW-H gets a higher rate stuff for me. I won't have it. Anyone that does is a sucker and deserves the high bill they get.

Now, I am careful with electricity use, and use high effencicy appliances and light bulbs when I can. Keep the lights off as much as possible too. But, I don't need some company (or even the Govt.) acting like a nanny on me to do it.

I handle my own bidnizz.


I see. So your utility sets their rating structure according to your wishes? Wow you must be quote powerful with your utility.

The tiered rate structure is to allow those on limited energy basic needs, and is a bit punitive to those that are wasteful. Baseline rates are around .11/kwh, it tiers up over .27/kwh.

And even more if you are going to be a pig.

*edit* you should still do the math when it is time to re-roof. Shade is a good thing in warm climates. But it seldom covers all the house.
Janice
ID: 1063511 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20411
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1063513 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 23:00:02 UTC

In retort to a few posts ago...

Nissan Promotes Green Driving via Achievements

... Now you can receive similar rewards with eco-friendly driving thanks to Nissan's new electric car, the Leaf. The Leaf is implementing a new system with achievements and rankings to promote and encourage more green driving. ...


Well... There may be hope for us yet! Marketing goes green!

More seriously, I wonder how many people are even aware of how their driving style (or what they drive) affects fuel consumption?


It's all 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)
ID: 1063513 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063529 - Posted: 4 Jan 2011, 23:45:03 UTC - in response to Message 1063477.  

Wind generators: Kills too many birds, so that's out. Plus, people like Ted Kennedy (when he was alive) prohibited any wind farms in *his* sailing area. Plus, the aviation industry doesn't like wind farms because it removes emergency landing areas and ATC says it clutters up their radar screens.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/may/03/checking-george-will-birds-and-wind-turbines/
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/archive/t-470688.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article490382.ece


Buncha dead birds? Other than possible damage to the wind turbines, who cares? I don't. Ted Kennedy (and other rich elites) whineing about their views getting spoiled? Who cares? I don't. ATC? First, modern radar systems can cancel out ground clutter. Second, most wind farms I know of are not located anywhere near major airports. A non-issue.


Geothermal: $10K-30K to drill, + ~$7.5K for the system, plus the proliferation of CC&Rs and HOAs prohibit systems like this.
http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/heating_cooling/geothermal.html


The geothermal systems I am talking about use heat from deep underground to flash water into steam which drives steam turbines to generate electricity. These are large installations. Not something you could put at your house.


Thermal solar: Used one of these when I lived on Crete for two winters and one summer. One luke warm shower a day for one person during the summer. Nothing but cold water during the winter.


Again, I think you misunderstand. These are large installations which focus the sunlight falling on a large area onto a working fluid. This then drives a heat engine which turns a generator that makes electricity. Not those old things which barely warm up some water so you can take a shower.


PV solar: Already discussed this. At least one of you in this group needs to learn the difference between KW and KW-H.


While PV arrays do have a somewhat low efficiency, they are useful in smaller installations. Not really well suited to large-scale generation plants. The thermal solar designs are much superior.


Nuclear: Nobody wants this kind of waste located anywhere near them, including those who live in Nevada.


Heh. More tree-hugger, NIMBYites. Who cares? I don't. Besides, newer reactor designs not only are much safer, but produce much less waste too.


Tidal energy: "expensive", "involves the construction of a barrage across an estuary to block the incoming and outgoing tide", " few studies that have been undertaken to date to identify the environmental impacts". I'm sure if the idea were bought up, there would be an outcry for the mollusks.
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Tidal-Energy/Tidal-Energy.html


Uhh.. As someone has already said, think underwater windmills (of sorts).


Hydro-electric: Too many people already complaining about damming up rivers, flooding vallies, removing water sources, and generally messing up nature. Slim chance of adding to this.


As far as hydro goes, most of the good spots for hydro are already in use for it. But, we do need to modernize what is already in place.


I don't think we have any choice but to continue to burn fossil fuels until we begin to exhaust the supply. Besides, there are about 199 other countries, most of whom wouldn't want to participate in the cost of switching to alternative energy sources before they've had a chance to advance economically like those of us who have through the use of fossil fuels.



Ok. That is one option. We can continue burning OGC for fuel until they are virtually gone. Then watch everything come crashing down as we not only will not have enough energy, but also we will be out of the vital raw materials for a multitude of other, vital industries. You may not appreciate how vital OGC is, or how widely it is used. If you think there really aren't any alternatives available for OGC in the energy sector, then you are in for a VERY RUDE awakening in the other sectors OGC is used in.

Or, we can bite the bullet now, convert at much as possible to alternatives, as rapidly as is possible, and save what OGC remains on the planet for our use in its vastly important other uses.

And as far as other nations go...

If you are late to the banquet, you will usually find the buffet line closed. Not my fault they fiddle-farted around while the so-called 'developed world' advanced. They can either advance via the alternatives, or they can stay back in pre-industrial times. Their choice. Personally, I would suggest advancement. Yes, advancement without OGC use for fuel will be more difficult. But then our economic lot without OGC use as fuel will be harder too.

OGC are too valuable to allow them to be used as fuel. By anyone.
ID: 1063529 · Report as offensive
Profile soft^spirit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6497
Credit: 34,134,168
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1063536 - Posted: 5 Jan 2011, 0:28:16 UTC - in response to Message 1063534.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2011, 0:30:36 UTC

All I'm saying is we've been struggling with this for more than 30 years now and everytime someone says let's do it, the same group of people find reasons why we can't.

And as for home energy solutions, it's just not practical in many cases, it's not allowed by many local laws, and most people just can't afford it or don't want to afford it because it eats into their "flip this house" profit.

The (now) previous gov of Califnornia tried to start a thermo electric plant in the Mojave desert and the environmentalists stopped him. Gov Arnold was left saying, "Well, if not in the dessert, then where!?"

So, what choice do we have left? I don't even know why we bother to discuss it anymore.



There are quite a few solar-thermo-electric plants along interstate 10 between Los Angeles and Phoenix. Take a drive, many are there. One particular plant may or may not have been appropriate. That is far from turning the technology back.

Oh and last time oil spiked like this (the term get used to it comes to mind..) alternative energy from the grid was actually selling at a DISCOUNT. It started higher, stayed the same because it was not dependant on fuels. The charge for sunlight remained the same.

Edit: footnote; all your are saying is if it is hard we should not try. We are currently not only trying but in many many ways succeeding. Those that say it can not be done are starting to annoy those who are doing it.

Even the far right is giving it lip service while trying to derail by misdirecting to projects that WILL fail. But they still are saying it is a good idea.
Janice
ID: 1063536 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 22 · Next

Message boards : Politics : The Simple Math of CO2 Reduction


 
©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.