[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Just Wrong - rgio - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:43pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:34pm
 
Too much classic rock lately? - Beaker - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:10pm
 
June 2024 Photo Theme - Eyes - MrDill - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:50am
 
NY Times Strands - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:42am
 
NYTimes Connections - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 11:33am
 
Wordle - daily game - maryte - Jun 19, 2024 - 9:48am
 
Israel - R_P - Jun 19, 2024 - 8:27am
 
Sonos - thatslongformud - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:52am
 
Basketball - ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:19am
 
SCOTUS - ColdMiser - Jun 19, 2024 - 7:15am
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Jun 19, 2024 - 6:07am
 
The Obituary Page - rgio - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:48am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:37am
 
Trump - rgio - Jun 19, 2024 - 5:13am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jun 19, 2024 - 4:28am
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jun 19, 2024 - 12:20am
 
Outstanding Covers - kurtster - Jun 18, 2024 - 10:23pm
 
Song of the Day - oldviolin - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:48pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:05pm
 
20+ year listeners? - islander - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:41pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - Beaker - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:04pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jun 18, 2024 - 5:02pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Manbird - Jun 18, 2024 - 3:38pm
 
Whatever happened to Taco Wagon? - Red_Dragon - Jun 18, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Other Medical Stuff - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Hello from Greece! - miamizsun - Jun 18, 2024 - 2:35pm
 
Predictions - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 12:27pm
 
Europe - R_P - Jun 18, 2024 - 9:33am
 
What did you have for dinner? - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 18, 2024 - 8:18am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - jarro - Jun 18, 2024 - 7:11am
 
Ukraine - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 8:56pm
 
2024 Elections! - R_P - Jun 17, 2024 - 6:40am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:57pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Red_Dragon - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:22pm
 
What Did You See Today? - Manbird - Jun 16, 2024 - 2:39pm
 
Geomorphology - kurtster - Jun 16, 2024 - 1:29pm
 
Artificial Intelligence - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:53am
 
The Chomsky / Zinn Reader - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 10:42am
 
The Dragons' Roost - oldviolin - Jun 16, 2024 - 9:35am
 
Football, soccer, futbol, calcio... - thisbody - Jun 16, 2024 - 8:35am
 
No stream after station ID - arlen.nelson969 - Jun 15, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Business as Usual - kurtster - Jun 15, 2024 - 9:53am
 
favorite love songs - maryte - Jun 15, 2024 - 8:58am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Antigone - Jun 14, 2024 - 7:04pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 3:15pm
 
China - R_P - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:59pm
 
what the hell, miamizsun? - oldviolin - Jun 14, 2024 - 2:08pm
 
Religion - Steely_D - Jun 14, 2024 - 1:28pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jun 14, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - Proclivities - Jun 14, 2024 - 6:42am
 
Florida - R_P - Jun 13, 2024 - 3:35pm
 
Democratic Party - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 9:08am
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Animal Resistance - thisbody - Jun 13, 2024 - 8:04am
 
New Music - lievendegrauwe - Jun 13, 2024 - 12:43am
 
The Green Thread: A place to share info about living a gr... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jun 12, 2024 - 11:48pm
 
Derplahoma! - ScottFromWyoming - Jun 12, 2024 - 9:29pm
 
Guantánamo Resorts & Other Fun Trips - R_P - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:41am
 
Joe Biden - rgio - Jun 12, 2024 - 8:28am
 
Right, Left, Right of Left, Left of Right, Center...? - kurtster - Jun 11, 2024 - 10:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jun 11, 2024 - 3:51pm
 
Breaking News - Isabeau - Jun 11, 2024 - 2:29pm
 
Calling all RP Roku users! - RPnate1 - Jun 11, 2024 - 12:50pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - sunybuny - Jun 11, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - R_P - Jun 10, 2024 - 12:01pm
 
Streaming Marantz/HEOS - rgio - Jun 10, 2024 - 11:43am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 12:38pm
 
Quick! I need a chicken... - thisbody - Jun 9, 2024 - 10:38am
 
Economix - Bill_J - Jun 8, 2024 - 5:25pm
 
Snakes & streaming images. WTH is going on? - rasta_tiger - Jun 8, 2024 - 2:16pm
 
Great guitar faces - thisbody - Jun 8, 2024 - 10:39am
 
TEXAS - maryte - Jun 8, 2024 - 9:21am
 
NASA & other news from space - Beaker - Jun 8, 2024 - 8:23am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jun 7, 2024 - 10:03pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 116, 117, 118 ... 126, 127, 128  Next
Post to this Topic
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 6:51pm

 islander wrote:
How about using a solar cell to crack water for hydrogen instead?

You keep getting hung up on subsidies, but we have been subsidizing the oil industry forever (still are). We have traditionally used subsidies to support things that we desire - rail roads, telecom infrastructure, the auto industry....why is it so bad in this case? I know you will say they are all bad (and I'd agree with a few of them), but in general, we need subsidies to get some industries up to speed - especially when they are coming up to speed with a competitor that is also being helped by the .gov
 
If a solar cell making electricity directly is a net loser, using that energy to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen to convert back to electricity is an even bigger loser.

I started my analysis in terms of energy: how much do you have to spend to make more. In the case of fossil fuels there is a net gain, a large one. You can wave your arms and yell that we're giving away the store to oil companies (go ahead and prove that, BTW—I'll wait) but that doesn't change the thermodynamics: it takes much less energy to extract fossil fuels from the ground than we get from burning the fossil fuels.

This is not always the case for alternatives. And when it isn't, and we use them anyway, we have increased—not decreased—the amount of energy consumed and the amount of carbon emitted to the atmosphere. The deficit in energy will not be made up by the warm fuzzy feeling we get looking at our new gadget, it will be made up by burning more fossil fuels.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 6:44pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 islander wrote:

But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

The Japanese do indeed live on less—especially less space. The average housing unit in Japan is just over 1K ft^2, half what the average was in the US in 2001, and it has gone up since then. Urban living is more energy efficient than suburban living, and the Japanese have no choice—their population density is more than ten times ours.

But let's say we live like the Japanese and cut our energy consumption down to their level (and electricity use is only part of the story—we burn a lot more of every kind of fuel)—what happens when China and India start to approach that level of energy consumption? Cutting energy use by 300M people means nothing when you add 2.5B at similar levels. We're going to need power. A lot of power.
 
I'm with you, really. I want to build nuclear plants (smaller, standardized, but still). But I also want to have solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, and packets of ground fairy dust if it's reasonably viable for getting us through the day. But we do need to conserve as well. There are good solutions that reduce our use without radically affecting our lifestyles. It will take some sacrifice, but what we are doing now is not sustainable regardless of what we build.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 6:40pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

Not anymore. Because they make no sense. Hence the $51K subsidy for a $60K 1KW device. And since the fuel going in is natural gas (which goes thru a reformer to make hydrogen) the net efficiency isn't much different from just burning the natural gas in a gas turbine—usually a tad lower.
 
How about using a solar cell to crack water for hydrogen instead?

You keep getting hung up on subsidies, but we have been subsidizing the oil industry forever (still are). We have traditionally used subsidies to support things that we desire - rail roads, telecom infrastructure, the auto industry....why is it so bad in this case? I know you will say they are all bad (and I'd agree with a few of them), but in general, we need subsidies to get some industries up to speed - especially when they are coming up to speed with a competitor that is also being helped by the .gov

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 6:38pm

 islander wrote:

But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

The Japanese do indeed live on less—especially less space. The average housing unit in Japan is just over 1K ft^2, half what the average was in the US in 2001, and it has gone up since then. Urban living is more energy efficient than suburban living, and the Japanese have no choice—their population density is more than ten times ours.

But let's say we live like the Japanese and cut our energy consumption down to their level (and electricity use is only part of the story—we burn a lot more of every kind of fuel)—what happens when China and India start to approach that level of energy consumption? Cutting energy use by 300M people means nothing when you add 2.5B at similar levels. We're going to need power. A lot of power.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 6:00pm

 steeler wrote:
I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

Everything being proposed is top-down regulation/taxation schemes. People may get creative in how they cope with this, but they may just end up using the same amount of energy but paying more for it. Unless they end up paying a lot more they won't change their habits quickly. So yeah, it will either be expensive or it won't work.

Worse, it will probably also result in exporting energy use; ie replacing domestic products with high energy content with similar things from countries without that tax burden. If I were Alcoa I'd be very nervous. But I digress.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 5:41pm

 islander wrote:

Home fuel cells. This article is from 2007 and they have an example of a guy with a HOME FUEL CELL. Would anyone here (US only please - sorry) even know where to go to find such a thing or even find a pamphlet?  I just checked Washington Energy Services (seems like an obvious choice) and got nothing.  3 years ago.... damn...

 
Not anymore. Because they make no sense. Hence the $51K subsidy for a $60K 1KW device. And since the fuel going in is natural gas (which goes thru a reformer to make hydrogen) the net efficiency isn't much different from just burning the natural gas in a gas turbine—usually a tad lower.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 5:17pm

 helenofjoy wrote:
Yeah me too!  I'm thinking there is a lot of information out there - new and ongoing projects that seems really positive and well thought out.  Some European countries are experiencing great success with wind and solar energy.

Depends on how you define "success". If you define it as "lots of installations" then, yes, they've been successful. If you define it as real, sustainable improvements in energy consumption then mostly no.

Spain heavily subsidizes solar installations—which has become such a burden that their government recently started cutting back those subsidies. The people who get the power get a great deal; the people who paid for it get...the bill. They haven't changed the laws of thermodynamics.

Denmark has had great success with wind energy. It makes about 14% of the power they use. They happen to have a great resource: lots of wind, room (mostly offshore) to build windmills and a strong existing power grid. Good on them for exploiting it. But it won't work everywhere.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:28pm

 Beaker wrote:



But, but... I don't produce activist vids. 
 
no, just the running commentary.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:14pm

 steeler wrote:


That makes sense to me.

The other thing is that we have been bankrupting ourselves with this dependency on oil (fossil fuels) for a lot of reasons, including wars in the Middle East and emanating because of our presence in the Middle East.  

One of the most ridiculous moments from the past political season was watching that whole convention floor chant "Drill, bay, drill."  Talke about short-term "solutions."   

 
I was googling for info and found this interesting article from a couple years ago:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/07/world/asia/07iht-energy.4124134.html

a couple of excerpts:
Japan's population and economy are each about 40 percent as large as that of the United States, yet in 2004 it consumed less than a quarter as much energy as America did, according to the International Energy Agency, which is based in Paris.

On a per-capita basis, that means Japan consumed the energy equivalent of 2.8 million tons of oil per person in 2004, in contrast to 5.4 million tons per American. Germany, another energy- conscious country, used 3.2 million tons per person. On other measures, like household electricity use, Japan is also much lower.

Japan's obsession with conservation stems from an acute sense of insecurity in a resource-poor nation that imports most its energy from the Middle East, the dangers of which were clearly shown by the 1970s energy shocks.

The guiding hand of government has also played a role, forcing households and companies to conserve by raising the cost of gasoline and electricity far above global levels. Taxes and price controls make a gallon of gasoline in Japan currently cost about $5.20, twice America's more market-based prices.

The government in turn has used these tax revenues to help Japan seize the lead in renewable energies like solar power, and, more recently, home fuel cells. One way has been a subsidy of about $51,000 per home fuel cell. This allowed Kimura to buy his cell last year for about $9,000, far below production cost. His cell, which generates 1 kilowatt per hour, provides just under half of his household's electricity, and has cut his electricity bill by the same amount, he said.

Home fuel cells. This article is from 2007 and they have an example of a guy with a HOME FUEL CELL. Would anyone here (US only please - sorry) even know where to go to find such a thing or even find a pamphlet?  I just checked Washington Energy Services (seems like an obvious choice) and got nothing.  3 years ago.... damn...

 



steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:06pm

 islander wrote:

Your pod is ready mister fromwyoming.

Some of this is probably from density. But a lot of it is simply from policies, regulations, and the way they approach things. When these initiatives were started (mid 70's I think, response to OPEC) there was a lot of resistance, and a lot of people claiming that it would cause their economy to grind to a halt and send them all to the caves... sound familiar?  Do you really think the Japanese are that much better an innovating than we are? Heck, we've seen them do it, we could just copy and have roughly the same effect. If we tried a little we might even do better.
 

That makes sense to me.

The other thing is that we have been bankrupting ourselves with this dependency on oil (fossil fuels) for a lot of reasons, including wars in the Middle East and emanating because of our presence in the Middle East.  

One of the most ridiculous moments from the past political season was watching that whole convention floor chant "Drill, baby, drill."  Talk about short-term "solutions."   


islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:03pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

I'm guessing that the dense-pack population centers are a ton more efficient than our way of living too, energy-wise. Everybody off the farms and into the cities!
 
Your pod is ready mister fromwyoming.

Some of this is probably from density. But a lot of it is simply from policies, regulations, and the way they approach things. When these initiatives were started (mid 70's I think, response to OPEC) there was a lot of resistance, and a lot of people claiming that it would cause their economy to grind to a halt and send them all to the caves... sound familiar?  Do you really think the Japanese are that much better an innovating than we are? Heck, we've seen them do it, we could just copy and have roughly the same effect. If we tried a little we might even do better.

helenofjoy

helenofjoy Avatar

Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 4:00pm

 steeler wrote:


Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 

 
Yeah me too!  I'm thinking there is a lot of information out there - new and ongoing projects that seems really positive and well thought out.  Some European countries are experiencing great success with wind and solar energy.

ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:58pm

 islander wrote:



 
I'm guessing that the dense-pack population centers are a ton more efficient than our way of living too, energy-wise. Everybody off the farms and into the cities!

steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:53pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 

Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 


islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:33pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.


We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 
But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:22pm

 steeler wrote:
My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
 
First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.

Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:13pm

 islander wrote:

{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....
 
I know just what you mean...I really had too bite my tongue on that one....{#Roflol}

islander

islander Avatar

Location: West coast somewhere
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:08pm

 Beaker wrote:

Ah lookit the irony here.  An American "netroots subvertising agency", creates a video on behalf of an American activist group, using video depicting the terrorist tactics of Greenpeace protests who staged a protest for the media here recently, using protesters/activists who where almost exclusively non-Canadians, and none of whom were Albertans.

And the video is posted to RP by a Canadian.

Wow.  Chutzpah or what?  So Welly, you're okay with foreigners deliberately attempting to influence our policies (and economy) here in Canuckistan, is that correct? 

Can I count on you to support the inverse?  How about we send a bunch of Canadians down to the US and attempt to interfere with their energy policies?  Maybe we can get that softwood lumber deal that affects your province finally fixed while we're at it.

I love lefty logic.  Any means to an end.  No matter how illogical, factually challenged or offensive.
 
{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 2:23pm


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:33pm

 Zep wrote:

The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.

 
Your correct, it isn't a Draft Agreement, just one of the many papers circulating & prepared before the Conference began by various diverse interest groups..  There are probably hundreds of different papers on all of the aspects of the problems & on the solutions.  None of them are the Offical UN or Copenhagen Summit papers.

Looks like the announcement by some Media of Disaray on the First Few Days is a way to try and invalidate the whole Conference Process.  Its the "No Hope, Nothing Here to See" scenerio that some groups are espousing.

I'd rather remember this quote by Al Gore

"The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations."


{#Daisy}



Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 116, 117, 118 ... 126, 127, 128  Next