There is a very real problem in the USA right now in the development and deployment of alternate energy into the grid, as the country fights amongst itself over how energy will be generated, distributed, and managed in the future. This is especially the case with solar, as it continues to mature in both energy conversion efficiency as well cost effectiveness to become a more and more attractive source of energy. Even now, when all costs are factored in, solar is now more cost-effective than some fossil fuels in many cases.
The problem is that the debate about how the USA will generate and distribute energy is being driven by ideology, not science or economics. Entrenched business and political interests are blocking solar in many ways, from condemning research expenditures to outright legislation designed to restrict the development of solar energy as a viable supplement to the nation’s growing power needs. Even much of the mainstream media is buying into the lie that solar power is not viable.
This is not only a foolish attitude, but it is ignorant of both history and market forces. In every single case where a solid-state technology was developed to address an application area, it eventually came to dominate that space. Solar is no different, and conversion efficiencies are such that it is obvious to all but the most in denial that solar is not only a viable, but a cost-effective technology. In the marketplace, American neo- and pseudo-Luddites completely forget that this is now a flat earth, and if we do not develop and deploy these technologies others will, and they will wind up dominating those future markets…
A future smart grid that properly integrated all viable alternate energy technologies would not only result in a significant reduction of dependence on fossil fuel and the resulting ecological impact (which is rarely calculated, and never accurately), but it would also create many well-paying infrastructure jobs from electronic engineers to electricians, and everything in between…
This won’t happen, at least not in any decent fashion, unless we as a country stop basing our arguments on ideology and vested interest instead of what is best for the country, its citizens, and its future. Only by properly deploying a truly smart grid that integrates all manageable types of energy with the proper controls and safeguards, including security, will the USA reach the full potential of what such an infrastructure can provide.
Alix Paultre is the only person I know who can explain quantum physics well enough for me to understand. Well, for about five minutes anyway.
Follow the link, read his editorial, read the magazine he edits.
Even now, when all costs are factored in, solar is now more cost-effective than some fossil fuels in many cases. //// Most such “cost analyses” are made by fully costing Green Energy WHILE not including the consequential jobs the Green Energy Infrastructure creates WHILE at the same time NOT INCLUDING all the costs that should apply to the Carbon industry required to clean up their poisoning of the atmosphere…… but yeah, even then, ….. just as you say.
I’m considering the switch to solar, right now. As usual, there are factors beyond simple economics – but, at the core, the monthly payoff for a 30-year fixed rate loan is $20/month less than my current electric bill, for a 15-year fixed rate loan about $30 month more than my average bill.
That’s not counting rebates, tax breaks, etc. – the kind of thing that traditionally goes straight to any power generation company regardless of fuel source – providing no breaks to consumers.
Incidentally, the quote was from the largest consumer/commercial/municipal solar contractor in the region – not Uncle Fred’s just-off-probation juvenile delinquent. A couple decades in the biz.
I’d wait until you can “contract” with the power utility itself. …. or maybe not. Details in the contract …. somewhere? Can you sell excess power to the utility? Will the utility company also sign the contract if just for that kind of provision?
So……. right now ………. solar is cheaper for you. Just beware of the flim flam.
Grid-tie is pretty typical, even for a backwards mostly coal-based utility. They also have to treat home providers as a low-cost vendor so there’s an additional 3.7 cents per unit just for providing them with juice during daytime outflow. Not a lot but still feels good I guess.
Flim flam?
The quote is from a local outfit here for 17 years & 1000+ installations including my local bank. Our power company owns enough politicians so their average annual rate increase is about 5%. The most tempting thing about this is a fixed rate loan.
That is code for “Don’t stop my subsidies, bro.”
Mafia was busted providing solar energy at night. Leaving out the outright fraud, Lubos Motl calculated that it is profitable given the subsidies to produce solar electricity by shining electric lights powered by conventional methods on solar panels.
Link?
…….. or a lie.
“Even now, when all costs are factored in, solar is now more cost-effective than some fossil fuels in many cases.” – notice excuses in “some fuels” and “many cases”, typical spin.
What people must understand that even it was more cost effective in all cases – time needed to transition country of size and complexity as USA is enormous.
I always use Iceland example to bring the real, non spin facts about the time needed: Iceland is small, compact country with low population and population density. They have both government and people supportive of transition to “green energy”. They were given by a Nature essentially endless source of green energy in abundance, one easier and way cheaper to use than solar: geothermal. They already use geothermal a lot (orders of magnitude than all “green” energies combined are used in USA)… So, what is their estimate with all these ease factors to be able to be dominated by green energy sources? 50 to a 100 years…
Scale the problem to USA and global energy usage and stop this nonsense about limiting and killing off coal or oil “soon”. Practically impossible. We will rely on those sources for next couple hundreds of years even if we learn how to implement fusion, never mind just green energy.
I would assume that Iceland is at too north a latitude to benefit greatly from solar panel based energy. Their average daily solar panel usable sunlight is most likely too small.
Iceland has abundant geothermal generation.
The topic is solar.
In case you missed that.
“Your reality-based comment meant nothing”
Reality is so overrated.
Hey Duce: nice review. And I agree with it. So …. now:
Plot all the relevant curves. How long until “what” happens?
Even now, when all costs are factored in, solar is now more cost-effective than some fossil fuels in many cases.
Um, not hardly.
Energy Density is 40,000,000,000 J/m^3 for oil.
Energy Density is 2,300 J/m^3 for solar panels.
You would need 35,000,000 square meters, or a square 5,900 meters on a side (and 1/2 meter high), to get the same energy out of a solar panel that you would get out of 6.3 barrels of oil.
Where do you plan to mount a 35,000,000 square-meter solar panel that only produces the same amount of energy as six barrels of oil?
The only things more energy-dense than fossil fuels are radioactives.
Anyone who believes that solar power is as efficient as oil is crazy.
Um, you only use the barrel of oil once, the solar keeps collecting.
The oil keeps getting produced. How much infrastructure does it take to handle 6 bbls vs a solar farm.
So now your comparison isn’t with a barrel of oil but with an oil field.
Your original comparison makes no sense, as solar energy output would vary depending on the amount of time it is up and running. You don’t need 35000000 square meters. but one square meter running for a year.
Hey Mickey—good job not letter the criticism “wander.”
Like socialized medicine, the kooks want to claim that “it can’t be done” when other countries are already doing it.
And just like Socialized Medicine–WE CAN’T KEEP DOING IT THE WAY WE ARE NOW.
Get it thru your pea brain that we can’t keep releasing co2 into the air. Its very akin to producing “any” waste and just allowing it to flow into the street and into the river/lake/ocean. We don’t do that even though “it would be cheaper.”
Why not? Because that is shitting on ourselves.
So…. Mickey …. with your abilities and your knowledge base, why are you anti-Green? And being Anti-Green, what’s your alternative? Still want to shit in the street?
Good to see someone who understands science (MikeN) devastate someone who gorges on propaganda…
B: as you are personally contributing to the Carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere, currently constituting about 400 parts per million, what are you personally going to do to end your production of CO2?
So now your comparison isn’t with a barrel of oil but with an oil field.
Not anymore than comparing the field to the factory that has to produce the solar panels.
but one square meter running for a year.
You are correct; one cubic meter of solar power for a year would produce the equivalent of 1 cubic meter of oil (assuming light for 50% of the time). That would be useless, though. You need large power generation, not trickle-charges.
How do you propose to generate 40MW of peak power demand with a single cubic meter of solar panel? I can produce it with a few bbls of oil or a 35,000,000 square-meter solar array.
Bobbo, CO2 is not a pollutant.
You need to come up with a better comparison of costs. Megawatt hours is more appropriate than megawatts.
You are right about peak demand.
I was. I used joules which is a watt-second. It’s a different scale from MW-Hours but the same thing.
That is also the reason I converted a square meter of solar panel to cubic meters – to be consistent. One Square Meter of solar panel only produces 175 joules – or 175 watts per second. I needed energy density, and density, by it’s very definition requires three dimensions.
However, as you want it in MW-Hours:
One Cubic Meter of Oil -> 40GJ = 40,000 MW-Second = 144,000,000 MW-Hours.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine how large of a solar array one will need to produce 144,000,000 MW-Hours at 175 Watt-Seconds per square meter.
Correction:
One Cubic Meter of Oil -> 40GJ = 40,000 MW-Second = 11.1 MW-Hours.
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine how large of a solar array one will need to produce 11.1 MW-Hours at 175 Watt-Seconds per square meter.
the answer’s obama
A solar array produces watts not watt seconds. That’s why I say the comparison is flawed.
Well, a watt is 1joule/second. A watt-second is that power sustained for 1 second.
The kilowatt hour (kWh) is equivalent to 3,600,000 watt-seconds
incidentally, if I can inject a joule of energy in 1 micro-second — then that is a 1 MW pulse…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rGEeLtqtNvU
ask the guy at the nuke plant where the dog kennels are.
Thank you, Tim.
“”That is also the reason I converted a square meter of solar panel to cubic meters – to be consistent.
I’d say, “don’t do that” as the PV panels are essentially 2-d. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_density
You’re right that they are tilted/not zero thickness and one end is ‘lower’ than the other but then you’d need calculus to calculate the volume. There are novel solar systems {such as algae} where the volume is appropriate for calculation.
Keep it simple for us derps but, at least, set the ‘height’ dimension to one, so long as it doesn’t make you feel like bobbo.
If it gets too complicated, then how to calculate the areal density of oil when it’s mining, refining, transporting, and distributing covers the entire planet {though, not in a homogeneous fashion}.
carry on…
I’d say, “don’t do that” as the PV panels are essentially 2-d.
In hindsight, I have to agree with you.
Solar panel based energy is a joke.
I looked into adding solar to my home last year (2013) to provide electricity for the lights and small appliances.
I have one brother who works at a large corporation installing industrial energy solutions including solar. Between him, the other companies I spoke to down south, and the findings of my research, it was an eye-opener.
Solar is only reasonably feasible for those people who are within a specific limited number of kms from the equator.
I live in northern Canada. At our latitude we have a yearly average of solar-usable sunlight of only 3 hours per day.
They do not make batteries that will charge in 3 hours and provide output energy for the other 21 hours.
Not to mention the cost and work to clean the panels of the large snowfalls we get each year (yearly average of ~174cm or ~6ft).
The amount of cost, energy, pollution, and chemicals to manufacture and then dispose of the [proper for solar use] batteries is more polluting than using many current energy sources that we use up here including hydroelectric and natural gas.
So what, is everyone who lives above and below a certain latitude supposed to move to the equatorial zones?
Typical stupid. No thought about where everyone in the entire earth actually lives.
Yes they are expected to move. It’s to combat global warming, which happens to be useful to those in the higher latitudes. By moving to lower latitude, you would then realize global warming is a bad thing and join the fight.
Why would you need batteries? …Only if you are going off the grid entirely. I live in Canada as well and am an electrician that used to do solar installations. No, the panels did not provide enough power for everything, but they make a great supplement. We hooked the panels directly to your home grid with an inverter unit. Excess power generated during the day and not used is used to reduce your overall power bill. Batteries are a pain in the ass, require constant change outs, and seperate ventilation and drainage areas to meet Canadian electrical codes.
Isn’t an inverter just a fancy word for battery?
An inverter turns the 12 volt DC power of a battery into 120 volt AC in your walls.
Wait, you don’t know what an inverter is and you want to discuss energy densities with me?
Read up on the tech, please.
“I live in Canada as well and am an electrician that used to do solar installations.”
I’m calling BS on that.
“Why would you need batteries?”
Because you can only gather sunlight for a few peak sunlight hours during the day when typically most of your house energy usage is lowest and lights are OFF. And most small appliances are cyclic. So if you didn’t store the energy for later/intermittent consumption, then it would be rather pointless.
Not all power companies allow you to sell excess energy back to them, so there would be very little gain if you simply supplemented a few hours for your fridge during peak sunlight.
Call, BS all you like. I installed about 10 of these inverter systems while I was working for this company. In one installation I installed 98 2’X4′ roof panels on a 6 unit condominium unit. These systems on average would reduce the unit’s power bill by 25%. The units produce peak voltage for a bout 3-4 hours a day, but still produced the whole day long. You could see the statistics for power gathered right on the digital displays on the inverter units. Power started flowing from the minute the sun rose in the morning. Enough was never generated to truly sell power back to the utility and make money – but with a reversible usage meter installed by the power company, credit against power consumed later was accumulated. With the addition of 1 hot water based panel per unit to supplement the hot water tank, energy efficient appliances, windows and good insulation, power bills would be very low for these places.
Why does everyone on comment boards have to be so negative about any renewable energy? The very fact that you say that some power companies don’t buy back excess power generated is an example of the stupid roadblocks this article is referring to.
This is excellent information, thank you.
As power companies are businesses that, like everyone else, must see revenue and profit growth continuously, and I think that should a significant number of people install solar plants at home, the price of supplied electricity would skyrocket in order to support the required profit and revenue growth power companies must show to investors.
In the majority of cases, the homeowner will not pay off the cost of their solar installation for many decades, plus they will not have sufficient energy fed back to the utility company to make any difference on their monthly bill. So not only is their utility bill not decreasing, but they have new debt for decades. So, how is that a win-win?
Presumable they will have a lower bill because they are now consuming less energy.
“We hooked the panels directly to your home grid”
The cost for me to install a decent roof mount solar package complete (less batteries) versus what I pay for wind/hydroelectric energy would be more than 60 years to recover my investment assuming that I could sell sufficient energy back to the wind/hydro company to $0 my monthly bill.
Not very many people live to be 120, and I will guarantee that it won’t offset my wind/hydro bill to $0, and any energy I feed back won’t make the wind turbines or hydro dam more “green”.
If I sold to wind/hydro even 50% of what I currently consume monthly, that would be more than 120 years to recover the cost of the solar system.
Plus I have to remove 6ft of snow off of the panels every winter without damaging anything, or deal with snow cover and no solar output for half of each year, increasing how long it takes to break even.
We have a 102MW wind farm at our city that [the city claims] produces more electrical energy than the entire city consumes, yet we do not have any reduction in billed residential/commercial energy costs. And no one involved will reveal the facts about the cost of hardware, installation and maintenance of the farm. Which even though it was started by members of the city, the farm is owned/managed by a Petroleum! company.
Who said anything about offsetting to $0…every little bit helps. As for snow. I’ve checked out the panels I have installed after the fact. Snow would accumulate on them, but wind and sun would pretty much clear them off within a day or two without any shovelling….even this year, when my home was covered in 4 feet of snow on the roof (my pitch is very gradual), these panels were clear everytime I drove by. and no someone wasn’t shovelling them off.
I have never stated that moving to green energy solutions was bad for the environment.
The problem is that it is a guarantee that the utility corporations will not suffer losses to their profits, and the governments will make sure that never happens, so any methods that the individual uses to provide their own energy needs will be met will taxation and other means of grabbing money to put back into the pockets of the government and corporations.
I will give you one example.
Our city has been on hydroelectric for decades.
A wind farm was installed beside our city that provides significantly more energy than what the city consumes so some energy is fed back into the grid.
The wind farm was originally developed by a green cooperative, supposedly to provide cheaper greener energy for our city.
An oil company from another province came in, bought up the wind farm, the people in the green cooperative sold out for personal royalties, our electricity utility prices increased by 30%.
So tell me again how all of this green energy is benefiting all of us?
– Nik
And in my example above about solar cost vs fed back energy to the utility company, I gave examples of both 0% and 50% utility bill reduction against what my debt recovery would be.
If solar panels ever become cheap and economical, then the liberal religious environmentalists, whose true goal is reduced consumption to live according to their religious tenets, will complain that these solar panels are taking sunlight away from the ecosystem and producing all sorts of ecological problems. At first I thought that’s what this post was given the headline.
Proving there are pros and cons to all we do and that every thing we do has tradeoffs. Add them all up and make the best choice, all things considered?
Whats your point?
While we are arguing about BS the rest of the world is leaving us in the primodial dust:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3436923/germany-energy-records/
If you are comparing Germany to the USA, Germany is also a substantially smaller region, so the costs to provide energy to a concentrated population is typically much less than a population that is spread out over a larger region.
Batteries do appear to be a bottleneck. I like using excess generation to produce Hydrogen Gas and burn it, use it, transport it where needed. May not be practical, but I like the “tech” aspects of it.
I also like the tech of using excess solar generation to compress air as a battery.
I also like the tech of super insulation. My house “could be” heated in the winter with just all my computers/tv/stereos running 24/7 if it was better insulated. Almost the same for summer cooling—turn on my whole house fan at 4AM to cool the thermal mass and then shut the house up during the day. It ALMOST WORKS and would work if house were tighter.
WE CAN’T KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING.
So, we have to pick our options. Oops…. getting optimistic there. We are past tipping points already and still blissful in denial.
We are all doomed.
“My house “could be” heated in the winter with just all my computers/tv/stereos running 24/7 if it was better insulated.”
Our winter’s here hit -40, so I would need a lot of electronics running to get the house heated. 🙂
Exactly so. Different solutions for different places. I saw a map once of different “Rabbit Heating Zones” that set forth how many rabbits you needed in a well insulated home to keep it warm. I think my area was 15.
Like the Middle Ages where people slept with animals to keep warm. Same idea.
Super Insulation. I think the USA is something like wastes 65% of its energy to various inefficiencies while Japan has the same thing down to 5-10% wastage. USA would not need to build another power plant: if, we could reduce our waste.
If I were building a new home–I’d look to a space balloon inflated, covered with 4 inches of foam insulation, then rebar, then concrete. Safe against just about everything, except beans for dinner.
It’s also interesting to note that, in our homes, we heat a volume of space, not, square footage.
A 12-foot ceiling provides 50% more volume compared to an 8-foot ceiling. And since heat rises, you need a fan to circulate the heat down to where you live.
High ceiling fashion costs money.
10 years for me to break even on solar installation for a 2000 sq. ft house, cost around 25K to 30K, of course we don’t need heat or AC, we average 300.00 / month electric bill, with the highest Kwh cost in the nation (USVI) at about 47 to 50 cents per Kwh. So very doable for me. But I can see why its not for people in most states, not yet.
Not to mention the benefits of the occasional hurricane that takes down the grid from weeks to months at a time. In my situation, battery backup is also a plus as the grid is totally unstable. That’s in the Caribbean, your results may vary. So what we are talking about here is a basket of solutions dependent on your situation.
You can compare your average Kwh cost here: http://npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state
Whenever an alternative energy technology looks promising enough to compete with existing ones. Some big oil corporation snaps it up. You can bet that already owns the manufacturing process to make inexpensive electric solar cells.
The new Denver International Airport has two large solar array farms, located on it massive acreage. One north, and one south, of the main terminals. So they must have confidence in the technology, to have built a second one. But one wonders why two are needed. Do they plan, or project, going completely off the electrical grid, for some reason?
““Organic photovoltaics can be fabricated over large areas on rigid or flexible substrates potentially becoming as inexpensive as paint.
http://buffalo.edu/news/releases/2013/05/018.html
I wonder whatever happened to that stuff?? If I had to guess, it probably isn’t the oil companys but rather the military keeping that under it’s hat. Or, at least, painted all over their bases and toys.
The side of an aircraft hangar painted with this stuff and properly ‘etched’ into multi-billion cell grids. That would make for one hell of a sensor — It works with IR, also.
Sensors also can act as emmitters leading to effective active camoflague coatings.
Why don’t we just block out the sun for real? That’s where all the heat that supposedly gets trapped by greenhouse gases comes from. Start building a big solar-array space station, leave some gaps between the panels so that SOME light gets through, and make sure it orbits so it always stays between the sun and the Earth.
If you were paying close fanboy attention, you would realize that’s what happened in The Matrix.
I wondered if selling energy back to the grid is a good idea.
Seems Hawaii is already having problems.
http://greentechmedia.com/articles/read/hawaiis-solar-grid-landscape-and-the-nessie-curve
Say Mikcy—-how can you post this and not see that solar can “work”==IS working? In Hawaii, soon California as it is in Germany etc?
You noted whoever above when he lost the barrel of oil to solar argument he seemlessly shifted to oil field AND YOU CAUGHT HIM.
Now YOU shift from solar can’t generate enough power, to solar power creates too much power, BOTH positions being thought of as why it can’t compete.
Any cognitive dissonance?
So… yeah… how to smooth out/store excess production for the off hours. Different challenges and solutions.
Knock, knock…… that’s your own brain knocking, but no one is home.
Compressed Air, Ice Production, Chemical Salts, Hydrogren Production, Smart Car Grid Storage, Capacitors, Up Hill Water Storage ………. more to come.
Too bad the future will just arrive too late?
Nope. It’s called peak demand. Solar is intermittent. Having to turn other power sources on and off cause their own inefficiencies.
If these storage solutions were improved, then you have something that might work, and you wouldn’t need to send excess power back to the grid, which might not want it.
Gibberish.
In this movie, Bagdad Cafe’, there is a loose framing device of triple sundogs as veiwed through the eyes of an abandoned german housewife on visa and vacation. I can’t find a proper clip, but the sundogs, which show up as art in the hotel she lands in, is caused by ground reflection/refraction of a desert solar farm.
official trailer
http://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4G2MEszpox0#t=35
http://imdb.com/title/tt0095801/
The Andasol power plant in Spain is the first commercial solar thermal power plant using molten salt for heat storage and nighttime generation. It came on line March 2009.[56] On July 4, 2011, a company in Spain celebrated an historic moment for the solar industry: Torresol’s 19.9 MW concentrating solar power plant became the first ever to generate uninterrupted electricity for 24 hours straight, using a molten salt heat storage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
4th para from end.
solar Sterling engine
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5pdqDQwehlk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine
http://mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/05/stanford_divestsand_entangles_.html
Saw a survey yesterday that slightly more people do NOT believe in AGW, like 33% do believe while 37% believe, the remainder watch ESPN.
So, the above is just one of the first cracks in the egg.
Still too sad the future will arrive too late.
I can think of no future more bleak than what we are under now — That is to say that individuals are not allowed their own power solutions independant of The State, no matter how *green*.
In other words, things can only get better after all the lemmingbeings march into the ovens; For the common good, of course.
Timmmay lost on his own tangent says:
5/16/2014 at 3:25 pm
I can think of no future more bleak than what we are under now — /// I agree. The various odds of a bad cascade starting getting higher each day. Eventually, who knows exactly why, the house of cards will fall. Talking about: the difficult to avoid direct effects of over population.
That is to say that individuals are not allowed their own power solutions independant of The State, no matter how *green*. /// How’s that? I haven’t read anything that implicates such an idea. (self censoring deletion here). Any examples?
In other words, things can only get better after all the lemmingbeings march into the ovens; /// Hmmmm….. sorry, I can’t untwist that for you in any way that makes sense. Any examples.
For the common good, of course. /// The common good is the greatest good. The phrase and notion is so ambiguous, it doesn’t mean anything, so we can all project as we wish. The highest common good is a combo of self promotion and self sacrifice, the exact ratio always subject to change.
What you talkin’ ’bout Willis?
I’m sorry; perhaps, ‘scamper’ would have been a better word?
bobbo: “33% do believe while 37% believe”
I think you have a typo in there bobbo, unless I have lost the ability to comprehend language.
bobbo: “The common good is the greatest good.”
The problem, as I see it, is that there is simply too much corruption and greed in governments and corporations, so regardless of what the individual or small groups want to do or would like to do “for the greater good”, they will get squashed by the 1%ers who want all of the control and all of the money.
One example of this, for me and I’m sure for many others, is that according to provincial and municipal guidelines in order for a residence to be deemed fit for occupancy it must be connected to the various utility companies (ie. electrical, heating, water, sewer).
And those utility companies have a fixed “base” fee plus a variable “consumption” fee.
So even if I were to spend all of the money to make my residence totally self-sufficient, and even if I fed back excess unused portions to the utility companies, I cannot get my utility bills to go below the “base” fee.
So even if I am not using any consumption, I still have to pay the utility corporations [just so that they may continue to rake in profits].
The fact that the governments and corporations have colluded to enforce this one-sided cost of living is enough to discourage most people from trying to do anything for the common good because no matter what good you try to do, you are still going to have to bend over to the 1%ers and take it up the arse.
I have personally done a lot to reduce my energy consumption over the past 15 years. My residential electrical bill is just over $45/month, my vehicle fuel is ~$30/month. But I find that I cannot reduce more because the government and corporate greed prevents me from doing so, and/or the cost to add any self-sufficient energy systems to my residence will never pay for themselves in my lifetime.
Hence my tone of frustration and irritation in my posts in this thread.
deegee demonstrating that not all Big Brains are Lizard Driven honors us all by being thoughtful and says:
5/16/2014 at 5:47 pm
bobbo: “33% do believe while 37% believe”
I think you have a typo in there bobbo, unless I have lost the ability to comprehend language. /// Yes, I’m the worst typist here. In context, before that I said that the non believers slightly outnumbered the affirmative believers in AGW. So, noting the error, you can see the solution. I checked my browser history and the website isn’t self evident. I think Greece showed an 85% level of accepting AGW… so to me, this just shows how effective a program of disinformation can be. Silly hoomans…. all too easily believe what they read.
bobbo: “The common good is the greatest good.”
The problem, as I see it, is that there is simply too much corruption and greed in governments and corporations, so regardless of what the individual or small groups want to do or would like to do “for the greater good”, they will get squashed by the 1%ers who want all of the control and all of the money. /// Well, assuming that is true… doesn’t change why the common good is the greatest good. In fact, your concern only supports that notion as you are railing against the “good” going for the interests of the 1%. How are you not agreeing? You don’t change your goal just because the effort to get there is corrupted===>you keep fighting for the greater common good.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
One example of this, for me and I’m sure for many others, is that according to provincial and municipal guidelines in order for a residence to be deemed fit for occupancy it must be connected to the various utility companies (ie. electrical, heating, water, sewer).
And those utility companies have a fixed “base” fee plus a variable “consumption” fee.
So even if I were to spend all of the money to make my residence totally self-sufficient, and even if I fed back excess unused portions to the utility companies, I cannot get my utility bills to go below the “base” fee.
So even if I am not using any consumption, I still have to pay the utility corporations [just so that they may continue to rake in profits]. /// Yes, its a tax and arguably “unfair” in its application TO YOU. Again, I fail to see any connection to the notion/goal of the greater common good. I would think, even if you are paying more $$ than you should, you enjoy what few do knowing you are protecting the environment and showing others the way they can too.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The fact that the governments and corporations have colluded to enforce this one-sided cost of living is enough to discourage most people from trying to do anything for the common good because no matter what good you try to do, you are still going to have to bend over to the 1%ers and take it up the arse. /// Only by limited view of all the factors. Pathfinders always have the roughest time of it…. making it easier for those who follow. You are conflating a number of related by separate issues.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have personally done a lot to reduce my energy consumption over the past 15 years. My residential electrical bill is just over $45/month, my vehicle fuel is ~$30/month. But I find that I cannot reduce more because the government and corporate greed prevents me from doing so, and/or the cost to add any self-sufficient energy systems to my residence will never pay for themselves in my lifetime. ///// That analysis is all about the singular “you” and not about the common good. And indeed, even if you are correct and the common good is failing to be met be discouraging individual efforts such as yours, the value of the common good has not been negatively impacted at all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hence my tone of frustration and irritation in my posts in this thread. /// Oh, I totally agree about that. Is this at all similar?: I have no kiddies but I have to pay property tax to educate other peoples kiddies who by overpopulating the Earth are actually a large part of the problem. I am totally frustrated and the common good of saving the Earth is being negatively impacted by all these kiddies. ………………… but “society” culture tradition and history has made the determination that kiddies are best served by being educated, and a property tax is the chosen method. In limited scope to the subject being addressed, I can’t disagree.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just remember, you are a fluke of the universe…… and be as happy as you can fool yourself into being. Its good for what ails you.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=faU-SK0pHCI
bobbo: “I have no kiddies but I have to pay property tax to educate other peoples kiddies”
Unfortunately I do not agree with this example in your context of “the greater good”.
Being forced to contribute towards the education of everyone in your community is a benefit of literacy for everyone, which I would consider a social positive.
If I decide to make a substantial investment in providing my own green utility systems, being forced to contribute to an oil company’s [or other utility company’s] profits when I do not require their services or products, benefits everyone how?
It doesn’t. It only benefits the oil company [or whichever utility you prefer to use in the example], and makes the corporate 1%ers richer.
On most of my utility bills the fixed base rate makes up typically 80%+ of what I have to pay. There is no incentive for me to bother with trying to go greener since I can never reduce or escape that payment.
It is financially irresponsible for me to spend $100k+ to implement all of my main utilities as off-grid systems, if I cannot pay that investment off within my lifetime, nor will my choosing to implement my own systems force the utility companies to clean up their act and go more green, they get my money no matter what.
Wasting the money to go green to simply have bragging rights, even though I still have to pay almost the same amount every year to the utility companies for services and products that I do not use or require, is a moronic reason to throw the money away on my own utility systems.
“I have personally done a lot to reduce my energy consumption over the past 15 years. My residential electrical bill is just over $45/month, my vehicle fuel is ~$30/month.”
By chance, do you live in a tent, read by candlelight, take cold showers, and drive a motor scooter two blocks to work?
I could guess that your Internet bill is your major expense, with heat and light provided by your PC equipment. How’s your libation and cheese doodle budget?
Seriously, do you live a simple life?
Production of energy from solar is still dropping and will become cheaper than other forms of production in the next decade or so. Most calculations miss a few startup factors but big deal.
Distribution is harder because grids are one way hub and spokes – they need reengineering. Storage is the big barrier still.
During a black out, how’s that working for you grid people?
The cost of grid power will go up to cover the cost of pollution and the cost of cleaning up the nuke waste.
Solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal energy sources still do not equal the amount of energy that could be saved by advanced conservation practices. Huge amounts of energy are wasted heating, cooling and illuminating all of our buildings, apartments and houses. Conservation will be the number one way we reduce our use of fossil fuels in the near future. Additional reduction in fossil fuel use won’t be possible until we change our transportation paradigm.
Switch to nuclear energy. This will likely not have much in the way of Republican opposition.
It will have both R and D opposition if it is done properly. i.e. different than it is done now.
Bechtel will throw 100s of millions of dollars towards keeping the nuclear industry the way it is (inefficient and dangerous) instead of incorporating all the knowledge attained in the last 60 years to do it right. And instead of going with truth and what is best for everyone, the D/Rs will suck up the proffered money and vote it down.
[stupefying platitude, easily avoided]
Why give people free energy, when you can make billions of dollars to say your ‘working on it’. Besides, bobbo would just use it to promote a carbon tax, somehow…
a coil of glass filled with tritium. a coil in the same arrangement as the cfls. the coil is the secondary of a transformer. the fusion. it shines.
“”The team then turned to the AEC, then in charge of fusion research funding, and provided them with a demonstration device mounted on a serving cart that produced more fusion than any existing “classical” device. The observers were startled, but the timing was bad; Hirsch himself had recently revealed the great progress being made by the Soviets using the tokamak. In response to this surprising development, the AEC decided to concentrate funding on large tokamak projects, and reduce backing for alternative concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor#Work_at_Farnsworth_Television_labs
Again… it’s never going to be revealed unless it’s big State as the provider. little timmy making fusion makes little timmy dead fast by feds… so, little timmy concentrates on gasseous tube devices that, when energized {albeit, only for microseconds}, explodes into a pure mass/energy conversion to x-rays.
little timmy smokes a lot of dope.
“”A fictionalized pinch-generating device was used in Ocean’s Eleven, where it was used to disrupt Las Vegas’s power grid just long enough for the characters to begin their heist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_%28plasma_physics%29
“”Helical generators were principally conceived to deliver an intense current to a load situated at a safe distance. They are frequently used as the first stage of a multi-stage generator, with the exit current used to generate a very intense magnetic field in a second generator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator#Helical_generators
by ‘x-rays’, i mean incredibly energetic electrons… shit. i just got confused. is a very energetic electron an x-ray?? how can mass be energy??
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JfEgdCu5RSM
Will there be any stars in my crown???????????????
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2A7Au0j2jdI
none, that any of ya’ll will be left alive to blog about.
While this thread is worn out, I’ll post here, and again no doubt.
Humans ability to think about /conceptualize the future is unique in the animal kingdom. If you want to say squirrels hide nuts… ok … we can think about it better than squirrel do. All part of our Big Brain advantage.
Moyers and Co had part two of “War on Climate Scientists” with David Suzuki on last night, to play again this week on PBS. I remarked many of his science buds are convinces our species is “done.” co2 is gonna get us in the coming or next century. He hold out hope that “if we did something now” that maybe it could be avoided. Hmmm…. a FAINT HOPE for something that isn’t even happening…
Gives me no joy at all and my Big Brain says we are all doomed.
So, for the first time I googled (global warming, end of manking) and found all sorts of negative stuff. As one would if one googles any negative issue like (global warming is a liberal fraud to restrict our freedom)==see how that works? Google gives us what we want.
I am going to google some more specifically on “Official Positions Papers” of Shell Oil and the like. Surely those human beings want their grand kiddies to have a future?….. evidently not though.
The whole issue to me is like the Scientists who are paid to look for Earth Orbit Crossing Asteroids. Imagine they report they found one that will hit the Earth in One Week from Now….. verses 150 years from now. Sadly, to alter the course of the Asteroid, Earth will have to have multi-national agreement to spend ALL our aggregated capital to remove this threat ((This is a hypothetical!))
I assume if the asteroid were to hit next week, we would destroy our economies to save ourselves. But 150 years from now? What would the opposition be?
1. Earth has been hit by meteors before and the Earth is still here.
2. Those scientists are biased and will lose their grants/jobs if they don’t make these threats up.
3. Destruction by Asteroid hit was predicted in 1947 and they were wrong.
4. You can’t prove the asteroid will hit because there are too many unknowns even if you believe in Newtonian physics.
Its just an analogy.
But far too accurate.
Silly Hoomans.
“”Sadly, to alter the course of the Asteroid, Earth will have to have multi-national agreement to spend ALL our aggregated capital to remove this threat
not so much. ya’ll fascists need to get the fuck up out of my face and let me do my thing.
Apophis
Timmmy===pulling my chain is something of which I will not up with put. I know you know what a hypothetical is. Certain relevant facts removed in order to draw attention to the others.
But you are a clever rascal. Of course, world economies would not be at risk to avoid an asteroid strike. But other than that……
I had momentarily forgotten you are a Science Denier on the Issue of AGW which is a close tangent of this thread.
I would RIGHT NOW impose an additional $1/gal/basket on oil and coal right now with a phase in of another $50 over the next 50 years (a dollar a year rise). THEN I would let market forces figure out the best econimic response.
I would also have a MASSIVE FED FUNDING program for all things Green: ie–whether they work or not. Good science, good social policy.
Would this BANKRUPT GOUSA????…. why not, aren’t we already? Ha, ha.
I know Science Deniers are bad at judging ideas by weighing the pros and cons of all propositions. They like to identify ONE snappy characterization and avoid all the necessary condiments. Hoomans are silly that way.
HEY===90% of our grandkiddies are all going to die from the impact of AGW. 50% change all human life will be exterminated. It all depends on how much MOMENTUM is built up before we throw the engine into reverse……………sic ………… can’t even do that.
Thats what I’m interested in now…. Once it is accepted that AGW IS HERE (as it is) what can actually be done to reverse it?
I’d still think that some kind of atmospheric co2 removal process will be the ticket. Turning it into a solid or stable liquid of some kind and pumped into old mines. My oft stated nuclear bombs set off in the Sahara to throw dust in the air==Totally Extreme and wouldn’t actually help if co2 is still being put in the air.
So yeah….. all of us here will probably miss it… but eventually the forehead will get smacked, and then the fun will begin.
I do think there will be “solutions” in the EXTREME to avoid our species annihilation, whether they are taken up…… hard to say. Too easy to lose the ability to make a billion co2 converters before the H2S is off gassed.
You know gas. Never pleasant.
I was talking about the asteroid and how beurocracies will not be able to divert it. But, just to shut you up,…. have you checked the orbit, lately???
I wouldn’t want to get caught breaking any zoning laws, or anything; best just to put things back like i found them.
Well Timmy, you need to reverse course in your approach/emulation of Norman, the Babbling Dane.
Be more direct, more on point. Less dithering, tangents, and misanthropic rants.
I do wonder/worry about how many of your ideas have been formed solely from the vacuum you have created around you so.
Contact.
fuck Danish synchrotrons. always, the epoxy melts from neutron moderations.
It all depends on how much MOMENTUM is built up before we throw the engine into reverse
I would F*@K the Dane, in a friendly consensual way of course, BUT===you stand too close to him. I might miss and screw the pooch so to speak.
That would not be proper.
Mind the gap.
Yep, a year ago on this forum I proposed another hypothetical: we have found a “Magic Spigot” from which all the coal and oil we want is delivered for free. What would be the prime question?” to this I will now add Natural gas.
Turns out, this hypo is not hypo…. its REAL. That dot established last month when it was found that some maximum tipping point of humanity will be achieved if we burn up more than 30% of the proven reserves we have now.
This came home on tonights episode of “Years of Living Dangerously.” All about how through “leakage” the production and use of Natural Gas is many times more damaging to the atmosphere than is coal or gas. Currently being touted as “The Answer” for cheap/Clean energy. Seems that clean methane is dirty than clean coal. Who’d a thunk it?
So…………… how we gonna save ourselves when The Answer is to pump even worse poison into the Atmosphere?
See the point?===once you start denying one part of Science, you gotta deny a whole bunch more or Science===because it all knits together into the Knowledge of Man. Ain’t that a Bitch? ((Hint: yes, politics based on the denial of vast swaths of Science is going to cause our own demise.))
How can we get an open letter to Bill Gates to STOP WASTING HIS $$$$ on getting more people on Planet Earth when the First and Primary issue facing us is: How can we heat, clothe, feed and transport ourselves without shitting into our drinking water?
GREEN ENERGY!!! The only issue that matters, all else being secondary AND dependent. GAWD DAMN….. going nuts does give one an empowered feeling. Those religious loons are on to something.
Yea, verily.
Nuclear energy is quite green and is already an established and mature industry. They just need greenies to get out of the way.
Well Mickey….. you’ve posted that about 3 times now. Demonstrate a reactor that burns up ALL its own waste, and I’ll agree with you.
THEN all you have to factor in is the huge gubment subsidies and waivers from Liability these big corporate owned and operated CENTRALIZED targets of terrorism represent, and make your decision.
I say: your head is as far up your ass as it always is.
Got a link to clean nuke technology: DEMONSTRATED? Or do you remain totally irrelevant?
“”How can we get an open letter to Bill Gates to STOP WASTING HIS $$$$ on getting more people on Planet Earth
Bill Gates is a eugenicist; his ‘vaccines’ have a nasty habit of sterilizing black girls and otherwise castrating anyone that isn’t bill gates. He single-handedly brought about the resurgence of polio in India.
And, he’s also why i no longer pay attention to TED talks:
CO2 = P x S x E x C.
P = People
S = Services per person
E = Energy per service
C = CO2 per energy unit
Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, “probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero.”
http://naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html
http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/
May he jam his philanthropy up your ass gently — roll around in flour, the gap’s there somewhere.
Well Timmy, all looks good. Is there anything about the equation that escapes you? Green Energy has close to ZERO C OR CO2 created per energy unit delivered. Just EXACTLY what is needed.
If Bill Gates’ $$$ is giving people polio, ((link must have multiple typos as it says non-polio disease spiked thus causing polio?))…. ALL the more reason to waste that money on something productive, like SAVING ALL OF MANKIND rather than those too poor to read the product inserts.
Yep….. I’m fully possessed of myself. Smells like a good day.
Short two page read on the benefits of Thorium Reactors:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-breakout-thorium-global-idINBRE9BJ0RR20131220
Looks like it is about 40 years late right now to come on line? Non-radioactive Green Energy to be far superior once it starts to beat coal on even/Steven basis.
So like Big Business to be mired in the solutions of the past that weren’t pursued for reasons we have forgotten.
Mining for the Thorium probably as dangerous or more than mining for uranium, coal, oil etc?
Green Energy. Its GREEN!!!!!!!!! See the difference?
So on the one hand you say humanity will be either completely wiped out, civilization will end, only pockets of humans will remain,
and on the other hand nuclear energy that could be implemented and prevent this might have a few problems of a lower scale.
It’s pretty obvious that you are not really worried about global warming.
Mickey………. really?
You are Pedro stupid?????
STFU.
It does sound like a better way, doesn’t it?
There are two problems, though. They can’t make nuclear bombs from the byproducts. The reactors can be very small — operated by an individual small.
Thorium is what was in coleman lantern mantles and it is not perfectly clean —
particularly Radium-224. Because of the very short half-life, it quickly replenishes from its radio-parent (Th-228) and every new heating of the mantle to incandescence releases a fresh flush of radium-224 into the air, which can be inhaled if the mantle is being used indoors, producing an internal alpha-emitter radio-toxicity concern. This was the subject of a federal suit against the Coleman Company (Wagner v. Coleman), which initially agreed to place warning labels on the mantles for this concern, and subsequently found a superior alternative to Thorium. Secondary decay products of thorium include radium and actinium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_mantle#Thorium
The reactor cannot run away or melt down under its’ own power — it must be continuously illuminated by moderated (slowed down) neutrons — these neutrons can be produced by amature enthusiasts at home without radionuclide use. However, they’ll still pop you if you’re storing up or otherwise enriching it to produce other radionuclides…
how to make green energy in the kitchen of your mom..
the radioactive boyscout
“”His “reactor” was a bored-out block of lead, and he used lithium from $1,000 worth of purchased batteries to purify the thorium ash using a Bunsen burner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
Yeah, it does sound plausible but I have heard mention of this for decades now. There must be issues that prevent its development LIKE==the cost/location/problems of digging up the raw materials and purifying it to production use?
And the linked article never said definitively that it has been demonstrated. Just a bunch of if’e and ought to’s.
IRRESPONSIBLE……… if clean Nuke as describes actually is possible and it wasn’t pursued for all this time. Now?===we have DECENTRALIZED alternatives.
“And the linked article never said definitively that it has been demonstrated”, uttered bobbo
“”Energy from thorium is not just scientific theory. On April 25, Thor Energy, a private Norwegian company, began producing power from thorium
“”the U.S. government also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The reactor, built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15000 hours from 1965 to 1969
“”in 1973, however, the U.S. government shut down all thorium-related nuclear research—which had by then been ongoing for approximately twenty years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The reasons were that uranium breeder reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Background_and_brief_history
Again, if there were any technology empowering to the individual, or individual municipalities that does not take giant government/corporations then that solution will not be countenanced by the US.
decentralization is never going to happen, if they have their way about it: Dupont wrote it down years ago as one of the tenets of the new industrial society where its’ social acceptance is forced through taxation —
Distribution networks must be simplified…. {that is, cram everyone into compact cities}
They don’t like competition — especially when it is not their business model.
Good quotes. Too bad only one is from the link I gave…. and if you read the first two paragraphs of that link, it sounds a whole lot more iffy. Even the one quote that applies standing alone is iffy in full: “Energy from thorium is not just scientific theory. On April 25, Thor Energy, a private Norwegian company, began producing power from thorium – named after the Norse god of thunder – at the Halden test reactor in Norway.” /// A test reactor. Lots of ideas work in a test laboratory but don’t scale to commercial use.
I think while you may be right utilizing your other links, you are being somewhat …… what?…… dishonest or sloppy of my own summation.
Always good to read more to get a better picture.
Everything stays the same until it changes. DECENTRALIZED power production will happen. Its called: change.
“”A test reactor. Lots of ideas work in a test laboratory but don’t scale to commercial use.
Yea. That’s why our aging parents preffere a gocart to the latest toyotas…
Yea. it scales DOWN to individual empowerment… sorry to bust your co2 tax scheme, if i decide to flaunt some zoning laws…
“”Here’s the new concept. Thorium could be used in conjunction with a laser and mini turbines to easily produce enough electricity to power a vehicle. When thorium is heated, it generates further heat surges, allowing it to be coupled with mini turbines to produce steam that can then be used to generate electricity. It is said that 1 gram of thorium produces the equivalent energy of 7,500 gallons of gasoline.
“”when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.
Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.
A 250 MW (I think this is a typo, they probably mean KW – Anthony) unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/13/hey-how-much-thorium-you-got-under-the-hood/
——————-
One gets mad that we don’t have these things. One gets madder realizing why. One gets really outraged listining to fools harp on co2 without ever questioning why the government/corporations give a shit {no, they are not concerned about their ‘children’}.
There must be issues that prevent its development LIKE==the cost/location/problems of digging up the raw materials and purifying it to production use?
Hmm. “”It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium.
Incidentally, lead is about equally abundant as uranium, from whence it came…
Nope, the problem is one of control over the individual, or loss thereof, dominance of large corporate structures, or loss thereof, american imperialism empowered by a stranglehold on petroleum, or loss thereof. period.
Earth, ‘Gia’ to libtards, diddled around with natural nuclear reactors — pulse reactors, that.
“”One theory proposes that the uranium was covered with groundwater, which moderated the neutrons and provided an environment that supported a chain reaction. The energy generated eventually heated the groundwater to boiling, and it steamed away. With the groundwater gone, the reaction stopped.
http://gizmodo.com/there-s-a-naturally-occurring-nuclear-fission-reactor-i-1475445638
“”when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.
This statement is liable to cause some consternation. I understand. But, consider that water transitions from least dense {it floats} to most dense at 37 degrees farenhiet — releasing much heat {80 cal/gram} in the process.
You know electric cars were built more than 100 years ago. So if 40 years for thorium means its a no-go, then perhaps we should ditch electric as well.
If i can use it to heat my vaporizer, then it is evil and should only be used by
We have seen existing nuclear reactors do very well for a large population, pretty much all of France, 20% of the US, increasing in China and India. If this were such a failure we wouldn’t see it increasing so much. The French example suggests even 100% is possible, while renewables excluding hydro are looking like a 10% max and that’s probably being generous.
MikeN, I will assume that you’d not be so amiable to it if it were doable by the individual, and not multi-billion projects??? Hmmm??
Why? It actually is doable by individuals. Kodak had a secret nuclear reactor running for decades that no one knew about until about 10 years ago. I doubt they spent billions on it.
Japan is experimenting with neighborhood level pebble bed reactors.
“”I doubt they spent billions on it.
Well, maybe to keep it a secret… Na, there are all kinds of small research reactors scattered all over the place. Cherenkov {optical effect analogous to a sonic boom} indegoness is the shizzle.
Meanwhile, the point made by Elon Musk continues apace. There are no industries reliant on solid state devices where average prices go anywhere but down.
And as many years as I supported nuclear power generation, costs continue to rise.
I’ve been getting quotes from local competing solar panel installing companies for a couple weeks, now. Prices range from custom designed-for-the-siting at the top of purchase prices to packaged systems trucked in, hooked up and leased for ~$25/month more than my current electric bill. A fixed monthly price for 25 years and no escalator clauses…which means real dollar savings start in 2-3 years as charges for utility-based electricity continue inevitably higher. For the next 25 years.
The other phenomenon is that everyone in my neck of the prairie is catching on. Every firm queried has a backlog/minimum of 2 months lead time to install.
The electricity prices are rising because of renewable energy mandates, and other restrictions placed o fossil fuel energy by the green zealots.
>Yeah, it does sound plausible but I have heard mention of this for decades now. There must be issues that prevent its development
The same can be said for solar and wind.
zing!
Is Bobbo being funded by Middle Eastern oil men?
http://breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/05/20/James-O-Keefe-Dupes-Hollywood-With-Fake-Anti-Fracking-Film
tl;dr , But, at least, Coulter’s mandated hormone replacement therapy is starting to bear some fruit.
Silent Running — the end
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rt_fQvavqEA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DZ0JGjKYVdU
Years of Living Dangerously on showtime last night had a study about fracking. Seems it is releasing 15 times the amount of methane the industry claims thereby making it dirtier than coal.
GO GREEN!!!!
Methane is not dirty.
If you are claiming that methane is dirty because of some link to global warming, then the answer is ‘go nuke’, or if you prefer, ‘Go Thor’
Actually, a pet musing of mine from time to time is that we did miss our ‘eden’ period of interglacial this time around because of man’s actions.
That is to say, that this time around trees were cut down and burned, releasing co2 instead of the natural course of them laying around and rotting, generating much CH4 which is a far better greenhouse gas than co2, even when factoring in it’s persistance in the atmosphere.
naturally, the great tree die-off to start with would have been due to the iceages caused by ….wait for it…. a deficiency of co2.
Let me expand on that idea just a little — Our form of life is based on carbon. At the base of it all, that carbon comes from CO2 {photosynthesis}.
Life will build up to meet the available levels of that gas. However, man has severely constricted where and how the life likes to be.
Consider the suburban environment/lawns — essentially all biological activity is stopped there, especially in the winter. Most are lucky if they have a large tree, and that’s a small part of an energetic biosphere.
So, the co2 would be expected to build up a little bit, but we’re never going to get warm enough and back to the ‘eden’ that so threatens the powers-that-be in the first place.
clarification:
the deficiency of CO2 is not to be interpreted as the direct cause of the cooling, but rather the resulting diminished output of CH4 due to lower biosphere energy.
So…. is methane dirty or not?
Sorry …. too quick.
Yes…. when ANYONE says methane is dirty it means it is a very powerful green house gas: 700 times more powerful than co2 gas.
Yes, in this sense, Nuke is clean. Its just dirty by other definitions as in its radioactive waste.
Regardless, my point on Nuke would be that it makes no sense to CONCENTRATE AND CENTRALIZE a hazard like Nuke Power Plants or waste storage facilities that then become subject to terrorist attacks when GREEN ENERGY allows for a distributed system that is not the subject of a terrorism attack. Two birds with one stone so to speak.
But “right now”—I agree==>anything is better than coal and oil and methane or any other green house gas creating process.
Tim says:
5/22/2014 at 8:34 pm
Let me expand on that idea just a little — Our form of life is based on carbon. At the base of it all, that carbon comes from CO2 {photosynthesis}. /// Carbon comes from nuclear fusion within stars that explode thereby distributing that and other elements into the universe for use in other natural processes including but not limited to nor “from” co2. Basic Science.
Life will build up to meet the available levels of that gas. However, man has severely constricted where and how the life likes to be. /// Gibberish. The concentrations of different gases notably co2 vs oxygen does affect how many of what kinds of animals can exist on planet Earth mostly due to the interaction with food sources. Methane appears from time to time affecting all those equations sometimes resulting in the production of H2S which again at certain levels will actually kill off most forms of multi-cellular life. Lots of variations and interactions only generallly referred to there. Again, Basic Science.
Consider the suburban environment/lawns — essentially all biological activity is stopped there, especially in the winter. Most are lucky if they have a large tree, and that’s a small part of an energetic biosphere. /// Whats your point? Most o2 comes from algae in the ocean. Quite a bit from Jungles which are disappearing. Lawns?
So, the co2 would be expected to build up a little bit, but we’re never going to get warm enough and back to the ‘eden’ that so threatens the powers-that-be in the first place. /// Gibberish again…. whats your point more clearly expressed? I’m guessing here: that the amount of co2 and o2 will stabilize to a narrow constant range based on the energy input to the earth. Its mans activities that are changing the variable elements to ranges that upset the standard rations that normally only change very slowly over time based on solar input….. blah, blah, blah.
Its Science.