39 replies to this topic

[eds]

Dingo, on 25 July 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE for starters.

I doubt you or I, are planting trees or killing people,
. . . what I think we are doing like most people,
. . . is looking for someone to solve a BIG problem for us.
In my case, I have a Utility that gets it's power from,
. . . Coal, Nuclear and Hydro and
. . . has it's poles and wires knocked out by storms
. . . for weeks at a time.
I have a cheap emergency gasoline generator
. . . that cuge-a-lugs gas 24/7, if and when I can get it started,
. . . make's enough noise to wake the dead,
. . . I have to keep it away from the house,
. . . so the exhaust doesn't kill us,
. . . and I want to pull the plug on both of them
The price of solar has come down drastically,
. . . but we have a steel roof, that several feet of snow builds up on,
. . . that comes down off the roof like an avalanche,
. . . so the thought of putting solar on the roof is out and
. . . local laws preclude windmills.
There are some problems just to BIG for us to solve alone, and
. . . sometimes you have to wait a LONG TIME for things to happen,
. . . but now I can see a light at the end of the tunnel and
. . . this is the year, that I will finally get a mobile Solar generator for my family.
Now if you and everyone else did the same thing,
. . . wouldn't that solve a lot of other BIG problems?

[Dingo]

Eds, we can have all the solar that we are capable of hooking up and applying and if you don't couple it to lowering the population and revitalizing our natural environment then it is game over. What is the goal? Sustainable communities.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!

[eds]

Dingo, on 25 July 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

Eds, we can have all the solar that we are capable of hooking up and applying and if you don't couple it to lowering the population and revitalizing our natural environment then it is game over. What is the goal? Sustainable communities.

MORE TREES, LESS PEOPLE!

TOOLS FOR NEED, NOT GREED!

What are you personally doing about it?
. . . and what would you like to have everyone do about it?

[Dingo]

eds, on 25 July 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

What are you personally doing about it?

I'm probably spending less on energy than anyone on this forum. I could commit suicide but I'm too selfish. I guess knowing where I think we need to go and what we need to do to get there, in rather simple terms, will have to do for now. Perhaps others will help me refine it or tell me where I'm wrong as we continue these conversations

I wish I could empower you to knock me down to -100 in one shot to satisfy your anger that I don't play your one trick pony game, but unfortunately I don't make the rules. The whole rep thing seems very adolescent to me but I apologize in advance to whoever set it up as I am merely a guest.

[eds]

Dingo, on 25 July 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

I'm probably spending less on energy than anyone on this forum. I could commit suicide but I'm too selfish. I guess knowing where I think we need to go and what we need to do to get there, in rather simple terms, will have to do for now. Perhaps others will help me refine it or tell me where I'm wrong as we continue these conversations

I wish I could empower you to knock me down to -100 in one shot to satisfy your anger that I don't play your one trick pony game, but unfortunately I don't make the rules. The whole rep thing seems very adolescent to me but I apologize in advance to whoever set it up as I am merely a guest.

Where did that come from?
I'm not angry at you or anyone else.
We used to have a saying "Some people Talk the Talk, and some people Walk the Walk."
I was simply trying to figure out what you personally were "DOing" or planning on "DOing."

[Dingo]

eds, on 25 July 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Where did that come from?
I'm not angry at you or anyone else.
We used to have a saying "Some people Talk the Talk, and some people Walk the Walk."
I was simply trying to figure out what you personally were "DOing" or planning on "DOing."

Didn't mean to be impolite. I just made certain assumptions.

By the way, the correct expression is "Walk the talk". You employed the popular version but if you think about it it "talk the talk" and "walk the walk" is about as meaningful as "cook the cook" and "egg the egg". I know this is off topic but I'm fascinated how nonsense expressions evolve, kind of like Lombardi's "Winning isn't everything, it is the only thing", a statement asserting an important distinction that really isn't there.  Weirdly then it spread broadly among the populace to become some sort of iconic commandment.

[Besoeker]

Chill folks!!!
It isn't a p1ssing contest.
Were it so, I'd be out in front by a mile (or maybe by five metres) but my good lady isn't altogether keen on me demonstrating that skill in public....

Slightly more seriously.....
At current rates of consumption we will run out of fossil fuels. We are using them at a hugely greater rate than they were produced.Time scales are debated but possibly within this century.

What then?
First, I think our rate of consumption of them will very substantially reduce. Cost an lifestyle changes are already a factor. The missus and I work from home when we can. More and more people are doing so..
Some things you can't of course. My production guys need to be physically present too produce stuff.

When fossils run out or get too expensive to contemplate...
What then?

Hydro and nuclear can provide a substantial base load. Depending on any variable renewable sources will require storage. At utility level.

From my perception, that's the crunch.

[Dingo]

Besoeker, from what I understand accessible fossil fuel, extended by more sophisticated extraction techniques, is so great that it will run us off the cliff environmentally before we use it up. That suggests that what we need is a major inclease in fossil fuel taxes, probably most of it kicked back to each citizen on an equal basis to cover the cost and even reward folks who restrain their use of fossil fuel. From what I read the alternative, cap and trade, is pretty easy to game and just hasn't worked out well where it has been tried.

I also think countries that have major rain forests should receive some sort of international compensation for keeping them intact and maybe some incentive to restore areas that have been cut down.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I plant trees all the time and don't have kids.

[Tom Butler]

I think planting trees is a good idea, but can only be a small part of the solution

Take a look at Amazon River 'Breathes' Carbon Dioxide from Rain Forest and Tropical Rainforest Nutrients Linked To Global Carbon Dioxide Levels. Research is beginning to show that rainforests such as the one in the Amazon basin are not as good of a carbon sink as once thought. At best, it appears, they are net-zero carbon sinks, except for the rivers which clearly put more carbon into the atmosphere.

I do not have a link, but my speculation is that rainforests, via their rivers, add to acidification of the oceans. See: Acid Test: Rising CO2 Levels Killing Ocean Life (Op-Ed)  and Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem.

Given the resistance to a carbon tax as cap and trade--good idea for a mature community--perhaps a value added tax would work. In that, anything adding carbon to the atmosphere would be taxed base don its emission, but the tax would come at the pump and the car dealership.

[Phil]

It was just reported from the EIA that coal use will increase 1.3%/yr. through 2040, that is totally out of our control.  That means, as great and powerful as we think we are, the US cannot control AGW.  As the author of Eaarth pointed out, our massive debt has killed any chance of us doing anything major even in our own country let alone someone else's.  Any new taxes will be counter productive no matter how good the intention, we simply can't afford it.

It would seem that too many are still looking for the free lunch, thinking we can somehow solve this without major personal sacrifice.  That just isn't true and will remain so for the foreseeable future.  It's a catch 22 that we need a prosperous economy to afford green but that economy can only happen with cheap fossil fuels.  Therefore we will have to muddle along as we are.  Though my earlier screed was a bit tongue in cheek, it was basically accurate.  We cannot look to government to solve this, it's too big and they're broke.  People will not tolerate being forced to sacrifice either, no politician in his right mind will demand it.

That means each individual will have to make a change.  That won't happen unless it's economically viable, as I've said people will pick food on the table tomorrow over climate catastrophe a decade from now every time.

Here's what I think will happen.   Fossils will slowly continue to increase in price due to market demands, while alternatives will continue to decrease.  Hydrogen will prove effective as an energy storage medium allowing alternatives to increase dramatically, increasing grid stability instead of decreasing it.  Within a decade, two at most, alternatives with grid or local storage will be on a par with fossil pricing.  At that point the real green energy revolution can begin in earnest.  I think we'll be off fossils in about 50 years, (the US).

That's the good news, here's the bad.  Coal will continue to be king for at least a quarter century, perhaps more.  We will surpass 400 ppm.  The EIA is right we'll go up 2-3 degrees, perhaps 4.  The third world will take the brunt. (when haven't they?).  If China, India, etc. are still building coal plants a quarter century from now that means they'll be operating for at least another quarter century unless alternatives/storage pricing warrants their shutdown.

Again we have no control over this, unless we invent a major breakthrough in alternatives pricing, the rest of the world will act on their own economic interest.  Right now that means coal plants.

What can we do to change this?  The only option in my opinion is to lead by example.  If those who really care are unwilling to sacrifice, why should anyone else?  Let's say a third of the population really cares.  If they were willing to do what it takes and each buy at least 10KW of solar and a BEV, that would be a huge market which would drive down prices by sheer volume.  Only then would the crossover be brought forward enough to make a difference.  Would every member of this forum pledge to do this?  Somehow I don't think so, (though I'd love to be surprised!).  If this forum can't sacrifice, there is no chance the general population will.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 26 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

What can we do to change this?  The only option in my opinion is to lead by example.  If those who really care are unwilling to sacrifice, why should anyone else?  Let's say a third of the population really cares.  If they were willing to do what it takes and each buy at least 10KW of solar and a BEV, that would be a huge market which would drive down prices by sheer volume.  Only then would the crossover be brought forward enough to make a difference.  Would every member of this forum pledge to do this?  Somehow I don't think so, (though I'd love to be surprised!).  If this forum can't sacrifice, there is no chance the general population will.

It's not a matter of sacrifice Phil, on this forum or elsewhere; it's economics.
If I had the bucks, I'd do it in a heartbeat, many others would too. $ stops it, not the willingness.

[Besoeker]

Phil, on 26 July 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

What can we do to change this?  The only option in my opinion is to lead by example.  If those who really care are unwilling to sacrifice, why should anyone else?  Let's say a third of the population really cares.  If they were willing to do what it takes and each buy at least 10KW of solar and a BEV, that would be a huge market which would drive down prices by sheer volume.

Laudable but not an option for huge numbers of people..
For the population in large cities, and that includes huge numbers in the world, many/most don't have the space to install solar PV panels.. Visit Taipei, Shanghai, Tower Hamlets in London, the Bronx.....
Huge populations with no option for solar PV.

My sister lives in London. Not very far from Buckingham Palace. She runs a pub that is a listed building. She is not permitted to make building alterations but, even if she could, the taller buildings adjacent would render solar PV pretty ineffective.
She doesn't have a car, BEV or otherwise. She has nowhere to park it.

Her situation is by no means unique.
If you live in a high density population area, and many do, neither PV nor BEV is a practicable option.

[Phil]

Economics IS sacrifice!  You've made my point exactly.  It's not about taking a couple if days to pick garbage out of a river, that isn't sacrifice.  Sacrifice is enduring hardship for the greater good, economic or otherwise.  Of course if we all had $10-20K in the bank we'd all do it, that isn't sacrifice either.  Sacrifice would be taking on a 2nd or 3rd job just to buy solar panels or a BEV.  Sacrifice would be taking on 1,2,3 boarders to save rent/mortgage money just to buy solar panels or a BEV.  Those are real sacrifices.

It's not about blame either, I'll be the first to admit I wouldn't make those sacrifices.  But with half the population not even making enough to pay income taxes, that's the sort of thing that would have to be done to get real penetration.  How many people are already working a 2nd or 3rd job?  How many are already taking on boarders?

I guess what I'm clumsily trying to say is there is no easy solution, there is no law that can be passed, there is no tax that can be raised, that will do the trick.  If the economy was booming an unemployment was sub 5% then we could consider other options but the only way to get there is with cheap energy.

That's why I think it will be a slow transition, taking decades, as the market shifts peoples behavior over time.  What I was also trying to say is we'd be asking people to sacrifice even though the developing world is building hundreds of coal plants, even though our carbon footprint has dialed back decades from it's peak.  That is one tough sell.

As Besoeker pointed out, many live in cities, that cuts out perhaps a third of the population right off the top.  Would we expect them to sacrifice to put panels on some strangers subdivision home?    You can always invest in a community solar project of course but would you demand someone with kids sacrifice their college education funds to do the same?

Germany got to where they are in a booming economy, now that the world economy has slowed down they've cut way back.  I'm actually pretty happy we've kept our incentives right through the recession.  Of course when renewables are cheaper than fossils, that will be the path of least resistance.

This is just an opinion of course.  Who knows perhaps Rifkin catches on the world over and becomes the messiah of solar! Everyone listens and climbs on board and we save a decade or two in transition time.  Could happen!

[Tom Butler]

Back to my earliest post (http://www.altenergy...r-solar-energy/), For the city dweller, what if a utility started a PV farm in the country and sold shares to city home owners with a contract that, if you buy enough power generation for your home, we will credit you as it were on your roof. You can depreciate the PV and claim government subsidies and such.

In effect, the PV installation operation would be more cost effective in a PV farm than on individual roofs, which should save everyone money.

A second thought is that the government does not always have to tax. Since it has licensing authority, simply do not allow licenses for new generation that is not renewable.

Require that gray water systems be included in all new construction. It is also reasonable to require new roofs of single-family dwellings to have solar (My Solar Roof).

Limit the height of automobile bumpers and put speed limits on over-sized vehicles. People can have jacked up truck that see economy cars as speed bumps but make the owning miserable for owning one. :-)

[Phil]

Yes, for city dwellers that is a solution.  Solar cooperatives are already in place around the country.  However, solar on rooftops benefits YOU, utility solar benefits the utility.  Put another way, rooftop solar lowers your electric bill, utility solar raises it.  Also you don't need a land grab or environmental impact statement to pave your roof, you could do it tomorrow.  So if you own your rooftop, you are better off owning the means of production.

Regulations are a tax.  Requiring, say, electricity neutrality on new construction would certainly do the trick but at added expense.  It is more benign that carbon taxes though, since the increase in the price of the home would be 10% or so and there'd be no utility bill.  It would certainly solve the problem of up front costs since it would just be included in the mortgage.

I actually proposed that some time ago as a way to increase solar, however utilities would not stay silent on that one, they are already whining!  

Also, we must go beyond grid parity for solar, that will only get us 30% there due to grid stability.  Eventually we have to get to grid parity for solar/wind and storage combined.  Only then can renewables get to 100%.  It may take  a couple of decades but I'm optimistic we will eventually get there.

[rodroc]

This is really a hard question to answer and I am certain that everyone has their own opinion about it.  I believe that renewable energy is a must for our planet and that we must study and improve the current technologies that we have even further.  There are many ways to produce energy these days and although some of the natural and renewable forms are the best, there are still some times when industrial and normal generators are still the best option.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Related-
another coal plant is shutting down (but not soon enough)-
Article

[eds]

Jeremy Rifkin The Big Question!

[Maryam23]

Yep.