Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The discussion was about nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels in places such as W. Africa and other parts of the developing world. That's what the recent back & forth was focused on, as a follow-up to JT's well-reasoned post. I am absolutely in favor of building more nuclear power plants in Canada, the US, and other technologically advanced and politically stable parts of the developed world, and thought I made that clear a long time ago.

Had you read the link, you would notice that Canada has supplied that technology to other parts of the world.

[Muckle Flugga]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I honestly don't know where some of the solar advocates Extract some of their facts and figures.... Possibly their bums?

We happen to own a 46 panel solar array which was supposedly designed by a highly rated national contractor to power 85 percent of our electrical needs 9 years ago. The total cost $78,000 split between us $38,000 and the People's Republic of Massachusetts $40,000. We were also promised regular checks from some sort of "green scam" organization.

Well... After all the green crony middle men and women get their cuts, last year our annual check totaled a whopping $140. The system produces an average of $300 in electrical savings per month, but even after recently converting the entire home and business over to LED from fluorescent lighting, we still have an average monthly electrical bill of $150. My guess it that on average, our bill would normally be somewhere around $450-$500 even with the LED lighting.

At night and on snowy, rainy or overcast days, the system produces zero or close to zero electricity. Over the past 9.5 years, it has produced a total of 71,000kw hours.

Solar power is a net loser, I would never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone. It doesn't deliver what's promised, there're too many greenies with their hands in your pockets, and the financial recovery is way past the system obsolescence and probable expiration date.

When anyone really looks into the mess, you'll find that the biggest advocates rarely own a system themselves... They want others to do it so they can somehow put themselves in the middle financially. This from a real world, ten year experience.

Ken

To be fair, Ken, it would seem from your numbers that your system is indeed powering some 70 percent of your (rather substantial?) energy needs. And basing criticism of a technology wholesale on a 10 year old domestic array is a little bit like the owner of a Trabant in 1974 saying that cars will always be inefficient and unreliable, or the owner of a Sinclair zx81 rejecting computers as being useful for private individuals. Where I used to live in Cumbria (not really renowned for its suntan holidays) a 24 panel array would give 3000 watts during the central parts of most days… which is pretty good really. It isn't perfect yet. But it is getting both better and cheaper at a considerable pace.

[fryewe]

Thorium may be the answer...

Known uranium deposits are insufficient for world wide energy needs for the long term:

This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources (U as main product or major by-product) are considered – another 7.3 to 8.4 million tonnes (beyond the 5.9 Mt known economic resources), which takes us past 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption.

...and could, if all of it were mined and "burned", provide about a hundred years of projected energy needs.

Would contribute to the interval needed to develop the new technologies that the OP suggested might make the whole CC due to AGW question moot.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Thorium may be the answer...

Agreed.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

And basing criticism of a technology wholesale on a 10 year old domestic array is a little bit like the owner of a Trabant in 1974 saying that cars will always be inefficient and unreliable, or the owner of a Sinclair zx81 rejecting computers as being useful for private individuals. Where I used to live in Cumbria (not really renowned for its suntan holidays) a 24 panel array would give 3000 watts during the central parts of most days… which is pretty good really. It isn't perfect yet. But it is getting both better and cheaper at a considerable pace.

...strongly supporting the point Ken made in the OP...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Muckle Flugga

To be fair, Ken, it would seem from your numbers that your system is indeed powering some 70 percent of your (rather substantial?) energy needs. And basing criticism of a technology wholesale on a 10 year old domestic array is a little bit like the owner of a Trabant in 1974 saying that cars will always be inefficient and unreliable, or the owner of a Sinclair zx81 rejecting computers as being useful for private individuals. Where I used to live in Cumbria (not really renowned for its suntan holidays) a 24 panel array would give 3000 watts during the central parts of most days… which is pretty good really. It isn't perfect yet. But it is getting both better and cheaper at a considerable pace.

Yes, it does provide 70% of our needs, but look at the cost: $78,000 up front money 9 years ago. Nine years ago our monthly bill averaged $350 (cheap for Massachusetts) and would now be around $500 (still considered cheap for Massachusetts for the size of our place). If I just continued to pay the bills without the array, my break even point is somewhere around 15-20 years if you take into consideration lost investment potential of the initial money and interest payments. Remember, the $78,000 system only returns a savings of around $3,600 per year in 2015 dollars.

Advocates always give out the best case scenario numbers, never actual, real world usage numbers. There are only a limited number of sunny days per year, there are days... sometimes weeks when the panels are covered by snow, and even during the summer... the heat can cause a resistance issue with the wiring. None of this is mentioned by the salespeople. My experience is firsthand, not hype.

Was it a good deal. Absolutely not. Would we do it again... No.

The system needs to make financial sense.... maybe 50 years from now? But I'm presently 10 years into my systems future and it still doesn't make sense, nor are the panels much more efficient that are being made today.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Those of us fortunate enough to enjoy the relative luxury of first world lifestyles tend to take it for granted that the whole world is like this. It's not! The reality is that all the advantages we enjoy would not have been possible without the cheap energy that burning fossil allows. ...Worldwide, meaningful changes in how energy is produced will mean denying those hundreds of millions in the third world any chance to ever enjoy anything close to the lifestyles you and I take for granted. You might be OK with that, but I doubt if they are. Of course you'll never run into these people and you'll never see the misery they endure as a result of your misguided policy so you can feel good about having "done something," congratulations.

There is another option. Those of us who live in abject luxury compared to the vast majority of the world, must learn to live with less. But this is one idea that we can never even consider.

Even those who see the growing problem of climate change will almost never dare to suggest this. Instead we get platitudes about recycling, using compact fluorescent light bulbs, wind, solar, and buying an electric car. All these things are essential and great, but they will not fundamentally address the problem, which is overuse of resources. We use too much.

If the rich developed world's citizens accepted what we would euphemistically call a lower standard of living (and what the 4/5ths of the world still calls lavish) there could easily be enough resources to raise most of the developing world.

I know ... this is pie in the sky. It would require not just national, but global structural changes in resource distribution. It's not that this is impossible; economic globalization has brought about similar changes already. So it could be done (just like we could eradicate starvation or other forms of poverty), but it would require those of us with a lot, to accept somewhat less. But as I say, this can't even be discussed.

The idea of "less" is not even on the table ... it's not even in the room. Sadly, but realistically, this is why I see most of this discussion as simply shifting deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Kenomac]

I think the answers may be in wringing out more power from existing technology such as the turbo diesel cars over in Europe. Those little buggers are getting over 50 miles per gallon with plenty of HP, and cost half of what the hybrid vehicles cost in the US. But the greenies in the USA are afraid of diesel too... they cant seem to get past the mental image of a smoke belching city bus or semi.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Had you read the link, you would notice that Canada has supplied that technology to other parts of the world.

Yes, I read the link, and it appears to be technology that makes it more difficult but not impossible for its byproducts to be used to make dirty bombs, or with sufficient enrichment technology (like N. Korea & Iran has) to produce nuclear weapons out of its use of uranium.

At least that's what this Canadian environmental group is concerned about, but maybe they're just overly paranoid too:

http://environmentalsociety.ca/wp-co...Good-in-SK.pdf

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The system needs to make financial sense.... maybe 50 years from now? But I'm presently 10 years into my systems future and it still doesn't make sense, nor are the panels much more efficient that are being made today.

No ... our economics need to make ecological sense. THIS is the trap we are all caught in. We cannot see what is real. I believe this is the fundamental problem. We can't deal with limits, b/c our economics does not understand how to deal with finite global systems.

Now, where are those deck chairs? I have a few more to move .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Had you read the link, you would notice that Canada has supplied that technology to other parts of the world.

Does Canada also plan on supplying the money to the rest of the world for the construction of the reactors?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

No ... our economics need to make ecological sense. THIS is the trap we are all caught in. We cannot see what is real. I believe this is the fundamental problem. We can't deal with limits, b/c our economics does not understand how to deal with finite systems.

Now, where are those deck chairs? I have a few more to move .

Mike,

Under your premise.... no one will invest.

'Curious: Do you have a solar array or wind turbine for your home or past home? The boat doesn't count on this question.

Jack,

Do you have a solar array or wind turbine for your home?

Have either of you put your money where your convictions lie?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I think the answers may be in wringing out more power from existing technology such as the turbo diesel cars over in Europe. Those little buggers are getting over 50 miles per gallon with plenty of HP, and cost half of what the hybrid vehicles cost in the US. But the greenies in the USA are afraid of diesel too... they cant seem to get past the mental image of a smoke belching city bus or semi.

Yup! When I traveled by motorcycle through Europe 15 yrs. ago I noticed that any vehicle that was SUV-sized or larger was diesel powered. Diesel also produces less carbon monoxide than gasoline, is way more efficient fuel-economy wise, and b'twn the 99% sulfer-free fuels and vastly improved filters for the harmful solids, is much cleaner burning these days. When you compare this to electric cars or hybrids, it seems people fail to take into account the environmental impact of producing & disposing of the batteries, to say nothing of electric cars like the Tesla that have to be plugged in. What type of energy source do you think is largely responsible for producing that electricity?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Mike,

Under your premise.... no one will invest.

You're still stuck my friend. Look up and see the world for what it is. The planet's ecosystems don't run on money.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You're still stuck my friend. Look up and see the world for what it is. The planet's ecosystems don't run on money.

Mike,

So.... as an investor in a personal solar array 10 years ago ($38,000 of my money).... I'm the one who's "still stuck" in the past? 'Curious way to look at the situation.

Let me ask the question again.... Have you, Jack (and now I'll add Lake-effect), personally invested your hard earned money into solar or wind to power your home? Or, is it just all talk and no action?

Like I wrote, it needs to make financial sense for people to make the switch, otherwise... it's all talk.

I assure you, that working at a nurses wage $38,000 wasn't chump change at the time it was spent.