Global Warming does not matter

[realibrad]

Easy, monitor the plant exhaust stacks like they currently do and fine the companies that exceed prescribed limits. Fines increase with occurrences and/or excursion from limit amount.



Very little if any oil is used to produce electrical power and in most cases it's an emergency source (diesel genset) during power failures to restart the plant. Most of the oil in the US is refined for use in motor vehicles.

How is that not a tax though? Its not a tax per unit, but a tax above x amount per unit is it not?

 

[Cozarkian]

Still so much talk of worldwide solutions. How about a small starting point where efforts will be most efficient and go from there?

I propose solar panels for all schools and other government buildings in desert regions of the Southwest U.S and other high sun areas (Miami?).

 

[blastingcap]

Still so much talk of worldwide solutions. How about a small starting point where efforts will be most efficient and go from there?

I propose solar panels for all schools and other government buildings in desert regions of the Southwest U.S and other high sun areas (Miami?).

Yeah some businesses are already doing that.

Also can install solar thermal water heaters in those same areas.

I've long advocated for covering open-air aqueducts like in CA where you have miles of hot sun beating down on uncovered aqueducts. The evaporation losses would drop if you could just get some cover and the power would be useful for farmers in the area. So why hasn't it been done yet? The problem in the past was cost. The problem now is, well, cost, but in a different sort of way: thieves who steal solar panels. I wonder if schools and govt buildings would run into the same problems.

 

[Paul98]

If we really wanted to we could make a huge impact on reducing man made global warming. There just isn't the push to do it.

 

[Jaskalas]

If we really wanted to we could make a huge impact on reducing man made global warming. There just isn't the push to do it.

It comes with a cost.
The public is struggling with the cost benefit analysis.

The OP, to his credit, is directly tackling the aspects of the issue which are meaty, which we can sink our teeth into. The world's population is growing, our resources ARE finite, and the resource per person ratio is going to drop like a rock.

He is correctly saying that we need renewables just to survive. The issue is, they're not all mature tech, they too come with a cost, and the public isn't sold on the necessity.

It's understandable that the public doesn't "get it". We've never been richer, never lived more like Kings. We are fat, rich, and happy. Not going to let anyone rain on our parade... off a cliff.

My recommendation is to focus on deploying the best of our current tech while keeping research alive and "oiled" for the next gen. tech. I feel it's a safe, moderate proposal that wouldn't see too much backlash as long as it's presented with full context on why we're doing it.

 

[Subyman]

I am familiar with the "new" fission nuclear reactor designs. The issue is not just short term safety, it's also cost. There's the cost of procuring and processing fuel into usable increments. There's the cost of construction and shielding that from the population. The cost of securing, transporting, and storing waste. There's a long tail of costs, and it adds up. You have no such long tail of security/pollution/terror risks with other energy supplies.

I would much rather we spend more money on leapfrogging to fusion. In the meantime, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, hydro, ocean thermal power. Natural gas as a bridge fuel, taking up the slack that oil and coal leave behind. Reserve oil for industries that have no viable substitutes, like airlines.

A new fission power reactor would cost roughly $3-5B and take much longer than normal investments to begin generating a profit. Take into account the political risk of policy or the NRC halting the project, its too much for any investor to want to get into. The only way we can get a power reactor built now is if we have government backed loans to do it.

The upside of nuclear power is it is wonderful base load power and can be operational for 70+ years. Fusion is still a dream that may or may not pay off. We are in the materials phase of fusion, which could take decades to figure out if at all. Solar and wind are a pipe dream for large scale deployment. Hydro is all used up in the US, we've exploited practically all usable locations for hydro and there has even been a push to decommission dams in general.

Geothermal, wave, tidal, and ocean thermal are all location based and geographically sensitive. A huge push for R&D is likely to not happen because of limited deployment locations. Electricity can only travel around 600-700 miles from the power plant.

An interesting avenue that was discussed while I was in school is the research into small nuclear power self-contained units (SMRs.) They are built to have a small footprint, be quickly built off site and then erected on site, and some never need to be refueled. They last around 30 years. One module could give off up to 300MW, which is enough for around 200,000 houses. Many may be "stacked" on the same site to increase output. Most have a higher burn rate than normal reactors and there has been some research into breeder reactor design for a more complete usage of the fuel.

I think that would be an interesting short term solution that is not nearly as costly as a 3000MW+ power reactor.

 

[Darwin333]

As I said before, where money goes energy follows. Where are those damages paid? What do they spend that damage money on?

Subsidizing the clean energy we would be pushing with the goal of making the clean energy cheaper than the dirty energy and let the markets work from their.

It has to be done very carefully though. You can directly correlate the economic output of a country to its energy use.

 

[nickqt]

As a species, we should be working towards solar/wind/tidal/geothermal because that is energy that can be harvested that we're wasting by not harvesting it. Never mind the "cleanliness" of the energy, we're letting it go to waste by not harvesting it. Dumb.

And, while I buy the global warming hoax 100%, we should be working towards renewables because they are already there and just need to be harvested (efficiency in harvesting increased) and because we should be digging up oil and coal and then stockpiling it.

Oil is an awesome energy source because it packs a lot of punch for its weight. Rather than burning it for moving our stupid little cars, we should be using as much electric as possible and saving our oil. i.e. solar powered passenger jets are not even on the drawing board, space travel, etc, will be using hydrocarbons for the foreseeable future. So let's stockpile oil, and use electric for everything that we possibly can.

Not to mention that burning coal = mercury and other toxins in the water, air and land. The sooner we stop dumping toxins into the air, water and ground, the better, regardless of your political opinion on taxes or abortion.

Just forget about global warming. We should be upgrading our energy harvesting technology because it's just plain stupid to let all of that energy go to waste.

Energy = wealth, health, technology, discovery.

Let's expand our sources of harvestable energy, and in the meantime, try to save as much oil and coal as possible by using electric for as much as possible.

 

[Subyman]

It has to be done very carefully though. You can directly correlate the economic output of a country to its energy use.

You roughly can, but due to location relative to the equator of the country in question the country may use more or less energy. Tropical countries use substantially less energy than countries nearer to the poles. It can be a rough indicator, but the shortcomings in that correlation should be noted.

 

[desy]

As a believer in peak oil I support most of the OP's position
However nothing has even come close to the energy we get from traditional fossil fuels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

We have been blessed with cheap energy that has allowed our civilization to progress beyond what anybody could have imagined 150 years ago

 

[schmuckley]

in for check it out later.
tl;dr for now

 

[werepossum]

As a believer in peak oil I support most of the OP's position
However nothing has even come close to the energy we get from traditional fossil fuels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

We have been blessed with cheap energy that has allowed our civilization to progress beyond what anybody could have imagined 150 years ago

That's true, and will remain true for the foreseeable future. However, energy density is not the be-all and end-all in energy. Distributed energy such as solar is less disruptable and has much less distribution loss. Energy density's main requirement is in military use, where range versus weight can be a great force multiplier. It's also very nice to have in civilian transportation, of course, but there it's more flexible.

Besides, as Americans get older and fatter we have to stop to pee more often anyway. Might as well charge the battery whilst emptying our bladders and buying our Big Gulps.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah some businesses are already doing that.

Also can install solar thermal water heaters in those same areas.

I've long advocated for covering open-air aqueducts like in CA where you have miles of hot sun beating down on uncovered aqueducts. The evaporation losses would drop if you could just get some cover and the power would be useful for farmers in the area. So why hasn't it been done yet? The problem in the past was cost. The problem now is, well, cost, but in a different sort of way: thieves who steal solar panels. I wonder if schools and govt buildings would run into the same problems.

Pump some of that juice back into the metal frames of the panels. Problem solved

 

[Darwin333]

You roughly can, but due to location relative to the equator of the country in question the country may use more or less energy. Tropical countries use substantially less energy than countries nearer to the poles. It can be a rough indicator, but the shortcomings in that correlation should be noted.

You are correct, let me rephrase. A countries economic growth can be directly correlated to its increase of energy use. It does have to be adjusted here and there but as a general rule if a country uses more energy than they did the previous year they also had more economic output. It's not a law by any means but it is a general rule backed up by historical data.

My point was that we don't want to price ourselves out of using energy, we want to make our desired source of energy cost competitive.

Solar panels have gotten cheap as dirt (relative to the cost just 5 years ago when I got into the industry), they can still move downward a bit but at $.70/watt I don't see much movement as far as glass goes. Inverters have made technological and efficiency progress but are now a much larger percentage of the cost (because of the plummeting cost of glass). Mounting systems have gotten much better, far more installer friendly and efficient, and a tad bit cheaper on the materials in most cases.

IMO, we need to concentrate on some of the new manufacturing processes that increase efficiency of the panels, a huge push in energy storage and if possible a small push in integrated micro inverters.

For context, when I started it cost roughly $25K to put a 5KW system on a residential roof. Today I can put a 5KW system that is slightly better due to MPPT in the micro inverters I use versus the string inverters I used to use on the same residential roof for under $10K. If I was to go the "cookie cutter" route a crew of 3 or 4 guys can easily throw 3 systems up a day plus a few hours of an electricians time at each install.

On the roofing side we have BIP's (building integrated photovoltaic), where the roofing system has PV panels built into it have become popular. You quite literally install the solar at the same time as the roof as. Having a very strong roofing background I personally don't care for BIP used as a roofing material, solar panels have no moving parts and except for very neglible losses in efficiency over time they don't break unless something physically hits it with enough force (and they are rated up there with the roofs I install). Unfortunately, at least here in my state, average roof life is 20 years or so. Every single panel that I use has a 25 year warranty so when you replace the roof you are throwing away panels that are still under warranty, it's either impossible or not cost efficient to salvage them.

Still, at the end of the day everything from large commercial buildings to residential homes have a metric fuckton of unused space on their roofs that could be generating power right at the source that needs it. The ROI is there in most cases, it's the initial capital outlay that is the problem.

 

[werepossum]

You are correct, let me rephrase. A countries economic growth can be directly correlated to its increase of energy use. It does have to be adjusted here and there but as a general rule if a country uses more energy than they did the previous year they also had more economic output. It's not a law by any means but it is a general rule backed up by historical data.

My point was that we don't want to price ourselves out of using energy, we want to make our desired source of energy cost competitive.

Solar panels have gotten cheap as dirt (relative to the cost just 5 years ago when I got into the industry), they can still move downward a bit but at $.70/watt I don't see much movement as far as glass goes. Inverters have made technological and efficiency progress but are now a much larger percentage of the cost (because of the plummeting cost of glass). Mounting systems have gotten much better, far more installer friendly and efficient, and a tad bit cheaper on the materials in most cases.

IMO, we need to concentrate on some of the new manufacturing processes that increase efficiency of the panels, a huge push in energy storage and if possible a small push in integrated micro inverters.

For context, when I started it cost roughly $25K to put a 5KW system on a residential roof. Today I can put a 5KW system that is slightly better due to MPPT in the micro inverters I use versus the string inverters I used to use on the same residential roof for under $10K. If I was to go the "cookie cutter" route a crew of 3 or 4 guys can easily throw 3 systems up a day plus a few hours of an electricians time at each install.

On the roofing side we have BIP's (building integrated photovoltaic), where the roofing system has PV panels built into it have become popular. You quite literally install the solar at the same time as the roof as. Having a very strong roofing background I personally don't care for BIP used as a roofing material, solar panels have no moving parts and except for very neglible losses in efficiency over time they don't break unless something physically hits it with enough force (and they are rated up there with the roofs I install). Unfortunately, at least here in my state, average roof life is 20 years or so. Every single panel that I use has a 25 year warranty so when you replace the roof you are throwing away panels that are still under warranty, it's either impossible or not cost efficient to salvage them.

Still, at the end of the day everything from large commercial buildings to residential homes have a metric fuckton of unused space on their roofs that could be generating power right at the source that needs it. The ROI is there in most cases, it's the initial capital outlay that is the problem.

Interesting points, thanks. Can't you get 25 years from thirty year shingles? What about if you build a Chinese roof to lower shingle temperature?

 

[Subyman]

I agree with you conclusion. I made the same mistake when I was discussing the energy consumption vs GDP data with my professor, I saw the correlation but he explained the caveats. We shouldn't price energy in a way where it begins to have a negative effect on economic progress as a whole. I can agree with that.

 

[blastingcap]

As a believer in peak oil I support most of the OP's position
However nothing has even come close to the energy we get from traditional fossil fuels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

We have been blessed with cheap energy that has allowed our civilization to progress beyond what anybody could have imagined 150 years ago

You can still make biodiesel if petroleum becomes too expensive, but there's only so much cheap biodiesel feedstock to go around. So yes, reserve oil for things like planes. Things that don't need oil can use something else... cars can go electric, for instance. That electricity can come from renewables.

 

[OverVolt]

I look at how much technology has developed in the past century and can't help but wonder where we'll be in another 100 years. I'm optimistic that we'll eventually deal the problem quite effectively.

No we won't. We just got really good at burning oil. Gave us a bit of a power trip and sugar high. We've moved mountains to make it easier to drive to the diner. Its ridiculous. Nothing can match the energy density of oil and gas.

One of those dinky 4 pump gas stations pumping 24/7 is equivalent to a nuclear power plant.

We'd send a 20,000 lb firetruck to help a man stuck in the bathroom break down his door.

 

[Subyman]

You are correct, let me rephrase. A countries economic growth can be directly correlated to its increase of energy use. It does have to be adjusted here and there but as a general rule if a country uses more energy than they did the previous year they also had more economic output. It's not a law by any means but it is a general rule backed up by historical data.

My point was that we don't want to price ourselves out of using energy, we want to make our desired source of energy cost competitive.

Solar panels have gotten cheap as dirt (relative to the cost just 5 years ago when I got into the industry), they can still move downward a bit but at $.70/watt I don't see much movement as far as glass goes. Inverters have made technological and efficiency progress but are now a much larger percentage of the cost (because of the plummeting cost of glass). Mounting systems have gotten much better, far more installer friendly and efficient, and a tad bit cheaper on the materials in most cases.

IMO, we need to concentrate on some of the new manufacturing processes that increase efficiency of the panels, a huge push in energy storage and if possible a small push in integrated micro inverters.

For context, when I started it cost roughly $25K to put a 5KW system on a residential roof. Today I can put a 5KW system that is slightly better due to MPPT in the micro inverters I use versus the string inverters I used to use on the same residential roof for under $10K. If I was to go the "cookie cutter" route a crew of 3 or 4 guys can easily throw 3 systems up a day plus a few hours of an electricians time at each install.

On the roofing side we have BIP's (building integrated photovoltaic), where the roofing system has PV panels built into it have become popular. You quite literally install the solar at the same time as the roof as. Having a very strong roofing background I personally don't care for BIP used as a roofing material, solar panels have no moving parts and except for very neglible losses in efficiency over time they don't break unless something physically hits it with enough force (and they are rated up there with the roofs I install). Unfortunately, at least here in my state, average roof life is 20 years or so. Every single panel that I use has a 25 year warranty so when you replace the roof you are throwing away panels that are still under warranty, it's either impossible or not cost efficient to salvage them.

Still, at the end of the day everything from large commercial buildings to residential homes have a metric fuckton of unused space on their roofs that could be generating power right at the source that needs it. The ROI is there in most cases, it's the initial capital outlay that is the problem.

I see a large problem though. To really convert substantially off of fossil/nuclear energy we would need most residential roofs installed with PVs. Then take into account the replacement rate of 20-25 years on those panels. We are talking about replacing the entire US energy system on a 20-25 year cycle. Seems like an enormous amount of waste.

 

[blastingcap]

20-25 year cycle

We already do that with cars, you know, and on a shorter timeframe than 20-25 years.

Existing power plants have to be repaired and retrofitted from time to time, not 20-25 years but the equipment does depreciate. Same with ships, railroad tracks, pipelines, underground storage tanks for gasoline at the many gas stations around the world, etc. E.g., coal plants are often rated for only 30 years, we just keep running them over their designed lifespan and eat the higher repair costs and such, just like how some people keep driving old cars that are falling apart until the yearly repair bills are truly insane.

 

[werepossum]

I see a large problem though. To really convert substantially off of fossil/nuclear energy we would need most residential roofs installed with PVs. Then take into account the replacement rate of 20-25 years on those panels. We are talking about replacing the entire US energy system on a 20-25 year cycle. Seems like an enormous amount of waste.

We're already doing that with roofs (and shingles are very rarely recycled) as well as power plants and distribution. The aluminum wiring and transformers last a LONG time, but switches and generators get replaced or rebuilt on about that same schedule.

 

[ralfy]

Global warming still matters because fossil fuels are still needed to mine resources, manufacture, and transport components needed for renewable energy, not to mention the infrastructure that will distribute energy and consumer goods that will use it. On top of that, if more of that fossil fuels involve unconventional production, coal, etc., then carbon emissions may continue to rise. Finally, alternative sources may have low energy quality and quantity.

 

[blastingcap]

Global warming still matters because fossil fuels are still needed to mine resources, manufacture, and transport components needed for renewable energy, not to mention the infrastructure that will distribute energy and consumer goods that will use it. On top of that, if more of that fossil fuels involve unconventional production, coal, etc., then carbon emissions may continue to rise. Finally, alternative sources may have low energy quality and quantity.

I can't tell if you're trying to summarize this thread or if you didn't read the OP.

 

[Darwin333]

Interesting points, thanks. Can't you get 25 years from thirty year shingles? What about if you build a Chinese roof to lower shingle temperature?

It's New Orleans bud, it's rather rare that roofs last that long between the high heat, absurdly high humidity (we gotta chew our air before we breathe it sometimes), amount of rain, old construction meaning very hot attics, hurricanes and the rare hail storm they just don't last. Now the roof under the panels will be ok but the rest of the roof that isn't applicable for solar will wear at a normal rate. If you are going to reroof a house its usually rather silly to only do a portion of it.

Commercial roofs are a bit different depending on the type. Tile or slate roofs are pretty much true "lifetime" roofs barring physical damage like a tree falling onto it or a huge storm. Modern flat roofs, especially the SBS roofs that are so popular around here come with 20 year NDL warranties but its a crapshoot if they will last a few days, few months or a few years after that.

Even if you get another decade out of it, you still would be throwing away perfectly good panels. The method of removing old flat roofs just doesn't lend very well to salvaging them. Even if the owner wants to upgrade to new and much more efficient panels (since we are talking 20+ years in the future), I still don't like the idea of putting the old, still working, panels in the dump. I highly doubt we would have covered all of the currently wasted rooftops/areas in 20-25 years.

 

[Darwin333]

I see a large problem though. To really convert substantially off of fossil/nuclear energy we would need most residential roofs installed with PVs. Then take into account the replacement rate of 20-25 years on those panels. We are talking about replacing the entire US energy system on a 20-25 year cycle. Seems like an enormous amount of waste.

The roof needs to be replaced, generally, every 20-25 years. My entire point was that the panels are still good at the time of the reroof so imho we should be looking at installing them in a way that makes removing and reinstalling them easy. All of the mounting systems we use, and the vast majority of the racking systems used nationwide on residential houses are installed in a way that allows the panels to be easily removed, the racking/mounting system stays in place for the most part, and the panels are reinstalled after the roof is replaced.

I was talking about BIPV which has the PV panels built into the roofing material. Meaning the PV IS the roofing system and as such would most likely be damaged beyond reuse in the reroofing process.

Other than physical damage (and they can take a lot of punishment, often more than the roof they are installed on) solar panels don't break. They get slightly less efficient over time (15% loss over 25 years is the standard guarantee, prorated) but they don't break. The first solar cell EVER made still works to this day.