The Price of Kyoto

[ProfJohn]

We need to come up with a way to make CF bulbs cheaper though. I paid $15 for four CF bulbs the other day (trying to do my part) Meanwhile the old style bulbs were on sale for $2 for a 2 pack so for the same amount of money I could have bought 14 regular bulbs.
Way too many people will not understand why the extra money for a CF bulb is worth it.
And I don?t think all the education plans in the world will get all the poor people in this country to all of a sudden pay 7 times as much for a light bulb.

This above again explains a huge problem with global warming and environmentalism. Until you can attach a solid cost figure on it most people are not going to take action.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We need to come up with a way to make CF bulbs cheaper though. I paid $15 for four CF bulbs the other day (trying to do my part) Meanwhile the old style bulbs were on sale for $2 for a 2 pack so for the same amount of money I could have bought 14 regular bulbs.
Way too many people will not understand why the extra money for a CF bulb is worth it.
And I don?t think all the education plans in the world will get all the poor people in this country to all of a sudden pay 7 times as much for a light bulb.

This above again explains a huge problem with global warming and environmentalism. Until you can attach a solid cost figure on it most people are not going to take action.

You can pick up an 8 pack for about around $12 at sams/costco. These bulbs are expensive to make as the twisted glasses is still somewhat a manual process.

The last batch if CF bulbs i got all burned out within 2 years. I was disappointed in how long they lasted, but I am sure they still did save electricity in the end. Thinking of buying another batch soon. IF nothing else i do like the in frequent light bulb changes.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think we already touched on why Kyoto is such a worthless treaty.
It only applies to the developed nations in the world, not the developing ones.

So while we spend billions of dollars trying to make our already clean factories and power plants even cleaner the India and Chinas of the world open up dirty coal plants without a second thought.

Take this idea and spread it to the whole global warming scare and you see why so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented. Again, all these environmentalists (Al Gore types) focus on what the west should be doing and how much they should be spending, but ignore the fact that the growth of CO2 and other pollutants are going to be primarily from these growing countries.
The US may in fact produce 20% of all the world?s pollutants, or whatever the percentage is, but over the next 20 years the gross amount of pollutants coming from the US will most likely rise very little. In the meantime China and India will see the amount of pollution coming from their countries double. The best and most effective way to stop this growth is to work with these countries to enact tougher standards. And perhaps back that up with economic aid aimed directly at pollution reducing.

Pollutants, yes, but not CO2.

The west has done a pretty good job of reducing 'pollutants' with catalytic converters, cleaner technologies, etc. It is an ongoing process, but in terms of 'poisoning' our world, we're on the right track, even if we're not htere yet.

CO2 pretty much maps directly to total energy use, because most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro-electric, and the easiest of those to expand in this world and today's political climate is fossil fuels.

Unless that changes, North America will continue to be leaders in the CO2 problem as long as our energy use grows. China and India may become huge contributors as well, but that won't really reduce our impact.

China and India have 2 billion people, we have 300 million.
Do the math; it will not take long for them to pass us in every category.
China's GPD is already 75% of ours. Within 10 years they should pass us. India might take 20 years. But both of these countries GDP growths will be easy because in terms of GDP per capita they are WAY behind us. As these countries go from being poor countries to even moderately wealthy their outputs in every category of pollution, including CO2, will rise dramatically.

Yes, we should take steps to reduce our CO2 output. But even something as dramatic as a 10% cut in US CO2 output will be meaningless on a world stage if China and India double their output. We need a global solution, not one that focuses only on the developed nations of the world.

 

[Moonbeam]

I remember when we couldn't reduce the nuclear threat because of jobs. Too many people would loose their jobs if we stopped building weapons.

Humanity will either awaken or go extinct. All signs point to the latter.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison
If global warming is the real threat it is proclaimed to be, there is really only one solution and that is nuclear power. With nuclear power we could close all of the coal fired plant and that alone would probably drop out co2 emissions by 50%. IF the greens continue to say wind and solar is the answer we know global warming really is not a problem. Neither one of those power resources are are anywhere near able to provide the energy our economy needs at this point in time.


That being said, nuclear power and nuclear waste recycling is the answer to global warming.
Wind and solar are not there yet. Wind is probably capable of providing 10-20% of our power needs and it is starting to become a cost effective solution. Solar probably needs another 10-20 years before it become a competitive solution.

On an interesting note, walmart has started a push this year to sell 100million(one for each household in the US) CF bulbs. If they are successful in this would be the equivalent of turning off 2 power plants. Walmart also said they saved $6M last year by switching their to CF bulbs in their ceiling fan displays.

That's not even remotely true. Nuclear power is certainly a useful technology, but solar power and wind power are more than capable of solving the vast majority of our energy problems. While solar power is expensive at the start, there are economies of scale that aren't being utilized right now...and the initial expense of installing solar panels is offset in a fairly short amount of time. And the advances in solar technology necessary to make it an even better choice should be available in less time than it would take to build a whole bunch of new nuclear reactors.

But of course looking at "right now" is a silly way to address any threat. Even if solar were 10-20 years away from being a competitive solution, that would STILL make it a good technology to invest in right now. The pace of development always goes up with increased interest, and moving towards solar might shrink that 20 years to 10 years at the most. Ignoring the technology in favor of nuclear power will assure that cheap, efficient solar energy won't happen for much longer.

But the reality is that there isn't one solution. The best course of action involves all sorts of possibilities, since we don't know what will eventually be the best. Dismissing solar and wind because they aren't perfect now is short sighted, as ALL technology has to start somewhere...and solar and wind have the greatest long term promise for clean, unlimited energy.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison
If global warming is the real threat it is proclaimed to be, there is really only one solution and that is nuclear power. With nuclear power we could close all of the coal fired plant and that alone would probably drop out co2 emissions by 50%. IF the greens continue to say wind and solar is the answer we know global warming really is not a problem. Neither one of those power resources are are anywhere near able to provide the energy our economy needs at this point in time.


That being said, nuclear power and nuclear waste recycling is the answer to global warming.
Wind and solar are not there yet. Wind is probably capable of providing 10-20% of our power needs and it is starting to become a cost effective solution. Solar probably needs another 10-20 years before it become a competitive solution.

On an interesting note, walmart has started a push this year to sell 100million(one for each household in the US) CF bulbs. If they are successful in this would be the equivalent of turning off 2 power plants. Walmart also said they saved $6M last year by switching their to CF bulbs in their ceiling fan displays.

That's not even remotely true. Nuclear power is certainly a useful technology, but solar power and wind power are more than capable of solving the vast majority of our energy problems. While solar power is expensive at the start, there are economies of scale that aren't being utilized right now...and the initial expense of installing solar panels is offset in a fairly short amount of time. And the advances in solar technology necessary to make it an even better choice should be available in less time than it would take to build a whole bunch of new nuclear reactors.

But of course looking at "right now" is a silly way to address any threat. Even if solar were 10-20 years away from being a competitive solution, that would STILL make it a good technology to invest in right now. The pace of development always goes up with increased interest, and moving towards solar might shrink that 20 years to 10 years at the most. Ignoring the technology in favor of nuclear power will assure that cheap, efficient solar energy won't happen for much longer.

But the reality is that there isn't one solution. The best course of action involves all sorts of possibilities, since we don't know what will eventually be the best. Dismissing solar and wind because they aren't perfect now is short sighted, as ALL technology has to start somewhere...and solar and wind have the greatest long term promise for clean, unlimited energy.

Youa re not even close.

Wind is getting close to be a cost effective means to generate electricity. When the federal subsidy for wind power temporarly disappeared, wind generate greatly slowed. When the energy bill passed and the subsidies were returned, wind energy started to get installed again. However it will probably never account for more than 20% of the grid as it is unreliable power source(not always on).

Currently the government subsidies for solar is driving solar prices up now down. This will probably be relieved in a few years as supply catches up. Solar has a lot of potential, more than wind if you ask me. however it is at least triple the cost of the normal power generation at this point. I do expect that within 10-20 years rooftop solar will be mainstream, but right now there are just far better ways of saving enegy than going solar for the dollar.

 

[Moonbeam]

A war on solar cell tech like the war to reach the moon is all it would take to make us energy independent, I think.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I think the big problem with ANY discussion of economics of pollution (of any sort, not just that related to global warming), fossil fuel dependency, etc, is that the argument tends to be a struggle between groups that just want to keep doing whatever they are doing and groups that want them to stop. It's a silly argument in that context because it ignores the basic practical rules of how change happens...in economics or anywhere else. "Meeting Kyoto" or any other arbitrary standards would have a HUGELY negative impact on our economy without any other changes.

And that's the key, reducing emissions can't happen by itself. As some astute people have noticed, "green" technology is going to be a huge growth area in the near future, and it will give Western countries a huge economic edge over countries who have an industrial revolution approach to waste. As China and India realize the corner they are backing themselves into, they will be forced to buy the products we've spent years developing. Replacing coal power plants with solar farms might not be so good for the power plant owners, but it will be a net economic gain in the long term for the rest of us...including the folks who build the new, clean, power sources. Which is really the economic point, it says that overall things will be good, not that everyone will get rich doing whatever the hell they want. The negative economic projections not only seem to assume that no change will happen in affected industries, but it takes a suspiciously short view, where the long term economic benefits of decreasing the amount of fossil fuel we burn are not taken into account. And they especially ignore the fact that green energy sources are getting cheaper, while fossil fuels are getting more expensive...a trend that can't possibly reverse itself.

It is true that we stand to gain as a whole from implementing these changes, but who will be the big loser stuck with the check? The only entity that might consider it would be the US government, which is already spending way more than it's bringing in. I think a boost in the relevant research funds would more than pay for itself (though I admit I'm more than a little biased, since my career depends on similar funding), but it's still only a small piece of the puzzle.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You want to know why I think "so many people are not happy with the way the issue is presented"? Because it's a big problem that will require major changes in how we live, and faced with something like that, people like to stick their heads in the sand and wish for the problem to go away. But it's not going to. Even if you hate Al Gore, or think the "greenie-weenies" are a bunch of radical idiots, consider this. In 100 years or less, our society will either have moved away from burning fossil fuels for energy or it will have ceased to exist as we know it today. And that's an optimistic projection. Pollution from fossil fuels is bad for our environment, and we're going to run out, probably within my lifetime. You argument about what's "fair" couldn't be less relevant, this is a problem that needs to be faced rationally, and I don't know about you, but I don't trust China and India to be that far thinking. If they want to revert to the 18th century at the end of the 21st, I'm not sure we can stop them...but I see no reason to be dragged along with them.

I think the bolded sentence hits the nail on the head. The only way significant changes will occur is if we can make such a transition as seamless as possible. On the domestic front, I see these things as the largest obstacles to such a transition:

1. Opposition to nuclear power and funding for solar power. This is a relatively quick and easy way to replace coal as the primary energy source, though it's a bit pricy in the short run. This takes care of the environmental woes of electricity generation in one fell swoop.

2. The development of an infrastructure for the deployment of a new fuel type for transportation. This includes production facilities for the new fuel of choice, development of vehicles that actually use said fuel, and building the distribution supply line. This would all need to happen on a relatively short timescale to make purchasing relevant new vehicles a feasible alternative. With such a quick turnover, we also should consider the need for backward-compatibility for aging cars. I understand that #2 cannot happen overnight, so this will likely be an automatic outcome, but it bears consideration.

#3. Lack of investment in mass transit. I have always been and always will be a fan of the autonomy of driving, but I always have been and always will be just as big a fan of the utility of mass transit. The environmental impact of non-point sources (primarily vehicles) is of primary importance. Small vehicles will always be less efficient than major power producing facilities, so the less they are used, the better off everyone will be. However, this requires a massive investment by the government (or some far-sighted private venture group) to implement the necessary infrastructure. I would never drive the 300 miles to my parent's house again if I could hop a train there and get there in 1/3 the time for the same price. Instead, it currently takes me about 10 hours by train and costs 2.5 times as much. That's just not going to cut it, so instead I'll pump an extra 100 pounds of CO2 out next time I go home. The alternative has to be appealing from a money/time standpoint before anyone would use it.

I think #1 is a no-brainer. It, coupled with increased funding of fusion research, is THE solution to the problem of green electric generation.

#2 is a little trickier, but only further research will truly indicate the right direction here. I believe its success is contingent on #3, as #3 could create enough of a market shift that the relevant companies would be willing to make the investment to stay in the game. Indeed, oil companies own virtually all important patents on alternative energy generation methods and techniques already. They currently just have no motivation to use them on a grand scale, since they're making money hand over fist the old-fashioned way.

 

[Butterbean]

Just this week I read a 1975 article from Newsweek Magazine warning about the impending disater of global cooling. It's the same hysteria we have now except in reverse. Temperature changes/fluctuations are not unusual over time. How did glaciers come and go otherwise? I think anthropomorphic global warming is a racket although the sun is no doubt getting warmer. The political and financial motivations of GW are pretty clear and scaring young kids is pretty lame.

From Newsweek:

"The Cooling World" - by Peter Gwynne

"There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts ofIndia,Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it...

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural

productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. ?A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,? warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, ?because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century...

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112828-5298r.htm

It's almost funny educated people can be so taken in by this hysteria. Climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado sums it up well:


"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike. "

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807


Bird flu is a more likely threat people

 

[Schadenfroh]

DailyTech now has a story up:
http://www.dailytech.com/Dirty+Little+Secrets+of+Global+Warming/article5960.htm

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Kyoto from the get-go has been a controversial agreement and beyond the legislation's flaws, I want to understand the real costs of implementing a strategy of greenhouse gas emissions. There have been some compelling studies endorsing the concept of global warming and add 'global dimming' to the equation and we might have more of an animal than we might think.

Personally I am of the mindset that the earth is warming (as expected; it does go in and out of iceages) but I do feel there is an unnatural imbalance taking place accelerating significant and negative climate change. As a libertarian, I want limited state involvement in this and I'd rather have citizens within a country demand corporations set ethical environmental standards. Unfortunately CO2 emissions are not accepted as a pollutant by enough people or corporations to make the difference alone. I am getting scary flashbacks to smoking craze where people were aware or at least knew smoking was bad; but there were cover-ups and campaigns to make it look less worse than it was.

We hear from economists that implementing Kyoto would cost our nations billions upon billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. I am interested in understanding how they come to these conclusions as there many unknowns in this clearly defined outcome. For example, you could say a tax could raise costs of manufacturing and reduce profits/jobs and you could look at all the people who work for coal and oil companies. What about the industry created by researching new technology to export to the world; all willing to invest in emissions reductions. What about the investment in construction projects all paid for by the same funds allocated to coal and oil sectors.

I really question the models out there that say the costs are through the roof when there are several european countries who have implemented and gone beyond kyoto targets, experienced good growth. Lets look at UK for example.
[CO2 emissions]http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/progress/national/images/1.gif[/l]
Kyoto target: 12.5% (compared to EU = 8%, US = 7%, Canada = 6%)
Current reduction since kyoto: 13%
GDP Growth
UK unemployment
UK employment

What are your thoughts on:
a) The cost of reducing emissions
b) The UK example
c) Global climate change
d) Kyoto

Discuss.

How about the cost of doing nothing? Let's look at that.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The negative economic projections not only seem to assume that no change will happen in affected industries, but it takes a suspiciously short view, where the long term economic benefits of decreasing the amount of fossil fuel we burn are not taken into account. And they especially ignore the fact that green energy sources are getting cheaper, while fossil fuels are getting more expensive...a trend that can't possibly reverse itself.

That is a great point.

With the constantly increasing growth of energy needs in countries like India and China, the fossil fuels cow will be milked to dry at an accelerating rate. Solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, bio, ect. will have to, eventually, completely supplant them. At this point all that is required is the collective will to do so, as MB put it-

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A war on solar cell tech like the war to reach the moon is all it would take to make us energy independent, I think.

Though it was better characterized as the "moon race", and all the promising alternatives, should be vigorously researched and funded on a massive scale.

 

[johnnobts]

my carbon footprint is less than al gore's, or jaques chirac, or ralph nader, and all the other pro-kyoto goobs. just a bunch of rich, liberal elitists who fly in fancy jets and tell the rest of us how not to live.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

What do you fly in, a kite? Or do you just flap your arms when you need to go someplace.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DVK916
The price of not doing kyoto is billions dead by 2100.

lmao I can assure you billions will die by 2100 even without signing kyoto.

The bottom line is Kyoto was crap and wouldnt have affected global warming anyways.

 

[piasabird]

We already support in the USA attempts to reduce emissions. Cars are cleaner now, the EPA works hard to get companies to reduce emissions. Everywhere the big western nations are trying to reduce emissions. However, many other countries have a long way to go to catch up with our efforts. Half the world is exempt from the treaty.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: Rainsford
The negative economic projections not only seem to assume that no change will happen in affected industries, but it takes a suspiciously short view, where the long term economic benefits of decreasing the amount of fossil fuel we burn are not taken into account. And they especially ignore the fact that green energy sources are getting cheaper, while fossil fuels are getting more expensive...a trend that can't possibly reverse itself.

That is a great point.

With the constantly increasing growth of energy needs in countries like India and China, the fossil fuels cow will be milked to dry at an accelerating rate. Solar, nuclear, wind, hydro, bio, ect. will have to, eventually, completely supplant them. At this point all that is required is the collective will to do so, as MB put it-

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
A war on solar cell tech like the war to reach the moon is all it would take to make us energy independent, I think.

Though it was better characterized as the "moon race", and all the promising alternatives, should be vigorously researched and funded on a massive scale.

Actually, I think Moonbeam's term is more accurate for what is happening right now. There is this massive, totally unexplainable, fight against solar energy. It mostly involves spreading nonsense about how effective it is or can be in the future, but I'm lost as to the motivation.

 

[Mill]

I don't think Carbon Trading and Carbon taxes are "retarded" as one poster claimed. I think they can be very good, but their implementation in Kyoto and by other governments has been flawed. Let's not kill off an idea because of poor implementation.

 

[aka1nas]

Agreed. Finding a way to quantify the cost of pollution allows the free market to allocate resources most effectively. Free markets aren't able to deal with externalities. Kyoto's flaw was that it gave the countries who will soon be producing the majority of global pollution a free pass and even more incentive for Western companies to outsource more manufacturing and other industrial jobs to those countries.

This is really too bad as the basic idea is very sound and is far better than a more government-oriented solution.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: aka1nas
Agreed. Finding a way to quantify the cost of pollution allows the free market to allocate resources most effectively. Free markets aren't able to deal with externalities. Kyoto's flaw was that it gave the countries who will soon be producing the majority of global pollution a free pass and even more incentive for Western companies to outsource more manufacturing and other industrial jobs to those countries.

This is really too bad as the basic idea is very sound and is far better than a more government-oriented solution.

This outsourcing to less-regulated countries is what gave me the idea for the solution that I proposed here. If everyone in the world had to emit air as clean as they did in the US, further regulation may not even be needed. However, instead, countries in the US are forced to pay more to produce the same good at a decreased environmental cost or move elsewhere to pay less economically but at a greater environmental cost.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think Moonbeam's term is more accurate for what is happening right now. There is this massive, totally unexplainable, fight against solar energy. It mostly involves spreading nonsense about how effective it is or can be in the future, but I'm lost as to the motivation.

The fight against solar is not unexplainable. Quite simply solar is currently at a minimum 3x most costly than cheapest power source. It is just not financially possible for solar to be cost effective at this point. I think this will change in a decade or two.

 

[SickBeast]

Kyoto is obviously a failure. The US, China, and India are not involved, and they're the 3 worst polluters out there, probably accounting for over 1/2 of the world's carbon emmisions.

IMO they should have held a consortium on how to set up laws, taxes, and government to encourage green industry.

We should subsidize China so that they can go nuclear instead of using coal for power.

The cost of implementation is next to nothing for Europe, and a ton for Canada. I agree with Harper that it's a socialist scheme. We will pay out billions to Europe under the plan.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think Moonbeam's term is more accurate for what is happening right now. There is this massive, totally unexplainable, fight against solar energy. It mostly involves spreading nonsense about how effective it is or can be in the future, but I'm lost as to the motivation.

The fight against solar is not unexplainable. Quite simply solar is currently at a minimum 3x most costly than cheapest power source. It is just not financially possible for solar to be cost effective at this point. I think this will change in a decade or two.

I'd be curious as to where exactly you got that number, as comparing a fixed one-time cost to a recurring cost is difficult at best without providing a time frame. Saying it's "3 times as expensive" is silly because solar has high fixed costs and very low recurring cost, something that is not matched by "the cheapest power source". For home installations, solar starts becoming cheaper after 15 or so years, for businesses it's even less (as businesses use more power during daylight hours). In fact, many businesses with high energy usage are installing (and using) solar solutions because they will save them money in a fairly short amount of time. It might be more expensive up front than just staying hooked to the grid, but it doesn't take too long before you get back your investment.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't have any real information, just some BS you picked up from who knows where. But that's the basis of your opinion on the topic, rather than actually trying to find out the facts. That's totally inexplicable to me, unless you just dislike solar power and are trying to fit the facts around the decision you already made.

You want to know what I think the problem with solar is? People just don't buy into the whole "free energy" idea. Our society has, above all else, told everyone that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And we believe it, to the point where we're instantly suspicious of anything that promises to be a huge leap forward in price over something we pay through the nose for now. Most of the time this is a decent assumption to make, but there are cases where it's just simply not true. Solar power is a perfectly workable solution that is cheaper, better, cleaner and more abundant than getting our energy from coal or oil. Period.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Actually, I think Moonbeam's term is more accurate for what is happening right now. There is this massive, totally unexplainable, fight against solar energy. It mostly involves spreading nonsense about how effective it is or can be in the future, but I'm lost as to the motivation.

The fight against solar is not unexplainable. Quite simply solar is currently at a minimum 3x most costly than cheapest power source. It is just not financially possible for solar to be cost effective at this point. I think this will change in a decade or two.

I'd be curious as to where exactly you got that number, as comparing a fixed one-time cost to a recurring cost is difficult at best without providing a time frame. Saying it's "3 times as expensive" is silly because solar has high fixed costs and very low recurring cost, something that is not matched by "the cheapest power source". For home installations, solar starts becoming cheaper after 15 or so years, for businesses it's even less (as businesses use more power during daylight hours). In fact, many businesses with high energy usage are installing (and using) solar solutions because they will save them money in a fairly short amount of time. It might be more expensive up front than just staying hooked to the grid, but it doesn't take too long before you get back your investment.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't have any real information, just some BS you picked up from who knows where. But that's the basis of your opinion on the topic, rather than actually trying to find out the facts. That's totally inexplicable to me, unless you just dislike solar power and are trying to fit the facts around the decision you already made.

You want to know what I think the problem with solar is? People just don't buy into the whole "free energy" idea. Our society has, above all else, told everyone that there is no such thing as a free lunch. And we believe it, to the point where we're instantly suspicious of anything that promises to be a huge leap forward in price over something we pay through the nose for now. Most of the time this is a decent assumption to make, but there are cases where it's just simply not true. Solar power is a perfectly workable solution that is cheaper, better, cleaner and more abundant than getting our energy from coal or oil. Period.

When you get a chance, price out a solar system that can run your typical house. You will quickly find staying attached to grid is far cheaper than paying for the loan for "free" electricity from solar. You will find it is $20-30k to run a typical household and that is only when the sun is shining and you will still need to get on the grid.

And to make matters worse, there is glut of government subsidy right now that is actually driving solar prices higher as it is causing panel shortages. These shortages will probably not be resolved for the next year or two.

Solar maybe cleaner and more abundant, but it is not cheaper right now. IF solar continues to cut its cost in 1/2 every decade, it will become a viable energy source in the next 10-20 years. It is getting there, but it is not there now.