Is Energy conservation a waste of time? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 11:25:42 am
content: Interesting article from RShttp://uk.rs-online.com/web/generalDisplay.html?id=eTech&_ptn=RSUK&cm_mmc=EmailUK-_-Electronics-_-eTech-_-Feb11So why is it so bloody cold here then

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 12:43:39 pm
content: I think until we get there, we need to use energy efficiently. A reason behind it is not specifically to prevent pollution from byproducts of energy production, but that we are consuming more faster because of the many devices we have at home, that the industrial sources that produce electricity may not be able to keep up with demand until new energy sources come on line. Oil sources that were once dominated by Western consumption is now consumed by Russia, China, and Indian continents, who now into 1st world status, will/is/does consume far more than the west combined.Then there is still Africa, waiting to consume resources as it emerges from 3rd world status.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 02:06:15 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on February 11, 2011, 12:43:39 pmSorry! It's been along winter here in the uk, Cold and wet unlike the summer when it is warm and wet sigh! Think I need a sunshine holiday

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 03:57:01 pm
content: Quote from: FreeThinker on February 11, 2011, 02:06:15 pmhead south.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 04:26:24 pm
content: From a recent IET magazine (E&T) article titled Empire of the Sun."According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), our Total Primary Energy Supply (TOES) will reach 21.8TW by the year 2030, up from 13.7TW today. But the solar radiation shining on this planet is 173,000TW, of which 120,000TW strikes the surface. It is the primary energy source on Earth and exceeds our primary energy demand by a factor of 8,000. To meet the TPES demands by 2030 would only require the covering of 0.6 per cent of emerged lands with solar systems that have a net solar efficiency of 10 per cent."Yes, 0.6%.China is an ideal platform for new innovative sustainable energy sources because their economy is growing so aggresively.Energy conservation is just buying us more time to develop economical alternative energy sources. Take a look at Intel's CPUs. Efficiency goes up with each arcitecture but power consumption still increases.

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 04:59:18 pm
content: Quote from: Alex on February 11, 2011, 04:26:24 pmNot that easy to achieve (and maintain)...

author: the_raptor
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 05:04:36 pm
content: But it isn't like solar panels are free. IIRC to make good ones you need to use various "expensive" compounds.Anyway the issue has never been electrical energy, it has been CHEAP electrical energy. As the price of energy from the grid goes up it becomes more economical for individual households to shift to shift to solar panels etc.Wind/Solar etc is just not as cheap as burning fossils. And fusion will likely never be unless we discover a lot of new science (even if we get reliable energy positive fusion it is still likely to be barely energy positive, thus making it not very economical).As the Indian, Brazilian, and Chinese middle class develops we in the West can kiss goodbye to our cheap luxuries that resulted from our Imperial past.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 06:17:10 pm
content: Good minds in the developing world say the if global warming is true, and energy dwindling is true, most of the emerging world has only gotten to near first world status in the last 30 years, but the greenhouse gases come from hundreds of years of industrialization. How can they be involved thus? It would seem the earth's polluted future is caused by less than 10% of its inhabitants, mainly from Europe and North America; so these 2 alone are mostly the cause and thus should pay for taking most of the world' resources, for contributing to most of the world's environmental crisis [not just warming, but land pollution, overfishing, etc.,] and also the leaders for its solution.Quote from: the_raptor on February 11, 2011, 05:04:36 pm

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 07:11:00 pm
content: Estimates of the temperature rise range from 1oC (not harmful, we'll be fine and can be attributed to natural causes) and 6oC (we're fucked), although I see no need to panic as the recent warming is in-line with the lower range of these figures, sorry I can't fine the link to the article on the Met office. Still that depends on the increase in emissions along with many other factors.Even when climate change is ignored, there are still limited reserves as oil so unless we change our energy source within a couple of centuries we'll go back to the dark ages.

author: EricF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 08:18:11 pm
content: Oh boy, I probably shouldn't start this but I'm bored and looking to stimulate some "lively" discussion.I find the whole concern over climate change/energy efficiency and carbon footprint rather amusing for many reasons. My main three are as follows:1. The sheer hubris of climatologists that claim to be able to predict what will happen to climate in the future based upon very limited observations of extremely few variables (of the total involved with climate, many or most of which we don't know). Fiddling with knowingly incomplete climate models until they model the past does not mean they will accurately model the future.2.The sheer hubris of politicians and activists that think they can really influence the decisions of 7 billion people of vastly different cultures and educational backgrounds to ignore their self interest and act in the interest of the collective good. The combined sheer inertia of human ignorance and self interest (and I contribute more than my share in both categories) makes this ludicrous. Tilt at windmills with Al Gore if that is your thing, but don't make me pay for your lances.3. The ultimate hubris of the human race to think that in the geological time scale we are important. If the entire history of the earth was compressed down into 24 hours, all of recorded human history adds up to less than 3 seconds. The only reason we even exist is due to a cosmic accident involving a large meteor striking the earth and wiping out the then successful dinosaurs. If we are causing global climate change and cause another mass extinction, life WILL go on without us. It just won't be us.Oh, the hubridity!Now go have an energy wasting, carbon non-neutral adventure! (Please google "nihilism xkcd" for a cartoon explanation.)EricF -fan of Stephen Jay Gould, Omar Khayyam and xkcd.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 08:49:33 pm
content: Quote from: EricF on February 11, 2011, 08:18:11 pmMy Thoughts entirely.Very little in the way of solid facts, contradictory theories based on those facts and vast amounts of hype and vested self interest.My personal view is (based on very few facts) that 'Global warming' is a very handy boogie man to use to kill the equally scary boogie man Nuclear power.As the developed world has become more and more reliant on oil there governments and military power have become more and more scared of the power they (the oil producers) wield.Cleaning up the Nuclear image was vital and difficult, Up steps global warming and suddenly Nuclear power is mr nice guy.It's taken me over 50 years to become this cynical, how old are you?

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 09:23:43 pm
content: The answer is a variation on Pascal's wager, just substitute god for climate.If predictions are wrong, and we act, humanity lives, but waste time in climate related expenses.If predictions are wrong, and we do nothing, nothing will happen, humanity lives as is.If predictions are right, and we do nothing, we die once climate predictions are past point of no return.If predictions are right, and we act, we live, as we do what is needed by predictions.So even if the climate issue is in err, we have everything to gain by acting on its assumed truth since the key issue is costs versus survival, and if survival is a must, then it should be achieved at any cost.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 11, 2011, 09:45:30 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on February 11, 2011, 09:23:43 pmHaving your life governed by mass hysteria is not the way I want to live .What is needed is more solid scientific evidence and less chicken little 'The sky is falling In' attitude. The resources allocated to PROVING global warming are frighteningly small compared to the potential impact of it being correct. If governments REALLY considered global warming as a real threat to their government (or God forbid to their lives or way of life) every man women and child would be brought into play to man the pumps.However If it is all smoke and mirrors this sort of expenditure bites deep into the champagne and caviar budget.Anyways I'll probably be long gone before the shit hits the fan so that Holiday in the sun still looks good to me Lol.... Going for a beer Cya all.

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 11:12:56 am
content: Let's look at what happened until now...It's some years that the green economy is being prepared. They started telling us that climate will change and oil will finish. "Efficiency" sometimes has become a good word to start selling new products.I'm scared about oil finishing, and pollution, but I'm not confident the current way we're facing energy problem is the right one. I think this is business, and a big one ("green" economy, but "green" is maybe the color of $, not of chlorofyl).If the intention was to solve the problem, or to reduce it, they won't have pushed wasting, as they've done. For example, some of the incentives on solar and wind that we pay and will pay for many years (at least here in Europe) bring the message "waste as much as you can, since you produce with renewable energy". This cannot be the way!Another thing that seems ridiculous is that we are all concentrated on electrical power. The real fact is that transportation, industrial and home heating are the most consuming activities, but little effort has been done for that. For example, if photovoltaic had to be incentivated, I'd have put the constraint of using heat pumps for heating, in houses.I think that reducing consumes is the way to start. There is a know-how on reusing, saving things and making them on your own which is going to disappear. This has more to do with education (please correct me if I used the wrong word, I mean the one that is done inside families and in the society, not only into school) and economy.

author: EricF
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 03:39:42 pm
content: Quote from: saturation on February 11, 2011, 09:23:43 pmSaturation,I really respect your opinion, and see where you are coming from. (Thanks for all your helpful posts on the forum!) But your wager here is full of assumptions that I don't agree with. The main one is that concerted action from the worlds population is possible or will have any significant effect. Trying to control human behavior is a tricky thing at best, even in a homogeneous society where reward and punishment for certain actions is ingrained, immediate, and universally accepted. It is usually only effective in very small homogeneous groups, and even then tends to break down when the long term objective you are trying to reach is opposed to immediate personal gain. Self interest is a very powerful, strongly genetically influenced force that can only be overcome by equally strong environmental factors. It most often requires a totalitarian state to even begin to have success in this regard. This is basically how armed forces have always worked, forcefully indoctrinating an individual to potentially give up his life for some future goal that he/she will not be around to benefit from. It is a very hard thing to do, and to do it for 7 billion people in disparate situations (where some might even realize some benefit from climate change) is, as I stated before, tilting at windmills.So if I really believed that we are all so rational and foresighted enough to come together, maybe I could buy into your premises. But my experience with humans (myself included, when I look at my behavior as honestly as I can) is that in the long run, we almost always choose the road of self interest when we can get away with it without strong immediate consequences. It is how evolution works. It is not inherently good or bad, it just is. I am trying hard not to pass value judgments here, it just fits in withEricF's Current Model of Human Behavior and How It Relates to the World(tm) (a model that is extremely imperfect, full of its own assumptions, and subject to daily change).As an aside, I never cared much for Pascal's wager as it related to God. It seems to assume that the God you are talking about is easily fooled into letting you into paradise when the only reason you believe in him is because you have bet on him for personal future gain. It sort of seems to imply you can game the whole system of getting into heaven. (I am an atheist, but it always bothered me.)Cheers,EricF

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 04:16:09 pm
content: Hey GuysThis is getting heavy! Time to chill a bit (and the rain has stopped here so I'm a lot happier). The main questions we should be asking are1) Does global warming exist ie Is climate change for real?2) What is causing it if it is3)What can be done about itJust to colour the picture a little I live in the Northeast of England, not famous for it's climate but world famous for Its coalmines (and Newcastle brown ale). So where did all this coal come from? Tropical forest millions of years ago. Now call me naive but tropical rainforest doesn't move to Newcastle so Newcastle must of at sometime been tropical.Why is it now not so? I don't know, but it gives a clear indication to me that climate change is not new, probably not man made, and like the weather almost impossible to stop.I stand by my views that global warming is a very handy boogie man to allow governments to usher in unpopular energy producing methods to replace their dependence on diminishing oil and coal reserves.http://search.dilbert.com/search?p=R&srid=S3%2d4&lbc=dilbert&w=global%20warming&url=http%3a%2f%2fdilbert%2ecom%2fstrips%2fcomic%2f2009%2d09%2d29%2f&rk=1&uid=28058587&sid=2&ts=custom&rsc=aGlOetY-uaCg5j22&method=and&isort=date&view=list&filter=type%3acomic

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 04:42:20 pm
content: I see there is still confusion regarding global warming. Lets recall the days of smoking being good for you as suggested by doctors!Even if you dismiss measured temperatures and CO2 levels, remember that CO2 is trapped in oceans and glaciers setting the scene for a positive feedback effect.As a general argument:Which is why many people died and are still dieing from smoking-induced lung cancer; I guess they took their doctor's advice.Those who will not reasonPerish in the act:Those who will not actPerish for that reason.— W. H. Auden, 1907-1973

author: monpjc
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 04:52:41 pm
content: I'm impressed there are so many views about saving the planet and looking out for our kids. There is one side of efficient energy that I can't see anyone has commented on yet.I have had energy saving bulbs for years now - I stop the kids singing in the shower when it burning 9.5kW - we keep the heating turned down a tad and I go to work on a motorbike that dose 96MPG.Why? am I saving the planet - no, I'm an engineer and get a average pay income so have become a 'tight git' and want to save money so I can afford the new iPad2 or iPhone5 when they come out. Pure greed!)This would have the knock on effect that by being more efficient with energy we can keep oil prices lower, energy prices lower and make life better for ourselves now. If we save the planet in the process, win-win, but we get to have the adventures of life now too, win-win-win.?So why not save energy to save money - I'm certain big firms are happy that having a low carbon footprint and low energy lights, motors etc means their energy bills are lower.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 12, 2011, 06:04:03 pm
content: I agree, there are short terms and long term benefits from reducing energy wastage.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 13, 2011, 02:12:43 pm
content: unfortunately we are not as insignificant as we like to think. Well we are but our actions aren't.Let us remember that during the day's of the often mentioned dinosaurs the earth WAS in a state of global warming. What happened to all of that CO2 ? it was absorbed by the vegetation (massive trees) which split the C from the O2 and then the C got buried under ground to become coal - remember all living things are primarily made of C. What do we "clever" humans do millions of years later ? we come and dig these carbon deposits up and let them back into the atmosphere to bond with our precious O2 ! have i made it simple enough g for those that can only see the joy of waste ?That aside we are indeed running out of power reserves. As much as you may wish to knock the environmentalists and criticize their attempts I've heard some pretty unfounded nasty ignorant and stupid theory's from people who just want to waste and hate change while trying to convince me they know what it's really about. For example that wind turbines don't work, that they need more power to turn them into the wind than they made and that solar panels make less power in their life time than it costs to make the panel and transport it.As mentioned we are a spec in the earths history and isn't it strange that this very stable planet suddenly has vast changes in climate, because yes a change in 10 years is vast, cricky I can recall changes in climate and I'm not even 30 so yes there are changes afoot.unfortunately governments and pen pushers are not very good at making effective legislation and just anger people who then turn against the whole concept.The bottom line is that people are pig ignorant and don't care, the only thing they look after is number one and their vision into the future lasts about a month. I have heard often said: oh it's so cold global warming is rubbish. The people are twats because in school they were taught that in the UK man can survive because we have the golf stream. If ice caps melt and the water level rises the ocean currents will change and good bye golf stream and warm weather. of course when it's scorching hot you will get a hot summer but in winter it will get damned cold.

author: FreeThinker
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2011, 03:33:17 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on February 13, 2011, 02:12:43 pmNo one is claiming that burning fossil fuels does not contribute to the carbon load that would indeed be 'Pig ignorant' but running around like a headless chicken regurgitating half digested 'facts' doe's not help.The TOTAL carbon emissions for all fossil fuels ever burnt is a very small percentage of the total fossil fuels available, but getting to these reserves is getting ever more difficult, (the UK's coal industry is now near non existent but known reserves are estimated as well over 200yrs) so the amount of carbon re released into the atmosphere can only be a small percentage of initial levels. So what is causing this climate change? One theory is herehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6665147.stmbut there are MANY others. There is no definitive evidence of climate change outside of normal variation we just don't have enough data.Don't get sucked into thinking we only have four seasons, there are cycles to the weather which operate over much longer time scales.Time scales to which we have little or no knowledge.What is required is more knowledge and a proactive approach to managing the effects.

author: scrat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 13, 2011, 04:04:45 pm
content: Caution in considering scientific theories and predictions is inspired by history.In the '70s many predicted a new glaciation... Let's use our common sense, too.We are not that influent, although we must do our best to reduce emissions and waste.Just think of climate change caused by volcanoes (CO2 and obscuration of sky). In the XVIII century, an eruption in Iceland caused famine in Europe and North America.Pay attention not to waste resources only for increasing the income of some "green" investors.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2011, 08:32:10 pm
content: We will probably never know for sure if we are contribiuting that much to climate change which some people deny is occuring, naturally or man made. i know that in my short life time I can recal significant variations in climate, for example when I first went to live in southern italy having rain in august was simply unheard of, now august is the rainiest month of the year (in the area i lived in)Either way fossil fuels won't last forever and to be honest we are not too clever burning them, ok we may not be putting a significant amount of CO2 into the atmosphere but I'm sure we all know that there are systems that will be stable until you reach a threshold, just a little increase can hit that threshold and you set in motion reactions. To be honest we do not know a lot about the weather machine of the planet, caution won't help anyone but yes those that just try and profit from "green schemes" need a kick up the arse. I'm installing solar panels gradually because i know that at some point enegy prices will soar, its obvious, between taxation and lack of supply or more exspensive supply due to having to go to more expense to get it.In any case we know that the earth was once warmer and had more CO2, I wonder where it all went

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 14, 2011, 10:50:37 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on February 14, 2011, 08:32:10 pmTrapped in icebergs and dissolved in oceans.

author: Flavour Flave
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 14, 2011, 11:13:01 pm
content: Climate change is a con. See here.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/Its particularly laughable when there is this big fucking massive ball flame heating the earth and they never take that into account. They just want to tax you more, carbon tax etc...Apparently there is no experiment or proper theory that proves that carbon dioxide keeps in the heat.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 15, 2011, 06:21:49 am
content: Oh well there you go the voice of reasoin !, what waas I just saying above ?