OT:Peak water-What can we do about it? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 04:18:03 pm
content: Just been reading my copy of Moneyweek magazine about peak water. I also had a read of this article in the guardian.http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/jul/06/water-supplies-shrinking-threat-to-foodA very alarming read indeed. It was also very worrying that several of the worlds fossil aquifers (filled hundreds of thousands of years ago from melted ice) where being heavily depleted.Made me think what I could do about this in my own life apart from the obvious(less bathing and flushing, less water boiled for my brew of tea). As the maxim goes think globally and act locally and so If it's yellow let it mellow, if it's brown flush it down.SorryHow can engineering help to solve this problem and where do we start?David.PS here is some more information from wikipedia on peak water.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_waterOne possible solution for growing crops in Arid regions.http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/Solar desalinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_desalination

author: MacAttak
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 04:34:36 pm
content: This only applies to regions that rely on wells for their water supply. Many populated regions are near surface sources (rivers or freshwater lakes). The largest drain on underground sources (wells) is farmland.Chances are pretty good that the water flushing your turds down the drain comes from a surface supply and not a well.So unless you are a farmer then there isn't much you can do on a personal level to impact the problem. Although I suppose you could always become politically active and lobby for a ban on using non-renewable irrigation sources.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 04:50:28 pm
content: You could boycott factory farming and fracking as much as you can. Those two not only use lots of water but cause lots of pollution.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 05:07:58 pm
content: I really do not waste water, when I was growing up in the 1980's there was a drought, and the council imposed water limits, allowing 400l per day per household. We had no problem with doing that, and I have not stopped doing that over the years either. Until they stopped with the residential rebate of the first 6kl free per month I did not pay a water bill. Some people have bills of 30-60kl in the same building, I just cannot see why they need to be so wasteful. Sewage here goes to pump stations that pump it out 4km to sea and discharge it. Yummy! Water supply comes from dams, and I used to swim in them. Famous one is Midmar Dam, which has an annual race.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 05:25:45 pm
content: Quote from: djsb on May 11, 2014, 04:18:03 pmIn the UK around 780,000 gallons of water literally falls from the sky annually for each person in the country. It is 100% recycled and goes though a solar powered purification system the size of the planet.4/5ths of the globe is covered in water. Water is not in short supply. Water is not precious. The only problem is bothering to collect it when it falls from the sky and moving it to where people want to use it - neither is technically challenging or expensive.The idea that having your house smell of piss is saving the planet (or anything else) is eco green tosser lunacy of the highest order.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 05:31:53 pm
content: We vegetarians use significantly less water than meat-eaters.http://www.vrg.org/environment/water_brochure.php

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 06:04:34 pm
content: Most of the UK has spent most of this year paddling in the stuff, the problem is the water companies wanting bigger retturns and no spending on infrastructure. Blame the share holders and accountants for this one.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 06:05:33 pm
content: The guardian also just recently blamed the kidnappings of those girls in Nigeria on climate change. So I'm not really putting a lot of faith into them.

author: ciccio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 06:15:13 pm
content: Quote from: Stonent on May 11, 2014, 06:05:33 pmPlease give a link. It seem so stupid, almost unbelievable.Thanks

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 07:01:13 pm
content: QuoteMost effective way would be to lobby for a sky-high tax for water consumption ("water tax"?). As they say, don't let a golden opportunity like this go wasted,

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 08:10:27 pm
content: Quote from: ciccio on May 11, 2014, 06:15:13 pmhttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/09/behind-rise-nigeria-boko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 08:38:53 pm
content: I read the Moneyweek article too, little bit of scaremongering going on, although the creation through desperation of a water 'National Grid' might be a prudent opportunity for investors.But it does occur to me that flushing gallons of perfectly good drinking water down the toilet several times a day is very wasteful.Quote from: dannyf on May 11, 2014, 07:01:13 pmCome on Danny, don't give them ideas....Quote from: Stonent on May 11, 2014, 08:10:27 pmJames Delingpole has an interesting take on this article's author:http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/05/11/UK-Guardian-climate-change-to-blame-for-Nigerian-girls-kidnapping

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 08:47:10 pm
content: In the U.S.A we don't have a water shortage problem, but rather a water distribution problem.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 09:27:00 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 11, 2014, 08:38:53 pmYes I actually got the original link from the Breitbart article.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 09:31:09 pm
content: QuoteAbsolutely.The problem is that it doesn't fall from the sky everywhere that wants to use it, and then politics gets in the way of the moving it bit of the equation.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 10:01:51 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on May 11, 2014, 09:31:09 pmSome politicians in those areas have a vested interest in keeping their people poor and weak.The movie Rango comes to mind.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 10:03:28 pm
content: Quote from: grumpydoc on May 11, 2014, 09:31:09 pmI wouldn't say politics gets in the way, it's more, you know, the laws of physics. I wouldn't have guessed that the facts in that original guardian article were controversial, but I guess one should never underestimate the right-wing echo chamber, according to which anything being reported in the guardian is part of a huge liberal conspiracy.

author: grumpydoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 10:18:30 pm
content: QuoteIt's surprising what you can achieve when there is a political will to achieve it (or even better a profit motive) although I agree one "cannae change the laws of physics" as Scotty might say.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 10:23:47 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 11, 2014, 10:03:28 pmMy central heating system therefore disobeys the laws of physics.Quote from: tjaeger on May 11, 2014, 10:03:28 pmFacts are always controversial.

author: owiecc
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 10:48:04 pm
content: Quote from: MacAttak on May 11, 2014, 04:34:36 pmWhat about Colorado River Delta? I heard that water overuse upstream has totally dried it.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 11, 2014, 11:08:03 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 11, 2014, 10:23:47 pmHow much water does you central heating system move? How much water do you need to move in order to grow wheat in the desert? It's just not viable at this scale. Not to mention uneconomical since it's so much cheaper to just grow your food somewhere that does have enough water... for now.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 02:28:17 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 11, 2014, 05:25:45 pmI'm not up to date on the latest on water shortages, but I always thought the above as well. Around here, most of the cities are perpetually complaining about lack of water, and most of them have had 'water bans' that used to take effect in summer, and are now perpetual (where you are not allowed to wash your car or water your lawn). It seems to me that the problem is these cities and towns experienced a lot of growth and fast rising property values leaving them flush with cash. One of them spent a few hundred million on a new high school with a sports stadium attached (including a giant video scoreboard) - but the city reservoir has been exactly the same for over 40 years.People move in, money rolls into city coffers, it gets spent on luxuries, salaries, expensive buildings, repaving all streets, etc, etc. But never on necessary infrastructure - then they perpetually run water bans to try to stay ahead of the curve, which never works.Seems it's a manufactured problem that could be easily solved, given sufficient motivation and public demand.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 03:12:33 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 12, 2014, 02:28:17 amThat's easy to say if you don't even take the time to understand the problem (Hint: The article was mainly about agriculture and not about your suburban paradise).

author: TMM
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 04:01:12 am
content: Quote from: Stonent on May 11, 2014, 10:01:51 pm"Some"? I thought this was the key to all politicians not being made redundant :p

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 04:39:46 am
content: Quote from: owiecc on May 11, 2014, 10:48:04 pmDon't know where you got that notion(Mexico gets diddly squat)Was watching a western film and in it they mentioned someone having drowned crossing the Rio Grande. Then you swam across, now you walk across.The Rio Grande in Texas, c. 1899Used up before it reaches the sea.A friend often complains that Lake Superior gets pumped for water attributing for the drop in the Great Lakes.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 08:03:22 am
content: I recently saw something on TV where for the first time in many years water reached the sea from the Colorado river, it was done as an experiment and from what was said the main problem as why this is not the norm is politics between various states and water companies that own the various dams along the route, seems they all try to hang onto as much water as possible for as long as possible.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 08:10:53 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 12, 2014, 03:12:33 amI was talking about water issues as it relates to cities and towns. But "peak water" is a manufactured problem. There is more than enough water for all our needs, as it doesn't disappear when used. The 'problem' is simply one of distribution and efficiency. Both are easily solvable as anyone who takes time to understand the problem can easily see.It's just a non issue but fodder for people who like to bleat about the latest issue of the day and tell everyone how the sky is falling. *yawn*

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 08:17:10 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 12, 2014, 08:03:22 amNah, that's just not possiblehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_ProjectFunny thing is that the farmers at the beginning refused to use that water because the underground water was better. There were talks about forcing the water via mineral filtering (through the rock bed) but I don't know if anything happened to that effort.So they had a lot of sinkholes in Tucson because using too much ground water and the solution was the CAP water, I guess it's still in effect.Edit: Oh I forgot, they have to pump the water up and then let it flow, then up again and flow again until it reaches it's destination 800 feet higher than the origin. Maybe less feet but still it requires power to get the water there.

author: owiecc
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 09:41:50 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 12, 2014, 08:10:53 amSo what will you tell to people e.g. in India or in South America who have water once per week? This is a manufactured problem. Go get water somewhere else. There is plenty of it somewhere.You know this is a cycle but this cycle also has a limited resource. So it is not possible to get infinite amount of water at any point in the cycle. If you take too much there will just not be enough for other uses like animal and plant life.Quote from: Corporate666 on May 12, 2014, 08:10:53 amSo if these problems are easily solvable why are they still here? Can you explain how would you solve it?

author: HighVoltage
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 10:19:29 am
content: Water has become a corporate issue in most of the world.Big business has discovered water as big money making machine.Even in Germany, where we have lots of good and fresh water, the corporations have taken over.Many city water supplies have been sold to greedy corporations, that doubled the cost for the people.Certain things should stay in the hands of the government. And water supply is one of them.Just look at Bolivia and what they tried there.Water was privatized and it was even forbidden for the people to collect rainwater.The population of Bolivia chased the corporation out of the country.A really good example and a warning to some greedy corporations.

author: ciccio
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 11:26:05 am
content: Quote from: HighVoltage on May 12, 2014, 10:19:29 amThey are trying this also here in Italy. Don't know if we lazy Italians will be capable of imitanting Bolivians.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 01:16:29 pm
content: The supply problem is "easily" fixed with dams. The distribution problem is not so easy to fix for large amounts of water.The issue of a dam taking away water for those downstream can be mitigated by adding more dams (even mini ones only a few feet high) downstream and then use sensors to control the upstream dams.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 01:36:11 pm
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 11, 2014, 05:31:53 pm

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 01:54:02 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 12, 2014, 08:10:53 amDistribution of what ... water, or population? Cause at the moment water is being distributed ... and humanity being what it is goes for solutions which are cheap on the short term, destroying arable land in the process. We can salt the land in human timescales, but it is reconstituted on geological timescales.Technocratically water doesn't need to be a problem, realistically it's a huge fucking problem.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 02:55:58 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 12, 2014, 08:10:53 amWhy don't you at least skim the fucking article? Humanity is tapping a lot of non-replenishable sources of water such as the Ogallala Aquifer, or rather more dramatically, the aquifers below Saudi Arabia.QuoteThen let's hear it, genius. I'm not saying there aren't any gains in efficiency still to be had, or that you can't supply drinking water to water-stressed places (even if desalination comes with its own set of problems), but none of this is viable for large-scale agricultural use -- which is necessary if humanity is to double its meat consumption within the next couple of decades or so.QuoteThis is the problem with you people. Nobody is allowed highlight a problem without being immediately accused of being alarmist or something. Does it really threaten your worldview this much that there are problems we currently can't solve that are not some politician's fault?

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 03:22:41 pm
content: Quote from: miguelvp on May 12, 2014, 08:17:10 amI saw a program about this,http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/about-todays-flooding-of-colorado-river.htmlThey are returning about 1% of the river flow.http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/25/opinion/la-oe-postel-colorado-river-delta-20120325http://www.nationalgeographic.com/americannile/

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 08:14:43 pm
content: Desalination is already being used economically:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.htmlAnd if you're worried about energy consumption for desalination, go solar:http://www.hitachi.com/environment/showcase/solution/industrial/desalination_plant.htmlIt's all doable, and already proven. Like energy and other resources, economics and population growth will eventually dictate changes in how we supply our water needs, but with 80% of the earth covered in water, we will not run out. Seems we have much bigger issues than a faux water shortage to worry about.

author: Phaedrus
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 09:58:44 pm
content: A lot of people don't seem to realize the difficulty of moving water around. If you've got water uphill of you, it's ridiculously easy to get it downhill. But moving water uphill? That takes power. Lots of it. Whether it's pumped through pipes, carried by trucks, or by boat, or what-have-you.New Orleans has tons of water, more than they know what to deal with. They have the whole Mississippi river. But getting that water to California, where it's needed? One way or another, it needs to be moved thousands of miles and over thousands of feet of elevation, or else thousands more miles out of the way. Likewise for, say, the Columbia river. And the local rivers, precipitation, and wells are not enough.Can we get the water from someplace closer than New Orleans? A little, but not much. California, Arizona, and Nevada pretty much drain the entire Colorado basin. They also use pretty much all of the Sierra Nevada snowmelt and San Joaquin valley rainfall. They use >90% of the water falling on their region; to get more water they have to get it from a different drainage basin, and the next big drainage basin(s) are north to the Columbia, or over the Rockies in the Great Plains.In the Midwest it's a little less dire; but if not for well water, then they would have to get irrigation from local rivers; which could render the Mississippi and Missouri rivers less navigable, if it's even enough. And farmers away from rivers have to pump water uphill to reach them.Know what happens when farmers don't get enough water? They grow fewer crops. And what happens when US crop exports go down? People in India and Africa starve.

author: AG6QR
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 10:20:20 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 12, 2014, 01:16:29 pmYou mean the way the dams have increased the supply of water on the Colorado river, shown by those photos already posted? Before the dams, the water flowed all the way to the Colorado delta. It no longer does.Dams don't increase the supply of water. They can even out seasonal variations in supply, but they don't produce a net increase of water. In fact, they usually produce a net loss of water, as the increased surface area of the resulting lake produces more evaporation, and depending on local geology, a reservoir can cause water to sink into the underlying rock formations. Furthermore, reservoirs will silt up over a period of decades to centuries, so dams are only a temporary way of storing water.To bring this back ever-so-slightly toward EE, a dam is like a (leaky) capacitor. A capacitor can smooth out spikes and voltage drops somewhat, but a capacitor doesn't produce power, any more than a dam produces water.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 12, 2014, 10:29:46 pm
content: solution for Kalifornia's water problemhttp://www.dutchforce.com/~eforum/index.php?s=c5031970521c3f6b049417e18013fc82&showtopic=42128Quote

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 04:51:11 am
content: Quote from: staxquad on May 12, 2014, 04:39:46 amI don't think the Rio Grande ever was very "Grande"---at least,most of the time!I've seen plenty of old Movies,where it was just a matter of splashing through what looked like a pretty average Aussie creek!Other times,if it rains,it will be a substantial river.Texas/Mexico seem to have a similar climate to North West Australia.In fact,the second picture could be of a river crossing just about anywhere in that region.My daughter was recently teaching at Carnarvon WA,where the Gascoyne river flows about ever 10 or so years.And.Oh Boy! Does it flow then!--the locals call it "getting a river!"In the meantime,there's this bloody great bridge across a huge dry river bed,just like picture (2).The banana ,tropical fruit & vegetable Plantations get their water from what is,in effect,an "underground river" which still flows,even when the surface river is gone.Upstream? a few Cattle Stations & Aboriginal Communities,most of whom get their water from deep Artesian bores,rather than the River.Certainly,in WA,it is just the natural climate variability from year to year,with the odd contribution from El Nino in the form of Cyclones ,etc.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 05:30:45 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on May 13, 2014, 04:51:11 amDon't believe what you see in the moviesgoogle spaghetti westerns, they were probably filmed in the south of Spain or ItalyThe notorious ones where of course young Clint Eastwood , but they made hundreds of them

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 05:56:13 am
content: California has plenty of water....west of the state.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 09:27:51 am
content: Quote from: miguelvp on May 13, 2014, 05:30:45 amI was thinking of movies made when Clint was in Kindergarten!My brother was in Texas back in 1962,& he had the same impression of the Rio Grande,so if there was any misuse of water contributing to the lack of flow,it was before that time,or from the Movies,before around 1940!

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 05:28:11 pm
content: I lived where the local river was only visible if you were willing to dig down about 3m into the river bed. 20km away you also had a massive runoff river from the mountains, but that flowed away from us towards the Zambesi river. We joked the frogs and fish had to learn to swim by correspondence course. then the regular rain came ( every 20 years) and the river was visible for about 2 months. There drilling a well was hit or miss, you typically went down up to 100m to hit the water table.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 05:55:59 pm
content: Quote from: johansen on May 12, 2014, 10:29:46 pmIt ain't going to work. Canada will do to the Columbia what the USA does to the Colorado, take all the water and leave nothing to the next country, Mexico in the case of the Colorado, USA in the case of the Columbia. Bazinga! Huge irrigation projects underway. Will grown lots of food and export to the USA, like the USA does to Mexico (maybe even corn). Hypothetical.

author: FrankenPC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 05:59:28 pm
content: What can we do? I'm thinking about burying a thousand gallon grey water tank in my back yard. Like solar, if we all offloaded utilities on to our home properties even a little, we could stretch our shared resources much farther.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 08:27:34 pm
content: Quote from: FrankenPC on May 13, 2014, 05:59:28 pmSo everyone building and maintaining their own little reservoirs is going to work out so much cheaper and more effective than a few big ones?The Kuybyshev Reservoir in Russia holds 15 trillion gallons of water or about twice as much as every person on the globe having one of your 1000 gallon tanks.

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 13, 2014, 11:28:47 pm
content: Quote from: staxquad on May 13, 2014, 05:55:59 pmonly in the event of major global warming (err, i mean cooling, followed by a crust shift so the north pole ends back up at 30 degrees north lattitude where it once was)but seriously, what huge irrigation projects underway? i'm not aware of anything that is going to decrease the outflow significantly anytime soon.

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:25:00 am
content: It is just a matter of price per liter of drinkable water. For showering/bathing/toilet you don't need human drinkable grade purification.A lot of countries I visited over the years the tab water is non drinkable and people buy drinking water in the supermarket in bottles.So when the water from the tab reaches a critical price level it will become interesting for people to build an underground rainwater storage basin and pump that water for their toilet and shower usages (with a rough filter if required).Then there are installations that can purify seawater but that still (AFAIK) costs more then the water from a bottle from a natural source.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 07:56:07 pm
content: Quote from: Kjelt on May 14, 2014, 07:25:00 amIn this article, they claim desalination in Israel is costing just US$0.52 per cubic METER (264 gallons) of water. That's a tiny fraction of what we pay for bottled water in the US. In fact, it's less than many of us pay for tap water. Not sure what other countries are paying.http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/03/20/221880/israel-no-longer-worried-about.html

author: Kjelt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 08:34:14 pm
content: I wonder if they calculated the cost and replacement of the entire facility but if this is true then there really is not much of a problem except for poor countries

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 09:17:40 pm
content: Any of you recall the experiment that Saudi Arabia did (70s or 80s?) to have an iceberg towed up from Antarctica to SA to see if it was a viable solution to their water needs? Seemed it wasn't viable, not sure if costs or berg was too small by the time it arrived. They went with desalination plants now.

author: aroby
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 09:57:32 pm
content: I went to the Hoover Dam recently. I hadn't been there for maybe 15 years, but I do remember at that time that the water level behind the dam was very high - almost to the top of the wall. Now look at it - you can clearly see the extent of the depletion.Anthony

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 10:05:41 pm
content: Quote from: aroby on May 14, 2014, 09:57:32 pmplus 15 more years of accumulated silt would make the water volume even less

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 10:46:35 pm
content: How about building nuclear breeder reactors? Not only do you produce a ridiculous amount of power per unit fuel, you can use the waste heat to desalinate sea water and the process produces hydrogen that can be used in fuel cells.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 11:05:12 pm
content: Quote from: aroby on May 14, 2014, 09:57:32 pmFrom that picture, it looks like it has actually recovered quite a bit. It was lower several years ago. It dropped as a result of drought conditions over a few year period - not because of increased water consumption.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 11:07:04 pm
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 14, 2014, 10:46:35 pmNow that makes just too damn much sense

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 14, 2014, 11:51:45 pm
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 14, 2014, 10:46:35 pmNo commercial reactor design, the designs furthest along are sodium cooled ... I'd rather they didn't go there, at least not anywhere near me.By the time a commercial design is finished I'm willing to bet filling a desert with PV will be able to offer far cheaper electricity. Not 24/7 without storage, but then you don't need it 24/7 for stuff like desalination ... hell you don't need 24/7 for a lot of things ... alternative energy is a WTO avoiding subsidy scheme at the moment for instance.

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 12:24:29 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 14, 2014, 11:51:45 pmA fully working prototype was built at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, and they could have a commercial design completed in the time it takes to get approval to build one of the current nuclear reactors. Breeder reactors are FAR safer than current technology, and you don't have to store spent fuel rods in perpetuity. Not to mention the fact that solar is impractical on so many levels it isn't funny (the biggest two levels are the amount of space required and the fact they don't produce anything at night).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 01:00:52 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 15, 2014, 12:24:29 amUm, No.The alternative energy matrixIn theory thorium reactors are promising. But as the saying goes, "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is..."Throrium reactors will remain a dream...

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 01:21:27 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 15, 2014, 01:00:52 amUm...no. It's not just theory. Oak Ridge actually built one and ran it for 4 years. It works in practice too. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment)That's a cute little matrix that forms the data to match its end goal. I don't disagree that distributed solar PV arrays on homes and buildings are a great way to produce energy in some areas (see: Dave Jones' array on his house). But scaling up to the industrial capacity of a nuclear/coal/gas power plant is impractical. Also, the benefits of PV goes away if you don't have local storage OR your utility won't buy your excess power at the same rate you buy power from them (which defeats the purpose of a home PV array anyway).

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 02:53:34 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on May 15, 2014, 01:33:38 amNo, but, any significant amount of solar generation displaces conventional generation at the times when it is sunny and so makes conventional generation more expensive on top of solar being expensive.Quote from: wilfred on May 15, 2014, 01:33:38 amAnd if any of them were economically viable (excepting pumped hydro in the very few locations with geography to support it) they would already be used to meet peak demand and store overnight excess conventional generation instead of having to sell it cheap to encourage overnight usage.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 03:45:44 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 15, 2014, 01:21:27 amYou argued that solar is impractical and takes up too much space. Both are demonstrably false ideas.There is validity to the issue of the intermittent nature of solar. Cost effective storage is an ongoing challenge. But regardless, PV is a proven alternative - currently widely used. I don't have to look at Dave's roof. I have 4500 watts of self installed PV (and 20kwH battery storage) that allows us to completely power our modern 3000 sq foot home (sans heat) with solar alone for 6 months out of the year - and that 's here in the rainy Pacific Northwest.The "cute little matrix" is actually a summary of a well researched set of blog posts by a UCSD physics professor who looked closely at all the proposed alternatives to our current fossil fuel system. If you look you'll see that he agrees that Thorium reactors show some promise.The divergence between theory and practice for Thorium reactors is not the engineering challenge - as you say you can build one and it will work. It's the practical challenge of the costs (monetary and embedded energy) and very real social and political challenges of actually building them in enough locations to make any difference.I've been hearing about the wonders of thorium reactors for years - still waiting for their real world implementation. And I highly suspect it will never happen - for lots of reasons - none of which involve the underlying physics or engineering challenges...PV will never power our world in the lifestyle we've become accustomed - but nothing will - and certainly not thorium reactors. The times will be a changing...

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 10:44:24 am
content: QuoteOn top of that, solar is expensive, in terms of parts, installation, and more importantly, in terms of capacity: and capacity is very expensive.QuoteThey embrace it because there are people foolish enough to buy those things from them: solar (pv) and wind generation is not wildly used in China. Solar water heaters are used somewhat in China.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 03:48:33 pm
content: Not to derail this thread any further, but...Quote from: dannyf on May 15, 2014, 10:44:24 amNow you're just making shit up. China has 29 % of worldwide installed wind capacity and 14 % of solar capacity.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 15, 2014, 03:59:40 pm
content: Quote from: JoeyP on May 14, 2014, 07:56:07 pmTo get away from all this free-energy conspiracy nonsense and back on topic, I'm assuming this doesn't include distribution costs and the usual number quoted for US installations is about twice that. More importantly, though, while desalination is clearly feasible for residential use, agriculture uses water on a whole different scale. Producing a kg of beef requires 17 m^2 of water according to this wikipedia article, you do the math.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production#Water_resources

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 01:13:56 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 15, 2014, 03:45:44 amPer your own link....QuoteEven the person that compiled the statistics isn't sold on the order in which he arbitrarily weighted the categories.I find it hilarious that you put forth that solar PV is a viable renewable energy source because it is "proven," even though the only commercial PV arrays take up enormous amounts of land in uninhabitable desert landscapes, while discounting nuclear breeder reactors because they aren't commercially viable. If a tenth the amount of government support that is given to solar or wind research was directed towards designing a new form of nuclear power, we'd already be done with oil, natural gas and coal as energy sources.The current nuclear reactor design is horribly inefficient and inherently unsafe. The only reason we use it is because we had leftover uranium and plutonium fuel from the nuclear weapons program during WWII. The reason we still use it is that the nuclear fuel manufacturers are making stupid money selling fuel rods to existing (and future) plants because they have a near monopoly on the process (and they can afford very expensive lobbyists). I guarantee you that within the next decade, China will have produced a commercially viable nuclear breeder reactor, and have a near monopoly on fuel production for it. I am certainly looking forward to relying on China for our future power plant design and fuel supply needs. That sure beats the hell out of relying on the Middle East for oil, doesn't it?

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 01:47:18 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 16, 2014, 01:13:56 ami'm hoping you left off /sarc.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 04:42:32 am
content: Consider the current reactor designs are akin to filling your fuel tank with fuel then letting gravity drive a turbine with the fuel dripping out onto the road. You need to reprocess the fuel and blend it with the DU to get more energy out of it, as current spent fuel is still around 95% usable aside from a small amount that was burned. The rest of the energy is simply being dissipated in pools of water in a storage pool.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 06:06:36 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 16, 2014, 01:13:56 amNot sure exactly the point you're trying to make. I never implied his order of preferred alternatives was any sort of absolute truth and it certainly had nothing to do with my point. You claimed that solar took up too much space and was impractical while thorium reactors are the solution. Tom Murphy's blog post is simply a summary of several well researched and argued blog posts which among other things refute your points with actual documented facts. But now you seemed to have changed your argument.Do you still claim that solar takes up too much space and is impractical?QuoteMore factually incorrect statements. There are many large commercial solar farms that are not in uninhabitable desert. Google is your friend. LookHere's one,,,, Many , many others - some with 100s of MW capacity SeeHEREOf course large commercial solar farms were not the point and are not the answer anyways. Distributed, small scale solar PV maybe....QuoteYou seem to have completely missed or purposely ignored my point. It has nothing to do with commercial viability. It has to do with the real world practicalities of building a new type of large scale nuclear reactor in enough locations to have any impact. It has to do with the enormous amounts of investment capital and the lack of political will and NIMBY ism that will prevent this. You seem to be making the same point when you decry the lack of government support. - That is part of the issue. Why is that? The large utility/nuclear energy lobby spends millions and still can't make it happen? Why?Eventually - when things get bad enough some of those societal factors may become less of an obstacle but by then I suspect we will have fallen into into theEnergy Trapthat Tom Murphy describes and of which nuclear is the most vulnerable to. Meanwhile solar PV production continues to grow exponentially .....QuoteI mostly don't disagree with any of that - except that India may be the first. But it has nothing to do with your innaccurate claims about solar energy's viability or likely role. And just becasue China may have produced a viable breeder reactor at some point in the future doesn't mean that those reactors will ever become a meaningful part of world energy production.You have lots of opinions, some of which I agree with. But here's some facts2013 Global Solar PV electricity production capacity - about 140Gigawatts. (and increaseing 40-50% per year)2013 Global Throrium breeder reactor electricity production -?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 07:12:35 am
content: I didn't say they weren't commercially viable, I said they weren't commercially available. A prototype can have lots of downtime and a short service life, they're only stepping stones. As for solar, what's wrong with deserts? From a hvdc point of view the world is small and we have a lot of desert (more every year).I'm willing to bet the nuclear industry has a lot more respect for solar and it's seemingly unending price decline than you, it makes longterm investment in new types of nuclear plants a risky business (together with the lack of certainty of even being able to compete with current gen plants).

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 02:57:58 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 16, 2014, 06:06:36 am20 MW = 100 acres (Apple example)290 MW = 2,400 acres (Agua Caliente, largest solar farm in your second link)3,300 MW = 4,000 acres (Palo Verde, largest current nuclear generating station)In order to generate a significant percentage of our current electrical demand from solar PV arrays, you'd have to cover a significant percentage of our landmass with arrays. Like I said, I don't disagree that distributed PV is viable in some areas. It is still unpractical as a replacement or alternative to large generating stations for the bulk of the energy demand in the world. Same thing with wind. Instead of investing in technologies that have absolutely no chance of replacing coal, natural gas or current nuclear technology, why no invest in something like Thorium which actually has the potential to replace those technologies? Because people like you always have an argument against it...that's why.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 03:10:35 pm
content: QuoteIt is proven only to the faithful,Solar farms are expensive, from the point of view of tax subsidies, generation costs, land utilization, and capacity. The only reason we have them now are subsidies, and in the most perverse way: it is a transfer payment from the poor to the rich.Over the longer term, nuclear energy is the only viable option known at this point.QuoteThose figures are very easy to estimate, on the back of an envelope: solar radiation on earth is just shy of 1.5kw/m2. After that, it is simple math.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 04:50:20 pm
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 16, 2014, 02:57:58 pmandQuote from: dannyf on May 16, 2014, 03:10:35 pmYep. And the math has already been done by many. SeeHEREfor example.And fromHERE"Covering only 0.5% of land area with 15% efficient PV panels provides the annual energy needs of our society"QuoteQuoteAboslute BS. With the current price of PV panels - solar PV has reached parity to traditional fossil fuel generated power in many places. In some locations it is cheaper.Burining coal and oil is actually more heavily subsidized once you account for all the factors from exploration/production/refining/waste/pollution.Solar PV is no panacea - the storage issue is the biggest shortfall but it is far superior and less expensive over the long term than fossil fuel or nuclear.There is no "faith" involved. These are verifiable facts.QuoteOpinion, not supported by any facts.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 05:05:38 pm
content: QuoteI otherwise wouldn't have minded to have an intelligent conversation with you.Part of my job is investments in non-thermal energy.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 05:31:54 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 16, 2014, 05:05:38 pmOops, I mis-spelled absolute!.Apologies if you took offense at the BS comment - it was directed at the argument you were making and not at you personally.I'm not sure why your job investing in non-thermal energy is relevant ...These issues are important and it is facts - not opinions - that I'm persuaded by. When opinions are stated as fact when actually the facts do not support it, I call BS - but it is not personal.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 06:19:11 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 16, 2014, 03:10:35 pmBased on that number (and 15% efficiency), we'd need about 8% of the area currently used in the US for growing the corn that is made into ethanol to cover the world's electricity consumption. Doesn't sound like a deal-breaker to me.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 09:28:02 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 16, 2014, 05:31:54 pmImpressed by your grammar.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 10:43:25 pm
content: Quote from: JoeyP on May 16, 2014, 09:28:02 pmWell gosh darnit - you caught me messin' up there didn't ya.fixed it.

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 10:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 16, 2014, 04:50:20 pmOpinion, not supported by any facts.Not only do you have storage issues, but you also have significant distribution issues. Right now, there are power generating stations in every state in the union that contribute power to the grid. Solar only works (efficiently) in areas that have significant percentages of sunny days (which is why they are typically put in deserts like Arizona, Nevada, eastern California, etc.). Say you cover half the southwest US with solar panels. Now you have to get the power to Maine, Alaska and other areas with hardly any sunny days per year. You can burn fossil fuels or radioactive materials anywhere.Like I said, solar PV technology is leaps and bounds ahead of alternative nuclear technologies, but that is only because the US government has been pumping trillions of dollars into development and subsidies. If they put that money towards developing practical technologies, we'd be over the debate by now. Problem is, the US government thrives on drama and fear, so they have no incentive to actually solve the energy/climate/water problem. They do much better by arguing over rhetoric and getting re-elected.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 11:24:35 pm
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 16, 2014, 10:58:01 pmAs I said, distributed small solar is the best solution and in that aspect it has a big advantage over nuclear or fossil fuels - which also have distribution issues. Burn them anywhere? hardly.. You don't actually believe that do you?Solar works well at any latitude. The advantage to latitudes closer to the equator is that the solar insolation is more evenly distributed year round.Lots of people in Alaska and Northern Canada using solar to power their homes for a good part of the year. I know a few of them. Obviously solar in the far north and far south isn't going to work well in the winter. Fortunately those locations often have good wind or hydro resources.It's a myth that solar PV needs to be located in "sunny most of the time" locations I have first hand experience with this here in northwest WA and Germany of course is the prime example. Sunnier is better of course, but far from necessary.I would never claim that solar alone was the answer to all power needs - only that it is and will be one of the most important and heavily utilized non fossil fuel sources of electricity. It will always far exceed thorium based nuclear IMHO.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 16, 2014, 11:59:30 pm
content: QuoteWind faces a bigger issue there.Put that aside, those "alternative" energy sources are useful only if they are insignificant - otherwise, they become expensive fast.QuoteUncle Warren said it best: wind / solar is only viable because of the taxpayer subsidies.QuoteSadly true.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:21:10 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 16, 2014, 11:59:30 pm.True - but only because they are relatively new technologies competing with the long established and still very heavily subsidized fossil fuel and nuclear industries.BTW - where would most EE technology be today without the massively government subsidized space program and defense industries??QuoteOn this we agree.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:36:26 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 17, 2014, 12:21:10 amBut even heavily subsidized, they are orders of magnitude behind old-school energy sources in their ability to become self-supporting. They are nice theories, but we are still waiting for the breakthrough technology that will make them viable in the real world.QuoteCertainly there are things like the highway system that are impractical for private industry to every do.OTOH, how much government subsidy did Al Bell and the boys have to build the public switched telephone network?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:51:52 am
content: QuoteWind / solar can never be a viable source of energy (as a utility) - that's limited by their nature. Plus, they are environmentally expensive.Hydro is potentially viable in certain locale.Gas + other carbon based thermal energy sources are just not sustainable and come with too high opportunity costs - though gasification of coal is quite interesting.Nuclear is the only sustainable and feasible source, available yesterday. It is also the source with zero carbon footprint,.Unfortunately, environmentalists are too challenged to realize that their staunch anti-nuclear stand really created the global warming they are so desperately trying to avoid now.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:59:08 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 17, 2014, 12:51:52 amNominated for QUOTE OF THE YEAR.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 01:22:33 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 17, 2014, 12:36:26 amFalse.Nuclear is not self supporting.It never has been.QuoteWhat world do you live in? On planet earth -solar is already accounting for a significant amount of world electricity production. "The worldwide photovoltaic capacity reached 136 GW (+35%) by the end of 2013. This is sufficient to generate 160 TWh/year or about 0.85% of the electricity demand on the planet." and the capacity is growing at 40-50% per year.Wind power's capacity is more than twice that.at 318GW capacity installed at the end of 2013. In some countries wind is a major contributor to total electricity generation.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 01:23:53 am
content: Not sure on the chemistry, but you can use aluminium pellets to use the Hydrogen used to form it to power fuel cells, then the wasted stuff not sure of the name (aluminum oxide I think) gets exchanged at the pellet dispensing station where with solar (or other forms of electrical power) can be reconstituted back to aluminium pellets.But it has been rejected many times by the Department of Energy, and it doesn't help that the head researcher is a hot headed person that keeps on picking battles with the DOE.As I recall it involves acids and other processes but it's a full cycle and all the chemicals can be re-used.No acids I guess, here is a link:https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.htmland the controversy of course:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18700750/ns/us_news-environment/t/clean-energy-claim-aluminum-your-car-tank/and the DOE response to Woodall's claims:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18829531/ns/us_news-environment/t/energy-dept-hydrogen-claim-has-drawback/

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 01:28:03 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 17, 2014, 12:51:52 amBogus statement. See above posts.QuotePotentially viable? you're joking right?Hydo power is the largest contributor to electricity producition where I live in the PNW. It accounts of 17% of China's electricity use!It's really hard to take you seriously when you make these kind of statements. If you're just trolling - well done!QuoteBut nuclear power is dead - for all the reasons shown in previous posts. And zero carbon footprint?Not even close."Nuclear plants have to be constructed, uranium has to be mined, processed and transported, waste has to be stored, and eventually the plant has to be decommissioned. All these actions produce carbon emissions."

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 03:05:31 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 17, 2014, 01:22:33 amNice but look at a nuke, for example Blayais plant in France which was commissioned in 1981 and produces 26.5 TWh/year. So global PV installation so far is the equivalent of 6 35 year old nukes - except it isn't because it only produces power when it is sunny.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 03:45:15 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 17, 2014, 03:05:31 amGood point: A kWh produced by PV is actually more valuable than a kWh produced by a nuclear power plant.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 10:08:49 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 17, 2014, 01:28:03 amYes, large scale hydroelectricity is like totally REALLY ecologically sound. To quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam:QuoteSolar PV is never going to power the railways, shipping liners, heavy industry, an aluminium smelting plant or even an aeroplane, unless we can tolerate all these things not running at night. Battery technology has a long way to go.Wind turbines are intermittent expensive bat chomping eco-crucifixes designed to put poor people's money in the hands of rich landowners. They are pointless. If they weren't, they would not need 130% citizen subsidy to make them viable.Coal is the answer to the world's energy problems right now, traditional nuclear in 10 years, Thorium in 30 years and Fusion in 50 years. Stop pissing about with all these gaia-worshipping hair-shirt hippy vanity projects, and get on with solving more pressing global problems like disease, war and famine.

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 11:53:28 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 16, 2014, 11:24:35 pmYou keep trying to argue a point that I agree with. I like solar PV as a distributed system to lessen the load on the power grid. The problem is, you will never have enough people or businesses put in the arrays to significantly impact the demand. As pointed out earlier, due to subsidies, solar has been growing at an incredible rate the last several years, and it is still only 0.85% of power produced. There is going to be a need for large generating stations, at least for the foreseeable future. Solar PV as a generating station is what I am saying is infeasible, mainly for the point I made before of only getting 290 MW for 2,400 acres of arrays. In order to make a useful generating station in the several GW range, you would need 10's of thousands of acres of land that isn't blocked by trees, mountains or buildings. And you would need that much area in every state...several such areas in many states.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:04:19 pm
content: -. The problem is, you will never have enough people or businesses put in the arrays to significantly impact the demand-even if you relax that assumption, solar and wind still have no value as a utility. I would argue further that a world powered by wind and solar is difficult to live in.they are useful only if they are insignificant.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 12:36:19 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 17, 2014, 10:08:49 amSo do MSRs ... but battery technologies can be brought up quicker.There are already some electrolytes for low temperature aluminium electrolysis. Can we use them to provide a low cost way of using aluminium as an energy store with alternative energy? Maybe. Can MSRs commercially compete with heavy water reactors? Maybe.If you want nuclear just argue for more heavy water plants instead of for pie in the sky technologies ... cause alternative energy has just as many pies in the sky. Synroc seems to solve most of the waste problems any way.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 01:49:09 pm
content: It's possible to do hydroelectric without dams. And "clean coal" is a scam.Maybe the real solution (in the short term) is not how to "make" more energy but to make better use of what is being produced? There are a lot of energy saving technologies (and better habits!) that are very practical but not used to the extent they should be.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 01:59:46 pm
content: QuoteAnd think about the three gorge dam in a war situation -> it is scary.QuoteFuel cells are promising but not feasible today, as a power generation technology.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 02:01:56 pm
content: QuoteThat, ladies and gentlemen, is quote of the century,I have found it generally futile to have any rationale discussion with the environmental faithfuls. They are just as fanatic as the religious nuts.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 04:10:00 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 17, 2014, 10:08:49 amI agree with your point. But my argument was not about ecologic impact. I was simply replying to danyf's ridiculous statement that hydo "might be potentially viable" as a power source.QuoteAbsolutely agree.QuoteSame argument can be made about nuclear or fossil fuel power plants which also depend on large government subsidies and enrich an elite group of large power and oil/coal corporations..QuoteNow you're showing your lack of understanding of the issues. How many nuclear power stations are currently being built? how many are in the late stages of planning or approval? How long does it take to get from the early or late planning stage to producing electricity? How much does the cost of building a nuclear power plant depend on the cost of oil and local electricity? How many would need to be built to replace fossil fuels? Once you know the answers to those questions you'll realize why you're statement is falicious.QuoteThese issues are largely related to availability (and mal-distribution) of resources - including energy. And they are ultimately related to population overshooting the long term carrying capacity of the planet. (oh and the disease part I work on almost every day...)

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 04:14:04 pm
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 17, 2014, 11:53:28 amNo, what I was refuting was your statement that solar was impractical and required too much space to be viable. Both of these ideas are demonstrably false.I'm glad we agree that small distributed solar power is worthwwhile

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 04:16:53 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 17, 2014, 10:08:49 amConsidering that coal pollution, in addition to its effect on the climate, kills 7 million people a year makes it every bit as pressing a problem as the other ones. Now if you want to replace coal by nuclear, be my guest (although you clearly must be joking about your thorium and especially fusion predictions), butthe only way to make this happenis toraise the price of coalby pricing in its considerable externalities. Nuclear is just not competitive otherwise.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 04:21:02 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 17, 2014, 02:01:56 pmI don't see where environmental issues have been brought up at all recently in this thread (add- oops except for the new post just above this!). Except to refute the false idea that nuclear power has a zero carbon footprint. No source of electricity production has a zero carbon footprint.The question is what is going to replace fossil fuels - which is a finite resource (and regardless of any environmental impacts).IMO nothing will fully replace fossil fuels and the worlds (much reduced) developed country population will need to learn to live with much less electricity.BTW -you know someone has lost an argument when they resort to name calling and boxing with imaginary demons...

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 08:52:48 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 17, 2014, 04:10:00 pmTrue, but at least nuclear and fossil fuels work.QuoteMy local nuclear plant, Sizewell A, was contracted in 1960 and commissioned in 1967. Sizewell B was built and commissioned between 1987 and 1995. A quick Google surfaced this:https://www.oecd-nea.org/press/press-kits/economics-FAQ.html#2So about 10 years seems about right, as long as all the troughers get out of the way.There is an energy problem looming in Europe with various directives to switch off the coal and gas plants. The problem is serious. And it needs a serious solution, certainly not spoiling the countryside with a load of inefficient, intermittent bat-chompers. The solution in reality will be to ignore the directives, forget about all this carbon reduction bullshit and leave the coal stations burning. But long term? No. We need to invest inseriousenergy sources right now, and with determination.QuoteMalthusian fears about population notwithstanding, Africa in particular in extremely resource rich from oil to metals to diamonds to uranium. It is also a continent desperately in need of economic development. Africa's biggest problem seems to be corrupt government, not limited availability of resources.Quote from: tjaeger on May 17, 2014, 04:16:53 pmhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/index2.htmlsays 55 million people died in the world in 2011. So 13% of all deaths are due to coal? And I thought booze was bad for me!QuoteNow why the hell would anyone want to do that?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 11:13:00 pm
content: BTW, alternative energy has worked for Germany in a fashion ... as I said before, it's a form of WTO avoiding subsidy of industry.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 17, 2014, 11:57:19 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on May 17, 2014, 08:52:48 pmTurns out I remembered this (slightly) wrong: 7 million deaths due to pollution, of which 3.7 million are attributed to outdoor air pollution, presumably most of that from coal and oil.http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/QuoteBecause coal literally kills people. And because it causes climate change. It's also the only way to make nuclear energy economical.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 12:35:28 am
content: QuoteI wouldn't pay any attention to exaggerations like that: it is likely written by a journalism major who went to a journalism school because s/he failed to get into an engineering school,Now, the WHO report actually said this:QuoteNow, to the journalism major who cannot think straight, that was translated into "caused"....Trying to explain that to them is futile,.Now, the WHO article never mentioned how they "attributed" the death to air pollution so we could never figure out how much science went on behind the curtain. But WHO has a fairly good track record of being political.To be fair, they have a whole paragraph to disclaim the headline:QuoteThat much space for a one liner just shows you how much deniability they have baked in the top line.Now, here is my topline:QuoteNo disclaimers required and 100% true.Beat that, WHO!

author: wilheldp
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 12:54:13 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 17, 2014, 04:14:04 pmGuh...stop doing that! "Solar is impractical" is *still* my point. Distributed solar is worthwhile, but centralized solar is worthless as a generating station. 2400 acres to generate 290 MW is ludicrous. You can generate more than 10 times the energy with other technology on the same footprint.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 01:12:36 am
content: I'm just shocked that the gang on this forum can't solve the world's energy problem. Not solving world hunger I can understand, but energy is so technical.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 01:57:52 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 18, 2014, 12:35:28 amAre you serious? It's one click away:http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/en/Click on the .pdfs, they all have bibliography citing studies coauthored by scientists at name-brand institutions (including statisticians, physicians and physicists). But I have a feeling no amount of evidence is going to sway you because you're ideologically committed to the ridiculous position that pollution is essentially harmless. In other words, you're the one with the track record of being political.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 03:08:37 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 18, 2014, 12:54:13 amThat's (a good part of) the answer. While it's correct that the battery technology to back it isn't quite there yet, a lot of the storage can be done in other forms. HVAC, hot water, and refrigeration can make use of thermal storage. With those big loads out of the way, a few deep cycle batteries can take care of running the other stuff.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 04:07:59 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 17, 2014, 11:53:28 amBut then again,we don't all live in the USA,or Europe,for that matter.My State is 1 million square miles in area,so we can probably fit in a few lots of 2400 acres!We also have a fairly small population,so it makes sense to use much smaller Wind & Solar facilities in some of the more wide spread communities,rather than Diesel,Jet Fuel,or even Natural Gas,due to the transport costs of these fuels,which need subsidies.Distribution of power from the more closely settled South West corner is increasingly unecomomical.Hidden subsidies in the cost of Electricity in the High Population area?Nuclear won't make any of those problems go away.The cost is huge,so although it doesn't produce pollution in the short term,it is not a competitor for Natural Gas,which although not pollution free,is still cleaner than Coal.We still produce quite a lot of power from Coal,but we are not tied into it as much as some of the Eastern States of Oz,which have large reserves of high grade Coal.Because of this,there is not much interest in piping Natural Gas to the power hungry SE corner,so we export most of it.People are fitting Solar Generation to individual houses in the cities,which by taking some of the load,allows the existing fossil fuel power stations to better manage their use of fuel,& hence their costs,as well as reducing pollution.Solar,Wind,& other such "renewables" do have their place,& although there may never be a huge Solar "farm" powering,say, London(they only see the Sun about a week in any year,anyway!),there are plenty of places where theycancontribute.Writing them off with emotive crap like "bat chomping eco-crucifixes " as one poster has,is as silly as seeing them as the total answer!

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 04:14:33 am
content: Quote from: wilheldp on May 18, 2014, 12:54:13 amOk so now you've changed your argument I guess to centralized solar being impractical. Not all solar.QuoteI'm not big fan of centralized soalr but since when is geographical footprint the measure of an energy sources practicality?Even if it was, what is the geographic footprint of coal mining? Tar sands? Transportation of fossil fuels from source to power plant over the life of the power plant? Uranium mining? The tons of concrete (and associated embedded energy) needed to build a nuclear reactor site? Nuclear waste disposal? You site no evidence that it is less than PV.And I won't even get into the differences in ecological footprint.Any energy source has a geographical and ecological footprint.And to anyone who tries to claim that the air pollution from burning fossil fuels has no health effects - you might as well claim the earth is flat, smoking has not health effects, or that dinosaurs walked the earth 10,000 years ago. The morbidity and mortality associated with burning fossil fuels has been well established science for over 40 years.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 04:37:06 am
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 18, 2014, 01:12:36 amOk, simplehttp://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4747532/scientists-use-poop-to-generate-electricityActually getting methane from excrement it's not a new thinghttp://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009/05/top-6-ways-convert-poop-electricityWarning, that last link plays an advert video that you can't mute the volume, so turn your volume down.Still the aluminium as energy storage has a lot of potential, more than the power of poop!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 08:10:46 am
content: All power generation has it's associated problems, Bradwell nuclear power station in Essex plans to pour Tritium into the River Blackwater. I guess they will have to rename the river to Glows in the Dark. Sellafield reprocessing plant used to ship the Tritium off in tankers which leaked and the route taken was nick named the tritium trail as you could see green spots on the road where the tankers had passed. They are covering large areas of prime agricultural land with solar farms and wind turbines and building bio mass power plants near where I am. There is no winning with power generation, even if you could have zero emission and zero foot print using that power would heat the environment due to waste heat. Whatever we do the world will warm, the only thing for it is back to the caves.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 11:12:39 am
content: QuoteWe will still have a non-zero impact on the environment.Quotethere is a building in NYC that makes ice at night to provide ac during the day.Unfortunately, those "do evil" bankers occupy that building,

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 11:46:39 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 18, 2014, 11:12:39 amSeveral billion campfires should be quite significant!

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 11:51:40 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on May 18, 2014, 04:07:59 amMarocco should have been in the EU, they have enough desert for everyone in it.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 12:22:59 pm
content: QuoteYeah. The only way to have zero impact on the environment is if we never existed.That's why all the deaths in the world are caused by births,Just think about this: many of the global warming scientists were busy in the 1970s and 1980s talking up global cooling and looking for funding for the most creative ways to release CO2 into the atmosphere.They have come a long way in a couple decades.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 12:26:14 pm
content: QuoteI can almost imagine a day when everyone walks around with a fart plug / poop meter and pay a fart tax at the IRS so we can capture all the "externalities" of our existence.That's a life worth living, for sure,

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 02:15:43 pm
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on May 18, 2014, 04:07:59 am"better manage" - lol. It forces them to shut down plant or run at reduced capacity. They still have all the overheads of generating plant and distribution but reduced income making the electricity they supply when the sun isn't shining more expensive. Yes emissions are reduced at a price. PV installations use the grid as a huge battery which someone else pays for.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 02:32:32 pm
content: Same for wind power. The claimed install base is above ( 300plus GW IIRC) but this at a pretty low overall efficiency, only there when the wind is in a narrow band between blowing gently above a minimum and below a maximum speed and staying within these small limits for long periods without variation. It is like saying my house has an electricity use of 30kVA,( total of all loads I can possibly connect) but if it was that the power cabling would melt, and I would be bankrupted by the bill.Many wind farms are subsidised, and some even get paid if they do not put power into the grid at off peak times. Germany has had the unfortunate problem of having to pay other countries to take power from them ( Yes, paying somebody to use power you make) along with paying wind farms not to connect when the wind is blowing off peak as the grid was going unstable and voltages were drifting high. Both costs are borne by the customers in increased cost of power.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 06:13:14 pm
content: Rather than try to store the excess, what about try to make the best use of alternative energy as it's being produced?

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 10:14:40 pm
content: QuoteWhen you tell an environmentalist that capacity is expensive and s/he stares right back at you.It should be mandatory that you have to have an engineering degree to be an environmentalist. That will solve 99% of our problems with today's crop of environmentalists.Same for journalists too.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 18, 2014, 11:11:24 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 18, 2014, 10:14:40 pmI really shouldn't respond to trolling like this but given that pretty much every creationist that claims scientific experience turns out to be an engineer you might want to rethink that policy.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 12:17:57 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 18, 2014, 11:11:24 pmYeah, I have tremendous respect for engineering, but one thing i've learned (and this thread has some prime examples), proficiency in engineering does not necessarily mean scientific literacy.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 12:32:57 am
content: QuoteLike what? Electricity is one of those things where supply equals demand exactly, at all times.You cannot dry your cloths at night when electricity is cheaper; you cannot cook only when wind blows; you cannot watch TV only when the sun shines; you cannot ...That's the achilles' heel of alternative energy sources: they are useless as a utility.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:05:30 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 19, 2014, 12:32:57 amWell of course the many millions of households around the world whose electrical utility's derive a large percentage of their power from alternative energy sources would beg to differ- as would the hundreds of thousands of people in the US alone who live entirely off-grid and rely almost entirely on alternative energy sources.These kinds of sweeping generalizations that are demonstrably false really do nothing for your credibility...

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:14:21 am
content: It seems equally incredulous to imagine that significant numbers of ordinary people will give over large amounts of space in their garage or basement for a big pile of batteries like the "off-grid" folk. And large piles of money, for that matter.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:55:43 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 19, 2014, 12:32:57 amI just put wet clothes on a drying rack and they will be dry the next morning. Kinda irrelevant for this discussion as that doesn't use any electricity. (I suppose I could use a fan to accelerate the drying process, but why?) Cooking takes a lot of power, but is still pretty low on overall energy use in most homes. My TV can run about 10 hours from a common marine battery (conservatively only using about half the capacity), and that's for a pretty good sized 55" LED backlit LCD.What lends itself very well to alternative energy is thermal storage. You could use some sort of energy management system to, for example, boost water heater temperature during excess production. (While inefficient, resistive loads have the ability to respond almost instantly.) Or drop the temperature of a freezer. The efficiency of the device might decrease, but the overall system efficiency improves. HVAC can take advantage of the thermal mass of the building, plus added thermal storage in the form of water tanks located outdoors or underground. The nice part is that the loads that can take advantage of thermal storage are also the biggest energy users in a typical home.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:57:11 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 19, 2014, 01:14:21 amIf they sell me electrical power for free too during peak production hours maybe it would make sense ... assuming battery technology with a sufficient cycle count, which we don't have yet.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 02:09:32 am
content: Quote from: Marco on May 19, 2014, 01:57:11 amAs I've mentioned, thermal storage makes a lot more sense than batteries for the main loads - HVAC, refrigeration, and hot water. The batteries then only have to handle the rest, which isn't very much in an energy efficient home.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 03:07:48 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 19, 2014, 01:55:43 amIt depends on humidity in your area, If you dry them indoors then sure it's using energy. If outdoors and humid, you clothes will have a moldy smell to them once they dry up. I know this because my mom hanged the clothes outside to dry, on humid days they didn't smell that fresh to me

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 03:22:10 am
content: If you just can't give up on a traditional dryer, that too can use thermal storage. Then you just need to run a fan to move the air and a pump to circulate hot water from the hot water tank, quite trivial to run from batteries. You can also do your best to schedule laundry for times when energy is likely to be plentiful.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 03:34:36 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 19, 2014, 01:14:21 amWell it's true that we'll never replace current levels of electricity service with each individual household having their own "off grid" power system. Small local utilities (think small village size) utilizing a mix of renewables and with some storage capability (thermal, or pumped water, etc) would be the ideal but even that would never replace our current first world electricity gluttony. But the truth isnothingwill once our current system fails...However it's false that it takes large amounts of space and large piles of money for household level battery storage. The pic below shows my battery bank (orange batteries) in the lower right corner. about 20Kwh of storage - enough to easily power lights , computers, refrigeration for a few days for our family of 4- even with no sun. 2 days if we wish to keep the depth of discharge no more than 50% (as recomended for deep cycle batteries). And there's never no sun - even here in the Pacific NW. Once I get my small microhydro in place - even in the winter months, we'll produce 99% of the power we need (Yes - of course - most people don't have a small stream they can do this wtih -we're lucky).Now these are premium AGM batteries that cost about $4000 for the whole bank. But equivalent energy storage using high quality flooded deep cycle batteries can be had for half that price.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 03:56:52 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 18, 2014, 02:15:43 pmNot every power system has "excess capacity".If you are close to the point of having to build new plant,anything that provides a bit more margin is welcome.In the summer,everybody comes home and slams on their airconds---we get the odd "brownout" or two.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 04:03:30 am
content: In the summer here in the US Pacific Northwest, it doesn't get all that hot, so we take our "excess" big-hydro power from all the dams along the Columbia river, and convert 3.1 Gigawatts into DC and send it down to Los Angeles where it provides nearly half the peak demand in the summer when they all have their aircond running. And, then in the winter when we are heating our houses, LA doesn't need much heat, so they send "excess"power back up to us to keep us warm.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 06:19:45 am
content: Since this discussion is clearly never going back on topic, let's at least inject some data into the discussion. The following are EIA estimates for levelized cost of electricity for 2019.http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfmWhat can we learn from this? First of all, in addition to being an environmental disaster, coal is not even particularly cheap, so it doesn't need to be discussed any further. Natural gas is more interesting. It's clearly necessary medium-term due to its dispatchability, it's at least cleaner than coal and pretty cheap (arguably artificially so due to constraints on its export). But it's clearly not going to last forever and gets more expensive once carbon is taken into account.With fossil fuels out of the way, let's turn to what's been discussed most in this thread: nuclear, solar and wind. It turns out nuclear is a pretty hard sell. It's more expensive than wind (by 15.6 $/MWh). Now it is true that electricity generated from nuclear is more valuable than electricity generated from wind, but the difference is small (6 $/MWh), which should be unsurprising since nuclear is just as useless for satisfying peak demand. At least it looks like nuclear is cheaper than PV... But the difference is small for good PV locations (8.8 $/MWh) and is more than made up by the fact that PV supply more closely matches demand patterns, and therefore is 11.7 $/MWh more valuable.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 07:57:12 am
content: There is one factor that to me seems to be overlooked when talking about CO2 emission and alternative energy. The energy density of generation is so much lower with all forms of solar, wind and tidal that far more material is required to build the the equipment for a given energy output. Most of that material is metal of one type or another, mostly steel, and how is steel made, by smelting iron which uses vast amounts of carbon to convert the oxide's of iron to iron and CO2. So the more wind turbine and solar cells you have the greater the quantity of steel required, therefore the more CO2 produced. Also the projected working life of a wind turbine is 25 years whereas a gas or coal or hydro plants life is expected to be at least 40 years and most likely far longer. The wind turbine not only takes relatively more energy to build per KW output during its working life it then takes more energy to recycle it far sooner.I am not saying that wind and solar don't have a place in the scheme of things and I have nothing against them in princible ( I have just replaced the slip rings, brushes and bearings on a wind turbine that I built 15 years ago)but they are definitely over played by the politicians and the global warming scientists. They are not a panacea for all our ills.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:14:52 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 19, 2014, 03:34:36 am$4000 would buy around 40MWh of mains electricity enough to cycle your pack 2000 times. Typical AGM batteries will be knackered after 1000 cycles (capacity down 50%). So ignoring the cost of all the other stuff you need, installation, and charge/discharge losses just battery cost makes it cheaper to take electricity from the mains.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 01:52:08 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 19, 2014, 01:14:52 pmIn some areas, the fixed charge just to connect to the mains is really high. That was the case for some apartments in College Station, TX. There, you get to pay $40 or so per month before you even get to use anything. Actual electricity usage is about 12c per kWh. They exploit college students because they can.Also, you're making the assumption that all usage is when there isn't energy being produced, which is exactly the wrong way to do it. You try to make use of energy as it's being produced, storing the excess in batteries and then thermal storage.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 03:32:10 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 19, 2014, 07:57:12 amWhy do keep people just keep making shit up to support their argument? These things are easy to look up. EROI of wind is better than nuclear and natural gas, and PV is not far behind those two and only going to get more competitive. Coal has a higher EROI but it also (to be conservative) kills upwards of 1,000,000 people a year worldwide and 10,000 people in the US, in addition to being ridiculously carbon-intensive.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 04:31:02 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 19, 2014, 01:52:08 pmI made no such assumption. For most people it would be cheaper to throw away the excess and buy from the grid what the batteries would have stored.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 05:11:31 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 19, 2014, 01:52:08 pmExactly right. In my case, we have frequent power outages - sometimes as long as a week. So the ability to keep the power on is priceless.For many off grid folks - the cost to bring power to their homes (even if possible) is usually in the many 10s of thousands of dollars.Off grid folks - do "load shifting" and intentionally schedule their high loads during times of peak energy production.While strict grid tied PV is now cost competitive with grid power in many places, off grid capability, requiring batteries and charge controller does cost more per kWh than the heavily subsidized grid power.For many people 24/7 grid power is not an option and in a future of uncertain fossil fuel availability this is likely to become the norm for more and more people.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 08:39:38 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 19, 2014, 03:32:10 pmI am not making any thing up to support an argument against wind solar or any other form of power generation, I am merely pointing out that vast quantities of CO2 are released in making steel. Smelting requires iron ore coke and limestone, coke comes from coal, oil is required for mining coal ,iron ore and limestone and its transport to the steel works. Steel making is very energy intensive and no one can claim that the energy density of a wind farm or solar farm is greater per ton of steel used in construction than a gas,coal, oil or nuclear fired power plant.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 08:50:06 pm
content: Aluminium on the other hand mostly takes electricity.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 09:37:05 pm
content: -Aluminium on the other hand mostly takes electricity. -so does steel from a mini mill.the whole discussion is futile. :having an open mind: to the environmentalists means taking their positions unchallenged.the moment you start to think differently, you are a troll, you are dumb, you aren't worthy, you are bought by big oil, you are pyre evil, you are a murder, your views are BS.....you simply cannot have a scientific conversation with those people because to them, environment is a religion.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 09:54:31 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 19, 2014, 09:37:05 pm

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 10:04:19 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 19, 2014, 09:37:05 pmThere you go again with the straw man "environmentalist" whining. This (off) topic discussion has not primarily been about environmental issues. It's been almost exclusively about realistic alternatives for generation of electricity. It's been about the real world scientific, engineering, political and socioeconomic challenges of using the available alternatives. You keep making factually incorrect statements and then whining about imaginary "environmentalist" issues when proven incorrect.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 10:10:17 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 19, 2014, 08:39:38 pmYou're just wrong. This is all taken into account in EROI calculations.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 10:12:06 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 19, 2014, 09:37:05 pmYou can't have a scientific conversation if you're not scientifically literate. This is the problem with your argument. You just make shit up that sound good to you and your climate-change denying buddies.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 10:14:44 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 19, 2014, 10:04:19 pmThat's funny, I thought the topic was about water?The whole climate change subject is a pretty bizarre, where we find too many scientists trying to be politicians and too many politicians trying to be scientists, to the detriment of both their fields.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 10:39:12 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 19, 2014, 10:14:44 pmUm, not since page 4...

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 11:37:43 pm
content: Quote from: AcHmed99 on May 19, 2014, 11:24:29 pmOr super volcano eruptions. The dinosaurs were environmentally responsible but see where that got them.The planet only needs to last long enough for humanity to leave and find alternate planets or moons to settle on. The planet is not sustainable in the long term for natural reasons and if we don't but the highest priority on gaining the technology and economic means of leaving Earth, then humanity will be doomed one way or another. Only with off planet redundant habitats can we continue as a race.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 11:44:09 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 19, 2014, 05:11:31 pmThe College Station apartments I was referring to are nowhere near remote - in fact, they're just blocks away from the Texas A&M campus. They can charge an awful lot since college students don't stay long enough to make an off grid setup pay for itself. (Or at least that was the case when I was in college 3-4 years ago.)The very idea of trying to match demand to production also works with on grid, probably better in fact. One way to do that is to give customers 15 minute (or so) "slots" of free power whenever there is an excess (which customers actually get it is chosen randomly) and at the same time, a signal is sent to allow devices to automatically activate and make use of the power.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 19, 2014, 11:53:48 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 19, 2014, 11:37:43 pmToo late. That ship has sailed.Humanity hit the jackpot - literally won the lottery- when we discovered the millions of years of concentrated liquid solar energy - aka oil. But for the last 80 years we've been blowing our lottery winnings on hookers and cocaine. Now we've passed the nexus of easily available fossil fuel energy and the technological sophistication needed to leave this planet. There was a point - maybe 40 years ago -where if we'd devoted the resources to it and wisely conserved the remaining easy oil that travel to another habitable planet might have become feasible. Now we'll be lucky if we can keep the satellites in orbit and send out the occasional unmanned probe to nearby planets.A few more decades and we'll be lucky if we can keep the lights and oscilloscopes on.All just IMHO of course.....

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:00:16 am
content: QuoteYeah. The climate is always changing, has been and always will do. What's new about it? Who's to say that the one we are current in is the optimal and most suitable climate?Climate change is actually the only change we can count on, to borrow from the Obama campaign.

author: miguelvp
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:12:03 am
content: At the end of the day it's economics, no reason to panic you'll have the energy you need at a price and you'll get raises so you can keep consuming.It's a self balancing system, although sometimes there are a few spikes like over/under voltages in some circuits.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:14:36 am
content: QuoteOr even desirable.I for one would love a warmer climate and higher sea levels so I can have a beachfront property,

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:17:21 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 20, 2014, 12:00:16 amOptimal for who? If you meant optimal for the current species of plants and animals on planet earth, then it's the current climate - duh. That is not disputable by any biological scientist.I realize you may have no training or literacy in biology but that is just not something that is uncertain or subject to opinion. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the political debate about climate change.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:17:40 am
content: QuoteWhat, we haven't even reached 'peak oil' yet, so access to sufficient oil has little or no reason to why we still haven't figured out how to leave the Earth's gravity well in a economical way yet?I blame relying on a federal program, NASA, for much too long for trying to provide leadership in this effort. It needs a profit motive to drive progress.

author: denelec
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:39:35 am
content: Who knows what the future will bring?Most previsions in the past have beenwaywrong.Maybe they will discover that a new ice age is coming but because of global warming, we may avoid it.And new energy sources will eventually be developed.Maybe debunked sources like cold fusion will be somehow "rebunked".Maybe sonofusion will be perfected.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_fusionMaybe thorium or helium 3 will be the answer.The transition from fossil fuels could be somewhat painful. But I don't think we will be left "freezing in the dark".

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:01:44 am
content: QuoteWe are long overdue for an ice age: a huge consideration in the 1970s and 1980s, by some of today's biggest advocates of global warming, was global cooling. People would get significant funding from the government to figure out creative ways to release CO2 into the atmosphere to avert the "global cooling" that turned into today's "global warming".For every sophisticated computer model on global warming, there were then ten equally sophisticated computer models then that predicated the dooms day of humanity dying in the global cooling.To say that the climate scientists (and there sophisticated models) have less credibility than used car salesmen is an insult to the worst used car salesmen.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:05:41 am
content: Another typical technique utilized by the uneducated environmentalists is appeal to authority: "scientists said this; scientific consensus said that"...You know what, the history of scientific research is littered with wrong consensus: "earth is the center of the universe" was once scientific consensus until it wasn't; "ether" was once scientific consensus until it wasn't; "the earth is flat" was once scientific consensus until it wasn't; ...When someone utilizes "scientific consensus" to convince you, you know that s/he is pulling a fast one on you,

author: johansen
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:09:30 am
content: I am very suspicious that wind turbines, regardless of how big they are, can ever pay for themselves at 10 cents usd per kilowatt hour.the economy in its present form can't afford electricity at that price.residential households might be able to, but industry can't. furthermore, most of you won'tbe able towant to afford food if the energy needed to make fertilizer, run farm equipment, pump water out of the ground cost that much.what is the average industry rate these days? 5 cents?turning oil into electricity might be 50% efficient, but you still burn coke to make steel. unless you double the energy expenditure by using carbon arc/induction heat instead, which is fine, but it increases cost right? or does it? there are many sensible ways to cut the price of everything in about a half, but not much further, and only provided the labor is free..For example, i'm about to melt down 100 pounds of mixed aluminum and end up with a relatively useless pot metal. nothing else i can do, its not worth it to sell it to anyone, but i can cast a ~60 pound lathe carriage for free from it.but at one point, all that aluminum cost over 1$ per pound, even though the spot price says it should be 70 cents or whatever it is. over half of of that was electricity, at the rate of 9 kwh/pound IIRC.anyhow, if i were to really try, i could probably get my annual expenditure on everything i buy to be less than the property taxes on the 1.5 acres I sit on.now imagine that hard times force everyone to live the way i do.reset to zero is imminent folks, and you don't need a crisis to make that happen.you only need energy prices to climb at 10%/year and its a total shitstorm in about 10 years.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:23:49 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 20, 2014, 01:05:41 amYou really wanna keep digging your scientific illiteracy hole deeper and deeper, don't you?If you don't understand why citing "flat earth" and a pre heliocentric view of our solar system has nothing to do with modern science then you really do need some remedial science education. Really - no slight intended, but I suggest you starthere. Until you actually understand what the word science means - it might be best to keep to the non-science related topics.

author: Richard Crowley
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:29:43 am
content: Imagine how the Wikipedia article on "Science" would have read in the helicentric age, or the flat-earth era.The universe is nowhere near as uniform, predictable and understandable as most people think.There is an infinite amount more that we don't know than what we think we know at this moment.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:32:59 am
content: Quote from: johansen on May 20, 2014, 01:09:30 amYep.Of course as Yogi Berra said "It's hard to make predictions, especially about the future."Cold fusion - could happen. Aliens could arrive and deliver us to a new planet. The Yellowstone Caldera could erupt next year.All predictions about the future have a degree of uncertainty...But just because the future is uncertain does not mean some scenarios don't have a higher probability than others.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 01:35:23 am
content: Quote from: Richard Crowley on May 20, 2014, 01:29:43 amI absolutely agree.Lots of "known unknowns" and even more "unknown unknowns" ya know

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 03:04:36 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2014, 01:35:23 amYep. I'm still working on the known unknown called The Singularity. After I get that figured outt I might see what I can do about fixing that global warming/cooling thingee. I've got a couple of spare arduinos I can throw at it.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 03:12:19 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 20, 2014, 01:05:41 amLife's to short to debunk every dimwitted thing that you say, but I can't resist on this one. The real reason that the king of Portugal told Columbus to beat it is because the guy seriously underestimated the circumference of the earth and would have died in the middle of the ocean if America hadn't happened to be where it is. There wasn't really any doubt that the earth is spherical.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_EarthAlso, we are currently in an interglacial period within an ice age.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 07:48:09 am
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 19, 2014, 10:10:17 pmSo who did these energy returned for energy invested calculations then, I would like to see them. I can tell you that one ton of steel made produces about one ton of CO2 (this is half of what it was a few years ago and its unlikely that there's room for further reduction) and that somewhere between 1.4 and 1.5 billion tons of steel are made per annum. The amount of CO2 release from that is easy to calculate but how do you predict how much electricity a wind turbine will produce per year let alone over the next 25, when according to the climate scientists they cannot predict what the weather will be, all you get is something along the lines of watership down " something bad is coming".

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 09:22:57 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 20, 2014, 07:48:09 amI would suggest you go to the EROI wikipedia article and follow the sources if you care that much. Steel does not appear to be a major factor. According to thishttp://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5036/sir2011-5036.pdf(table 5) one MW of wind capacity requires 115 t of steel, which according to you is responsible for 115 t of CO_2, which conveniently is the equivalent of what the generation of 115 MWh of coal would produce (http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/air-emissions.html). At a 33% capacity factor, the turbine would take about two weeks to generate the equivalent amount of energy.

author: electrophiliate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 10:06:47 am
content: Current political will is insufficient to significantly change carbon emissions in time before the environmental effects become more obvious.But we are a resourceful and resilient species, we will survive even if we inflict much suffering on ourselves before being motivated to act.Decades and billions have already been spent on conventional fusion research, but I am still somewhat optimistic about its long term prospects.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 10:44:05 am
content: QuoteIt is actually much easier (but still hard) to predict climate than to predict weather. Predicting climate is similar to predicting the average of a random variable, while predicting weather is predicting the actual occurrence of that random variable.The average of a dice throw is for example predictably 3.5. The actual value of that threw is anywhere between 1 and 6 - highly unpredictable.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 10:57:24 am
content: QuoteGuys like galileo or columbus would be ridiculed as dimwitt, evil, unscientific, non-human, ..., all those things you can find in this very thread.

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 11:42:01 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 20, 2014, 01:23:49 am"Well to be fair to the other side of the issue the "climate is changing and is human caused" side sure likes to also abuse basic scientific principals and methods.Statements like "The science is indisputable". Science should never stop questioning dogma."XX% of scientist agree that......" , the scientific method is not performed by voting. Did all XX% perform their own analysis on the same raw data and come up with the same conclusions? Yea, right.Because repeatable scientific experiments cannot be effectively used to prove or disprove man-made/caused-climate, it has to rely on statistical evidence based on 'models'. There is a reason that many don't consider economics a true science even though it uses the same statistical tools and 'models' to perform their predictions.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 20, 2014, 12:46:50 pm
content: QuotePrecisely. Science is about challenging itself. Only in that process, science advances.QuoteThat famous "appeal to authority" argument so widely used by non-scientists.

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 04:32:52 am
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 20, 2014, 12:46:50 pm9 out of 10 doctors agree!

author: electrophiliate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 08:00:30 am
content: Climate change 'controversy' fatigue?http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140520163029.htm

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 11:26:08 am
content: QuoteReal estate agents are probably most guilty of it.QuoteThe controversy is true, as is the "climate scientists' lack of credibility".

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 01:35:32 pm
content: Quote from: electrophiliate on May 22, 2014, 08:00:30 amYep even sociologists get to stick their snout in the 'we are all doomed global warming" trough by studying how people react to the propaganda.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 03:36:40 pm
content: The world is far more complicated than we understand it to be: a perfect example is today's news on the carbon sink in Africa / Australia.Those climate "scientists" are only fools because they think that they have understood it.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 04:07:14 pm
content: Quote from: electrophiliate on May 22, 2014, 08:00:30 amInteresting article. Thanks.The human brain and our social structures unfortunately did not evolve to deal with long term threats. A large predator or club wielding hominid, yes. Slowly developing threats, not so much. Boiling frogs, etc...The threats from climate change are the perfect case in point. This allows the science illiterate, willfully anti-science oriented, and those motivated by political or religious agendas to find it easy to ignore the facts or live in a state of denial which allows one to avoid cognitive dissonance.For most it's just a lack of science education but for the worst of them, the ones motivated by financial, religous or political agendas it becomes a crusade. They can often be easily identified by their constant trolling of online forums...

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 07:33:42 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 22, 2014, 04:07:14 pmThey also evolved to believe any old shit if they think enough others believe it - hence the prevalence of superstition and religion.And accusing AGW sceptics of being on a crusade - wow pot calling kettle black or what.What more noble cause is there than saving the entire planet, especially when you can blame other people who with their wicked consumption and consumerism are so very very less noble than you.That what is actually going on with the climate now and future effects won't really by known before the crusaders die is an added bonus rather like religion's threats and promises of what will happen after death.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 07:57:06 pm
content: QuoteThe most effective way to kill science is to make it into a religion: just witness what's happening with "climate science".

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2014, 11:37:55 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 22, 2014, 07:33:42 pmVery well put

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2014, 12:08:14 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on May 22, 2014, 07:33:42 pmYep, and hence the post enlightenment effort to develop a method of objectively measuring and understanding the physical world. The scientific method is imperfect to be sure - but it's the best method we have. Unfortunately many don't understand it or are unable to accept its conclusions when they conflict with their previously held prejudices, political or religious views.I said:Quote from: mtdocand you say:Quote from: RufusSo maybe reading comprehension is not your strong point....QuoteAgain reading comprehension seems to be lacking. ( And predictable inflammatory trolling evident.)I certainly didn't (and don't) blame any specific group for global warming.. I'm as guilty as anyone. I claim no noble cause (except perhaps to correct the blatant lack of science literacy demonstrated by some in this thread). I've never heard of a climate scientist who pretends they're not part of the problem.As far as I'm concerned, climate change is a done deal. It's too late to do anything about it and even if it wasn't too late we wouldn't change anyways....

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2014, 12:42:18 am
content: QuoteWell good, common ground can be reached after all.I'd modify it slightly to say even if it wasn't too late, we would not find an effective solution and just add more problems and harm to people.

author: JoeyP
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2014, 12:53:55 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on May 23, 2014, 12:08:14 amOr perhaps you're just a self-important ass who believes anyone not agreeing with your view must, but definition, have a financial, religous or political agenda. Yep, pretty sure that's it.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2014, 01:27:44 am
content: Quote from: JoeyP on May 23, 2014, 12:53:55 amAs I was saying...

author: electrophiliate
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 10:47:24 am
content: Can any of the resident anthropogenic climate change skeptics summarize their concerns in a concise paragraph or two, or is it a little more complicated than that? I have skimmed over the evidence a few times in the past and the general gist looks convincing enough to me at face value.I am not inclined to spend much more time on it either as I have other more important interests. Most people do not have the time, energy, motivation, or even capability, to thoroughly investigate every aspect of a controversy before arriving at their own conclusion. At some point most people just accept a position, ignore the debate, or appeal to authority out of convenience. What are the most compelling reasons to doubt anthropogenic climate change, either in general or specific components of it?Of course, scientists are people too and can get it wrong or be influenced by fads, and I am aware of the argument that science is not a democracy, but an estimated 97% consensus of scientists is very high. The political controversy seems to far outweigh the scientific 'controversy'.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 12:53:41 pm
content: QuoteThere are tons, if you are willing to put the faith element aside.Here is one for you. The earth has gone through multiple ice ages. Each ice age is always followed by global warming, no exception. All the ice ages took place before the industrialization / carbon emission we are trying to curb. What drove the multiple episodes of global warming then?I have more if you can solve that satisfactorily.QuoteI think we talked about the fallability of "scientific consensus" before. But just because "scientists" agree doesn't mean what they agreed to is scientific or even correct .QuoteThe climate gate would suggest that the lack of scientific controversies on this is manufactured by some non-scientific climate 'scientists'.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 04:25:51 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 24, 2014, 12:53:41 pmAccording to our best evidence, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. You know, caused by evolution (which you might or might not believe in), and presumably happening over long timeframes. Ice ages are incredibly rare events, the last one (before the current one) happened 360–260 million years ago, i.e. before the dinosaurs.QuoteYou'll need some extraordinary evidence to doubt the scientific consensus (and we're really talking basic laws of physics here), and as far as I can tell, you got squat.QuoteThere is no "climategate scandal," for anyone that cared to look all those emails just showed the scientific process in action. This whole "controversy" is manufactured by quote-mining scientific illiterates.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 04:51:22 pm
content: According to our best evidence, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. You know, caused by evolution (which you might or might not believe in), and presumably happening over long timeframes. Ice ages are incredibly rare events, the last one (before the current one) happened 360–260 million years ago, i.e. before the dinosaurs.Quote

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 04:56:20 pm
content: QuoteBetter check your facts, humans survived the last ice age. I believe they come pretty periodically cycle.Quote

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 05:12:20 pm
content: If you can't be bothered to understand the difference between and an ice age and a glacial period, I have nothing to say to you. Correct terminology matters.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 05:21:21 pm
content: Quote from: tjaeger on May 24, 2014, 05:12:20 pmGlacial periods within the current ice age, so in fact whatever else we are still technically still in an ice age. That's according to Wikipedia.

author: tjaeger
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 05:29:39 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on May 24, 2014, 05:21:21 pmYes, and I have pointed this out twice in this thread.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 06:05:02 pm
content: I should really know better but what the heck..Quote from: dannyf on May 24, 2014, 12:53:41 pmTranslation: I don't really understand the science but I have access to all the talking points of the climate change denial propaganda machine.QuoteTranslation: Because things get cold and then they get warm again, the current unprecedented rate of global warming is not important.Fact:Therateof warming occurring over the past 100 years is 10 times faster than the typical post ice age warmingAny engineer can understand that it's the rate of change of something that is most often what's important.QuoteOk, let's hear em..QuoteTranslation: Because I am not willing to accept the conclusion of the scientific community, I will use the fact that there is almost never 100% certainty about anything to conclude that the 97% are wrong and I am right (and hence demonstrate my complete lack of understanding of the scientific process).Quote"climategate" has been thoroughly debunked. Take 1000 emails, 2000 documents, comb through it and take a few things out of context. Add in a lack of understanding of the scientific process and a clear political agenda and viola - a manufactured controversy. For anyone who actually cares about the facts this has all been well documented. For example seehere,hereorhereHere's a few facts:The rate of earth's warming over the period that corresponds to burning fossil fuels is 10x faster than typical past warmings. This is not subject to "opinion" it is a measurable physical phenomenon. And based on the accelerating rate of change continued warming will be at an even faster rate. SeehereBurning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere. (basic chemistry)Like global temperatures, CO2 levels have been rising at an unprecedented rate corresponding with human burning of fossil fuels and CO2 . SeehereCO2 is a known greenhouse gas. SeehereDo these facts provide 100% proof that humans are responsible for current global warming? Of course not, correlation is not causation. But it's impossible to do the controlled experiment.However any objective, thinking person with just a smidgen of science understanding can see that there is a high probability that it is.As I've stated - I think the horse has already left the barn. It's too late to do anything about AGW - too many positive feedback cycles have been triggered. If we stopped burning all fossil fuels tomorrow - the rate of earth's warming would continue to increase anyways.But this ongoing antiscience - climate change denial is just silly - though I guess not surprising given thatabout 1 billion dollar spent annuallyto fund the climate change denial propaganda machine.Who provides this funding? Who benefits from causing doubt among the science illiterate masses?

author: retrolefty
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 06:29:33 pm
content: QuoteBut I didn't get my check yet. Is it in the mail?

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 06:42:37 pm
content: Quote from: retrolefty on May 24, 2014, 06:29:33 pmEither did I. But then again mine is coming from the well funded Campaign to Stomp-out Science Illiteracy

author: bithead9
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 09:43:55 pm
content: I gotta believe that all water that flushes, or boils or runs down a drain, etc. will wind up back in the water supply eventually. You cannot get RID of water by drinking or flushing or boiling it. It just changes state and eventually returns to the ground/ocean. AS for greenhouse gases, the BIGGEST contributor is PEOPLE. I think industry is like less than 10% of CO2. Wars help that but not much else.

author: dannyf
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 10:02:34 pm
content: QuoteThat's another question for the global warming fanatics:Q: what's the biggest contributor to greenhouse effect on earth?H: it is not any of the greenhouse gases.You should also consider that the different greenhouse gases have different lives so their impact, on a per unit basis, is quite different: methane for example is some of the worst offenders, and CO2 is quite benign.Q: what's the largest emitter of methane?H: it shows up on your dinner table.The war against CO2 is simply misplaced.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 11:13:54 pm
content: Quote from: dannyf on May 24, 2014, 10:02:34 pmTranslation: I have no convincing arguments so I'll try to baffle em withbullshitirrelevant trivia.QuoteTranslation: Since I can't present any evidence that rising atmospheric CO2 is not the most important factor causing recent rapid rise in global temperature, I will try to distract with more trivia ( see translation above)But since you bring up methane - which yes - is a more potent green house gas than CO2, you might want to spend some time learning aboutthe relationship between rising global temps and methane hydrates.QuoteTranslation: I still have no convincing arguments about why CO2 is not responsible for the extreme rate global temperatures increase so I will prattle on about methane hoping others will think that somehow negates CO2s effects.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2014, 11:46:10 pm
content: Congrats, you all just got this thread locked. There are better places to discuss AGW.