Interesting Greener Is Not Better

[greenbean36191]

We don't have to meet set goals for research grants. Basically we have to provide itemized lists of what the money was used for and we have to show that we've made progress towards the purpose of the grant, and sometimes for long-term grants there's a mid-course review process. Usually, when all is said and done you're expected to publish or present the results. Sometimes the research just doesn't work out or doesn't provide any conclusive answers and that's fine too as long as you can show that you didn't just waste the money. We learn from failure too.

 

[fittiger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12808524#post12808524 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Here's what is theoretically possible:
link
link2
Talk about cheap! About $10 billion for that project in the second link.

Cheap? It states in that very article itself that the problem is the energy will cost almost twice what it does now:

"There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week."

It also costs 5Billion GBP for the technology & prototype plants, then an estimated 200Billion over the next 30 years to actually construct the whole program, which probably actualizes to more like 300-400Billion GBP by the end of that period/cycle.

 

[KarlBob]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12901458#post12901458 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by greenbean36191
From 1965 to 1979 there were 7 scientific publications (by 11 authors) that projected cooling as opposed to 44 articles projecting warming. The infamous Newsweek article and others aren't an accurate representation of the state of scientific knowledge at the time.

Thank you. I just finished reading the thread, and I was about to go look for that information. Even the Newsweek article didn't say "A new Ice Age is coming!" It said "There could be a new Ice Age, or the Earth could get warmer."

Anything that deals with climate change is heavily based on computer models. Models now are far more detailed than models from the 1970s, but they're still not perfect. There are scientists whose models indicate that humans are causing global warming, and other scientists with models showing that the warming is natural. There are even a few who think anthropogenic (human-made) warming is the only reason we aren't in an Ice Age today.

Whether they cause global warming or not, moving away from fossil fuels would still benefit people, including Americans. Every U.S. President since Nixon has talked about "Reducing our dependence on foreign oil," but we buy more of it now than ever. Even if burning coal doesn't cause global warming, it still causes acid rain and Mercury pollution inside the U.S.

The attractive thing about oil, gas, and coal is that they appear to be "free energy," because the hard work of storing solar energy in chemical form was already done before we got here. We just have to dig them up, purify them, and burn them. With wind, solar, hydrogen, ethanol, etc., we see the entropic losses as we store the energy, then release it again.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12913050#post12913050 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fittiger
Cheap? It states in that very article itself that the problem is the energy will cost almost twice what it does now:

"There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week."

It also costs 5Billion GBP for the technology & prototype plants, then an estimated 200Billion over the next 30 years to actually construct the whole program, which probably actualizes to more like 300-400Billion GBP by the end of that period/cycle.

It's cheap to build, and clean. Also, maybe you haven't noticed the falling dollar and rising oil prices. Just wait until oil is $300 a barrel. Coal is a different story, maybe if they develop some awesome scrubbers I'll think differently.

 

[scottras]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12913050#post12913050 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fittiger
Cheap? It states in that very article itself that the problem is the energy will cost almost twice what it does now:

"There are drawbacks, however. At present electricity generated this way would cost around 15-20 eurocents (11 to 14p) a kilowatt-hour - almost twice the cost of power generated by coal. At such prices, few nations would be tempted to switch to solar. 'Unless it is extremely cheap, it won't stop people using easy-to-get fossil fuels,' John Gibbins, an energy engineer at Imperial College London, told Nature magazine last week."

It also costs 5Billion GBP for the technology & prototype plants, then an estimated 200Billion over the next 30 years to actually construct the whole program, which probably actualizes to more like 300-400Billion GBP by the end of that period/cycle.

You have to remember that the cost of all fossil fuels is going up. So is nuclear. The cost of solar, especially large scale solar thermal is going down. It has been predicted that the cost of solar thermal will match or beat coal fired power plants in 5 years. If you were an investor, what would you choose?

 

[fittiger]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12916662#post12916662 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
It's cheap to build, and clean. Also, maybe you haven't noticed the falling dollar and rising oil prices. Just wait until oil is $300 a barrel. Coal is a different story, maybe if they develop some awesome scrubbers I'll think differently.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12917333#post12917333 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
You have to remember that the cost of all fossil fuels is going up. So is nuclear. The cost of solar, especially large scale solar thermal is going down. It has been predicted that the cost of solar thermal will match or beat coal fired power plants in 5 years. If you were an investor, what would you choose?

I was just referring to the comment by HippieSmell that this was a cheap project at only $10B. The actual cost of the entire project in the article is about $410B, and if their cost analysis is done the same way our government's is, then over 30 years this will end up being more like $800B +.

Don't tell me that is cheap. We can't get the government to fund a Hurricane Protection Levee down here in an area that would protect about $20B+ for citizens, businesses and national economic interests that would have only cost about $500M 10 years ago when it should have been built. It was finally authorized this year at an estimated inflation cost of $700M. Now because of ever increasing inflation the govt decided to do another cost analysis and found that its going to cost $over $5B to construct. This along with the "friendly" environmentalists that want to protect a few marsh grasses that are going to disappear over the next 50 years (according to them and other "global warming" alarmists) due to SLR or it just get washed away with the next hurricane and increase the project cost by insisting we mitigate for the small wetland losses (which again, are doomed to disappear anyway).

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12887937#post12887937 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by chrissreef
i disagree... the government should be in place to provide guidelines, not "total government control" The article also speaks about Nazi's... i don't think the green movement is oppressing anyone.

I believe some Asian cultures plan 50-100 yrs down the road (Japan in the past?). The American culture has generally been pretty shortsighted and "wasteful" that I think the whole green movement is just to hard for some to grasp and people respond defensively and say its infringing on their freedom. To an "extent" they're right - but many aren't really looking beyond themselves. The article throws a lot of facts out the window to argue its point which isn't really fair. (whole counties going under water if nothing s done, food shortages from land to sea, cleanup left to future generations etc.)

I believe if we look 50-100+ yrs from now, we need to make baby steps to 100% clean/renewable energy - it's not going to happen overnight like some greenies are pushing for (see above for reasons why and the pushback by some). I really don't see another option right now for my children's children right now. I see the movement as being responsible and good parenting. Last I checked, it wasn't good to do whatever by binge drinking or serving kids Twinkies 24/7 in the name of "freedom".

edit - i also think it's funny and boggling how some point the finger and say "if they won't be environmentally clean, then I won't either" - like it's a free get out of jail card. I argue... who cares what someone else is doing with their kids, in their house and for their environment - fix your house, your kids and clean up or at least do some spring cleaning - because it's probably needed and the right thing to do. You'll also never make anyone else do anything until one leads by good example - it also provides data.

"i don't think the green movement is oppressing anyone." I don't disagree with this but a lot of the environmentalist movement is. Most people equate the two. As an example of what I mean...

We are also currently restoring the hurricane protection system around New Orleans. There is a specific bayou through that leads from the lake to the city and one group of "touchy-feelies" wants, and is sueing the project over, keeping this bayou open to the lake. For the sake of the city it needs to be closed off with valves in place for purpose of water quality. But this selfish group, which represents less than 1% of the population is making everything very difficult for the area at large. If they don't let us build as necessary they won't have the city to live in and it won't matter whether the stupid bayou has access to the lake or not because it will all be underwater. What irritates me more is that you have groups from all over the nation, again agendas from a minimal percentage of the population at large, instigating and backing the problem makers.

I'm not an anti-environmentalist but when huge problems that block progress for the greater good of society are caused by these "special" liberal extremist groups, it makes you want to turn the other way......PETA is a perfect example (the animal rights animal murderers).

Sorry for the rant and I hope it was somewhat cohesive. I am all for clean energy usage. But understand, all the "green preaching" done by the Al Gore's, Oprah's and other Hollywood stars fall on deaf ears when they proceed to drive their hummers, take personal/private jets and still live outlandish lifestyles.....lets just say they don't do a whole lot for their cause in my eyes!

 

[greenbean36191]

It's not directly relevant, but all this talk about how alternative energy really has me thinking about the irony of the situation. In the Middle East, there's a glut of cheap oil, but you see solar power and public transportation everywhere. Almost everyone takes the bus to work and even the Bedouins use solar panels. Meanwhile in the US where we whine about the "energy crisis" hardly anyone is using alternative energy sources or taking public transportation.

 

[chrissreef]

greenbean
i think it's the result of
- our "independence" and "freedom" culture with money to burn (at least the last few decades)
- economy not growing as quickly (Japan WWII)
- and why fix something if it isn't broken? (hence we've kept the automobile in its dated technology and highway infrastructure past their expiration date in my opinion. We also had all the auto plants and the thousands of businesses they support in place. Without a "need" we can't exactly change our transportation direction - oh, lobbyists too!)

I also think their governments have a bit more power over their people - and people can't exactly afford cars (though China's middle class is growing and their building an "Interstate" like network now - scary to think about the oil consumption impact on prices worldwide)

It's harder to change an oil painting after the first big brush strokes than paint one from scratch.

Anyway, I just stated the obvious - it is ironic.

oh - Republicans have had the WH 7 of the past 10 elections too I think... and we all know how they feel about oil =)

I read somewhere about how if oil remains where it's at or increases, our cities will begin to contract and need to build mass transit networks. I'm guessing 60 yrs from now though.

 

[chrissreef]

In another thread on the Reef boards, a RC Mod said the following - goes well w/ Greenbean's comment - particularly the first 6 words.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=11769287#post11769287 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mark
Necessity is the mother of invention. When you look at what Europeans pay for electricity compared to us, you will see the beckett skimmers and large circulation pumps are not an ideal solution for them.

The reason European skimmer designs, circulation, and lighting innovations seem light years ahead is because they are working towards creating products that are more efficient. This is why the big push for T5 lighting came from Europe. This is why needlewheels came from Europe. It's all about efficiency and their electricity bill.

As for propeller pumps like the Tunze Stream, Richard Harker was actually the first to come up with this idea. Many years ago, he experimented with homemade propeller pumps. This in turn led to hobbyists on this board modifying little giant pumps with homemade propeller kits. That said, kudos to Tunze for coming up with a well-tested and well-designed product!

 

[Paul_PSU]

"oh - Republicans have had the WH 7 of the past 10 elections too I think... and we all know how they feel about oil =)"

The same as the Democrats. There are many Democrats in congress with investments in the oil companies.

 

[billsreef]

Got to keep the politics out of the discussion

 

[chrissreef]

yea sorry Bill =) Didn't entend on a "blame" game really...

 

[icy1155]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12921028#post12921028 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by fittiger
I was just referring to the comment by HippieSmell that this was a cheap project at only $10B. The actual cost of the entire project in the article is about $410B, and if their cost analysis is done the same way our government's is, then over 30 years this will end up being more like $800B +.

Guess what... if we werent fighting a war over who gets to get rich off of oil in Iraq right now we could have easily paid for this project completly with the money we have dumped into the war up to date. Yes it may be expensive (not nearly so much as the war has been), but at least this expendature of money would actually be towards a justifiable goal and not getting people killed.

 

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12917333#post12917333 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by scottras
You have to remember that the cost of all fossil fuels is going up. So is nuclear. The cost of solar, especially large scale solar thermal is going down. It has been predicted that the cost of solar thermal will match or beat coal fired power plants in 5 years. If you were an investor, what would you choose?

To make fair comparisons you need to point out the fact that solar energy is being promoted/subsidized heavily by goverments. You also have to mention that a very large chunk of the cost of nuclear is spent fighting environmentalists so it isn't exactly fair for them to drive up the cost of nuclear and then claim that it costs too much. Nuclear plants take around 5-6 years to complete in some countries while in the US environmental litigation drove the average project time up to around 15 years.

As I have said in other threads, if you truely believe in manmade global warming then nuclear should be part of the immediate solution, at least for the next few decades until other technologies are perfected. Otherwise I don't believe that you will see any significant reduction in fossil fuel consumption over the next 10-20 years. Germany is an excellent example of a country that has heavily pursued solar energy yet they are planning 20 new coal fired power plants. The current green technologies just are not good enough to carry the load by themselves.

 

[chrissreef]

"if you truely believe in manmade global warming then nuclear should be part of the immediate solution, at least for the next few decades until other technologies are perfected. "

I guess the "main" problem I have with that statement is that the other technologies won't be "perfected" for a very very loooong time because if nuclear is powering us, then there's no incentive to invest/R&D other technologies.

and regarding the rest of your comment... with ever changing "leadership" in government/businesses... promises/plans of "temporary" solutions seem to change with every rotation. A promise/plan of nuclear for 15 yrs and then wind/thermal/tidal/solar at yr 16 or R&D into other sources for 15 yrs has a slim chance of actually occuring to plan. It's just human nature. That and that humans tend to cut budgets in areas not showing immediate results.

 

[bbehring]

Drill now pay less! It's that simple! Energy independance starts here in our own country with our own oil production/refining. As stated with the Tunze example, private indistry and capitalism are the inovating producing force, not govenment! The cleaner technologies will come from the private investment side. In 25 years, we will know that the Iraq war was not over oil Before all the "greenies" and "environmentalists" jump all over me here, I've done my part! My wife only uses re-usable cloth bags for gorceries, we are heavy recyclers of aluminum, paper and plastics, I've replaced my general lighting with CF's and I just took my 4,000 gallon koi pond off line to reduce my energy consumption. I am actively working with a solar rep to solarize my house. I'd also like to point out an issue with wind power. I live near Palm Springs/Palm Desert were most of the wind technology was developed/created. There are huge windmill farms (wind fields) stretching for miles across the desert in this area. This area is prone to high (60/70 mph) winds. Fact is that most of the time it is actually too windy to run the wind machines. They can only be run in wind speeds under 50mph. It's always amazed me when driving through these wind fields on the 10 frwy and almost never seeing them run! I do think thermal solar is the next best thing, but we need to move with more oil and necular now. Remember our economy was built with fossil fuels. If we don't work to sustain now, millions more people will see their jobs dissappear. I'd also like to point out that since the Arnold "green law" was put into effect here in Cali, the state has been driven into the toilet. We can't afford the "green, fix my planet" ticket any longer. My main responsibility is to look out for my family. The green movement is pusing us all backwards in this regards. I guess when we're all out on the streets, no jobs, no food, not contributing to society, we'll be happy that we healed the planet?

 

[buck50bmg]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
Drill now pay less! It's that simple! Energy independance starts here in our own country with our own oil production/refining. As stated with the Tunze example, private indistry and capitalism are the inovating producing force, not govenment! The cleaner technologies will come from the private investment side. In 25 years, we will know that the Iraq war was not over oil Before all the "greenies" and "environmentalists" jump all over me here, I've done my part! My wife only uses re-usable cloth bags for gorceries, we are heavy recyclers of aluminum, paper and plastics, I've replaced my general lighting with CF's and I just took my 4,000 gallon koi pond off line to reduce my energy consumption. I am actively working with a solar rep to solarize my house. I'd also like to point out an issue with wind power. I live near Palm Springs/Palm Desert were most of the wind technology was developed/created. There are huge windmill farms (wind fields) stretching for miles across the desert in this area. This area is prone to high (60/70 mph) winds. Fact is that most of the time it is actually too windy to run the wind machines. They can only be run in wind speeds under 50mph. It's always amazed me when driving through these wind fields on the 10 frwy and almost never seeing them run! I do think thermal solar is the next best thing, but we need to move with more oil and necular now. Remember our economy was built with fossil fuels. If we don't work to sustain now, millions more people will see their jobs dissappear. I'd also like to point out that since the Arnold "green law" was put into effect here in Cali, the state has been driven into the toilet. We can't afford the "green, fix my planet" ticket any longer. My main responsibility is to look out for my family. The green movement is pusing us all backwards in this regards. I guess when we're all out on the streets, no jobs, no food, not contributing to society, we'll be happy that we healed the planet?

Well said sir!!

 

[RichardS]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
I guess when we're all out on the streets, no jobs, no food, not contributing to society, we'll be happy that we healed the planet?

We'll be much happier then. That's obvious...

 

[chrissreef]

just a thought about drilling new oil fields on our coasts...

besides the eye sore and potential for spills (yes hundreds occur every year) and it not impacting gas prices for 5-10 yrs and even then only by a few cents...

is it "smart" to put new capital investments into technologies we generally want to move away from? or is the intent not to move away from gas powered vehicles?

same with coal? "clean" coal is basically useless (like putting a filter on a cigarrette) and the atmospheric damage of all coal is much worse than other energy sources (if that concerns you). The planet has WAY more coal than oil... but is this somwthing we should "invest" in if we intend to move away from it at some point?

I guess to me I think i'm thinking longer term and see better returns by investing and improving other technologies.

nice pic Richards! =)

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
Drill now pay less! It's that simple! Energy independance starts here in our own country with our own oil production/refining.

You realize that the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, yet N. America only has 5% of the world's oil reserves. Do the math.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
As stated with the Tunze example, private indistry and capitalism are the inovating producing force, not govenment! The cleaner technologies will come from the private investment side.

Right on brother! The Manhattan Project, the Moon landing, and all of that 2nd rate military hardware this country totes around were all private endeavors. Oh, wait, that's right, they weren't.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
In 25 years, we will know that the Iraq war was not over oil

Sure.....Oil giants, back again I also suggest reading Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12939919#post12939919 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by bbehring
I guess when we're all out on the streets, no jobs, no food, not contributing to society, we'll be happy that we healed the planet?

I guess when we spend most of our money to fabricate what nature used to give us for free we'll be happier too. Here's the paper that started to put a monetary value on ecological services. Must read