Page 4 of 5 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Dec 2011, 10:25 am

dmm1010 wrote:
marshall wrote:
Then by extension every energy source we currently use is nuclear power. Fossil fuels, wind, hydro, etc.. all originate from solar energy.

The heat in the earth's mantle came from kinetic coalescence of materials 4-5 billion years ago when the planets where still forming.

Only about 20 percent of Earth's geothermal energy is primordial; approximately 80 percent of it results from radioactive decay. We're living in the Stelliferous Era: energy comes from the stars.


I stand corrected. My understanding was based on older information.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2011, 11:18 am

Oodain wrote:
true

that the grid still requires as manual balancing as it does today baffles me,


Centralized computer control would be better, but there must be very careful handling of the transients. It wouldn't do for a momentary glitch to trigger a sub-grid shutdown.

Even if there is computer control there should be a manual override. Think of what would happen if the grid control computer were hacked.

ruveyn



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

20 Dec 2011, 11:20 am

Asp-Z wrote:
Climate change is likely caused by natural weather patterns. There is no evidence we're doing anything to evidence, merely correlation. A lot of ice creams are bought in the summer, does that mean the sun produces ice creams? :roll:

It's shame really, because the sooner the environment of this planet kills off all the humans, the better.


CO2 levels have increased by 36% over the past two centuries, and total effective anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased by close to 40%. This is hard data, as is the temperature record for the past century. It simply isn't possible to increase atmospheric greenhouse gases by this large a margin and have no warming effect on the earth's energy budget. You'd have to defy the laws of physics.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Dec 2011, 11:24 am

marshall wrote:
Asp-Z wrote:
Climate change is likely caused by natural weather patterns. There is no evidence we're doing anything to evidence, merely correlation. A lot of ice creams are bought in the summer, does that mean the sun produces ice creams? :roll:

It's shame really, because the sooner the environment of this planet kills off all the humans, the better.


CO2 levels have increased by 36% over the past two centuries, and total effective anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased by close to 40%. This is hard data, as is the temperature record for the past century. It simply isn't possible to increase atmospheric greenhouse gases by this large a margin and have no warming effect on the earth's energy budget. You'd have to defy the laws of physics.



In the applicable time scales the way is clear. Cut back on burning hydrocarbons by whatever means are at hand. In particular generate electricity with fission reaction heat generators. Go Thorium! Save the Planet!

ruveyn



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

20 Dec 2011, 11:37 am

ruveyn wrote:
Oodain wrote:
true

that the grid still requires as manual balancing as it does today baffles me,


Centralized computer control would be better, but there must be very careful handling of the transients. It wouldn't do for a momentary glitch to trigger a sub-grid shutdown.

Even if there is computer control there should be a manual override. Think of what would happen if the grid control computer were hacked.

ruveyn


some subsystems are partially automatic,

most wind farms use a request based system (dunno if others do too, omly place i have real experience)
basically the local controller requests how much power they want and a centralized computer at the wind park transformer station then commands all turbines under its control.

again as far as i gather most power systems run on some form of request system but to me its the central planning part thats required,
humans have a tendency to impart variations in anything they handle.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

21 Dec 2011, 2:02 am

ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
No one alternative form of sustainable energy is sufficient to replace fossil fuels, but no one has ever said that we should only do solar, only do wind, only do biomass, only do geothermal, etc. We should do *all* of them. We should also rebuild the grid, and we should also increase the efficiency of how we use electricity. As for nuclear reactors - sure, but only in non-geologically active areas (which pretty much rules out the entire west cost).


Making the grid more efficient and making electrical devices more efficient (especially electric lights) would reduce our electricity consumption by about 25 percent (all other things being equal). That is like finding a gigantic new oil field in the middle of Kansas. And we would not need to import any extra fuel to get this bonus. So no matter what alternative energy sources we use, restructuring our electricity uses should be an integral part of it.

Waste not, want not.

ruveyn

full agreement.



pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

21 Dec 2011, 11:51 am

LKL wrote:
@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?


Because I like to troll the greenies.


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

22 Dec 2011, 4:37 am

pete1061 wrote:
LKL wrote:
@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?


Because I like to troll the greenies.


that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


pete1061
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Nov 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,766
Location: Portland, OR

22 Dec 2011, 9:07 am

Oodain wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
LKL wrote:
@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?


Because I like to troll the greenies.


that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.



Welcome to the internet.
Do you actually expect people to behave as they do in real life here?


_________________
Your Aspie score: 172 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 35 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Diagnosed in 2005


Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

22 Dec 2011, 9:41 am

Not all that surprised by the news, but read this morning that BP was getting out of the solar business. From what I've read, they are not the only ones that have moved away from this expensive technology. The solar industry is seeing hard times.

"Beyond Solar"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... ond-solar/

Also read this morning about companies being upset over the suspending of the law requiring the phasing out of the old Edison incandescent light bulb. Seems crony capitalism has been at play.

"Shining A Light on Crony Capitalism"

http://news.investors.com/Article/59553 ... talism.htm

Snippet from the article:

Quote:
...The light-bulb ban was part of an energy bill pushed by Democrats in 2007 that set efficiency standards that traditional incandescent bulbs could never meet. The first to go was supposed to be the 100 watt bulb in 2012, followed by 75 watt bulbs the next year and the ubiquitous 60-watt bulb in 2014.

The argument is that forcing consumers to buy more efficient — and far more expensive — bulbs will greatly reduce energy consumption, and in turn, air pollution and global warming.

Earlier this month, Republicans suspended the law until October by denying funds for its implementation as part of a massive spending bill. For Democrats, this move was another sign of how out of touch the GOP is.

But look who else is complaining. As Politico reported, "big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania (are) fuming." Allegedly these companies are mad because they invested lots of money getting ready for the new rules.

Fact is, they were pushing for the ban all along.

In 2007, Philips urged an incandescent ban as a way to force the market toward high-efficiency bulbs, complaining that without such laws, "purchase price and functional performance often take precedence over environmental concern."

That same year, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, which represents companies making 95% of bulbs sold in the U.S., told a Senate panel that a ban was needed "to further educate consumers on the benefits of energy-efficient products."

Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast
You can believe if you want these companies only had Mother Earth in mind with this ban. But more likely they saw it as a chance to fatten their bottom lines. Who wouldn't jump at the chance to outlaw a low-margin, 60-cent product when you're trying to hawk a high-margin $3 alternative?

This would hardly be the first time big business teamed up with big government to enhance profits through competition-crushing regulations. Timothy Carney's book, "The Big Ripoff," detailed many cases where businesses "profit from big government policies that rip off consumers."

Thanks to the GOP, consumers now can see this seedy process at work, clear as day.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

23 Dec 2011, 1:04 am

Oodain wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
LKL wrote:
@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?


Because I like to troll the greenies.


that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.

No, it makes him pathetic. Think about it: most trolls at least have enough of a life that they focus on forums that they're at least interested in. This guy has so little going on that he has to whine about how bored he is anywhere he happens to land.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

23 Dec 2011, 1:49 pm

Only nuclear power can stop global warming.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

24 Dec 2011, 5:06 am

LKL wrote:
Oodain wrote:
pete1061 wrote:
LKL wrote:
@ Pete, if you don't give a damn why did you choose to come to a thread about climate change?


Because I like to troll the greenies.


that makes you, sir, a major pillock and a knobhead.

No, it makes him pathetic. Think about it: most trolls at least have enough of a life that they focus on forums that they're at least interested in. This guy has so little going on that he has to whine about how bored he is anywhere he happens to land.


true,

on top he uses the "but everyone else does it" excuse, not something one would expect from a mature individual


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

24 Dec 2011, 11:34 am

Jojoba wrote:
Quote:
Beyond Solar
In an attempt to burnish its green credentials, the British Energy firm BP has been telling us for years its initials stand for “Beyond Petroleum.” As part of this campaign, the company has been aggressively touting the achievements of its relatively small alternative energy division. Yet a recent announcement may prompt a change to a new acronym: BS — Beyond Solar. From the FT:
BP will close the chapter on more than 40 years of history after deciding to shut down its solar business, once regarded as one of its flagship alternative energy divisions.
The group has told staff that it had made the decision after the business became unprofitable. [...]
“Over the last six months we have realised that we simply can’t make any money from solar,” a spokesman confirmed.
The cycle of solar investments followed by solar bankruptcies dates back to the 1970s, and shows little sign of letting up during these “green” years. Despite the fervent wishes of ardent greens, a half-century of R&D has failed to turn solar power into a profitable enterprise. “The energy of the future” they call it. It is, and it always will be.
There is no doubt that solar energy could be a game changer — but there is also no doubt that isn’t one yet. Without massive subsidies or large carbon taxes to make competing forms of energy uncompetitive, solar can’t fly. At a time when governments around the world are getting credit downgrades, cutting their deficits, and figuring out how to stiff retirees whose pensions cannot be paid, there won’t be a lot of money around to throw at the sun.
Posted in Energy & Environment, Quick

Solar energy is expected to be at a concurentive price from oil by 2020, basically tomorrow. A lot of progress has been made on solar energy those last years, the prices and eficiency have greatly decreased, and they will continue to with the raise of mass production. It may be another example of the short-sightness of BP direction, or maybe their technology on solar energy is too far behind.


_________________
Down with speculators!! !


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

24 Dec 2011, 12:08 pm

Space based solar will be the new nuclear.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Dec 2011, 12:08 pm

Tollorin wrote:
Solar energy is expected to be at a concurentive price from oil by 2020, basically tomorrow.


Just about the time when controlled fusion is available or so it is predicted. I am not going to hold my breath for either one. Believed when seen.

ruveyn