25 Apr 14
5 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainwho are you talking to? If me, what is it that you want to prove? is it
Prove it.
""this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology."?
if so, OK:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3479
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_debate
"... wind, water and solar power can be scaled up in cost-effective ways to meet our energy demands, freeing us from dependence on both fossil fuels and nuclear power. In 2009 they published "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet With Renewables" in Scientific American. The article addressed a number of issues, such as the worldwide spatial footprint of wind turbines, the availability of scarce materials needed for manufacture of new systems, the ability to produce reliable energy on demand and the average cost per kilowatt hour. A more detailed and updated technical analysis has been published as a two-part article in the journal Energy Policy.[19]
..."
Also, if renewables where simply not cost effective, there would be few renewables used today. And yet renewables make up a significant proportion of the would production of energy:
http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/html/inventaire/Eng/conclusion.asp
"...The 2012 renewable share in the world's electricity mix was 20.8%, compared to 19.9% in 2011 and 18.3% in 2002...."
also:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9
"...Solar panels are certainly expensive—about $100 per square foot for a typical installation—but eventually, you're destined to end up on the positive side of the equation.
According to the California Solar Electric Company, it may take from eight to 12 years to recoup in saved energy costs the investment put into a basic residential photovoltaic (PV) solar array. But this estimate varies greatly depending on factors like the size of the array and the amount of sunlight that hits it, and advances in PV technology continue to shorten the payback period.
"The shortest payback with new thin-film cells is less than a year," says Burr Zimmerman, a chemical engineer and co-founder of the Kairos Institute, which ushers new technologies into the marketplace. Thanks to ramped-up production and cheaper materials, up-front costs continue to plummet as well; the price of solar cells has fallen fifteenfold since 1980.
After a solar array's initial payback period, you start to reap some serious financial benefits. Assuming solar cells have an average life expectancy of 30 years, more than 50 percent of the power solar cells generate ends up being free. "There are maintenance issues," Zimmerman says, but over time, "solar cells are definitely making you money."
..."
OK, explain how it is impossible for renewables to be cost effective if a solar panel can pay for itself in less than a year....
also, the solar panel technology is improving all the time and is becoming cheaper and more energy efficient all the time.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-9
"...the price of solar cells has fallen fifteenfold since 1980...."
So, Obviously, it will be just a matter of time before virtually ALL solar panels built will pay for themselves in less than a year and become cheaper in every way than burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.
Is that enough proof for you? or are you going to always demand more?
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by humy"Also, if renewables where simply not cost effective, there would be few renewables used today. And yet renewables make up a significant proportion of the would production of energy:"
who are you talking to? If me, what is it that you want to prove? is it
""this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology."?
if so, OK:
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3479
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_debate
"... wind, water and solar power can be scaled up in ...[text shortened]... o generate electricity.
Is that enough proof for you? or are you going to always demand more?
Sure, solar is cost effective far away from the electrical grid in third world countries, not where we live though. The third world will always use solar if there is enough sun shining in that region.
The USA is where a lot of the carbon is coming from though. Based on your own belief system you must conclude solar has to contribute to the electrical grid rather than replace it. It would be great to replace it, but the battery cost would be too high.
In the southwest USA solar might be able to compete okay, but here in Michigan where I live it would be a hard sell until prices actually come down significantly.
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain
"Also, if renewables where simply not cost effective, there would be few renewables used today. And yet renewables make up a significant proportion of the would production of energy:"
Sure, solar is cost effective far away from the electrical grid in third world countries, not where we live though. The third world will always use solar if there is eno ...[text shortened]... in Michigan where I live it would be a hard sell until prices actually come down significantly.
Sure, solar is cost effective far away from the electrical grid in third world countries,
No, not just in the third world but else where;
https://www.carbontrust.com/media/63632/ctg011-renewable-energy-technologies.pdf
+read my previous links which you evidently haven't.
and it is already used much in none third world countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
“The share of electricity produced from renewable energy in Germany has increased from 6.3 percent of the national total in 2000 to about 25 percent in the first half of 2012.[1][2] ..”
it isn't just the third world that has all the renewables!
It would be great to replace it, but the battery cost would be too high.
batteries for off-the-grid storage are coming cheaper all the time and it would be just a matter of time before they come very cost effective:
http://phys.org/news/2013-08-battery-enable-cheaper-efficient-energy.html
+, even without that, there is already an excellent work-around providing politics doesn't get in the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperGrid
so, no more excuses.
26 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyIf solar is that competitive then it will prevail and problem solved. Why the call for action? You have worked hard to prove there is no need for action, right?
Sure, solar is cost effective far away from the electrical grid in third world countries,
No, not just in the third world but else where;
https://www.carbontrust.com/media/63632/ctg011-renewable-energy-technologies.pdf
+read my previous links which you evidently haven't.
and it is already used much in none third world countries ...[text shortened]... tics doesn't get in the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperGrid
so, no more excuses.
Originally posted by Metal Brain
If solar is that competitive then it will prevail and problem solved. Why the call for action? You have worked hard to prove there is no need for action, right?
If solar is that competitive then it will prevail and problem solved. Why the call for action?
Because it is just not good enough merely that it eventually will prevail, it must prevail BEFORE it is too late. Action in the form of political action is needed to really PUSH for it to make it replace fossil fuels much sooner than how quickly this would otherwise happen without any such political action.
Renewables will inevitably economically replace fossil fuels in the very ling run. But that is not the problem. The problem is if we choose to make that happen ONLY in the VERY long run, which will be too late. The problem is will it be soon enough or too late to advert significantly harmful consequences for future generations?
Will future generations look back at our inaction and ask "how could they so selfishly make a disaster for us? Didn't they care?"
You have worked hard to prove there is no need for action, right?
No. The scientific facts of man made warming are proof enough.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is your world, as befitting a tenth century man besotted with ancient Egyptian 6 day creation mythology, not the world of science which goes after truth no matter where it leads. You don't WANT truth, you only want the continuation of that old Egyptian 6 day creation myth to be forced on people at all cost.
Evolution is Missing a Mathematical Formula - The Evolution Conspiracy
http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou do talk a lot of [insert derogatory adjective of choice here].
If solar is that competitive then it will prevail and problem solved. Why the call for action? You have worked hard to prove there is no need for action, right?
There is a huge amount invested in fossil fuel infrastructure and a huge
inertia behind the industry.
Given enough time fossil fuels will run out and/or be replaced by Nuclear/renewables...
The problem is that the market will do that WAY too slowly.
We need the change to happen on too short a time scale for dumb market forces
to get us there, so we need to force the change by other means.
Whether that's regulation, financial incentives, or something else, we can't just
leave it up to the market, because the market won't and hasn't got the job done.
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou don't know that. It is just one of the theories. I don't see why the average person should be forced to pay for it by the government taking more in taxes.
You do talk a lot of [insert derogatory adjective of choice here].
There is a huge amount invested in fossil fuel infrastructure and a huge
inertia behind the industry.
Given enough time fossil fuels will run out and/or be replaced by Nuclear/renewables...
The problem is that the market will do that WAY too slowly.
We need the change to hap ...[text shortened]... we can't just
leave it up to the market, because the market won't and hasn't got the job done.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is because you are an ignorant moron.
You don't know that. It is just one of the theories. I don't see why the average person should be forced to pay for it by the government taking more in taxes.
However taking extra in taxes is not necessary.
Removing subsidies from fossil fuels and a revenue neutral carbon tax would
do the vast majority of financial incentivising all on their own.
Individual projects could be funded by the issuing of bonds, and the last remnants
of CO2 emissions dealt with via regulation.
No tax increases on you actually required.
28 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat was kind of also what I was trying to tell him.
You do talk a lot of [insert derogatory adjective of choice here].
There is a huge amount invested in fossil fuel infrastructure and a huge
inertia behind the industry.
Given enough time fossil fuels will run out and/or be replaced by Nuclear/renewables...
The problem is that the market will do that WAY too slowly.
We need the change to hap ...[text shortened]... we can't just
leave it up to the market, because the market won't and hasn't got the job done.