Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 121763 times)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #320 on: November 25, 2017, 10:26:00 am »

You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?
That's an entirely different discussion. Do you think there was no "real" demand for these Tesla batteries? And to answer your last question, yes, solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost, so I see no problem like you say with tanks. I think that's a false equivalence.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #321 on: November 25, 2017, 11:01:22 am »

... solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost...

When I rub my hands together, I also provide energy below fossil fuel cost, even below solar panel cost. But, I can only drive a Flintstone car with that energy ;)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #322 on: November 25, 2017, 09:02:49 pm »

.. solar panels now provide energy below fossil fuel cost..

Have you factored in the rising cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity due to the regulatory imposition of renewables?

What has happened in Australia during recent times, is that the customer demand for electricity from fossil fuels has diminished because of the popularity of government-subsidized solar panels. The increasing price of electricity motivates more people to install solar panels, which in turn drives up the cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity even further, because the anticipated customer demand during the initial investments in the coal and gas-fired power stations, has dramatically fallen. The same would apply to DSLR cameras which are becoming a niche market.

Australia is a country with huge reserves of fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) and huge reserves of Uranium, yet we have some of the highest electricity rates in the world. Isn't that just crazy?

https://leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #323 on: November 26, 2017, 10:03:07 am »


Australia is a country with huge reserves of fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) and huge reserves of Uranium, yet we have some of the highest electricity rates in the world. Isn't that just crazy?

https://leadingedgeenergy.com.au/highest-electricity-prices-world/
Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #324 on: November 26, 2017, 10:49:33 am »

Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?
Maybe they won't be.  What got Trump elected was that past government policies did not address the real damaging effects on many people from tax, trade, environmental regulations, and other economic policies.  Many politicians weren't listening to the voters.  They're were more concerned with touchy-feely issues instead of real meat-and-butter concerns like jobs.  Trump winning the rust-belt states was a wake-up call.  It was so powerful, Hillary lost and now the Dems just threw the Clintons under the bus for ever more.  They're finished.   If Australians get to the point where the power costs become a large enough issue, policies will change and/or parties in power will lose.  The same is true in other countries.  Everyone's all for green energy until it starts to cost them "real" money. 

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #325 on: November 26, 2017, 10:52:54 am »

Why is the current government who must support these policies still in power?

Politics is almost as complicated as climate change. It's basically the Labour party (roughly equivalent to the Democrats in the US) who are fighting for a reduction in CO2 emissions. The Liberals, who are currently in power in the Australian Federation (roughly equivalent to the Republicans in the US), have a more practical view on energy supply, and would like to extend the life of current coal plants, and/or build new plants of the latest Ultra-supercritical variety.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not have an outright majority in the Senate, so has great difficulty in getting new legislation passed. Individual states also have the power to make their own decisions.

Because the future of political decisions, depending on which party is in power, is very uncertain, private companies are reluctant to invest in new coal-powered electricity plants, even though the latest technology can guarantee that emissions which are harmful to health are reduced to negligible levels.

The state of South Australia, under mostly Labour state governments, has made a transition to renewables, and has got itself into trouble, due to the unreliability of renewables, which is why it has now commissioned the building of the largest battery storage system in the world, the current Tesla project.

Australia in general is high on the list of energy costs, but South Australia is the highest. It'll be interesting to see if the Tesla battery project brings the costs down.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #326 on: November 26, 2017, 11:32:10 am »

Politics is almost as complicated as climate change. It's basically the Labour party (roughly equivalent to the Democrats in the US) who are fighting for a reduction in CO2 emissions. The Liberals, who are currently in power in the Australian Federation (roughly equivalent to the Republicans in the US), have a more practical view on energy supply, and would like to extend the life of current coal plants, and/or build new plants of the latest Ultra-supercritical variety.

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government does not have an outright majority in the Senate, so has great difficulty in getting new legislation passed. Individual states also have the power to make their own decisions.

Because the future of political decisions, depending on which party is in power, is very uncertain, private companies are reluctant to invest in new coal-powered electricity plants, even though the latest technology can guarantee that emissions which are harmful to health are reduced to negligible levels.

The state of South Australia, under mostly Labour state governments, has made a transition to renewables, and has got itself into trouble, due to the unreliability of renewables, which is why it has now commissioned the building of the largest battery storage system in the world, the current Tesla project.

Australia in general is high on the list of energy costs, but South Australia is the highest. It'll be interesting to see if the Tesla battery project brings the costs down.

I've read elsewhere that the batteries will cost Australia $50 million which works out to about $1700 for each of the 30,000 homes effected.  Of course that's the build price.  What about upkeep, maintenance, and eventual replacements of the batteries?  It's not a one-time charge.

I also read that they still have to build diesel -fired plants: "The state has yet to say how much it would pay for the battery, which is part of a A$510 million ($390 million) plan that includes diesel-fired generators to help keep the lights on following a string of blackouts over the past 18 months."

So the cost of electricity  based on $390 million/30,000 homes is actually $13,000 per home.  So much for "free" electricity.  And you still need the diesel plants burning "dirty" carbon fuel for backup.  It seems that energy-rich Australia will continue to pay the highest for electricity for years to come.  The current politicians won't last long when taxes go up to pay for all this free stuff. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-power-tesla/tesla-cranks-up-big-battery-in-australia-idUSKBN1DN0B4?il=0

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #327 on: November 26, 2017, 12:11:26 pm »

Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?

Does anyone else find this comment inexplicable?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #328 on: November 26, 2017, 12:21:40 pm »

Does anyone else find this comment inexplicable?
It would have been helpful if you posted my entire post.  So I did so below.   So, what is it you don't understand?  Maybe I can explain it to you. 

You're assuming that government selected winners and losers help an economy.  Remember that resources not spent on government directed products will be spent elsewhere that will probably be more profitable and useful to society because "real" demand from buyers will exist, not phony directed pushes from the government.  An example is defense spending.  Sure, defense contractors and employees do well.  But who needs a tank?  Think of all the benefits to society of people spent their money on other things they really want instead of tanks demanded by the government.  Of course, we need tanks to defend ourselves.  But do we really need solar panels?

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #329 on: November 26, 2017, 01:26:32 pm »

When I rub my hands together, I also provide energy below fossil fuel cost, even below solar panel cost. But, I can only drive a Flintstone car with that energy ;)
How many volts between your fingertips?  ;)

And in case you missed it, Flinstone cars are driven by feet, not by rubbing hands together   :P
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 01:29:56 pm by pegelli »
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #330 on: November 26, 2017, 01:27:20 pm »

Have you factored in the rising cost of fossil-fuel-generated electricity due to the regulatory imposition of renewables?
Yes, in most countries here these days solar panels are not subsidized and pay a share of using the grid. Still their overall (cradle-to-grave) cost is lower vs. fossil fuel based electricity.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #331 on: November 26, 2017, 01:31:57 pm »

How many volts between your fingertips? ... ;)

Depends on where I stick my fingertips... it is known to produce quite a shock ;)

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #332 on: November 26, 2017, 01:42:34 pm »

Depends on where I stick my fingertips... it is known to produce quite a shock ;)
Watch out Slobodan, before you know it you might become the subject in a "#me-too" blog  :o
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #333 on: November 26, 2017, 02:52:05 pm »

Yes, in most countries here these days solar panels are not subsidized and pay a share of using the grid. Still their overall (cradle-to-grave) cost is lower vs. fossil fuel based electricity.
Fossil fuel electric generation is cheaper in the US and much more expensive in Australia so the price advantages are not comparable. You'll have less incentive in the US and more incentive in Australia to install solar.  Also, how do you figure costs.  You have to look at the full life cycle, still having to keep fossil generators when it's "dark", etc. What about batteries like the problem Tesla is solving in Australia.  These costs have to be paid for with taxes which don't show up in a homeowner's electric bill.   What about additional roof replacement costs if you have solar there?  Just saying it's cheaper doesn't mean it's so.  It's often just hype from the solar industry. 

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #334 on: November 26, 2017, 05:23:29 pm »

Fossil fuel electric generation is cheaper in the US and much more expensive in Australia so the price advantages are not comparable. You'll have less incentive in the US and more incentive in Australia to install solar.  Also, how do you figure costs.  You have to look at the full life cycle, still having to keep fossil generators when it's "dark", etc. What about batteries like the problem Tesla is solving in Australia.  These costs have to be paid for with taxes which don't show up in a homeowner's electric bill.   What about additional roof replacement costs if you have solar there?  Just saying it's cheaper doesn't mean it's so.  It's often just hype from the solar industry.
Many wrong assumptions, why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cost for backup of solar (and wind) are here fully paid by the electric bill of all consumers. No general tax money is going there.
Why would you need extra roof replacements with solar panels? Build it right the first time and a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more.
And bottom line, it's cheaper, whether you like it or not, spreading misinformation isn't going to change that. 
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #335 on: November 26, 2017, 05:40:48 pm »

... why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about...

That was totally uncalled for.

Quote
...a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more...

"why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about?" (sorry, couldn't resist) :D

Maybe in Europe, not here:

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #336 on: November 26, 2017, 09:35:57 pm »

Many wrong assumptions, why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about.
Cost for backup of solar (and wind) are here fully paid by the electric bill of all consumers. No general tax money is going there.
Why would you need extra roof replacements with solar panels? Build it right the first time and a decent roof here lasts 70 to 100 years if not more.
And bottom line, it's cheaper, whether you like it or not, spreading misinformation isn't going to change that. 
Everything I said is true for certain countries, maybe most.  Backup of solar I referred too was in Australia and referred to in an article stating $500 million in additional costs.  Even if it's not taxed and passed on in people's electric bills, it still costs everyone additional money for the storage and diesel generators they said they have to build.

I also stated that because fossil produced electric energy is cheaper in the US than where you live, the cost of renewable energy is more costly relative to fossil produced.  So as I said the so-called "savings" are not comparable country to country. 

Regarding roofs, only the most expensive in the US have slate or other materials that could last 70 years.  I doubt you will convince rich people to cover their beautiful slate roofs with solar panels and reduce the property and aesthetic value.  Most average American homes have roofs that last 15-20 years.  So at some point, you have to replace the roof.  You then have to dismantle the solar panels and reinstall them, all at additional cost and risk.  Also, in America, rebates are still the norm.  So the public is paying for the savings that only some people get.

Most articles pushing the low cost and savings idea come from climate change supporters or companies who install solar systems.  I've studied the cost savings here in America.  Without government rebates, it still doesn't make sense and even with them I'd say they're marginal in savings if at all.  I say that as an businessman and engineer who designed and installed energy management systems since the 1973 oil crisis who had to prove to my customers that energy systems will reduce their costs before I could get them to buy them.  So please hold your insults about the "nonsense" I'm serving.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #337 on: November 26, 2017, 10:47:00 pm »

Maybe in Europe, not here:

It's true that the lifespan of asphalt roof shingles, commonly used in North America is only 15 to 18 years. It's also incredibly stupid, wasteful and shortsighted to continue using such a material. (For a complete disclosure I have also such shingles on my roof).

Fortunately, Elon Musk comes to the rescue. In addition to his Tesla car company, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Tunnel Boring and Battery Gigafactory, this fairly busy man recently opened also an innovative solar roof tile company. His new glass solar roof tiles, coming to the market next year, will be so durable that they are warrantied for the lifetime of your house, or infinity, whichever comes first. The link below shows a nicely clad tile roof on an attractive home and an atached garage, complete with a sleek aerodynamic car in the driveway.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/solarroof
« Last Edit: November 26, 2017, 11:09:07 pm by LesPalenik »
Logged

pegelli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1664
    • http://pegelli.smugmug.com/
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #338 on: November 27, 2017, 04:06:10 am »

That was totally uncalled for.
Nope, fully deserved  :P
"why do you spread nonsence when you have no idea what you are talking about?" (sorry, couldn't resist) :D
Maybe in Europe, not here:
Apparently you didn't see the word "here" in my statement, I was talking about "here" which you know for me is Europe. Selective memory doesn't help your credibility.
Logged
pieter, aka pegelli

Robert Roaldi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4763
    • Robert's Photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #339 on: November 27, 2017, 08:02:36 am »

It's true that the lifespan of asphalt roof shingles, commonly used in North America is only 15 to 18 years. It's also incredibly stupid, wasteful and shortsighted to continue using such a material. (For a complete disclosure I have also such shingles on my roof).

So true, but it's the way we build a lot of things in North America in general. Low price is king, quality is low. No one expects to live in a house for very long, I think, so there is no need for long-term quality. And up till now, at least, land and heating/cooling was cheap, so inefficient insulation didn't matter much and it was cheap and easy to simply move to a new home farther out in the suburbs. People do it this way because they can. We even abandon entire cities, e.g., Detroit.
Logged
--
Robert
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17] 18 19 ... 32   Go Up