Global Warming News

[Ken45101]

It is likely that nuclear electricity production will continue to be needed in the future but I feel our heads are in the sand concerning the future cost of cleanup and responsible disposal of nuclear wastes.

I certainly agree that clean up and waste disposal are major issues that need to be solved. However, it's my understanding that Fast Breeder Reactors produce little or no nuclear waste. The French have been using that technology successfully for decades. However, the U.S. government refuses to even allow the technology to be considered.

Years ago there was an article in one of the self-help magazenes (maybe Popular Science) that indicated a very high speed flywheel can store much more energy then batteries weighing the same. As I recall-the flywheel was strands of cable like a mop head spinning in a vacuum. The devise was originated for a car but proved poor because it worked like a gyroscope and car tended to go straight when trying to turn a corner.
Maybe a flywheel is a better choice for storing windmill power at a homesite.

I recently saw a review of some of Pop Science's past hysterical claims for future technologies. It might appear that there is little reality in their "POP" science. I would not trust their ideas as connected to practical reality.

Ken

 

[eepete]

@Dan: All good points. My income varies from zero to lots depending on what work shows up. A hidden win because I do cash only and early on learned to get rid of all debt, but that's another story. Started the solar project in October for end of year win. Had a big job this year, so tax credits work out pretty good, not perfect. My numbers show this in general, as with all these discussions it's hard to know what level of detail is relevant to the point being discussed. Someday when things slow down I'll send you a PM and if you want to can come out and see it all- tractors and solar, what a great day! Have 7.7KW DC, which peaks at about 6-ishKW AC. Inverter and site are sized for up to 10KW DC in case all this works really well. Hope to get check for 15 cents per KWH from Greenshares, credit from power company for burden cost of 5 cents per KWH, I pay 10 cents per KHW for the house meter for what I use. Paperwork still going through on all that. There is risk, slop, and uncertainty in all the numbers, just like when you buy a tractor and don't really know if it and the implements are sized for what you want to do.

@Loren: It's all gray. You found a great solution for your problem, and have kept adapting and tweaking it as needed. It doesn't get better than that.

@charlz: Part of the monitoring of all this is to figure out impact of reduced power at higher temperatures, aging, etc. I currently can monitor outside temp, humidity, light levels, and power usage. When all this get gets going I'm sure there will be more to post (maybe not here in tractor land, but I'll put it out there and let people know where it is- gotta be mindful of the purpose of this forum).

@20_20: On nuclear, we can learn a lot from France. I'd love to see a single national design to reduce cost and let all sites learn from any site that had a problem and solved it. Need national processing and disposal. The inherently safe designs look interesting. I don't know enough about it to intelligently discuss it here, but what little I know says it can be done right but as always the devil is in the details. The scariest part is trusting big business and big government to get it right.

@Eddy: Thanks. I always think my posts are too long, it's nice to know that sometimes that's working OK for people.

Ok, time for me to get back out there and work on my tractor garage I'm building (with help from Morton). I'm going to insulate it so that whichever way the climate goes I win!

Pete

 

[Ken45101]

On nuclear, we can learn a lot from France. I'd love to see a single national design to reduce cost and let all sites learn from any site that had a problem and solved it.

Oh yes! The local utility (Cincinnati Gas & Electric) decided to do their own nuclear design work (Kind of like self taught bomb disposal) After years and years of delays and mistakes, they finally threw in the towel except that they "converted" the partially built plant to coal so that they saddle the customers for their stupidity! The conversion alone cost more than a new coal plant

Yes, there ought to be a standard, modular design.

Ken

 

[turbo36]

Keegs, For goodness sake, seal up that attic door!

Tax incentives and markets are incredibly complex entities that are woven throughout our economy.

Take roads and highways for example. Roads are paid for and maintained with fuel taxes, some pay annual auto excise taxes, city/township/county, state and federal funds, tolls, etc.

I like a California or Florida orange in winter here in Maine as well as the next person, but strictly speaking, the road and highway network we have isn't a necessity. We collectively decided we would rather have our roads and grudgingly pay for them.

The existance of roadways distorts markets. Certainly their existance distorts rail travel and shipping markets. Same for barges and cargo ships. Housing and commercial real estate markets. How much is a gas station worth without roads to drive on? What is an orange grove worth, or how much would a fresh orange in Maine cost without publically funded roadways?

Many of the same types of distinctions can be made for the air travel/cargo industry.

I think it is an oversimplification to say tax incentives and the corresponding manipulation of markets should be done away with. If you start looking at the less obvious cases there would be a growing list of exceptions people would be/are willing to make.

When looking at energy subsidies, the debate is really about how much the public values the results of manipulating the market. It's also about being forced by circumstances to adopt new paradigms. Whole books can and have been written just to address 'circumstances'. Good points have been made here for and against subsidies.

My personal opinion is we are making a slow but certain exit from the age of fossil fuel energy. The debate is going to continue for some years. Fossil fuels will continue to be used, but will become a specialty fuel. Disclaimer: It's possible my crystal ball is smudged, your mileage may vary.

Here is a factoid from blurtit.com :
In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year.

I believe I have heard it stated also as: the sun provides enough energy on the surface of the earth each hour to power all human needs for one week.

The solar energy is there if we are smart enough to utilize it.
Dave.

Dang man, we have to get together over a bottle of wine sometime. Very few people understand the complexity of the interest driven subsidization system that we and all countries have. Your post does a great job "scratching the surface" in a way most people can understand. Thanks.

 

[dave1949]

It's not just a question of "smarts". We are no where near the technology to utilize solar energy at anywhere near 25%, much less 100%. Besides, do you realize that if you utilized all the sun energy that shines on Lake Erie, it would freeze!

Yes, hopefully some day we will have high efficiency solar energy. But today the efficiency is quite low and it is not a widespread solution. I'm not saying that we shouldn't work on improving it, but it just isn't a broad solution. Besides, the manufacturing process is environmentally unfriendly if it were currently implemented in massive fashion.

Ken

I meant 'smart' in the sense of 'able' to develop the technology, not just to be aware that the resource is there. Your point is well taken, I should have phrased it differently. The current level of technology for converting sunlight into electricity is 'early days' in the larger scheme of things.

Since the energy is there to capture, if we are able, I put it in the same category as fusion reactors; I hope someday the technology will exist to use it.

Regarding the cost of powering an off-grid home from photovoltaic panels and batteries, I did some calculations a couple years back when we were planning our house. I came to the conclusion that break even would be tough to achieve. This was pre-tax incentives. It looked like as a break even point was approached, it would be time for a new set of batteries, as Eddie said. That would be a best-case scenario without the need to replace many failed parts prematurely. We have high (0.16/KWH) electric rates here, so that factor will skew results compared to other areas. I also assumed we would cut our KWH use to a bare minimum and have a backup generator. I added in the extra costs of purchasing extremely efficient appliances.

It is economically sound for situations where the cost of getting grid power to your homesite is expensive. I know of several homes in my area that function quite well off-grid eventhough we are far from the sunshine belt. It isn't correct to categorically say solar electric is not workable unless you are in the desert or similar sunshine locations.

One example is a guy who found himself on the wrong side of a railroad right of way. He found out too late they wanted a high monthly payment for him to have a power line easement over the right of way. In his case, off-grid power made it possible to use his land. Hopefully, that was reflected in the price of the land, normally that would be the case. That reduction in land price can be applied to the cost of the solar power, all things being equal. The point being, off-grid can make a cheap but decent piece of property more useable. Not to say that is extremely useful - except to a lot of the people on this forum

eepete is not the only guy I know who just wanted to say goodbye to the power company. I respect that choice.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

Dang man, we have to get together over a bottle of wine sometime. Very few people understand the complexity of the interest driven subsidization system that we and all countries have. Your post does a great job "scratching the surface" in a way most people can understand. Thanks.

Thanks turbo36.

Ethanol from corn: An obvious subsidy and resulting market manipulation that the public did not value after paying more for everything related to corn and ground that could grow corn Besides being junk science - the truth will out.

There are some easy ones like that, but we forget about or don't think of most of them because they are deeply imbedded in the economy by custom and choice.
Dave.

 

[Pilot]

Back to global warming:

You have heard the word "unprecedented" used in regard to our current apparent warming event. Looks like the medieval warming period was a bit warmer than now, doesn't it? This is data from NOAA, not some crackpot. And that pesky medieval warming period was left out of the 2001 IPCC report. Must have missed that, somehow, but they did have it in an earlier report. Including it in 2001 was just inconvenient, I guess.

 

[IH3444]

OMG, how did we survive that and the black plague? Hotter than now, do tell! Sounds like a skeptic story to me. Are the dinosaurs OK?

 

[dave1949]

Back to global warming:

You have heard the word "unprecedented" used in regard to our current apparent warming event. Looks like the medieval warming period was a bit warmer than now, doesn't it? This is data from NOAA, not some crackpot. And that pesky medieval warming period was left out of the 2007 IPCC report. Must have missed that, somehow, but they did have it in an earlier report. Including it in 2007 was just inconvenient, I guess.

What the graph shows is ice cores taken from Greenland indicate it had a significant warming period. Other collected data shows that approximate level of warming extended into parts of Europe also.

What the graph doesn't show is that the entire globe had a similar and uniform warming spell. From what I have read, when evidence that this was a global condition is looked for, they don't find it.

If you think they didn't find it on purpose, or whatever the case may be, the best way to prove that is to collect and analyze data yourself. Maybe you could start a foundation that collects donations to fund climate research. It is possible you will have many contributors.

In the reading I've done, and it's good this thread encourages that, I have never seen any reference to a researcher denying there was a Medieval warming period in Greenland and adjacent areas.

Dave.

 

[Pilot]

Well, Michael Mann, of the famous and discredited "hockey stick" of the climategate email scandal fame says it was only a northern hemisphere phenomena.

But then, we have this:

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/hockey-stick/mwp-global-studies-map-i-1500.jpg