Global Warming News

[Pilot]

Your math is faulty here, as the solar panals do not produce 80 watts per year.
If I am not mistaken, they produce 80 watts per hour or 350,400 watts per year assuming an average of 12 hours of daylight per day.

The math may be faulty, but so are the claims for the solar power. The 80 watts per hour are under ideal conditions--noon on a sunny day. Morning and afternoon, they produce a lot less unless they track the sun. If they do track, there is still a loss as the light goes thru a thicker atmosphere when the sun is low. And if they are located at higher latitudes, their efficiency is reduced, again because of low sun angles. Furthermore, after a lot of careful research, I have noticed that there are cloudy days now and then.

Solar is coming along and in a few years they will have more efficient cells, but the only arguments I see for solar electrical generation now are to provide power in remote locations and to fund a budding industry that can only get by with subsidies. And that second argument, I don't really like.

OTOH, solar water heating is a different story and I think we should encourage that economically, thru subsidies or other means based on solar efficiency for a site or an area--more so for SoCal and Arizona than western Oregon.

 

[Pilot]

Coal vs. nuclear: If find this from Wiki to be interesting:

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[8][9] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[10] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste has been linked to the death of 20,000 people each year.[11] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[12] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[13]

The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[14]

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Coal vs. nuclear: If find this from Wiki to be interesting:

Claims exist that the problems of nuclear waste do not come anywhere close to approaching the problems of fossil fuel waste.[8][9] A 2004 article from the BBC states: "The World Health Organization (WHO) says 3 million people are killed worldwide by outdoor air pollution annually from vehicles and industrial emissions, and 1.6 million indoors through using solid fuel."[10] In the U.S. alone, fossil fuel waste has been linked to the death of 20,000 people each year.[11] A coal power plant releases 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant of the same wattage.[12] It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island accident.[13]

The World Nuclear Association provides a comparison of deaths due to accidents among different forms of energy production. In their comparison, deaths per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear.[14]

Thanks for the backup info, I remember reading about exactly how dangerous wood burning was both health and safety wise.
I am actually considering installing solar panels on a little house that I am rehabbing here, I think that for S. Cal it probably makes a lot of sense, not so sure about back east.(Interestingly SDGE won't pay you if you start spinning the meter backwards, they will issue you a "credit")
I keep hearing about you guys shoveling out and it just breaks my heart .(I was going to try and post a picture of the new peacock that appeared on our driveway the other day, but I didn't want to make you guys feel bad
Vis a Vis the Constitution, I,m still waiting for the alternative that we are going to use.
Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer,
I don't feel that Wikipedia was a pretty middle of the road source. I did google France etc. but did not come up with a clear description of their method. Not sure cherry picking is a fair accusation.
No answer on the Constitution dilemma. Looks like there is a possibility of major changes if the people desire.

My 2 cents on power. Home usage of power is rated in KWH. (Kilowatt Hours) It takes 1 kwh to power a 1000 watt light bulb for an hour (or a 100 watt light bulb for 10 hours) An 80 watt solar panel producing the rated amount for 10 hours would produce 800 watt hours or .8 kwh. We don't pay for watts or kilo watts or mega watts but for these things over a period of time. (watt hours, kwh, or mega watt hours) Not sure if this clarifies things or confuses??? Watts per hour doesn't make sense though I've seen it used many times.

Loren

Google "French Nuclear Waste Disposal" Don't know why the link didn't work. Probably because I'm an analog guy in a digital age!

 

[Chuck52]

Vis a Vis the Constitution, I,m still waiting for the alternative that we are going to use.
Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?

No need for an alternative. You interpret the constitution your way and others will interpret it their way. The Supremes are only "activist" when their interpretation disagrees with yours. Some conservatives like to rant about how the constitution is so clear in its intent that no interpretation is required, but again, that only follows an "interpretation" by the Supremes they don't like. The devil is in the details, and the Constitution is too short to have enough details, so we keep "interpreting" them in.

Chuck

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

It's interesting. From reading all these posts, I believe that the two of you (dave1949 & FallbrookFarmer) are at slightly opposite ends of the middle and yet are not really all that far apart in your beliefs. It leaves me wondering what comments from real extremists would look like...probably not as entertaining. I think you guys are having too much fun with this thread. As for myself, I vary between both of you on different parts of various issues. I also feel the need to commend both of you on the energy you have spent to look up and document the things you have posted. This thread has been both educational and enlightening for me. :thumbsup:

And on that note...it's time for bed.

I would agree that we are probably in agreement in the definition of the problem, It's how to arrive at the solution.
As you have probably guessed, I am a more market solution type of guy, while Loren, and Dave feel that government is a more effective way to solve a problem(Right?)

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

No need for an alternative. You interpret the constitution your way and others will interpret it their way. The Supremes are only "activist" when their interpretation disagrees with yours. Some conservatives like to rant about how the constitution is so clear in its intent that no interpretation is required, but again, that only follows an "interpretation" by the Supremes they don't like. The devil is in the details, and the Constitution is too short to have enough details, so we keep "interpreting" them in.

Chuck

One of the greatest strengths of the Constitution(IMHO)is its elegance. If one sits and reads it, it becomes clear that
some very very intelligent men spent many hours in taking what can be very complex issues, and reducing
them to everyday language that could be understood by
virtually everyone.
It's true that one can take one phrase or group of words and construe them in a way that may make the meaning ambiguous, but if one reads it as a plain language document, interpretation is less of a problem(IMHO).
Please, if you would, tell me the section, that you feel is so ambiguous that it needs to modified,changed. Or do you feel that we should start from scratch?
I would like to think that we can agree on what our basic system of government is.

 

[Pilot]

One of the greatest strengths of the Constitution(IMHO)is its elegance. If one sits and reads it, it becomes clear that
some very very intelligent men spent many hours in taking what can be very complex issues, and reducing
them to everyday language that could be understood by
virtually everyone..

James Madison practically wrote the whole thing himself.

 

[dave1949]

I would agree that we are probably in agreement in the definition of the problem, It's how to arrive at the solution.
As you have probably guessed, I am a more market solution type of guy, while Loren, and Dave feel that government is a more effective way to solve a problem(Right?)

I like markets. I also like a government that can ride herd on people's baser instincts. Complain about the growth of government if you must, but realize that much of the growth of government is the result of people doing stupid things, and the majority of them were involved in a business. This doesn't mean business is evil, it just means a business has enough money and works on a large enough scale to cause real problems. An individual could do the same given the resources.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill is a perfect example. Lacking a government with a big enough stick, how many of those spills would occur and how diligently would they be cleaned up? If history is a guide, the answer would be dismal.

I think you operate on the assumption that a multitude of market activities will result in the greatest good, like a hill of ants or hive of bees. First, we need to define 'good' and second, history demonstrates that without any regulations, most of the 'good' tends to end up the hands of a very few, very wealthy people. Unfortunately for some people, they can never have enough and often their gains are ill-gotten. Robber Barons earned the name, you know?

Example: While the descendants of Sam Walton were becoming some of the wealthiest people in the world, their employees (excuse me, associates) were being arm twisted into working for free. Aside from mobs burning the stores, who will correct that other than a government? Which action would you prefer?
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFramer,
I don't agree that government is by any means the only way to take care of a desired service. I think it pays to be specific with a given issue. I believe in a publicly funded army and all state, town, county police forces. Our use of "Black Water" has not saved money from what I have found and we have lost too much control of what they do. K-12 school should be public and there should be affordable post secondary education so that we can train the best and brightest even if they are poor. Fire and emergency protection is often publicly funded and sometimes covered by volunteer fire departments. Also as we do with SCHIP, Medicare, Medicade and many other programs, much of our population on some medical needs. What I would like to see is much different than what we have but it would include a basic level of coverage for including preventative medicine. There would be a copay depending on income for most visits with incentives to use the appropriate treatment (clinic visit instead of going to the ER. As is the case now with Medicare there are limits and private insurance gives a higher level of coverage. I am clearly in favor of one government agency (instead of the many that exist now) to oversee healthcare. I know that many disagree but I am not saying that we give everything to everybody for free - that's nuts.
Many regulatory agencies should be insulated as much as possible from business and corporate interest. I feel the best group to do this is by Federal, State or local governments.
You don't know my view when you state -quote "Here's one: How about We "give" people everything that they "need", and then the people return everything that they "can". Loren, Dave, sound okay?"
I think it makes much more sense to discuss specific topics or proposed solutions than to throw labels around and tell others what they think. I just feel that calling someone heartless or a facist would seem to not serve no constructive purpose. That statement is not directed at anyone -just an example.

A little more math on the 80 watt solar panel - if it averaged 65 watts of output for 10 hours a day for 365 days a year the power output would be
65 watts x 10 hrs x 365 = 650 watt hours x 365 = 23720 watt hours or
about 237.25 kwh for the year. At 15 cents per kwh it would produce $35.59 worth of electricity. Watts per year makes no sense; power is measured in kwh, mega watt hours or tera watt hours.

Note that the World Nuclear Association may be a bit biased and not take into account the full cost or health danger for the next 10000 years for its nuclear wastes.

I do enjoy the discussion when it stays civil and have learned much from many of you,
Loren