[catachresis]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Where's the energy coming from then? No energy, no global economy. And it's pretty clear that there's no good substitute for carbon based fuels in the near future.

Funny, I had thought that with the recent maturation of commercial solar cell technology, the proliferation of windfarms, greatly enhanced initiatives for adopting fossil-fuel alternative technologies in transportation, and even revisionary interest in nuclear energy, there was a slow but strong shifting of momentum away from inertial acceptance of fossil fuels' centrality to industrial nations and world commerce. But then you suddenly contradicted that perception with the flat confidence that so often correlates to the absence of any authoritative source reference, and I saw that I was wrong.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catachresis /img/forum/go_quote.gif Funny, I had thought that with the recent maturation of commercial solar sell technology, the proliferation of windfarms, greatly enhanced initiatives for adopting fossil-fuel alternative technologies in transportation, and even revisionary interest in nuclear energy, there was a slow but strong shifting of momentum away from inertial acceptance of fossil fuels' centrality to industrial nations and world commerce. But then you suddenly contradicted that perception with the flat confidence that so often correlates to the absence of any authoritative source reference, and I saw that I was wrong.

Fair enough. I'll do a quick breakdown for you.

Wind energy is actually a decent energy source and is the closest to being competitive with current baseload power sources as far as alternative sources of energy go. Still, cost per kWh is ~ 50% more than coal for onshore plants. And that isn't all renewable as wind energy must be supplemented by a baseload energy source. This report notes that baseload support must be 90% of installed wind capacity.There's also grid reliability issues related to wind power dropouts, and issues with wind generation during peak summer and winter loads. Ironically, they also note that as wind generation capacity increases, it becomes less able to replace baseload generation.

There's also an issue with the geographical distribution of wind energy in the United States. Current technology allows us to exploit wind energy in locations with class 4 or higher wind power. A quick glance at the map shows that most of these areas are sparsely inhabited. Another look at the electrical grid map shows that there's no way to move the energy from those areas to areas with high energy usage. Not that you'd really want to, line losses would be enormous. Offshore wind would work better for due to population concentration on the coasts, but that has it's own set of challenges and much higher costs than onshore generation.

All in all, wind isn't a bad power source. In onshore areas with enough wind, it makes sense as a cost effective supplemental power source. In most others though, it's only competitive by government fiat. And until we find a suitable way to store enormous amounts of energy (good luck), it cannot replace traditional baseload generation, will have significant technical hurdles in expanding from the onshore areas with good wind energy potential, and will remain a minor percentage of total power generation.

Commercial solar power technology hasn't matured, if by matured you mean remotely competitive with baseload energy sources. Pricing for solar power is still very expensive at 3-4x coal. It is also geographically limited (though less so than wind power), is even less dependable than wind power and cannot replace baseload power generation. Solar power wouldn't even be in the energy discussion if it wasn't for massive government subsidies, an ugly fact that rears it's head every time those subsidies stop. See: Spain's subsidy cuts. Or, see Spain's subsidies. They were paying EUR0.44/kWh for solar power generation.

As for nuclear, I'm a big supporter. But, ain't gunna happen. A confluence of politics, NIMBY/BANANA, lack of a waste disposal area, environmental opposition, and stringent regulations will strangle any proposed nuclear plan in the crib.

As far as fossil fuel transportation alternatives in the US goes, they seem to fall under two categories: complete disasters and nascent efforts. Not that it matters to the fed.gov. They'll subsidies both categories to little effect.

The automotive ethanol industry is in the former category. It only exists due to the government mandates for the use of ethanol as a oxygenate, despite the fact that there hasn't been a need for oxygenating gasoline ever since fuel injection took over the market. In fact, when ethanol is used as an oxygenate, emissions actually increase when compared to non-oxygenated gasoline. There's also evidence that the use of corn ethanol is a net negative to the environment when compared to gasoline. Course, the entire industry isn't too healthy at the moment.

Biodiesel exists, but it's not really worth a mention. It's nowhere near ready to replace diesel on a significant scale and current production methods don't scale well.

Electrically powered vehicles have also caught the public imagination, but as the difficult gestations and high production costs of the Volt and Tesla shows, the technology is still a ways off. Not to mention that you'll still have to generate the electricity to power the suckers. At the moment, that means trading one form of fossil fuel for another for the majority of Americans.

Only other technology that I can think of is Honda's hydrogen efforts. It's both fossil fueled and experimental though, so I don't think it fits in this category.

 

[Gatsu]

Lets face it the world will go on, but mother nature doesn't give a crap about human beings. We can screw over the environment all we like, but our children and grandchildren are the ones who have to live in it.

The earth is not a static system, there have been changes in the environment before and there will be again in the future. But as far as the records go, there has never been a change as dramatic as the one we have seen over the last 100 years. The only things that come close are large meteor impacts and supervolcano eruptions. And I'm pretty sure we would have noticed those.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by s1rrah /img/forum/go_quote.gif And as far as Al Gore is concerned, I say make him shut down his heated swimming pool or else feed him to the polar bears.

Al Gore = Carbonbagger.

 

[Nocturnal310]

the link u posted in the first post is an auto-update ..which means a new image everyday...i got the original image from the archives: APOD: 2009 April 21 - Global Warming Predictions

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif All in all, wind isn't a bad power source. In onshore areas with enough wind, it makes sense as a cost effective supplemental power source. In most others though, it's only competitive by government fiat. And until we find a suitable way to store enormous amounts of energy (good luck), it cannot replace traditional baseload generation, will have significant technical hurdles in expanding from the onshore areas with good wind energy potential, and will remain a minor percentage of total power generation.

As Newton's third law states...For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction...

When we harness the power of the wind, we reduce the wind in that area. What are the consequences of this action? More uneven heating of the earths' surface?

Wind power is a good suplemental source, but what is the limit before we cause problems?

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 883dave /img/forum/go_quote.gif As Newton's third law states...For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction... When we harness the power of the wind, we reduce the wind in that area. What are the consequences of this action? More uneven heating of the earths' surface? Wind power is a good suplemental source, but what is the limit before we cause problems?

Come on, man, that's very thin. Every little unevenness on the planets surface absorbs wind energy. Or was that a joke?

Concerning Al Gore, the Nobel Committee made the mistake of the century with giving him the prize, he's a buffoon.

As Clutz said, nobody knows for certain if this heating is real, but if it is, and we do nothing about it for the next 50 years, it will be to late for sure.
Better safe than sorry, or in this case, better safe than an inhabitable planet.

 

[acidbasement]

People who claim that this is a debate between environment and economy are thinking in the very short term. I can't think of a more pressing economic issue than access to fresh water. It's something we all take for granted, and it's something that could very possibly become drastically altered depending on which global warming scenario turns out to be correct.

Read this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0421101625.htm

If coastal cities flood, if farmers' fields do not receive enough precipitation to grow crops, if drinking water dries up for millions of people, we will see the rise of serious socioeconomic problems that will affect us all in the pocketbook, well beyond the level that we'd see if access to petrol were restricted. Scientists will never be able to make it rain on a scale grand enough to save our lifestyles. This debate is not just about saving endangered species, though that is a worthwhile goal as well IMO.

Faced with the choice, I would far rather have water than oil.

 

[883dave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpidglitch /img/forum/go_quote.gif Come on, man, that's very thin. Every little unevenness on the planets surface absorbs wind energy. Or was that a joke?

Think of it this way...

When we harness the wind, we use the wind energy = less wind.
Use a piece of tissue paper and blow into it, record the deflection, now put a wirlygig between you and the tissue paper, you will notice that the wirlygig has taken some of the energy.
Wind is generated from hot areas, high pressure, to cooler areas, low pressure. What happens when we change the patterns of the wind?. Do we create less wind, or more wind, and what are the consequences of each?

Can we upset the natural order? and if so what happens?

 

[mbd2884]

Problem to global warming or climate change as someone already stated is overpopulation.

Excess is almost always the demon. And the human population is way in excess. Of course no scientist would publicly state this as it becomes a human rights issue which is just pain in arse to deal with.

You want to reduce carbon dioxide output, decrease human population, that is the fastest and surest way to do so. Less people, less appliances, less resources used polluting the air.

So simple, but no one wants to address it.

In the last hundred years the biggest change the earth encountered was infestation of humans from a 1.5 billion to 7 billion. Estimated about 110 billion people in the entire human history, and 6% of that are alive today. As the first Matrix movie almost comically said, the human species are unlike any other mammal, we do not obey the natural cycle. Our population growth is more akin to that of a virus, we have become a virus to our own planet. Out of control and consuming the worlds resources leaving behind the waste in the form of destructive pollution. Am I a part of this, sadly yes. Only solution I see is drastic population control.

I laugh everytime when I hear a couple saying the best thing they can offer to the world through their love is bringing a child into the world. Best thing that couple can do is to never have children IMO.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatsu /img/forum/go_quote.gif The only things that come close are large meteor impacts and supervolcano eruptions.

There's a supervolcano under Yellowstone Park and when it erupts, and it will, it will be like Armageddon for NA.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif So simple, but no one wants to address it.

Well, it's a moral issue. What do you suggest? They fire up the gas chambers? I've done my bit anyway, never got married and never had children. In the Western world they don't have enough people to sustain a thriving economy. Why do you think Western countries were/are so open to immigration? They need immigrants for cheap labour and to sustain consumerism. Personally, I only live for the moment and don't really give a frack about the future or your children and grandchildren. The sooner man is wiped out the better. I'm sick of all these wars over pathetic issues and people who think life is about screwing over their fellow man to make life easier for themselves.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Personally, I only live for the moment and don't really give a frack about the future or your children and grandchildren.

That's so cool. You're so bad.

 

[milkweg]

No, it is society that is so bad and not me so screw your inept sarcastic remark.

 

[GUNS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbd2884 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Problem to global warming or climate change as someone already stated is overpopulation. Excess is almost always the demon. And the human population is way in excess. Of course no scientist would publicly state this as it becomes a human rights issue which is just pain in arse to deal with. You want to reduce carbon dioxide output, decrease human population, that is the fastest and surest way to do so. Less people, less appliances, less resources used polluting the air. So simple, but no one wants to address it. In the last hundred years the biggest change the earth encountered was infestation of humans from a 1.5 billion to 7 billion. Estimated about 110 billion people in the entire human history, and 6% of that are alive today. As the first Matrix movie almost comically said, the human species are unlike any other mammal, we do not obey the natural cycle. Our population growth is more akin to that of a virus, we have become a virus to our own planet. Out of control and consuming the worlds resources leaving behind the waste in the form of destructive pollution. Am I a part of this, sadly yes. Only solution I see is drastic population control. I laugh everytime when I hear a couple saying the best thing they can offer to the world through their love is bringing a child into the world. Best thing that couple can do is to never have children IMO.

As wrong as this may sound to some I have had the same opinion as this for a few years now. The Earth's population is reaching its peak (if it has not already been reached) and if it continues to grow then eventually it will run out of resources. Wars will start over land (needed for housing and farmland of course) and the world will most likely go into disrepair. The problem is this won't be officially recognised until it is too late and the effects of overpopulation are already taking a toll. The only way to humanely avoid this problem would be for every family to only have on child per family. Its sad to think about it in this way but if you think about it for just a second then it makes perfect sense...