Global Warming..Science and Politics

[xelasnave]

When I was a kid making booze with a solar powered still it thought you could have a pipe carrying sea water to the desert but the heat was to distil it while it flowed to its destination.
alex

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

... what I am driving at is what we need to be doing as far as solar is concerned and to look at how we can solve the problems raised. ... Just as those of 200 years ago could not imagine a computer or build one we cant imagine what we need as far as as new global energy ...

Computers were devised and developed to the level they are now because we had control of the whole process. We can't increase the ouput of the Sun, and thus the amount of energy we receive on the Earth's surface.

Originally Posted by mickoking

... Solar and wind power are not perfect but they are hell of a lot better than Coal or fission power. ...

I don't understand why, when the physics, science and engineering aspects of power generation is so well known, that we're still kicking around the solar option here.

Come on folks, haven't you done your homework!?

Originally Posted by xelasnave

...I hope you are laughing with me not at me ...

Always with you Alex! Reminds me of my old physics teacher at school (mid 60's). He was a big factor in sustaing my love of science. He used to say: "The trouble with society nowadays is there's a lack of moral fibre." (Imagine that being said in school today!) He also said something which I've tried to apply over all these years, not always successfully: "It's much better to laugh with someone than at them."

You must have been at the same school!

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by ispom

there is the term „net energy gain“:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain

Thanks ispom, worth checking out.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Travis, I agree with your comments on the democracy. I have lived in both political systems and I can appreciate advantages and pitfalls of each of them. What amazes me is the acceptance of general public of the propaganda presented to then in the media. On other hand, in the totalitarian communist regime general population tend to reject media articles as propaganda even if it was truth. I wonder if the Australian public will ever become desensitised enough to start questioning the new and mainly the comments about the news, presented to them.
One way, I suppose to force public to think for themselves would be legislation forcing media to present the news without any comment.
Power and political influence of the media is clearly demonstrated by the fact how carefully governments regulate media ownership.
\
Alex, solar and wind energy as proposed by many today’s coverts is a just pipe dream. What is my qualification to make such statement? I have been engineer running 2MW power generating facilities on one of the resort islands off the Barrier Reef for two and half years. I have worked on electrical power distributions networks in Europe and I have designed and installed self-sufficient solar systems on few farms here in Australia.
Lets start with advantages of solar power. In some circumstances it is undeniably good solution. If you have to pay $40 to $70K to have power connected to your property and you are prepared to accept limitations of solar power system, you can have solar power for about $5000. You will be able to run all your lighting, small TV, DVD, VCR and small kitchen appliances. Forget about fridges, freezers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, air conditioners and stoves of any kind. It is possible to run all of those excluded appliances of the solar system but cost of set up would be around $ 25 to $40K. Your storage batteries will last 3 to 7 years before needing replacement. Major cost. Your solar panels will decrease output with age and will needing replacement in 10 to 20 years. If you consider all pros and cons Solar Power may be in some circumstances good source of energy for isolated property. I do not have any experience with Wind Power but I assume that combination of both would make self-sufficient system more cost effective. As a micro solution I believe that Solar and Wind energy is feasible.
Now lets have look on midi renewable energy solution. Lets assume that every dwelling will be required to have solar panels installed on the roof. Lets say 40W per occupant. Dwelling will have an invertor feeding the power generated by Solar Cells to the power grid. Lets assume metropolis with four million population. The loses in invertors and in the distribution will amount to about 20% . Total output solar energy of such system assuming that metropolis 100 x 50 km2 is fully illuminated by the sun would be around 128MW. That is a peak output, for couple hours. As the sun travels across the sky the output will decrease.
Disadvantages. The cost. Assuming $200 per 40W of solar panel, $500 for 2KW invertor and $ 500 for installation, we are looking at 5.2 billion dollars investment to produce about 128MW of green power. I do not know how much of green house gasses the manufacturing of required solar cells, components for the invertors and associated structures needed to affix the solar cells to the roofs will produce. My guess is that equation is against the solar power, but I may by wrong. I do not have the numbers.
Some other possible problems with such a system. Maintenance: The solar cells to maintain their already poor efficiency have to be keep clean. For some reason the bird’s find shining solar panel as irresistible perch and place to deposit their dropping on.
Lets assume there is some sort of brake down in distributing network in one suburb. Linesman crew will be sent out to fix it. First task will be to disconnect power to the part of the network they are going to work on. That was easy in the past, but now you have two sources of the power, the substation and every house in the suburb. Of course it is possible to design invertors that will switch off on signal send along the distribution lines. But then some will fail and not respond to such switch off signal. Resulting in prolonged blackouts and increased costs servicing distribution network.
This is just few examples off hand what could go wrong when you feed power distribution network from multiple sources. I’m sure that better qualified engineers will come up with lots of more problems.
For now I will not go to possible problems with Solar Energy on macro scale.
I already said enough to be burned on the stake. Sufficient to say that Solar and Wind Energy may have its place in our economy in the way of using electrical power for electrolyses to produce hydrogen and then use it in conventional power stations. I got no numbers to support this, it is just gut feeling.

[Tiroch]

Karl I recently read about the development of a new type of electric condenser that is not dialectic sink type but membrane flow type which allows steady state controlled discharge. Sure wish I had saved the article. It was in the science pages of one of Toronto's big newspapers about 2-3 weeks ago.

I did a google with string: electric nano membrane capacitor

Picked this on page 1 hits:

http://www.gtresearchnews.gatech.edu...capacitors.htm

I think this is it.

Comments as you are an electrical person?

[gaa_ian (Ian)]

You make some good points there Karl.
I think the solar solutions that may be more feasible, are the large scale projects:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Power

The point is that we will have to act sooner or later, Non- renewable's by their very nature are finite & can not continue to be used at the exponential rate of increase that we see today.

[Tiroch]

It is really sad that most people have no idea that likely in less than 50 years all the non-renewable energy sources except uranium will have been consumed. That is the reason intense effort must go into bio fuels and on that here is an interesting read from Brazil:

As to the matter of feedstock for biofuels it is that corn is very inefficient and that sugar cane is 8 times as efficient as related to energy conversion and carbon footprint as per this article:

Even cleanest biofuel includes a dirty underbelly, experts warn
U.S. lags behind Brazil: Critics fear faster deforestation in rain forests
Inae Riveras, Reuters
Published: Monday, January 22, 2007

SAO PAULO - Biofuels have the potential to lessen the impact of human civilization on the environment, but even the greenest of renewable-fuels production is not without its dirty underbelly, experts say.

Although global warming is a growing concern among policy-makers, the current trend to substitute fossil fuels with renewables is in part motivated by countries' efforts to reduce their dependence on oil from politically volatile regions.

Brazil's cane ethanol distillers, with three decades of experience in nationwide production and distribution, have compiled data demonstrating the fuel's advantage over fossil counterparts in the reduction of greenhouse gases.
A worker opens a valve to allow sugar cane juice to flow at a Usina ethanol plant in Sao Paulo, Brazil.View Larger Image View Larger Image
A worker opens a valve to allow sugar cane juice to flow at a Usina ethanol plant in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Ethanol accounts for 40% of total fuels used by non-diesel powered vehicles in Brazil and represents a 30% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from the transport sector, the Cane Industry Association (Unica) said.

But not even the global stars of renewable fuels are free of critics who fear that increased ethanol use worldwide will hasten deforestation in the Amazon and other tropical rain forests in order to produce sugar cane.

"In 20 years, I doubt there will be a gasoline car on the Brazilian market. They will all be powered by ethanol," Unica President Eduardo Pereira Carvalho said during the Reuters Global Biofuel Summit last week.

Brazil began its ethanol program 30 years ago, when it was importing nearly 90% of oil needed for domestic use.

During its growth to maturity, the cane stalk absorbs the same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is eventually emitted during combustion of the ethanol distilled from its juices.

But this is not so for ethanol made from corn in the United States or wheat in Europe. These primary materials must first be turned into sugars before fermentation, which requires the use of extra fossil fuels and adds to carbon gasses emitted in the production process.

Brazilian cane mills are also powered by leftover cane stalks that heat caldrons to generate steam and electric energy, an extra advantage that corn and wheat don't have.

Unica estimates that Brazilian cane ethanol on average yields more than eight times more energy than is used in the production process, compared with U.S. corn ethanol production that yields between 1.1 and 1.7 times as much energy.

This advantage should improve with the use of state-of-the-art technologies in Brazilian mills.

The European Union, which just proposed the use of 10% biofuels for transport by 2020, signalled it will demand proof from suppliers that the product was made in a sustainable manner, a requirements that may rule out U.S. ethanol.

Environmentalists have already begun to warn that the expansion of biofuel use currently underway will represent increased use of land for planting, which could stimulate deforestation or the use of more reserve lands.

"We're currently working on some sort of certification system to ensure that biofuels that are imported, or the raw materials, are taken from sustainable production," said Michael Mann, EU Commission agriculture spokesman.

Some U.S. producers hold greater trust in market forces.

Don Endres, chief executive of U.S. ethanol producer Vera Sun Energy Corp., said better farmers tend to squeeze out less-efficient producers and bring more land under their farming practices over time.

"By providing a market we increase the value and that allows for better farmers to increase land," Endres said. "Farmers take very good care of their soil and erosion because they invest a lot in the organic matter."
*****************************


The articles contains several spelling errors which I did not correct. I suppose these were caused by no editing by Reuters.

[xelasnave]

Hey Karl thats what we need someone who knows the problems to offer some input. Its probably just me but I am independant and lived in the bush with 2 panels 65 watt and 85 watt 4 of 6 volt batteries giving 400 amp hrs, a 240 inverter, and a genny, fuel stove gravity fed water and a gas fridge. I dont use a fridge and now have a $100 genny which I rarely use. Two lights which are 240vlt strangly but prefer candles or no light actually. With the lap top and a 12 vlt tv a real flash one flat screen even.. its luxury for me. No vacuum cleaner cause no carpet just cement so I use a 12 vlt path blower . I have an electric guitar power tools and use wood to cook and heat my water. No washing machine I just throw my clothes in a boiler and leave them cook during the night .. leave them on the line so the rain rinsces them or the Sun gives them a good does of its germ killing rays .I dont use a fridge. AND I am very happy. I have to come to Sydney to look after my father and stuff and see and help my Son. But here I use one light as I have gotten into the habit of respecting the fact that energy does not grow on trees ..well some of mine is trees I guess but the stove runs on the rubbish on the track and stuff that is a fire hazzard. If I had wind power that would be great. One guy up my way has littel gennies at the bottom of his down pipes.. I know most people could not handle doing it that way but I love it . I like the control I like the fact that so little of my energy goes on un necessary things. My investment in solar was minimal but then again my demands are small but I cant help think that many households could work this way. Everyone is happy to spend on , a plasma TV etc but wouldnt it be nice if they spent their money first to provide their own energy as a first priority on at least higher than buying so many toys that take rather than contribute.
I try to take very little. I was just thinking if one bloke can do it all by himself maybe a big group could do it better than me . I dont care really what the rest of the world does..you know a mate gave me two more panels..one Ihavent got working but the other one did that is hooked direct to a car cooler but other than cooling a can of soft drink it does not get used.. I got it to cool my camera it worked well so I got another. A pre cooler and a cooler on the scope .
But my point is I did not really need the other panels but seeing I had the power I got something to plug in..
Why am I rambling again simply to say I do not find a life of simplicity unpleasant because of so many things I dont have to switch on clean or repair or replace.. Sure my clothes are wrinkled but then so am I . I dont follow fashion so that makes things very simple .
I have no idea of the figures to go solar and building panels cost energy but so does other stuff.
Panels and batteries are not cheap but when out there what can you do. The power company put out a flyer to see who wanted to go on the grid every one I know said Ïf they put it outside they would rather improve their solar systems as it is cheaper for them having already established things. Even having grid out side your block it will still cost $10,000 to get it to the house so why bother.
Most have more panels than me and run 240 volt appliances.. and there is a fridge with a 12 motor..they get a standard fridge and put in a 12 vlt motor.
But thats in the bush but I thought I would share that with you. But my point was not solar as such it is the way science is corrupted to corrupt the story on WORLD HISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE .. I am trying to get used to the phrase to remember what we are dealing with..
excuse spellign etc but I am beat lttle more reading and its dreamland for me.
Thank for your input I would love to be doing the sort of work you do it must be exciting . Thanks agian alex

[Tiroch]

From the Toronto Sun today. I dialog with Lorrie on the climate file regularly. I too have written about the 'murder' of millions by the greenies having DDT banned. That was the result of getting the USA EPA chief to have a law passed making aid to Africa conditional on banning DDT use by those countries. That was in 1969. Today limited use of DDT for mosquito control is underway in several countries and it is showing signs of success in reduction of deaths.

John

Greens aren’t always good


By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN





Global warming and the Kyoto accord are the crack cocaine of trendy causes for opportunistic politicians and chic environmentalists.
Since fighting man-made global warming involves “saving the planet,” or so they tell us, it is the King Kong of all environmental crusades.
Of course, the fact we have been warned in the past by this crowd that life as we know it was about to end over everything from “the population bomb” to “global cooling,” and that we survived, is now ignored.


Too many environmentalists know only one way of talking about these issues — hysterically — which has led to disaster in the past.
In this context, the history of the pesticide DDT is instructive.
DDT was rightly banned in the developed world a generation ago, specifically because of its misuse by modern agri-business in order to increase crop yields.


But it was then wrongly denied to the third world, despite the fact that properly-used, DDT was a life-saver.
As a result, millions of innocent people died or suffered life-altering illnesses due to malaria and other insect-borne diseases.
For the chilling story of what really happened when DDT was banned, which environmentalists have always boasted about as a great victory, read James Lovelock’s latest book, The Revenge of Gaia. In it, this brilliant scientist who is also the grandfather of the modern “green” movement, condemns ignorant, urban environmentalists, whom, he says, hysterically campaigned to ban all DDT use, with catastrophic results.


Ironically, Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which first enabled the measurement of pesticides and other man-made pollutants in the atmosphere and which led to the birth of modern environmentalism.
Lovelock’s discovery also resulted in the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, warning of the dangers of pesticide use — the holy bible of the greens.


But as Lovelock angrily recounts in his book, “the indiscriminate banning of DDT and other chlorinated insecticides was a selfish, ill-informed act driven by affluent radicals in the first world. The inhabitants of tropical countries have paid a high price in death and illness as a result ...”
Lovelock is also an expert on global warming who believes the world is facing imminent catastrophe.


Because of that, he has again broken ranks with the greens, whom he accuses of hysterically campaigning against nuclear power, which, he argues, is mankind’s last, best hope.


Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn’t emit greenhouse gases.
As for the wind, solar and tidal power so beloved by the greens, Lovelock says it’s hopelessly naïve to think they’ll be ready in time at the capacities we need.


He compares the greens to clueless passengers flying on an airplane over the Atlantic who, having discovered that it is pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, tell the pilot to turn the engines off, thinking that will solve the problem.


“We cannot turn off our energy-intensive, fossil-fuel-powered civilization without crashing,” Lovelock warns. “We need the soft landing of a powered descent.”


Such straight talk — coming from one of the world’s leading environmentalists and climate change experts — will of course be lost on the braying jackasses in our House of Commons — on all sides — who are playing silly, partisan games on this issue, urged on by naive environmentalists playing fast and loose with reality.


Inevitably, our politicians will screw up Canada’s response to global warming which should lie outside of Kyoto — a farcical, money-sucking disaster — in the strict conservation of fossil fuels here in Canada, burning them as cleanly as possible and looking at every alternative, including nuclear power.


But it will never happen.


Remember, these are the same folks who can’t fix the long and often deadly wait times in our medicare system, despite years of promising to do so.
Now they’re going to “fix” the climate? God help us.

[Tiroch]

Another from the Toronto Sun today:

On climate change fiction trumps truth

Global warming reports 'scientifically unsound', so why don't the media care?


By LICIA CORBELLA





It's too bad the world's media don't hold the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the same standards they hold large corporations.


When Enron cooked the books there were -- rightly -- no end of indignant columns and talk shows condemning these high-paid fraudsters who massaged the numbers to fit their agenda and bolster their bank accounts.


The whistleblower who tried to get Enron to change its evil ways, Sherron Watkins, was named one of Time magazine's People of the Year.


But when it comes to scientists who whistleblow about IPCC reports cooked by politicians to fit their politicized agendas, those whistleblowers are either ignored or dismissed as "skeptics" or quacks and are labelled as haters of this planet and nature, even though most of them have dedicated their lives to studying nature and protecting it.


Dr. Christopher Landsea, a leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."


"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," wrote Landsea, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.


Sounds a lot like what happened at Enron, doesn't it?


Landsea said a lead author for the IPCC report asked him to provide the writeup on Atlantic hurricanes in what he thought would be "a politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate."


Landsea, a contributor and reviewer for the IPCC report in 1995 and 2001, says this author, having been told research showed "no global warming signal found in the hurricane record," attended a Harvard lecture stating the polar opposite.


"I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability... All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."


But, science be damned. The pro-man-made global warming crowd wanted to sex-up the threat of a warming planet so they just made it up. Pulled it out of a hat.


Exaggerating to get your way is a tactic former U.S. v-p Al Gore, the star behind the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, admitted is acceptable.


"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine.


Gore's admission that he makes like Pinocchio to make a point on global warming should be an inconvenient truth, to be sure, but the mainstream media -- which positively love the doom and gloom scenario of man-made global warming -- have been virtually silent on this.


Also ignored has been Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences, who wrote in June 1996, with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.


"This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page," Seitz wrote.


So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?


The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."


Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view.


"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."


But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists.


That's what the actual consensus said. That was changed. That's fraud. Billions of dollars are being shuffled around the world to support the lie. Much money is at stake -- much more than Enron multiplied.


So, why don't the media care?

[Tiroch]

Another piece today from the Toronto Sun:

Sun, February 11, 2007
Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact

By PETER WORTHINGTON

Last week -- the day the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its gloom and doom report on greenhouse gases -- Larry King Live had a bunch of experts hashing over what it all means.

Of six panelists, the one who made the most sense (I'm tempted to say made the only sense) was Richard Lindzen, a professor of "atmospsheric science" at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lindzen looks a bit like how professors are depicted in cartoons -- rimless glasses, a bushy beard and a bit unworldly. On TV, he is soft-spoken, courteous but fearless in challenging those who parrot conclusions no one can be certain about.

One woman, a TV meteorologist, insisted "the science is really solid" that man-made emissions cause the global warming that so agitates the IPCC and has Americans fretting about scrapping their SUVs.

Prof. Lindzen calmly replied he couldn't dispute her assertion "because she never says what science she is talking about." That's one of the problems with the alleged danger of global warming, supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide being churned into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, cars and, judging from a recent report, the "emissions" from cattle.

Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven.

Yet unlike most scientific theories, it is politically incorrect (and in cases politically prohibited) to question its validity or demand deeper research.

The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a "Summary for Policymakers" which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters.

This year's report is the fourth since IPCC was founded in 1988. The 2001 report said it was "likely" global warming was man-made from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while this year's report upgrades "likely" to "very likely." And that seems to have even President George Bush retreating and promising to do something (one isn't sure what), and commentators coming on side with global warming hysteria.

In Canada, Stephen Harper apparently feels his chance for a majority in the next election, hinge on his bending to the global warming/Kyoto gang, despite no evidence justifying the money it's going to cost.

To dispassionate observers, the Kyoto protocols aimed at reducing emissions are an embarrassment to Canada, which already is 35% (and growing) over what it agreed to. Countries like India and China, horrible offenders, are excluded leading many to think Kyoto is more a wealth distributing ploy rather than an aid to the planet.

Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.

Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of "consensus." Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens' bodies.

Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who've been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC.

In the 1970s, global cooling was the boogie man. In the late 1960s we were warned the world's supply of oil was running out. Also the world could no longer supply enough food for rising populations. Hysteria and nonsense.

COMPLEX SCIENCE

Predicting climate change is more than computerized models -- and far more complex than predicting the weather change -- which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week.

Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it's man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet. As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life

[Tiroch]

I hope I did not overwhelm.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Karls48

... solar and wind energy as proposed by many today’s coverts is a just pipe dream. What is my qualification to make such statement? I have been engineer running 2MW power generating facilities on one of the resort islands off the Barrier Reef for two and half years. I have worked on electrical power distributions networks in Europe and I have designed and installed self-sufficient solar systems on few farms here in Australia. ...

Thank goodness, I've been waiting for a power engineer to join the debate and tell it the way it is.

Uninformed opinion, even if held by 80% of the population and pushed by pseudo-environmental groups, will not change the physics and economics of large-scale power generation.

Incidentally, Karls48's dissertation above reminded me of a researcher I knew once who worked on solar cell development. As soon as they'd perfected a new, higher output cell, it was rushed over to the ammeter and the results recorded and published. They had to do it in a hurry because the cell's output dropped dramatically after creation (presumably an exponential curve like radioactive decay?). I don't know however if this applies to all types of cells, whether it was an exaggeration, or even if it applies to today's devices - just an illustration of the sort of thing you never read about in the newspapers.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Tiroch

I hope I did not overwhelm.

Now John you know I am a slow reader you will just have to type slower. But I think you have pointed out that even science becomes a tool to push various ideas.
Re solar up home what I did not mention, just in case you are ready to disconnect from the grid and go it alone..is that in periods of a long wet I have to fall back on the Genny and even a small 850 watt genny uses a lot of fuel dollar wise. For the power I get it would be very expensive as compared to grid power but the point I was investigating really was.. is there no hope for solar to subsidise supply as I have a feeling humans will in the future will face short falls simply becuase of the fact demand seems to be growing very fast.
alex

[Tiroch]

Just wondering the reason for quiet.

[iceman (Mike)]

Maybe everyone has said what they wanted to in this thread?

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Solar and wind energy would have some merit if we have a way to store this energy. Power distribution in industrialised countries is networked. Meaning that you don’t have one PowerStation supplying electricity only to the surrounding districts, it is connected to other PowerStation’s across the country. In some places (EU and USA) power grid is connected to the grids in other countries. Approximate load on the network for any given time and date is known from historical records. Some extra generating capacity is allowed for the load fluctuations and possible breakdowns. But the economic dictate that extra capacity cannot be too large. If the demand exceeds the supply you have domino effect. One PowerStation overloads and trips out, increasing load on other and tripping it out and so on. The result is countrywide blackout. It has happen in past in America and in Europe. To supply such a network directly from the solar and wind generating plants would require double or triple of required generating capacity to allow for occasions when wind drops out and the clouds cover the sky.
OK many will say, store this power in the batteries and supply it when load on the network needs it. Except, there is a small problem with this proposition.
There is a measurement to tell us how much energy we can get from materials we us as energy sources. It is called Energy density and is expressed in Joules per kilogram.
It doesn’t tell us how much of the energy we are after (electricity) it will provide as there are going to be losses in generating electricity (heat, friction and so on). But it doesn’t matter, as we are interested in the ratio of the power available in different materials and the losses in generating electricity will be approximately same.

Black Coal 32MJ/kg
Petrol 46MJ/kg
Hydrogen 120MJ/kg
Uranium 235 (in fission) 90000000MJ/kg
Capacitor 0.002MJ/kg
SuperCap 0.01MJ/kg
Lead acid battery 0.1MJ/kg
NiCad battery 0.2MJ/kg
Lithium ion battery 0.6MJ/kg
There are some new experimental capacitors with reported Energy density of 1MJ/kg.
From above you will see that replacing 1kg of coal with lead acid battery will require 320kg battery.
Or replacing 250MW power station supplying power for 5 hours will require 45000-tonne battery.
If you want to replace 4kg of petrol in your car using NiCad batteries you will need 920kg battery. Twice as heavy for lead acid battery. And then you have to consider what will happen at evening when 1milion cars are plugged in to be recharged. This is one of the reasons why we don’t have battery-powered cars. But some people will see it as conspiracy by oil companies.
Alex, as you see the Nuclear energy is very enticing. Power available from small quantities of fuel is huge. With Nuclear fusion it is enormous at 300 000 000MJ/kg.
I don’t think Uranium mining lobby is driving the GW debate. They simply saw opportunity to suggest their alternative energy source and they took it.

From all I have written you may think that I’m against Solar and Wind power. Not so. Even in past 20 or so years Solar energy had its place in generating power in remote areas. I’m against wasting money something so inefficient. Although it will work it is going to be so inefficient to cause economical crisis leading to social problems associated with economical crash. Once there is huge unemployment, hunger and treat of revolutions, no one will give hoot about GW and will burn anything in the power stations just to get economy going.
One of possible uses of Solar and Wind energy is to produce hydrogen by electrolysis. It is not very efficient process. Hydrogen would be then stored (similarly to LPG) and used to drive turbines in conventional power station. It may be even possible combust hydrogen directly in turbines without converting it to the steam first. Advantage of this would be that such power station could be put on line and off much faster then steam driven turbines. If salt water would be used for electrolysis it may by possible to extract some rare materials (uranium, gold, silver and so on) from it as by-product of power generation. All the problems associated with feeding Solar and Wind power directly to the power grid, or storing it in the batteries would be eliminated. The pollution emitted by such power station would be mostly water. But as no one seems to go this way there must be some fundamental problems associated with this concept that I’m not aware of.
Regardless of way the application of Solar and Wind energy will take, we are looking on hundreds of square kilometres of Solar panels and thousands of windmills to produce some percentage of our energy requirements. Economic of it? Well I’m sceptical, but I’m not economist.
One unforseen consequence of big blackouts is the big increase of the babies being born nine moths later. Peter Costello there is your solution to declining birth rate!

[Tiroch]

Two things:

Iceman: The real debate is just starting.

Karl: You bring here needed knowledge although I'm disappointed you did not reply to my post re nano membrane capacitors. maybe you missed it.

With all this chatter here about solar/wind and doing your thing the reality is that neither serves the big picture as you point out from a technical background. I'm fully aware of this although I did not know your energy items.

We have had grid collapses here the last was a couple of years ago when a grid switch in Ohio failed collapsing the Upper Mid West USA and Ontario for up to 19 hours (us) fortunately in August which is when we don't freeze.

I too am not against solar and wind power. The only country I know that can do the wind power big time is that little country Denmark and only because it is near that very windy North Sea and only because they have the brains to incinerate garbage for energy recovery ( I was there on that topic in '88) and only because they actually use pig manure as a fuel which leads them to the enviable position of not using non-renewable fuels to generate electricity.

Having said that it must be born in mind that Denmark is a rarity and that is only because it is a very small country. Good on them but try such in massive geography such as Australia and Canada.

Dead in the water at the get go.

And you are correct in that making hydrogen by the only way common which is electrolysis is very inefficient and may I add a very dangerous gas to handle.

As to uranium powered electric plants the greenies cannot have it both ways. Such as these = zero carbon dioxide but nuclear waste disposal. Which side of the knife?

So I say get real people. Cut the GW and get on with cutting air pollution.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by Tiroch

... The real debate is just starting.

I have not been following this thread at all, but in general when a thread is 9 pages or about 180 posts long and still has not gotten to the point usually it's a fair indication that it is going nowhere and it's probably time to let it go.

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by janoskiss

I have not been following this thread at all, but in general when a thread is 9 pages or about 180 posts long and still has not gotten to the point usually it's a fair indication that it is going nowhere and it's probably time to let it go.

Yes I agree ... it now seems to be a matter of 'preaching to the converted'.

There's enough information posted here already for anyone interested to have made up their minds already.