<p>I hadn’t seen that. Thank you!</p>
<p>"Zooser mom-
Have you read this one too?</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shmere282.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...shmere282.html</a></p>
<p>Yup! Another story from the Al Gore post-industrial revolution, the export of jobs and manufacture where there are absolutely no environmental or pollution controls, where factories are unregulated, and everything gets shipped on oil tankers in sea lanes protected by gas-guzzling U.S. naval ships.</p>
<p>I think when we look back at the 20th century, we will come to the conclusion that Gore & Co. are the single individuals most responsible for global pollution and global warming in history.</p>
<p>“Why people get hung up on political affliation to ignore the earth is just sad.”</p>
<p>It is absolutely necessary because until we recognize that it has been the “business” of the neo-liberals to ignore the earth, very few substantive changes can be made.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kluge is at it again - demeaning other’s POV while using the the same “empty pre-packaged arguments” to support his view. His “solution” to global warming? Why simply installing PV systems on your roof of course! Sounds simple, but kluge’s empty pre-packaged argument doesn’t get into the economics of this proposal. According to the DoE, a “very energy efficient” house would cost $16,000 to $20,000 for a PV system. For houses that are not “very energy efficient” the costs can go to $30-40,000. Let’s say that the average would be $25,000. Let’s also estimate the number of households in the US to be 75,000,000 (300 million people with 4 people per household). Doing the math, this comes out to almost 1.9 trillion dollars!!! Perhaps the “solution” isn’t so simple afterall.</p>
<p>But wait! This is a one-time cost and after that energy is free! Certainly the savings will eventually offset that cost. Well, how much is the maintenance cost of a PV system? What happens when the roof leaks and must be replaced? How much does it cost to remove the PV system to get access to the roof? How much will your insurance costs go up because you have this expensive system exposed to all of the elements?</p>
<p>Also, will the displaced energy use actually result in a savings? Even with a heavy use of PV, the commercial electrical grid is not going to go away anytime soon. There will be huge sectors of the population for which PV just won’t work. Think about all of those high rises in the cities - where are the PV systems going to be put to serve them? What about the poor for whom $25,000 is out of the question. Well, OK perhaps there will be some people who will just have to continue to pay 12 cents or whatever per KWhr to get their electricity. Not so fast!!! A significant amount (vast majority???) of the cost for electricity is tied up in the fixed costs of production of electricity and its distribution. This doesn’t go away. The net result of a massive move toward PV for those who don’t/can’t make the move will be dramatic increases in their electric bills. The net effect of this is an overlay of the costs of the PV “network” on top of the existing costs of a fossil fuel-based electrical network.</p>
<p>Another factor that kluge doesn’t mention is the energy cost just to create the PV solution. How much energy will be consumed in building, delivering and installing the billions of square feet of PV systems?</p>
<p>kluge likes to talk about the world that we are leaving our kids. His one theme is that we are saddling them with a huge economic bill. His other theme is that given choice of buying into the global warming warning and doing something about it versus not, we might as well err on the side of caution and do something about global warming. However, what he fails to point out is that by doing the latter, we are creating a much bigger economic hit on our kids. You can’t have it both ways.</p>
<p>Edad, PV won’t light your house at night, either. What’s your point? I don’t know where you live, but here in California, where 12% of the American people live, 40% of CO2 emissions come from electricity generation, and an average house has more than enough roof space for PV panels to generate that home’s full annual electric use. Residential consumption is about 30% of the total demand here. Summer electric consumption is 50% higher than winter, mid-day consumption peaks at twice the 3 AM use. If you can supply 30% of your annual electric needs from a silent, non-polluting source which requires no new technology, no new power grid, etc., and which produces the most electricity at the time of highest demand, why would you dismiss that as “negligible?” And that is ignoring all sites other than individual homes, and not maxing out the available roof area in residences as is.</p>
<p>The implicit argument against most non-fossil fuel energy sources: “They can’t solve the entire problem standing alone, so forget about them” ignores the fact that energy production is already a multi-faceted animal. Coal, Natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, etc., are all already part of the mix. Step one should simply be ot change the mix: Less coal, more PV. An actual national effort would amount to a lot more than recycling paperclips - but it’s never gonna happen as long as the foot draggers keep complaining that “We’re just not suuuure. It’s so expeeensive.” and all the other sound bites liberally distributed at every turn by every right wing information source in the world, which are happily recycling and repeating every note of the Luntz memo at every turn:
</p>
<p>Fundingfather: The Reagan/Bush/Bush tax cuts have cost the American Treasury eight trillion dollars. I believe you were all for that – and we’re not getting any free electricity at all for that, just interest payments, year after year… Is your thinking that making a dent in the global warming problem is so much less of a national priority than shoveling a few more billion bucks to the wealthiest people in the country? Because I haven’t heard you rail against the profligate financial policies of “your team” which have landed us in huge debt, or the half a trillion the Iraq “adventure” is costing us. Your argument (cross-posted with mine) is a classic example of nitpicking while avoiding the main issue: do nothing or take the easy steps that are available, and be happy that there’s actually a return on this investment.</p>
<p>Best thing we could do to mitigate global warming would be to pull out of NAFTA, WTO, World Bank, CAFTA, put heavy duties on all imported food and clothing, pull out of Iraq and cut the military budget by two-thirds, majorly increase taxes on the wealthy - starting with imported luxury goods, and slow down economic growth.</p>
<p>Notice I said “mitigate” - since Clinton/Gore let the genie out of the bottle, highly polluting and warming “growth” in the rest of the world, and with it the destruction of forests (thank you, Al Gore), the destruction of open prairies (thank you, Al Gore), the proliferation of sweatshop factories (thank you, Al Gore), the development of automobile transportation systems (thank you, Al Gore), the global shipping of food stuffs (thank you, Al Gore) are not going away anytime soon.</p>
<p>The world’s consumption of marketed energy is currently about 500 Quads/year. (500x10 to the 15th BTU = 5.7 x 10 to the 13th BTU/hr)
<a href=“http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html[/url]”>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html</a></p>
<p>An efficient wind farm with many 100’s of turbines would require about 80 square miles to produce a gigawatt of electricity (3.4 x 10 to the 9th BTU/hr)</p>
<p>It would require 1.3 million square miles of efficient wind farm to produce the world’s energy requirements. The State of Wyoming is about 98000 sq miles. So we would need an area with heavy winds covering an area about 13 times larger than Wyoming. That’s a lot of chopped up birds.</p>
<p>Isn’t the entire US only about 3.5 million square miles, including Alaska?</p>
<p>Another few comments…</p>
<p>As many of you know, I am a geology graduate student, and therefore have had a lot of education in climate change (heck, I’m enrolled in a graduate-level climate change seminar this semester that deals with the geochemistry of historical climate change).</p>
<p>First:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First, the only molten part of the core is the outer core. The heat produced is primarily from the decay of radioactive elements and residual heat from the formation of the solar system. It has very little (no) impact on surficial processes. I used to have the numbers, but am not sure where I placed them (or what article I read them in). </p>
<p>As for the true matter at hand…</p>
<p>The view of climate change in American society has been skewed greatly by political forces. A controversial (yet engaging) woman spoke for our weekly seminar earlier this semester to summarize her findings of the historical views of climate change. You can find links about her and her research here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes</a></p>
<p>Anthropogenic climate change is real. All scientists agree that we have done something to the atmosphere. Where opinions differ regards how much we have actually done and whether it is reversible or not. </p>
<p>As I don’t specialize in climate research, I can’t offer a strong opinion, but I do believe that we are not going to be able to mitigate the effects by purely decreasing CO2 emissions. The effects of what we do today won’t be seen for quite a few years (decades to centuries I presume), so I’m not sure what the best course of action is besides research into alternative fuel sources.</p>
<p>As for research into climate change…</p>
<p>Geologists have been teasing away at the past ice ages for years using stable isotopes (ones that don’t decay) in ice from glacial ice cores (Antarctica and Greenland notably) and in sediment deposits (normally carbonates - limestone). Using this data, we can see how quickly past ice ages were initiated and compare the isotopic data we see today to those recorded during past glacial and interglacial periods. </p>
<p>There is a lot of controversy in this research. However, the only way we will get closer to understand what is going on is by performing sometimes controversial research to learn more about transitional periods in the Earth’s climate.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to learn a little more about how geologists research about past climates, don’t hesitate to ask, I’d be more than happy to divulge! :)</p>
<p>WashDad, Correct, but the US energy consumption is “only” about 100 quads so a wind farm of 260,000 sq miles should suffice for current needs.</p>
<p>Edad, again: what’s your point? Currently in California hydroelectric and geothermal sources provide over 21% of our power. Existing nuclear plants provide another 12%. Biomass, Solar & wind power chip in another 4% So over 1/3 of California’s electricity currently does not involve fossil fuel burning now. I’m looking at various ways to increase that percentage from various non-fossil fuel sources; you seem to be suggesting that if we can’t supply all of our power needs from one single alternate source there’s no point in doing anything at all. Exactly what is the “perspective” you’re trying to provide?</p>
<p>Ophiolite: Thanks for the link. It’s just sad that it’s necessary to constantly defend the simple statement that there is no peer reviewed research which actually contradicts the climate change theory, and massive amounts which support it.</p>
<p>Regarding how energy prices will likely rise when less energy is purchased - </p>
<p>I live in the San Diego area where we’re fortunate to have fairly ideal weather and use very little heating or cooling and therefore not as much energy as most of the country. What irks me is that San Diego also has about the highest energy cost per unit in the country. I don’t think it’s coincidence.</p>
<p>Maybe it has something to do with the high costs of alternate energy sources.</p>
<p>Kluge, we all know California is very green oriented. The resources and efforts in Ca may not apply to the rest of the world and certainly don’t apply to China and the emerging 3rd world which needs cheap power, now. What was the investment needed to convert 4% of the electric-only power consumption to wind?</p>
<p>Edad, the wind power is all private sector, although there are regulatory aids to improve profits. I’m not up on the details. California isn’t so much “green” as it is blessed with mountains and rivers. The hydro power dams were all built decades ago, and account for the bulk of the carbon-free electricity. Geothermal and windpower were more products of the 70’s. The bottom line is this: it will take an investment of money to convert a larger part of our energy budget to non-fossil fuel sources. Burning fossil fuels has been, and continues to be, a cheap way to take advantage of a natural resource which was millenia in the making. The only problems are that it pollutes, in many ways - not just with CO2 - and eventually we will run out, if the climate change doesn’t kill us all first…</p>
<p>I do believe that a massive investment into PV would pay off in more than one way. First, we start getting actually clean energy to use, with no ongoing fuel cost once the acquisition investment is made. (Answer to a question FF posed a while back - All energy has an “energy cost.” For gas and oil, it’s the energy used in drilling, pumping, transporting and converting heat to electricity. The “energy payback” time for PV is about 2 years - that is, it takes a PV panel two years to generate all the power that was used to produce and install it. The financial payback depends on too many variables to calculate; but it’s probably around 4% in most cases, based on current average PV and electricity cost.) </p>
<p>But the second effect of an actual national commitment to significantly increasing our use of PV might be even more important: lowering the cost of PV to the point where it is actually cheaper than extracting, transporting and burning fossil fuels - even in China. PV’s still aren’t quite at the commodity stage yet, although production has increased greatly in recent years. Production hasn’t caught up with demand although there are a few new wafer factories coming on line in the near future. PV material costs are low, but the current fabrication expense is high. It’s a situation ripe for mass production lowering costs. But it’s a chicken or egg situation. A PV wafer factory is expensive to build. So who’s going to lead the way? Apparently not France - they’ve gone nuclear, big time. Right now Germany and Japan are the world leaders in PV. Where’s your car from?</p>
<p>The way I see it, all energy use has multiple costs, financial, environmental, and in the case of fossil fuels, depletion, rendering future supplies uncertain and expensive to obtain. We can invest now in technologies which have a current up-front cost which is higher, but fewer environmental costs and lower future costs - and have our children reap the benefit - or we can cheap out and leave them the bill on both accounts, which is basically what we’re doing when we choose to do nothing.</p>
<p>As I have already stated, consensus or not, I am far from convinced about the anthropogenic global warming theory. I do think we have no choice but to consider alternate energy sources immediately. The world energy consumption is increasing rapidly and some of these increases are essential to improve the standard of living for all of Earth’s inhabitants. There just is not enough petroleum left to continue to waste this resource by burning it to heat homes and to make steam for the generation of electricity. </p>
<p>All of us seriously underestimate the amount of energy we consume. We think about home heating, lighting and fuel for our cars. We think we can make an impact if we somehow conserve or make minor alterations. We tend to ignore the huge amounts of energy that go into producing and transported all the food and products we consume. Perhaps you are right and photovoltaics, wind, and direct solar heating will have some applications of significance. It seems to me that we need to concentrate on sources of energy with the potential to replace petroleum. Coal is one alternative, but it is very polluting and difficult to transport. Do you really see any long term alternative besides nuclear energy?</p>
<p>A lot of it comes down to cost and political will. The laws enacted in the 70’s which mandated dual pane windows, insulation, etc., were controversial, and in fact not really different in effect and function from what we could be doing with regard to additional conservation, plus PV, direct solar, etc. for dispersed energy production/conservation today - but it takes leadership. That we don’t have an abundance of.</p>
<p>Centralized energy production works for a corporate, profit based mentality because if the only power to be had is available only in multi-megawatt bunches only large companies can be players in the construction of the facility and therefore can control the process from start to finish. If you’ll remember, the first assumption you made which I took exception to was the reference to “large scale arrays” and “wind farms”. That’s just buying into the “large is the only way” presumption which limits the options. There’s talk now of a gasoline tax to fund transit alternatives and discourage casual and wasteful use of gas - such as single occupant freeway commute SUV’s. It would work - it’s just tremendously unpopular for obvious reasons, so we keep going down the path we’re on. If instead of subsidizing alternative energy out of the general tax fund we taxed conventional energy and used the proceeds to encourage alternative energy sources we might nudge the nation (and world) into a cleaner direction. Seriously - why are new homes being built today in Arizona, California, etc. for sale at a price point of $500,000 - $1,000,000 without PV designed in? Whether your issue is local pollution, sending money to the Middle East, or global warming, that’s just plain short-sighted, don’t you think? But it’s cheap and easy in the short term, and mandating a change would be unpopular.</p>
<p>I would want to see a concerted effort to shift over to the only completely non-polluting, free fuel energy source we currently have to the absolutely greatest extent possible before I’d look into expanding nuclear. Nuclear still has the unsolved problem of what to do with spent fuel rods. Solve that one and I’m with you - but we haven’t solved it.</p>
<p>But again, to do anything at all will take leadership strong enough to convince people to make a near-term sacrifice in the interests of long term gain, and our politicians are more of the “pander to the easy vote” type these days. And the cheap shot Luntz memo sound bites are so ubiquitous that I suspect they convince many people through sheer repetition.</p>
<p>On Long Island, we did the HOV lanes. Government agencies have avoided any assessment because they obviously do not work. The reason they do not work is clear. The Island is a mix of businesses and homes, everyone travels in different directions going to work and returning. The entire infrastructure would need to be rebuilt. Many of us who moved here tried to live close to where we worked. Unfortunately, housing costs don’t always permit that. There is also another big problem with turnover in employment and with businesses coming, going and moving. With an ever changing economy few of us can avoid job changes. I have worked at three places since I moved here - each further away and in a different direction. Trying to control traffic is not just unpopular, it is a hindrance to business and economic growth and survival. </p>
<p>I am still far from convinced that the small scale approach will work. It might seem feasible to provide for some household energy consumption but I doubt it will do much to handle the needs of businesses and heavy industry. I guess there is not much of that left in California. Worldwide it just does not seem to be possible to generate and distribute enough energy to make any significant difference. </p>
<p>Maybe I underestimate the problem, but it seems to me that nuclear waste is a small problem and the amount of waste is small. We seem convinced we need to find some place to permanently entomb the material. I suspect that is unnecessary. We will end up mining that material for future uses, anyway. I am more concerned about human incompetency, engineering errors and sabotage. It seems that all we really need to do is provide absolute reliability in providing a cooling source and we cannot do that.</p>
<p>
The answer’s simple - cost. PVs are very costly compared to the grid. Not only do they have a high initial cost but they have maintenance costs as well. They’re also not aesthetically pleasing to look at. I know people may scoff at this but it’s important to most people when they buy a house, car, and any other big ticket item. Someday PVs may be a big part of the solution but they really need to improve in the cost/performance before they’re viable. If they were viable, most people would probably already have them. Most people I’ve heard advocate them don’t actually have/use them themselves. This speaks volumes.</p>
<p>They are adding new windfarms here in Cal. I drove from San Diego to Yuma a few months ago and was surprised to see a new wind farm had popped up along I-8. I don’t know how much power it produces but they sure take up a lot of space. One place that’s been considered for wind farms was off the coast of Mass but the Kennedy’s don’t like that it would be in their view. Apparently they want them but only if they’re in someone else’s backyard. I’m not sure if this got killed or is still in the works. </p>
<p>There are always some ancillary issues around these movements for alternative energy sources. There’s currently an issue here in San Diego where the local power company (SDG&E) wants to create a wide corridor through natural lands of power towers and high power lines from the southeastern part of the state in the desert through Anza-Borrego desert state park, over the top of the mountains (forests) into San Diego causing irreparable environmental damage under the guise of bringing in ‘alternative energy sources’ (geothermal). Of course, they’re also going to use it to tap into their power stations just south of the border where they can obtain cheaper Mexican-produced power where the power plants aren’t obliged to follow the USA’s environmental regulations. I think a power plant located 3 miles south of the border might just throw as many pollutants into the air as one 3 miles north of the border.</p>
<p>There’s been much talk of ‘bio-fuels’. I think they have their place but we need to be realistic and do the math to understand the ancillary impacts creating huge amounts of bio-fuels would have on the land, pollution, food source, etc.</p>
<p>People need to be careful what they ask for. I agree that power sources need to change and would like to be less dependent on oil but we need to walk this path carefully and avoid the extremist ‘solutions’ that by themselves usually don’t deliver what people think they will.</p>
<p>It often costs less to save energy via efficiencies than to generate it w/fewer energy inputs.</p>
<p>ophiolite, I continue to read conflicting information regarding whether the ocean levels at American coasts will rise and, if so, at what rate per year or decade. Do you have an opinion regarding sea level increases for America’s coasts?</p>
<p>UCUCDad, I think you’ve identified a pertinent point, although perhaps not the one you thought you were making. Aesthetics - yeah, PV can be pretty ugly when it’s tacked onto a house that wasn’t designed for it. Designed in, on the other hand, it can be a striking design element - or virtually undetectable with some products which look just like regular roof tiles. Hence my issue: why are we building new homes that are not designed up front for electric production, and for which tacking it on later will be expensive and aesthetically challenging? </p>
<p>As for cost, you’re also right about the perception, if not the reality: many people will choose to save a few bucks up front, even if it might save money over time, and even if they impose significant environmental costs on everyone else - particularly coming generations. That’s a straightforward “tragedy of the commons” issue which is a classic example of where unfettered “free market” decision making is ultimately destructive and inefficient. Looking the other way when that happens is irresponsible. PV is “viable” - it’s just not “easy”, and it’s also not on most people’s checklist of things to look for in a house. Not because they’ve weighed the pros and cons, but because they’ve never even thought about it. In fact, I did an analysis of the ROI on designed-in PV sufficient to supply 1/2 the electric needs of large home in Northern California, and got 8 to 9% based on current electric rates and installed system costs net of existing incentives. With financing for new construction well below that rate, that means that designing PV into a new home would put (tax free) cash in the homeowner’s pocket every month when the electric bill savings were offset against the part of the mortgage payment which financed the PV installation. But over 3 years not one of the two dozen owners, builders and architects I asked in my community who were building large houses even considered incorporating PV into their design. It’s not that they passed on it because of the cost - they *never even considered it. *</p>