Global Climate Change

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

You are correct in saying costs will drop. The costs of pretty much any manufactured product will drop, unless it is based on a limited resource that cannot be substituted, and those items are unusual. But cost is relative. You have to show the cost will drop relative to alternatives.

[bascule]

So... why doesn't every building -- EVERY building -- have a solar array on the roof? Surely they should.

 

Generally because photovoltaic cells are produced with traditional integrated circuit manufacturing technologies, which means it takes a lot of energy to produce photovoltaic panels in the first place and also means it's expensive.

 

Several companies are attempting to use different manufacturing approaches to lower manufacturing costs. Several are experimenting with technologies similar to inkjet printing:

 

http://www.njit.edu/publicinfo/press_releases/release_1040.php

http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/10/researchers-create-printed-solar-cells/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4253464.html

[iNow]

The thing I can never understand about solar is that if you look around at all the buildings around a city, they typically have flat rooves that are mostly just... empty. All that surface space just totally going to waste. Granted a solar array can't serve all the building's energy needs, but it's more or less established now (is it not?) that a solar array will more than pay for itself, actually lowering a typical building's energy cost dramatically over its lifetime.

Indeed. I think the primary reason is initial investment. Most board's of directors think in terms of quarter to quarter profits, and an investment in a solar array would significantly impact profits for a few quarters. This is why government subsidies on this are essential. Look how well they've worked in Germany.

 

I am pretty confident that nearly everyone who is a member of SFN would much rather goverment subsidize solar than oil companies, so there's one place of agreement where we can all start.

[SkepticLance]

I think the best thing that should be done with high-rise roofs is to dump a load of top soil and plant it out. I am not so worried about the actual plant species. Just get it covered in soil and growing plants.

[iNow]

That definitely would help, but is only part of a larger set of solutions. (It also isn't mutually exclusive with a rooftop solar energy system).

[waitforufo]

I am pretty confident that nearly everyone who is a member of SFN would much rather goverment subsidize solar than oil companies, so there's one place of agreement where we can all start.

 

I would prefer that they subsidize none. Look at what ethanol subsidies have done. If some people can't afford unsubsidized fuel, subsidize those individuals. If all energy sources are put on an equal footing, the best will win.

[Pangloss]

Well I think subsidies for exploration and research are fine so long as they're intelligently done and well-placed. IMO the problem with the ethanol subsidy is that of unintended consequences, not the issue of subsidies in general.

[waitforufo]

Well I think subsidies for exploration and research are fine so long as they're intelligently done and well-placed. IMO the problem with the ethanol subsidy is that of unintended consequences, not the issue of subsidies in general.

 

Subsidies for research are okay. I should have been more specific and singled out subsidies without which an industry would not be economically viable. Bascule above points out interesting research into cost reducing photovoltaic cells. This can be money well spent. The yardstick upon which such research should be measured however, is the economic viability of the products produced.

 

More in line with the topic of this forum (which should be global warming not climate change) the proper question would be "are all energy producing industries paying the true cost of production." Pollution is a cost that should be paid by those that produce it and passed on to those the consume products so produced. So is carbon dioxide a pollutant or not? I personally am a skeptic. If it is deemed to be however, those that reap the benefit of carbon dioxide production should bear the cost. Taxation may be the best way to apply costs to those that benefit. Money collected by such taxation would be best spent on research to replace said polluting industries (Not spent on subsidizing FLDS baby farms in Texas through Aid to Families with Dependent Children.). Taxing polluting industries would automatically make non polluting industries more economically viable.

 

The question however remains the same. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant? If not we should not burden our economy with artificial costs.

 

With regard to ethanol, government never considers the unintended consequences of its acts and there is no free market to correct for such unintended consequences. Politics then enshrines such nonsense in perpetuity.

[iNow]

The question however remains the same. Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?

I suppose I should first ask that you define what you mean by "pollutant," but it definitely impacts the environment, so I'm going to go ahead and say yes anyway.

[swansont]

I would prefer that they subsidize none. Look at what ethanol subsidies have done. If some people can't afford unsubsidized fuel, subsidize those individuals. If all energy sources are put on an equal footing, the best will win.

 

R&D takes time, and production capacity takes time. Bottom-line profitability is a huge incentive to spend one's own research budget on a technology. Also, "best" may not be the most profitable, depending on what metric you use, and if you only have market forces acting, you'll only get the most profitable sources being developed.

[SkepticLance]

One of the functions of government is 'blue skies' research. Businesses will invest money in research without subsidies, but only if there is a moderately immediate prospect of a good return. Research to open new technologies with little or no previous history is mostly the province of government, and governments should be prepared to spend up large. This is especially true of research into energy.

[iNow]

When I brought up subsidies, I was referring to government assistance to offset installation costs, both for residential and industrial applications. I don't know if subsidy was the right word, but a rebate or something would sure go a very long way toward making this technology more accessible to the masses, which is ultimately the goal we are seeking.

[ecoli]

One of the functions of government is 'blue skies' research. Businesses will invest money in research without subsidies, but only if there is a moderately immediate prospect of a good return. Research to open new technologies with little or no previous history is mostly the province of government, and governments should be prepared to spend up large. This is especially true of research into energy.

I disagree with this sentiment.. companies will invest in R&D, unless they know that the government will do that job for them.

[waitforufo]

I suppose I should first ask that you define what you mean by "pollutant," but it definitely impacts the environment, so I'm going to go ahead and say yes anyway.

 

I'm not trying to play some semantic game. For the purpose of this argument I am defining a "pollutant" as a substance at a concentration above which it causes harm to the environment. This would be true regardless of the effects of this substance at lower concentrations, even if those lower concentration effects were beneficial or essential.

 

I just don't think current levels of carbon dioxide are any where near a level of harm.

[Realitycheck]

# 250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level

# 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.

# 1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.

# 2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.

# >5,000 ppm – Exposure may lead to serious oxygen deprivation resulting in permanent brain damage, coma and even death.

http://dhfs.wisconsin.gov/eh/ChemFS/fs/CarbonDioxide.htm

 

Atmospheric levels worldwide average about 386 ppm right now. However, recent studies show that morning concentrations in populated areas are around 1500 ppm. This will only go up as the worldwide average goes up, especially if outputs are increased as well.

 

This slope is not evening out.

[swansont]

I disagree with this sentiment.. companies will invest in R&D, unless they know that the government will do that job for them.

 

What are the corporate vs government investments in e.g. fusion power research?

 

When I brought up subsidies, I was referring to government assistance to offset installation costs, both for residential and industrial applications. I don't know if subsidy was the right word, but a rebate or something would sure go a very long way toward making this technology more accessible to the masses, which is ultimately the goal we are seeking.

 

Right. Such subsidies make the new technologies competitive earlier, and allow for economies-of-scale to drive costs down faster, instead of waiting for the technology to become competitive at a higher cost, later on.

[john5746]

I disagree with this sentiment.. companies will invest in R&D, unless they know that the government will do that job for them.

 

Think about it from an investor standpoint.

 

Stock A - company that is having steady growth and will probably continue

Stock B - company that is aggressively pursuing immediate growth.

Stock C - company that is pursuing research for a possible return 15 years from now.

 

Stock A has little risk with moderate reward.

Stock B has high risk for high immediate reward.

Stock C has high risk for high reward - later.

 

People are usually not going to pick Stock C, which dries up capital.

 

This also favors larger companies(more capital), who are usually the ones benefiting most from the status quo. To get a Google for energy, it would help if they could have some longer term capital.