global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[SkepticLance]

To Edtharan

 

The problem with solar power at present is cost. No good trying to save the world if it beggars us all. Solar panel electricity cost is US$0-25 per kWHr. By comparison hydroelectricity is 5.7 cents. Nuclear 7.5. Wind 10c.

 

I have no problem with doing what we can right now. I have said in other posts that we need to be beginning a whole lot of new nuclear power stations. Takes 20 years from conception to commission, and in 20 years the world will need them badly!

 

My objection is to stupid actions carried out right now. Smart actions that will work without substantial undesirable side effects, and which do not entail major economic loss, I support.

[iNow]

I've asked at least four times, and I'm still waiting for you to cite specific "stupid actions" lance.

[scalbers]

To Edtharan

 

The problem with solar power at present is cost. No good trying to save the world if it beggars us all. Solar panel electricity cost is US$0-25 per kWHr. By comparison hydroelectricity is 5.7 cents. Nuclear 7.5. Wind 10c.

 

I have no problem with doing what we can right now. I have said in other posts that we need to be beginning a whole lot of new nuclear power stations. Takes 20 years from conception to commission, and in 20 years the world will need them badly!

 

My objection is to stupid actions carried out right now. Smart actions that will work without substantial undesirable side effects, and which do not entail major economic loss, I support.

 

Actually, companies like Nanosolar are bringing solar down to costs competitive with coal (around $1 per watt). With a modest investment this can be scaled up to help reduce costs even more. If you furthermore count the environmental impact into your economic calculations, then solar might win hands down.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

I have cited 'stupid actions' many times in threads you were involved in. A few have been implemented, and a whole lot more have been proposed, and thankfully not put to use. Yet.

 

Here are a few.

 

Palm oil for biodiesel.

Corn for ethanol as biofuel.

Global engineering projects such as ground up limestone added to the ocean, or reflective mirrors in orbit, or millions of tonnes of iron added to the ocean.

Solar panels for electricity, at a cost massively more than smarter generation methods.

Getting rid of cars, and putting people on bicycles or walking. The loss in standard of living and personal freedom would be immense.

Turning everyone vegetarian, and massively increasing dietary anemia.

etc.

 

There are much better alternatives.

Electricity generation from a range of sources, including hot rock, nuclear, wind etc.

The development of electric 'plug in' hybrid cars. GM is supposed to mass release its first in 2010. Ford 3 years later.

Biofuel from whole plant conversion, using cellulose digesting enzymes.

Biofuel from algae grown in sewage treatment ponds.

Fuel from garbage. etc.

[iNow]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure none of them were being taken seriously, and I'm glad your list confirmed that. It's too bad your rhetoric so consistently speaks against proposals which are themselves far outside the main thrust of what needs to be done.

[booker]

Instead of insinuations of conspiracy, how about presenting actual evidence of that, and of tampering and misrepresentation.

 

Let’s all deny history as objective phenomena, or that rocks are hard and water wet, if it must run contrary to our desired beliefs.

 

The religious fervor here is through the roof. I gave you a perfectly good link authored by a man who participated in these actions and writes to rationalize

his actions--or justify them, if you wish. Take your pick.

 

(And ultimately wishes you would see him as courageous. This is really a wonderful case study in self delusion, for anyone how takes interest in these sorts of things.)

[iNow]

Booker - Are you planning at any point to cite a specific study or a specific instance of wrong doing or a specific proof of conspiracy? Or, are you content to make a fool of yourself waving your hands about with unfounded claims, unsupported falsehoods, and generalized doubt sowing?

 

 

<also, I can't help but notice that you are copy/pasting your responses>

[SkepticLance]

iNow said

 

"I was pretty sure none of them were being taken seriously, and I'm glad your list confirmed that."

 

So the millions of tonnes of palm oil being made into biodiesel are not being taken seriously??? That is a big consolation.

 

All the ethanol from corn is not serious??? Wow!

 

Solar panels are not serious. Gee!

 

All the lobby groups pushing for the other alternatives are not serious? What a relief!

[iNow]

Lance - What do you hope to accomplish here? Your participation in this, and other threads regarding the subject of global climate change, imply that you are looking to obfuscate the truth and delay the response.

 

Is that an accurate understanding of your purpose?

 

 

You have so badly misrepresented the actual ideas above that I can only conclude you are purposefully obfuscating.

 

 

 

Solar panels for electricity, at a cost massively more than smarter generation methods.

Please provide your numbers for costs, and how these won't continue to drop just as the cost of computer chips did.

 

I'd welcome this, as I am always looking to learn more about my vocation.

Edited July 28, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[SkepticLance]

iNow

 

I think there is a big communication gap here. Please re-state your objections to my stance as a clear cut message.

 

Re cost of solar panels. I have given this so many times ....

Anyway, here it is again.

As from 2005, electricity from solar panels cost US$ 0-25 per kilowatt hour, and versus coal burning making electricity for 5 cents per kWHr.

 

And the costs can and will change. Of course. But it has to come down an awful lot!

[iNow]

And how do you balance the economic costs with the environmental and health related ones?

[scalbers]

iNow

 

I think there is a big communication gap here. Please re-state your objections to my stance as a clear cut message.

 

Re cost of solar panels. I have given this so many times ....

Anyway, here it is again.

As from 2005, electricity from solar panels cost US$ 0-25 per kilowatt hour, and versus coal burning making electricity for 5 cents per kWHr.

 

And the costs can and will change. Of course. But it has to come down an awful lot!

 

It would be nice if we could communicate more fully as a group in this forum. Did you see my post about Nanosolar's panels being competitive with coal at about $1 per watt?

 

http://www.nanosolar.com/

 

Steve

Edited July 28, 2008 by scalbers

[iNow]

Also, Lance's numbers are old and out of date:

 

http://solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm

[scalbers]

And here's another list that shows some of the relatively low cost ones.

 

http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com/solar_panels.htm

 

I think Nanosolar is much cheaper and may not be included as it is still in the process of scaling up and already has their stock sold out for the year. They are focused at present on municipal scale solar power arrays though hopefully will also have residential before too long. Here is their thin film "printing press".

 

http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

 

We might also consider concentrated solar power that has some intriguing designs and is taking off on a large scale in the U.S. desert southwest and in other countries. There are several designs, some are more practical (e.g. parabolic trough), while others (solar chimney) are more fanciful so we'll see if they can materialize as in this catchy video.

 

 

Solar power towers surrounded by an arrays of mirrors are kind of neat with a science fiction look to them.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations

 

With some investment in power distribution grids this technology could benefit even more people at some distance from the sunny source regions.

 

On another note here's my comment on "stupid actions"...

 

To iNow

 

I have cited 'stupid actions' many times in threads you were involved in. A few have been implemented, and a whole lot more have been proposed, and thankfully not put to use. Yet.

 

Here are a few.

 

Palm oil for biodiesel.

Corn for ethanol as biofuel.

Global engineering projects such as ground up limestone added to the ocean, or reflective mirrors in orbit, or millions of tonnes of iron added to the ocean.

Solar panels for electricity, at a cost massively more than smarter generation methods.

Getting rid of cars, and putting people on bicycles or walking. The loss in standard of living and personal freedom would be immense.

Turning everyone vegetarian, and massively increasing dietary anemia.

etc.

 

There are much better alternatives.

Electricity generation from a range of sources, including hot rock, nuclear, wind etc.

The development of electric 'plug in' hybrid cars. GM is supposed to mass release its first in 2010. Ford 3 years later.

Biofuel from whole plant conversion, using cellulose digesting enzymes.

Biofuel from algae grown in sewage treatment ponds.

Fuel from garbage. etc.

 

I agree with most of these two lists, though I would offer a few perspectives:

 

Being even partially vegetarian can be a help to reduce meat (think portion sizes and mixing meat with tofu) and still get your vitamin B12, lots of iron in spinach too. How many people simply overeat and are overweight in the U.S. and elsewhere?

 

Reducing car travel is a good idea. More walking and bike riding is healthy and taking mass transit reduces road congestion and usually helps fuel efficiency.

 

I'm still optimistic that nuclear fusion will work at some point and should be invested in more.

 

And the sometimes taboo suggestion, how about fewer kids on a global basis?

 

Steve

Edited July 28, 2008 by scalbers
multiple post merged

[iNow]

I think Nanosolar is much cheaper and may not be included as it is still in the process of scaling up and already has their stock sold out for the year. They are focused at present on municipal scale solar power arrays though hopefully will also have residential before too long. Here is their thin film "printing press".

 

http://www.nanosolar.com/blog3/

 

Wow. That thing is TINY!

 

Here's how it's being done by companies like Applied Materials and Sharp:

 

 

First, get a sense of scale with this:

 

http://www.pv-tech.org/images/uploads/sunfab.jpg

 

...Then, look at how they are proposing the fabs be built:

 

http://www.pv-tech.org/images/uploads/applied_materials/amat_solar_PHOTO_500.jpg

 

 

It's pretty cool that they can use the same technology that makes flat panel displays to make thin film solar. It's going to happen quickly...

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/thin-film-solar-cell.htm

[scalbers]

And inside your last link I see this conference paper with a good summary. Table III is interesting and shows both Sharp and Nanosolar as thin film leaders over the next couple of years. This table is confusing to me though in that the first two columns (present + additional) only sometimes add up to the "total". I sent an email to one of the authors with one example (for Sharp) and received the reply that "if it is..it is a typo".

 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/42058.pdf

 

In figure 3 of this report we see that grid connected solar PV is the fastest growing form of renewable energy:

 

http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

Edited July 28, 2008 by scalbers

[swansont]

Let’s all deny history as objective phenomena, or that rocks are hard and water wet, if it must run contrary to our desired beliefs.

 

The religious fervor here is through the roof. I gave you a perfectly good link authored by a man who participated in these actions and writes to rationalize

his actions--or justify them, if you wish. Take your pick.

 

(And ultimately wishes you would see him as courageous. This is really a wonderful case study in self delusion, for anyone how takes interest in these sorts of things.)

 

You provided a link that went to a dead-end and you blamed "the man" for it.

 

As for the link to the pdf file, it was edited in — after my post. You'll excuse me if I don't take your complaint seriously. Especially since the file doesn't support your contentions.

[SkepticLance]

Obviously some enthusiasts for solar power here! That's fine, as long as they retain a firm grasp of reality. Solar panels are still immensely expensive as a source of electricity.

 

I have a friend whose house is somewhat off the beaten track. He is not connected to the power grid. Mostly he gets by with gas cooking and heating, and lighting, from portable gas bottles. However, he recently decided he wanted to be able to watch TV. He set up a solar panel array to charge batteries, from which he could power his TV. It cost thousands of dollars! And it only powers his TV!

[swansont]

In figure 3 of this report we see that grid connected solar PV is the fastest growing form of renewable energy:

 

http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE2007_Global_Status_Report.pdf

 

I'm not really surprised, and I expect it will continue. Polysilicon prices are through the roof because of the PV demand, but a lot of new capacity will come online in the next couple of years. Prices will drop from that and almost certainly from technology advances that reduce the amount of polysilicon needed and also improvements in efficiency.

[scalbers]

Obviously some enthusiasts for solar power here! That's fine, as long as they retain a firm grasp of reality. Solar panels are still immensely expensive as a source of electricity.

 

I have a friend whose house is somewhat off the beaten track. He is not connected to the power grid. Mostly he gets by with gas cooking and heating, and lighting, from portable gas bottles. However, he recently decided he wanted to be able to watch TV. He set up a solar panel array to charge batteries, from which he could power his TV. It cost thousands of dollars! And it only powers his TV!

 

It's true that "off-grid" panels for the small home user are still expensive and may take a bit longer to come down. However the "municipal" scale is an example of what is taking off and is almost as we speak becoming competitive with coal and such. We as a society should grasp onto this emerging reality, along with the other wedges in the energy/carbon solution pie. Nanosolar and Sharp will between them have grown to about 1500MW annual manufacturing capacity (of the relatively cheap thin-film panels) by 2010 with a steep industry growth curve. If you factor in the negative costs of global warming (as I mentioned) solar becomes quite attractive. This (along with wind) is where the lion's share of renewable energy investment dollars are going.

 

I'm not really surprised, and I expect it will continue. Polysilicon prices are through the roof because of the PV demand, but a lot of new capacity will come online in the next couple of years. Prices will drop from that and almost certainly from technology advances that reduce the amount of polysilicon needed and also improvements in efficiency.

 

In addition to this Polysilicon prices are becoming less of a factor since thin-film solar panels are growing faster and are already overtaking traditional silicon panels in the US in market share.

Edited July 28, 2008 by scalbers
multiple post merged

[booker]

again http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm

 

again http://www.si.umich.edu/~pne/PDF/ecofables.pdf

Edited July 29, 2008 by booker

[Edtharan]

I have a friend whose house is somewhat off the beaten track. He is not connected to the power grid. Mostly he gets by with gas cooking and heating, and lighting, from portable gas bottles. However, he recently decided he wanted to be able to watch TV. He set up a solar panel array to charge batteries, from which he could power his TV. It cost thousands of dollars! And it only powers his TV!

There is a massive difference between this kind of solar power system and generation on large scales.

 

How expensive is it to run a diesel generator for household power generation as compared to getting it off the grid?It is like comparing apples and oranges (and so constitutes a logical fallacy).

 

You are also forgetting that currently, because, there is no demand for Solar cells on a large scale, there are not a lot of mass production facility for them. With mass production comes a dramatic reduction in costs.

 

What I was saying before is not that governments should subsidise the end user buying solar cells, but instead support businesses producing them. Buy helping these businesses start up, they will be encouraging mass production and therefore an eventual reduction in price to the end user.

 

Solar panels are still immensely expensive as a source of electricity.

Yes, but the price is dropping, and technologies in lab that need development into commercial products will drop the price even further. Mass production will drop it even further still.

 

I am calling an other logical fallacy here. Just because in the past solar power were expensive, and they are still moderately expensive.

 

It is estimated that a return of cost can be achieved within 5 or so years (which is on par with a general rule of thumb for most other business types) and last for around 20 years (which is 15 years of profit).

 

So, it actually looks like Solar is economically feasible today. But, you would be looking at mass production factories coming on line within around 3 to 5 years from now (in which case the costs of solar will have dropped even more - from technology rather than mass production).

 

We are probably looking at 10 years before we hit one of the tipping points (if not sooner - 10 years is conservative), and with a 5 year lead time on production, that only give us 5 years to roll out the new power systems.

 

Palm oil for biodiesel.

Corn for ethanol as biofuel.

Global engineering projects such as ground up limestone added to the ocean, or reflective mirrors in orbit, or millions of tonnes of iron added to the ocean.

If you remember what I said: A lot of the bad methods are all about keeping the status quo. All these you listed are all about keeping the status quo.

 

We need to change in how we approach this problem. These ideas show that we have not learnt from our past mistakes. Bio fuels intersect with other resource production (food), so for us to keep using these would mean we have to give up part of another market (not necessarily on a 1:1 scale though).

 

Smart actions that will work without substantial undesirable side effects, and which do not entail major economic loss, I support.

Technology creates new markets and jobs. This means that Solar technology, even though (today) is expensive, the money that is put into its development and production cycles back through the economic systems. And, if you know some of the basics about economic systems, then the more that money move through an economy, the stronger it is.

 

This is because money when spent, doesn't just disappear. That money goes to someone who spends it (pays the workers), then the recipient of that payment can then spend it.

 

Actually I have always though of economies like an electric circuit, the electrons (goods) go one way around the circuit and the money (current) goes the other way.

 

Obviously some enthusiasts for solar power here!

Actually I suggested Solar as one potential option. I even suggested that a multi pronged approach, using different generation types (wind, solar and geothermal for example) would be best.

 

However, I do think that Solar will end up being the dominant source in certain uses, as it is portable (you can't carry a wind farm or a geothermal plant around on your car ), and can be made much less obtrusive (as people have stated, they don't like the aesthetics of wind farms).

 

as long as they retain a firm grasp of reality.

The reality is that we need action and the lead time (20 years for a nuclear plant) might be too long. To get production capacity up for things like Solar or wind will take a few years too. There are current power station projects that have been started (and the sunk cost fallacy will most likely keep them under development).

[SkepticLance]

To Edtharan

 

Like wind power, solar power has a place even now. My friend with the solar panels for TV is a minor example. However, solar panels are in widespread use for powering all kinds of things that are off the main grid. Close to where I live is a lighthouse, which is powered by a big bank of batteries and a lot of solar panels. Yachts use solar panels on a widespread basis. Millions of yachts!

 

For this reason, your argument about mass production is not valid. These panels are being mass produced already.

 

However, I accept the argument about the cost coming down. There is little doubt that the cost of solar panels and thus the cost of solar generated electricity, will come down, and possibly very dramatically. When that happens, solar power can be added to the range of mass electrical generation systems.

 

However, like nuclear fusion, that is a solution for the future. Until it happens, we should be focussing our attention on what is available now, at least for mass generation!

[Edtharan]

However, like nuclear fusion, that is a solution for the future. Until it happens, we should be focussing our attention on what is available now, at least for mass generation!

I like the idea behind fusion too. However, whether or not it is actually practical is another problem. We might be able to use it to generate an excess amount of energy (ie more energy that it take to initiate the fusion), but if that is not a large amount, then we will not be able to make it economically viable. But if we could...

 

For this reason, your argument about mass production is not valid. These panels are being mass produced already.

There is a small amount of mass production of solar panels, but this small amount is not enough. However, even this small amount has already dramatically reduced the costs of solar panels. If we ramp up the mass production of solar panels to the amounts needed, the cost of solar panels would become a fraction of what it is now.

 

There is only a few places in the world that actually manufacture them, to get the amounts needed we would need to have a lot more places manufacturing them.

 

And what is the cost of doing this? Loss of the other energy markets (oil, coal, etc) and so a loss of jobs there.

 

However there would be an increase in the jobs involved in the Solar generation market and an increase in that economic sector. Plus an increase in R&D for new solar technologies (more jobs and economy growth).

[swansont]

To Edtharan

 

Like wind power, solar power has a place even now. My friend with the solar panels for TV is a minor example. However, solar panels are in widespread use for powering all kinds of things that are off the main grid. Close to where I live is a lighthouse, which is powered by a big bank of batteries and a lot of solar panels. Yachts use solar panels on a widespread basis. Millions of yachts!

 

For this reason, your argument about mass production is not valid. These panels are being mass produced already.

 

However, I accept the argument about the cost coming down. There is little doubt that the cost of solar panels and thus the cost of solar generated electricity, will come down, and possibly very dramatically. When that happens, solar power can be added to the range of mass electrical generation systems.

 

However, like nuclear fusion, that is a solution for the future. Until it happens, we should be focussing our attention on what is available now, at least for mass generation!

 

 

Nuclear fusion is not yet technologically feasible, which makes it a very different situation than solar. Solar suffers from economic disadvantages, but these go away in some locations, and also if one assigns a cost to CO2. However, if you ignore any technology that has not achieved grid parity, you are stuck with a Catch-22. The industry will not grow, driving costs down, if there are few customers and there are few customers if the costs are too high. Fortunately, the cost of subsidizing this to allow the industry to grow is relatively small, and Spain and Germany have been pushing this forward. California in the US, too, IIRC (the federal subsidy situation is still muddled) And these projects are not just in remote locations. Grid parity has been achieved in Hawaii and California in the US, and in Italy.