How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Oleg Bach]

As long as their are companies that will profit in the Green Scheme - things will never be green _greed will continue to damage the environment - It is not about money -It is about educating and I mean really educating people on what nature is - humanity dispises the natural world.

[Wild Bill]

If that is true, then what happened ? Why was no one charged? In truth it was a momentary side show for right wing radio.

Why did no one charge Robert Preston in "The Music Man", Michael? You're arguing against human nature!

"Green" is a religion these days. Almost anything is accepted as true in the name of "green", except by a few posters to boards like MLW, who of course only disagree because they are part of the great oil company's conspiracy to kill us all in the name of profit.

Charging someone for promoting a green project would be like eating kittens. It just is never going to happen!

[Michael Hardner]

Ok - I reject conspiracy theories like this on either side.

If things are that bad, how did this ever come to light in the first place?

[CitizenX]

Even if anthropogenic global warming were not occurring, green energy would still be very desirable because it keeps the garbage that burning coal/oil/gas spews into our air, giving us smoggy cities, asthma attacks, and other delicious yummies!

I agree completely. Even if a person doesn't believe in climate change and the human influence, what about the peak oil problem.

What a about a green economy (Like Germany) to help create much needed Jobs.

What about our children's future.

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[Wild Bill]

Ok - I reject conspiracy theories like this on either side.

If things are that bad, how did this ever come to light in the first place?

No need to invoke a conspiracy, Michael. I'm simply talking about human nature! Most folks believe what's trendy. They will believe Oprah over Richard Feynman. I believe that "climate change...it's all Man's fault!" is a meme that has grown to the point where more people believe it than those believing in astrology or UFOs/ This is more than enough to steer society's institutions. Politicians believe it, judges believe it and so on.

There was a time more people believed in the Beatles than Jesus! The reason my argument seems to shocking or extreme to you is because you likely have not had reason to challenge a lot of commonly accepted premises. Most people get their beliefs from each other and the media. Reporters are virtually never chosen for their science knowledge. The average level of skepticism is much closer to the trailer park than Steven Hawking. Yet that mass of people dominates the electorate. which INCLUDES the politicians!

No need for a conspiracy at all.

[Wild Bill]

I agree completely. Even if a person doesn't believe in climate change and the human influence, what about the peak oil problem.

What a about a green economy (Like Germany) to help create much needed Jobs.

What about our children's future.

I see. If we don't believe your two examples then we have to believe three others, also unproven.

Hard sciences and math should be COMPULSORY until Grade 12! No one should be allowed to graduate if they can't at least work with the Binomial Theorem.

[CitizenX]

No need to invoke a conspiracy, Michael. I'm simply talking about human nature! Most folks believe what's trendy. They will believe Oprah over Richard Feynman. I believe that "climate change...it's all Man's fault!" is a meme that has grown to the point where more people believe it than those believing in astrology or UFOs/ This is more than enough to steer society's institutions. Politicians believe it, judges believe it and so on.

There was a time more people believed in the Beatles than Jesus! The reason my argument seems to shocking or extreme to you is because you likely have not had reason to challenge a lot of commonly accepted premises. Most people get their beliefs from each other and the media. Reporters are virtually never chosen for their science knowledge. The average level of skepticism is much closer to the trailer park than Steven Hawking. Yet that mass of people dominates the electorate. which INCLUDES the politicians!

No need for a conspiracy at all.

The known history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century. It has become more and more evident as time has gone by. This is not a trendy problem. To compare it to astrology or UFOs is a ridiculous notion.

[Michael Hardner]

. I believe that "climate change...it's all Man's fault!" is a meme that has grown to the point where more people believe it than those believing in astrology or UFOs/ This is more than enough to steer society's institutions. Politicians believe it, judges believe it and so on.

...

No need for a conspiracy at all.

What about the 'meme' that it is a fraud and conspiracy?

One the one side we have over 100 years of research and rigorous science, on the other we have some ridiculous radio jockeys crying conspiracy - and even a good poster like you can't see which is fantasy and which is real.

If makes me sad.

[CitizenX]

I see. If we don't believe your two examples then we have to believe three others, also unproven.

Hard sciences and math should be COMPULSORY until Grade 12! No one should be allowed to graduate if they can't at least work with the Binomial Theorem.

Where did you go? Fox News University?

97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change. I think I will go with them, not Oprah.

This data comes from National Academy of Sciences.

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[William Ashley]

THE NEW CAR BATTERIES ARE 16+kwh... not 0.4... those are from 30+ years ago. Newer techs, bigger capacities.

car battery will store 0.4-0.5 kWh. You would need at least 60 of them to have a useful backup for your household. Could your auto wrecker supply you with that many? What would happen if 10 people had the same idea?

Car batteries also wear out. I have to replace mine every 8-10 years.

DYI is great but it is not a scalable solution since a DYI depends on someone else buying and disposing useful items. DYI is an irrelevant option on this thread because we need to talk about options that everyone can use.

Standard car batteries arn't often used for home power ... there are higher AH rated batteries out there. For instance 100 to 150 amp hour batteries are out there. A standard car battery is perhaps 40AH.

Here are some insides. Newer appliances don't chug as much electricity as older ones. There are other green things like on demand hot water rather than gas powered hot water tanks that heat water whether it is used or not, some of these are actually electric tanks which are far more guzzling.

There are tons of economizing things. For instance my speakers 250 watt speakers, are the only thing that really drains energy for myself that and the filament on my electric stove - which I plan on replacing with a burner I can use my wood supply to power instead and a DIY "solar oven". even a black peice of metal will cook eggs if left in the sun, or boil water, likewise lenses can also boil water.

For most families the only real concerns are microwaves and dryers. Fact is microwaves probably don't even need to be used except on rare occasion and they just have a high peak. In many areas you could consider a stove, even a woodstove/furnace. Not only can you cook on it, but it also heats the home in cold months. People consume a lot more energy than they need to especially on "plugged in stuff" that should be disconnected from the system. Why not shop weekly and only buy food you plan on using that week. Most people probably don't even need a deep freezer, if they actually eat the frozen food they use within 4 or 5 days of buying it. Some meats can take two days to fully defrost, even longer if placed in cold water, or left in a "cold room" or in an icebox outside during the cold months.

Fact is people just arn't energy efficient.

THE NEW CAR BATTERIES ARE 16+kwh... not 0.4... those are from 30+ years ago. Newer techs, bigger capacities.

Car batteries are going above 60 kwh these days .. that is 100 times the capacity of your car battery.

Even better new batties can be "refurbished, or maitenanced and reused"

Also the right types of batteries are able to be repaired, and reused.. not the same as throw away car batteries.

New prototypecars out this year can travel in the ballpark of 500km on one charge, that same battery can power your home if used properly.

Even if the prices are high today, these should reduce as production ramps.

The pricing is largely dependent on wage rates in china for the car driving population there.

China and India are going green because they have to... also even a small market there is huge here. SO the production quantities are easier to get substantial production numbers on a smaller market segment. Although the "rich, and poor" in china is a massive difference between the "economically relevant chinese population" and the dirt poor chinese population.. the "Rich" chinese do exist in large numbers.

Take this for instance

http://www.plugincars.com/exclusive-byd-executive-provides-breakthrough-us-pricing-chinese-electric-car.html

It is short at hand before that 16kwh chinese battery is upgraded to something like this battery

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2011/05/09/long-range-electric-car/

This year gives way to next..

http://www.dbm-energy.com/

http://green.autoblog.com/tag/Kolibri+AlphaPolymer+Technology/

You don't need to increase grid capacity if you reduce grid demand.

Home energy generation is really the way of the future.. because it feeds the grid and reduces demand. Allowing for more indusrial automation.

Edited August 6, 2011 by William Ashley

[bush_cheney2004]

This data comes from National Academy of Sciences.

Of course....The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States

[CitizenX]

If I had a choice, not 1 red cent. Even if global warming is a fact, the evidence that mankind is a major cause has been invented. In fact, the evidence of fraud and manipulation is overwhelming.

Have you got your tin foil hat on?

Please see video form post #32

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[charter.rights]

Cool.

[CitizenX]

Cool.

Yes Very cool This is also very cool

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[TimG]

97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change. I think I will go with them, not Oprah.

I debunked your childish appeal to authority here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19289&view=findpost&p=696714

[charter.rights]

Yes Very cool This is also very cool

No. Geothermal is NOT cool.

1. It is expensive and the capital cost of geothermal outweighs the benefit.

2. Geothermal still depends on electricity and even in the warmer climates of southern Ontario, geothermal units max out at about 6 tons. After that electric back-up heat is used to cover about 10-15% of the cold winter heating periods.

3. Ground source geothermal loops freeze up frequently....you can only pull so much heat out of the ground. Water based systems fair better but unless you have a spring fed water source, the cost of drilling 2 additional wells adds to the capital costs.

4. Water based geothermal systems pump warm water back into the water source. This has an effect on the environment.

5. Geothermal units only last for 20-25 years before replacement and with a 35 year typical payback period anyone who installs one usually ends up paying much more than simple gas, propane or oil systems for their energy over the long term.

6. Geothermal produces low temperature heat which requires continuous fan operation. It does not respond well to temperature swings and often an increase in the thermostat means that the expensive electric backup heating system must come on. If geothermal is used increases in thermal masses in the house will help sustain it through temperature swings.

All in all geothermal gets a D- for energy efficiency. There are much better heating systems out there...combo systems with an air source heat pump are extremely efficient, as an example.

[Michael Hardner]

I debunked your childish appeal to authority here:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19289&view=findpost&p=696714

But you DIDN'T debunk these claims - you said they were the wrong questions.

Also I fail to see why the appeal to authority is childish: it seems that indeed it needs to be pointed out, since some here seem to think that there is significant doubt about man made global warming.

[CitizenX]

Those are the wrong questions.

The real questions are:

1) How much warming are we likely to experience in the future?

2) What are the consequences of that warming?

Again, you are asking the wrong questions.

The questions we need to ask are:

1) Is it even technically feasible to reduce CO2 emissions given the technology we have today?

2) Is the cost of reducing CO2 likely to be less the cost of doing nothing?

Those questions are ECONOMIC and ENGINEERING questions. The opinion of climatologists is irrelevant since they are not qualified to comment on economic and engineering problems (at least no more qualified than the average BB poster).

If you really want to defer to experts then you need to get better at choosing the experts you defer to. Your approach to decision making on CO2 mitigation is like going to a lawyer for medical advice.

You go to Scientists for facts, the facts are in. We cause global warming. We are in a shit load of trouble, not are grandchildren, but are children and possibly are generation. "Is it even technically feasible to reduce CO2 emissions given the technology we have today?" We have plenty of options to reduce CO2 emissions, just no political will or leadership (thanks Harper).

Is the cost of reducing CO2 likely to be less the cost of doing nothing? What is the point of money if we are environmentally, and socially fucked.

You are right the Scientists have done their job. The facts are in. It is now an engineering problem, I see allot of options that can be taken advantage of right now. But what I don't see is the world working together in order to engineer a solution. The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was a joke, and Harper embarrassed Canada. Our Prime minister is a Climate change denier.

The reason we have gotten to this point is that people as a whole are selfish. They only think of them selves and not the next generation. Climate change has become a big issue now, not just because it's all over the news. But because we as a selfish people see that it might actually effect us and our generation.

Edited August 6, 2011 by CitizenX

[bush_cheney2004]

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was a joke, and Harper embarrassed Canada. Our Prime minister is a Climate change denier.

The joke actually started with PM Chretien and the Liberals, doing nothing to comply with a ratified Kyoto Protocol treaty. Hint: You will not solve what is a political and economic issue (not engineering) with one-side blinders.

The reason we have gotten to this point is that people as a whole are selfish. They only think of them selves and not the next generation. Climate change has become a big issue now, not just because it's all over the news. But because we as a selfish people see that it might actually effect us and our generation.

Global warming climate change has taken a back seat to what people really care about, particularly after last years severe credibility hits (well documented in archive threads here at MLW).

[CitizenX]

No. Geothermal is NOT cool.

Thanks for the Info. Maybe better insulated homes could help. What do you think of adding this to building code requirements?

[CitizenX]

The joke actually started with PM Chretien and the Liberals, doing nothing to comply with a ratified Kyoto Protocol treaty. Hint: You will not solve what is a political and economic issue (not engineering) with one-side blinders.

Wow , I agree with you for once. Chretien does have his share of the blame, and yes I am a Harper Hater. Sometime I do pick on one side more than the other.

[charter.rights]

Thanks for the Info. Maybe better insulated homes could help. What do you think of adding this to building code requirements?

Thermal mass helps. Insulated concrete walls and floors helps store the heat and then releases it slowly back into the house when the outside temperature drops. Choosing masonry and stone finishes on the inside of the house also helps as does heavy timber elements.

Mitsubishi has developed an air source heat pump system that produces full heat capacity at -40°F. It is a bit pricy but certainly less than a Geothermal unit of the same size. Über Cool!

Edited August 6, 2011 by charter.rights

[TimG]

We have plenty of options to reduce CO2 emissions, just no political will or leadership (thanks Harper).

Really? Says who? Greenpeace? You are the one who started with an appeal to authority. If you think authorities are so important then point me to the "consensus" among qualified power engineers who support your claim that we "have options".

Basically, despite all of your grand words about "trusting authorities" you are perfectly willing to make crap up when it suits your politics.

What is the point of money if we are environmentally, and socially fucked.

Again. Says who? Not the IPCC. Not economists who have looked at the question of climate change. The general consensus is climate change will leave a world that is between 5%-10% less wealthy than it would have been with no climate change. Of course, that world will still be 50% to 100% wealther than today so losing 5%-10% will be no big deal.

The reason we have gotten to this point is that people as a whole are selfish. They only think of them selves and not the next generation. Climate change has become a big issue now, not just because it's all over the news. But because we as a selfish people see that it might actually effect us and our generation.

We are at this point because the people who you expect to solve this problem (i.e. the engineers) are telling politicians that the only options are incredibly expensive, unreliable and/or politically toxic (i.e. nuclear). As a result, the politicians play games where they pretend to do something but know that it will never solve the stated problem. The people arguing against it are doing so because they know CO2 mitigation is scam and think there are better things to spend money on. Edited August 6, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

This is a dumb thread. I repeat over and over again that in order to make money you must destroy the environment to a degree...so how can you improve the envrionment with money - by saying that IF you pay more the world will be greener and we will have endless supplies of green energy...You must create product in order to create fiscal power...So the more product you create the more pollution you create..I don't get it - How about teaching our children to turn off a light when they leave the room - or maybe instead of getting a blanket when the AC - makes you cold - TURN OFF the AC..we are a nation of idiots -----Jeeezz I sound like Dad.

[Wild Bill]

What about the 'meme' that it is a fraud and conspiracy?

One the one side we have over 100 years of research and rigorous science, on the other we have some ridiculous radio jockeys crying conspiracy - and even a good poster like you can't see which is fantasy and which is real.

If makes me sad.

Michael, I can honestly say that I have never listened to one of those "radio jockeys"!

I was reading before I went to kindergarten and even then science of all kinds fascinated me. The first book I can remember owning (outside of the usual Dr. Seuss books my parents provided) was a Dictionary of Aerospace and Astronautics, given to me by my 2nd grade teacher personally. She had been impressed that I had already gone through all the science books in the school library.

I spent my career selling electronic parts to manufacturers, starting with the introduction of the first 5volt only Intel microcomputer chip. I make it now as a tech, building and repairing guitar amplifiers.

I've just moved and haven't bothered with cable. I can get PBS and that's enough!

I've no degree but I'm an accomplished "amateur". I know enough math to integrate e to the xth power! Not only am I a radio ham operator but I actually have built much of my own equipment!

So my opinions are at least a bit considered, Michael. It is BECAUSE of my background that I do not buy in to much of the "climate change - all man's fault" argument!

I don't mean to be patronizing or insulting Michael when I say I think my opinion has more scientific basis than perhaps your own! Certainly, more than the average Arts graduate.

Unfortunately, if someone doesn't have a high enough basic level of science in the first place it can be almost impossible to convince them! They form their opinions on the confidence inspired by the showmanship or prestige level of their sources, which is not scientific at all.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Wild Bill