The Kyoto Gamble: Fighting Climate Change with Windmills

[Andre]

:yuck:

Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind. Kyoto is on. Based on the multiple refuted evidence of the hockeysticks we bravely start fighting windmils with windmils.

Thoughts anybody?

 

[wolram]

I saw on the news that a Russian paper mill is already profiting
from this mystical global warming, the factory has an on going
modification scheme and receives grants for producing less
pollutants.
a single government can be stupid, but a multitude together should
have the resources to find the truth, and i guess they have but are
ignoring the facts and using the fear factor for their mutual benefit.

 

[no idea]

Of course it surelly helps but I think Kyoto doesn't help so much to the Earth . It use 'carbon sink' policy , that mean it focus carbon dioxide this greenhouse gas only . Excluding Co2, methane , CFCS , Nitrogen dioxide are also greenhouse gases.methane has the greater effect of enchancing global T than that of co2.

 

[Andre]

Kyoto won't help a bit - that's bad

Doesn't matter because anthropogenic greenhouse effect change is minimum - that's good

Legal fees and production cuts will hamper the economy - that's bad

The requirement for emission cuts will lead to acceptance of nuclear alternatives - that's good

There will also be a lot of powerless windmills - that's bad

Eventually it will show that the global warming is not happening and that the sciencific basis is flawed - that's good

People will loose confidence in science in general after the debunking of global warming - that's bad.

If science advices policy makers to go nuclear now or face massive economic collapse due to oil depletion the policy makers will say:

"Yeah...right, says who, and who told me that global warming was true?"

 

[Sariaht]

Whithout carbondioxid in the atmosphere, the Earth will become cold. I think it couldn't hurt to put a little extra in there, how can you be totally sure global warming will ever become a problem. If we didn't burn oil, then in a billion years all carbondioxid will be gone. Should it really be called global warming, shouldn't it be called global cooling?

 

[sid_galt]

New Study proves anthropological global warming

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL

Is the study right or wrong?

 

[Clausius2]

To say something, I think that a decreasing of a 5% in the emissions of CO2 won't change the things so much, but surely advanced countries will obtain several economic profits selling the rights of emissions to poorer countries.

As an example, Spain is allowed to increase the CO2 emission to a +15% to what we had in the moment of establishing the protocol. And we go beyond the +30% right now. Kioto doesn't seem a serious threat to force countries to decrease the CO2 emission, and now it only provides to engineers a puzzling problem.

Anyway, it is better than nothing.

 

[Sariaht]

Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise, and that fast. Correct me if I'm wrong but if it doubles won't the sun become 4 times as hot, E=mc², right? In that case, won't we be fried?

if it doubles in 1000.000.000 years, lightspeed will increase, 0,8 mm per day

 

[Andre]

Sid,

Your report of the study follows the usual line:
There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.

(well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.

Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues

Yes and?

increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature

This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.

If we don't cut emissions we will fry

That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?

Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.

 

[sid_galt]

Sid,

Your report of the study follows the usual line:
There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.

(well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.

Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues

Yes and?

increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature

This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.

If we don't cut emissions we will fry

That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?

Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.

Thank you for the reply. I had my doubts about the "study".

BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?

Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?

 

[Locrian]

Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise

No it's not.

 

[Locrian]

Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind.

Actually, last I heard the number of allowed emissions was preset and based on the US joining in. Given that we haven't, the tradeable emissions are quite numerous, and it may end up having less of an effect than inteded. In that way, at least, it may not be much of a gamble in any direciton.

 

[Andre]

BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?

It has been established that 75% of the greenhouse effect of 33K is attributable to water. The remaining part is shared by greenhouse gasses. Some 60% of that (15% of the total) being CO2.

Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?

I doubt if we ever get to much more increase of global temp than one degree compared to the 1900 level. There are many more factors that may be a lot worse to Earth

 

[PerennialII]

So essentially the educated thing to do is to quit the chatter about warming and start doing something reasonable in ecological terms ?

 

[Andre]

That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?

 

[Sariaht]

So solar plants are not worth the effort? I protest. Especialy since we more or less are flowers that walk and talk, what can be more natural for earthlings to do then to produce solar plants? Ofcourse there will be times when humans have to manage without the sun, but we should develope better solarplants while we still have the sun, don't you think?

 

[PerennialII]

That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

I find it hard to question any of these ... all sound reasonable and agree with the direction completely. Rather than focusing on obscure solutions which may or may not work, may or may not be based on reality, these do address the problems we're facing globally, and do it pragmatically.

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?

Emission cutbacks ought to have their basis in reality, which doesn't really seem to be the case ... now their are just abstract cuts as you suggest. With respect to renewables I can't say I've adequate information whether the cost/benefit ratio is such that within a reasonable timespan they are able to contribute, or would the rational approach be to ditch them, invest in nuclear + natural gas and use the development money to advance fusion ... what is the latest in this area ?

 

[Andre]

About renewables.

The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.

And then there is no wind.

So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.

But there are more forms of renewables of course.

 

[PerennialII]

About renewables.

The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.

And then there is no wind.

So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.

But there are more forms of renewables of course.

Yeah, considering the power output solar and wind are pretty much that, somehow I don't have high hopes for geothermal and don't see how the amount water produced energy can be increased (or don't think that should at least). The idea of biomass in my mind suffers from the same ideas as water, what about something more exotic ... like is there any hope for fuel cell power plants etc. ?

 

[sid_galt]

That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?

I would like to add, a good reduction in tax on corporations. This will allow them to invest more in alternative sources of energy and they are generally much more efficient than the government.

 

[Locrian]

But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

For someone of your education, this is an incredibly shallow remark. There may not be many people in the sahara who need it, but there are people north, south, east and west of it who might be able to benefit. The sun shines equally bright just a little outside of a desert.

You don't quote any numbers when talking about solar and wind power, and I feel it is safe to say you may not be aware of the most recent ones. It's already been shown here in the US, for example, that when you take into account the amount of money society spends on coal miners healthcare, the difference in cost between coal and wind power is negligible.

Regardless of your views on global warming, the sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices may make alternative sources of energy economic more sooner than later; should we invest in them now? If we are reasonably forward thinking, we will certainly invest in their research.

The new nuclear power plants China has opened could certainly be considered "alternative," and may very well be superior to all other current types of power generation.

 

[Andre]

Sorry about the shallow remark Sometimes one must make stupid statements to get a bit of discussion. Again I'm not used to the hot bright desert type weather. The article that I read gave a tenfold higher cost for solar power against oil. But that's at higher lattitudes of course. Those kind of remarks easily cause bias

The coal thing is interesting. A switch to methane (clathrate) or more nuclear power could be very rewarding in terms of pollution.

The problem with most forms of renewables is the size to effectiveness ratio. Windmills are probably at the bottom of the ratio. But in all cases I think that the culprit of renewables is the lack of reliability. Regardless of the number of solar cells, the airconditionings just continue in the night time. The limited storage posibilities require that some other plant takes over. Then why not invest in completely nuclear coverage of the need instead of dividing the assets and be a lot less effective.

 

[Locrian]

If I repsonded strongly to your statement it is partly because I was suprised you said it. It is not strange for me to run into thinking here in the US along those lines - except, unlike in your case, most people are dead serious when they say it. I have a hypothesis for why Africa always comes up in discussions about this with people in the US, but I won't go into it because I would think it wouldn't apply to you.

Anyhow, I see no reason why investing completely in nuclear coverage is more effective than dividing assets between several power types. I believe there are a couple of things you are not taking into account.

1) Is it safe to say you are from a country whose population is reasonbaly dense? Nuclear power is a fantastic solution to city energy supply. Nuclear power is a poor solution to rural areas energy supply. It is expensive to transport power.

Here in the US we have vast tracts of open land, and huge farm areas. In both of these, the size to effectiveness ratio is virtually meaningless; windmills placed on farmland can reduce the crop yield by tiny amounts, and increase the economic value of the farm considerably. It still isn't economic to do this on large scales, but we are getting close to reaching a time when it will be.

2) I believe you are only considering a single use for these alternative energy sources - that of electricity. Solar power especially has direct uses that do not require electricity, but save electricity and other recources. Wind qualifies too, but less so and in different ways. Take solar water heaters for instance; it has been shown they pay for themselves in warm areas, and are beginning to be sold regularly in the US. Why shouldn't we invest in them?

If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).

If renewable sources are so poor choices, then answer this: why has Japan seen a huge increase in solar power sales even as government funding has been phased to a fraction of what it once was? Why have solar cells seen huge increases in sales worldwide over the past decade? Why will thin film solar cells, which require a fraction of the materials, not end up highly efficient methods of extracting some energy?

You'll have to pardon me, I don't remember where you are from - Northern Europe? Currently, the facts seem to lean your way; solar power is just not as efficient a form of energy as other sources. However, being in Birmingham Alabama, things appear differently to me, and while the current facts lean your way, it would seem time may be on my side.

I believe that picking a fight with renewable energy sources only muddles your message.

 

[Andre]

Okay,

Let's say that my priority list indeed is my advise to the government of a small rainy country, which name is visible below the bear of little brain.

I appreciate the energy transport problem. There are more problems BTW. How are we going to continue to sustain Jumbo-jets and Air-busses with fuel. Synthetic fuels? Perhaps but any idea how much jet - air fuel A1 is consumed every second?

I see some 300-500 Airlines continuesly airborne over Europe. That may amount to 1500 - 2000 worldwide perhaps? Average fuel consumption some 9000 liters per hour, say 3 liters per airliner per second. How are we going to produce 6000 liters (1600 gallons) of synthetic fuel per second?

Would massive solar stills work in the desert to produce distilled water? which is nice to keep irrigation systems clean of calciferous deposit.

 

[Locrian]

which name is visible below the bear of little brain.

How are we going to continue to sustain Jumbo-jets and Air-busses with fuel. Synthetic fuels? Perhaps but any idea how much jet - air fuel A1 is consumed every second?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance. You said not to invest in renewables. My argument is that it is quickly becoming economically (and socially) profitible to do so. Did you take what I said to mean I think we ought not put oil based fuels in planes? Maybe you are talking to someone else, and that's why I don't understand?

 

[Andre]

I jump far too quick, omitting a few steps.

-The objective is to convert to a sustainable economy.
-That means eventually no more fosil fuel (regardless of CO2)
-Aviation is an intrinsic part of the economy and booming business
-Aircraft propulsion is dependable on liquid fuel and lots of it.
-Liquid fuel in massive amounts is only available from fossil origine
-If that's no longer economical feasible what are we going to burn in the planes?
-A synthetic liquid fuel (alcohol?) may not be producable at the required rate.
So we need to think about something else and fast, since jets take a decade or so to devellop and three decades to mature and we don't know how much time we have.

 

[sid_galt]

-If that's no longer economical feasible what are we going to burn in the planes?

Maybe a brilliantly good high voltage battery would help?

 

[Andre]

Perhaps, anyway I think this is not the place where specialists would show up to discuss these matters so I opened a new thread here.

 

[remcook]

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources

Why not? You probably made your argument many times before, but I just saw this.

and why is Kyoto a gamble? what is there to loose?

 

[ohwilleke]

Andre,

I think you are wrong about renewables and are also missing a huge piece of the puzzle, which is conservation.

 

[russ_watters]

For someone of your education, this is an incredibly shallow remark. There may not be many people in the sahara who need it, but there are people north, south, east and west of it who might be able to benefit. The sun shines equally bright just a little outside of a desert.

Be realistic though: what is the total energy consumption of Africa compared to the US? Its not selfish to focus our efforts on the US.

You don't quote any numbers when talking about solar and wind power, and I feel it is safe to say you may not be aware of the most recent ones. It's already been shown here in the US, for example, that when you take into account the amount of money society spends on coal miners healthcare, the difference in cost between coal and wind power is negligible.

Such calculations are dubious and biased and even if true, its still not that simple: you have to weigh the short term vs long-term costs and benefits. People dying of cancer is an extremely long-term cost of coal that is difficult to reconcile with the extremely low short-term cost of the electricity. Plus, I doubt such studies consider all the costs of wind power: such as the land it requires and the real long-term cost. That has a little to do with the bias of the assumptions, but also has to do with the fact that the wind-power industry is not mature, so you have to make projections that you don't have to make regarding coal.

In any case, nuclear is as intrinsically cheap as coal (it is expensive strictly because it is over-regulated) and has none of the added long-term environmental and health costs.

Regardless of your views on global warming, the sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices may make alternative sources of energy economic more sooner than later; should we invest in them now? If we are reasonably forward thinking, we will certainly invest in their research.

The new nuclear power plants China has opened could certainly be considered "alternative," and may very well be superior to all other current types of power generation.

I don't reeally care what you call it, but if calling nuclear power "alternative" causes hippies to stop sabbotaging it, I'm all for it.

Anyhow, I see no reason why investing completely in nuclear coverage is more effective than dividing assets between several power types. I believe there are a couple of things you are not taking into account.

1) Is it safe to say you are from a country whose population is reasonbaly dense? Nuclear power is a fantastic solution to city energy supply. Nuclear power is a poor solution to rural areas energy supply. It is expensive to transport power.

Here in the US we have vast tracts of open land, and huge farm areas. In both of these, the size to effectiveness ratio is virtually meaningless; windmills placed on farmland can reduce the crop yield by tiny amounts, and increase the economic value of the farm considerably. It still isn't economic to do this on large scales, but we are getting close to reaching a time when it will be.

I don't want to speak for Andre (I've been accused of focusing too much on nuclear power before), but keep some perspective: You gave two excellent examples, but what is the size-ratio of those examples? Ie, if we built windmills on farms and used nuclear power for our cities, what would the ratio be? 99% nuclear? I wouldn't suggest putting all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, but it is perfectly appropriate to put the vast majority (90%+) of our efforts into nuclear power.

2) I believe you are only considering a single use for these alternative energy sources - that of electricity. Solar power especially has direct uses that do not require electricity, but save electricity and other recources. Wind qualifies too, but less so and in different ways. Take solar water heaters for instance; it has been shown they pay for themselves in warm areas, and are beginning to be sold regularly in the US. Why shouldn't we invest in them?

That's fine too, but the same caveat applies: how much of your electric (gas) usage goes to your water heater? My argument has always been to go after the big fish. A dozen successful alternates would not even begin to compare to the effect of a single successful nuclear program.

If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).

Be realistic: with what is a Western-Saharan nomad going to pay for solar-powered water purifier and how much impact would selling it to him have on the global energy/pollution situation?

If renewable sources are so poor choices, then answer this: why has Japan seen a huge increase in solar power sales even as government funding has been phased to a fraction of what it once was? Why have solar cells seen huge increases in sales worldwide over the past decade?

Simple: when sales of such things are so microscopic, a doubling of sales is pretty easy to achieve and equally meaningless. Such numbers are trumpeted by environmentalists all the time regarding wind power. But how about a reality check: http://www.greenenergyohio.org/page.cfm?pageId=93

New wind industry investment was worth $9 billion in 2003, up from $7 billion in 2002. The total capacity of 39,294 MW [that's global] provides enough electricity to power the equivalent of 9 million average American homes...

Sounds great, right? The reality is quite different: first, wind power (and solar) has a horrible utilization factor. While a nuclear plant can average 90% for its lifetime, a wind plant is at the whim of the weather and more often than not, is generating a small fraction (or nothing) of its theortical capabilities. For http://library.iea.org/Textbase/stats/surveys/mes.pdf , wind power isn't even listed, but the total average production of "geothermal/other", which includes wind and solar, was about 14,000 MW. Far cry from the 39,000 MW of theoretical capacity for wind alone.

The total of all the alternate energy sources is currently 1.3% of the world's generation. Should we try to increase that by an order of magnitude(if possible)? Sure, but that still means almost 90% of the total solution can (should) be nuclear.

I think you are wrong about renewables and are also missing a huge piece of the puzzle, which is conservation.

How big and how do we do it? From the link above, global energy usage is going up by around 1% a year and fossil fuels make up about 2/3 of our total usage. Is it possible to decrease global energy usage by a meaningful fraction (say, 25%) and be able to maintain even current (much less, continue to improve) living standards? I don't think it is possible, and in any case, people won't do it on their own (despite high gas prices, SUV sales continue to increase).

 

[russ_watters]

RE: Kyoto itself:

Why not? You probably made your argument many times before, but I just saw this.

and why is Kyoto a gamble? what is there to loose?

The most obvious problems with Kyoto are that it is inequitable ("developing" countries are completely exempt, and that's a big problem: China's pollution output is exploding), its not enough, and it focuses on results instead of solutions.

But I think that's secondary to a bigger issue: while it gives the appearance of doing something, it is my opinion that doing something worthless is worse than doing nothing because it creates complacancy. Support for nuclear power in the US is growing, but so long as people think there is a viable alternate (there isn't), it'll stay on the back-burner.

Say, for example, we (the US) reduce our CO2 output by the 10% or so required through a program of improved auto emissions and retro-fitting existing fossil-fuel plants. We could do it. It wouldn't even be all that difficult. People would celebrate, slap each other on the back, etc., but what would it really accomplish? That level of output is still way too high, the developing world will have increased its emissions to cover the difference, and we'd be no better off 10 years from now than we are today: except that we'll have wasted 10 years that could have been spent building nuclear plants and our existing capacity crisis would be much, much worse.

Bush mentioned nuclear power in his state of the union address, but he missed a big opportunity. Free from the burden of being re-elected he is in a position now where he can do things that are good but unpopular. If he started a massive program to restart the nuclear industry, they could be pouring foundations by the time he left office. It would even sound good in a speech: 'We're not going to join Kyoto - it isn't enough. With our new nuclear power program (and improved auto emissions, etc.), we will decrease the US's CO2 emissions - not by a measly 10% - but by a full 90% over the next 30 years. We challenge the rest of the world to be so ambitious.'

Our next president needs to do more of that kind of leadership. Bush did some unilateral nuclear disarnament (how bizarre is that?) in the beginning of his first term, but he didn't do enough and he didn't hype it enough. With the US's current policy of militant isolationism, we need to do more unilateral actions. We could start an inverted arms race and a pollution-reduction race. Imagine France's dismay! - they wouldn't be able to oppose us in everything like they currently do, merely copy us and try to outdo us.

 

[Locrian]

Be realistic though: what is the total energy consumption of Africa compared to the US? Its not selfish to focus our efforts on the US.

And I never said it was. Thanks for turning my statement into a straw man and defending what even Andre said was an unacceptable comment. And don't try telling me I'm misinterpreting you, because Andre doesn't live in the US; you've made the implication whether you like it or not.

However, beyond that you’ve single handedly made my case for a rather bold statement I made earlier. I said to Andre that it is not strange for me to run into people here in the US who might make the statement along the lines of the one he did - "except, unlike in your case, most people are dead serious when they say it.“ So, is there really anyone out there who would mix up what someone wants and what someone afford for real? Let's take a look:

If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).

Be realistic: with what is a Western-Saharan nomad going to pay for solar-powered water purifier

Be realistic. In a discussion about what someone wants, and what they could make use of, Russ pops into let us know that, in fact, people in Western Sahara are poor. What does that have to do with what they might want? The economic issues are an entirely different subject - and yes, what people want is important, as discussing the economics of a product is rather rediculous if there is no demand. This is exactly what Andre was implying, and is, by proxy, a statement Russ is defending.

Be realistic. What a snide phrase to come from someone who didn't read closely enough to be on the same subject. Russ, be realistic. People in the Sahara want electricity and clean power. How these issues of "want" and "afford" can be so terribly confused is beyond me. They are extremely aggrevating though. I'm too irritated to respond to the rest of the post, which I guess I'll get to later.

 

[Locrian]

Such calculations are dubious and biased and even if true,

Dubious, biased, and true! Such interesting language for peer reviewed journal articles. Science, Vol 293, Issue 5534, 1438 , 24 August 2001. Give us your opinion on which you think it is - dubious, biased, true or any combination of the above. Make sure to take into account efficiency changes since they published it. Personally, I'd use the word "incorrect" at the time. But their failure to show that wind can replace 50% of coal power only occurs after they show it is not necessarily more expensive than coal.

I wouldn't suggest putting all of our eggs in the nuclear basket, but it is perfectly appropriate to put the vast majority (90%+) of our efforts into nuclear power.

Did I say anywhere we should not do that? Who are you talking to, exactly? I'm beginning to think you've lumped me into a group I don't actually agree with. I wonder what assumptions are being made here?

how much of your electric (gas) usage goes to your water heater?

After heating and cooling, water heaters usually (depending on the type) are the number one users of electricity. Depending on the area and it's climate control needs, older water heaters can be the number of all electric users in a household.

What would be even more interesting is to see what that has to do with my point. If it is economically beneficial to use a solar powered water heater, it won't matter what percentage of electricty it uses. Whether it actually is economically beneficial is a more interesting question. I wonder if we'll get to it?

Such numbers are trumpeted by environmentalists all the time regarding wind power.

I wasn't talking about wind power when you stated this. Your response is noted, but the numbers for solar power are not the same as wind power.

Would a summary help?

In Andre's list of things we should not do he includes investing in renewable energies. Because renewable energy sources are approaching cost effectiveness in several situations, it is difficult to support this suggestion. The only factor that should determine whether renewables are invested in is their economic and potential economic returns; greenhouse gases, the kyoto protocol, cloudy northern european states and the economic condition of people in northwestern africa should not be considered.

Nuclear power should be considered only so much as it impacts the economic choice of power supplies. Complaining that nuclear power is made more expensive due to government regulations has all the value of complaining renewables are more expensive because they are a new technology - namely very little.

PS: In your response, don't assume I'm an environmentalist, don't assume I'm against nuclear power, don't assume that supporting investment in renewable energies means only investing in renewable energies, and don't assume that I'm not realistic. For better or worse, assuming that I'm wrong is par for the course.

 

[Andre]

Well seeing all of this, I regret the subjective trends here. Why is nuclear taboo for so many people? The unknown perhaps? Let's try to make sense again of the problems with renewables versus nuclear energy.

Both forms have an carbon emission level of zero. Nowadays, nuclear plants can be highly cost effective. The problem with investing in renewables versus nuclear powerr plants is the acceptance that the contraption won't work if the energy source is temporarely unavaible. And then, we did not even start to talk about failures and maintenance as is usual for whatever technique. You accept a thing that's intrinsic unreliable.

Consequently. even if you have the transport problem of energy, there is still the requirement to do so when the source is not available. So against the background of the availability of massive nuclear energy, the question is what good would it do to invest in renewables? Perhaps the transport problem can be solved differently? What about fuel cells for instance, with the hydrogen produced in the nuclear power plant? Would that be a form of acceptable renewals?

But of course if you were a farmer in the middle of nowhere, you would be quite happy with that windmill and those solar panels; there is no doubt about that. However if you were to be the provider of the energy with the obligation to guarantee delivery of energy, you would think quite differently.