Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[r-j]

How do you get the electricity from solar panels to be compatible with commercial power?

You ask the Germans how they did it!

Norbert Allnoch, director of the Institute of the Renewable Energy Industry (IWR) in Muenster, said the 22 gigawatts of solar power per hour fed into the national grid on Saturday met nearly 50 percent of the nation's midday electricity needs.

"Never before anywhere has a country produced as much photovoltaic electricity," Allnoch told Reuters. "Germany came close to the 20 gigawatt (GW) mark a few times in recent weeks. But this was the first time we made it over."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

 

[a_unique_person]

Perspectives of a wildlife ecologist here, with specific field experience on wind farms:

First, I don't care if our rapidly warming planet is on a trajectory to return to some global climate it might have supported in the past. The problem is the upheaval such change portends for human cultures and populations that are dependent on 40% of the terrestrial land area to feed billions of people, and we've got something like 200 million worldwide living below 5m asl. "The globe" will be fine as it warms, many of its species - including us - will not.

Wind energy can help us reduce demand on energy derived directly from fossil fuels but cannot eliminate it. For one, each wind farm needs a redundant electrical grid drawn from a more reliable source, to maintain the grid when the wind dies down. The bigger problem, however, is that wind farms contribute greatly to habitat fragmentation as well as direct mortality of birds and bats. I've never understood why we got people excited to do something about AGW under the guise of "saving" polar bears and the solution we came up with dooms prairie-chickens. We're just trading one wildlife threat for another.

Solar is little better. Modern solar plants take up great swaths of land, exacerbating problems of habitat loss and fragmentation, often in sensitive deserts.

I like the idea of solar and wind, but I don't like the practice of installing them on industrial scales to try to mimic the output of traditional power plants. I think we need to go small with these technologies, not big. I'd like to see homes and businesses with their own solar arrays built into their infrastructure and small, vertical-axis wind turbines taking up about the same footprint as a flagpole or a 6' trashcan. Investments in making these technologies affordable and efficient for homeowners could greatly reduce dependence on the central grid. Right now, at least in the US, retrofitting one's home to take advantage of such things is still ridiculously expensive and seems to require a degree in electrical engineering or advanced tinkering to get right. I want to be able to buy a kit from Home Depot, bolt it into place on my home or property, plug it into the wall, and start saving the planet!

By the same token, we need to be pursuing nuclear power with gusto in the U.S., but the big plants are an environmental and regulatory nightmare. The solution here again is to go small. If we can safely operate nuclear plants within submarines then we can safely operate small-scale nuclear plants in small towns all across the Great Plains and Intermountain West. Demonstrations of safety and efficiency in these smaller markets will eventually convince people that small-nuke is a viable option in larger metro areas.

So in my ruminations on how to reduce CO2 emissions using "green" energy technologies in a way that would be compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, I want to see us abandon the current models of industrial-scale installations and instead focus on going SMALL. If I'm missing something obvious that would render my ideas moot, I trust folks here will correct me lickety-split!

Ten percent of Australian homes more have also panels pin their roof, due to a very successful government funded scheme. More that a cable also industry has een established, the subsidies have almost gone.

 

[Dymanic]

How do you get the electricity from solar panels to be compatible with commercial power?

Shifting government subsidies away from coal and natural gas and toward solar would go a long way.

 

[tsig]

You ask the Germans how they did it!


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

First we're discussing individual units now you want to discuss national power grids.

Apparently they threw money at it.

The incentives through the state-mandated "feed-in-tariff" (FIT) are not without controversy, however. The FIT is the lifeblood for the industry until photovoltaic prices fall further to levels similar for conventional power production.

Utilities and consumer groups have complained the FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world with consumers paying about 23 cents per kw/h.

German consumers pay about 4 billion euros ($5 billion) per year on top of their electricity bills for solar power, according to a 2012 report by the Environment Ministry.

 

[macdoc]

Ten percent of Australian homes more have also panels pin their roof,

except you are not allowed to use the power directly - you have to accept what they pay you and don't get any offsetting discount on your bills.....kinda sucks.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by tsig
How do you get the electricity from solar panels to be compatible with commercial power?

TO convert the North American grid would be somewhere near 3/4 trillion dollars....builds a lot of nukes.

The current grid needs a 1/3 of that amount invested very soon just to keep going.

IFRs are needed for a whole variety of reasons.

 

[Trakar]

Many posters here are aware that the topic of GW is held under moderation and that is very rough to deal with it. Those many posters here are also aware that derailing the thread into a general GW one seasoned with assorted stupidity would cause all the posts here to be flushed into the general thread in a disruptive manner. That's why the steps into derail in posts #11, 12 and 15 had to be contained, as those users knew exactly what they were doing.

Contribute to keep this thread clean and on focus. So far a distinction was made about climate change driven by the sun and by "a surfeit of greenhouse gases". Ratios of ¹²C, ¹³C in the atmosphere can be analysed in this context, together with ¹⁴C dispersion in the environment, in order to pinpoint the origin of it, including the fraction provided by volcanic activity. There's a lot that can be debated only on that.

As some topics may degenerate into the usual nonsensical bits -like someone shouting "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" or "the greenhouse effect doesn't exist" or "climate is not changing"- which are undoubtedly fodder for the moderated thread, I suggest you to keep the subject in an orderly fashion and don't engage in long give and takes about off-topics, specially those provided by the usual parachutist who are bored on Sunday.

Agreed, general AGW topic discussions are perforce moderated.

There is no compelling evidence suggesting that current global climate change would be occurring without the well evidenced human alteration of climate variables over (at least) the last couple of centuries.

 

[CapelDodger]

Arctic Warming May Not Be Altering Jet Stream: Study
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-study-questions-arctic-warming-extreme-weather-links-16375

In examining trends in the waviness and speed of the jet stream, as well as the number and location of atmospheric blocking events, the study found that the evidence does not support many of the conclusions made in previous studies. Specifically, the study found no significant change in the waviness of the jet stream has been observed based on 30 years of data.

On the other hand :

However, Francis found fault with parts of the new study. She said that the 30 years of data that Barnes used in her research might hide some of the effects of Arctic amplification, since much of the warming and sea ice loss has taken place in just the past 15 years.
“Because Arctic amplification has emerged from the noise of natural variability only in the last 15 year or so, it is not surprising that its influence would not drive 30-year trends in a statistically significant way,” she said.

More data required, I think.

 

[macdoc]

. If these blocked weather-systems remain as frequent as recently the implications are pretty serious.

very

 

[macdoc]

"cept that it would be gradually getting cooler towards the ice age that was supposed to be a result of our Milankovich positioning.......very gradually.

 

[a_unique_person]

except you are not allowed to use the power directly - you have to accept what they pay you and don't get any offsetting discount on your bills.....kinda sucks.

You get to choose who to sell it to. My power bill is about half what it used to be. This will pay for itself on about three years.

 

[JihadJane]

Populations have overshot carrying capacity by consuming wood and have survived the crash, admittedly on regional scales. I see no reason why it'll be different on a global scale. Extinction isn't on the cards, even if the last few hundred million live under domes.

If runaway global warming manifests, human extinction is definitely on the cards. Today, one in eight birds, one in four mammals, one in five invertebrates, one in three amphibians, and half of all turtles face extinction.

No ****, Sherlock!

What, then, is the relevance of your drug analogy?

It depends on what you think you wrote there. An absence of indication -according to you- would be an indication of absence -according to you-? I don't think so. And tell me how do you calculate the second and third derivatives of fossil fuels consumption to conclude that "humanity is not moving away from consuming ever increasing amounts" of it.

Thank you for replying my post, but I wrote it simply to tell that you were going off-topic with a deterministic declaration that looked good but was logically broken. It's fossil fuels which are not food, nor powering human societies is atavically linked to feeding instincts. Maybe departing from the Pleasure principle you may find a more viable explanation in the realm of instincts and biological forces.

Anyway, what did have your posts to do with the specific topic of this thread, that is, the way to spot climate change occurring naturally from one caused by human actions?

The calories of fossil fuels go directly into our food supply. To recognise how human actions are causing climate change we need to recognise how our tool-using relates to wider natural processes.

 

[DC]

I would say yes, except for one thing: the environmentalists I've encountered (and I'll certainly accept that my sample may be biased) have had those facts ready at hand. So when I ask those questions, the answer is easy to find. In contrast, the information on the carbon footprints of wind turbines is essentially unavailable. I've even read through a few EIR/EIS documents and couldn't find it. Again, please don't add more to what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying. I'm not saying that the carbon footprint of turbines is worse than that of other form of energy production. I'm speaking to the availability of the data; I'm agnostic concerning the interpretation of the data.

I WILL say that anyone who thinks carbon footprint is the main issue should look into the Ivanpah Solar Power Plant. I've read a few newspaper articles about its impact to wildlife. ALL energy production is a ballancing act; the question is how to achieve that ballance.

I avoid arguments about interpretation. I have my views, but people seem to insist on misinterpreting them (seems anything other than "CO2 will kill us all!!!!!" will be taken as denial of science by some people). It's simply not worth getting into. That's why I've been trying to be extremely careful to precisely deliniate what my arguments are about--and you can see that even that doesn't seem to work all the time (not saying anything about you; it's aleCcowaN's twisting of my post that I'm thinking of here).

very strange. "CO2 Footprint windmill" in Google gives you top link to WIKI, Enviromental Impact of windpower ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power )
they mention studies into this.
anyone intersted in thi stopic would also be interested in a comparison of the different energy sources.

so one would Google soimething like "carbon footprint energy source" and this will lead to another WIKI page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

there more studies to this Topic are linked to.

how you are unable to find this Information is beyond me....

 

[BobK]

First we're discussing individual units now you want to discuss national power grids.

Apparently they threw money at it.

The incentives through the state-mandated "feed-in-tariff" (FIT) are not without controversy, however. The FIT is the lifeblood for the industry until photovoltaic prices fall further to levels similar for conventional power production.

Utilities and consumer groups have complained the FIT for solar power adds about 2 cents per kilowatt/hour on top of electricity prices in Germany that are already among the highest in the world with consumers paying about 23 cents per kw/h.

German consumers pay about 4 billion euros ($5 billion) per year on top of their electricity bills for solar power, according to a 2012 report by the Environment Ministry.

Here is a guy who provides figures for the first year of his newly installed 12 kw of solar for his house in Germany. The system wouldn't even pay for itself over its expected lifetime if it wasn't for the hefty feed-in-tariff. Even with the FIT he figures payback will take more than a decade. Link

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Here is a guy who provides figures for the first year of his newly installed 12 kw of solar for his house in Germany. The system wouldn't even pay for itself over its expected lifetime if it wasn't for the hefty feed-in-tariff. Even with the FIT he figures payback will take more than a decade. Link

The most efficient home solar use last I knew was heating water, not making electricity. Parabolic reflectors that follow the sun have been around since at least the 1970's and pay for themselves very quickly.

 

[tsig]

Here is a guy who provides figures for the first year of his newly installed 12 kw of solar for his house in Germany. The system wouldn't even pay for itself over its expected lifetime if it wasn't for the hefty feed-in-tariff. Even with the FIT he figures payback will take more than a decade. Link

I get:

The connection has timed out



The server at notrickszone.com is taking too long to respond.

 

[tsig]

You get to choose who to sell it to. My power bill is about half what it used to be. This will pay for itself on about three years.

Do you have any figures on that?

 

[lomiller]

There is no compelling evidence suggesting that current global climate change would be occurring without the well evidenced human alteration of climate variables over (at least) the last couple of centuries.

Judging by the solar cycles that have governed glaciations for the past 4 million years the natural climate change should be the same long slow cooling trend that occurred from ~8000 years ago up until the late 1800’s.

 

[lomiller]

Here is a guy who provides figures for the first year of his newly installed 12 kw of solar for his house in Germany. The system wouldn't even pay for itself over its expected lifetime if it wasn't for the hefty feed-in-tariff. Even with the FIT he figures payback will take more than a decade. Link

That breakeven point is judged relative to fossil sources that are also subsidized indirectly by allowing them to emit CO2 free of charge. If fossil energy sources were forced to price in their CO2 emissions the Solar system wouldn’t need subsidies either.

 

[Trakar]

Judging by the solar cycles that have governed glaciations for the past 4 million years the natural climate change should be the same long slow cooling trend that occurred from ~8000 years ago up until the late 1800’s.

And there is some evidence suggestive that human-induced planetary scale climate factor alterations began 8-12,000 years ago when humanity began large scale forest harvest and agricultural practices.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9164.html