Solar panels increase house prices.

[SunEagle]

I never really understood assertions like these.

You are telling us that "there will always need to be another energy source" other than wind or solar. That statement is true only to the extent that the assumptions underlying it are true. One of those assumptions is that our need for energy will continue to be as high as it is now. But that assumption is flawed. People are capable of living (and even living well) using much less energy than the average citizen of the first world uses today. Given the financial and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear power (or, I should say, if and when the environmental costs becomes reflected in the financial cost), people are likely to begin to reduce their energy usage, and to look favorably at renewable energy to fill their needs.

The fallacy here is assuming that tomorrow's market and technological capabilities will look much like today's. There are good reasons to believe that they will not.

I don't doubt that new technology will come along and people will learn to do with less but you have to realize what it will take to change how power generation is performed on a world wide scale and the time it will take to do it.

Let me know what you plan to do when the sun goes down and the wind stops yet you still want to have lights, refrigerated food, fans for cooling and electronics for entertainment. The power has to come from somewhere and a battery won't get you far.

So you may hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution to replace all forms of power generation from nuclear or fossil fuel but that will not happen over night or over decades for our energy hungry planet. Until then you need to make a decision on what type of "fuel" will be used to your power and light or start learning how to make candles.

[snic]

I don't doubt that new technology will come along and people will learn to do with less but you have to realize what it will take to change how power generation is performed on a world wide scale and the time it will take to do it.

Let me know what you plan to do when the sun goes down and the wind stops yet you still want to have lights, refrigerated food, fans for cooling and electronics for entertainment. The power has to come from somewhere and a battery won't get you far.

So you may hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution to replace all forms of power generation from nuclear or fossil fuel but that will not happen over night or over decades for our energy hungry planet. Until then you need to make a decision on what type of "fuel" will be used to your power and light or start learning how to make candles.

I'm aware of all these points. The energy market is not going to change quickly, that's a given. But it has already changed far faster in Europe (especially Denmark and Germany) than it has here. That is because the Germans and the Danish realize that the free market isn't going to solve all problems. A far greater percentage of their power comes from renewable sources than ours because it's incentivized. As you are certainly aware, despite the relatively large contribution of wind and solar power there to the total, everyone in Germany and Denmark has 24 hour refrigeration and lights on at night. But energy conservation measures are also more widespread there (almost certainly more than in Texas), so, for instance, those lights might automatically turn off when a person leaves a room. Add these sorts of technologies up over the entire population, and you end up with less need for that nighttime power.

I don't know where you get the idea that I "hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution". That is not what I said. I hope and wish for a regulated energy market in which the growth and development of renewable energy technology (as well as energy conservation efforts and technology) is fostered by appropriate incentives. "Someone" won't invent the "perfect solution," but if there is profit in it, multiple solutions will emerge and they will get better with time. This strikes me as a far more rational approach to the problem of climate change than simply throwing up one's hands and saying "batteries won't work so we need nuclear and/or fossil fuels."

We don't have the answers now; that's true. And fossil fuels probably will continue to provide energy for us for decades and centuries. But that doesn't mean we can't do all we can right now to minimize their use. In my opinion, we aren't doing enough.

[snic]

It is beyond me how some people can still deny the existence of climate change.

OK - since you think it is true it has to be true? This is a true green viewpoint. Many minorities demand all others accept their viewpoint.

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

[J.P.M.]

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

Snic: I'm sort of on your side, but you're not making it any easier for the rest of us. Question: Do you have any idea how much energy you consume in a year ? Do you even know how to begin looking for such a thing ? Get a clue and find out, and leave the "you could just do this and the world would be fine" mentality out of it. Look in the mirror and start there. Last time I looked this was a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions about solar energy. I'd respectfully suggest you take a deep breath, lighten up a bit, learn to walk more of the appropriate technology road, get some solid #'s behind your statements that can be validated and join some of the rest of us in searching for viable solutions to questions that have some hope of resolution. Your rants aren't helping.

[russ]

I doubt that you are in the majority on this one. Even if you are - that is, if the majority of the people in the world believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't caused by humans - that still doesn't make you right.That is exactly what I told you

There is a big difference between minorities that are self-interested parties and "minorities" that are scientists. Please define "scientist" - you can leave out the NRDC, EDF, Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc. There are scientists in the groups but few. The percentages claimed in articles are nothing more than WAGs.

In the former case, the objectivity of the self-interested party should routinely be questioned. But scientists aren't self-interested parties: they aren't going to gain anything by interpreting the facts one way and not another. Their point of view tends to be as diverse as the scientific method allows. In other words, scientists using different techniques and approaches often come up with different interpretations, and they often spend years arguing about which one is correct. With repetition of experiments and advancement in techniques, these questions eventually get resolved. That is how we know the earth revolves around the sun, even though there were huge arguments about this 500 years ago. You do love to play with words while supporting blather. You and your lot are very much the same as the church was years back - center of the universe my butt.

In the case of climate change, what is remarkable is that the scientists' conclusions nearly universally favor the hypothesis that it's real and caused by us. This kind of agreement is unusual except in cases where the data strongly support one hypothesis. Your scientists and they could well be off base.

I don't know what's more worrisome - the fact that climate scientists all agree, or the fact that people like you refuse to listen to them.

snic - Goofy greens always claim that anyone not agreeing with them is just plain wrong - enviro nazis.

1) Climate always changes so how much is natural and how much man made - some of both in reality.

2) In well understood chemical processes we understand some and some reactions are guessed at. In the process I have worked with for a life time I know this is true. The engineers working on it are equal to and better than the warmers.

3) Man is changing the environment - no doubt and for the worse. If one person pees in the pool it is no big deal however, if several billion pee in it things get yucky.

What is worrisome is fools that follow goofy bunches like the warmers and their "scientists" without understanding what they are trying to say. Any time a chemical engineer says he is positive about a highly complicated series of reactions over time it is time to get the anti BS meter out.

People are claiming to understand how the various components of the atmosphere react when in reality they have little idea.

[russ]

snic - BTW - I do believe man is changing the environment - I do not believe the warmers to there last word.

Please be aware that what the "warmers" are chattering about is chemistry - not anything else.

Learn more about the topic before you go off on rants please.

[snic]

3) Man is changing the environment - no doubt and for the worse. If one person pees in the pool it is no big deal however, if several billion pee in it things get yucky.

Ah, I see. So you agree with me all along. It's just that you prefer to mock and insult anyone who you think espouses a "green" point of view.

Snic: I'm sort of on your side, but you're not making it any easier for the rest of us. Question: Do you have any idea how much energy you consume in a year ? Do you even know how to begin looking for such a thing ?

Yes, and yes.

Get a clue and find out, and leave the "you could just do this and the world would be fine" mentality out of it.

I did not say anything remotely similar to "you could just do this and the world would be fine". I said that the solution will take a long time in coming and that we don't know what it will look like, but we need to foster an energy market in which the participants are incentivized to look for the solution. I think this is a reasonable outlook. That, in fact, is the extent of my opinion on renewable energy, but it has not been addressed in any of the responses to what I've written. I guess it's more fun to bluster about enivro-nazis and accuse people of ranting.

[J.P.M.]

Ah, I see. So you agree with me all along. It's just that you prefer to mock and insult anyone who you think espouses a "green" point of view.



Yes, and yes.



I did not say anything remotely similar to "you could just do this and the world would be fine". I said that the solution will take a long time in coming and that we don't know what it will look like, but we need to foster an energy market in which the participants are incentivized to look for the solution. I think this is a reasonable outlook. That, in fact, is the extent of my opinion on renewable energy, but it has not been addressed in any of the responses to what I've written. I guess it's more fun to bluster about enivro-nazis and accuse people of ranting.

Snic:

While respecting your opinion, I suspect your level of technical knowledge of the subject put you at a disadvantage as does what seems to be IMO, an argumentative attitude for its own sake. Good luck.

[russ]

Ah, I see. So you agree with me all along. It's just that you prefer to mock and insult anyone who you think espouses a "green" point of view.

If you are smart enough to read old posts on the topic you will see my position is unchanged over the past 5 years and longer.

Green, to me, generally means empty headed parroting of phrases (warmer garbage for example) and following whatever hair brained idea is currently in vogue. Anti nuclear, anti GMO, anti big whatever for example.

Yes - I will mock those I consider fools - they deserve it.

[SunEagle]

I'm aware of all these points. The energy market is not going to change quickly, that's a given. But it has already changed far faster in Europe (especially Denmark and Germany) than it has here. That is because the Germans and the Danish realize that the free market isn't going to solve all problems. A far greater percentage of their power comes from renewable sources than ours because it's incentivized. As you are certainly aware, despite the relatively large contribution of wind and solar power there to the total, everyone in Germany and Denmark has 24 hour refrigeration and lights on at night. But energy conservation measures are also more widespread there (almost certainly more than in Texas), so, for instance, those lights might automatically turn off when a person leaves a room. Add these sorts of technologies up over the entire population, and you end up with less need for that nighttime power.

I don't know where you get the idea that I "hope and wish that someone will invent the perfect solution". That is not what I said. I hope and wish for a regulated energy market in which the growth and development of renewable energy technology (as well as energy conservation efforts and technology) is fostered by appropriate incentives. "Someone" won't invent the "perfect solution," but if there is profit in it, multiple solutions will emerge and they will get better with time. This strikes me as a far more rational approach to the problem of climate change than simply throwing up one's hands and saying "batteries won't work so we need nuclear and/or fossil fuels."

We don't have the answers now; that's true. And fossil fuels probably will continue to provide energy for us for decades and centuries. But that doesn't mean we can't do all we can right now to minimize their use. In my opinion, we aren't doing enough.

What most people either don't know or fail to understand is that the power in Germany (while a lot of it is from renewable sources) is not generated 24/7. Renewable generation does not work 24/7 period. No one in the world is getting their power 100% from renewable sources.

When they can't generate from renewable sources, Germany use to get their power from their Nuclear plants. As they continue to shut those down they have started to purchase more power from outside the country. They are painting themselves into a corner where they will become dependent on someone else generating facilities.

It is a matter of physics. Either generate from fossil or Nuclear fuel to support you when the renewable sources are down or turn off all of you electrical needs and light the candles.

[J.P.M.]

What most people either don't know or fail to understand is that the power in Germany (while a lot of it is from renewable sources) is not generated 24/7. Renewable generation does not work 24/7 period. No one in the world is getting their power 100% from renewable sources.

When they can't generate from renewable sources, Germany use to get their power from their Nuclear plants. As they continue to shut those down they have started to purchase more power from outside the country. They are painting themselves into a corner where they will become dependent on someone else generating facilities.

It is a matter of physics. Either generate from fossil or Nuclear fuel to support you when the renewable sources are down or turn off all of you electrical needs and light the candles.

As perhaps something else long term to consider : working toward safe, cost effective, practical and scaleable energy storage ? I'd bet whoever actually solves that one will be the next Bill Gates.

[SunEagle]

As perhaps something else long term to consider : working toward safe, cost effective, practical and scaleable energy storage ? I'd bet whoever actually solves that one will be the next Bill Gates.

Even if the holy grail of energy storage is "discovered" to make it plausible would still require a large amount of the world population to greatly reduce the amount of electricity it uses.

That will be hard on those countries that are still expanding or others that are too lazy or refuse to turn off their electronics and just relax and listen to the insects at night.

[J.P.M.]

Even if the holy grail of energy storage is "discovered" to make it plausible would still require a large amount of the world population to greatly reduce the amount of electricity it uses.

That will be hard on those countries that are still expanding or others that are too lazy or refuse to turn off their electronics and just relax and listen to the insects at night.

Why ? If I can set any goal(s) I want, then one goal, of several or many might have something to do with size or scope, or gradual replacement with minimal disruption of the status quo. I never meant to suggest it was easy, quick or simple. Sometimes solutions require thinking out of the box in conjunction with a lot of persistence, sweat, patience and luck.

[russ]

Germany and electric power? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...or-brown-coal/

Germany is trying the CA solution also - import. Germany has the unfortunate situation that the government has to kiss the backside of the green party routinely - a totally loser!

Denmark exports surplus wind power for storage and reimports it - not a real solution.

I agree that whoever comes up with a good storage solution will be the next Bill Gates - in another thread a new member wants to use storage to shift solar thermal from summer to winter - no bloody chance with what we have today.

[snic]

Snic:

While respecting your opinion, I suspect your level of technical knowledge of the subject put you at a disadvantage as does what seems to be IMO, an argumentative attitude for its own sake. Good luck.

The discussion began with someone asserting that "you will always need another energy source;" renewable will never be enough. I replied that people can change their energy usage habits (particularly in response to a rising cost of energy). It takes no technical knowledge at all to understand that demand goes down when cost goes up.

Then I said that technology increases under the right market conditions, solving problems. Not only is that completely non-controversial, but it takes no specialized technical knowledge to understand it -- and to apply that statement to the issue at hand: as technology improves, it will lead to generating and storing enough renewable energy to greatly reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuels. Putting proper incentives in place (i.e., ensuring the right market conditions) can accelerate this process.

So I disagree that it is necessarily true that "you will always need another energy source".

If you are smart enough to read old posts on the topic you will see my position is unchanged over the past 5 years

I believe that would be a tremendous waste of time.