Climate Change Thread

[The Human Q-Tip]

I believe you're missing that some in this thread are okay with ignoring the entire climate change aspect of the issue and are focused instead with the timeframe of replacing fossil fuels before they run out (where run out means too expensive to extract from the ground to avoid that whole pointless discussion again).

And you are missing the fact that the entire reason the economic argument came up was because of your contention that China and India would follow suit because it is supposedly cheaper.

Discussions about whether it is actually cheaper or economically feasible on a large scale given the current price of fossil fuels is directly relevant to the point you raised.

 

[KI4MVP]

And you are missing the fact that the entire reason the economic argument came up was because of your contention that China and India would follow suit because it is supposedly cheaper.

Discussions about whether it is actually cheaper or economically feasible on a large scale given the current price of fossil fuels is directly relevant to the point you raised.

If we innovate to make it more affordable, other countries will follow for the clear economic reasons. If nobody takes the lead, it's not just future generations that will suffer from our lack of action, people already born today will see the world suffer the consequences. What is going to happen to the world when entire countries become too hot for human life?

Again, if this were a large astroid projected to hit earth in 50 years the whole would would act to prevent it. Nobody would wonder if we could afford it. If this rapid climate change was occurring naturally without anything people were doing contributing, the world would unite to find a solution to reverse it.

It's ridiculous to think that because this is a man made issue that we can't innovate and find a solution. This is a far more important issue to humanity than going to the moon, yet we managed to solve that issue in 6 years when the country was united on the issue.

 

[gourimoko]

And you are missing the fact that the entire reason the economic argument came up was because of your contention that China and India would follow suit because it is supposedly cheaper.

Discussions about whether it is actually cheaper or economically feasible on a large scale given the current price of fossil fuels is directly relevant to the point you raised.

There should be no discussion with respect to cost. The U.S. government and most available analysis suggests an average national cost for solar power of 5.6 cents per kWh by 2020.

What discussion is left to be had on this front? That cost is substantially lower than most other forms of power, except for coal.

 

[gourimoko]

It's ridiculous to think that because this is a man made issue that we can't innovate and find a solution. This is a far more important issue to humanity than going to the moon, yet we managed to solve that issue in 6 years when the country was united on the issue.

The bolded is astounding when you think about it. Goes to show what a nation can do when it decides to focus it's resources onto a given thing.

This is why the kitchen sink approach to green power, in my opinion, is flawed. A moonshot like endeavor, like the Apollo program, focused on solar power (with another plan focused squarely on nuclear power), is what the country needs to reduce it's dependence on fossil fuels.

 

[natedagg]

What is the logical basis for the argument that the free market can and will solve this issue without government intervention?

I'm just not sure I understand the logic behind the argument that capitalism will solve climate change. It seems far-fetched, almost like, a leap of faith.

What am I missing?

The government is corrupt. The large corporations are corrupt. I don't trust that the government intervention would be something that would accurately reflect whatever it is that you are looking to accomplish.

I am not equipped on the subject matter of global climate change. I am not equipped on the political machinations re: climate change in the US. I can tell you that globally and nationally, not enough people care. I think it's a trait of our species to have difficulty thinking about 50 years into the future. It means the basic needs are met if you have that kind of time, and if you do, then your mind probably goes toward sex or the well being of your children (genes).

But to end this rant, I'd rather have you and @KI4MVP spend your own money either investing in or creating something than your tax dollars mis-allocated by some government entity. If this is such a big deal, and it's the proverbial comet coming at us, then ultimately you'll both cease the opportunity to work on it, as true visionaries that understand the gravity of the subject. Said another way, the bigger the problem, the bigger the opportunity. Or better yet, the bigger the gap between a large problem and the available solutions, the more enticing the opportunity.

 

[natedagg]

There should be no discussion with respect to cost. The U.S. government and most available analysis suggests an average national cost for solar power of 5.6 cents per kWh by 2020.

What discussion is left to be had on this front? That cost is substantially lower than most other forms of power, except for coal.

This comment (unlike most of my posts) has no snark. What do you know about the cost of the energy to create the solar units that create cheap power?

Like I said, I am ignorant on the subject. I remember reading (long ago?) that the energy needed to create a Tesla car was something absurd.

 

[gourimoko]

The government is corrupt.

Agreed.

The large corporations are corrupt.

Agreed.

I don't trust that the government intervention would be something that would accurately reflect whatever it is that you are looking to accomplish.

I think that depends on leadership.

Something like what is being proposed would likely come out of a national mandate; i.e., a Presidential election cycle.

Think about it with me for a second.

If President-Elect Barack Obama, coming into office on a near-super-majority election, opted to do a national infrastructure program instead of Obamacare (our respective feelings on Obamacare aside for a moment), and let's say that infrastructure program was intended to shift 50% of our electricity needs to solar and nuclear power; I think that's something that he could have gotten done - and with bipartisan support.

While there surely would have been some corruption involved, and surely there would have been people being personally enriched because of it, the larger point remains; that, we would have had a major shift in energy policy and we would have changed the status quo.

I am not equipped on the subject matter of global climate change. I am not equipped on the political machinations re: climate change in the US. I can tell you that globally and nationally, not enough people care.

I think nationally I agree.

But globally? I think the majority of the planet cares deeply about the issue, at least, where they are educated enough about it. I think that attitudes of the American center/right aren't really representative of attitudes worldwide, especially throughout the Western world.

I think it's a trait of our species to have difficulty thinking about 50 years into the future. It means the basic needs are met if you have that kind of time, and if you do, then your mind probably goes toward sex or the well being of your children (genes).

Again, I totally agree. It's sad.

But to end this rant, I'd rather have you and @KI4MVP spend your own money either investing in or creating something than your tax dollars mis-allocated by some government entity.

But it won't solve the problem. The problem is too big for individuals to fix. This is an issue that requires entire nations to change how they are polluting the environment.

I live in a condo, and use a gasoline powered car. My energy footprint is largely out of my control at the moment.

When I move back to Hawaii, I do plan on using cleaner energy systems, but that isn't possible for me at the moment - nor is it possible for most Americans as individuals.

If this is such a big deal, and it's the proverbial comet coming at us, then ultimately you'll both cease the opportunity to work on it, as true visionaries that understand the gravity of the subject. Said another way, the bigger the problem, the bigger the opportunity. Or better yet, the bigger the gap between a large problem and the available solutions, the more enticing the opportunity.

A bit off-topic but I think this is somewhat relevant given this belief we keep seeing in our savior, capitalism.

There is an argument within the scientific community over the Fermi Paradox. The Fermi Paradox is a postulate that suggests that if life elsewhere in the universe is even remotely plausible then we should see some evidence of it in our solar system due to the age of the Universe and the age of the galaxy. That is to say, such life should have evolved somewhere, and that life should have had ample time to span the galaxy; yet we see no evidence of this.

There are many solutions to this supposed paradox, I even wrote a paper on my solution years ago (which is unrelated to this and I won't bring it up); however, one such solution, which is commonly accepted as just as plausible as life existing throughout the galaxy, is that such life is short-lived.

Why is it short-lived? Because it is intelligent.

That is to say, an only an intelligent (or somewhat intelligent) species can engineer it's own destruction. We've come towards our own end numerous times in the last century, and we're staring down the barrel of a gun, yet again, but this time it's the planet itself that is becoming uninhabitable.

Yet, for reasons largely relating to unproven and largely untested economic theories; we as a society, and thereby as a species, are deciding to run the risk of being the cause our own extinction.

Again, a bit off-topic, and you might need an extra cup of coffee after that, but, I think it's an interesting view point.

When does a society put flawed economics over survival? And is such a belief remotely rational, sane, let alone intelligent?

 

[gourimoko]

What do you know about the cost of the energy to create the solar units that create cheap power?

You mean the production costs of solar panels?

When I'm referring to large-scale solar power, I'm referring to solar power plant installations; not home installations. Also remember that some large-scale solar power plants do not use solar PV panels, but instead simply use large mirrors.

When considering hundred+ megawatt plants, the panel cost effectively drops to $1 or less per net kWh generated for PV panels; and obviously far less for solar thermal plants since they don't use PV at all. The cost distribution curve resembles an inverse square function with cost(kWh). But that's just initial investment cost, not including the more expensive components of actually building a power plant.

A more accurate description would be of the 400MW Ivanpah solar thermal plant in the Mojave that cost $2.2bn to construct. By contrast, Watts Bar 2, the latest nuclear power plant to be built in the United States is currently estimated to cost $4.5bn to construct with a power output of 1,180MW. So here we see nuclear technology as being cheaper to initially build (essentially 70% of the same build cost for a given MW of output).

However, the costs of fuel, labor, maintenance, safety, and regulations compliance for a nuclear installation will make Ivanpah the cheaper solution over a 20-year span. By comparison, the nuclear plant requires 3x as many on-site workers to maintain and operate the facility.

In more general terms, the overall low cost per kWh is due to DoE/state subsidization via loan guarantees (as with nuclear power, and other renewables) as well as the cost of the energy itself. Sunlight is free, and practically infinite on human scales, so again, land area is the primary limiting factor with respect to total energy produced.

So again, on more general terms; the cost of nuclear power per kilowatt hour is going to remain fixed from now until 2020 with the national average of said costs at $0.116/kWh. Again, by contrast, solar power is less than half the price over the same period, by 2020, having a projected national average per kilowatt hour of $0.0556/kWh.

The reason is not due to cost of installations, as I've demonstrated above, but other costs, including regulatory compliance, operational costs, maintanence costs, etc. Nuclear power is not cheap, nor is it something most people want in their backyards.

So when we consider solar costs, we have to understand that this is completely different than any other form of electricity generation. Wind power is far more scarce; geothermal far more limited in scale; nuclear is extremely costly and potentially dangerous; and fossil fuels while ranging in price (coal vs petrol) are not clean, and hence the problem.

So the cost analysis for a given kWh output of solar power for land-based PV or land-based solar thermal is very different than it would be for a coal power plant.

This is why looking at home installations doesn't really provide a clear picture as to how large scale installations work.

Hope this answers your question.

Like I said, I am ignorant on the subject. I remember reading (long ago?) that the energy needed to create a Tesla car was something absurd.

Tesla cars are very complex, highly innovative machines. Solar PV is something that's been around since the late 1950's, and solar thermal has existed for even longer periods of time. These systems are not complex, nor do they require new or innovative technologies.

Even if we were to pursue space-based solar power (which, Japan is btw), we would need no new technology to do so. We already have everything we need.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

If we innovate to make it more affordable, other countries will follow for the clear economic reasons.

I am completely confused by your argument. Honest to God.

You've claimed in this thread that solar energy is already cheaper, right? So what's the problem? If the technology already exists that makes it cheaper right now, then you've won, problem solved, and the market will take care of the rest anyway. We can all go home now.

But at the same time, you seem to be very hostile to the idea that we should just let the market run its course. Why? You should be thrilled with people who want to let the market dictate this because -- according to the claims you've presented here -- the market will lead everyone to adopt solar because it is cheaper already.

I suspect that's because the arguments presented by @MalTalm are actually correct -- that the cost of those cherry-picked ideal locations/situations cannot fairly be extrapolated on a large scale, and even if they could, the upfront costs make it not economically efficient.

It's ridiculous to think that because this is a man made issue that we can't innovate and find a solution. This is a far more important issue to humanity than going to the moon, yet we managed to solve that issue in 6 years when the country was united on the issue.

Ugh. The "Man on the Moon" argument is the first bogus corollary to the Internet Expert bogacity. It waves away substantive, significant differences with the facile "if we can put a man on the moon, why can't we....." It's ridiculous.

The idea that every issue can be solved just as easily as going to the moon is...juvenile.

 

[KI4MVP]

I am completely confused by your argument. Honest to God.

You've claimed in this thread that solar energy is already cheaper, right? So what's the problem? If the technology already exists that makes it cheaper right now, then you've won, problem solved, and the market will take care of the rest anyway. We can all go home now.

There's a heck of a lot more to solving the climate change issue than having new solar power plants be competitive with fossil fuels. The problem isn't solved until we actually stop using fossil fuels.

Solar power is going to transition from competitive to cheaper to ridiculously cheaper. We can accelerate that process. But even if all of the world's plants were replaced with renewable energy, that only solves part of the problem.

Our cars and trucks also need to stop burning fossil fuels. This is going to take some serious R&D as well as building new infrastructure. Electric cars need to have longer range and charge faster and need an infrastructure of charging stations. Hydrogen cars need places to refuel.

There is a lot more that can be done. I don't know why I'm even listing this, it's all been talked about in the thread, you continue to ignore that the severe implications of climate change makes it important to make this a national and global priority instead of just hoping that the market will magically take care of it on it's own.

The idea that every issue can be solved just as easily as going to the moon is...juvenile.

Do you really think that was easy?

 

[Cavatt]

Cheaper doesn't always mean cheaper. Just because no one is enforcing certain costs of doing business does not mean it is free. There are costs that are very hidden in regard to digging for coal and oil. When all the fish in a stream in KY die during mountain top removal that is a cost that isn't paid for.

When a solar panel goes wrong, it doesn't pumpa bunch of oil into the ocean or make an entire city have to be evacuated for 39 years. How much do those events "cost"?

 

[MalTalm]

I really want to walk away from this debate, I just can't. And potentially getting into a battle with Gour, man that's a full-time job.

A page back, Gour listed out a long response to points I made, though it should be noted I'm trying not to write a diatribe on all of this. There are significant limitations even to some of the counter-points brought up such as solar turbines: These aren't the same as coal turbines, and have significant design limitations in and of themselves, which again limits efficiency. And to disregard system efficiency is absolutely undercutting the crux of the issue at hand. I understand we are comparing two different energy supplies, one which must be physically removed from the Earth vs. one which can be passively gathered, but it is that wide gulf in efficiency that makes the former more cost effective at the moment. The good news is, that will absolutely change, as we've already seen over the past decade. The limited efficiency of solar is a good thing from an engineering stand point: It means the potential for growth in the industry is very strong, but we still need to see more market innovations until it is ready to supplant traditional energy supplies.

I actually side with Gour on everything about potential solutions, though I'm a bit more excited about the future of fusion. Considering both Lockheed Martin and NASA are currently funding fusion research implies that both believe current technology is within striking distance of solving fusion, and in my mind coupling the high efficiency of nuclear production but removing the risk of meltdown or weapons proliferation all at incredibly low cost of operation... That would be it. It has nearly everything you could want out of an ideal energy system. Right now we could begin building thorium plants or low-temp power plants which would be very low risk, low waste energy production facilities that would cleanly supply power at the same cost of coal plants, but the general public is so pessimistic about anything "nuclear" it isn't going to happen. Thus, we are forced to wait for other things to catch up.

I could go on at length. I just deleted another entire paragraph about future technologies just 5 years down the road which would dramatically reduce long-term costs of infrastructure improvement, but I'm just not going to get into it. If you genuinely want to know, PM me and I'll give you some reading, but I'm not going to waste the time debating it. I understand how important curbing man-made climate change is, I do. I also understand that we've already placed far too much carbon into the atmosphere, and we'll need to deal with that soon as well: Simply cutting emissions doesn't solve shit. Yet emissions are seeing cuts globally, and whether it takes us 10 years or 20 years to reduce emissions to near 0 will have very little bearing on our climate 100 years out. The industry has a sense of urgency, I know that first hand. It will come, but it is in our best interest economically to let it do so naturally, and let the industry take root when it is stable enough, and strong enough, to do so.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

There's a heck of a lot more to solving the climate change issue than having new solar power plants be competitive with fossil fuels. The problem isn't solved until we actually stop using fossil fuels.

Okay, I get that. But from what you were saying earlier, I thought the only specific thing you were advocating was some extra government funding for research. I tend to agree with MalTalm that would mean diminishing returns because the most effective, efficient, and likely more successful avenues are already being researched by the private sector. But now, you seem to be going beyond just additional research funding and advocating...what, exactly? That's where I'm confused.

Our cars and trucks also need to stop burning fossil fuels. This is going to take some serious R&D as well as building new infrastructure.

You've argued that solar-powered cars already are cheaper, and already have an economic advantage. Are you still saying that's the case, or not?

Electric cars need to have longer range and charge faster and need an infrastructure of charging stations. Hydrogen cars need places to refuel.

Okay, so I assume you're now saying that all that stuff doesn't yet exist. But this brings me back to China, India, and the rest of the developing world. So, two scenarios:

1) what if the technological advances you are assuming (sufficiently improved range and charging for solar cars, battery disposal issues, etc.) are not resolved quickly enough to enable large scale production to stop global warming. What do you advocate if the entire process from research to large-scale production doesn't happen as fast as you want, which I assume would be your position right now?

2) You're now addressing the infrastructure issue I've been trying to discuss for pages now, so that's progress. So okay, let's say we get to the point (and we may not in the short-medium term) where battery performance is improved significantly. But, as you note, the cost of conversion and a new infrastructure is huge. What happens in China and India, who have exploding energy needs and are more likely to use solar just to add more capacity rather than replace capacity?

There is a lot more that can be done. I don't know why I'm even listing this, it's all been talked about in the thread, you continue to ignore that the severe implications of climate change makes it important to make this a national and global priority instead of just hoping that the market will magically take care of it on it's own.

You are not addressing the point I am raising. You are talking about how big the problem is. I am trying to get specifics from you with respect to solutions. And I'm still not clear on that.

do you really think that was easy?

Compared to this? Absolutely. When cost is really no object, and you're talking about accomplishing a single, discrete event, you have a huge advantage.

 

[Pioneer10]

Investment in renewables would be worth it just in terms of military costs. A We have something like 3 entire aircraft carrier bsttle groups that are kept online for the middle east. Saudia Arabia and it Madrasas which support extremist Islam is all about oil. Funding for Israel is basically to neuttalize the advantage of petro states. Then you have Russia which is essentiay an oil company with a a massive army around it. All these cost calculations dont take this into this account as a massive amount of our military resources are used to protect world oil supplies or ironically fight off effects caused by the wealth of those countries with oil.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[MalTalm]

Investment in renewables would be worth it just in terms of military costs. A We have something like 3 entire aircraft carrier bsttle groups that are kept online for the middle east. Saudia Arabia and it Madrasas which support extremist Islam is all about oil. Funding for Israel is basically to neuttalize the advantage of petro states. Then you have Russia which is essentiay an oil company with a a massive army around it. All these cost calculations dont take this into this account as a massive amount of our military resources are used to protect world oil supplies or ironically fight off effects caused by the wealth of those countries with oil.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

History has repeatedly shown quick economic depression to an economy leads to revolts and war. The middle east is volatile for a variety of reasons, but despite the news outlets saying otherwise, there are plenty of educated, middle class people throughout Syria, Iran, and the UAE. Pulling the financial stability out from under those countries doesn't reduce the power of terrorism, it increases the threat. Large scales of layoffs mean a large population of desperate people who would (in this specific case) rightfully blame America for their misfortunes. None of that makes the world better.

Not to mention, as I stated earlier, if we exit the fossil market quickly production of resources won't just halt. Building the infrastructure is expensive, the mining is actually relatively cheap. All that would happen is the international cost of said resources plummet. So China, India, and all other developed/ developing countries would be far less inclined to make a shift: Their power costs go down which means production costs drop, which in turn undercuts American products. The depreciation of the fossil energy sector drives a volatile area into depression, likely inciting significant terrorist action.

None of that sounds appealing to me.