Does CO2 cause global warming? Is it good to reduce CO2? Who the Frack cares!

[ginjawarrior]

I agree that the evidence against fracking isn't very strong, however, the evidence for solar is OUTSTANDING!

yeah sure you can use solar BUT is it practical?

Figure 30.3. The little square strikes again. The 600 km by 600 km square in North America, completely
filled with concentrating solar power, would provide enough power to give 500 million
people the average American’s consumption of 250 kWh/d.
This map also shows the square of size 600 km by 600 km in Africa, which we met earlier.
I’ve assumed a power density of 15 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP], as before.
The area of one yellow square is a little bigger than the area of Arizona, and 16 times the
area of New Jersey. Within each big square is a smaller 145 km by 145 km square showing
the area required in the desert – one New Jersey – to supply 30 million people with 250 kWh
per day per person

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c30/page_236.shtml


when you see the amount of land that has to be taken over for solar to work you have to look at the environmental consequences

nuclear is the only clear way forward for humanity unfortunately its gained a bogeyman reputation that it doesnt deserve

 

[ChesusRice]

Nuclear has worked for Japan?

 

[abandonconflict]

yeah sure you can use solar BUT is it practical?


http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c30/page_236.shtml


when you see the amount of land that has to be taken over for solar to work you have to look at the environmental consequences

nuclear is the only clear way forward for humanity unfortunately its gained a bogeyman reputation that it doesnt deserve

I don't have a problem with nuclear, but if every roof had solar panels you wouldn't need to cover 600km swaths of land. With grid tie, since the grid is already built, the homes providing more than they consume would fill the gap for the homes that don't. Think of it this way, if we suddenly ran out of fossil fuel, what would we switch to then? What ever works right? Well, we are running out and in the mean time, we are also polluting the shit out of our planet. So instead of arguing what is a better solution, like "Nuclear is the way forward", my question to you is, how big is your carbon footprint?

 

[ginjawarrior]

I don't have a problem with nuclear, but if every roof had solar panels you wouldn't need to cover 600km swaths of land. With grid tie, since the grid is already built, the homes providing more than they consume would fill the gap for the homes that don't. Think of it this way, if we suddenly ran out of fossil fuel, what would we switch to then? What ever works right? Well, we are running out and in the mean time, we are also polluting the shit out of our planet. So instead of arguing what is a better solution, like "Nuclear is the way forward", my question to you is, how big is your carbon footprint?

to go solar you'd need most of the panels in the south to beable to generate enough energy houses in the north just wouldnt generate enough.

my personal carbon foot print is pretty modest i use energy saving bulbs thruout the house and only have them on when needed, the majority of my appliances are newer energy efficient ones, my house is well insulated, i dont have heating blaring on full the whole time and i only use car for commute to work

theres not many ways for me to use less energy before life starts becoming uncomfortable and all the low hanging fruits of efficiency have already been gobbled up by the manufacturers

i don't believe in cutting power below what is reasonable i believe in producing the power responsibly (fossil fuels fall short of that mark)

i also believe that theres billions of people in this world that are energy deficient and rather than keeping them at their current usage levels i would love to see them able to use a similar level that i am afforded to

the energy and costs needed to make renewable power for the entire world when coming from fossil fuels is immense and i think one of the biggest follies of this century

 

[abandonconflict]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

 

[ginjawarrior]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

did you have a point to accompany that link?

germany managed to generate 40% of their power thru renewables for something like an hour

as great that must sound it also underlines the fact at how much more is needed

"The German solar PV industry installed 7.5 GW in 2011,[SUP][4][/SUP] and solar PV provided 18 TWh of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity"

 

[abandonconflict]

did you have a point to accompany that link?

germany managed to generate 40% of their power thru renewables for something like an hour

as great that must sound it also underlines the fact at how much more is needed

"The German solar PV industry installed 7.5 GW in 2011,[SUP][4][/SUP] and solar PV provided 18 TWh of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity"

I think you're missing my point entirely.

You are going into an anti solar rant after I mentioned solar as one OF MANY solutions to fossil fuel addiction. By fixating that isn't a single solution to entirely replace fossil fuel you're seeming to go further and imply that it should be abandoned entirely. It has potential and along with other sources of energy will contribute to a smaller carbon foot print.

In other words, idgaf how you make your carbon foot print smaller, just do it.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I think you're missing my point entirely.

You are going into an anti solar rant after I mentioned solar as one OF MANY solutions to fossil fuel addiction. By fixating that isn't a single solution to entirely replace fossil fuel you're seeming to go further and imply that it should be abandoned entirely. It has potential and along with other sources of energy will contribute to a smaller carbon foot print.

In other words, idgaf how you make your carbon foot print smaller, just do it.

im not ranting on solar i was answering the link to wiki that you gave on germanys solar production

to have renewable energy sources produce the baseline power that our modern society really cannot do without would need MASSIVE changes to distribution, storage, and land usage for production

our foot prints can only go so small our modern society cannot all move into tepees and live of the land

i suggest getting the baseline and main bulk of power from nuclear with the rest being taken up by renewables

i think you'l find the foundries for windturbines and factories for other renewables cannot work on fluctuating power supplies

 

[canndo]

Using natural gas to fire electric generation plants produces 45% less CO2 than using coal. Is fracking worth it to get such a CO2 reduction? What do you propose instead, solar panels?

I propose looking at it all very carefully. Sure, if there are quakes in some cattle farm in central Texas, so what right? but how about if those earthquakes start happening in the ground under Dallas - recall that Dallas doesn't have the same building codes that down town LA has. Is this really going to be an extension of "we will suffer any consequences just so long as we can charge our Iphones". The arguments wind up being absurd. "If you go ahead with your plans you will endanger the second largest aquifer in the country" - "well, hey, if we don't it will mean 10,000 fewer jobs and you are going to have to live in that mud hut we were talking about". As I said, there are middle grounds. If nothing else, it really is ok to monitor energy companies, they don't have to demand that we ignore all of their practices in return for their "giving" us energy.

 

[PurpleBuz]

I say frack away, Americans, frack away!


http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/10/a-barton-hinkle-on-how-fracking-can-help

"America’s carbon-dioxide emissions are actually falling. In fact, they have not been this low since 1992, say A. Barton Hinkle. And while no single factor can account for the entire shift, much of the credit goes to something environmentalists often detest: hydraulic fracturing, or fracking"

Yes CO2 is bad so STOP breathing and GROW MORE sillyness embrace the CO2 bio cycle

 

[canndo]

im not ranting on solar i was answering the link to wiki that you gave on germanys solar production

to have renewable energy sources produce the baseline power that our modern society really cannot do without would need MASSIVE changes to distribution, storage, and land usage for production

our foot prints can only go so small our modern society cannot all move into tepees and live of the land

i suggest getting the baseline and main bulk of power from nuclear with the rest being taken up by renewables

i think you'l find the foundries for windturbines and factories for other renewables cannot work on fluctuating power supplies

You are presuming that there isn't already enough wind power to support wind turbine factories - there is. While I support nuclear it is not a true answer, it is not a renewable source, it has serious problems and is extremely costly when the price of decomissoning, spent fuel storage and plant expenses are factored in. Wind and solar have no hidden costs, what you pay is all that you pay, their environmental impact over the short and the long term is minimal, they are totaly renewable and their immediate dangers are small.

 

[cannabineer]

You are presuming that there isn't already enough wind power to support wind turbine factories - there is. While I support nuclear it is not a true answer, it is not a renewable source, it has serious problems and is extremely costly when the price of decomissoning, spent fuel storage and plant expenses are factored in. Wind and solar have no hidden costs, what you pay is all that you pay, their environmental impact over the short and the long term is minimal, they are totaly renewable and their immediate dangers are small.

What are the yield ratios for wind and solar? Net energy received over their use lifetimes ... divided by total energy to make, emplace, service, operate the equipment?

 

[ginjawarrior]

You are presuming that there isn't already enough wind power to support wind turbine factories - there is. While I support nuclear it is not a true answer, it is not a renewable source, it has serious problems and is extremely costly when the price of decomissoning, spent fuel storage and plant expenses are factored in. Wind and solar have no hidden costs, what you pay is all that you pay, their environmental impact over the short and the long term is minimal, they are totaly renewable and their immediate dangers are small.

theres more to the cost of wind and solar than just plonking a turbine or pv panel in place, you need suffiecient storage for when its cloudy with no wind, you also need a beefed up energy grid to recharge the storage (maybe 3-4x currant capacity) you also need to have a surplus of windmills ect because they do not supply their full load all the time here in the uk its about 25% for windturbines more land usage/enviroment disruption

you would need thousands of turbines to equal just one nuclear power plant (that would only take up a couple of acres)

"Now the problem for the German grid has become even worse. Thanks to a flood of subsidies unleashed by Angela Merkel’s government, renewable capacity has risen still further (solar, for instance, by 43 per cent). This makes it so difficult to keep the grid balanced that it is permanently at risk of power failures. (When the power to one Hamburg aluminium factory failed recently, for only a fraction of a second, it shut down the plant, causing serious damage.) Energy-intensive industries are having to install their own generators, or are looking to leave Germany altogether. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html

we need to have a steady baseline power supply and imagining you can get it from renewables is nothing more than a pipe dream

 

[Moebius]

Technolgy will help. .. Watching a documentary on materials yesterday I learnt 7% of my nations electrical production is wasted by the electrical resistance in copper cable.

New ceramic based superconducting cable that is much thinner and has zero resistance is being developed. This will really usher in the dawn of renewables as power generated far away by sea or sun can be sent to the cities where its most needed.

 

[canndo]

What are the yield ratios for wind and solar? Net energy received over their use lifetimes ... divided by total energy to make, emplace, service, operate the equipment?

Couldn't tell you but consider the costs of nuclear - regulation, containment, seismic, storage, transportation, decomissioning, insurance and the like. Solar and wind costs wind up being mostly in real estate and pehaps some pollution with the manufacture of solar panels.

 

[nontheist]

You are presuming that there isn't already enough wind power to support wind turbine factories - there is. While I support nuclear it is not a true answer, it is not a renewable source, it has serious problems and is extremely costly when the price of decomissoning, spent fuel storage and plant expenses are factored in. Wind and solar have no hidden costs, what you pay is all that you pay, their environmental impact over the short and the long term is minimal, they are totaly renewable and their immediate dangers are small.

Except unpredictability and large amounts of land, every time I see stupid fucking forecasts for wind and solar "in 20years we can have enough wind and sun energy to supply a average electric consumption for the 1960's. house hold" They completely ignore the fact as technology grows so will the desire for energy hell we can barely keep up now but I see your argument adding subpar equipment/technology to a struggling infrastructure will work in libtard land.

 

[abandonconflict]

im not ranting on solar i was answering the link to wiki that you gave on germanys solar production

to have renewable energy sources produce the baseline power that our modern society really cannot do without would need MASSIVE changes to distribution, storage, and land usage for production

our foot prints can only go so small our modern society cannot all move into tepees and live of the land

i suggest getting the baseline and main bulk of power from nuclear with the rest being taken up by renewables

i think you'l find the foundries for windturbines and factories for other renewables cannot work on fluctuating power supplies

You are society
I am society
We ARE society.

So reduce what you can live with. Reduce the demand.

That is my point and I really don't disagree with you, I think that while you (and everyone else arguing over how "society" should fix it) make your arguments about how baseline can be met in a greener way, you should try not to completely over shadow what each individual can do to minimize that baseline. If you like we can get to a state of complete crisis with the entire infrastructure shutting down and everyone at that moment suddenly having to consider options while governments try to solve it and corporations try to make profits from it. At some point, people have to take some responsibility individually. That may as well begin before massive crisis comes either as a result of environmental impact or infrastructure collapse.

I'm ready.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You are society
I am society
We ARE society.

So reduce what you can live with. Reduce the demand.

That is my point and I really don't disagree with you, I think that while you (and everyone else arguing over how "society" should fix it) make your arguments about how baseline can be met in a greener way, you should try not to completely over shadow what each individual can do to minimize that baseline. If you like we can get to a state of complete crisis with the entire infrastructure shutting down and everyone at that moment suddenly having to consider options while governments try to solve it and corporations try to make profits from it. At some point, people have to take some responsibility individually. That may as well begin before massive crisis comes either as a result of environmental impact or infrastructure collapse.

I'm ready.

i answered this part already theres only so far our society can lower its usage

to go solar you'd need most of the panels in the south to beable to generate enough energy houses in the north just wouldnt generate enough.

my personal carbon foot print is pretty modest i use energy saving bulbs thruout the house and only have them on when needed, the majority of my appliances are newer energy efficient ones, my house is well insulated, i dont have heating blaring on full the whole time and i only use car for commute to work

theres not many ways for me to use less energy before life starts becoming uncomfortable and all the low hanging fruits of efficiency have already been gobbled up by the manufacturers

i don't believe in cutting power below what is reasonable i believe in producing the power responsibly (fossil fuels fall short of that mark)

i also believe that theres billions of people in this world that are energy deficient and rather than keeping them at their current usage levels i would love to see them able to use a similar level that i am afforded to

the energy and costs needed to make renewable power for the entire world when coming from fossil fuels is immense and i think one of the biggest follies of this century

 

[canndo]

theres more to the cost of wind and solar than just plonking a turbine or pv panel in place, you need suffiecient storage for when its cloudy with no wind, you also need a beefed up energy grid to recharge the storage (maybe 3-4x currant capacity) you also need to have a surplus of windmills ect because they do not supply their full load all the time here in the uk its about 25% for windturbines more land usage/enviroment disruption

you would need thousands of turbines to equal just one nuclear power plant (that would only take up a couple of acres)

"Now the problem for the German grid has become even worse. Thanks to a flood of subsidies unleashed by Angela Merkel’s government, renewable capacity has risen still further (solar, for instance, by 43 per cent). This makes it so difficult to keep the grid balanced that it is permanently at risk of power failures. (When the power to one Hamburg aluminium factory failed recently, for only a fraction of a second, it shut down the plant, causing serious damage.) Energy-intensive industries are having to install their own generators, or are looking to leave Germany altogether. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html

we need to have a steady baseline power supply and imagining you can get it from renewables is nothing more than a pipe dream

All doable. We have the land, I don't know if we need three times the capacity for storage but if the wind farms are dispersed, there will be much less need for storage. Solar is a day time thing and the U.S. only has what? 4 time zones but most energy is needed in the day time anyway. Our grid and our generation capacity goes into a deep slumber every night - and that is where it is presumed we would gain with plug in hybrids and full electric vehicles.

There is no harm in adding to our generation capacity using only solar and wind. No one is advocating instant conversions.

 

[abandonconflict]

Technolgy will help. .. Watching a documentary on materials yesterday I learnt 7% of my nations electrical production is wasted by the electrical resistance in copper cable.

New ceramic based superconducting cable that is much thinner and has zero resistance is being developed. This will really usher in the dawn of renewables as power generated far away by sea or sun can be sent to the cities where its most needed.

I agree, except for one problem, the tech won't be developed to save the world, that isn't a good enough motivation for development. It has to be profitable.