|
7634. iiibbb - 8/4/2008 4:24:33 PM "There is no such thing as a free lunch"
Something my undergraduate adviser would repeat over and over and over.
But I don't think that Solar's problem is that it's more expensive than Carbon. The problem that it's start-up cost is so high. If I were in a place I thought I'd be living for the rest of my life I'd definitely spring for it. But I just can't afford it as a short term expense. 7635. concerned - 8/5/2008 12:28:38 AM Re. 7627 -
I have to call 'bullshit' on that, AC.
Of course Greenland has been modeled. And the models say there's a snowball's chance in hell that the mile and a half thick Greenland ice cap will substantially reduce within a millennium regardless of what humans do. Any shorter time frame than a thousand years would require the climate in Greenland to rival that of the tropics. And not even the looniest whackjobs will go that far.
Actually, the last I heard, Greenland is accreting ice.
7636. concerned - 8/5/2008 12:31:35 AM Try not to lose track of the fact, too, that the continental glaciation in NA took over five thousand years to melt even with temperature forcing greater than what is predicted for Greenland.
7637. concerned - 8/5/2008 3:38:17 AM Let's compare: Over 5,000 years to melt the Wisconsin glaciation when presented with largely continental temperate conditions, and along come some LWingnuts who say Greenland will be completely melted in a hundredth the time while exposed to an arctic regime?
I have to call bullshit on this because I have a fuckin' brain that works.
Sorry, AC.
About your brain, that is. 7638. jexster - 8/7/2008 1:33:08 AM Top scientist warns of 4c rise in global temperature
How inconvenient! 7639. concerned - 8/7/2008 2:58:40 AM That's nothing.
I'm warning of a 10C rise in global temperature...
...sometime in the next 4 billion years. 7641. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2008 8:24:45 PM This is amazing computer animation . . .
7642. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2008 8:25:45 PM This is amazing computer animation . . .
7643. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/11/2008 8:26:10 PM ???? 7644. jexster - 8/15/2008 1:57:03 AM Huge New Solar Power Plants Planned for Cahleeefohnia 7645. jexster - 8/15/2008 3:08:22 AM PG&E Aims for 24% Solar by 2013 7646. arkymalarky - 8/15/2008 5:01:12 AM I deleted #7640. Something about it was evidently keeping subsequent ones from showing up.
Did you even notice, Jex? What kinda autopilot you got there? 7647. jexster - 8/17/2008 1:46:35 AM Windpower - Environmental Eyesore?
Worse than oil rigs off Santa Barbara 7648. jexster - 8/17/2008 1:47:45 AM Yea I noticed that. Nothing I could do about Wizzers viral bomb. 7649. jexster - 8/17/2008 1:48:48 AM What do you suggest Arky. Maybe I could post a few hidden requests that someone clean it up! 7650. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/18/2008 5:07:12 AM 
7651. alistairconnor - 8/18/2008 10:24:46 AM Jex - that windpower article is a scream.
My favourite bit :
(The companies have changed names and ownership several times and the Maple Ridge Wind project is now jointly owned by PPM Energy of Portland, Ore., which is part of the Spanish company Iberdrola SA, and Houston-based Horizon Wind Energy LLC, which is owned by the Portuguese conglomerate Energias de Portugal.) 7652. thoughtful - 8/20/2008 1:31:29 PM Once i mention to people about our green house, I find i learn all kinds of things. Yesterday a guy started talking to me about cogeneration for residential use...apparently it's big in Europe...no surprise with their high energy costs...but it's not common here. Might be a good solution for those who can't retrofit to geothermal.
See here or here
I also learned that there is a more efficient geothermal system available where, instead of circulating fluid, they use gas so pumps to move the fluid are not required. Apparently it's a newer technology and good for smaller applications, but not larger ones. 7653. alistairConnor - 8/20/2008 9:31:58 PM hum yes, but they burn gas.
I finally billed the electricity company the other day for the first time, for my PV generation!
The system has actually been generating for nearly 6 years now, but I didn't like the look of the contract they were proposing in those days : they only offered to buy surplus production (i.e. net metering) not total production, and the kwh price was pretty mediocre, about 15 cents. So for five years, I was giving it away.
But about a year and a half ago, they re-jigged the contracts : this was actually a consequence of EU integration and the end of the national electricity monopolies. I could have sold my green electricity to a German company for a much better price; so of course, EDF upped their offer. I signed on for 20 years at 55 cents a kwh, selling all my production. So giving it away was actually a smart move, because now I can pay back the investment in 4 or 5 years, instead of 12 or 15 if I had signed up for 20 years at the old rate.
When I looked at the meter last week to bill them, I was bitterly disappointed : it only showed 1700 kwh generated since last August, I was expecting nearly double that. It's taken me a week to work out what the problem is... (I feared for a while that the panels were prematurely ageing. They're alleged to lose about 1% a year.)
... in fact, when EDF installed their meter to buy my power, they didn't cut the link that feeds directly from my inverter to my switchboard. i.e. I'm consuming some of my solar electricity directly, instead of sending it into the grid (then buying it back once I've sold it...)
So this weekend I will fix that... and next year's bill should be a much fatter affair. 7654. alistairConnor - 8/20/2008 9:32:51 PM For the co-generation thing, I'll wait for these revolutionary fuel cells mentioned up thread a bit.
|
