We are going to run out of fossil fuels, and even if we weren't they aren't good for the planet and we need to move on to practices that secure not only our accustomed, high energy, way of life but also the future of our planet. What steps should we be taking?
I personally believe that geothermal is underused. Also in countries with the appropriate climate concentrated solar seems a great option (and Archimedes Death Rays are just cool).
Nuclear fusion doesn't seem that far away now with working reactors in South Korea and the UK, they just don't yet put out enough power to be viable, and the reaction is unstable I believe.
What are peoples opinions on where we go from here?
I've seen a report on NHK a few months back where they talked about an institute in Japan that has invented a supercooled "energy pipeline" with which you could basically transfer power from solar plants in Africa to the rest of the world with nearly no loss due to distance - which I think is an awesome thing that opens up a lot of new possibilities!
The general idea was that the temparature inside the pipeline is lowered to a level where the energy faces less reistance travelling through the cable (a phenomenon known as superconductivity), and less resistance means fewer power is lost.
The Japanese have teamed up with Algeria for construction already.
My personal plan for an "impending" energy crisis is to lie very still and slowly be decomposed by maggots and bacteria until there is nothing left, because by the time this "impending" energy crises actually happens, I'll be long dead...
Superconductors will solve a lot of problems, I was given to understand they only work at really low temperatures, like approaching absolute zero low. That project seems brilliant though, just the type of new thinking needed for this problem.
Thorium reactors look pretty useful too, could install one every few streets and it would be perfectly safe and last for thousands of years.
How are we going to run out of resources?
We have enough coal/oil for the foreseeable future. Alternatives are available, it's just not economical until the price of fossil fuel rises.
Joey wrote:How are we going to run out of resources?
We have enough coal/oil for the foreseeable future. Alternatives are available, it's just not economical until the price of fossil fuel rises.
Shhhhh! If the PC leftists don't bring this "scare" up once in a while, then how can they scam all those clean energy government subsidies?!
@Joey do you not think it better to start implementing alternatives and thus bringing the price down with R&D before we reach the point at which fossils become economically unviable? You mentioned in the Fukushima thread about the amount we pay Russia, now yes we do now have the Falklands reserves, but if we instead spent the money we would extracting them on researching Thorium or on the Tokamak fusion reactor we would be far better off as we would not need to replace it a few decades down the line.
@Kilkrazy Well energy companies when market prices go up will raise their prices, and when market prices go down, well they raise their prices too. I didn't realise that 10% of the country could not afford to heat their house though, thats appalling when you see the profits of the companies.
@PhantomViper "Unclean" energy is getting larger subsidies than clean.
Why do you think the hippy tree hugging nimbys are going to allow you to have a nuclear reactor in every neighborhood?
Didn't some court in the UK just rule that you can't beven have windmills because they impede the scenery? Won't someone think of the spotted snail darter! It has rights!
High carbon emissions aren't good for the human population of the planet. But, Earth itself is rather indifferent.
And, all this carbon is actually rather beneficial for nature. It provides plenty of food for plant life, and the increased temperatures allow for a longer growing season.
Things like Polar Bears are screwed, but all that life that lives in the tropics or the oceans (which is most of life in general) is thriving.
And, that doesn't even mention the fact that if this energy waste we're doing kills us off, it will be VERY good for nature in general.
So, no, burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment. It's bad for people. Now, stop being selfish and go burn some coal!
High carbon emissions aren't good for the human population of the planet. But, Earth itself is rather indifferent.
And, all this carbon is actually rather beneficial for nature. It provides plenty of food for plant life, and the increased temperatures allow for a longer growing season.
Things like Polar Bears are screwed, but all that life that lives in the tropics or the oceans (which is most of life in general) is thriving.
And, that doesn't even mention the fact that if this energy waste we're doing kills us off, it will be VERY good for nature in general.
So, no, burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment. It's bad for people. Now, stop being selfish and go burn some coal!
Frazzled wrote:Why do you think the hippy tree hugging nimbys are going to allow you to have a nuclear reactor in every neighborhood?
Didn't some court in the UK just rule that you can't beven have windmills because they impede the scenery? Won't someone think of the spotted snail darter! It has rights!
Thorium is a different beast to uranium. Much safer, doesn't produce as much waste and is much harder to weaponise.
And yeah, Britain does have an issue with wind power, because its not pretty, but the Prime Minister did put a turbine on 10 Downing Street.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:
dæl wrote:they aren't good for the planet
That's simply not true.
High carbon emissions aren't good for the human population of the planet. But, Earth itself is rather indifferent.
And, all this carbon is actually rather beneficial for nature. It provides plenty of food for plant life, and the increased temperatures allow for a longer growing season.
Things like Polar Bears are screwed, but all that life that lives in the tropics or the oceans (which is most of life in general) is thriving.
And, that doesn't even mention the fact that if this energy waste we're doing kills us off, it will be VERY good for nature in general.
So, no, burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment. It's bad for people. Now, stop being selfish and go burn some coal!
If we wish to end up like Venus then yes its all good, I, and the polar bears, would rather not.
dæl wrote:
@PhantomViper "Unclean" energy is getting larger subsidies than clean.
That article is a misleading piece of gak! All the subsidies that they are talking about are aimed at preventing higher cost of energy to the final consumer, they don't make any distinction to the matter in which the energy is produced.
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$24 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for fossil fuels from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion
Considering that Fossil Fuels account for 85% of the energy produced in the US and renewable energy accounts for 14% (where the hell did that last 1% went?), what money do you reckon was better spent?
dæl wrote:If we wish to end up like Venus then yes its all good, I, and the polar bears, would rather not.
We won't end up like Venus. There's simply not enough greenhouse gases to create that environment on Earth.
We very well could melt the ice caps, flood large portions of human civilization, and turn the Earth into a hot, sticky swamp. But, that's about as "bad" (still very good for life in general, just bad for humans) as it could get.
dæl wrote:
@PhantomViper "Unclean" energy is getting larger subsidies than clean.
That article is a misleading piece of gak! All the subsidies that they are talking about are aimed at preventing higher cost of energy to the final consumer, they don't make any distinction to the matter in which the energy is produced.
Direct payments to producers, to expand production and keep their selling prices down, and to consumers, so they can afford the prices, are the most obvious (not necessarily numerous) form of subsidy. But there are others.
Governments should not subsidise companies that are making the profits that they are, fact. Otherwise the customer is still paying high bills but doing it through tax.
In the United States, the federal government has paid US$24 billion for energy subsidies to support R&D for fossil fuels from 1973 to 2003. During this same timeframe, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency received a total of US$26 billion
Considering that Fossil Fuels account for 85% of the energy produced in the US and renewable energy accounts for 14% (where the hell did that last 1% went?), what money do you reckon was better spent?
What on researching something new that has to take over, or on something that has been around for a century? Hmmm... I would say R&D of something neither researched or developed would generally cost more, don't you think?
Frazzled wrote:Why do you think the hippy tree hugging nimbys are going to allow you to have a nuclear reactor in every neighborhood?
Didn't some court in the UK just rule that you can't beven have windmills because they impede the scenery? Won't someone think of the spotted snail darter! It has rights!
Thorium is a different beast to uranium. Much safer, doesn't produce as much waste and is much harder to weaponise.
Wait, you act like that matters to the public.
In the public's defense, they've been told this before. . .
dæl wrote:
Governments should not subsidise companies that are making the profits that they are, fact. Otherwise the customer is still paying high bills but doing it through tax.
I'm guessing that you didn't see that the reduced VAT to energy products was also considered to be a subsidie by that "news" article of yours? So I don't see where that higher tax is coming from.
dæl wrote:
What on researching something new that has to take over, or on something that has been around for a century? Hmmm... I would say R&D of something neither researched or developed would generally cost more, don't you think?
That research has allowed the development of new, safer and cheaper ways to explore fossil fuel reserves. Or haven't you noticed that that whole "we only have oil for 40 more years -> PANIC" line hasn't changed in the past 20+ years and we haven't even reached the fabled peak oil yet?
Frazzled wrote:Why do you think the hippy tree hugging nimbys are going to allow you to have a nuclear reactor in every neighborhood?
Didn't some court in the UK just rule that you can't beven have windmills because they impede the scenery? Won't someone think of the spotted snail darter! It has rights!
Thorium is a different beast to uranium. Much safer, doesn't produce as much waste and is much harder to weaponise.
Wait, you act like that matters to the public.
Fair point, the public does sometimes think of nuclear as the big bad wolf come to murder us in our beds and eat our children.
Joey wrote:How are we going to run out of resources?
We have enough coal/oil for the foreseeable future. Alternatives are available, it's just not economical until the price of fossil fuel rises.
Shhhhh! If the PC leftists don't bring this "scare" up once in a while, then how can they scam all those clean energy government subsidies?!
Yes, much better for the non-PC rightists to scam all the nuclear energy government subsidies.
dæl wrote:
Governments should not subsidise companies that are making the profits that they are, fact. Otherwise the customer is still paying high bills but doing it through tax.
I'm guessing that you didn't see that the reduced VAT to energy products was also considered to be a subsidie by that "news" article of yours? So I don't see where that higher tax is coming from.
dæl wrote:
What on researching something new that has to take over, or on something that has been around for a century? Hmmm... I would say R&D of something neither researched or developed would generally cost more, don't you think?
That research has allowed the development of new, safer and cheaper ways to explore fossil fuel reserves. Or haven't you noticed that that whole "we only have oil for 40 more years -> PANIC" line hasn't changed in the past 20+ years and we haven't even reached the fabled peak oil yet?
Reduced VAT must be made up for believe it or not, the treasury has a budget which must add up. You reduce one thing, and that is lost revenue which must be accounted for.
So it costs the same to look for new reserves in say Alaska, as it does to research and implement nuclear fusion? No? didn't think so, my point was R&D for unresearched things costs more than for those that already exist.
dæl wrote:We are going to run out of fossil fuels, and even if we weren't they aren't good for the planet and we need to move on to practices that secure not only our accustomed, high energy, way of life but also the future of our planet. What steps should we be taking?
I personally believe that geothermal is underused. Also in countries with the appropriate climate concentrated solar seems a great option (and Archimedes Death Rays are just cool).
Nuclear fusion doesn't seem that far away now with working reactors in South Korea and the UK, they just don't yet put out enough power to be viable, and the reaction is unstable I believe.
What are peoples opinions on where we go from here?
A lot of existing hydroelectric dams in the US need to be uprated or rebuilt, they are a truly neglected aspect of power generation. Solar power generation should be a component of all government buildings at least.
@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
dæl wrote:@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
I didn't say I was against geothermal power generation, I was simply saying there's a good reason it is underutilized.
I prefer geothermal heating for homes rather than power generation, but safe home GT power would be the gift that never stops giving.
dæl wrote:@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
I didn't say I was against geothermal power generation, I was simply saying there's a good reason it is underutilized.
I prefer geothermal heating for homes rather than power generation, but safe home GT power would be the gift that never stops giving.
I'm from Texas, what is this heating a house you refer to? Is that a byproduct of the air conditioner?
dæl wrote:@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
I didn't say I was against geothermal power generation, I was simply saying there's a good reason it is underutilized.
I prefer geothermal heating for homes rather than power generation, but safe home GT power would be the gift that never stops giving.
I guessed you weren't against it, was just offering a type that doesn't cause the problems you mentioned.
dæl wrote:Superconductors will solve a lot of problems, I was given to understand they only work at really low temperatures, like approaching absolute zero low.
About 120K or thereabouts. They're also pretty efficient.
Of course, you have to keep them below the critical temperature, which requires a lot of energy.
Grakmar wrote:So, no, burning fossil fuels isn't bad for the environment. It's bad for people. Now, stop being selfish and go burn some coal!
dæl wrote:@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
I didn't say I was against geothermal power generation, I was simply saying there's a good reason it is underutilized.
I prefer geothermal heating for homes rather than power generation, but safe home GT power would be the gift that never stops giving.
I'm from Texas, what is this heating a house you refer to? Is that a byproduct of the air conditioner?
Despite living in this arid Arizona hellhole, I'm from Montana. I'm always more concerned with heating than cooling.
dæl wrote:
AustonT wrote:
dæl wrote:@Auston Ground source heat pumps do not cause earthquakes, instead of one large geothermal plant, why not every house having a ground source heat pump?
I didn't say I was against geothermal power generation, I was simply saying there's a good reason it is underutilized.
I prefer geothermal heating for homes rather than power generation, but safe home GT power would be the gift that never stops giving.
I guessed you weren't against it, was just offering a type that doesn't cause the problems you mentioned.
I'll be honest I didn't know what you were talking about and didn't check. I've lived in a house with hot water pipes run through the floor, although I think they were fed from a hot water spring. Most fantastic home we ever had.
dæl wrote:We are going to run out of fossil fuels, and even if we weren't they aren't good for the planet and we need to move on to practices that secure not only our accustomed, high energy, way of life but also the future of our planet. What steps should we be taking?
We should be pooling scientists and resources from every country we can and get Nuclear Fusion viable ASAP. Once we've done that we have an unlimited power supply for as long as we have Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe.
'Course once we do get Fusion working in a controlled and sustained reaction that would mean that every fossil fuel company will be facing bankruptcy unless they switch. After all, why would anyone use a power source which creates pollution and costs a fortune to get the raw materials required over one which creates zero pollution and uses a fuel source abundantly available?
Superconductors will solve a lot of problems, I was given to understand they only work at really low temperatures, like approaching absolute zero low. That project seems brilliant though, just the type of new thinking needed for this problem.
Superconductors need to be very cold but not that near absolute zero. A common coolant used for superconductors is Liquid Nitrogen, which has a boiling point of 77 Kelvin (77 degrees above absolute zero).
Frazzled wrote:Why are you assuming nuclear fusion will ever be viable?
Reminds me of that xkcd comic. Whenever a scientist/technician says something will be ready in "about 20 years" what they actually mean is it's a damn sweet idea but they have no idea how to make it work. Commercially viable nuclear fusion is so far off as to be essentially irrelevent to the debate.
When I say "debate", I of course mean market forces that make coal far, far cheaper than alternatives. Burn baby, burn.
It doesn't produce enough power, current estimates are 20,40, or 100 years away which means they don't have a freeking clue.
http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/6466/mit-energy-efficient-fusion-power.html MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center is home to the Alcator project, currently the largest tokamak-style fusion reactor at any university in the world and the reactor with the most plasma pressure and largest magnetic fields of any reactor, university or otherwise. The larger and more powerful International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is in the process of ramping up, but plasma containment and control is expected to pose problems. Researchers hope this new method of control using radio waves will solve any difficulties in this area, making a viable demonstration fusion power plant possible by 2040.
People always focus on large projects, small systems work better. Big business wants you to think big, (that's where the money is for them).
The windmill supplying one or two houses, heat pump and/ or solar panels heating the house.
Small is more efficient And you can always make your own fuel, for the car.
By putting in a solar water heater I was able to save a lot of money in heating my home. Then the scrappers stole it. Reason #6 why I moved out of Detroit
Frazzled wrote:It doesn't produce enough power, current estimates are 20,40, or 100 years away which means they don't have a freeking clue.
http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/6466/mit-energy-efficient-fusion-power.html MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center is home to the Alcator project, currently the largest tokamak-style fusion reactor at any university in the world and the reactor with the most plasma pressure and largest magnetic fields of any reactor, university or otherwise. The larger and more powerful International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is in the process of ramping up, but plasma containment and control is expected to pose problems. Researchers hope this new method of control using radio waves will solve any difficulties in this area, making a viable demonstration fusion power plant possible by 2040.
Well, that link is 3 years old, so it's rather outdated by this point.
Fusion Reactors have actually taken some pretty big strides forward in those years.
2040-2050 is still a reasonable time frame for commercial fusion reactors. But, we're actually fairly close to the "break-even" point, and demonstrating the early (working) prototypes for commercial fusion reactors could take place in the next 10-20 years.
No it's not. I don't want to produce my own energy, I want to do my job and pay someone else for energy. It's called "stupidity".
There fixed it for you
Money saved on bills can be spent on hobbies
I am to assume you grow your own cotton, gin it, thread it, sew your own clothing and somehow made your own computer then?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grakmar wrote:
Frazzled wrote:It doesn't produce enough power, current estimates are 20,40, or 100 years away which means they don't have a freeking clue.
http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/6466/mit-energy-efficient-fusion-power.html MIT's Plasma Science and Fusion Center is home to the Alcator project, currently the largest tokamak-style fusion reactor at any university in the world and the reactor with the most plasma pressure and largest magnetic fields of any reactor, university or otherwise. The larger and more powerful International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) is in the process of ramping up, but plasma containment and control is expected to pose problems. Researchers hope this new method of control using radio waves will solve any difficulties in this area, making a viable demonstration fusion power plant possible by 2040.
Well, that link is 3 years old, so it's rather outdated by this point.
Fusion Reactors have actually taken some pretty big strides forward in those years.
2040-2050 is still a reasonable time frame for commercial fusion reactors. But, we're actually fairly close to the "break-even" point, and demonstrating the early (working) prototypes for commercial fusion reactors could take place in the next 10-20 years.
loki old fart wrote:People always focus on large projects, small systems work better. Big business wants you to think big, (that's where the money is for them).
The windmill supplying one or two houses, heat pump and/ or solar panels heating the house.
That's a good point.
I remember there was a model city that is already entirely self-sufficient on electricity just because every single house was fitted with a solar cell.
No it's not. I don't want to produce my own energy, I want to do my job and pay someone else for energy. It's called "stupidity".
There fixed it for you
Money saved on bills can be spent on hobbies
I am to assume you grow your own cotton, gin it, thread it, sew your own clothing and somehow made your own computer then?
I can grow what I need, Build may own computer ( from parts). Repair my own vehicle. Why pay for something you don't have to.
treadhead1944 wrote:By putting in a solar water heater I was able to save a lot of money in heating my home. Then the scrappers stole it. Reason #6 why I moved out of Detroit
No it's not. I don't want to produce my own energy, I want to do my job and pay someone else for energy. It's called "stupidity".
There fixed it for you
Money saved on bills can be spent on hobbies
I am to assume you grow your own cotton, gin it, thread it, sew your own clothing and somehow made your own computer then?
I can grow what I need, Build may own computer ( from parts). Repair my own vehicle. Why pay for something you don't have to.
treadhead1944 wrote:By putting in a solar water heater I was able to save a lot of money in heating my home. Then the scrappers stole it. Reason #6 why I moved out of Detroit
No it's not. I don't want to produce my own energy, I want to do my job and pay someone else for energy. It's called "stupidity".
There fixed it for you
Money saved on bills can be spent on hobbies
That's uncalled for.
I don't frequently agree with Joey, I probably don't even agree with him on this but him expecting to do his job and pay someone to provide him with a service is not stupidity, it's not even capitalism. It is society.
I don't suppose you make your own thread, weave your own textiles, cut and sew your own clothes. Nor I would guess do you kill an animal, tan it's hide, and cobble your own shoes. I would wager you paid someone else to do it. If that is stupidity I would wager that you are surrounded by stupidity in your own home. I know people that live entirely off the (power) grid, but living that lifestyle is a full time job all it's own. It is not a life cut out for the average person. Certainly not the average urban person.
Automatically Appended Next Post: frakking ninjaed by Frazz.
No it's not. I don't want to produce my own energy, I want to do my job and pay someone else for energy. It's called "stupidity".
There fixed it for you
Money saved on bills can be spent on hobbies
That's uncalled for.
I don't frequently agree with Joey, I probably don't even agree with him on this but him expecting to do his job and pay someone to provide him with a service is not stupidity, it's not even capitalism. It is society.
I don't suppose you make your own thread, weave your own textiles, cut and sew your own clothes. Nor I would guess do you kill an animal, tan it's hide, and cobble your own shoes. I would wager you paid someone else to do it. If that is stupidity I would wager that you are surrounded by stupidity in your own home. I know people that live entirely off the (power) grid, but living that lifestyle is a full time job all it's own. It is not a life cut out for the average person. Certainly not the average urban person.
Automatically Appended Next Post: frakking ninjaed by Frazz.
You're right it was a bit harsh, but it was meant to be taken lightly. I apologize to joey
To be fair, having a solar cell on one's roof isn't exactly a "full time job", nor can it be compared to growing one's own food or tailoring one's own clothes.
There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time. That is still small scale and much better for everyone. Taking responsibility for your effect on the world doesn't mean you need step out of society and become a hippy.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time. That is still small scale and much better for everyone. Taking responsibility for your effect on the world doesn't mean you need step out of society and become a hippy.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Against doing the way we've always done it, seeing how well that worked out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
You're right it was a bit harsh, but it was meant to be taken lightly. I apologize to joey
I applaud that you are big enough to say so.
PS: Read twice and couldn't think of a better way to write it but as a caveat not meant to be sarcastic or abrasive..."how big of you" is an insult based on a compliment...I'm complimenting.
Thank you, but do I deserve a compliment? when just saying fair enough would be ok.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Against doing the way we've always done it, seeing how well that worked out.
Turns on light switch...
Turns on computer...
Communicates with someone halfway around the world in less time than it takes to do either...
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Against doing the way we've always done it, seeing how well that worked out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:
loki old fart wrote:
You're right it was a bit harsh, but it was meant to be taken lightly. I apologize to joey
I applaud that you are big enough to say so.
PS: Read twice and couldn't think of a better way to write it but as a caveat not meant to be sarcastic or abrasive..."how big of you" is an insult based on a compliment...I'm complimenting.
Thank you, but do I deserve a compliment? when just saying fair enough would be ok.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Against doing the way we've always done it, seeing how well that worked out.
Turns on light switch...
Turns on computer...
Communicates with someone halfway around the world in less time than it takes to do either...
Yup, seems to be working pretty well.
Turns on light switch...
Turns on computer...
Communicates with someone halfway around the world in less time than it takes to do either...
Runs hot shower, after recycling all metal paper and plastic.
While wife watches tv, and probably pays less than most for doing it.
Yeah works just aswell my way
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Things like facts don't really mean much to you do they biccat? Takes ten years to pay for its installation, that means it's saving money from day one, just not much. And bear in mind that fuel prices are constantly rising, so it could be less than ten years based on what you'd be paying three years from now.
loki old fart wrote:and probably pays less than most for doing it.
What kind of electrical system do you have? How much did you pay up front? What it it's lifespan? How much do you pay annually for maintenance?
I buy my power at a great price. Green energy proponents (including the President) promise to increase that price.
loki old fart wrote:Yeah works just aswell my way
You suggested that "the way we've always done it" didn't work out so well.
It's working out just fine on my end.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Things like facts don't really mean much to you do they biccat? Takes ten years to pay for its installation, that means it's saving money from day one, just not much. And bear in mind that fuel prices are constantly rising, so it could be less than ten years based on what you'd be paying three years from now.
From what I've seen, the price for solar panels is around $10,000 per KW for about 1300 hours per year. My electric rate is around $0.15/KWh.
biccat wrote:You suggested that "the way we've always done it" didn't work out so well.
We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
With a solar hot water heater on my roof, I started saving money within 3 days. The Natural gas didn't have to heat my water. That winter my furnace had to work about half as hard, saving me on average $85 per month. Factor in the water heater savings I was saving around $130 per month in the winter off my gas bill, and about $65 in the summer. It was pretty instant.
biccat wrote:You suggested that "the way we've always done it" didn't work out so well.
We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
Sounds like a life not worth living. If I were you i'd volunteer all my organs to others and do the honorable thing.
loki old fart wrote:We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific. Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done. Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
And with that comes increased living standards, easy communication across the globe that requires no more than pushing a button, increased availability of food, reduced working hours, global food distribution networks (seriously, I could buy strawberries in upstate Minnesota in the depths of winter by merely driving a few miles to the grocery store), and technological innovations that people as early as 50 years ago could only dream about. To say nothing about increased longevity, eradication of once-deadly and debilitating diseases, and incredible advances in health care that allow legions of individuals to survive who would have died before reaching adulthood in centuries past.
Yeah, lets carry on as normal. It's a fething awesome time to be alive.
dæl wrote:Things like facts don't really mean much to you do they biccat? Takes ten years to pay for its installation, that means it's saving money from day one, just not much. And bear in mind that fuel prices are constantly rising, so it could be less than ten years based on what you'd be paying three years from now.
From what I've seen, the price for solar panels is around $10,000 per KW for about 1300 hours per year. My electric rate is around $0.15/KWh.
You do the mathS and show me how I'm wrong.
Well according to this site, cost is £10,000, savings of £670 a year, so pays for itself after 15 (ish) years. But as I have said numerous times, ground source heat pumps are what people should be getting, not solar panels, unless you use solar panels to just heat your water, which is a completely different thing than electricity production.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
loki old fart wrote:We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
And with that comes increased living standards, easy communication across the globe that requires no more than pushing a button, increased availability of food, reduced working hours, global food distribution networks (seriously, I could buy strawberries in upstate Minnesota in the depths of winter by merely driving a few miles to the grocery store), and technological innovations that people as early as 50 years ago could only dream about. To say nothing about increased longevity, eradication of once-deadly and debilitating diseases, and incredible advances in health care that allow legions of individuals to survive who would have died before reaching adulthood in centuries past.
Yeah, lets carry on as normal. It's a fething awesome time to be alive.
Because we would have had none of that if we'd used Tesla's tower contraption for infinite, free energy. A century of stagnation would surely have followed us having abundant power.
loki old fart wrote:We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
And with that comes increased living standards, easy communication across the globe that requires no more than pushing a button, increased availability of food, reduced working hours, global food distribution networks (seriously, I could buy strawberries in upstate Minnesota in the depths of winter by merely driving a few miles to the grocery store), and technological innovations that people as early as 50 years ago could only dream about. To say nothing about increased longevity, eradication of once-deadly and debilitating diseases, and incredible advances in health care that allow legions of individuals to survive who would have died before reaching adulthood in centuries past.
Yeah, lets carry on as normal. It's a fething awesome time to be alive.
Strangely enough I have all that too.
All that comes with social development, You can have that without, screwing the environment
biccat wrote:You suggested that "the way we've always done it" didn't work out so well.
We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
dæl wrote:Well according to this site, cost is £10,000, savings of £670 a year, so pays for itself after 15 (ish) years.
So not really "ten years to pay for its installation." Btw, here's the site I used.
dæl wrote:Because we would have had none of that if we'd used Tesla's tower contraption for infinite, free energy. A century of stagnation would surely have followed us having abundant power.
biccat wrote:You suggested that "the way we've always done it" didn't work out so well.
We've as in the human race. Have nuclear waste to dispose off. Seas of plastic waste, floating in the pacific.
Trees with no leaves, due to gasses from fossil fuels. And crude oil washed up on our beaches. Plus wars over resources, so yes well done.
Carry on as normal eh, lets see what else we can screw up.
Could be worse, it could be rainning
Very true
Time for the beach methinks, must stock up the fridge, and put children's DVDs in the motor.
See thats your problem. We're using scientists when we should be using a million lawyers. We'll have that "law" of physics wrestled to the ground in no time!
Ribon Fox wrote:biccat, you mean improbable don't you
Unless you're aware of some way to violate the laws of physics, then no.
The same laws of physics that dictate there is background radiation of a few K, which I believe is what Tesla was harnessing. Also, nuclear fusion would like a word. These aren't infinite no, but they will last a lot longer than the human race. One until hydrogen runs out, and the other until the heat death of the universe.
dæl wrote:The same laws of physics that dictate there is background radiation of a few K, which I believe is what Tesla was harnessing. Also, nuclear fusion would like a word. These aren't infinite no, but they will last a lot longer than the human race. One until hydrogen runs out, and the other until the heat death of the universe.
So not infinite and not free? OK. I agree with you that there are non-infinite, non-free sources of energy that provide abundent power.
dæl wrote:The same laws of physics that dictate there is background radiation of a few K, which I believe is what Tesla was harnessing. Also, nuclear fusion would like a word. These aren't infinite no, but they will last a lot longer than the human race. One until hydrogen runs out, and the other until the heat death of the universe.
So not infinite and not free? OK. I agree with you that there are non-infinite, non-free sources of energy that provide abundent power.
The reason Tesla never got to implement it was that they could not regulate how much power people were using and charge them, it would have been free.
And as for infinite, well if anything is going to last longer than the universe then fair enough, show me it, these will last to the very end.
Back in the day Montana Power used to invite kids to tour the dams on the Great Falls of the Missori. One of the demonstrations they had was a small Tesla coil. They used it to explain both the advantages and the drawback of the coil as a power source. Apparently they were continuing to look for a safe way to use a Tesla coil for energy.
dæl wrote:The same laws of physics that dictate there is background radiation of a few K, which I believe is what Tesla was harnessing. Also, nuclear fusion would like a word. These aren't infinite no, but they will last a lot longer than the human race. One until hydrogen runs out, and the other until the heat death of the universe.
So not infinite and not free? OK. I agree with you that there are non-infinite, non-free sources of energy that provide abundent power.
The reason Tesla never got to implement it was that they could not regulate how much power people were using and charge them, it would have been free.
And as for infinite, well if anything is going to last longer than the universe then fair enough, show me it, these will last to the very end.
Tesla's big mistake having Westinghouse and JP Morgan as backers. As soon as they found they couldn't charge for it. They blocked his access to funds.
dæl wrote:The reason Tesla never got to implement it was that they could not regulate how much power people were using and charge them, it would have been free.
Build one yourself.
People will pay a lot of money for unlimited energy. I know a number of companies that would probably be happy to pay half of their annual electric bill for unlimited electricity.
dæl wrote:The reason Tesla never got to implement it was that they could not regulate how much power people were using and charge them, it would have been free.
Build one yourself.
People will pay a lot of money for unlimited energy. I know a number of companies that would probably be happy to pay half of their annual electric bill for unlimited electricity.
Thats all well and fine to say "build one", but none of us have the level of genius that Tesla had, hell no one alive is as smart as Tesla was in his filed of studdies. Who knows what awesome things he would of came up with if he wasn't screwed over by his backers and the US goverment.
loki old fart wrote:
I can grow what I need, Build may own computer ( from parts). Repair my own vehicle. Why pay for something you don't have to.
Working minimum wage, I can afford a new t-shirt in about an hour's work. How long do you think it would take you to grow the cotton, harvest and process it, then weave it and dye it? Less than an hour?
Incorporating solar panels on top of roofs of new constructions, and adding them to old ones is a good start.
We have a lot of surface area in the form of rooftops that can be used to generate electricity from solar power.. It won't work in every area, but in Texas, California, Egypt, and other sunny places across the world it can work quite well, especially for businesses and government organizations who can pay money to maintain them.
loki old fart wrote:
I can grow what I need, Build may own computer ( from parts). Repair my own vehicle. Why pay for something you don't have to.
Working minimum wage, I can afford a new t-shirt in about an hour's work. How long do you think it would take you to grow the cotton, harvest and process it, then weave it and dye it? Less than an hour?
Irrelevant question.
Why pay more than you need to for energy. Why pay for anything, when you can get it for free.
I mean, I can fix my own car, so I wouldn't need to pay anyone else. So why pay for anything, you can do for yourself.
loki old fart wrote:
I can grow what I need, Build may own computer ( from parts). Repair my own vehicle. Why pay for something you don't have to.
Working minimum wage, I can afford a new t-shirt in about an hour's work. How long do you think it would take you to grow the cotton, harvest and process it, then weave it and dye it? Less than an hour?
Irrelevant question.
Why pay more than you need to for energy. Why pay for anything, when you can get it for free.
You can't get anything for free, everything has to be worked for. Money represents that work, which is why you exchange it for goods and services.
In the example you gave of fixing your own car, you did pay money. For the parts, for the tools, and of course, your own personal time spent fixing it.
Not that I take pleasure in agreeing with Joey, but in this case, he is right.
In the example you gave of fixing your own car, you did pay money. For the parts, for the tools, and of course, your own personal time spent fixing it.
Not that I take pleasure in agreeing with Joey, but in this case, he is right.
A few small parts, no big deal . Tools I needed for work, so no cost really I would have had to buy them anyway. Time I got lots of,
Are you making an allusion to being a professional thief?
Or do you just live off the sweat of others' labour?
Are you making an allusion to being a professional thief? Your words not mine.
Or do you just live off the sweat of others' labour? Then I wouldn't need tools would I.
Did your mother feed you and kiss you goodnight? How much did that cost you?.
Every thing you need comes free or cheaply.
Everything you want, but don't need. That you pay for.
Words of wisdom
Try not to spend a pound, when a penny will do.
loki old fart wrote:Why pay more than you need to for energy. Why pay for anything, when you can get it for free.
I mean, I can fix my own car, so I wouldn't need to pay anyone else. So why pay for anything, you can do for yourself.
Because in the time it takes me to fix my own car I can work in my specialized field and earn more money than it would cost someone to fix the car.
Lets say I need a new muffler. I could rip the existing one out (30 minutes), find a new one (hour or two) and install it (1 hour). Conservative estimate: 3 hours of work. The body shop, which has a lift, lots more experience, and an inventory of goods, can do the whole job in about 30 minutes. As long as I make more than 1/6 the hourly rate the body shop, I'm better off working.
loki old fart wrote:Why pay more than you need to for energy. Why pay for anything, when you can get it for free.
I mean, I can fix my own car, so I wouldn't need to pay anyone else. So why pay for anything, you can do for yourself.
Because in the time it takes me to fix my own car I can work in my specialized field and earn more money than it would cost someone to fix the car.
Lets say I need a new muffler. I could rip the existing one out (30 minutes), find a new one (hour or two) and install it (1 hour). Conservative estimate: 3 hours of work. The body shop, which has a lift, lots more experience, and an inventory of goods, can do the whole job in about 30 minutes. As long as I make more than 1/6 the hourly rate the body shop, I'm better off working.
It's called specialization.
Ah but I pay less for the bits, and I'd enjoy changing the muffler. I love working with cars, where can you buy fun like that.
Now, specialization isn't wrong. And it doesn't have to do much with the topic at hand either. I believe the very concept of living in a community is built upon specialization, and the idea of complementing one another. If someone has a few handy skills in addition to his specialized field, awesome, why not use them - but that shouldn't be regarded as mandatory in any way.
I do remember cars were built a lot easier back then, though, much more lending themselves to improvised repairs even for laymen. The new ones don't even let you open the hood without being plugged into some company's supercomputer.
tl;dr: I think the "golden medium" is what people should be going for, not either extreme end of the scale.
Lynata wrote:Now, specialization isn't wrong. And it doesn't have to do much with the topic at hand either. I believe the very concept of living in a community is built upon specialization, and the idea of complementing one another. If someone has a few handy skills in addition to his specialized field, awesome, why not use them - but that shouldn't be regarded as mandatory in any way.
I do remember cars were built a lot easier back then, though, much more lending themselves to improvised repairs even for laymen. The new ones don't even let you open the hood without being plugged into some company's supercomputer.
tl;dr: I think the "golden medium" is what people should be going for, not either extreme end of the scale.
On the Audi A2, you couldn't even open the bonnet, there was a flap for oil and water but you couldn't get to the engine at all.
some guy wrote:A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
Foot note
I have an ork head as avatar, I play orks.
I have been known to fix friends and neighbors cars for free. Rebuilt my first engine at 14. I drive a 1992 Mercedes Benz, and have a 1976 land rover in the garage(stored as a retirement project) .
Given the choice between working in a office, or belting a exhaust with a big hammer. Well what do you think nn Melissa nn Biccat.
loki old fart wrote:Why pay more than you need to for energy. Why pay for anything, when you can get it for free.
I mean, I can fix my own car, so I wouldn't need to pay anyone else. So why pay for anything, you can do for yourself.
Because in the time it takes me to fix my own car I can work in my specialized field and earn more money than it would cost someone to fix the car.
Lets say I need a new muffler. I could rip the existing one out (30 minutes), find a new one (hour or two) and install it (1 hour). Conservative estimate: 3 hours of work. The body shop, which has a lift, lots more experience, and an inventory of goods, can do the whole job in about 30 minutes. As long as I make more than 1/6 the hourly rate the body shop, I'm better off working.
It's called specialization.
Ah but I pay less for the bits, and I'd enjoy changing the muffler. I love working with cars, where can you buy fun like that.
Alexzandvar wrote:The Sun will run out in several billion years, thus, making it a non-renewable resource!
But its supernova will form a nebula, which will become a star forming region, thus renewable.
The sun won't go supernova, it isn't big enough.
It will swell into a red giant then all it's atmosphere will get blasted out over a long period of time until there's just the small iron core formed at the centre left.
dæl wrote:There is a distinct difference between growing and refining your own biofuel, which is time consuming, and having a ground source heat pump/heat exchanger/solar panel/turbine fitted, which once done will just save you money and not cost any time.
...assuming you're willing to wait 30 years to "save money" on that solar panel.
Things like facts don't really mean much to you do they biccat? Takes ten years to pay for its installation, that means it's saving money from day one, just not much. And bear in mind that fuel prices are constantly rising, so it could be less than ten years based on what you'd be paying three years from now.
The main problem with domestic solar panels is the fairly high capital investment, which is something like £10,000 at the moment in the UK, for a typical size house.
Biccat is quite right that £10,000 is a lot of electric bills to pay up front. I currently pay £150 a month for an all electric flat. If I could produce all my own electricity from solar (doubtful) I would be looking at 66.6 months to payoff, not counting the interest cost of the loan of the capital. It would probably take at least 12 years, really because it wouldn't pay all the bills anyway.
OTOH, the £10,000 would pretty much be added to the value of my house, if I decided to sell. Also, as electricity becomes more expensive, the saving of your own solar increases.
Alexzandvar wrote:The Sun will run out in several billion years, thus, making it a non-renewable resource!
But its supernova will form a nebula, which will become a star forming region, thus renewable.
The sun won't go supernova, it isn't big enough.
It will swell into a red giant then all it's atmosphere will get blasted out over a long period of time until there's just the small iron core formed at the centre left.
Supernova no, nova more than likely yes. Thats once it swallows the frist two inner planets, melts Earth and blast Mars in to dust. Jupiter will have is outer and inner atmosphiers burnt off, Saturns rings of ice will melt. Then when the internal force of fusion gives in with one last gasp all of Sols fule will have been spent, this is its nova stage (note there is some differing thoughts as to weather Sol has enougth mass to go nova or not, its at this time that all the heavy elements are forged), it will shed all but its core. Also this is when gravatiy will take over colapsing the core into some thing around the size of Jupiter now making it a White Dwarf or Neutron Star.
This is but one of the thoghts on the end of Sol. Sol may not be infinet but it will last much longer than the race of thinking monkeys that once inhabited one of its small rocky planets.
Alexzandvar wrote:The Sun will run out in several billion years, thus, making it a non-renewable resource!
But its supernova will form a nebula, which will become a star forming region, thus renewable.
The sun won't go supernova, it isn't big enough.
It will swell into a red giant then all it's atmosphere will get blasted out over a long period of time until there's just the small iron core formed at the centre left.
Supernova no, nova more than likely yes. Thats once it swallows the frist two inner planets, melts Earth and blast Mars in to dust. Jupiter will have is outer and inner atmosphiers burnt off, Saturns rings of ice will melt. Then when the internal force of fusion gives in with one last gasp all of Sols fule will have been spent, this is its nova stage (note there is some differing thoughts as to weather Sol has enougth mass to go nova or not, its at this time that all the heavy elements are forged), it will shed all but its core. Also this is when gravatiy will take over colapsing the core into some thing around the size of Jupiter now making it a White Dwarf or Neutron Star.
This is but one of the thoghts on the end of Sol. Sol may not be infinet but it will last much longer than the race of thinking monkeys that once inhabited one of its small rocky planets.
Or if you perfer, Proff B Cox take on it
I look at that physicist and can't help but think that things can only get better
Alexzandvar wrote:The Sun will run out in several billion years, thus, making it a non-renewable resource!
But its supernova will form a nebula, which will become a star forming region, thus renewable.
The sun won't go supernova, it isn't big enough.
It will swell into a red giant then all it's atmosphere will get blasted out over a long period of time until there's just the small core formed at the centre left.
Supernova no, nova more than likely yes. Thats once it swallows the frist two inner planets, melts Earth and blast Mars in to dust. Jupiter will have is outer and inner atmosphiers burnt off, Saturns rings of ice will melt. Then when the internal force of fusion gives in with one last gasp all of Sols fule will have been spent, this is its nova stage (note there is some differing thoughts as to weather Sol has enougth mass to go nova or not, its at this time that all the heavy elements are forged), it will shed all but its core. Also this is when gravatiy will take over colapsing the core into some thing around the size of Jupiter now making it a White Dwarf or Neutron Star.
This is but one of the thoghts on the end of Sol. Sol may not be infinet but it will last much longer than the race of thinking monkeys that once inhabited one of its small rocky planets.
White Dwarf yes but there's no way our sun could end as a Neutron Star. Neutron Stars are formed as a result of supernovae and our nice star simply doesn't have the mass to reach the gravitational strength required. A Neutron Star usually has a mass of 1 to 2 solar masses, so between the same mass as our sun to twice that of our sun, and that's after all the outer layers have been blasted off in the supernova event. So our sun will have a boring death by comparison to its big brothers but on the bright side the bigger a star is the shorter its lifespan.
Approved 
