philba

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...9/ccview19.xml

It certainly seems like a way to reduce the cost of production. I wonder about the longevity of the devices. There is no discussion of efficiency - I believe their argument is that it's going to be so cheap that efficiency doesn't matter. There is some truth to that but siting becomes an issue. They also breeze over the infrastructure issues like storage.

ericgibbs

hi phil,

Reminds me of the UK, in the 50's when were going over to atomic power generation. The word was, that electricty was going to be so cheap it wouldn't be worthwhile charging users as it would outweigh the production costs!!.

Its costing a fortune de-commissioning the reactors and disposing of the radioactive waste, 50 years later.

Now we are talking again, about going the reactor route to 'solve' our energy needs and reduce carbon emissions.

So much for history repeating itself, will we ever learn that we live on a small rock in space with finite resouces.

Regards
Eric

Blueteeth

I guess its just a sudden topic of interest now....alternative energy. It used to coem and go in the news, depending on whether that had any other stories that took presidence. Plus of course, now that the US has done a complete U-Turn on the subject, now wanting to lead the world in combatting carbon emissions rather than telling everyone it's all good and justifying their '24%' of the worlds pollution they produce. Thiings like this are bound to crop up.

Remember about 12 years ago (I was 12 at the time..) they found a way to increase the efficiency of cheap solar cells, by layering them so each layer absorbs a small ammount tof the UV? That was meant to provide double the efficiency of the expensive cells, but at 30% of the cost. They said that would change the world too, and yet even today, you can only get either the dirt cheap ones, or the ultra expensive 'very efficient' ones.

As for Nuclear energy, its still really the only viable option for cutting carbon emmisions significantly...unless we somehow get people to stop being so utterly wasteful (not going to happen). But who said it was cheap? Maybe the government and power companies don't want the public to know just how much their bills are gonna rise...but if it goes ahead, they will, after all, nuclear power is woefully inefficient.

The whole process of nuclear energy hasn't changed in 50 years, just like cars, old technology with new marketting, or...some radical new idea, that gets to the media and news long before any actual 'tests' are done, purely because editors, writers, and the fickle public love the idea.

I sincerely hope that a group of (educated) people are attempting to tackle this problem somewhere, rather than saying 'windmill farms will solve everything!' whenever the press ask for some data.

Well, I'm cynical, but I'll blieve that solar power will become a viable option when I see it, right now, its too expensive, and will always require a big fat inverter. Flexible, and even fabric photovoltaic cells have been around for years too, and they've yet to take off. Is it the realisation of the true costs? The over stated claims in the media? Or simply the public not wanting to ruin their cheap mock-up houses with solar cells? who knows.

Rant over.

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

philba

I do think the arguments pro and con nuclear power are rather amusing. The reality is that any power generation system is going to have economic and environmental disruptions. Interestingly, nukes cause the least amount of disruption. at least, when run properly. of course, that is key. the French have a good record but Russians, well, we all know that one.

I guess I don't envision a single solution but rather a patchwork quilt of different technologies. I believe wind power will become significant, solar might as well and nuclear is definitely in our future. The sooner we replace fossil fuel based generation (or find a way to clean it up), the better. I'm afraid we aren't going to get there soon enough to prevent significant climate shifts, though.

Blueteeth

I completely agree. Which is weird, because I'm pretty argumentative..

Although wind power doesn't produce that much power. Of course, as part of a wider collection of solutions, it has its place, providing there isn't uproar about spoiled countryside, 'enjoy it now? Or try and protect it'. Although I may be getting off topic from 'new solar technologies here', the first step has to be reducing consuption. I see it everywhere, from tv's on standby and small wallwarts using up precious mW for weeks on end...all the way to modern clubs, bars, offices, lights permenantly on, all the windows open and electric heating on full. I could talk forever on the subject, as well as the whole debate thats still raging as to whether its a natural warming, or man-made, or a combination of the two...and hydrogen/electric cars...gah, that ones just a crowd pleaser.
New solar technologies, namely 'cheaper' ones, can only be a good thing, none of this 'oh, we'll pay for 20% if you go solar!" from governements, its still jsut to steep for the public to go for it. I'll shut up now.

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

ericgibbs

hi

The Rodalco 'Australia to ban incandescent lamps' thread raises an interesting concept of the 'heat' generated by incandescent lamps providing 'background' heat, thefore in colder countries it is not 'wasted'.

Perhaps the same argument could be applied to equipment left on 'standby', sounds reasonable to me.

We will still be debating climate change when 'sea water' starts lapping around our ankles.

EricG

Nigel Goodwin

I live just off the edge of the Pennines, at almost 1000ft above sealevel - if water is lapping round my ankles you're in serious s**t!

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

ericgibbs

hi Nigel,

Trouble is we will all be living in the Pennines, Portsmouth will probably be under water.

Mis-quote: I live just off the edge

I've heard of people 'living on the edge' , lets know your secret.

As often quoted: 'if your not living on the edge, you are taking up too much space'

Regards
Eric

PS: Thinking about it, with all the pollution we push into the sea, you are right!. you're in serious s**t

philba

I totally agree about conservation being the best way. However, I don't believe voluntary conservation is going to cut it. And even things like outlawing the incandescent bulb (california is talking about it too) aren't the correct approach. I believe very much in the marketplace - when the price of energy rises to unacceptable levels, THEN we will see conservation take the forefront. To me that means the price of oil has to double or triple.

by the way, rising sea levels mean a lot more than relocation uphill - for some there is no "up hill". Like the people in the Seychelles, for example. But then they will be long gone by the time the level rises enough to cover them.

Blueteeth

'Forced Conservation' - sounds like a plan! I don't think either the British or American governments would do it, like raising the price of petrol, they risk losing the vote from the people who simply can't afford it. However, there are plenty of massive wasteful businesses who could easily buck their idea's up, along with phasing in new standards for power saving domestic appliances (for the general public) it could be enough.

Yeah, rising sealevels...many automatically think about their own situation, but climate change is hindered by the west, but poorer countries always suffer. If washington was under real threat, we would be seeing real progress, as opposed to 'securing votes' tactics, that for all intents and purposes, don't mean anything. I did see a great documentry ('Horizon' here in the UK) where they did several simulations based on sea level, and the accelerating climate change problem. They mentioned it was the first of its kind, because previous predictions didnt' take into account the fact that its accelerating (the effects add to the cause). Maybe they went over board, but distinctly remember something about London being underwater within the next 250 years. Shortly after that was aired, 'Red Ken', the London Mayor started his campain to reduce carbon emissions.

I fail to see why its suddenly become a main issue in the media/government. The problem has been known for many years, nothing much has changed. I'm only 24, but I've always seen tv programs about it.

Sorry, I'm trying to avoid political issues here, but it ain't working

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

philba

I doubt either government has that much say over the fluxuations of the price of oil. Yes, there are subsidies but they can only go so far. No idiot government can repeal the laws of economics. Reminds of the state legislature is the US that tried to legislate PI to be 3 "because the math was too hard".

While it is fashionable to blame the west for the carbon emissions problem, China and India are rapidly catching up. Most Chinese electricity is generated by coal fired plants which are significantly worse than natural gas.

Coal is one place where governments will have to step in, by the way since there are vast reserves and it's cheap to mine. The problem is that even if western governments solve the problem, The Chinese will be very unwilling to switch without significant encouragement.

As to the question, why didn't governments recognize the problem sooner? I see it simply as a case of denial. Humans are pretty good at that.

3v0

I do not claim the US or UK is blame free in regards to pollution. IIRC China and India have become the worlds worst offenders.

We passed laws to control pollution and it cost us our jobs, and our economy. We all shop at ChinnaMart.

To dump all the blame on the developed nations is incorrect. The problem is much more complex then that.

3v0

Blueteeth

Of course it is more complex than that, but developoing countries are more likely to put their thriving economy before any, what they see as, 'possible', long-term threat. I was merely pointing out that, 'the West' (US, UK etc..) were the main contributors towards carbon emmisssions long before china really started to grow, and before India's industries, and yet only NOW are we wetting our pants? I assumed the US denied Kyoto protocol through fears of losing its top spot in the ecomonic race to china, now seems that they will anyway.

You cannot really blame China and India for the exportation of industries, they can do it cheaper, and a whole lot quicker. You are completely right though of course, China especially is looking likely to become the greatest pollutor, and I don't seeing them being overly concerned about doing something, perhaps if another country set the standard for them?

I apologise for my obvious slight 'bias' against the US on this matter, the UK ain't too hot on it either. I was jsut confused, and angry that they could claim the rest of the world was wrong about climate change, bury their heads in the sand for over 20 years, and now, all of a sudden, what to 'lead the world', again, arguing from a point of their own self-made ignorance. Its about time the US lived up to its claims, lets hope they do.

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!

ericgibbs

hi,

We should also remember that methane gas, is a 'green house' gas.

For every 2lbs of food a cow eats, we are told, it produces a 1lb of methane.

I understand that the New Zealand sheep stock produces massive amounts of methane.
They are experimenting with food suppliments that will reduce the sheep gas emissions.

As there are about 6 billion or so people, each producing about 15 'flatulus' outputs per day on average,
no wonder our planet is struggling.

I wonder what percentage of 'global warming' gases is due to the planets animal bio-mass. Anyone know ???

Eric

Blueteeth

I have no idea

It is part of the myriad of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change apparently. I haven't read any articles, or heard anything about it upsetting the carbon cycle though. I rememer in the 80's there was big talk of 'flatulus' from our bovine friends being a significant contributing factor, but it seems to have taken a back seat. I'm not sure about the 50% ingested food = methane though....if that is the case, why hasn't anyone used this??! methane burns clean, sure, still produces CO2 (and water) but the purity of its emissions would make 'storing' or conditioning the carbon a snap.

Blueteeth

__________________
Inconsistency is the key to flexibility!