M
mks
Guest
There were some in the 70's who predicted cooling, but six time more scientists predicted warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm).
There were some in the 70's who predicted cooling, but six time more scientists predicted warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm).
Diverging back to the practical for the moment:
Al wrote (I added numbers):
Both true, of course. But (1) is useless, because within the realm of answers out there is every possible contradiction imaginable. That throws it all on (2).
Regarding (2) As to whether or not the earth is warming, I look for answers not from the people who take cruse-ship rides, or follow the rantings of a politician whose primary agenda is to get votes from anyone they can. It is a scientific question, the useful answers will come from scientists.
As to whether or not it is "our fault," who cares? That's not useful information.
As to whether or not we can do anything about it, that too gets a "who cares?" I allow some take great pride in not becoming involved in any effort that must fail. Well, me too, to a degree. So you look for other things, aside from the yes/no answer to "controlling global warming." "How much" is probably useful to modify "fail/don't fail."
And just by the way: In spite of the political rantings everywhere you look, what we need to get this economy moving is not an influx of capital. This "downturn" is different. There are 10s of billions of dollars sitting in the vaults of Fortune 500 companies, banks, and investment companies right now. The money is targeted for investment, but isn't being so used. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
The question is, why it isn't being invested? I'm sure your favorite politician will tell you why, just as soon as he figures out what you want to hear.
But here is the column B thought. In business you learn to try & maximize your return on investment. That's not business school, anyone pumping gas knows that. (In business school, they all it "Return on Net Assets.")
OK, take a mature industry. By in large, any increase in return is going to come from lowering the costs of manufacturing, or lowering the costs of performing the service. The two easiest ways to do that both involve reducing labor costs, either by moving the labor to a market where it is cheaper (AKA outsourcing jobs to Asia -- actually, to most anywhere except Europe & the US), -- or by lowering labor costs by investing in plant -- in effect, reducing the number of labor hours it takes to turn out the product or provide the service.
Neither of these is helpful to America just now. Anyone who cares about America needs to turn to the industries that are NOT mature, where the answers are not known, and invest in coming up with them. Yup, it's a risk. Oh. And train their children for that kind of activity, too.
The other answer in a high-cost labor market is to have a series of niche producers, who aren't really competing with "Asia." My company is one of those. And if you want to say "Boutique" instead of "niche," I can't argue. Twenty years ago, it was an answer for a 50-year-old-guy with existing skills. It is a small market, Asia doesn't bother with it, at least, not yet. It is no answer for an entire country, and no answer for your kids.
If anything made America great, it was a willingness to explore, experiment. If you don't believe that, you're left with the explanation that America had the only surviving industrial plant after WWII, and we just exploited that for a while.
Al Gore was wrong. True or not, our fault or not, Global Warming isn't inconvenient.
EDIT:
Lord, I can't end sounding that pollyannish. It is inconvenient for the large industries who want to keep on without change. But as the American Auto industry just showed, when hit on the head with a large club, they *can* come out doing just fine. As patriots, we should help them. Put some of that investment money into making large clubs.
Al wrote (I added numbers):
Both true, of course. But (1) is useless, because within the realm of answers out there is every possible contradiction imaginable. That throws it all on (2).
Regarding (2) As to whether or not the earth is warming, I look for answers not from the people who take cruse-ship rides, or follow the rantings of a politician whose primary agenda is to get votes from anyone they can. It is a scientific question, the useful answers will come from scientists.
As to whether or not it is "our fault," who cares? That's not useful information.
As to whether or not we can do anything about it, that too gets a "who cares?" I allow some take great pride in not becoming involved in any effort that must fail. Well, me too, to a degree. So you look for other things, aside from the yes/no answer to "controlling global warming." "How much" is probably useful to modify "fail/don't fail."
And just by the way: In spite of the political rantings everywhere you look, what we need to get this economy moving is not an influx of capital. This "downturn" is different. There are 10s of billions of dollars sitting in the vaults of Fortune 500 companies, banks, and investment companies right now. The money is targeted for investment, but isn't being so used. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.
The question is, why it isn't being invested? I'm sure your favorite politician will tell you why, just as soon as he figures out what you want to hear.
But here is the column B thought. In business you learn to try & maximize your return on investment. That's not business school, anyone pumping gas knows that. (In business school, they all it "Return on Net Assets.")
OK, take a mature industry. By in large, any increase in return is going to come from lowering the costs of manufacturing, or lowering the costs of performing the service. The two easiest ways to do that both involve reducing labor costs, either by moving the labor to a market where it is cheaper (AKA outsourcing jobs to Asia -- actually, to most anywhere except Europe & the US), -- or by lowering labor costs by investing in plant -- in effect, reducing the number of labor hours it takes to turn out the product or provide the service.
Neither of these is helpful to America just now. Anyone who cares about America needs to turn to the industries that are NOT mature, where the answers are not known, and invest in coming up with them. Yup, it's a risk. Oh. And train their children for that kind of activity, too.
The other answer in a high-cost labor market is to have a series of niche producers, who aren't really competing with "Asia." My company is one of those. And if you want to say "Boutique" instead of "niche," I can't argue. Twenty years ago, it was an answer for a 50-year-old-guy with existing skills. It is a small market, Asia doesn't bother with it, at least, not yet. It is no answer for an entire country, and no answer for your kids.
If anything made America great, it was a willingness to explore, experiment. If you don't believe that, you're left with the explanation that America had the only surviving industrial plant after WWII, and we just exploited that for a while.
Al Gore was wrong. True or not, our fault or not, Global Warming isn't inconvenient.
EDIT:
Lord, I can't end sounding that pollyannish. It is inconvenient for the large industries who want to keep on without change. But as the American Auto industry just showed, when hit on the head with a large club, they *can* come out doing just fine. As patriots, we should help them. Put some of that investment money into making large clubs.
Last edited:
Warming
I'm guessing that the earth "warms" from the sun. If there's another mechanism please point it out as I've racked my brain (took about two minutes) and can't see any other mechanism in there. Doesn't matter if there's another...just asking...because the sun is a big warmer.
We could prevent some of that warming from the sun with enough solar panels and reject the mechanical heat to the atmosphere. BUT, when the earth began to cool, the heat transfer rate from the sun would improve and offset much of that effort. Gee whiz, if we could just find a way around that stupid law we'd be all set. You know, the one that states "energy can neither be created or destroyed". Wonder which party was in power when they came up with that one?
I'm guessing that the earth "warms" from the sun. If there's another mechanism please point it out as I've racked my brain (took about two minutes) and can't see any other mechanism in there. Doesn't matter if there's another...just asking...because the sun is a big warmer.
We could prevent some of that warming from the sun with enough solar panels and reject the mechanical heat to the atmosphere. BUT, when the earth began to cool, the heat transfer rate from the sun would improve and offset much of that effort. Gee whiz, if we could just find a way around that stupid law we'd be all set. You know, the one that states "energy can neither be created or destroyed". Wonder which party was in power when they came up with that one?
L
Larry Elliott
Guest
Great theory Wilbur, but according to the eminent physicist Michio Kaku the sun doesn't have a whole lot to do with the temperature on our poor little round rock. I nearly ran the car into the ditch when I heard that little gem. That the sun doesn't have much to do with our temperature must explain why Venus is so much warmer and Mars is so much cooler than the Earth. Granted Venus has a lot of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, and Mars has very little atmosphere, but their distances from the sun has a lot to do with it was well. Something to do with the square of the distance from the source of the heat I believe, which is why astronomers assign a "Goldilocks" region around various stars which they believe planets must orbit in to be inhabitable by life as we know and understand it.
Sorry, but it's one of the things I do best, be a killjoy.
Sorry, but it's one of the things I do best, be a killjoy.
M
mks
Guest
Wilbur,
Yes, on a clear day, the sun warms the Earth at a rate of about 1000 Watts per square meter of Earth surface area. On a clear night, the Earth radiates to outer space at a rate of about 100 W/m^2. Heat from the hot Earth core rises to the surface at a rate of about 0.1 W/m^2, so is not very important. CO2, CH4 and a number of other gases reduce the radiation to outer space. Clouds decrease the solar warming. If the heat gains don't balance the heat losses, Earth temperature changes. These factors and a lot more are in the computer models. You can imagine how complicated the models become to simulate the whole Earth and its atmosphere.
Keith
Sometimes it helps to right in big letters and make useful comparisons........ from these one can draw one's own conclusions.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html
Keith, you can correct this if it's wrong
al
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/ph162/l4.html
Keith, you can correct this if it's wrong
al
M
mks
Guest
Al,
I can read it without my reading glasses! Cool!
Keith
I can read it without my reading glasses! Cool!
Keith
M
mks
Guest
Now, as one who comes from a background of alternative energy nuts, the real question at hand becomes one of storage as has been so candidly pointed out earlier. If anyone can come up with a real-world pile that doesn't involve water reservoirs, batteries, suspended mass, thermal mass, springs, Glauber's salts, refrigeration, flywheels etc and that is better than trees......MAYBE it'll compete with the ultimate battery, OIL.......
and THEN, when folks begin to realize that what we generally refer to as "power generation" is just RELEASE of energy..... maybe we can work towards actual energy generation. Until then we'll have to settle for ways of releasing already pent energy, whether we burn wood/coal/oil or break atomic bonds all's we've been doing is releasing energy and converting it or collecting for conversion to usable form.
speaking of solar.....
When one a' you'se genii (interesting language parallel what?) come up with a pile....... here're some numbers offhand.
I use around 10 KWh/day in lo-power mode.... around 300/mo. And our cost here is still around $.09/kwh. Then there's all the "administrative costs" associated with buying power nowadays so we end up at around $12.00 per day. Sooooo, 12.00/day times 365 days= near on $4400.00 a year "just in 'lectric"
Sooooo, 10,000 watts/hour/day, ties in nicely with the linkie.... and this would indicate that my little home would need 20,000sqft of collectors.....
'AT's a lot of roof my friend
My roof is just over 4,000sqft, with call it 2400 usable as collector. Let's round that down to 2000sqft in the interest of simplicity and due to the fact that the steenking sun MOVES on us. So, we got about a tenth of what we need far as roof space......... interesting but not really relevant since I live on acreage.. haHAA!!!.. and I've got environment to spare so I'll gladly kill off another 16,000sqft in the interest of saving the planet. So I've got my 20,000ft, now I gotta' pave it on solar cells.
And I've got $4400.00/year to do it with...... (I'm making this really too simple but y'all join in now y'hear...)
So let's say I've got $5000.00 to play with, HOW MUCH can I pave with my five grand??
Well let's see..... Harbor Freight has them on sale right now for just at 21.00/sqft..... 'course there's tax to add another 10% so let's go $23.00/sqft
Soooooo, five thousand dollars divided by twenty three dollars is almost 220sqft.
Well THAT ain't gonna' cut it now is it???
hmmmmm
So let's go into it from the other end...
NOW MUCH MONEY to pave my 20,000sqft? Let's just bite it off and get 'er DONE!!
20,000sqft X $23.00=$460,000.00
Four HUNDRED and sixty THOUSAND dollars......
hmmmmmmm
that's for the basic panels...... prolly need some WIRE hmmmmm, and some BA'DDRY'S hmmmmmmm..... BULK DISCOUNTING!!!... hmmmmmmm
(pace pace pace)
tap-tap-tap
"bet I could keep it down around a half million dollars"
hmmmmmm
"Well, back to the old drawing board....."
Ohhh, and that was buying from the Communist Republic of China...... Guess I should run the numbers "Buy American" and get those gooder quality UNION grade panels eh??? At roughly 6 times the cost.....
hmmmmmmm
nahhhh, I'll stick to oil
Hold out for nukes.....let people SUFFER a liddle....maybe then people will wise up and LET US OFF THIS ROCK! We should be harvesting comets and mining the Oort Clouds by 2050
When one a' you'se genii (interesting language parallel what?) come up with a pile....... here're some numbers offhand.
I use around 10 KWh/day in lo-power mode.... around 300/mo. And our cost here is still around $.09/kwh. Then there's all the "administrative costs" associated with buying power nowadays so we end up at around $12.00 per day. Sooooo, 12.00/day times 365 days= near on $4400.00 a year "just in 'lectric"
Sooooo, 10,000 watts/hour/day, ties in nicely with the linkie.... and this would indicate that my little home would need 20,000sqft of collectors.....
'AT's a lot of roof my friend
My roof is just over 4,000sqft, with call it 2400 usable as collector. Let's round that down to 2000sqft in the interest of simplicity and due to the fact that the steenking sun MOVES on us. So, we got about a tenth of what we need far as roof space......... interesting but not really relevant since I live on acreage.. haHAA!!!.. and I've got environment to spare so I'll gladly kill off another 16,000sqft in the interest of saving the planet. So I've got my 20,000ft, now I gotta' pave it on solar cells.
And I've got $4400.00/year to do it with...... (I'm making this really too simple but y'all join in now y'hear...)
So let's say I've got $5000.00 to play with, HOW MUCH can I pave with my five grand??
Well let's see..... Harbor Freight has them on sale right now for just at 21.00/sqft..... 'course there's tax to add another 10% so let's go $23.00/sqft
Soooooo, five thousand dollars divided by twenty three dollars is almost 220sqft.
Well THAT ain't gonna' cut it now is it???
hmmmmm
So let's go into it from the other end...
NOW MUCH MONEY to pave my 20,000sqft? Let's just bite it off and get 'er DONE!!
20,000sqft X $23.00=$460,000.00
Four HUNDRED and sixty THOUSAND dollars......
hmmmmmmm
that's for the basic panels...... prolly need some WIRE hmmmmm, and some BA'DDRY'S hmmmmmmm..... BULK DISCOUNTING!!!... hmmmmmmm
(pace pace pace)
tap-tap-tap
"bet I could keep it down around a half million dollars"
hmmmmmm
"Well, back to the old drawing board....."
Ohhh, and that was buying from the Communist Republic of China...... Guess I should run the numbers "Buy American" and get those gooder quality UNION grade panels eh??? At roughly 6 times the cost.....
hmmmmmmm
nahhhh, I'll stick to oil
Hold out for nukes.....let people SUFFER a liddle....maybe then people will wise up and LET US OFF THIS ROCK! We should be harvesting comets and mining the Oort Clouds by 2050
and THEN, when folks begin to realize that what we generally refer to as "power generation" is just RELEASE of energy..... maybe we can work towards actual energy generation. Until then we'll have to settle for ways of releasing already pent energy, whether we burn wood/coal/oil or break atomic bonds all's we've been doing is releasing energy and converting it or collecting for conversion to usable form.
Well, no, not without a paradigm shift. Current theory has the total amount of matter and energy a constant. If you count fusion as just "releasing already pent up energy," we're stuck with "just releasing it."
Best I an tell, Hydrogen is just about as good as oil. Storage and maybe delivery require a large investment in infrastructure. It would be a "why bother" alternative, except we now know why to bother.
BTW Al, you left off Jerry Pournelle in your list of authors. He's not as much fun as Niven, but sadly, probably more prophetic...
Last edited:
Boyd Allen
Active member
This is the outfit that made our panels, mounting system, and inverters. http://www.schueco.com/web/us#
I would not have done the project if our cost was $0.09/KWH. As I wrote earlier, when I took our total cost of electricity for a year and divided it by the KWH that we used, our average cost was $0.17, and even at that rate, I would not have invested if I had not had a connection and gotten a very good deal. You are right, it pays to run the numbers. My friends, who are in the business, always recommend that homeowners do all of the insulating, sealing, and retrofitting for more efficiency, and then, if the numbers justify it, add solar. I am always amazed that folks don't realize how much can be done by retrofitting and upgrading. Years ago my folks had their attic insulation increased and I think that it paid for itself in two years. That is a continuing return on investment of 50%, if the cost of power stayed the same. Of course it did not. Try to find a sound investment that even comes close.
I would not have done the project if our cost was $0.09/KWH. As I wrote earlier, when I took our total cost of electricity for a year and divided it by the KWH that we used, our average cost was $0.17, and even at that rate, I would not have invested if I had not had a connection and gotten a very good deal. You are right, it pays to run the numbers. My friends, who are in the business, always recommend that homeowners do all of the insulating, sealing, and retrofitting for more efficiency, and then, if the numbers justify it, add solar. I am always amazed that folks don't realize how much can be done by retrofitting and upgrading. Years ago my folks had their attic insulation increased and I think that it paid for itself in two years. That is a continuing return on investment of 50%, if the cost of power stayed the same. Of course it did not. Try to find a sound investment that even comes close.
Boy is that ever the truth Boyd! Retrofitting, upgrading, SEALING up the cracks... I did build this house well as far as insulation goes and then we went around and caulked it tight. We're into rainy winter here and the heatpump hasn't kicked on yet......It's November 5th. I'm heating with lights.
Charles, yes and no, agreed and actually I didn't.... forget that is.... the hard sci fi book I most give away is 'The Legacy of Heorot' by Niven, Barnes and Pournelle.... and I mentioned "his cronies" LOL. Jerry Pournelle co-authored at least 10 books with him, in fact 'The Mote In God's Eye' is the first of a truly exceptional series with Pournelle... But back to your real reason and your paradigm shift point. You're completely right. What we term as "energy" is really release of energy. Fission isn't really a different process than burning coal, which is really nothing more exotic than fast rust.
As far as hydrogen being as good as oil? I guess you've access to information I don't. I can't find the analogy. As far as I'm aware the margin between the cost of breaking out hydrogen VS it's potential yield is slim.
al
Charles, yes and no, agreed and actually I didn't.... forget that is.... the hard sci fi book I most give away is 'The Legacy of Heorot' by Niven, Barnes and Pournelle.... and I mentioned "his cronies" LOL. Jerry Pournelle co-authored at least 10 books with him, in fact 'The Mote In God's Eye' is the first of a truly exceptional series with Pournelle... But back to your real reason and your paradigm shift point. You're completely right. What we term as "energy" is really release of energy. Fission isn't really a different process than burning coal, which is really nothing more exotic than fast rust.
As far as hydrogen being as good as oil? I guess you've access to information I don't. I can't find the analogy. As far as I'm aware the margin between the cost of breaking out hydrogen VS it's potential yield is slim.
al
No, I don't -- you're right, about current manufacturing. I tend to gloss over small details some, probably because my working life centers around them.
In defense, my thinking is finding a cheap way to use hydrogen as a fuel is a minor matter, compared, say, to finding a cheap way to use uranium. If all else fails, there's always the solar wind.
M
mks
Guest
Absolutely. A very popular concept now is Passive House (or PassivHaus in German, www.passivehouse.com), which limits peak heating and cooling loads to 10 W/m^2 of floor area and peak total loads to 14 W/m^2. Whether these standards represent the break point where one stops trying to save energy by conservation and starts adding solar depends on the climate and local energy costs. But it is probably in the ballpark for a lot of locations.
Al, by my calculations (estimating floor area to be equal to roof area) your house is using over 4 times this standard. This is not meant to be critical of you or your house. In fact, you are probably doing better than average. Just that your most economical option may still be to add insulation, etc., rather than doing solar. We just increased attic insulation over part of our house to 24 inches and the cost was less than $1k. Not likely that $1k worth of PV would save the same amount of energy.
Another recommendation: Solar thermal panels for water heating are way more efficient than solar PV, so they are typically the best first option for adding solar.
I've got R-50 floors, R-38 walls and R-60 attic insulation. I'm BIG on insulation as a "green" solution. Regarding our rate of usage, you're right......around here we LIVE... I pour concrete for a living (among other things.) I've got 5 kids living at home, we wash a lot of clothes. All my piping is oversized, my showerheads are bored out, we irrigate acres of greenery, I've a large shop and classroom.... we do spend well above the average and I neglected to mention that. 2-4 loads of clothes/day, 6-8 showers/day, lots of electronics running.... I've four 200 amp panels and a 100amp panel, COULD pull enough power to slag the buss at the transformer.
My bad. I just pulled up an electric bill and grabbed a calculator.
Sooo, what you're (correctly) saying is that normal people COULD theoretically realize a return of nearly half their heating bill from covering their roof with collectors. And this IS SOMEWHAT TRUE, but it brings me to my next point. It still will not typically amortize out as "savings" for real. Especially not over time. I can name 15 people off the top of my head who've actually DONE IT. I bring you to homes where the roof is covered with black plastic piping, homes with enormous water reservoirs and homes where the roof is covered in silicon... And I can show you homes that have rotted roofs, homes filled with mold spores, homes with sagging ridgelines and homes so unattractive that the owners can't sell them. All problems with solar roofing. I can let you talk to disillusioned owners facing enormous bills for damage related directly to solar collectors, things like algal growth on the panels, buildup and rot under the panels, icing and heaving (it gets COLD under a solar panel!) I can let you talk to folks who've got upkeep nightmares like "how do I get out there to fix that?" and "I didn't know batteries would take so much attention" and "what do you do during a cold snap when something quits?" and ....... what I'm trying to illustrate is that the DOING is very different than the DREAMING.
And these problems mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg. Bottom line is that for solar to work, for solar to even HELP by offsetting costs, the home must be planned and built from the ground up. At enormous cost. And THEN you'll have a home with a dramatically shorter service life and dramatically higher maintenance costs than homes around it. I haven't mentioned leaves/needles. Bugs, damage from changed airflows and moisture damage beneath the panels, birds, warpage, leakage, wind damage, incidental damage (baseballs, sticks, ducks, kids etc) or the wiring issues..... The whole AC/DC conversion issue (Easy on paper, HARD in real life) and batteries, batteries, batteries..... ALWAYS the batteries....
and what if you want to entertain? WHAT IF you decide that this week we're gonna' splurge all over ourselves and take TWO showers a day? What about guests? When Bob and Mildred ask to park their RV over for the weekend... (Ohhh, I forgot, RV's BAD!!)
And what if (Lord forbid!) you work harder and get a POOL? Or a hot tub....Or to increase your comfort and standard of living to over and above the rest of the world BECAUSE YOU CAN??? Here's where we really party ways, the greenies and me. I find this to be a legitimate enterprise, this idea'r of MOVING UP.... I work hard to play hard, to live better...
I LIKE my magic walls.... and I like to be free to spend my money on "solar" or anything else AS I SEE FIT and to hope for a return.
LOL
al
Boyd Allen
Active member
Al,
Obviously, in you situation, a ground mount would be the way to go. As far as batteries go, PG&E is mine. Our meter keeps track of how much power we are putting back onto the grid, and how much we take. We pay for the difference. So far, we have come out about even. As far as inverters go, ours work fine, and keep track of how much power has been generated during the current day, and since they were put into service. The connection is through a breaker in my service panel. There is plenty of room for air circulation under the panels, and we don't have any trees positioned to cast shadows on the panels. I understand that some of the newer panels come with their own small inverter. The advantage to this is that with my setup, the output of an array will be no higher than the lowest performing panel, so if one panel is shaded, or has more bird crap, that reduces the performance of the array to that to its level. If each panel has its own inverter, it is my understanding that this would not be the case. Any time you by into technology, your equipment will become obsolete. Solar is no different, but waiting has costs too, and other advantages may not always be available. That is why we chose to invest, that and the lousy rate of return that leaving it parked would have given.
Obviously, in you situation, a ground mount would be the way to go. As far as batteries go, PG&E is mine. Our meter keeps track of how much power we are putting back onto the grid, and how much we take. We pay for the difference. So far, we have come out about even. As far as inverters go, ours work fine, and keep track of how much power has been generated during the current day, and since they were put into service. The connection is through a breaker in my service panel. There is plenty of room for air circulation under the panels, and we don't have any trees positioned to cast shadows on the panels. I understand that some of the newer panels come with their own small inverter. The advantage to this is that with my setup, the output of an array will be no higher than the lowest performing panel, so if one panel is shaded, or has more bird crap, that reduces the performance of the array to that to its level. If each panel has its own inverter, it is my understanding that this would not be the case. Any time you by into technology, your equipment will become obsolete. Solar is no different, but waiting has costs too, and other advantages may not always be available. That is why we chose to invest, that and the lousy rate of return that leaving it parked would have given.