The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > IEA report advises governments to embrace renewables and nuclear > Comments

IEA report advises governments to embrace renewables and nuclear : Comments

By John Daly, published 16/11/2011

Things are that bad that nuclear is now the best option to beating climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Solar can supplement fossil fuel electricity production, home solar in particular, and thereby act to reduce emissions - solar into the grid by day, fossil consumption at night - and with fossil, and later possibly nuclear, geo, wind etc (time frame considerations) continuing to meet peak (mostly daylight) industry demand. No new transmission infrastructure, as most grid power is already in place. It could also be a win-win if the fossil energy producers would invest in solar manufacture, and thereby maintain their profits. Although there is a fossil fuel cost in solar manufacture, etc, once installed costs are minimal, 20 year life.

Whether PV is only 20% efficient or so is of little consequence, for this only determines the size of the solar array required to meet household etc needs. Reduced output in cloudy weather is simply compensated by extra production the rest of the time. IE, many hands make light work.

In time, office buildings and many industries can be solar supplemented and have ecofriendly air conditioning and climate control, and greenhouses can be established to be eco-positive as well as meeting fresh food demand more efficiently. We seem only to need the will, the technology and the determination.

Unnecessary school halls or home solar? Carbon tax and compensation, or home solar? Fracking, or home solar? Political publicity campaigns or home solar?

Solar may not be able to meet all needs, but it would reduce emissions and would enable everyone to know that they were contributing to a solution rather than being part of the problem. Reduced household electricity bills instead of carbon tax and handouts? Sounds good to me.

Talking of nuclear, what's happened to the idea of thorium reactors?
Posted by Saltpetre, Thursday, 17 November 2011 1:56:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia can't afford to have sufficient solar panels or grid feed subsidies for 23 million people. Look at the corruption in the O'Farrell government "Make the poor pay for continued power subsidies to the rich" scheme.

Haven't you people seen the global financial situation?

Even if we could violate the second law and get all our solar panels, the coal poisoning required for mfg and transport would be offloaded onto Chinese and Indians. I'm sure that's OK with you lot. But then there's KARMA!

You REALLY believe its ever gonna get better? Learn your PHYSICS!

The Second Law of THERMODYNAMICS IS in play,& DECAY is the order of this day. Because there are 7 billion "YOU's" all wanting to suck every last joule of energy out of the Earth so you can get your rocks off.

You are just going to have to sit back and enjoy the show (with GEOTHEMAL power).

OR get slammed ...@#$@#

And its not that far off./
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 18 November 2011 11:05:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

I take your point about the cost of solar, PV in particular. However, though it may not be feasible for all of our 23 million, let alone the 7 billion, if there was sufficient justification (ie proven AGW), and a consequential reasonable government commitment of funds to subsidise home solar and/or to guarantee a reasonable rate for grid input (ie at least equivalent to the take-out rate ($/Kwh), then a reasonable take-up would be feasible. If any subsidy was also subject to an assets test, so as to make installation almost free for those of modest means, and totally free for pensioners, a scheme could be so devised to make it worthwhile for many to go ahead. Every installation would be contributing to reducing emissions and reducing consumption of fossil fuels. Cost vs accumulated gains.

Pensioners and low income families would have reduced overheads accordingly, and could spend more on themselves; the well-off could also have the benefit of reduced overheads; and everyone could feel better about the future of the planet.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with reference to the second law of thermodynamics, but would make the following observations:
1.) If all the light falling on the Earth from the Sun could be harnessed, at any reasonable rate of efficiency, it is my understanding that this would be more than sufficient to cover the entire electricity requirements of all 7 billion, industry, commerce, etc, and more.
2.) Utilising every skerrick of the sun's energy available to us would do nothing to diminish the Sun's energy or hasten its ultimate demise.
3.) Baseload power is a limitation which is yet to be resolved - not that a way can't be found, eventually.

Geothermal: This is not available everywhere, so either its use would be limited or relevant transmission infrastructure would have to be provided. Cost vs gains.

If AGW is Not to be a threat, coal will continue to be burned for centuries. If AGW is a threat, extensive action will be essential. It's only money; maybe the world has to go into debt?
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 18 November 2011 10:39:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre,

"Utilising every skerrick of the sun's energy available to us would do nothing to diminish the Sun's energy or hasten its ultimate demise."

True. But if we use every skerrick of the sun's energy to generate electricity, that doesn't any leave for plants to photosynthesise with. Let's not be greedy; there's of plenty sunlight to go around.

"It's only money; maybe the world has to go into debt?"

To who?
Posted by The Acolyte Rizla, Saturday, 19 November 2011 12:30:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Saltpetre, AGW scientists, the IPCC, women intent on the ExtraEQUAL right to overbreed for power and sexualised Global Economists listened while the Thrmodynamator laid it all down. Peak Oil, Judgment Day, the history of things to come. It's not every day that you find out you're responsible for four billion deaths. They aren't taking it well.

The First Law: Energy conservation cannot predict that ice will melt at 20°C, or that water will freeze at -20°C, and it cannot predict that a gas will expand to fill all of the volume available to it.

Another law of nature, the 2LT, is required to predict the direction of spontaneous changes. By “spontaneous” we mean a process that occurs in nature in the direction towards equilibrium (death) and without outside intervention. For example, heat flow down a temperature gradient (LIFE)!) is a spontaneous process. It is possible to transfer heat from a cold body to a hotter one, but this requires “outside intervention” in the form of a heat pump, which uses mechanical energy to accomplish a process that is not “naturally spontaneous”. As soon as the expenditure of mechanical energy ceases the spontaneous process TAKES OVER and the cold body heats up at the expense of the hotter one.

The 2LT also refers to statistical order & says you cannot take a disordered body such as a heated Earth surface and turn it into a more ordered (economically viable) baseload power one. When oil, coal and nuclear BECOME 7 billion times OVER TAXED & too expensive (very soon) the mechanical & electrical energy pumping up the order stops and the disordered bodies become more ordered at the expense of human ECONOMIC sustainability. The thermal equilibrium reached in this case has historically been WAR and EPIDEMIC diseases.

http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511974854
Posted by KAEP, Sunday, 20 November 2011 7:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP,

You paint a fairly grim picture of our prospects, whether we tackle AGW or not, and whether it's real or not. That's a bit prophetic don't you think, I mean we're surely not beyond hope of redemption yet? I think you may be jumping the gun a bit, but let's try evaluating.

There are almost certainly too many of us, at 7 billion, let alone 8, and the natural order of things may be to go from order to increasing chaos (entropy) - and in our case it is principally the use of fossil fuels and nuclear energy which has allowed us to maintain and to increase order as far as we have - but at least we're aware there's a limit to our upward progression on the current basis, or at least some of us are aware.

I think there is good cause for many more of us to re-think. Question is, can we re-think far enough and fast enough.

Millions of years of photosynthesis consolidated into a treasure-trove of fossil fuels which we exploit mercilessly; age-old forests we decimate; atmosphere, waterways, oceans and soils which we taint, pollute, render toxic or exploit unsustainably, possibly irreversibly. And, all in the name of progress. We are an astonishing and incomprehensible critter. Talk about soiling and despoiling your own nest!

We have been busy increasing order in areas that interest us - construction, manufacture, facilities and services - while at the same time wreaking havoc on order in many parts of the Earth's natural systems, and ecosystems in particular. We are in fact environmental vandals - at least in the first world, and increasingly in the developing world.

My conclusion? I think you may be a lot closer to the mark than I originally thought, KAEP, and that the downhill run may well be upon us, and quite possibly already irreversible. Hope for greater sanity may be all that is left to us, plus the horse and cart, if we're lucky.

And Richard Branson is developing jaunts to space for a lark. Go figure.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 20 November 2011 10:29:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy