JayB,

Famines, Wars, Pandemics & disasters don't control the population at the moment. They actually have the opposite effect: they result in many women having lots of children so that they can be confident of having grandchildren. So the population ends up rising much faster than it otherwise would.

______________________________________________________________________________________

KAEP,

I'm still waiting for papers to prove your points. But meanwhile there's some more points for you to consider:

Climate change has very little to do with wastewater. I don't know what ITM means in this context, but your 99% figure is way off. You clearly don't understand how nature filters things.

Colloidals don't weaken CO2 absorption at all. Even oils don't weaken it much except in very high concentrations. And I can't think of a singe example of toxic chemicals reaching the sea in such high concentrations that they kill sea vegetation. Can you?

If you want to stop climate change the you have to stop net CO2 emissions. Which effectively means you have to leave most of the fossil fuel in the ground. Even if we could reduce the population, doing so would not be sufficient to solve the problem.

Hi Aidan,

When you suggest that " .... you have to leave most of the fossil fuel in the ground.. ....", do you mean that the means of producing renewable energy - wind towers, solar panels, etc. - should be produced and maintained, using only renewable energy - wind, solar, etc. ?

Currently, wind and solar energy generation is many times more expensive than fossil-fuel-based energy generation. To actually construct wind towers and solar panels using only renewable energy would increase their costs exponentially - isn't that so ?

So, for example, if wind power generation is five times as expensive as fossil-fuel generation, then by using only wind power in their construction and maintenance of wind towers would kick up their cost by twenty five times.

And if the machinery used in constructing wind towers (kilns, processing, etc.) were also produced using only wind power - a la Piero Sraffa - then wind-powered electricity would eventually cost 125 times as much as fossil-fuel-based electricity. Am I mistaken ?

Given that this isn't happening, that wind towers are very likely to be currently produced using fossil fuels, there is some fudging going on: i.e. energy IN is greater than energy eventually produced. Hence massive subsidies to renewables. Isn't that so ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

"do you mean that the means of producing renewable energy - wind towers, solar panels, etc. - should be produced and maintained, using only renewable energy?"
Nuclear would be suitable as well, though I'm skeptical of the economic case for it in Australia.

And just to make it clear: the tradition to renewable energy should involve increasing the proportion of our energy used from renewable sources, not hypothecating different sorts of energy for different purposes.

"Currently, wind and solar energy generation is many times more expensive than fossil-fuel-based energy generation.:
FALSE. The cost is similar, but the cost structure is very different.

"To actually construct wind towers and solar panels using only renewable energy would increase their costs exponentially - isn't that so ?"
No that is not so. The only thing that's anything like exponential is the fall in renewable energy costs over the last few years.

"So, for example, if wind power generation is five times as expensive as fossil-fuel generation, then by using only wind power in their construction and maintenance of wind towers would kick up their cost by twenty five times."
FALSE because other costs (such as the cost of labour) wouldn't rise that much. And anyway it's moot because wind power generation isn't that expensive.

"And if the machinery used in constructing wind towers (kilns, processing, etc.) were also produced using only wind power - a la Piero Sraffa - then wind-powered electricity would eventually cost 125 times as much as fossil-fuel-based electricity. Am I mistaken ?"
Yes you are mistaken. Firstly because you're mistaken about the energy cost, and secondly because the cost is dominated by non energy inputs.

It is worth noting that the cost of wind power varies according to windiness. When supply exceeds demand the cost drops to zero, unlike with fossil fuels where the cost of fuel sets a floor price. So when industry can take advantage of this, it can lead to lower input costs and hence lower prices.

[To be continued]

Loudmouth (continued)

"Given that this isn't happening, that wind towers are very likely to be currently produced using fossil fuels, there is some fudging going on: i.e. energy IN is greater than energy eventually produced. Hence massive subsidies to renewables. Isn't that so ?"
No, that isn't so. For a new wind turbine you can expect the energy in to be about 5% of the energy eventually produced (though that's an average; there is considerable variability both in lifespan and windiness).

In the 20th century it typically used more energy to make solar cells than they would produce, but the technology's long since moved on. Occasionally there are studies that show solar cells to still be a net energy sink at high latitudes, but invariably they fudge the figures by converting non energy inputs to energy equivalents. For example to convert money invested to energy, they use the average energy cost of making a profit, ignoring the fact that money is borrowed into existence long before any profit is made.

Hi Aidan,

So, are you suggesting that renewable energy technology doesn't need any more subsidies ? Except, of course as a sort of long-term, repayable investment ?

Thanks for clearing all that up.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,

Concessional loans are the best way to fund renewable energy infrastructure.