Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 98

Thread: Backwards

  1. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Mann View Post
    The problem today is that there is no combination of renewable sources of energy now available that will even come close to replacing fossil fuels at a national level. The technology simply isn't ready yet. The inevitable outcome of the government effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is that we are going to have to accept a lower standard of living -- much, much lower.
    There's several tiers of Nuclear that aren't really pushed yet Art, MSRE's and LIFTR's are well into construction in many countries other than the UK and USA, by 2050 40% of Indias power will come from Molten Salt reactors (they have the worlds biggest Th 232 reserves) The simple facts are the bond in fossil fuels just doesn't give rise to a very efficient system As to the technology ONRL has had it fully functional since 1957 a fuel source that is more common and cheaper than basic lead and it pains me that as yet we as a society don't capitalise on it.

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Padilla View Post
    I have had solar panels on my roof for almost 2 years now. I was presented with the model of: no money down, pay a yearly 2.9% increasing rate (for 20 years) per kWh that my panels produce. I started at $0.24/kWh
    42.8 cents per kWh after 20 years

    cheers

    Dave
    You did what !

  3. #48
    It's going to be a problem for someone at some time. The sun is going to burn out too!. Going to take a while.Government encouraged extravagant use of oil for a long time through "oil depletion allowances" etc. In 1970s United Nations did a
    survey of oil and said we would run out in 200 years, don't have time to check it myself so I will take their word for it.I have enough to worry about ....like why did they stop telling kids to
    hide under their desks during nuclear attack?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Sheldrake View Post
    There's several tiers of Nuclear that aren't really pushed yet Art, MSRE's and LIFTR's are well into construction in many countries other than the UK and USA, by 2050 40% of Indias power will come from Molten Salt reactors (they have the worlds biggest Th 232 reserves) The simple facts are the bond in fossil fuels just doesn't give rise to a very efficient system As to the technology ONRL has had it fully functional since 1957 a fuel source that is more common and cheaper than basic lead and it pains me that as yet we as a society don't capitalise on it.

    cheers

    Dave
    I hope the government and society in general will permit the power companies to develop and use nuclear power. That is certainly not the case today.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Upland CA
    Posts
    5,548
    I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

    We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by Mel Fulks View Post
    It's going to be a problem for someone at some time. The sun is going to burn out too!. Going to take a while.Government encouraged extravagant use of oil for a long time through "oil depletion allowances" etc. In 1970s United Nations did a
    survey of oil and said we would run out in 200 years, don't have time to check it myself so I will take their word for it.I have enough to worry about ....like why did they stop telling kids to
    hide under their desks during nuclear attack?
    Not going to happen in your lifetime, so it's not your problem?

    Getting off the Food Chain required concerted effort.
    (Dying in a bed is better than dying on someone else's dinner table.)

    Extending our range, into cold and dark places gave us room to explore.
    (Needle and thread, fire, woven fabrics)

    Collecting, collating and distribution of hard-learned lessons made it easier for the next generation to carry on.
    (Spoken language, writing and libraries)

    Propulsion systems made travel for any number of reasons possible.
    (Boats, planes, trains and automobiles move us and stuff reliably.)

    Space travel revealed that there's nobody "next door".
    (The atmosphere as seen from space akin to a layer of paint on a golf ball.)

    At one point, we looked in front of us and thought, "Why not, it's just a matter of going there."

    You've said, "Why bother, I'll never get there myself."

    If you've got grandkids, you're just handing off the mess we made for them to clean up.
    Some legacy, Mel.

    PS - I'm an advocate for Nuclear Power, as demonstrated by the fluidized bed reactor in Idaho.
    There are also valuable approaches promulgated by touchy-feely groups like Seven Generations Ahead.

    Putting your head in the sand isn't leadership.
    Last edited by Jim Matthews; 05-23-2014 at 7:28 AM.

  7. #52
    Jim, that's a bit harsh and unrealistic. I doubt there's a lot Mel could do about energy, but probably many other things that he could affect today or in the near future, and his comment is more out of pragmatism than idealism.

    I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive. I would do the same thing as rick and shawn have done if the economic circumstances, rebates, and most importantly, the sunlight here was similar, but we really have no clue what any future energy solution might be. It may or may not include wind and solar. If it does not, then the subsidies spent on wind and solar will effectively have lowered the standard of living on average without any positive yield vs. something like nuclear or natural gas.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Oh
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Potter View Post
    I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

    We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.
    If it were that economical here, I'd go for it. However all the calculations I've done show a 13- 18 year payback with subsidies, and up to 46 years without. That is for a system that under ideal conditions would generate only 75% of our current consumption. Our consumption isn't all that high either... average around $200/month on the second most expensive power company(last I checked anyway) in Ohio.

    Total system cost for solar approaches half the cost of my property... 4+ acres, house, and shop included. Wind power may be somewhat less, but not much. Have even considered water power.

    As for subsidies, I have mixed feelings on that as well. Should you take advantage of them? Maybe, just remember, there ain't no free lunch. Every tax payer is helping you pay for your system, and it cost us waaaay more than your savings! If the national debt were not so high, maybe. Frankly I really can't afford to help you all that much!

    Probably too close to political. I'll quit while I am ahead.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick Potter View Post
    I can understand the differing points of view, but in my situation, location, with availability of rebates, etc., my payback is about 4.5 years. The rebates are available where I live. I should turn them down?? Without the rebates it would be maybe two years longer. The system is guaranteed for 20 years. My simple math skills tell me that if my 22K investment is paid back in less than 5 years, that gives me 15 years of service that will save me 66K, not counting any increases in power cost, and yes, my electric bill was that high..3-400 mo. over the last few years.

    We can discuss world views, but I guess I am looking at it from a selfish point of view.....it's nice that it saves fossil fuel, but my main reason I installed it was to save me money, which it is doing quite nicely. People in other locations and circumstances may not be able to benefit from solar. I am not trying to sell it to anyone, I was just reporting my experience with it.
    While I don't agree with the government's policies on subsidizing solar energy or electric cars, I would absolutely take advantage of those subsidizes if they made sense for me. On a different note, you may want to consider that it is State government policies that caused your electric bill to be possibly 4 times what mine is.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    6,824
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    Jim, that's a bit harsh and unrealistic.
    This kind of fatalist, "Even the Sun will burn out someday." is a cheap cop out from the responsibility to progeny
    that our forebears practiced. Our generation can't duck the check, and this kind of drivel makes for sad commentary
    on those lucky enough to have the World handed to them in remarkably good condition.

    We would never have gone to the Moon were this attitude prevalent, then.

    Can you imagine?
    "I dunno, it's so far and there's no WiFi... I would hate to miss Matlock."




    I remind you that I'm a recent convert to Nuclear power as the most logical and practical
    replacement heat source for making big wheels turn - in now way do I think Solar or Wind power
    can be scaled up sufficiently to supply the 4 billion people that want to flip the switch.
    Last edited by Jim Matthews; 05-23-2014 at 10:07 AM.

  11. #56
    Jim,I appreciate your confidence in me,but "if nominated I will not run;if elected I will not serve". Will continue to pay taxes.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive. I would do the same thing as rick and shawn have done if the economic circumstances, rebates, and most importantly, the sunlight here was similar, but we really have no clue what any future energy solution might be. It may or may not include wind and solar. If it does not, then the subsidies spent on wind and solar will effectively have lowered the standard of living on average without any positive yield vs. something like nuclear or natural gas.
    David, I think you have summed it up very accurately and succinctly. Unfortunately, it is politicians and ideologues who are driving the decision making instead of engineers and scientists.
    Last edited by Art Mann; 05-23-2014 at 10:15 AM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Saint Helens, OR
    Posts
    2,463
    Quote Originally Posted by David Weaver View Post
    I personally think the idea that we are going to just force our way into an expensive solution that is somehow better in the long term is a bit naive.
    David - I respect your pragmatism. It's a very dominant attribute in your writing. Kudos for thoughtful posts.

    Given our options, it seems obvious that there is no single source that can replace fossil fuels. Our current energy demands are met by coal, nuclear, hydro and oil, so the idea that we have a monolithic energy supply is false. We are adding solar, geothermal and wind to the supply chain. The established interests are less than enthusiastic about allowing these technologies onto the playing field.

    I do think at some point we will need our version of the Apollo program when it comes to creating a sustainable energy strategy. Will we have the courage, conviction and stamina to see it through, or will we fall prey to the vested interests who will no doubt tell us that the conversion is dangerous, unfair and not good for us?

    We are on a collision course, and while it may occur some time down the line, I would hope we would soon remember the forward thinking attitudes of those that delivered to us the advances of our society. They recognized the collective value of moving the ball even though the return on investment may take some time, perhaps not even to be realized in their lifetime.

    This is a matter to large to dismiss as not economically viable or unfair to the current producers. We need to find ways to make it economically viable, because the current cost is bending upwards and there is no end in sight. Eventually our current sources will be too expensive for most. Then what?
    Measure twice, cut three times, start over. Repeat as necessary.

  14. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Matthews View Post

    We would never have gone to the Moon were this attitude prevalent, then.
    That's really not accurate. It's more accurate to say that we went to the moon because we developed the means necessary to do it. We didn't develop a means, and then try to find one that satisfied what may get us back to the moon in the future and was easier on the environment or less dangerous or so on and so forth. If we would've tried to solve the problems in getting to the moon the same way we're subsidizing energy solutions that may be or may not be, we never would've gotten to the moon. We'd still be trying marginal solutions when the current means were there in front of us.

    The real innovation in solar or anything else won't come until they are forced to compete on an even basis, and that means foreign production combined with automation. Until then, natural gas and other means make a whole lot more sense when the issue of energy cost increasing the cost of everything else we do (including manufacturing, or due to costs, not manufacturing and purchasing from elsewhere). Playing ideologue has real costs, and most of the ideologues don't care as long as the real cost isn't something that affects them or at least something they perceive affects them.

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Peterson View Post
    David - I respect your pragmatism. It's a very dominant attribute in your writing. Kudos for thoughtful posts.

    Given our options, it seems obvious that there is no single source that can replace fossil fuels. Our current energy demands are met by coal, nuclear, hydro and oil, so the idea that we have a monolithic energy supply is false. We are adding solar, geothermal and wind to the supply chain. The established interests are less than enthusiastic about allowing these technologies onto the playing field.

    I do think at some point we will need our version of the Apollo program when it comes to creating a sustainable energy strategy. Will we have the courage, conviction and stamina to see it through, or will we fall prey to the vested interests who will no doubt tell us that the conversion is dangerous, unfair and not good for us?

    We are on a collision course, and while it may occur some time down the line, I would hope we would soon remember the forward thinking attitudes of those that delivered to us the advances of our society. They recognized the collective value of moving the ball even though the return on investment may take some time, perhaps not even to be realized in their lifetime.

    This is a matter to large to dismiss as not economically viable or unfair to the current producers. We need to find ways to make it economically viable, because the current cost is bending upwards and there is no end in sight. Eventually our current sources will be too expensive for most. Then what?
    I just don't think we have the stomach to do an apollo style (we need to get it done) because of the pull of political minorities and the ability to stop things in the courts, etc. And we don't have an "enemy" that we're competing with like we were when we were pushing to outdo the soviets as part of a gigantic overall attempt to show that "our way of life is better". We're listless now and more satisfied to win useless arguments (via courts, etc) than solve problems.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •