@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... But if you were to replace all coal, oil, nuclear plants with solar or wind or hydro, you will be faced with the following: 1/ none of these technologies is continuous (see for ex. the UK this winter with lack of wind);

If you include photovoltaics in "with solar", I have to disagree.
Sun is shining 24 hous per day - every day and unhidden by clouds - in an orbit...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 2/ the cost per power is prohibitive:

The diagram you quoted is based on a wrong calculation, that doesn't take all factors into account:

Neue Studie zeigt tatsächliche Kosten der Elektrizität in Europa

New research reveals the real costs of electricity in Europe

project EXTERNE

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... 3/ the productivity is too low to be a main energy production supply

Not sure what exactly you mean with "productivity"...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 4/ detrimental environmental costs and co-lateral damages are rarely assessed and often hidden (long term impact on fauna, removing of cultivable soil for wind or too much land-use for solar, etc);

Therefor my proposal to put an photovoltaics power station in an accordingly calculated orbit.
Additional advantages:
- The amount of heat we generate by "consuming" artificial energy could be "sun-shaded" by photovoltaics power station(s) in accordingly calculated orbit(s).
- Desert areas could be reforestated using the shadow(s) - casted by photovoltaics power station(s) in an accordingly calculated orbit(s) - to generate rain in those areas, which in turn would deliver
- Improved air quality

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: All in all, what we need is a new nuclear technology. And the sooner the better. ...

Please don't include me in your "we"!

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

To all.

When you talk about solar, wind, hydro etc. as a source of energy. Please don't forget about geothermal sources of energy.

PS. What about "energy efficient" computers ? I saw some PSU's like 500W-1000W... what about freezers at homes etc., and for example this kind of saving of energy:



And please, don't tell me it's overexposed :)

We waste so much energy... human race is completely out of ecological system of this planet. Earth is functioning for millions of years WITHOUT US and we are here like 10000 years, and soon we will dye from our own waste. We are definitely the intelligent specie!

More, more, more it's like in Matrix...

_________________
I change my mind. Now when I know AmigaOS4.1 is legal... :D. Thank you Hyperion!

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK ... Quote: That is true. Supposedly with newer manufacturing procedures and true white LEDs these will likely see a future. Probably more in businesses first then in homes. Incandescent bulbs will be banned in 2012-2013 in Europe, LED's price will certainly drop as we see it more and more in stores nowadays. Currently LED cost price is more at 5, equal at 10 and less at 12-15 years than CFC for a lifetime 3 times the one of CFC (50x to incandescent) and 90% energy economy (70% for CFC). I plan to switch most of my low voltage (25W) lamps (about 40) with LED at next time replacement.

While I fully agree with your replacement plans, I can't avoid a smile:
Didn't you write just a few postings ago that you were going to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can?
If that was meant serious, you'd better stay with the incandescent lamps...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Manufacture and delivery of solar cells or wind generations do, of course, cause their own pollution. My point is that it is difficult to find a ratio pollution per unit power produced of the said technologies over their entire lifespan. Sure it is interesting to be energy-independent even at the home level, but I find it strange to not find such basic study and information easily.

Maybe project EXTERNE has infos that could help you calculating the figures you need...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: IFR -- Interesting theory. I'd love to see if the actual product could match the plethora of advantages that are theorizied. It was more than a theory. It was studied at the Argonne National Laboratory and demonstrated at the Idaho National Laboratory with successful shut-downs against both Tchernobyl-like and Three Mile Island-like events. Even Hansen has pushed to restart study on IFR to his letter to Obama in 2008. It is unbelievable how stupid stopping IFR research was, a decision of Clinton and Congress under pressure by DoE green doctrinal anti-nuclear advocates (history here). It is a real shame that US has this ability to demolished its best ideas on great scale because of such dogmatic positions.

Hmmmmm - not sure if its really the same technique - in early 1982 I was involved in the engineering of the fast breeder in Kalkar (I did e.g. the static calculation of the walkable coverage of the sodium cooling ponds for heterodyned earthquake- and fire scenarios with 8 Hz and 900 degree C).
Later in the 80s the German government abandoned nuclear energy - just before Kalkar was put into operation...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Quote: Solar costs are high and this is much harder to make it pay off. But, as for land use why not use solar panels on top of roofs? It could augment the grid by providing power to the building. In addition more power generation areas increases security of the power supply grid. We do exactly that here because we don't want landscape to be used/destructed with solar panel fields. Solar energy is bought 5 times the nominal cost and the panel is entirely subsidized; it is capitalistically interesting and I planned to put 2x2.5 kW on roof next year. ...

Photovoltaics panels on the roof still produce up to 90 degrees C heat which they give off to the atmosphere and so contribute to GW...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

You charged political manipulation of climate science? According to this lawsuit. There was political manipulation of GW science reports.

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2009 at 04:06 PM.

@BigC

Quote:

BigC wrote: @Interesting ... The pseudo-scientists spewing the global warming noinsense have a political agenda of wanting to control f humanity,.

The pseudo-scientists spewing the anti global warming noinsense equally have a political agenda.

Quote:

BigC wrote: Those "scientists" are no different than the false priests scrying the future through examining the entrails of sacrificial animals.Those old priests of Baal or whatever manipulated the fearful,ignornant people into all manner of acts that hurt those very people,right up to insane sacrifices of their firstborn.Now the pseudo-scientists are up to the same tactics even to telling people to sacrifice their unborn children for the good of the planet.

Blahfaselyaddayadda...
If you don't agree with GW, just go and play russian roulette - this way you only put your own health on risk - and not the health of all other people!

Quote:

BigC wrote: It is a FRAUD! The main goal to take freedom of choice and personal wealth away from the geat er proportion of people so that the self-annointted may enjoy their perks.

Do you really believe that nonsense?
Do you really believe that the "geater proportion of people" on this planet have something like "personal wealth"?

Quote:

BigC wrote: Curbing the dumping of significant amounts of known poisons is one thing; but the two-faced bullsirt of limiting use of CFCs in developed countries while permitting their INCREASED production in other countries is just a disguise for transfer of wealth.

This "transfer of wealth" is called globalisation and has been invented and introduced by mercantile perverted minds...

Quote:

BigC wrote: Global warming has been detected on Mars ;you don't suppose the cyclical variations of the local star known as the SUN has anything to do with global temperatures?

In post #195 I wrote:

Last night there was an interesting documentation on German TV about periodic climate changes on our planet in the past.

It was shown that earth`s orbit changes between circular and elliptical and that this causes the natural climate changes.

IIRC, the reason for the orbit changes is intensity of the sunspot activity.
This would also explain the temperature changes on other planets of our solar system, which someone had mentioned here to support AGW.

If the orbit is more circular, the climate is warm - and if the orbit is more elliptical, the climate is cold.

Scientists have found out beyond doubt, that there is not just the 11 year cycle between minimum and maximum of sunspot activity, but also a cycle of several hundred years when there is no sunspot activity at all.

It was said that this caused the "little ice age" during mediaeval times and that we are just again approaching such an period of no sunspot activity.

It should be clear that if sun can affect the climate of this planet, it also can affect the climate of other planets in our solar system.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@kreciu

Quote:

kreciu wrote: Answer for this problem is simple. There was GW for about 40-50 years, now we have Global Cooling.

We should have global cooling now (see my previous posting) - but instead the globe is warming...

Quote:

kreciu wrote: Check the data about ice one poles and we have more and more in last 5 years etc. etc.

Sorry - but he sources I have access to all tell the contrary...

Quote:

kreciu wrote: Where are this tsunami?

What?

Quote:

kreciu wrote: ... how you want to build model of GW/GC when we have data from last... 50 years from like 10% of surface of Earth? ...

I don't want to build a model of GW/GC...

Last edited by Dandy on 01-May-2009 at 12:10 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @TMTisFree The world has gone Nutz.....Nutz......nutz ...

Nuts hats (Nuts has it)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Interesting

Quote:

Interesting wrote: @kreciu Quote: And now deep breath...someone have so filter this air. You might be under some misconceptions. All cars since 1975 sold in the USA have a catalytic converter. I can go into more detail but this link isdecent. ... See the fact is that the USA leads the world in cleaning in its regulation of exhaust.

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of "catalytic converters".
They do not remove all toxic, they just reduce the toxic in the exhaust.

As I'm professionally working in this field (Environmental and Safety Homologation at Ford of Europe), I can tell you that the exhaust of an vehicle with an 1.2 litre engine produces much less toxic exhaust per KM than a 5 or 7 litre engine does.

As near to no vehicles in the US come with 1.2 litre engines up to now (5-7 litres are by far more common), its fair to say that (compared with Europe) the USA has to catch up (just think of the current model range of "the big 3" carmakers in the US).

E.g. Ford is going to introduce more fuel efficiant models in 2010 to the US market - mostly developed in Europe (like the "Fiesta" - developed and built by us here in Cologne).

Quote:

Interesting wrote: " In Japan a similar set of regulations came into effect January 1, 2007, while the European Union has not yet enacted analogous regulations." ...

That is plainly wrong:

Euro 5 emissions standards for cars

Note the table quite at the end of the article: you will see that the first European emission standard (EURO II) came into effect back in 1996...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Interesting ... CO² is harmless to human. ...

Then try to breathe nothing else for - lets say - 5 minutes...


(Nice to have known you...)

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

Sorry - but he sources I have access to all tell the contrary...

thats easy to fix, expand your reading materials

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@Dandy

Quote:

You seem to have misunderstood the concept of "catalytic converters". They do not remove all toxic, they just reduce the toxic in the exhaust.

nah, I understand more than concepts.

Quote:

As I'm professionally working in this field (Environmental and Safety Homologation at Ford of Europe), I can tell you that the exhaust of an vehicle with an 1.2 litre engine produces much less toxic exhaust per KM than a 5 or 7 litre engine does.

thats a given. You forget to talk about the larger engines that cut off the cylinders at part load ie become smaller engines at part load.

Quote:

As near to no vehicles in the US come with 1.2 litre engines up to now (5-7 litres are by far more common), its fair to say that (compared with Europe) the USA has to catch up (just think of the current model range of "the big 3" carmakers in the US).

You are a bit mistaken in your view of the engine mix within the USA. We have had millions of 1.3 litre engines from Honda etc. Ford in the USA produced a 1.6 4 cyl in the 1980's wihin the Ford Escort models. I would also point out that Hybrids use like 1.2 litre engines.

I would guesstimate that the vast amount of engines sold within the USA have been in the 2.0 to 3.0 litre range not 5-7.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

Interesting article about the current deep solar minimum: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html
Quote:

Could the Sun play a greater role in recent climate change than has been believed? Climatologists had dismissed the idea and some solar scientists have been reticent about it because of its connections with those who those who deny climate change. But now the speculation has grown louder because of what is happening to our Sun. No living scientist has seen it behave this way. There are no sunspots. The disappearance of sunspots happens every few years, but this time it’s gone on far longer than anyone expected – and there is no sign of the Sun waking up. “This is the lowest we’ve ever seen. We thought we’d be out of it by now, but we’re not,” says Marc Hairston of the University of Texas. And it’s not just the sunspots that are causing concern. There is also the so-called solar wind – streams of particles the Sun pours out – that is at its weakest since records began. In addition, the Sun’s magnetic axis is tilted to an unusual degree. “This is the quietest Sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming.

@Interesting

Quote:

I would guesstimate that the vast amount of engines sold within the USA have been in the 2.0 to 3.0 litre range not 5-7.

#1 selling vehicle in the US for 28 years? Ford F150 4.6L+ in engine size. The small share were 4.0L 6 cyclinders. Though GM, I believe, sold more trucks in recent years but across more nameplates. Then fall the camry/accord/civic/corolla. Followed closely by the Dodge Ram, another large engine. Throw the SUVs in the mix -- Trailblazer, Explorer. Don't forget the big V8 in the Police and Emergency vehicles. Unless we did some hard numbers comparisions I think it's likely the 5-7L are still edging out the smaller engines.

@Tomas

Quote:

Interesting article about the current deep solar minimum

I find it interesting that it's the calmest in the last 100 years and yet we're warmer than 100 years ago. In fact we may well be continuing to warm. However, we'd have to get about a decade out to obviously look at how these few years impact the overall trend.

@Thread
A brief view is NASA's biggest acheivements Important global items here -- imaging the ozone layer, predicting weather, tracking sea temps, measuring ice sheets, measuring forest lines, measuring flow of energy into and out of our planet.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Interesting article about the current deep solar minimum I find it interesting that it's the calmest in the last 100 years and yet we're warmer than 100 years ago. In fact we may well be continuing to warm. However, we'd have to get about a decade out to obviously look at how these few years impact the overall trend.

You are completely wrong... The sun has actually been unusually active for decades! We ave actually been experiencing a so called grand solar maximum until this quiet spell started.
The sun would have to be inactive for years before we would see the temps drop noticeable.
This was also the case with previous grand minimums like what happened during the little ice age.
I think we will start noticing it for real sometime between 2012-2015.. It takes years for oceans and such to let go of all the stored heat. One year or two with unusual low/high activity will have little to no effects on climate.

Last edited by Tomas on 30-Apr-2009 at 12:10 PM.

@Tomas

Quote:

Tomas wrote: You are completely wrong... The sun has actually been unusually active for decades! We ave actually been experiencing a so called grand solar maximum until this quiet spell started. The sun would have to be inactive for years before we would see the temps drop noticeable. This was also the case with previous grand minimums like what happened during the little ice age. I think we will start noticing it for real sometime between 2012-2015.. It takes years for oceans and such to let go of all the stored heat. One year or two with unusual low/high activity will have little to no effects on climate.

Not sure how you see me wrong here. You refer to the 'this quiet spell'. I spoke about it too. Seems to me we are in agreement that recently the sun has been inactive. Yes?

Here is an article on 2+ years of present solar inactivity & another on the Sun dimmest in 100 years

@BrianK

Quote:

#1 selling vehicle in the US for 28 years? Ford F150 4.6L+ in engine size

I was trying to keep the topic on autos and avoid bringing “trucks” into the topic and engine mix. American’s love their trucks. If memory serves aprox 450,000 Ford trucks are made each year.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: Tomas wrote: You are completely wrong... The sun has actually been unusually active for decades! We ave actually been experiencing a so called grand solar maximum until this quiet spell started. The sun would have to be inactive for years before we would see the temps drop noticeable. This was also the case with previous grand minimums like what happened during the little ice age. I think we will start noticing it for real sometime between 2012-2015.. It takes years for oceans and such to let go of all the stored heat. One year or two with unusual low/high activity will have little to no effects on climate. Not sure how you see me wrong here. You refer to the 'this quiet spell'. I spoke about it too. Seems to me we are in agreement that recently the sun has been inactive. Yes? Here is an article on 2+ years of present solar inactivity & another on the Sun dimmest in 100 years

Quote:

I find it interesting that it's the calmest in the last 100 years and yet we're warmer than 100 years ago.

I was just disagreeing with this. My point was that temps does not cool over 3-4 years of low sun activity. But if it continues for another 10-20 years then i believe it might have a significant impact on our climate and temperatures. I think the reason wy we are still warmer than 100 years ago is simply because sun activity as been very high over the last 50 years or so. Now this has changed so i expect climate to slowly get cooler over the next decade if we do have another dalton or maunder like minimum.

I guess only time will tell... I certainly think these are interesting times as it looks like the co2/agw theory might finally be tested.

Last edited by Tomas on 30-Apr-2009 at 03:17 PM.

@all
I'm not going to pretend I've kept up with these threads, but would say that if overpopulation hasn't been properly discussed in this thread yet it needs to be addressed. Please watch this series of videos, they make the overpopulation problem very clear:

The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See (part 1 of 8):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

@HenryCase
I personally think that overpopulation is a much bigger threat than global warming. Same with deforesting, overfishing, toxic waste and such. The hysteria around global warming sadly takes the focus off the real environmental problems. Some of the bio fuel actually leads to even more deforesting of the rainforests.