|
Post by twawki on Feb 18, 2009 11:19:28 GMT
There was recent discussion here and around the net about the effectiveness of modern technology in a cooler world.
For example - will solar panels be effective when they are covered by snow/frost etc or reduced solar output?
With wind turbines are they effective and/or dangerous in a cold climate?
There has been instances where ecofuel has solidified preventing vehicles to operate.
What about other alternate fuel sources?
Will the cold affect our means of communication or transportation ?
The cold will affect our food supply and if we cant eat the rest will be almost arbitrary.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Feb 18, 2009 15:51:18 GMT
I have great faith in humanity to transcend.
That said, many will eventually come to rue allowing their leaders to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to solve an imaginary problem -- when multiple, life-threatening problems of the real kind (hunger, principally) are all around.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 18, 2009 16:17:18 GMT
There was recent discussion here and around the net about the effectiveness of modern technology in a cooler world. For example - will solar panels be effective when they are covered by snow/frost etc or reduced solar output? Having some experience here...depends on how cold it is. If they're high enough off the ground it's no problem, the snow can just slide off (might take a little additional energy to melt the snow at the surface but still...should work. They are incredibly dangerous. Heck as many on this board (probably in other sections) can attest, even having antennas leads to dangerous falling ice. Those gigantic turbines though...they can build up enough and high enough speeds to destroy anything a thrown piece of ice hits. Oh and yeah, they'll probably be less reliable then too. If they stop and it freezes...they won't start up again properly. LOL, not a problem because in a colder world there would be no eco-fuel to burn. Yep, it will add quite a lot of costs to the highway budgets as well. Cold roads disintegrate faster. The asphalt, no longer pliable, will not re-adhere in microcracks. Water freezes in the cracks and widens them. Potholes develop faster and are harder to repair. Concrete doesn't have the problem as bad but is FAR more expensive to use and doesn't warm as fast, increasing problems from ice.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Feb 19, 2009 0:59:02 GMT
Some answers to this question will be coming from Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica. "First carbon-free polar station opens in Antarctica PRINCESS ELISABETH BASE, Antarctica, Feb. 17, 2009 (Reuters) — The world's first zero-emission polar research station opened in Antarctica on Sunday and was welcomed by scientists as proof that alternative energy is viable even in the coldest regions. Pioneers of Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica said if a station could rely on wind and solar power in Antarctica -- mostly a vast, icy emptiness -- it would undercut arguments by skeptics that green power is not reliable." Full story is here: www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre51e1s3-us-climate-antarctica/#
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 19, 2009 4:06:02 GMT
tobyglun writes "Some answers to this question will be coming from Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica." It is all a question of storing the energy, so you have it when you want it, and not when Mother Nature lets you have it. Yulari (Ayer's Rock) in Australia has had a system going for decades. Just about every square inch of roofing is covered with solar cells, and they have huge rooms with chargeable batteries. On an industrial scale, the only system which might work is pumped storage. Here, in Ontario, Canada, we have about 1000 megawatts of wind power, and dozens of hydro electric dams, lakes etc. We have not one kilowatthour of pumped storage. Go figure. You can use storage on a small scale. But we dont have the technology to use it on a large scale. Yet.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 19, 2009 11:40:32 GMT
Some answers to this question will be coming from Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica. "First carbon-free polar station opens in Antarctica PRINCESS ELISABETH BASE, Antarctica, Feb. 17, 2009 (Reuters) — The world's first zero-emission polar research station opened in Antarctica on Sunday and was welcomed by scientists as proof that alternative energy is viable even in the coldest regions. Pioneers of Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica said if a station could rely on wind and solar power in Antarctica -- mostly a vast, icy emptiness -- it would undercut arguments by skeptics that green power is not reliable." Full story is here: www.newsdaily.com/stories/tre51e1s3-us-climate-antarctica/#What is the cost then of zero emission viability?
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 19, 2009 11:42:32 GMT
There was recent discussion here and around the net about the effectiveness of modern technology in a cooler world. For example - will solar panels be effective when they are covered by snow/frost etc or reduced solar output? Having some experience here...depends on how cold it is. If they're high enough off the ground it's no problem, the snow can just slide off (might take a little additional energy to melt the snow at the surface but still...should work. They are incredibly dangerous. Heck as many on this board (probably in other sections) can attest, even having antennas leads to dangerous falling ice. Those gigantic turbines though...they can build up enough and high enough speeds to destroy anything a thrown piece of ice hits. Oh and yeah, they'll probably be less reliable then too. If they stop and it freezes...they won't start up again properly. LOL, not a problem because in a colder world there would be no eco-fuel to burn. Yep, it will add quite a lot of costs to the highway budgets as well. Cold roads disintegrate faster. The asphalt, no longer pliable, will not re-adhere in microcracks. Water freezes in the cracks and widens them. Potholes develop faster and are harder to repair. Concrete doesn't have the problem as bad but is FAR more expensive to use and doesn't warm as fast, increasing problems from ice. Fascinating stuff. I live in a warmer part of the world (Sydney) but have often thought if we even had a week of snowfall the city would stop - not a pretty thought for over 4 million people. And then I see the cost of clearing roads of snow in Canadian cities and think wow - a huge dent in the budget. Then theres the cost to the average person of extra heating, extra clothes etc
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 19, 2009 17:21:51 GMT
The big problem with all these 'green' approaches is that they cannot be scaled to apply to everyone. The elements used in PV cells and batteries are already in short supply. So we would leap from the frying pan of peak oil into the fire of peak lead, lithium etc.
The only viable long term high grade energy is nuclear power, ideally pebble bed thorium reactors. But the same people now demonizing CO2 grew up with parents who successfully demonized nuclear energy.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Feb 22, 2009 12:14:46 GMT
interesting comment on alternative energies here; talkingabouttheweather.com/quote; "Many of the next-generation photovoltaic cells themselves are cadmium-based, with cadmium presenting a wide variety of health problems (from bone loss to cancer). But apart from that, the cells are good for the environment, right? Not exactly. Nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, used in the production of some flat-screen TVs and, you guessed it, photovoltaic solar panels, is 17,000 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric levels are rising quickly. As regular readers here know, I do not accept the dogma about CO2’s risks to our planet’s health, given that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has always followed temperature. However, a gas that is 17,000 times more powerful than CO2 is not one that I would blithely introduce in mass quantities into the eco-system with a “wait-and-see” attitude. "
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 22, 2009 16:15:40 GMT
interesting comment on alternative energies here; talkingabouttheweather.com/quote; "Many of the next-generation photovoltaic cells themselves are cadmium-based, with cadmium presenting a wide variety of health problems (from bone loss to cancer). But apart from that, the cells are good for the environment, right? Not exactly. Nitrogen trifluoride, or NF3, used in the production of some flat-screen TVs and, you guessed it, photovoltaic solar panels, is 17,000 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric levels are rising quickly. As regular readers here know, I do not accept the dogma about CO2’s risks to our planet’s health, given that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has always followed temperature. However, a gas that is 17,000 times more powerful than CO2 is not one that I would blithely introduce in mass quantities into the eco-system with a “wait-and-see” attitude. " Well the greens are nothing if not consistent. All their 'new clean' technologies seem to be dirtier than the old ones they replace. - Compact Fluorescents are spreading mercury vapor around the world - and a hazmat approach is required if you break one. - Stopping the evil loggers from clearing brush and maintaining forests leads to massive wild-fires - Those clean windmills - explode bats - can you think of the greens allowing any 'old technology' to continue that led to nice fluffy flying mice exploding? www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593-wind-turbines-make-bat-lungs-explode.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 (And no-one has done any work to assess the impact of taking megawatts of wind energy from the atmosphere - a big butterfly effect!) - Battery driven cars are extremely inefficient not in themselves but due to their requirement to have energy fed to them from distant electricity generation stations. This would require a complete upgrade of power provision to urban areas - and the lossy transmission with step ups and downs and charging means that energy is wasted. - Batteries need rare metals like Lithium (already past its peak thanks to mobile phones) and lead and cadmium (as in the quote above). THERE IS NOT ENOUGH of these metals in the world to provide sufficient for just the USA to use all battery powered vehicles. www.energybulletin.net/node/48013 - The manufacture of PV cells (as stated in the quote above) So yes - one person can become smugly self sufficient using these technologies - but they are non-scalable. It would be impossible for even a small part of the world to move to these technologies. Especially the '3rd world' who cannot afford them. Unfortunately, the greens have managed to convince the same politicians that are panicked by Al Gore's film-making - that green technology is the way to go.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Feb 22, 2009 17:03:12 GMT
Well I thought I'd comment on a few of these.
Yeah, ironically each light has TRIVIAL amounts of mercury. From what I've read processing the tungsten from older bulbs actually causes just about the same release of heavy metals into the environment...just that we use far fewer CF's. Personally I don't think it's an issue. It either gets recycled or put in a landfill (which mostly keeps it out of the environment)
Yeah, and they're too dim to realize that clear cutting does essentially the same amount of damage that a fire does. The forestry service (in the US at least) actually sets little fires frequently when conditions are good to help cut down on those issues. It doesn't always work but it does cut down on the severity of fires.
Another little known fact...there are more trees in the US than there were when the Europeans originally got here. The US started the American Tree Farm System (look it up). You know those silly green projects where they plant a whole acre or maybe even a hundred acres of trees somewhere? The american tree farm system (which actually requires you have a viable forest) has 24million acres of forrest. We might as well treat paper trash as biofuel and incinerate it (technically we do...we currently produce more fuel from biomass than...I think any other "alternative" power source like wind or solar)
Yep, they kill bats and bids. If it cools off and they get covered with ice they can act like a giant, ice trebuchet and throw huge hunks of ice hundreds of meters away. They're so noisy and irritating (flashing shadows) they can't be anywhere near people and probably wouldn't be good for any wildlife nearby ESPECIALLY bats and birds.
I did read a study talking about the affects of using large scale wind...but of course it was based on computer models, big old grain of salt needed to take with those answers. Anyway it did show a decline in air movement toward the poles.
Actually...it turns out the power grid is a MORE efficient means of distribution than trucking/pumping the fuel around. Batteries and electric motors are pretty good efficiencies too.
Agreed...toxic and rare. On the bright side it appears we've actually got some good candidates for ultracapacitors now. Talk about efficient. They use readily available, non-toxic parts and essentially never wear out.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 23, 2009 6:45:54 GMT
There was recent discussion here and around the net about the effectiveness of modern technology in a cooler world. For example - will solar panels be effective when they are covered by snow/frost etc or reduced solar output? I can answer the solar panels question -- solar panels LOVE cold weather. The average temperature here yesterday was 52F and I produced 16.3KWH DC with a 2.8KW array. Come summer, that value will drop as higher temperatures reduces array voltage and thus total power, even with more sunlight. Remember that solar panels are always exposed to direct sunlight. They tend to be 20 or 30 degrees F warmer than the ambient air because of that.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 23, 2009 6:49:51 GMT
tobyglun writes "Some answers to this question will be coming from Belgium's Princess Elisabeth station in East Antarctica." It is all a question of storing the energy, so you have it when you want it, and not when Mother Nature lets you have it. Yulari (Ayer's Rock) in Australia has had a system going for decades. Just about every square inch of roofing is covered with solar cells, and they have huge rooms with chargeable batteries. On an industrial scale, the only system which might work is pumped storage. Here, in Ontario, Canada, we have about 1000 megawatts of wind power, and dozens of hydro electric dams, lakes etc. We have not one kilowatthour of pumped storage. Go figure. You can use storage on a small scale. But we dont have the technology to use it on a large scale. Yet. There are very large scale storage facilities out there. Just because you don't have it in Ontario doesn't mean no one else has it. It might well be that whoever manages the grid in Ontario doesn't think it's worth the cost. I keep 25KWH in store myself, and if it weren't for my stupid utility, I wouldn't bother with the money I spent to build the battery banks. There has to be a use for these things -- just because technology exists doesn't mean everyone has to get it.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Feb 23, 2009 6:57:01 GMT
Actually...it turns out the power grid is a MORE efficient means of distribution than trucking/pumping the fuel around. Batteries and electric motors are pretty good efficiencies too. And charging vehicles at night would actually make the grid MORE efficient by making the base load more consistent than it presently is. Right now there is a huge increase in demand starting around 5am that doesn't go away until 10pm or so. Charging vehicles between 10pm and 5am would allow the more efficient base load generators to run longer. Current Texas (ERCOT) output is about 26,000MW. By late tomorrow it could easily be close to twice that. When the firmware for my motorcycle was updated they added a time delay for the charger. If I wanted to it could shift my charging to overnight, but I don't much care as I make so much of my electricity anyway, I just use it whenever I want.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Feb 23, 2009 12:25:22 GMT
furrycatherder writes " It might well be that whoever manages the grid in Ontario doesn't think it's worth the cost. I keep 25KWH in store myself"
25KWH!!! This is a miniscule amount of electricity. The average load in Ontario is in excess of 10 gigawatts. This is about 250 gigawatthours per day. So your storage is an absolutley minislcue amount. I am trying to work out what fraction 25KWH is of 250GWH. Maybe I am wrong but it must be something like 1/10,000,000.
|
|