|
Post by acidohm on Dec 6, 2014 16:33:01 GMT
Brilliant idea! I see newspapers getting thinner....
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Dec 6, 2014 23:47:57 GMT
Brilliant idea! I see newspapers getting thinner.... A positive for the environment.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 8, 2014 15:48:17 GMT
SHOCK FINDING ...renewables NOT renewable There is an incessant chorus from the green gospellers glorifying “renewable” energy and warning disbelievers that continued use of carbon fuels will damn the world to eternal fires of global warming. Their ire is focussed on carbon dioxide, one very minor but beneficial atmospheric gas which is accused of causing more of everything bad: pollution and extreme weather, droughts and floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, malaria and mosquitos, icebergs and glacier retreat, heat waves and blizzards, declining polar bears and multiplying cane toads. We are told that using “renewable” energy will prevent all these disasters and produce cheap “clean” electricity. Four points are relevant: First, carbon dioxide produced by burning coal, oil, gas, diesel, petrol or wood is not a pollutant in the atmosphere, not the key driver of global warming or climate change, but a boon to all plants (and thus all life). It is clean and green. There is thus no environmental or climate justification for punitive taxes on carbon dioxide, or for really silly stuff like emissions trading or carbon capture and burial. Second, wind and solar power have a role in remote or mobile applications and in domestic hot water generation, but are an unreliable and high cost addition to grid power. Because of their intermittent and unpredictable supply characteristics, the large areas of land required to collect significant energy, and their need for back-up generators or huge batteries, they can seldom compete in a fair market with coal, gas, nuclear or hydro power. Third, those who wish to use “renewable” energy or to become independent of the grid are free to do so, and this should continue. But green energy should not be molly-coddled with subsidies from taxpayers or other users, nor protected by extra taxes on carbon energy, taxpayer loans, mandated market shares or propped up prices. Finally, there is one killer point that has recently emerged. Google has long supported green energy and had a dream to power all of their energy-hungry computers and air-conditioned data centres with “renewables”. It was revealed recently by their own technical advisers that this dream is a delusion. The fatal flaw discovered is that wind/solar energy may not reduce life-time emissions of carbon dioxide and is unlikely to ever be cheaper than coal. The data collected shows that renewables will barely generate sufficient energy over the life of the facilities to recover the energy used to manufacture, construct and maintain those facilities. Most so called “renewable” energy relies on the sun, and is better referred to as “in-exhaustible”. But at any point on Earth, wind/solar is more accurately called “intermittent energy”. And to build plants to extract electricity from the sun using wind or solar collectors is a zero-sum game or worse – they may not produce enough energy to recoup the energy cost of replacing those facilities. Wind/solar energy thus fails its central justification – it is not renewable. pickeringpost.com/story/shock-finding/4219
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Dec 8, 2014 16:59:44 GMT
Koningstein and Fork aren't alone. Whenever somebody with a decent grasp of maths and physics looks into the idea of a fully renewables-powered civilised future for the human race with a reasonably open mind, they normally come to the conclusion that it simply isn't feasible. Merely generating the relatively small proportion of our energy that we consume today in the form of electricity is already an insuperably difficult task for renewables: generating huge amounts more on top to carry out the tasks we do today using fossil-fuelled heat isn't even vaguely plausible. Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms - and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race. In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive - which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably). This in turn means that everyone would become miserably poor and economic growth would cease (the more honest hardline greens admit this openly). That, however, means that such expensive luxuries as welfare states and pensioners, proper healthcare (watch out for that pandemic), reasonable public services, affordable manufactured goods and transport, decent personal hygiene, space programmes (watch out for the meteor!) etc etc would all have to go - none of those things are sustainable without economic growth. - www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/ - Did you see this part of the press release scpg02?? I generally prefer the attitude of smaller companies who may seem to be able to 'care' more, however google do impress me with their focus on the future and their desire to get an accurate assessment rather then one that shoehorns into their tunnel vision view.... Very damning news for the renewable sector!
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 8, 2014 17:38:03 GMT
It sounds nice, wish it could work...
The payback in any fuel saving on a Prius takes _ many years, actually it never comes. You will be in the dealership getting a new 3 or $4k battery installed (made with toxic materials) before you paid off the extra cost the first go round. By that point the value of the car might not be over $7k.
A Prius is significantly less green to manufacture than a standard car of similar size, with extra toxic metals and rare earths. And they cost more to boot. The extra money for purchase represents resources spent accumulating the purchase price. These are things I have read on it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 17, 2014 15:57:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 20, 2014 16:00:42 GMT
Scientists Discover How to Turn Toxic Trash Into Solar Panels Lead from old car batteries can be recycled to create renewable energy. By David Kirby Researchers at MIT have announced a novel technology to recycle lead from discarded car batteries and fashion it into long-lasting solar panels. That means that after your old car battery dies, it may one day find new life, creating enough clean, renewable energy to power 30 households while also helping to reduce lead pollution. Exposure to lead has been shown to cause cognitive and behavioral problems in children. Professors and graduate students at the university published their findings in the journal Energy and Environmental Science. They described how recent advances in solar technology allow for the use of a lead-based substance called perovskite to make solar cells. “Amazingly, because the perovskite photovoltaic material takes the form of a thin film just half a micrometer thick, the team’s analysis shows that the lead from a single car battery could produce enough solar panels to provide power for 30 households,” MIT said in a statement about the discovery. The lead-based cells are nearly as efficient as silicon-based cells used commercially today, the authors said, and recycled lead is just as effective as newly smelted lead. ~snip~ www.takepart.com/article/2014/08/19/scientists-turn-toxic-trash-solar-panels?cmpid=ait-fb
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 21, 2014 22:03:47 GMT
Unlike politics engineering if done incorrectly can bite you in the backside. This most likely when shortcuts are enforced by a mixture of politicians and beancounters. This is nowhere more apparent than in the subsidy farm makers called (laughingly) 'Wind Turbines'. It seems that the lifetime costs, maintenance and likely corrosion and fatigue issues were too expensive and complicated to put into the subsidy requests. So now at an increasing rate in UK these subsidy farm markers are taking up a horizontal posture often after casting their blades like a queen ant spreading them and various other turbine parts in a diameter that can be close to half a kilometer. As the number of these turbines increase the failure rate will grow and eventually the rate will be greater than the installation rate. So examples are starting to pile up in UK and people are learning to run for cover.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 28, 2014 17:54:54 GMT
Britain unprepared for severe blackouts, secret Government report reveals
Exclusive: Increased death rates, rising public disorder and high-risk criminals on the loose among the likely consequences of prolonged power cuts, official assessment shows By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor 8:10AM GMT 28 Dec 2014 Britain is unprepared for prolonged blackouts, with increased death rates, rising public disorder and high-risk criminals on the loose among the likely consequences if major energy networks are seriously damaged, a secret Government security assessment has found. The UK's contingency plans for severe power cuts are based on numerous flawed or untested assumptions and need to be revised, according to documents obtained by the Telegraph. The assessment, codenamed Exercise Hopkinson, examined what would happen if a severe storm knocked out crucial energy infrastructure in south west England, plunging two million homes into darkness for up to two weeks. Transport networks would be paralysed and emergency services would struggle to cope, fuel to run backup generators may be inaccessible and the dead may not be buried, it found. The assessment, which involved officials from all key departments and major industries, took place this summer following 12 months of preparation. ~snip~ www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11311725/Britain-unprepared-for-severe-blackouts-secret-Government-report-reveals.html
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 28, 2014 18:01:16 GMT
The UK's largest solar farm just switched online for the first timeby Michelle Kennedy Hogan, 12/23/14 The United Kingdom’s largest solar farm is now fully operational and working to power homes throughout the nation. The 46-megawatt solar farm in Landmead was connected to the national grid in Oxfordshire last Friday, and it can provide enough energy to power 14,000 homes. The land, which is currently used to graze sheep, will continue to be used for that purpose – and native wildflowers will be planted in an effort to “improve the site’s biodiversity.” The Landmead solar farm was launched despite opposition from the UK’s environment secretary, Liz Truss, who claimed that solar projects impede food production. The Department of Energy and Climate Change also noted that they would like to see the end of solar farms and instead see solar panels mounted on buildings and rooftops. To this end, the department decided to end subsidies to farmers who only place solar panels on their land. ~snip~ inhabitat.com/the-uks-largest-solar-farm-now-hooked-up-to-its-national-grid/
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 29, 2014 15:55:54 GMT
Wind farm company paid millions to do nothing... and now it wants to expand
A GREEN energy company has been paid £7.5million to switch off its turbines and stop producing electricity. Published: 00:01, Tue, December 23, 2014 By David Scott This year alone, Falck Renewables Wind Ltd received £2.8million not to generate power on 77 separate occasions. The firm was already under fire from politicians and campaigners yesterday as it emerged it wants to extend its Millennium development in the hills above Loch Ness. Since it started producing electricity in June 2009, Falck has received £7.5million in “constraint payments”, paid to energy companies to stop feeding power to the National Grid. The company has now asked the Scottish Government for permission to add a further 10 turbines, which would be more than 430ft tall to their blade tips, to the 26 it already has on the Aberchalder and Achlain estates at Glenmoriston. Highland Council’s head of planning and building standards, Ken McCorquodale, has recommended that council members do not object to the proposals. Falck says the existing wind farm generates 65MW of power – enough to supply about 36,000 homes – and the proposed extension would add another 35MW, enough for another 19,000 homes. It is understood a development on the scale of the Millennium wind farm would earn £85 per MW per hour when operating – and £121 when idle. ~snip~ www.express.co.uk/news/uk/548433/Wind-farm-company-paid-millions-nothing-wants-expand
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 30, 2014 19:56:05 GMT
Of course!.
As long as you understand that they are actually subsidy farms, and that the larger they are the greater the subsidies they receive, it all makes total sense. The only people that get confused are those that think that these subsidy farms have anything to do with electricity generation. Any electricity generated by a subsidy farm is just a saleable byproduct.
Look at these things from a beancounter's perspective. A guaranteed return of more than 3 times any other investment that is backed by the government. All organized by contractually incompetent politicians keen to be seen standing 'staring into the future' in front of new subsidy farms and willing to believe and quote the fallacious figures you have given them. Nothing in the contract such as escrow or liquidated damages if the figures are not met, nor any mention about removal expenses and making good the land. Money for jam at no risk. Keep salting away the subsidies in another company then as soon as the subsidies start drying up, declare bankruptcy of the local company and walk away with the money. Cannot fail. No other investment in the world comes close.
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Dec 30, 2014 20:18:50 GMT
Sounds great. lets do it
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Dec 30, 2014 22:39:25 GMT
Of course!. As long as you understand that they are actually subsidy farms, and that the larger they are the greater the subsidies they receive, it all makes total sense. The only people that get confused are those that think that these subsidy farms have anything to do with electricity generation. Any electricity generated by a subsidy farm is just a saleable byproduct. Look at these things from a beancounter's perspective. A guaranteed return of more than 3 times any other investment that is backed by the government. All organized by contractually incompetent politicians keen to be seen standing 'staring into the future' in front of new subsidy farms and willing to believe and quote the fallacious figures you have given them. Nothing in the contract such as escrow or liquidated damages if the figures are not met, nor any mention about removal expenses and making good the land. Money for jam at no risk. Keep salting away the subsidies in another company then as soon as the subsidies start drying up, declare bankruptcy of the local company and walk away with the money. Cannot fail. No other investment in the world comes close. But but but it's for the children.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 30, 2014 22:54:24 GMT
Of course!. As long as you understand that they are actually subsidy farms, and that the larger they are the greater the subsidies they receive, it all makes total sense. The only people that get confused are those that think that these subsidy farms have anything to do with electricity generation. Any electricity generated by a subsidy farm is just a saleable byproduct. Look at these things from a beancounter's perspective. A guaranteed return of more than 3 times any other investment that is backed by the government. All organized by contractually incompetent politicians keen to be seen standing 'staring into the future' in front of new subsidy farms and willing to believe and quote the fallacious figures you have given them. Nothing in the contract such as escrow or liquidated damages if the figures are not met, nor any mention about removal expenses and making good the land. Money for jam at no risk. Keep salting away the subsidies in another company then as soon as the subsidies start drying up, declare bankruptcy of the local company and walk away with the money. Cannot fail. No other investment in the world comes close. But but but it's for the children.You missed two letters out: "But but but it's for the IR children" As in the Father-in-law of the British Prime Minister (who is the Greenest prime minister ever!!) just happens to earn £1000 ($1,500) a day from having a subsidy farm on his land. So his children, aka the Prime Minister's wife will inherit a sizable sum - so yes - it is for the children, of the politicians, their relatives, friends, and supporters. The rest of you get back in your boxes.
|
|