Climate change - anthropogenic or not?

I applaud you desire/effort to do as little damage as possible, I have a couple of questions.

First, can you please explain how moving toward cleaner, more sustainable energy will adversely effect your grandchildren's future?

If is is a money issue, do you think we are paying the cost of our energy choices (not even including their potential environmental costs) at the pump/meter? Might some investment now in sustainable energy lead to cheaper energy/environmental costs going forward? PV solar has a pay off of 5-15 years depending on a number of variables. If the hardware is (and does in the real world) last 20+ years, wouldn't the last 5-15+ years lead to essentially "free energy", making the life time cost of the total energy cheaper that that of conventional grid power?

In retrospect, if our (metaphoric) parents and grandparents had made small (but significant) sacrifices over the 3 decades since the first "energy crisis/arab oil embargo" with the goal of increasing energy efficiency/sustainability so that the net result today would be essentially similar energy prices (on a per BTU basis) but with far greater efficiency and ergo fewer emissions, wouldn't we be in a better position today in a number of ways? Is it possible that we would have a more secure energy situation net/net? Is it possible that the need to spend trillions protecting dwindling oil supplies might not be needed? Is it possible that because of reductions in emissions due to alternatives that have and could have been developed during that period as well as the basic efficiency standards leading to small consumption, might have put us in a better place to combat any possible global warming issue (if it comes to past that even the most strident denier is proved wrong)? And if any one of the above proved to be true, and the resulting net/net was positive, what logical reason could one have to object?

The net result of making changes now have virtually all positive benefit. Cheaper energy net/net going forward (understanding that because of peak oil and CO2 all energy is going to get more expnesive regardless of what we do), along with lower emissions being a win/win. Being more efficient/cleaner might potentially slow the rate of cost increase, by bringing down the costs of alternatives, as well as delaying the effects of peak oil.

I hear the argument all too often, that moving forward with a rational energy/CO2 policy will "cripple the economy" or "tax me to death" etc and this has proved in nearly, if not all cases to be wrong. Nearly all environmental regs prove to be cheaper than predicted, and the benefits are greater than their cost.

One example for example is Fridge efficiency in California. ~20 years ago, CA mandated that if manufactures were going to sell in CA, their products had to meet minimum ef standand. There was great hue and cry about how no one would be able to afford to ever by a new fridge. The net result was just the opposite. The Average price per Cu Ft has come down, dramatically, and the total energy use has gone down, to a total of less than 1/2 on a per fridge basis, not even a Cu FT basis. A new fridge is bigger (better?), cheaper, and uses ~1/2 as much electricity. Clearly a win/win!
http://www.aceee.org/energy/applstnd.htm

Another example might be catalytic converters on cars, and the move to unleaded gas. I remember the hue and cry about "this will bankrupt the auto industry" (they were able to do that to themselves for other reasons however!) or "no one will ever be able to afford to by a new car" etc, etc, ect. What actually did happen? Cost was quickly absorbed into the manufacturing cost, leading to tiny increase in consumer cost. What also happened was a very demonstrable and dramatic effect on air quality, especially in urban areas. A significant side benefit was a decrease in lung diseases such as childhood asthma, COPD, and lead issues, once again, particularly in young children. Now these costs are (were) not readily quantifiable, especially since it is difficult to show a cost saving for a case of childhood asthma that DIDN'T happen. It was estimated by the EPA that the public health benefit of Cat converters 10-13 times their cost, or about $17 billion in 1985!
http://www.chemcases.com/converter/converter-22.htm

If subsidizing building insulation for example costs the taxpayer say $X, but there was a demonstrable $2Xpublic benefit over time why on earth wouldn't anyone support it? If subsidizing Pv installation cost $X, but yielded a $2X benefit why would one not support it?
How about mass transit? And on, and on.


So, as I said, I applaud you efforts, but I humbly suggest that you look carefully at your opinions about "betting your grandchildren's future". I would posit, that if the global warming deniers are wrong, their future would be in far greater risk. And in fact, the right choices made now that, far from crippling their future, it is quite likely that the opposite could happen on a number of fronts.

 

Yep. There is a TON of prime roof-tops just waiting to be used for something besides absorbing heat.

Just look at any Google map and look at how much flat roof space there is. If we could retrofit just a fraction of those roofs with PV, we'd go a long way towards reducing fossil fuel consumption especially on those hot days when everyone has the air condition blasting and electricity usage is at it's highest (when roof-top solar has two benefits - turning sunlight into energy and shading the roof from the sun reducing the solar heat gain of the building).

There have been some initiatives here in Southern California with the two major utilities here (SoCal Edison and SDGE) working on getting 250MW+ of rooftop solar installed each over the next couple years.

 

(For some reason I couldn't reply without copying your post,, sorry for the duplication).

The reality, is it is not just roof tops that are available for PV. Consider every utility pole, or every street light pole. Median/margin fencing on well oriented freeways. In short, the argument that we would have to "put enough panels to cover the state of CT" while it may be true on it's face (I don't know) but is grossly misleading.

With micro inverter (~200 watt enphase single panel inverters) coming into their own on a cost per watt basis, the possibilities are virtually endless.

Those who tend to Pooh-pooh Pv have no real understanding of what is involved and what it costs. Yesterday I answered (in depth) a question from a "infamous" denier asking about the basic economics of PV. He wasn't even aware of the simplest details of how Pv works. For example he was curious to know what the battery costs would be. I'm am not saying this to beat up on him, but to merely point out that what people don't know is legion.

So to those who say, "solar will never be viable" I suggest you look around and educate yourselves. Look at the myriad of sites where PV would have good or great solar exposure. Learn how the technology works, and perhaps most importantly, look seriously at the economics, even irrespective of global warming issues.

I am not meaning to imply that Pv solar will ever "replace" conventional grid power, but what I am suggesting is that a huge percentage of grid power could be RELIABLY produced with Pv (and wind) very easily and in a real sense, very economically. Every KWH generated by RE, is a KWH that doesn't have to use fossil fuel (or nuke)with it's often unpaid environmental cost. Right now, if memory serves, the KWH cost of unsubsidized grid tie PV is about twice the national average KWH price of conventional power. Now at first glance, one would suggest that would be the nail in the coffin, and in in some short sited ways it has been. Looking a bit closer at the reality reveals a different perspective. The "average" grid price of power includes a mix of very cheap subsidized hydro/nuke/coal that in many cases are not paying their real costs, but it also includes more expensive gas fired power as well. It also averages the price over the day. In parts of the country where time of day/peak demand metering is in place, the KWH costs (at peak pricing, which by happy coincidence meshes pretty well with when PV is most productive) can be 3-5 times the average. All of a sudden, Pv at 2 times seems cheap! Further factor in that Pv (mostly) pays it's own environmental costs and the equation becomes even easier to balance. Finally, going forward, even the most myopic observer (I think) would agree that the price of energy is going to go up. That said, a Pv installation done today, that costs twice the average as I suggested earlier (but perhaps less than half at peak production/demand) will only pay off faster, the higher and faster energy costs rise.

It really is a no brainer. The biggest fly in the ointment (IMHO) is the capital cost of doing small (homeowners) scale Pv. It is hard to find the $$ up front to install Pv on your house if you have to borrow money at market rate. That is why good, sane rational energy policy that includes good tax structure for investing in this process is a must for this country going forward. Once again, it becomes a win/win all the way around.

One final technical note. It is unfortunate, but PV production actually drops off quite significantly in warm to hot panel temps. Panel specs are based on panel temps ~ 25C and production drops off above that temp, and rises below that temp. For example, our Pv system can produce nearly double name plate rating early in the morning at -35C As the panels warm up, (even in cold weather they will absorb heat) production drops off similarly. For most crystalline silicon solar cells the reduction is about 0.50%/°C.

So hot roof tops, while available, and indeed useful, are not always the ideal location for PV. In fact, roof tops are ideal for Solar hot water for the inverse reason. They become more efficient as the roof temp rises. So in an ideal world, Solar hot water on the roof top (helping reducing a/c loads!) and Pv on the fence where it has lots of air behind to keep it cool(er).

 

I may have misread something but I am completely in favor of alternative, renewable energy. I didn't purchase the Prius just to save on gas. I'm looking into the possibility of wind power on some of my own land.
Hope that straightens things out.

 

Tony,

No worries as long as we can converse.

May I humbly suggest that you do A LOT of research before investing in small scale wind. (You might start here:Wind Power Generation - Solar Electric Power Discussion Forum by Northern Arizona Wind & Sun)

It has been my experience that almost no one is satisfied with their small scale wind projects. Most systems over promise and under deliver. A few things to keep in mind. Most places don't get nearly as much wind (on an annual basis) as most people "think" they do. A proper year long wind analysis is a good place to start. Next, places that seem to get a lot of wind are often subjected to very gusty, unpredictable winds (short burst). This is very hard for a small wind genny to navigate. Zero out put/full output/zero output, all in matter of seconds. A large (industrial) wind turbine gets around this in at least two ways. The first is that they are very tall relative to surrounding topography trees/building/hills etc so the variability of gusts is much less, and they have large rotating mass that stabilizes the average wind power. Next, most small scale wind can't get high enough above the ground to get into clean air, 50' is considered a bare minimum.

Finally, IMHO the biggest issue with small scale wind is the fact that you have comparatively small mechanical hardware bits, that are subjected to 24/7 live loads, as well as being subjected to lots of other environmental forces, such as snow, rain, ice, lightning etc. Consider the main bearings on a small genny. They are going potential 24/7 365. When they fail (not if) there is a potential for other damage, and because the genny is ~50' in the air, usually on a pole that is not climbable, routine maintenance is difficult and expensive to do.

It is generally considered that unless you have an average (24/7 365) wind speed of ~12 mph your chances of getting much useable power from small scale wind is negligible. The other side of that coin is that most small scale wind begins to shut down (to protect itself!) ~25 mph so there is a fairly small window.

Good luck

PS to RP,, no body cares!

 

I love that the alarmist are glossing over the monumental IPCC screw up about the Himalayan glacier melting.

 

You have already said this in this thread I believe, get over it and for FSM's sake move on.

I'm about to put $20,000 worth of solar panels on my roof, I'll use Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) to pay for some, so carbon trading will directly help me to reduce my carbon emissions, and I will get an interest free loan from the government, and the supplier will give me a substantial discount. I'll pay a deposit of about $2000, the loan is $10,000 over 4 years, the balance is covered as above. After 4 years I will own the PV array outright and my electricity will be mostly free. If I got no RECs and no supplier discount but an interest free loan for the whole amount I would take 8 years to pay off the loan before I got free power, if I used an interest bearing loan to buy the whole lot I would take about 15 years before I got free power.

My repayments will always be about the same as my power bill now or less than that as prices increase the cost of the electricity from the local power company, in these scenarios and the panels are guaranteed for 25 years. My costs once I go solar are fixed but power costs from the grid will only go up. If I reduce my consumption so I use less than I make on my roof the power company pay me for the power at peak rate, because I make the most power at peak demand times. I am still looking for the down side.

So you can see, environmentalist early adopters have paid the price of developing these systems and now even without subsidies they make financial sense. And all this because there is global warming caused by CO2 emissions from human activity and a will to do something about it even if it isn't convenient to make the effort to understand it.

Solar water heating makes even more financial sense!
I'm just waiting for my hot water heater to give up.

 

So as you are freely able to jump to conclusions and assume that Icarus is only motivated by money then I know you will excuse me for also doing the same to you.

You are a doctor so you say, I am going to assume you are a GP. You couldn't give a flying fig about your patients, you are motivated purely by greed and money. Your first consideration when deciding what drugs to prescribe have nothing to do with making the patient well but everything to do with kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies.
Your only thought throughout med school was how much money you could make and your golf handicap. How am I going? Can't be far off the mark can I? You could not consider even for a second that a person's concern for the environment could lead them to sell PV installations, no way, just like no doctor ever was motivated to enter the profession by a desire to serve their patients and community. The only reason a doctor would work with any passion is because it is easier to get the money from a living patient than from the relatives, and the opportunity to prescribe some overpriced meds with huge kickbacks.

I'll even assume you want to ignore climate change because you know people will get sick because of climate change so you will be able to make more money. Good for you!!


You know you would have to assume a person concerned about climate change and CO2 emissions would invest in a coal mining company if they had a few dollars to put away. Why wouldn't you invest in an industry that you think is morally bankrupt when you have high morals? I know, well I assume you invest in companies you hate just to make money.

 

Just like yours.

 

Because you folks have once again continued to besmirch my name, I will straighten some misinformation about me. You assume that I make my living doing/selling Pv/Solar Stuff.

(Let me preface this by saying that growing up off grid, on a remote site, we never had grid power. That experience, combined with the 1973 energy "crisis" let to a great interest in alternative energy)

Just to be clear. I have, in the past designed and built a number of off grid PV installations, including a couple for myself. This was never a major focal point (or financial point) of my career, although every home I built was built to very rigid energy standards, exceeding code minimums of the day, and most every home incorporated a number of active and passive solar systems.

I was by happenstance doing construction management far off grid, and in a desire to have 24/7 power available, without needing to run a generator I built my first small system. (copying a neighour's system in large part!) This after building a number of wind gennies, small battery based generator powered systems and just generally playing around with the idea of making off grid power "easier" on many levels over the years.

The result of this early endeavor, was an appreciation that for a relatively small amount of work, and a relatively small amount of money (more in those days on a per watt basis,,~1990 if memory serves) you could have 24/7 electric power available to power small luxuries, including reading lights, radio etc. Pv solar was clearly the winner between RE technologies for small scale installations.

Over the years I spent (and still spend) a fair amount of time learning about the technology. The result has been, We live with ~95% solar for our electrical needs on our off grid house. Our systems has grown, changed and has been improved over the years. We live fairly conventionally in this house. Hot and cold running water, 24/7 lights/ fridge, radio, satellite internet etc. (not TV) We use, on average ~.5-1kwh/day. Our system is designed to go 3 days without sun, without discharging the batteries more than ~30% (70% full). This allows for very long battery life.

In my project management work, I designed and installed a number small off grid Pv projects for remote sites.

I have also designed, built and installed a small number of flat plate solar water heating systems, both off grid and grid tie. I have built a number of wood fired water heater, hot tubs etc.

I spend the bulk of my career as a custom home designer/builder, and then as a remote site project manager. I am semi retired at present. I still do some small scale project management/construction consulting, mostly remote site. I continue my interest in nearly all forms of RE. This interest has coincided with rising awareness that the era of cheap energy is coming to an end (soon rather than later I suspect) for reasons of scarcity, as well as the environmental costs of fossil fuel. That coupled with some very real empirical evidence that the climate is changing, and that one very good way to address both issues is through increase use of RE.

I have devoted a significant part of my "retirement" to educating myself on the technology, and then sharing that knowledge with others in some useful way. I certainly don't claim to be any kind of "solar expert" by any means. I know (comparatively) little about how the electronics for example, but what I do know is what small scale Pv can, and more importantly cannot do.

What this process has also taught me in very real terms is the real cost benefit of conservation. When you are building off grid Pv, that comes at a cost ~4 times net/net of grid tie, every watt/hour counts. So to be able to save 500 wh/day is huge. It translates (roughly) to a $2500 Pv cost saving. So to install a fridge that uses 1kw/day that cost $500 say instead of fridge that uses .5 kw/day that cost $700 has a huge payoff. This follows through with almost any/every energy conservation strategy, from building insulation, heating ef, water conservation etc. As a society, especially with cheap energy, we are too often focused on first cost, rather than total life cycle costs.

Interestingly enough, this process has also taught me that loads inevitably grow with time. "I can have a light on?,, how about 2 lights?" Pretty soon you have gone from .1kw/day to 1 kwh/day. The difference is that off grid (or grid tie if you watch your meter) you have an appreciation as to where that power to burn that light comes from.

Another area that I have focused on (because of where we live and what we do) is small scale water delivery systems that are energy efficient and can withstand very cold temps. We draw water out of the lake, and because we are on solid rock, we can't bury water lines to keep them from freezing. The old alternative was to use energy intensive heat tapes to keep the water lines from freezing. I have designed and built a couple of small scale systems that have automatic drain back systems that can deliver water on demand to a tank no matter how cold, and then drain 100% back to avoid freezing. I have come up with a fairly elegant, few number of part systems, that require no energy aside from the pump. (and one solenoid valve while the pump is running)

So to make any sort of claim that my lively hood is dependent on promulgation of solar energy is patently absurd. No less absurd than the suggestion that MDs interest lies not with the best interests of their patients, but with the HMO/Insurance/Pharma interests.

I would say how ever, that I have never gotten a token from a solar hardware supplier, never so much as a baseball cap, coffee cup or pen, much less a golf outing. I suspect that same cannot be said for an MD and his office. I would guess the margins in the Solar industry are far smaller than that of "big medical".

So go ahead, take your best shot(s). I await the ridicule.

 

Accepted.

In terms of net/net compensation for MD (after malpractice/debt service/overhead) family docs/primary care MDs/ Gps are at the bottom end of the spectrum and are on balance under paid, IMHO.

An interesting anecdotal stat. (details may not be 100% accurate, but I believe the gist is) ~30 years ago ~50% of MDs went into family practice. Now less than 15% do. The reasons are obvious.

The question I have is why are cosmetic surgeons so highly paid (after expenses) when family/primary car Docs are so poorly (relatively) paid?

IMHO we are not going to BEGIN to solve the huge health care issues in this country until we do two things. First, we need to have an open, honest dialogue about end of life issues, and second, we need to get the profit out of health care insurance. Every dollar spent on profit/advertising/overhead for "for profit" insurance is a dollar that doesn't go toward patient care. The overhead alone, much of which is spend in an attempt to deny coverage is huge.

I digress, sorry for the jaunt off topic, if we want to carry on this debate, there are surely other forums.

Once again, apology accepted.

PS "Third, after slaving away in school for 4 years, a doctor is required to do a 3 to 5 year residency in which they make (wholly depends on where they are at) somewhere around $42,000 / year." There are those that might think (myself included) who think that ~$42k is a pretty good wage. I would argue that if we had a rational Health care/community service policy in this country we could eliminate (largely) the huge debt that docs are forced to take on. For example in Canada, higher ed is much cheaper per credit hour because of reasonable government subsidy. Additionally, med school is very much subsidized to the student if the graduate agrees to practice in some under served community for some length of time. To me this is a very rational plan. The student wins because s/he doesn't have amass a mountain of debt and the community at large wins because they can get docs for under served ares. The problem in this country as I see it is that everyone is far to concerned with the cost/profit rather than the benefit.

 

"The draw to family practice is the lifestyle" Or maybe, just maybe as in the case of several of my Family doc friends money, lifestyle isn't the issue and never has been. They chose family practice because it is medicine at it's core, and there is a human relationship with their patients that carries on for years, even decades! One of my very dearest, closest friends is my family doc. I met him as a patient, and that relationship has grow so that we attend weddings, funerals and such with each other's familys .

IMHO that is the "best" kind medicine.

I better stop.