Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[DRS1]

I'd say you're a little out of touch.

"Sounds like you need to buy a Tesla so you could feel better, wake up with a smile, and learn the Tesla nod."

I have driven the Teslas twice now (P85 and a S85). I am seriously considering one or two for business use at my company. These are two of the finest vehicles I have driven ever. And I have owned or driven many vehicles over time. IF I get them, it will be because they add branding value to my company, they are amazing vehicles on their own merit, have a good actual total cost of ownership, will be able to do the job. If it works out, will be fun (not snotty) to wake up with a smile and hand out the Tesla nod.

We will see.

I think Musk is a modern day business leader we have not seen in a long time. I am suggesting at the level of Ford, Westinghouse, Rockefeller. They all executed massive change, and produced life societal change on a global scale. 100 years from now, let's hope history does not hammer Musk like the names above and others.

 

[DRS1]

Is The Tesla Model S Green? - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2013-05/does-tesla-model-s-electric-car-pollute-more-suv

To restate... I am a fan of the Tesla, Musk, and most advanced tech.

I understand that from a non crony free market perspective I have, choices that are affordable (not forced by crony capitalism and .gov which equals fascism) and not so affordable are the way to go. That over time social mood, and the availability of choice for non subsidized transportation is also ideal. If these choices help us be good stewards of the world we live in, all the better.

What I have taken issue in this post: ego driven decisions or vanity views about driving and being "green". I also have vast problems with FORCED decisions about the environment (or most busy body communist power hungry based rules). I experienced some of this attitude in this post. I will fight to the end these nuts who have placed themselves in power over me/us while the rat of us want to live our lives in liberty. And those people in here that I experience are fans of such tyranny will be challenged.

As you may have read this week, Musk has a initiative to provide solar power on a total free market basis. He announced it this week. Well, I support that. However, he has a adjacent .gov tyrannical hand helping prop up this initiative from several communist rule makers. Those in the EPA who Obama has tasked with raising our electric rates by triple. Through forcing destroying hydro dams (Grand Coulee damn and others are examples), forced shut down of 2/3 of coal power plants, forced shut down of nuc plants, and prevention of affordable hydro and nuc alternatives. So, Musk has some advantages forced in the market by communist overlords. With that said, he has promised not to take any subsidies for his new venture. And he promised to provide power at the same rates as we are paying today. Good for him.

I also seek that better choices are made available (and not stopped by .gov regulations joined up with crony big business together) for people to not be attached to a public grid at all. Let's help those who seek this goal.

 

[nwdiver]

I am NOT against clean energy, and not demanding perfection or 24/7 generation.. I am trying to be a realist, and to challenge the fake reality for those who do claim to be superior in their environmental views and activities.

Have you, or has anyone done a environmental impact study on the production and disposal of a solar or wind system for a house? The systems do contain much fossil fuel based materials (plastics and the like), metals like copper, other more rare materials that production causes toxic waste (generating panels materials and construction)... There is more to all this... Much of "clean energy" have pollution and waste material impact that has not been admitted to. BTW, I am ok with such issues... So long as smug nuts do not force this down our throats with false assumptions.

Well, you certainly SOUND like you're against renewables... You must remember that we're not comparing a solar panel to nothing... we're comparing it to burning fossil fuels. A VERY efficient coal plant burns ~0.9lbs/kWh and a combined cycle plant ~1000 cubic feet of natural gas. Solar panels carry a 25 year warranty and are more likely to STILL be operating after >60 years than not. Over a 20 year life a single 250w solar panel will have generated as much electricity as burning 7300 lbs of coal or 8 Million cubic feet of Natural Gas. The system in the photo I posted is 10kW and will generate >20000kWh annually. Over the next 20 years it will displace >360,000 lbs of coal.

The DOE calculated the energy payback for Silicon PV at ~4 years for average US solar insolation.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

The most "toxic" material in a solar panel is the plastic backing. There are some nasty chemicals used during manufacture like HF but manufacturers are getting better at keeping these contained.

So you don't like the industry standard of 20 year levelized cost? OK... 10 years @ $0.08/kWh... I pay $0.12/kWh.... or would pay. There is no maintenance. I don't even clean mine and they do fine. The ROI comes out to ~7% if there's no incentives... better than a savings account.

Go look at our solar PV thread... not a lot of unhappy PV owners... I actually haven't seen any.
Driving on Sunshine

 

[dsm363]

The Inhumanity of the World Petroleum Trade

Show me where Obama has 'forced' the shut down of 2/3 of coal plants? In the end it is the power companies who decide the cost of reaching pollution standards isn't worth it. Why someone would want a coal plan in their backyard is beyond me.

 

[DRS1]

NWDIVER.. Thanks for feedback. The quotes around Midwest I guessing do not have the efficiency as the numbers you quote. Which I am assuming is 90+ % sun in a day. We have several issues working against us. Clouds/rain, and more northern location. Supposedly we have about similar returns as The Danes. Which was around $.20KWH net.

I will check your links and see what calculations are for our area. The local union electrical shops that promote solar around here also say between $.15 and $.20KWH.

 

[DRS1]

Show me where Obama has 'forced' the shut down of 2/3 of coal plants? In the end it is the power companies who decide the cost of reaching pollution standards isn't worth it. Why someone would want a coal plan in their backyard is beyond me.

Indiana... We have 24 plants shutting down as a direct result of his "phone and a pen" illegal rulings.

Also, go look for the Audio... He has been saying this in record since 2007 or before. I have heard the audio and seen the video in context where he says this.

He also brags that we will have to "pay more for your energy" because "of the policies I will put in place to end global warming".

Oh, did you know yet YOUR BODY is under full regulations of "green houses gasses"? We all are currently "revokable exempt" from CO2 and methane emitting. The EPA states that the number one "polluter" or CO2 and methane are the bodies of people. So, clean up your own emissions... . Serious, it is only a meter of time before the natural gasses we produce from our bodies will be regulated. That is the way of the busy body, never get their fill of tyranny, communist. They will regulate your flesh, one way or the other.

 

[Johan]

Oh, did you know yet YOUR BODY is under full regulations of "green houses gasses"? We all are currently "revokable exempt" from CO2 and methane emitting. The EPA states that the number one "polluter" or CO2 and methane are the bodies of people. So, clean up your own emissions... . Serious, it is only a meter of time before the natural gasses we produce from our bodies will be regulated. That is the way of the busy body, never get their fill of tyranny, communist. They will regulate your flesh, one way or the other.

Please link to an official document or some such source that actually says this. I'm not saying you're a liar but it's such an interesting claim that it need to be backed by some other data than you claiming it is so. I think it would be very interesting if it was true and I would agree with you that yes it would be an example of over regulation by the government. If you can't point to an official document saying this though I'll call urban tale on that statement.

 

[dsm363]

It's the 'slippery slope' argument that is often used. We can't do anything because they'll do this or that.

 

[Nathan Smith]

Well, you certainly SOUND like you're against renewables... You must remember that we're not comparing a solar panel to nothing... we're comparing it to burning fossil fuels. A VERY efficient coal plant burns ~0.9lbs/kWh and a combined cycle plant ~1000 cubic feet of natural gas. Solar panels carry a 25 year warranty and are more likely to STILL be operating after >60 years than not. Over a 20 year life a single 250w solar panel will have generated as much electricity as burning 7300 lbs of coal or 8 Million cubic feet of Natural Gas. The system in the photo I posted is 10kW and will generate >20000kWh annually. Over the next 20 years it will displace >360,000 lbs of coal.

...

So you don't like the industry standard of 20 year levelized cost? OK... 10 years @ $0.08/kWh... I pay $0.12/kWh.... or would pay. There is no maintenance. I don't even clean mine and they do fine. The ROI comes out to ~7% if there's no incentives... better than a savings account.

I really wish it was anywhere near that good in my area... as I mentioned earlier, a SolarCity installation would net me 8K savings over 20 years (and that is with tax savings that I may not be able to get). They (ie: SolarCity) estimated that to be a 3% return after 20 years.

 

[tigerade]

EPA chiefs who served under Republicans press for climate action | TheHill

Four EPA chiefs who served under Republican presidents are pressing Republican politicians for climate action. Good luck and godspeed to them.. I have no idea how they plan on doing that.

 

[nwdiver]

I really wish it was anywhere near that good in my area... as I mentioned earlier, a SolarCity installation would net me 8K savings over 20 years (and that is with tax savings that I may not be able to get). They (ie: SolarCity) estimated that to be a 3% return after 20 years.

I don't hire PV installers; I sub-contract; Most PV installers mark-up equipment ~20% AND charge ~$100/hr. By sub-contracting, hire roofers to rack and electricians to wire, you can save >$1/w. It's not hard to design a PV system.

 

[Nathan Smith]

I don't hire PV installers; I sub-contract; Most PV installers mark-up equipment ~20% AND charge ~$100/hr. By sub-contracting, hire roofers to rack and electricians to wire, you can save >$1/w. It's not hard to design a PV system.

I have no doubt you are correct with your statements above -- and it's even possible I could do most (not quite all) the work myself. But even if the PV system cost me $0 - I would only make $19,200 in electric savings over 20 years (not counting possible tax breaks). Would a self install be that cheap? And even if it was, that's 20 years to break even... Again, assuming no tax break (not going into personnal situation that might make that tax credit mute in my case).

 

[bonnie]

Oh, did you know yet YOUR BODY is under full regulations of "green houses gasses"? We all are currently "revokable exempt" from CO2 and methane emitting. The EPA states that the number one "polluter" or CO2 and methane are the bodies of people. So, clean up your own emissions... . Serious, it is only a meter of time before the natural gasses we produce from our bodies will be regulated. That is the way of the busy body, never get their fill of tyranny, communist. They will regulate your flesh, one way or the other.

Certainly not accusing you of lying, but I would like to see that regulation, including the current exemption for the human body. Regulations are funny things, especially how the lay person interprets them.

Can you provide the CFR and Part number? I can drill down from there.

 

[Jeff Miller]

I have no doubt you are correct with your statements above -- and it's even possible I could do most (not quite all) the work myself. But even if the PV system cost me $0 - I would only make $19,200 in electric savings over 20 years (not counting possible tax breaks). Would a self install be that cheap? And even if it was, that's 20 years to break even... Again, assuming no tax break (not going into personnal situation that might make that tax credit mute in my case).

The real problem with solar in the north is that we just get a lot less sun. The southwest for example gets almost twice as much sun as the northeast:

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg

so solar investments are twice as good there, relative to the northeast. And that is not even counting this effect:

Bring on the Global Warming!

(One of the lunch conversations at a recent Tesla meet-up here in Chicago was whether it was worth risking breaking your neck to clean the snow off your rooftop solar panels in winter. The consensus seemed to be "no".)

 

[nwdiver]

I have no doubt you are correct with your statements above -- and it's even possible I could do most (not quite all) the work myself. But even if the PV system cost me $0 - I would only make $19,200 in electric savings over 20 years (not counting possible tax breaks). Would a self install be that cheap? And even if it was, that's 20 years to break even... Again, assuming no tax break (not going into personnal situation that might make that tax credit mute in my case).

Pennsylvania gets ~4hrs of solar insolation/day on average so 1w of solar would produce 29.2kWh over 20 years. Assuming you pay $0.12/kWh that's $3.50/w over 20 years. The median cost for PV equipment is ~$1.80/w. Assuming a 10kW array that's $35k of power produced over 20 years for an upfront cost of $18k ($12600 after FTC). Also, the cost of electricity is almost certain to rise over the next 20 years.

(One of the lunch conversations at a recent Tesla meet-up here in Chicago was whether it was worth risking breaking your neck to clean the snow off your rooftop solar panels in winter. The consensus seemed to be "no".)

Reversing power thru a solar panel turns it into a heater, if temps stay <40C this won't damage the panel; You only need to melt the bottom layer of snow and everything will simply slide off if your panels have a ~10 degree incline. Hopefully as this becomes more of an issue commercial devices that can do this will become available.

 

[DRS1]

Please link to an official document or some such source that actually says this. I'm not saying you're a liar but it's such an interesting claim that it need to be backed by some other data than you claiming it is so. I think it would be very interesting if it was true and I would agree with you that yes it would be an example of over regulation by the government. If you can't point to an official document saying this though I'll call urban tale on that statement.

Go to the EPA web site. Last time I did this, I searched for "biological greenhouse gas emitters". Went from there. Also, searched "organism emission of methane" or something like that. Digging deep you will find statements around "human production".

I also searched "human exemption" relating to greenhouse gases. Found the "humans are currently exempt from regulation".

There was a FAQ or actual questions asked about human production of CO2 and methane.

In the end, "AlL emitters of CO2" and methane are under the direct regulation of te EPA. This includes all animals and humans.

 

[DRS1]

Show me where Obama has 'forced' the shut down of 2/3 of coal plants? In the end it is the power companies who decide the cost of reaching pollution standards isn't worth it. Why someone would want a coal plan in their backyard is beyond me.

Here is a link that summarizes many of Obama's quotes about coal plants. Beside, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. Like global warming pundits who say no one credible can claim man made global warming does not exist", "no one credible doubts Obama commitment to end coal as available or affordable method of power". Your high school debate methods is not credible. He seeks nothing short of ending coal power..

Obama climate-change plan would close some AEP plants, CEO says - Worldnews.com

 

[nwdiver]

Here is a link that summarizes many of Obama's quotes about coal plants. Beside, it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. Like global warming pundits who say no one credible can claim man made global warming does not exist", "no one credible doubts Obama commitment to end coal as available or affordable method of power". Your high school debate methods is not credible. He seeks nothing short of ending coal power..

Obama climate-change plan would close some AEP plants, CEO says - Worldnews.com

We're killing Coal? GOOD!! Coal is a finite resource and we're going to need to use alternatives anyway... might as well start using Solar PV NOW and not take the risk of adding 3 TRILLION lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, the heavy metals, coal ash, and the hundreds of coal miners that are killed every year.

I'm not a fan of "busy work" if we can do something more efficiently then we should; it's called progress; Collecting the energy that falls free from the sky is significantly more effective and less risky than digging it out of the ground.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Related parallel discussion here if anyone’s interested…

The Inhumanity of the World Petroleum Trade - Post #71 | TMC

 

[bonnie]

Go to the EPA web site. Last time I did this, I searched for "biological greenhouse gas emitters". Went from there. Also, searched "organism emission of methane" or something like that. Digging deep you will find statements around "human production".

I also searched "human exemption" relating to greenhouse gases. Found the "humans are currently exempt from regulation".

There was a FAQ or actual questions asked about human production of CO2 and methane.

In the end, "AlL emitters of CO2" and methane are under the direct regulation of te EPA. This includes all animals and humans.

So you're saying what you found was some text saying that the regulations don't apply to people, not a regulation that included people with an exemption. FAQ is not regulation. Unless there is a CFR that states what you're saying, it's not regulation. Understandably confusing to many.