-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Current rates of atmospheric CO2 increase are not “natural”
- Thread starter Vostok
- Start date
Lemmings...... Since EVERY SINGLE AL Gore prediction has been wrong. I find it disheartening that those that should have a critical thinking mind, have chosen to be a cross between a parrot and a lemming. By all means increase taxes on carbon, so that ALL our manufacturing will flee the country and go to China where there is NO EPA. The 'carbon pollution' will still happen but at twice or more the current rate of the USA. It's simple math folks, if you can't understand that, then its pretty obvious that emotions drive your every thought, which leads to terrible decisions. This is my last attempt to bring sanity to the discussion.
Al Gore, and most climate-knowledgable scientists since, have been certainly wrong, but not in the way denialists and trolls insist. Indeed they have been over-cautious, as we are only now beginning to find out as the models become more sophisticated and take more feedback mechanisms into account.
There does come a point where the scientifically literate have to decide whether to de-platform denialists or to engage with them in order to present the rational side of the debate. (viz. Brian Cox vs. Malcolm Roberts on Q&A or wherever it was) But this is a communication problem rather than a scientific one. Reality doesn't care about human silliness.
There does come a point where the scientifically literate have to decide whether to de-platform denialists or to engage with them in order to present the rational side of the debate. (viz. Brian Cox vs. Malcolm Roberts on Q&A or wherever it was) But this is a communication problem rather than a scientific one. Reality doesn't care about human silliness.
WhiteStar
Member
One of the fundamental issues is the low relative proportion of the population that are scientifically literate. An education revolution is urgently needed but even substantive discussion on mere curriculum becomes mired in partisan politics.
Indifference to academic principles and complete ignorance of the peer review process is ubiquitous. Until science becomes dominant over partisan opinion, we as a nation will slip further behind. The most crucial considerations of national interest & yet it's obvious that the current regime goes way beyond the sovereign risk that would apply if the consideration was simply whether to fund clean coal power generation.
The funny part is, many aspects of life are now cheaper if you are more considerate to the environment. For example, I can buy power from the grid, or I can invest 2 years of that payment in solar panels and then enjoy free power for the next 2-3 decades. If I’m in the market for a luxury car, I could buy an audi or merc or bmw, or I could buy a tesla and enjoy charging it with some solar panels and never buying fossil fuel again. If I’m renting an office, for the same money I can choose a sterile space that needs aircon chugging all day costing me a fortune, or I can choose a more considered space that has less need for aircon, maybe even some fresh air, and it costs me no more for the lease. There are loads more examples.
So to the deniers, you can keep denying, but it makes no sense to be paying more in life for no particular reason. Surely even ALLZAP can work the maths out on that one......but shhhhhh dont tell them they are helping the environment.
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
Most are already aware of this so let's not forget what Mother Earth and its creatures are up against,
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report
Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report
Dborn
Confirmed
I trust you folks have looked at the financial modelling of federal labor’s “climate “ policy?
If that is the kind of Australia you guys want to “live” in, good luck to you. By all means, lets go the whole hog and let’s cut emissions by 100%. We may then, be lucky enough to find a suitable cave to live in all the while hunter/gathering food. That is, if we survive the wars that will be caused by this. (Mind you, the wars could be beneficial, see below).
Let’s be real here, the amount of emissions produced making lion batteries, aluminium, the Tesla vehicle itself with all its myriad electronic components, “vegan” leather, etc, etc, probably negates most of the so called “green” aspects of the vehicle. Sure, if we all use exclusively solar power to charge, we avoid the fossil fuels component (coal and oil), but, in practice, how many people can afford that many panels or indeed have the space to install the required quantity to go off the grid? Then there are the emissions involved in the production of the panels, wind turbine blades and components, batteries to back the whole lot up, and the equation don’t suddenly appear all that rosy after all.
So, in practice, for reductions to genuinely be effective, it’s back to the Stone Age! Probably a bit of a simplification,and I can already hear the cry that the panels will last 25years etc. (mind you, not the case with wind turbines- heaps of polluting maintenance required there.) Prices for panels and batteries are coming down, but there is going to be an end point. Profit still has to be made by the manufacturers after all.
The worlds population is exploding, which is probably the main reason for anthropomorphic climate change, if you accept the apparent science. Accordingly, fixing the source of the problem would make a lot more sense, hmmmm? Fewer people, fewer emissions. Can you see that happening? I can’t. The Chinese tried it, and look where that program is now.
If that is the kind of Australia you guys want to “live” in, good luck to you. By all means, lets go the whole hog and let’s cut emissions by 100%. We may then, be lucky enough to find a suitable cave to live in all the while hunter/gathering food. That is, if we survive the wars that will be caused by this. (Mind you, the wars could be beneficial, see below).
Let’s be real here, the amount of emissions produced making lion batteries, aluminium, the Tesla vehicle itself with all its myriad electronic components, “vegan” leather, etc, etc, probably negates most of the so called “green” aspects of the vehicle. Sure, if we all use exclusively solar power to charge, we avoid the fossil fuels component (coal and oil), but, in practice, how many people can afford that many panels or indeed have the space to install the required quantity to go off the grid? Then there are the emissions involved in the production of the panels, wind turbine blades and components, batteries to back the whole lot up, and the equation don’t suddenly appear all that rosy after all.
So, in practice, for reductions to genuinely be effective, it’s back to the Stone Age! Probably a bit of a simplification,and I can already hear the cry that the panels will last 25years etc. (mind you, not the case with wind turbines- heaps of polluting maintenance required there.) Prices for panels and batteries are coming down, but there is going to be an end point. Profit still has to be made by the manufacturers after all.
The worlds population is exploding, which is probably the main reason for anthropomorphic climate change, if you accept the apparent science. Accordingly, fixing the source of the problem would make a lot more sense, hmmmm? Fewer people, fewer emissions. Can you see that happening? I can’t. The Chinese tried it, and look where that program is now.
Last edited:
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
@Dborn can you provide a link to the financial modelling of Labor's climate policy? Specifically the one you have read so we are all on the same page.
Last edited:
Without getting involved in politics because this is a car forum......
With the cars, yes you are right there is a lot of embodied energy in a tesla car, but I suggest no more than any other car. Making an fossil feul engine and a gearbox are incredibly energy hungry, so lets assume that equates to the battery. Then there is the energy extracting, refining, and trandporting fuel....for the life of the vehicle. It’s a shocker. So if a tesla is no worse with embodied energy, but produces less emmisions, then its a gain for the environment.
As for solar panels, the embodied energy payback is now recognised as under two years. The payback for my 30kw of panels is also just under 2 years, so in 6 months time I can safely assume I’m making something like 50 Mwh every year of power free to the environment and free to my wallet. But to fit 30kw (its more than I need as batteries are still cost prohibitive) houses need to be designed to maximise solar efficiency, which means monopitch roof facing north. All of it, and no more unshaded windows. I struggle to understand why roofs facing 4 directions are still going up, and why exposed glass is still permitted. Time for yet another regulation....
The one thing I agree with you on is that humanity cannot stop carbon emmisions. Anyone that thinks we can is definately not only dreaming but obstructing change. There is absolutely no excuse however for everyone not to participate in whatever way they can in reducing their carbon footprint though.
Dborn
Confirmed
I envy you your solar production size. 6kwh was all I could fit on my property using 300watt panels. I need at least 3 times that.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Well there isn't an unlimited supply of oil and coal, so what are you suggesting?
Just wait until later to find an alternative source of energy? How late do you suggest we wait?
As for emissions involved in production, it's actually less than you might think. Isn't that great news!?
Wind pays back in 5 to 8 months:
Inderscience Publishers - linking academia, business and industry through research
Rooftop solar pays back in 2.5 to 3 years:
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Payback_Time_and_CO2_Emissions_of_PV_Systems
Dborn
Confirmed
I am not an expert and cannot reply to the questions posed. However, historically, as one resource dries up another develops. Solar/electric panels developed not as a mad scramble but have evolved from early observations as an example. They were developed for the space race. As they say, when.needs must, the devil drives. Wind was developed for sailors.
Thinking back to how much my renewables installation cost me, my personal guess would be around a 10 year payback time. With a new installation now, the shorter periods you quote may be correct. A Power wall 2 is still around $12000 installed for 12kw, and that is going to take a long time to pay back. I guess the calculations you quote depend on which specific equipment you install. There were batteries even dearer than what I installed for the same or similar capacity. A Savonius wind turbine for domestic use is ugly, very costly, I forget now, but around $15000-I did look into it. No idea why they cost so much, but they do. After all, just a few bearings, a generator which is a reversed electric motor, and shaped metallic blades. ( not including a wind inverter which would be an addition since solar inverters are not suitable.) My driver was power prices and to try and insulate myself from them. So far only partially successful. It has to be said that at this point in time it is still not economic to install battery backed solar domestically and only would be if backed by government subsidy which means increased taxation since the only place governments get money is from taxes. Give the government, any government, more money? No thanks!
Over the past week, my system covered 50% of my usage and over the past year, 44%. The Tesla app calculates this for you. HOWEVER, being smart, if the forecast is for rain, then the battery charges to 100% on off peak grid power, which is fed to the house in shoulder and peak periods, and further, if the battery is nearly discharged towards the end of shoulder, just before peak, it starts charging madly at the lower electricity rate so that you use cheaper power during the peak period (load shifting). So, the “self supply” percentages I just quoted off my system are NOT all solar based savings. In fact, the solar componen was 23% for the year and 30% for the past week. Been a lot of cloudy rainy days in Sydney this month! By the way I monitor my system very frequently to see what it is doing. Most mornings, even with a good forecast, the unit has charged up at least a third for the early morning shoulder. So, much of my “self supply” has, in fact come from the grid. Unless you have a system like paulp’s, you need a reliable grid and said grid is going to cost. The most cost efficient grid in this country remains coal based at this time. Not a political statement, simply fact.
Last edited:
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
True, batteries still aren’t really worth it. Solar is getting so cheap it’s definitely worth it.
As for subsidies, the Australian government gives around 3.5 billion per year in subsidies to coal and gas.
http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2014/11/G20-Fossil-Fuel-Bailout-Full.pdf
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
"Batteries aren't really worth it" I generally agree with that although I would reword to say batteries aren't worth it financially for an estimated 90% of the population, for 5% it's borderline and for the remaining 5% it's a poor financial decision not having a battery. Small business that instantly lose trade or have perishable goods destroyed on a regular basis due to power cuts that last less than 2 hours could recoup the cost of a battery very quickly,
Now put aside the 90% that would be better advised not purchasing a battery at early 2019 costs and consider the 5% that should, 5% is approximately 450,000 homes let alone counting the small business possibilities, if less than half of those 450,000 homes could see the light and install a battery system over the next 18 months it would certainly get the market moving.
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Generally agree, although i don’t think the extrapolation makes sense, simply because the 5% is a very rough estimate.
It could just as easily be 1% or 10% or 0.5%.
But then I’m happy for people to buy batteries that don’t make financial sense, because it makes batteries cheaper as the scale climbs. Good way to take one for the team!
You will gain more financially putting more solar panels on the south side of your roof than you will from batteries. South panels lose 15% (depends on lots of factors so don’t hit me on the precision), so instead of a 2 year payback it becomes 2.3 year payback....once again one size doesnt fit all....ymmv etc..
Shock-On-T
⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️⚡️
Yep, solar is basically a no-brainer at this point.
Even if you finance the cost of the system the return is double digits.
eg. for a bog-standard 5kW system, it's about $5000 installed, produces about 15kWh/day average through year, returns (or saves) at least 10c/kWh, probably more if you are offsetting your peak usage during daylight.
So that's 15 x 365 x 0.10 = $547.50/yr from a $5000 investment, which is 11% return.
Please let me invest all my money at that rate!
Blue heaven
Fair Dinkum Tesla
A no brainier for sure, here's a West Australian slant on it;
The upside,
WA has possibly the lowest installed solar cost, 6.6kw of panels running through a 5kw inverter is being offered by a number of installers for $3200, those systems will produce a year round average of 23kwh per day.
The downside,
Perth region FIT is now only 7 cents per kwh with a maximum inverter size of 5kw, Synergy will happily take the power but not pay for it, hence installing an 7-10kw system is only useful for big electricity consumers.
Despite the poor FIT solar installs are still progressing at a cracking pace, and despite repeated warnings over the past 5 years or so the coal power stations are now under pressure- https://thewest.com.au/business/ren...o-bring-down-perths-power-grid-ng-b881140226z
The fact is there's also no shortage of wind potential in the evenings and plenty of cheap gas to take up the slack, coal is a soon to be dead in WA. Methinks the state government are hoping solar will get the blame when unemployment hits the WA coal sector, good luck with that.
I save 32c per kwh during daylight hours, and because I also get a 16c FIT, I effectively buy back at night for 16c as I do a massive daily export. this saves me 16c at night, bit also means a battery is impossible to justify on cost basis. Could get 20c FIT but their power costs more, so it doesnt work out overall.
Last edited:
Similar threads
