|
Posted by J. Clarke on January 27, 2008, 6:20 am
Please log in for more thread options Al wrote:
>> Is it just me or is solar energy really just a sham. The way I
>> figure
>> it we would have to cover 14 million sq km with PV cells by 2050 to
>> satisfy world enery needs, assuming current growth rates and all
>> other
>> things being equal. Worse, owing to inefficiencies in the system
>> solar
>> PV will actually add to global warming. PV might look good on the
>> roof, it might 'feel good' but it isn't going to solve the problems
>> we
>> face.
>
> Well yes, and no. Yes we need a lot of roof-space to accomodate
> today's demand. but if demand keeps increasing at today's rates
> worldwide then there are *no* solutions! However, if we get
> significantly smarter and use a lot less power, then solar can
> become
> a realistic, relevant and sensible *part* of the solution. A much
> more
> significant part must come from energy efficiency measures first,
> otherwise the whole range of potential energy options will add to
> "not
> enough".
It has occurred to you has it not that if the Third World is going to
progress to First World status then its people are going to want to
live like people in the First World and that means that they are per
capita going to want to be increasing their energy consumption.
> For example, the Australian national average energy consumption is
> ~6,000kWh p.a. (Australian Greenhouse Office,
> http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/local/strategic/chapter3.html) yet it
> is
> easily feasible and not at all difficult to live using a whole lot
> less. We use 2.3 kWh per person per day in Sydney. Average number of
> persons per household in Sydney is 2.7 (ABS). So this equates to:
> 2.3 * 365 * 2.7 = 2,270kWh per annum if you normalised my household.
>
> Not a particularly good figure according to many people who live
> off-grid!
If you want to live off-grid more than you want to live comfortably
that's fine.
> Yet compared with the average Aus. househld we're doing very
> well. We have achieved this relatively low consumption by a handful
> of
> relatively painless changes to our routine. At this stage more than
> 2/3 of that usage is for hot water (easily separated in our bills as
> it's the only thing billed off-peak) but we're planning to install
> solar hot water soon. Once the solar hot water is installed I expect
> to reduce that component by 2/3 or so.
If more than 2/3 of your energy usage is hot water then you're
fortunate in your choice of climate. I understand that 4C is unusual
enough to be remarkable in Sydney. It hasn't been above 1C here in a
week or so, and we're having a mild winter--some winters I see -20
with regularity.
> The solutions to our problems are already available; we already have
> a
> range of technologies which can reverse the problems we face. What
> we're currently lacking is not technology, it's political will and
> public information. But it's not all gloom either: programmes like
> ABC's (or is it SBS?) Carbon Cops and others are just one part of
> the
> "thin edge".
Actually what we lack is economic incentive. Oil, coal, and natural
gas are still the cheapest way to provide electricity, heat, and
transportation. Nuclear is also in that ballpark but until the
greenies freeze to death in the dark or enough of the rest of the
public does to induce the survivors to tell the greenies to go hug a
tree it's not going to be politically viable. As prices continue to
rise other means will become more attractive.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap