Posted by GeorgeB on January 26, 2008, 11:20 pm
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.
Posted by bealiba on January 27, 2008, 12:07 am
> 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.
It's just you.;-)
Reality - PV alone will not solve the world's energy problems. No one
who is not on medication has ever said it would.
But, solar and gravitational energy will be able to provide a large
part of the solution for world's future energy needs.
OTOH, the real problem is that the west seems set on replicating
wasteful energy practices from the past with renewables, rather than
learning to use less energy to run their homes.
Renewable does not mean cheap, have you priced panels or batteries
lately?, nor should we treat it as a throwaway commodity.
Posted by J. Clarke on January 27, 2008, 5:44 am
bealiba@gmail.com 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.
> It's just you.;-)
> Reality - PV alone will not solve the world's energy problems. No
> one
> who is not on medication has ever said it would.
> But, solar and gravitational energy
"gravitational energy"? Other than hydroelectric how do you generate
power using gravitational energy?
> will be able to provide a large
> part of the solution for world's future energy needs.
> OTOH, the real problem is that the west seems set on replicating
> wasteful energy practices from the past with renewables, rather than
> learning to use less energy to run their homes.
So tell us how to use less energy to run our homes.
> Renewable does not mean cheap, have you priced panels or batteries
> lately?, nor should we treat it as a throwaway commodity.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Posted by bealiba on January 27, 2008, 6:14 am
> beal...@gmail.com 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.
> > It's just you.;-)
> > Reality - PV alone will not solve the world's energy problems. No
> > one
> > who is not on medication has ever said it would.
> > But, solar and gravitational energy
> "gravitational energy"? Other than hydroelectric how do you generate
> power using gravitational energy?
The other major source of energy from gravity is of course tidal.
> > will be able to provide a large
> > part of the solution for world's future energy needs.
> > OTOH, the real problem is that the west seems set on replicating
> > wasteful energy practices from the past with renewables, rather than
> > learning to use less energy to run their homes.
> So tell us how to use less energy to run our homes.
Most people start with more efficient lighting. Then of course there
is better insulation, turning the heat down 2 - 4 degrees and the AC
up a couple of degrees. Or just build a house that does not need AC at
all. Most people could reduce their energy use by up to a third
without any discomfort at all.
And what is it with 45 square ranch style houses for two people.
> > Renewable does not mean cheap, have you priced panels or batteries
> > lately?, nor should we treat it as a throwaway commodity.
> --
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Posted by J. Clarke on January 27, 2008, 10:46 am
bealiba@gmail.com wrote:
>> beal...@gmail.com 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.
>>
>>> It's just you.;-)
>>
>>> Reality - PV alone will not solve the world's energy problems. No
>>> one
>>> who is not on medication has ever said it would.
>>
>>> But, solar and gravitational energy
>>
>> "gravitational energy"? Other than hydroelectric how do you
>> generate
>> power using gravitational energy?
> The other major source of energy from gravity is of course tidal.
>>
>>> will be able to provide a large
>>> part of the solution for world's future energy needs.
>>
>>> OTOH, the real problem is that the west seems set on replicating
>>> wasteful energy practices from the past with renewables, rather
>>> than
>>> learning to use less energy to run their homes.
>>
>> So tell us how to use less energy to run our homes.
> Most people start with more efficient lighting. Then of course there
> is better insulation, turning the heat down 2 - 4 degrees and the AC
> up a couple of degrees. Or just build a house that does not need AC
> at
> all. Most people could reduce their energy use by up to a third
> without any discomfort at all.
You say that "most people" could do all this. Do you have statistics
on the temperatures at which people keep their houses? Or on the
percentage of people who do _not_ use "more efficient lighting"?
If you think "just build a house" is an option for most people then
you have lived a sheltered and overprivileged existence.
And right now I'm cold. The thermostat is set to 68. If I set it to
64 then I'm going to be _really_ uncomfortable. Yeah, there are
drafts in the house. Yeah, I can fix them. Right now I have other
priorities, like keeping the rain out. Maybe instead of buying the
"handyman special" I should have paid rent for another couple of
decades so I could afford to have a custom-built solar like you have.
> And what is it with 45 square ranch style houses for two people.
Well, either they plan to have kids or they had kids and the kids grew
up and moved out. Or maybe they entertain a lot. But if you have a
kitchen, a dining room, a common room, a guest bedroom, his and hers
study, and a real workshop then you can use up 4500 square feet pretty
quickly.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
> 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.