Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

nat'l talk show hosts are LYING about solar energy - Page 7

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Tim Jackson on April 25, 2009, 9:22 pm
 
Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's newest fan! wrote:

We are not trying to reduce global warming by reducing the absorbed
solar radiation.  We are trying to do it by reducing the emission of
greenhouse gases which otherwise reduce heat loss heat over a long
period of time.

The amount of energy generated while producing a kilo of CO2 by burning
organic fuels is tiny compared to the total energy which that kilo of
CO2 keeps in by reducing the earth's infra-red radiation, over the time
for which it stays in the atmosphere.

So what you need to compare is the additional absorption of insolation
by the panel over the mirror, versus the energy loss reduction produced
by the equivalent fossil fuel power source, over the lifetime of the
emitted CO2.  On that basis you will find the solar panels win hands
down.  It is only when you take into account the construction,
installation and maintenance costs that they start to lose.


Tim

Posted by Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's n on April 27, 2009, 1:38 am
 


Alrighty then. That's what I was wondering. Of course this is all based on
the whole melting ice caps, dead polar bears, Algore greenhouse gas
theory...

LG
--
"Keep it simple. If it takes a genius to understand it, it will never work."
- Clarence Leonard "Kelly" Johnson


Posted by Tim Jackson on April 27, 2009, 7:56 am
 Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's newest fan! wrote:

Not really, it's all based on physics.  The physical properties of CO2
are well known.  It's lifetime in the atmosphere is well known.  Its
atmospheric concentration is uncontroversial.  There is ample evidence
of a general warming of the planet, such as the progressive changes in
the ranges of many plants and animals, including humans; acidification
of the oceans; as well as the progressive collapse of the ice caps and
the unseemly scrabble to grab the oil reserves becoming exposed as the
ice melts (how stupid can you get?).

Whether or not this is caused by human action is irrelevant (although
the evidence does seem overwhelming that it is), the question is not who
caused it but who can stop it.  And Al Gore did not invent the theory,
he only jumped on an existing bandwagon and publicised it.

When this thing first started to revive after the Club of Rome report
got rubbished, I saw a few articles mentioning odd bits of evidence of
current CO2 levels being way above historical levels, statistical
warming trends, etc, and a little speculation that this might promote a
significant change in the climate and in sea levels.  As each new piece
of evidence was reported the outline of the elephant started to become
apparent. My gut feeling was that this thing is going to be much bigger
than was being reported because no reputable scientist is going to risk
their funding and career by disturbing the status quo and antagonising
established power bases, and because everyone is concentrating on their
particular speciality - ice cores, coral bleaching, sea level history,
whatever and studiously avoiding getting involved in the inevitably
controversial big picture.  It's how science works.

So far my gut feeling has been borne out.  Almost every new projection,
every improvement in the climate models, every new piece of evidence,
has made things look worse - projections of the rate of sea-level rise
for example have given progressively shorter timescales (and almost
reached the asymptote I predicted five years ago, but I admit that's
mostly luck).

The concept of a global conspiracy to distort the scientific findings in
a direction unfavourable to most global seats of power seems rather hard
to swallow.  I do admit that my own views are informed by being a
regular reader of New Scientist, and if its reporting is heavily biased
then that might influence my opinion.  Certainly its editorial view is
now that climate change is a big problem, but I am sure that is simple
reflecting the view of a majority of scientists.

Personally I have no axe to grind, I made money out of the North Sea oil
boom but used it to set up my own business outside of that industry.  My
home is 800' above sea level in a free-draining location, and in a area
where global warming is as likely to lead to local cooling as warming.
My main interest is to prepare my children to survive whatever the
future might throw at them.


Tim Jackson

Posted by Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's n on April 27, 2009, 3:56 pm
 

Lost me right abouuuuuuuut...


...here.


No, Algore jumped on the existing private jet and burned up God knows how
much fossil fuel flying around like a nitwit preaching to everybody how we
have to conserve.
The fact that he's invested in a company that deals in "carbon offsets" I'm
certain has nothing to do with it either...

LG
--
These "conserve" folks remind me of the miserly lady that saves plastic
spoons and  Wendy's cups when she has $0 million in the bank. - Trijcomm


Posted by Eeyore on April 25, 2009, 8:41 pm
 

"Lord Gow333, Dirk Benedict's newest fan!" wrote:


More like 15% actually and 7% for the 'breakthrough' cheaper thin film ones.



Correct, and that heat reduces the efficiency of the PV panel too.



Look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10_solar_power_tower

All done with mirrors and conventional steam generation.

Graham



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread