Global Warming Cont...

[dawg80]

Here ya go:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090820/...ci_warm_oceans

I'm convinced! That's it, party is over. No more joy riding. Yeah, most of us have to drive to get to work. But it's that extra, unnecessary driving that must stop. And no more polluting vehicles that serve no useful purpose, like: motorcycles, pick-up trucks (other than those used for work), RVs, ATVs, etc.... park 'em, people. The Earth needs you to.

Oh, the only exception to this edict is this: Tech fans can drive to Ruston for football games, but please, try to carpool, if ya can. Thanks!

[tenacious_dog]

This topic hasn't been raked over the coals lately. Interesting article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[saltydawg]

This topic hasn't been raked over the coals lately. Interesting article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Combined surface air and ocean temperature is the highest in 100 years.

Today's report of the Sun shows zero sunspots. We are at the low point of the sunspot cycle. When it starts back up on the other side I think you get some action on the surface air temperature.

http://spaceweather.com/

http://spaceweather.com/glossary/spo...8cr7u88rskq6l7

[marketdawg]

Even if you don't buy into the global warming theory doesn't it just make sense to start passing legislaton for 100% tax rebates for all businesses/homeowners on the installation of solar/water cistern/ICF form building and any other associated "Green" technologies available today? And here's another question for you guys: Why do we not pass strict, national, building codes for ALL new construction that mandates the usage of all of the available green/super insulative/longer lasting/more conservative technologies/building materals, ect that are avialable today? It would save the common man a ton of money, ease the strain on natural resources, and decrease air/water pollution. Just makes sense to me.

[Guisslapp]

And here's another question for you guys: Why do we not pass strict, national, building codes for ALL new construction that mandates the usage of all of the available green/super insulative/longer lasting/more conservative technologies/building materals, ect that are avialable today? It would save the common man a ton of money, ease the strain on natural resources, and decrease air/water pollution. Just makes sense to me.

The same reason we don't pass regulations that say you can't sell red meat because it contributes to heart disease.

[JuBru]

Even if you don't buy into the global warming theory doesn't it just make sense to start passing legislaton for 100% tax rebates for all businesses/homeowners on the installation of solar/water cistern/ICF form building and any other associated "Green" technologies available today? And here's another question for you guys: Why do we not pass strict, national, building codes for ALL new construction that mandates the usage of all of the available green/super insulative/longer lasting/more conservative technologies/building materals, ect that are avialable today? It would save the common man a ton of money, ease the strain on natural resources, and decrease air/water pollution. Just makes sense to me.

It takes one symbol as to why it can't/won't happen - $.

[duckbillplatty]

Even if you don't buy into the global warming theory doesn't it just make sense to start passing legislaton for 100% tax rebates for all businesses/homeowners on the installation of solar/water cistern/ICF form building and any other associated "Green" technologies available today? And here's another question for you guys: Why do we not pass strict, national, building codes for ALL new construction that mandates the usage of all of the available green/super insulative/longer lasting/more conservative technologies/building materals, ect that are avialable today? It would save the common man a ton of money, ease the strain on natural resources, and decrease air/water pollution. Just makes sense to me.

I love it and would support it... but... Where's the power? By the federal government paying for weatherizing existing homes, they get to decide who gets money and of course funnel it to other projects. That way, we spend more money, less efficiently, BUT Congress can be powerful. Welcome to the problem with federal government.

BTW - Perfectly reasonable solution. Not carbon credits paid to Al Gore or taxes for people who have to commute.

[marketdawg]

I know the building code legislation is a pipedream but if there was a 100% tax rebate (I'd be happy with 25% or so per year so that the gov't won't whine too much about tax revenue lost) I'd go solar at home/business immediately and I'd imagine that a lot of Americans would do the same. Besides, the extra tax revenue from the solar manufacturer/reatilors/installers would offset the tax rebate for the consumer- the consumer ultimately being the driving force.

[Guisslapp]

I know the building code legislation is a pipedream but if there was a 100% tax rebate (I'd be happy with 25% or so per year so that the gov't won't whine too much about tax revenue lost) I'd go solar at home/business immediately and I'd imagine that a lot of Americans would do the same. Besides, the extra tax revenue from the solar manufacturer/reatilors/installers would offset the tax rebate for the consumer- the consumer ultimately being the driving force.

The spike in demand would cause solar prices to go up, and it is currently not profitable to use solar unless the capital costs are heavily subsidized. The taxpayer ends up footing the bill for the ordeal and no one really comes out ahead. It would be alot like the ethanol subsidy.

[marketdawg]

You think so? I'd think that the spike in demand would increse competition driving cost down some. The only reason I say this is that this is a building commodity and not a consumeable. I'm definitely no analyst and this is all "off the top of my head" and I do appreciate any input. ANother question I have is the "not profitable" part. Why is there all the talk about a 10 year or so return on solar investment?

[Guisslapp]

You think so? I'd think that the spike in demand would increse competition driving cost down some. The only reason I say this is that this is a building commodity and not a consumeable. I'm definitely no analyst and this is all "off the top of my head" and I do appreciate any input. ANother question I have is the "not profitable" part. Why is there all the talk about a 10 year or so return on solar investment?

Energy in > Energy out. Solar cells take alot of energy to make. It used to be that you would never recoup the energy put into making a solar cell in output, but I do not think that is the case anymore. They are still capital intensive and produce a DC output. If you are running DC devices that is not a problem, but energy intensive items run on AC, and to convert DC to AC requires an inverter (which causes a big loss in efficiency).

[DogtorEvil]

I'd think that the spike in demand would increse competition driving cost down some.

initially it would drive prices up until it became profitable for others to get into the business. Then pricing would come down.

[marketdawg]

Energy in > Energy out. Solar cells take alot of energy to make. It used to be that you would never recoup the energy put into making a solar cell in output, but I do not think that is the case anymore. They are still capital intensive and produce a DC output. If you are running DC devices that is not a problem, but energy intensive items run on AC, and to convert DC to AC requires an inverter (which causes a big loss in efficiency).

I'm aware of the converter but you're still converting free solar DC to free solar AC and there are tons of products out there that take a lot of energy to produce that give 0% back. The sun- not coal/NG/methane will power your home. I'd be interested to see if the energy in to produce solar panels vs. the energy saved by solar, even given the inverter power loss, is comparable. I try to remind myself, daily, as I plan my new home, that this is an evolution, not a revolution.

So, IMO, power lost during a solar power conversion is power not lost at all but a % comparison to greenhouse gas producing energy production model as this was just sunlight not being used beforehand. The power to build/ship/install solar is still an interesting subject and I love the years to recoup estimates that are out there. For me: I like the idea of having the sun hit my panels and make me electricity. Also, IMO, if more of us start using solar then more local Co.'s will start building them- shortening shipping times/production times/cost due to increased demand/increased competition. In the long-run I feel that it may be our only hope.

[JuBru]

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pd..._2008-2012.pdf

[Guisslapp]

I'm aware of the converter but you're still converting free solar DC to free solar AC. The sun- not coal/NG/meathane. I'd be interested to see if the energy in to produce solar panels vs. the energy saved by solar, even given the inverter power loss, is comparable. I try to remind myself, daily, as I plan my new home, that this is an evolution, not a revolution.

So, IMO, power lost during a solar power conversion is power not lost at all but a % comparison to greenhouse gas producing energy production model as this was just sunlight not being used beforehand. The power to build/ship/install solar is still an interesting subject and I love the years to recoup estimates that are out there. For me: I like the idea of having the sun hit my panels and make me electricity. Also, IMO, if more of us start using solar then more local Co.'s will start building them- shortening shipping times/production times/cost due to increased demand/increased competition. In the long-run I feel that it may be our only hope.

It costs alot of energy to make the solar cells. This energy produces greenhouse gases. The energy you use to run them (the sun) costs you nothing and does not emit greenhouse gases.

It takes alot of solar power to run a house. Just to give you an idea... At our camp we run a single solar panel (MSRP $1000) to keep a bank of deep cycle batteries ($250) charged via a charge controller ($100). The batteries provide DC to a DC refrigerator ($1500) to keep the beer cold. When we watch the TV, we switch on the inverter ($500) and the TV usually can run for about 2.5 hours off the two batteries. We then have to crank on the generator. If we want to run our window air conditioning unit (AC powered), the batteries are good for about 1.5 hours. The lights are all DC, but not very bright.

To run our setup exclusively off of solar power, we can get AT BEST 2 hours PER DAY (assuming every day is a sunny day) of power off of our investment of $3000 (subtracting out the costs of a comparable AC fridge). This is minimal AC, minimal light, and minimal yet constant refrigeration). If we had AC, we could probably use the same amount of daily power for 15 years before we paid $3000 in electric utility cost.

Obviously, there are economies of scale to be gained from adding solar panels, adding batteries, and upgrading the inverter, but still....