Guest guest Posted February 4, 2006 Report Posted February 4, 2006 On Feb 4, 2006, at 2:44 AM, Caroline Collard wrote: > Hats off to Sweden. > > Sweden abolishes oil > By 2020, Sweden plans to permanently park all of the country's > gasoline-run cars and convert all oil-heated homes. Minister for > Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin says Sweden aims to gradually > become oil free over the next 15 years. Measures to make the shift > will include tax discounts, energy efficiency, and large-scale > investments in renewable energy and research. > > This commitment is in stark contrast to other government's such as in > Australia where a recent agreement with other coal focused nations > will allow greenhouse gas emissions to double by 2050. Such a doubling > would lead to catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate > change. > And they are going to be fueling their cars and heating their homes *with what*? The only energy source that doesn't put out so-called greenhouse gasses is nuclear. This is just more feel-good pie-in-the-sky socialist BS that will likely harm the enviroment. Doesn't anyone understand physics? The energy density of hydrogen or batteries just plain stink compared to gas or diesel. Mazda's hydrogen car has a hydrogen tank that takes up the entire trunk, with a whopping range of 62 miles. Everyone seems to forget that it takes energy to charge the batteries and extract the hydrogen. There is no such thing as a 100% efficient energy conversion, so you lose with every conversion and transmission. Here in the USA, hybrid cars are all the rage, as if driving around with 800 lbs of lead acid batteries was enviromentally sound! I predict that swedish cars will still burn carbon of some kind in 2020. If you think that global warming is real and caused by greenhouse gases, then the only way out is nuclear power, and just the term gives most of the non-thinking chattering classes the heebie-jeebies. We need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so people aren't so gullible. Hans Conser Hans Quote
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2006 Report Posted February 5, 2006 Hans Conser wrote: > And they are going to be fueling their cars and heating their homes > *with what*? The only energy source that doesn't put out so-called > greenhouse gasses is nuclear. In your opinion I presume? In South AFrica (SA) they do not get much oil due to economic embargoes and consequently they were forced to also use other energy sources, starting a long time ago. There are LOTS of energy sources besides nuclear that do not put out greenhouse gas as you put it. They also don't cause radiation waste contamination as does nuclear fuel! Some examples are solar energy, wind energy, water energy. In SA you use a wind charger to generate battery power for electric cars, lights, whatever; or you use water power to generate electricity to plug in your car for recharging as the water flows down from the 10,000 foot plateau to the sea. Most houses are solar heated/cooled and at least use solar energy for hot water, etc etc. They also manufacture an oil fuel substitute there called Sasol, and while that is hydrocarbon fuel, at least it is not depleting the natural oil resource. Engines have been developed there which can run on any form of heat, using a hor air engine - whether that is left over corn cobs with the grain removed, or solar heat. Battery development allows much more efficient energy transfer than old fashioned batteries, making all these innovations realistic these days. So - Hats off to Sweden it is! They have often led the world in innovative ecologically sensitive developments. > This is just more feel-good > pie-in-the-sky socialist BS that will likely harm the enviroment. > Doesn't anyone understand physics? Apparently you are the one needing a refresher course:-)) > There is no such thing > as a 100% efficient energy conversion NO, not with oil either - but we have abundant wind, water and sunshine on the planet incase you had not noticed and however inefficient the conversion (it improves all the time) those fuels are not about to run out on us:-))) > need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so people > aren't so gullible. Good idea. MODERN physics and chemistry - and adults can be invited for refresher courses? The lead in batteries is not " consumed " as is oil - it is reusable:-) Lead is a planetary resource to be managed as opposed to disparaged:-) The acid in batteries is sulphuric acid H2SO4 - consisting of hydrogen, oxygen and sulphur - also basic elements in our planet that are recycled instantly as opposed to used up (unlike an oil resource which takes multiple centuries to form or " recycle " , that being the reason to quit using it up!) A battery recharge is not 100%, a little is lost with each recharge and a battery will eventually wear out, but even then it is recyclable. Oil is not. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Here's a link to an actual news article about this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/01/sweden_raises_t.php Best regards, Celeste Caroline Collard wrote: > Sweden abolishes oil > By 2020, Sweden plans to permanently park all of the country's gasoline-run cars and convert all oil-heated homes. Minister for Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin says Sweden aims to gradually become oil free over the next 15 years. Measures to make the shift will include tax discounts, energy efficiency, and large-scale investments in renewable energy and research. > Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Does this mean that someone has found an actual solution for the safe and clean disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear power plants? Until that solution is found nuclear power remains a dirty, unwanted, and unwarranted solution. Best regards, Celeste Hans Conser wrote: > If you think that global warming is real and caused by greenhouse > gases, then the only way out is nuclear power, and just the term gives > most of the non-thinking chattering classes the heebie-jeebies. We > need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so people > aren't so gullible. Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Wind power is no good for large scale use e.g. a German study found that it would take 50,000 wind turbines (obviously at good sites) to replace one decent sized power station, so it isn't practical, feasible or economical for large scale. Solar power is very inefficient, costly to set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. Water power is possible so long as you have enough high pressure water to run turbines i.e. a dam. Sterling engines are not used for much commercial equipment, there maybe good reasons for this. Many vegetation based fuel sources have a negative energy balance, because they require fuel to harvest! Geothermal power is a possibility, provided it is safe, you have enough water, enough heat and a stable heat source e.g. minimal tremors or eruptions! Nuclear does have a risk and cost, like anything, however Nuclear reactors are very powerful for their size and can be relatively safe if designed and built properly e.g. from what I read Chernobyl happened due to an combination of avoidable factors. Irene de Villiers wrote: > Hans Conser wrote: > >> And they are going to be fueling their cars and heating their homes >> *with what*? The only energy source that doesn't put out so-called >> greenhouse gasses is nuclear. >> > > In your opinion I presume? > In South AFrica (SA) they do not get much oil due to economic embargoes > and consequently they were forced to also use other energy sources, > starting a long time ago. > There are LOTS of energy sources besides nuclear that do not put out > greenhouse gas as you put it. > They also don't cause radiation waste contamination as does nuclear > fuel! > > Some examples are solar energy, wind energy, water energy. > In SA you use a wind charger to generate battery power for electric > cars, lights, whatever; or you use water power to generate electricity > to plug in your car for recharging as the water flows down from the > 10,000 foot plateau to the sea. Most houses are solar heated/cooled and > at least use solar energy for hot water, etc etc. > They also manufacture an oil fuel substitute there called Sasol, and > while that is hydrocarbon fuel, at least it is not depleting the natural > oil resource. Engines have been developed there which can run on any > form of heat, using a hor air engine - whether that is left over corn > cobs with the grain removed, or solar heat. > Battery development allows much more efficient energy transfer than > old fashioned batteries, making all these innovations realistic these days. > > So - Hats off to Sweden it is! > They have often led the world in innovative ecologically sensitive > developments. > > >> This is just more feel-good >> pie-in-the-sky socialist BS that will likely harm the enviroment. >> Doesn't anyone understand physics? >> > > Apparently you are the one needing a refresher course:-)) > > > There is no such thing > >> as a 100% efficient energy conversion >> > > NO, not with oil either - but we have abundant wind, water and sunshine > on the planet incase you had not noticed and however inefficient the > conversion (it improves all the time) those fuels are not about to run > out on us:-))) > > >> need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so people >> aren't so gullible. >> > > Good idea. > MODERN physics and chemistry - and adults can be invited for refresher > courses? > > The lead in batteries is not " consumed " as is oil - it is reusable:-) > Lead is a planetary resource to be managed as opposed to disparaged:-) > The acid in batteries is sulphuric acid H2SO4 - consisting of hydrogen, > oxygen and sulphur - also basic elements in our planet that are recycled > instantly as opposed to used up (unlike an oil resource which takes > multiple centuries to form or " recycle " , that being the reason to quit > using it up!) A battery recharge is not 100%, a little is lost with each > recharge and a battery will eventually wear out, but even then it is > recyclable. Oil is not. > > Namaste, > Irene > -- > Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. > P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. > www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) > Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. > > > > > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner > Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 nospam.rwp@... wrote: > Wind power is no good for large scale use e.g. a German study found that > it would take 50,000 wind turbines (obviously at good sites) to replace > one decent sized power station, so it isn't practical, feasible or > economical for large scale. They were doing some narrow-minded thinking:-)) Or maybe it's an old study? All you do is put a wind-charger by each house - looks like a high chimney with blades up there, with wires running down to to battery bank - as my grandfather did - and you supply individual buildings. After all, that huge space above the roof is going to waste and there's a nice lot of wind up there compared to on the ground. Then the 50,000 houses have the necessary 50,000 turbines - and each person pays for theirs. Then you add solar panels in the roofing as well. If you then add evaporation cooling, you have refrigeration from water plus sunshine. All very easy to arrange at the individual building level. And that's how it is done in South Africa. So you individualize where possible, and feed any excess into the power grid for an electric bill reversal - and so you can draw off it when needed in peak times. Works fine! > Solar power is very inefficient, costly to > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. Firstly, it does not matter if solar power is less efficient than oil power conversion and the newer solar collectors are actually pretty good. It's not like the sun is going to die on us any time soon and run us out of sunlight the way we can run out of oil - so the efficiency issue is not relevant. Setting up solar panels is NOT costly when done in quantity and you can make a simple one out of a black towel in a box with some water circulation through it. It's not exactly high tech! It sure as heck is a lot cheaper than setting up a nuclear power plant or other system of power. People think you need a lot of sun for a solar panel but that is not true, you get a surprising amount from cloudy weather, and you can store the electricity during sunny times for use at night/cloudy times. All these excuses were popular many years ago before the South Africans laughed at them and just got on with doing it. You always have a lot of nay-sayers any time there is a new idea around, and you have to just get on with it and do it. You're good at nay-saying - I notice you do it with any system you are not familiar with - it was homeopathy a short while ago:-)) Now it is natural power sources:-) I am the other way round - come from a long line of innovators like my grandfather who built wind chargers for electricity and windmills for water for several people in a town that had no electricity or water supply. He also hooked up a " donkey " to heat water with solar power, so as to have hot water. None of this is rocket science, it's very doable. > possible so long as you have enough high pressure water to run turbines > i.e. a dam. Sterling engines are not used for much commercial > equipment, Stirling engines are steam engines, they were long since surpassed by hot air engines:-) A hot air engine (my son built one in 9th grade for a science competition) can use ANY source of heat. It works on the principle that hot air rises (as it expands) and cold air drops down (as it contracts) allowing for a piston motion. The use of hot air engines on the roads such as in trucks etc, has been suppressed by the oil companies for decades, but they work like gang busters. I've seen a full size one in action (built by a family member). there maybe good reasons for this. Many vegetation based > fuel sources have a negative energy balance, because they require fuel > to harvest! Again a spurious excuse. You can for example use the leftover corn cobs after the grain is removed, so no *additional* harvesting is needed. This SAVES on the cost of disposing of the spent corncobs - but if you burn it for fuel you are depleting the soil in the long run as topsoil takes a long time to replenish if you go leach out all the nutrients, so it is not as good as electric power from wind, water or sun. You need to do crop rotation with nitrogenous crops to restore the soil via sunshine. However that is a small " cost " to get clean power. > Geothermal power is a possibility, provided it is safe, you > have enough water, enough heat and a stable heat source e.g. minimal > tremors or eruptions! It's limited in availability, but some places do run on it. > Nuclear does have a risk and cost, like anything, however Nuclear > reactors are very powerful for their size and can be relatively safe Not till their waste can be safely recycled. Till then they are an ostrich approach - head in the sand about the radioactive contamination! That's hardly good for the planet. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Comments below: On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:38 AM, Irene de Villiers wrote: > > Hans Conser wrote: > > And they are going to be fueling their cars and heating their homes > > *with what*? The only energy source that doesn't put out so-called > > greenhouse gasses is nuclear. > > In your opinion I presume? > In South AFrica (SA) they do not get much oil due to economic > embargoes > and consequently they were forced to also use other energy sources, > starting a long time ago. > There are LOTS of energy sources besides nuclear that do not put out > greenhouse gas as you put it. > They also don't cause radiation waste contamination as does > nuclear > fuel! > > Some examples are solar energy, wind energy, water energy. > In SA you use a wind charger to generate battery power for electric > cars, lights, whatever; or you use water power to generate electricity > to plug in your car for recharging as the water flows down from the > 10,000 foot plateau to the sea. Most houses are solar heated/cooled > and > at least use solar energy for hot water, etc etc. > They also manufacture an oil fuel substitute there called Sasol, and > while that is hydrocarbon fuel, at least it is not depleting the > natural > oil resource. Engines have been developed there which can run on any > form of heat, using a hor air engine - whether that is left over corn > cobs with the grain removed, or solar heat. > Battery development allows much more efficient energy transfer > than > old fashioned batteries, making all these innovations realistic these > days You are right of course that solar, water and wind don't output greenhouse gases. The point that I was trying to make was that these alternatives are not a viable replacement for oil. Not that we shouldn't develop these sources to reduce oil use, but there simply is not enough there to replace oil use. None of these are without enviromental costs of their own. Of course it is debatable whether we are experiencing global warming and whether is is caused by human generated C02 if it is warming... Interesting article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1684379,00.html > So - Hats off to Sweden it is! > They have often led the world in innovative ecologically sensitive > developments. > > > This is just more feel-good > > pie-in-the-sky socialist BS that will likely harm the enviroment. > > Doesn't anyone understand physics? > > Apparently you are the one needing a refresher course:-)) Funny thing, I bumped into my college physics prof (http://physics.montana.edu/faculty/francis/) in a store the other day, about two weeks ago. He didn't remember my name at first, but he said " you're the guy who got all those perfect scores on my tests, it was amazing " . So I don't need a refresher course; but I will be however, be happy to grade your work, why don't you calculate how many wind turbines it would take to replace 33% of the USA's oil use, and also calculate how many square meters of solar panels would be needed to do the same. > > > There is no such thing > > as a 100% efficient energy conversion > > NO, not with oil either - but we have abundant wind, water and > sunshine > on the planet incase you had not noticed and however inefficient the > conversion (it improves all the time) those fuels are not about to run > out on us:-))) Not oil either most likely... > > > need to put physics and chemistry back into the high schools so > people > > aren't so gullible. > > Good idea. > MODERN physics and chemistry - and adults can be invited for refresher > courses? > > The lead in batteries is not " consumed " as is oil - it is reusable:-) > Lead is a planetary resource to be managed as opposed to disparaged:-) > The acid in batteries is sulphuric acid H2SO4 - consisting of > hydrogen, > oxygen and sulphur - also basic elements in our planet that are > recycled > instantly as opposed to used up (unlike an oil resource which takes > multiple centuries to form or " recycle " , that being the reason to quit > using it up!) A battery recharge is not 100%, a little is lost with > each > recharge and a battery will eventually wear out, but even then it is > recyclable. Oil is not. > I understand the material is recycled, I was referring the inefficiencies of accelerating all that mass around in a car, and the dangers of lead-acid batteries in the same, ie #1 cause of fires in auto accidents. > Namaste, > Irene ADios, Hans Quote
Guest guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Hans Conser wrote: > You are right of course that solar, water and wind don't output > greenhouse gases. The point that I was trying to make was that these > alternatives are not a viable replacement for oil. Not that we > shouldn't develop these sources to reduce oil use, but there simply is > not enough there Not enough wind? or sun? or Water? I don't agree, we have never-ending re-usable supplies of all three:-)) What we lack is a culture that cares about using energy sensibly as opposed to wasting it. It will take time to replace the oil-based economy with a more sensible one but it is doable IF people want to do it. < None of these are without > enviromental costs of their own. I don't agree there either. All three are recycled energy resources naturally in flux in a cycle on the planet. The use of any of them has no toxic side effects as does oil or nuclear fuel. Lead batteries are used to store electricity but they are recharged and re-used countless times and the amount of lead on the planet stays the same - it is neither " used up " not " increased " . This is in contrast with oil where we convert the oil to something else that can NOT be converted back to oil readily. > Not oil either most likely... You speak of calculations. Here's where the real calculations are needed. Oil is not an infinite resource. VERY far from it. and it can NOt be recycled. > I understand the [lead etc] material is recycled, I was referring the > inefficiencies of accelerating all that mass around in a car That's what flywheels are for. To collect some of the energy to re-use and hence make it more efficient. They can also collect energy going down hills to re-use going up. It's different technology from what we are used to, and it needs different aspects to be addressed in terms of safety. A heavy car is a better collision risk in terms of mass to absorb impact. > dangers of lead-acid batteries in the same, ie #1 cause of fires in > auto accidents. Not really. Acid does not catch fire and burn. Gasoline does. The electricity spark sets it on fire. But take out the gasoline and you don't get the kind of fire risk you are talking about at all. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 Ok so you think we should go back to oil? Maybe use nuclear power as a safe alternative!!! Let the tests continue ok and maybe some one will strike it rich. Or how about GM'S new E85 fuel?? Hmmm safe, effective and we ahve the resources available. Greenhouse effect is nill. --- " nospam.rwp@... " <nospam.rwp@...> wrote: > > Wind power is no good for large scale use e.g. a > German study found that > it would take 50,000 wind turbines (obviously at > good sites) to replace > one decent sized power station, so it isn't > practical, feasible or > economical for large scale. Solar power is very > inefficient, costly to > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. > Water power is > possible so long as you have enough high pressure > water to run turbines > i.e. a dam. Sterling engines are not used for much > commercial > equipment, there maybe good reasons for this. Many > vegetation based > fuel sources have a negative energy balance, because > they require fuel > to harvest! Geothermal power is a possibility, > provided it is safe, you > have enough water, enough heat and a stable heat > source e.g. minimal > tremors or eruptions! > > Nuclear does have a risk and cost, like anything, > however Nuclear > reactors are very powerful for their size and can be > relatively safe if > designed and built properly e.g. from what I read > Chernobyl happened due > to an combination of avoidable factors. > > > Irene de Villiers wrote: > > Hans Conser wrote: > > > >> And they are going to be fueling their cars and > heating their homes > >> *with what*? The only energy source that doesn't > put out so-called > >> greenhouse gasses is nuclear. > >> > > > > In your opinion I presume? > > In South AFrica (SA) they do not get much oil due > to economic embargoes > > and consequently they were forced to also use > other energy sources, > > starting a long time ago. > > There are LOTS of energy sources besides nuclear > that do not put out > > greenhouse gas as you put it. > > They also don't cause radiation waste > contamination as does nuclear > > fuel! > > > > Some examples are solar energy, wind energy, water > energy. > > In SA you use a wind charger to generate battery > power for electric > > cars, lights, whatever; or you use water power to > generate electricity > > to plug in your car for recharging as the water > flows down from the > > 10,000 foot plateau to the sea. Most houses are > solar heated/cooled and > > at least use solar energy for hot water, etc etc. > > They also manufacture an oil fuel substitute there > called Sasol, and > > while that is hydrocarbon fuel, at least it is not > depleting the natural > > oil resource. Engines have been developed there > which can run on any > > form of heat, using a hor air engine - whether > that is left over corn > > cobs with the grain removed, or solar heat. > > Battery development allows much more > efficient energy transfer than > > old fashioned batteries, making all these > innovations realistic these days. > > > > So - Hats off to Sweden it is! > > They have often led the world in innovative > ecologically sensitive > > developments. > > > > > >> This is just more feel-good > >> pie-in-the-sky socialist BS that will likely harm > the enviroment. > >> Doesn't anyone understand physics? > >> > > > > Apparently you are the one needing a refresher > course:-)) > > > > > There is no such thing > > > >> as a 100% efficient energy conversion > >> > > > > NO, not with oil either - but we have abundant > wind, water and sunshine > > on the planet incase you had not noticed and > however inefficient the > > conversion (it improves all the time) those fuels > are not about to run > > out on us:-))) > > > > > >> need to put physics and chemistry back into the > high schools so people > >> aren't so gullible. > >> > > > > Good idea. > > MODERN physics and chemistry - and adults can be > invited for refresher > > courses? > > > > The lead in batteries is not " consumed " as is oil > - it is reusable:-) > > Lead is a planetary resource to be managed as > opposed to disparaged:-) > > The acid in batteries is sulphuric acid H2SO4 - > consisting of hydrogen, > > oxygen and sulphur - also basic elements in our > planet that are recycled > > instantly as opposed to used up (unlike an oil > resource which takes > > multiple centuries to form or " recycle " , that > being the reason to quit > > using it up!) A battery recharge is not 100%, a > little is lost with each > > recharge and a battery will eventually wear out, > but even then it is > > recyclable. Oil is not. > > > > Namaste, > > Irene > > -- > > Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, > D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. > > P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. > > www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html > (Veterinary Homeopath.) > > Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not > interrupt one doing it. > > > > > > > > > > Note: This forum is for discussion of health > related subjects but under no circumstances should > any information published here be considered a > substitute for personal medical advice from a > qualified physician. -the owner > > Quote
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 > Solar power is very inefficient, costly to > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. Solar power is actually making a comeback. In the autumn of 1980, I was a residential intern at the Integral Urban House in Berkeley. We had solar heating (including solar water heating), and historically the residents only had to turn on a backup generator about 1-2 days a year. It's very often overcast in Berkeley, much more overcast than in most parts of California. So if it worked that well in Berkeley, it would work well in many other areas. You can see solar panels on top of the attached greenhouse: http://www.motherearthnews.com/library/1976_November_December/The_Int egral_Urban_House or http://tinyurl.com/9fttp Carol Quote
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2006 Report Posted February 10, 2006 On Feb 10, 2006, at 8:59 PM, cbwillis9 wrote: > > Solar power is very inefficient, costly to > > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. > > > Solar power is actually making a comeback. > > In the autumn of 1980, I was a residential intern at > the Integral Urban House in Berkeley. We had solar heating > (including solar water heating), and historically the residents > only had to turn on a backup > generator about 1-2 days a year. It's very often > overcast in Berkeley, much more overcast than in most parts > of California. So if it worked that well in Berkeley, it would > work well in many other areas. > Solar hot water and solar homes are a great idea, work well. Not quite economically favorable yet, solar hot water is the closest right now. Hans Quote
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 Irene de Villiers wrote: > Hans Conser wrote: > >> You are right of course that solar, water and wind don't output >> greenhouse gases. The point that I was trying to make was that these >> alternatives are not a viable replacement for oil. Not that we >> shouldn't develop these sources to reduce oil use, but there simply is >> not enough there >> > > Not enough wind? or sun? or Water? > I don't agree, we have never-ending re-usable supplies of all three:-)) > No, not at a high enough, or consistent, power densities to even match current power supply systems e.g. coal, oil gas, petrol, diesel and nuclear have higher energy densities and lower monetary costs than most sources of hydrogen, alcohol, solar, wind and water! Efficient power generation requires constant power, so that generators can work at maximum efficiency, natural sources tend to vary too much or be inadequate. What we can do is promote and further develop hybrid cars, because that is where serious efficiency gains can be made, most petrols/gasoline and diesel engines waste a lot of power because they are not optimised to run efficiently at constant speeds for long periods of time. It would also help a lot if governments or fuel suppliers required that property must have inefficient, 20+ year old, central heating boilers replaced, because they are unsafe (they are), new ones are much more efficient. > What we lack is a culture that cares about using energy sensibly as > opposed to wasting it. > I think many people would find that absurd, I do when I see power reduction adverts on TV, the amount I have managed to save by use of more efficient equipment has made little difference (mainly done to shave my energy bill, improve equipment reliability and reduce excess heat in summer), so I think that is a red herring! The power source is what matters not the consumers, the electrical power source would be much cheaper and easier to replace. > It will take time to replace the oil-based economy with a more > sensible one but it is doable IF people want to do it. > > It is only really feasible on a large scale if power and fuel companies want to do it, a few tiny wind generators (with turbulence from other installations) won't make a noticeable difference. It really is not feasible or economical for most home owners to make significant power yet, unless they have purpose built homes and even then winter scuppers much of this, particularly in freezing and overcast weather, especially if sustained for several days. > < None of these are without > >> enviromental costs of their own. >> > > I don't agree there either. All three are recycled energy resources > naturally in flux in a cycle on the planet. The use of any of them has > no toxic side effects as does oil or nuclear fuel. > Unfortunately the natural power densities are often far too low (using current technology), in most densely populated urban locations, to be useful, it does not matter how renewable an energy source is if it only supplies a fraction of the power required. > Lead batteries are used to store electricity but they are recharged > and re-used countless times and the amount of lead on the planet stays > the same - it is neither " used up " not " increased " . > Provided you have a large enough, ventilated, strong (if not ground level) area to store several batteries, with heavy duty charging regulator, deep discharge protection, inverter and phase synchronizer electronics, and can afford to replace several costly lead batteries and pay the disposal costs, when they wear out. > This is in contrast with oil where we convert the oil to something > else that can NOT be converted back to oil readily. > > >> Not oil either most likely... >> > > You speak of calculations. Here's where the real calculations are > needed. Oil is not an infinite resource. VERY far from it. and it can > NOt be recycled. > > Easy to say, however the solutions may not be as easy or affordable as you believe, yes economics matter, enthusiasm is not enough, if you have insufficient money available to implement ideas. >> I understand the [lead etc] material is recycled, I was referring the >> inefficiencies of accelerating all that mass around in a car >> > > That's what flywheels are for. To collect some of the energy to re-use > and hence make it more efficient. They can also collect energy going > down hills to re-use going up. > It's different technology from what we are used to, and it needs > different aspects to be addressed in terms of safety. A heavy car is a > better collision risk in terms of mass to absorb impact. > > You may want to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle to see why a lot of these ideas are not as easy as they appear e.g. I find it interesting that submarines switched from diesel electric to nuclear electric power systems. For your information a much heavier car is not necessarily safer, greater mass does not make a car safer, given that it has more momentum at the same speed, so requires larger crumple zones to more gradually dissipate the energy of a collision and stronger crash cages, to protect occupants and to prevent car components from becoming hazardous to occupants e.g. risk of crushing, electrocution, chemical burns, fire or explosion (batteries could explode if shorted out or if hot). >> dangers of lead-acid batteries in the same, ie #1 cause of fires in >> auto accidents. >> > > Not really. Acid does not catch fire and burn. Gasoline does. The > electricity spark sets it on fire. But take out the gasoline and you > don't get the kind of fire risk you are talking about at all. > > Gasoline fires are not that common in car accidents, despite what you see in the movies, electrical fires are! You are not thinking big enough, a car battery (a tiny capacity in comparison to electric motor driven vehicles) can supply very high currents (as required for ignition), the battery and wiring could get very hot and even cause the battery to explode it gets shorted! Just imaging that multiplied several times and you see how potentially dangerous an electrical car could be in an accident, if even a fraction of that stored energy were dissipate in an instant! The risks of high current is one of the reasons you have to be careful when jump starting a car, from another car. You can take this further for batteries with even higher power densities (better power/weight ratio) than lead acid e.g. Lithium Ion batteries have been considered for use in electric cars, but could be extremely dangerous in the event of a crash, they could explode or catch fire, as proven by several mobile phones incidents! > Namaste, > Irene > -- > Irene de Villiers, B.Sc, AASCA, MCSSA, D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom. > P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. > www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) > Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. > > > > > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner > Quote
Guest guest Posted February 12, 2006 Report Posted February 12, 2006 I note that Sweden have Uranium and Hydro-power listed as part of their resources, use only 8% fossil fuel, have 45% nuclear and have increased hydro from 36% to 47% (probably helped by their geography) from 2003 to 2005 and seem pretty keen on nuclear (only 7% against), so it would probably not be hard for them to further reduce oil dependence, say with more nuclear or hydro and a little alternative energy, nice if you have these resources, however most countries do not have the resources to go this route. I suggest using Sweden as a shining example for alternative energy use is bogus, given their helpful natural resources, already low use of oil and understandably heavy use of nuclear, they are also a rich small country, so can afford the change over, it could be much harder for larger or countries with less available capital. See: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2111.html http://www.uic.com.au/nip39.htm Caroline Collard wrote: > Hats off to Sweden. > > Sweden abolishes oil > By 2020, Sweden plans to permanently park all of the country's gasoline-run cars and convert all oil-heated homes. Minister for Sustainable Development Mona Sahlin says Sweden aims to gradually become oil free over the next 15 years. Measures to make the shift will include tax discounts, energy efficiency, and large-scale investments in renewable energy and research. > > This commitment is in stark contrast to other government's such as in Australia where a recent agreement with other coal focused nations will allow greenhouse gas emissions to double by 2050. Such a doubling would lead to catastrophic and potentially irreversible climate change. > > > Caroline Collard > > World's first fully certified organic skin, body, oral and health care products > www.happyandhealthy.org.uk > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail > > Quote
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 I have been using solar powered water heating on my homes for a couple of decades now and I wouldn't have it any other way. Anything else is just much too costly. Last year I also decided to install a photovoltaic system to generate electricity for my current residence. I get a lot of satisfaction from watching my electric meter turn backwards. Best regards, Celeste Carol wrote: > In the autumn of 1980, I was a residential intern at > the Integral Urban House in Berkeley. We had solar heating > (including solar water heating), and historically the residents > only had to turn on a backup > generator about 1-2 days a year. It's very often > overcast in Berkeley, much more overcast than in most parts > of California. So if it worked that well in Berkeley, it would > work well in many other areas. > > In reply to: > > Solar power is very inefficient, costly to > > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. Quote
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2006 Report Posted February 15, 2006 I am an Architect and have designed a number of passive solar homes. Most would never be recognized as anything out of the normal, but the first one, built in 1987, was nearly 100% solar, incorporating a Trombe Wall and many other more esoteric forms of passive solar. The additional cost attributed to the solar components amounted to less than a 5% increase in building cost. The house is still providing a wonderful environment for the owner and has paid for the small premium many times over. To my mind, there is no excuse for not doing this with all new homes. My own home is a 1934 bungalow that I refurbished and modified on the south (long side) when I bought it in 1988 by adding a large glass bay and removed the siding on the north side to reinsulate it . I is far from what it could be in terms of tightness and insulation overall, but the old oil heater operating at about 60% efficiency only uses about 300 gallons of oil per season. I incorporate many passive cooling strategies in all of my homes as I have in this one. On the East Coast, there are a few weeks each year where the humidity is just too high to comfortably use it, but most days, we can remain quite comfortable and our electric bill almost never exceeds $120 per month even though my office is in my house and I constantly run three high end computers most of the time. After becoming interesting in this market and learning and applying the concepts, I realized that the real energy is in the amount of driving that the homeowners do commuting to work in single passenger cars (often SUV's today). For that reason, I have always advocated mass transit systems and governmentally funded credits to home owners who live near their work places and carpool. As a webpage, that I often read, pointed out just today: PV arrays are very energy intensive just to manufacture and they do have a relatively short life span compared to simple, time tested passive techniques. When carefully computed, most installations would be hard pressed to show a net energy gain. Active water collectors can easily have the same problem it they are not well designed. If you were paying attention, you may have heard that the White House's collectors were recently removed. I have never seen any reports as to why, but it would be no surprise to hear that they had corroded or were causing roof leaks. With recent administration's, actually all after , they may have had no good reason. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that this attitude is about to change. High energy prices tend to create alternatives at an accelerating rate. The newest idea to make the market, a concentrating, tracking PV panel that is said to cost just $8k could change many opinions quickly. This, especially if electrical rates go up 50% in response to fuel costs. If this pans out, we could soon have the first active solar system that actually competes with passive techniques in terms of payback and life cycle costs where active strategies have failed in the past. On another note, I own a Prius that my wife drives. She averages about 42 mpg overall. We live is a small town where stop and go traffic seldom enters into the computation, so this is not entirely fair, but my son drives a Ford Focus which performs similarly, but is slightly smaller. His overall gas mileage is just over 43 mpg. The point is that we must be wary of high tech when time honored solutions are available. On the other hand, I am sure that the Prius is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to innovative, energy saving, single occupant transportation. Again, energy costs drive the market. a1thighmaster wrote: > I have been using solar powered water heating on my homes for a couple > of decades now and I wouldn't have it any other way. Anything else is > just much too costly. > > Last year I also decided to install a photovoltaic system to generate > electricity for my current residence. I get a lot of satisfaction from > watching my electric meter turn backwards. > > Best regards, > Celeste > > Carol wrote: > > In the autumn of 1980, I was a residential intern at > > the Integral Urban House in Berkeley. We had solar heating > > (including solar water heating), and historically the residents > > only had to turn on a backup > > generator about 1-2 days a year. It's very often > > overcast in Berkeley, much more overcast than in most parts > > of California. So if it worked that well in Berkeley, it would > > work well in many other areas. > > > > In reply to: > > > Solar power is very inefficient, costly to > > > set-up and dependant on local/seasonal sunlight. > > > > > > > > Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but > under no circumstances should any information published here be > considered a substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified > physician. -the owner > > > > Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.