Renewable tidbits

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

And if externalities and hidden costs are properly accounted for in present- day fossil-fuel-fired power-plant electric rates,do the economics of solar not take on a more favorable position?

More favorable; certainly.

Relative cost/benefit to fossil fuels now, in the nearterm, and far future... things begin to get a lot more hazy.

We've clearly benefited mightily by use of fossil fuels. I've not seen a comprehensive study showing net benefit and net cost for various levels of fossil fuel use, and I don't expect to ever see one because the variables involved are so complex, and weighing the benefits and consequences involves much subjectivity.

I'm not saying we need give no consideration to fossil fuel consumption, only saying that even those most in the know are far from having an "all things considered" understanding.

As I've maintained, the best course of action probably lies somewhere between AOC live in caves proposals, and the climate denying contingent (do they have a figurehead?) do-nothing crowd.

[oil pan 4]

The "do nothing crowd" is only like 68% of voters.
If you count people unwilling to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change as the do nothing crowd.

I like when ever the hard core believers can't produce a logical answer they always turn to ambiguous, immeasurable "externalities" as the catch all.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Fracking for natural gas has allowed it to become a cheap replacement for coal.
Don't like fracking then you must like coal.

Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.

As I've maintained, the best course of action probably lies somewhere between AOC live in caves proposals, and the climate denying contingent (do they have a figurehead?) do-nothing crowd.

The "do nothing crowd" is only like 68% of voters.
If you count people unwilling to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change as the do nothing crowd.

The trick is to get people to do the right things for the wrong reason.

Mushroom-shaped pod houses have great acoustics. My parents house at the coast (1980) had a solar water heater with a grid-tied backup to the solar tank, and point-of-use flash heater (Instahot) at the kitchen sink. They liked hot water.

[oil pan 4]

Like me I'm going solar for all the wrong reasons.
Definitely doing more than virtually all of the people willing to pay more than $10 per month.

[sendler]

In the USA, wind has actually surpassed wood in total primary energy production.
.
.

.
.
.

[NeilBlanchard]

Answers With Joe on renewable energy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_XQyApXXL4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iegje9gW4E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGhr9wNOcdI

[NeilBlanchard]

Ongoing renewable energy development:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSDo67E1k3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFz5DjsRB8

[freebeard]

Published on Aug 28, 2017

Still relevant of course. He does include Moon Power, but puts the contribution in perspective. There an interesting open-ended barrage but I think the solution is a closed oscillating water column that stores energy as compressed air. And all the equipment is above water level.

Oops, two more to watch.

...Feb and Mar 2018, comments are disabled for both. ???

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

More favorable; certainly.

Relative cost/benefit to fossil fuels now, in the nearterm, and far future... things begin to get a lot more hazy.

We've clearly benefited mightily by use of fossil fuels. I've not seen a comprehensive study showing net benefit and net cost for various levels of fossil fuel use, and I don't expect to ever see one because the variables involved are so complex, and weighing the benefits and consequences involves much subjectivity.

I'm not saying we need give no consideration to fossil fuel consumption, only saying that even those most in the know are far from having an "all things considered" understanding.

As I've maintained, the best course of action probably lies somewhere between AOC live in caves proposals, and the climate denying contingent (do they have a figurehead?) do-nothing crowd.

In 2015,a Harvard Center for Health and the Global Environment study found that,for the coal industry alone,their hidden societal costs amounted to $345-billion a year (about half the Pentagon's budget),requiring a tripling of coal-fired electrical rates to compensate for.
Not only for Americans,this sort of thing makes US coal a global pariah.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The "do nothing crowd" is only like 68% of voters.
If you count people unwilling to pay more than $10 per month to fix climate change as the do nothing crowd.

I like when ever the hard core believers can produce a logical answer they always turn to ambiguous, immeasurable "externalities" as the catch all.

The International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) is one organization who's attempting to connect the dots.