Well, in the first place the companies that build and own the power plants don't manufacture or sell light bulbs. In the second, most utilities already operate fairly expensive demand reduction programs, simply because they find it impossible to get permits for new generating plants in the face of organized NIMBYs and environmentalists. Together these facts suggest that your suggestion of a conspiracy is a fantasy.
The fact is that lower power neon bulbs have, during just the past three years, nearly displaced incandescent bulbs which get less and less space on retail shelves. The newer LED technology awaits only mass manufacture and marketing by producers. The show in question involved a DOE official from the current Administration deliberately touting them apparently in an attempt to create some public interest and pressure.
So far I don't see any problem. Perhaps hamburger would be so kind as to tell us how LED light bulbs are selling in Canada.
parados wrote:
Let's keep this simple and do one number at a time since you can't answer me clearly. Simply posting a bunch of sites without stating what you think they show doesn't show us anything.
No. 1.
Quote:(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which of your sites shows the science that states that the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean evaporation? I eagerly await your answer since I have looked at the sites and see no such reference. So.. kindly give us your source for No. 1 of your claims.
I said that if you asked me nicely, I would provide the links that support my facts. I did not promise to repeat again the arguments and explanations I have previously posted here for you. And, I am not going to.
I suggest you start increasing your knowledge on this subject by studying the following lesson. Such study should begin to help you better understand the information I have previously provided you more than once.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22947.wss
A new IBM survey says that consumers are willing to pay more for their energy, if they can be assured that it releases less greenhouse gasses.
Quote:
Although nearly half of consumers surveyed across the globe would pay more for environmentally friendly non-energy products, when it comes to purchasing "green" energy, two-thirds of consumers are willing to pay more for power that could be definitively shown to have lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Australians are most willing to pay a premium for green power, but Americans are most willing to pay a sizable premium, up to an additional 20 percent or more.
Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre wrote:parados wrote:
Let's keep this simple and do one number at a time since you can't answer me clearly. Simply posting a bunch of sites without stating what you think they show doesn't show us anything.
No. 1.
ican711nm wrote:(1) Evaporated sea water is the primary source of the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Which of your sites shows the science that states that the majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from ocean evaporation? I eagerly await your answer since I have looked at the sites and see no such reference. So.. kindly give us your source for No. 1 of your claims.
According to the 1995 IPCC report and a 1988 UN report that are almost certainly quoted accurately here:
Quote:....1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.
Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, ....
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Thank you, Foxfyre! I've reproduced your post with larger print to aid parados's understanding.
If you have a system which is some form of stable equilibrium, and you begin to add forces or stresses on that system, what will the outcome be?
That's climate change science - the fact that, even though there exists a carbon cycle with the ocean and plants and the environment, that adding more carbon into that system (primarily by releasing it from storage in the ground through various means) can upset the balance of that system. Or it might not. We don't know for sure.
Caution is a Conservative principle...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:If you have a system which is some form of stable equilibrium, and you begin to add forces or stresses on that system, what will the outcome be?
That's climate change science - the fact that, even though there exists a carbon cycle with the ocean and plants and the environment, that adding more carbon into that system (primarily by releasing it from storage in the ground through various means) can upset the balance of that system. Or it might not. We don't know for sure.
Caution is a Conservative principle...
Cycloptichorn
Yeah, and on top of that, 5-6 billion tons of CO2 is not trivial, especially over a decade (or 3 or 4 or...). Also, if the system is built to handle that much, you'd better be ready to maintain the system.
This means
not poluting the oceans and waterways and being careful about deforrestation.
T
K
O
our local utility has started to install "demand meters" in all houses - ours was installed this summer .
starting next year we'll be going to demand billing , with the highest rates for electricity use during daytime mondays to fridays and the lowest rates for night-time and weekend use . that should push down peak-demand considerably and suits as just fine . while we are already rather careful in our energy use , knowing that it'll save us a few bucks by cutting back on electricity use between 10 am and 6 pm - those seem to be the peak demand hours - makes it even more attractive .
i understand that several U.S. cities have started to switch street lighting to led's . one city manager interviewed on CNBC stated that the led's will be paid for within four years and that thereafter the led's would contribute considerable savings to the city taxpayers - i'm all for that .
saving BOTH energy and money is something i can live with .
hbg
Cycloptichorn wrote:http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22947.wss
A new IBM survey says that consumers are willing to pay more for their energy, if they can be assured that it releases less greenhouse gasses.
Quote:
Although nearly half of consumers surveyed across the globe would pay more for environmentally friendly non-energy products, when it comes to purchasing "green" energy, two-thirds of consumers are willing to pay more for power that could be definitively shown to have lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Australians are most willing to pay a premium for green power, but Americans are most willing to pay a sizable premium, up to an additional 20 percent or more.
Cycloptichorn
How much lower must emissions be for them to pay 20% more for their electric power? Are they willing to pay 20% or more for a reduction of: 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.1%, or 0.01% ... ?
I bet you do not know. That question they answered is absurd and so are the responses.
hamburger wrote:our local utility has started to install "demand meters" in all houses - ours was installed this summer .
starting next year we'll be going to demand billing , with the highest rates for electricity use during daytime mondays to fridays and the lowest rates for night-time and weekend use . that should push down peak-demand considerably and suits as just fine . while we are already rather careful in our energy use , knowing that it'll save us a few bucks by cutting back on electricity use between 10 am and 6 pm - those seem to be the peak demand hours - makes it even more attractive .
i understand that several U.S. cities have started to switch street lighting to led's . one city manager interviewed on CNBC stated that the led's will be paid for within four years and that thereafter the led's would contribute considerable savings to the city taxpayers - i'm all for that .
saving BOTH energy and money is something i can live with .
hbg
But wait!
I thought it was more expensive to be eco-sensitive?
T
K
O
ican wrote :
Quote:That question they answered is absurd and so are the responses.
that's your OPINION - nothing more , nothing less .
europeans have been paying more for their energy use of pretty well any kind for a long time and they seem to be quite allright with that .
or to use a different example : canadians have traditionally bought smaller cars - using less gas - than americans . small chevy's and fords are a big seller in canada (you can check with GM) . even though the distances travelled are probably as far in canada as in the U.S. , canadians seem to prefer smaller cars - i guess there is a lot of scottish blood flowing in canadian veins - THRIFTY , you know :wink:
hbg
hamburger wrote:ican wrote :
Quote:That question they answered is absurd and so are the responses.
that's your OPINION - nothing more , nothing less .
europeans have been paying more for their energy use of pretty well any kind for a long time and they seem to be quite allright with that .
or to use a different example : canadians have traditionally bought smaller cars - using less gas - than americans . small chevy's and fords are a big seller in canada (you can check with GM) . even though the distances travelled are probably as far in canada as in the U.S. , canadians seem to prefer smaller cars - i guess there is a lot of scottish blood flowing in canadian veins - THRIFTY , you know :wink:
hbg
For how much of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would you be willing to pay a 20% increase in the cost of energy?
There is a huge difference between someone saying they will buy something more expensive to be green, vs actually doing it. People always claim to want to pay more to buy "made in U.S." too, but the results don't usually show it.
And as with any newer product, there needs to be a phase in period, as we often do not always know for sure all the consequences or problems, such as are there sufficient materials needed to make them, performance in different types of lighting, effects upon vision, etc.
I agree about the "buy american" comment. However, when you look at what is bought in place of american, you'll see that better engineering often results in better fuel economy which helps damp the human carbon input.
I don't care if some idiot 20 year old wants to buy a civic so they can customize it and look cool, or if they bought it for fuel economy. The point is that they bought it over a american option, and I would suspect because of quality.
T
K
O
Cycloptichorn wrote:http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/22947.wss
A new IBM survey says that consumers are willing to pay more for their energy, if they can be assured that it releases less greenhouse gasses.
Quote:
Although nearly half of consumers surveyed across the globe would pay more for environmentally friendly non-energy products, when it comes to purchasing "green" energy, two-thirds of consumers are willing to pay more for power that could be definitively shown to have lower emissions of greenhouse gases. Australians are most willing to pay a premium for green power, but Americans are most willing to pay a sizable premium, up to an additional 20 percent or more.
Cycloptichorn
I emailed my electric company two days ago to see if they offered any such program and unfortunately they do not. I would probably be willing to pay up to 50% more if need be.
Back to square one.
A problem is that renewable electrical energy costs far more than a 20% premium over current rates -- more like two to three times current rates.
Here's a good page with info on the various costs of renewables, lots of links, and discussion of various technologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
And the business end of it, where we stand around the world today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization
The first link had an interesting part:
Quote:The U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency industries employed 8 million people in 2006, while generating 933 billion dollars in sales, $100 billion in profits, and $150 billion in increased federal, state, and local government tax revenues, according to a new report from the American Solar Energy Society (ASES). The report notes that it's difficult to define the energy efficiency industry, but even focusing on the renewable energy industry, it found 196,000 people directly employed by the industry, a total of 452,000 jobs created, and revenues of $39.2 billion in 2006. [17]
Hell's bells, isn't that an industry worth investing in?
Cycloptichon
Well, keep in mind that renewables are still heavily subsidized. ;p
Wind power is great for where you can get the turbines built, but when you actually go to build turbines, you tend to get the usual local "we don't want a skyline full of windmills" opposition. It's also only effective in some areas and at some times - so you still need to have something that can carry the base load when Mother Nature isn't cooperating (or significant advances in energy storage capabilities, which would be neat too.)
Tidal power is similar, plus there's a limited quantity of suitable coast, people tend to (a) own it and (b) not want a big power plant put up there, and it's also pretty hard on the equipment. Putting complicated moving parts in ocean spray is a good recipe for rust, after all. (Sure, ships do it, but they rust too.)
Solar has the same problems as wind, plus the technology's not quite there yet - for it to be a viable mass-generation option, it would have to get significantly more efficiency than it does now. People are working on that, sure, but it ain't there yet.
These guys are getting there.
Quote:The company uses Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide - which can achieve up to 19.5% efficiency - to build their thin film solar cells. Technical details of Nanosolar's new manufacturing techniques are closely held by the company but some information of their process has become available in a Scientific American article (in German). [6] These details involve a semiconductor ink that it claims will enable it to produce solar cells with a basic printing process. In this process, the ink is deposited on a flexible substrate (the "paper"), and then nanocomponents in the ink align themselves properly via molecular self-assembly. Two advantages over earlier technologies is that a printing process is quick and also makes it easy to deposit a uniform layer of the ink, resulting in a layer with the correct ratio of elements everywhere on the substrate. Also, the ink is printed only where needed, so there is less waste of material. Last, the substrate material on which the ink is printed is much less expensive than the stainless steel substrates that are often used in thin-film solar panels.
These solar cells successfully blend the needs for efficiency, low cost, and longevity and will be easy to install due to their flexibility and light weight. Estimates by Nanosolar of the cost of these cells, fall roughly between 1/10th and 1/5th [7] the industry standard per kilowatt.
The company implies that their solar cells can last more than 25 years by saying they "achieve a durability compatible with our 25-year warranty"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosolar
Cycloptichorn
georgeob1 wrote:A problem is that renewable electrical energy costs far more than a 20% premium over current rates -- more like two to three times current rates.
Not here (in Europe), since there's competition between the diffrent electricity suppliers: our local supplier offers green energy just 1cent/kwh above regular electricity - that's about 5% more expensive.
Which is nearly exactly the price you had to pay when ypu switched over completely to an only alternative electricty supplier.
