Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

ican711nm wrote:

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.

Quote:

So in other words you can't provide any support for your No. 1 which claimed the ocean is the primary source for CO2 in the atmosphere.

Soda pop is created by using an almost pure CO2 at 2 atmospheres. Henry's law says you can't get the ocean anywhere near the CO2 concentration as soda pop is. You have argued that the ocean is not near saturation which is dictated by temperature and Henry's law.

ican711nm wrote:

We would first have to measure at a point in time the CO2 content of earth's various ocean regions, and their temperatures, and the pressures under which they exist. Then for that point in time we could determine if any of those ocean regions at that given point in time were near or at their maximum CO2 content according to Henry's Law.

Until such measurements are made, I will assume these ocean regions are not saturated with CO2[/u]. However, when these ocean regions warm, they emit some of their CO2 in the form of gas into the atmosphere even though they are not saturated with CO2.

http://www.able2know.org/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&p=2980245

I asked for your science and you only argue against a statement you made earlier about the science NOT existing. Rolling Eyes

So let me ask again.. Where is your science for the ocean being the primary source for CO2 in the atmosphere. If the ocean is NOT saturated which was your claim then the ocean will NOT give off large quantities of CO2 like you are now claiming. You can't have it both ways. You argued that the science is NOT there. Henry's law states the oceans can't give off more CO2 than is in the atmosphere.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

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.

But how much would you be paying without government subsidies? The government doesn't subsidize most electricity production in the USA.
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2004_1/en/Energy_FINAL_web.pdf

0 Replies

You can read it here: Feed-in tariffs in Germany

Quote:

The average level of feed-in tariff was 0.0953 per kWh in 2005 (compared to an average cost of displaced energy of 0.047 kWh). The total level of subsidy was 2.4 billion, at a cost per consumer of 0.0056 per kWh (3 per cent of household electricity costs).

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The government doesn't subsidize most electricity production in the USA.

So the subsidies from the Rural Electrification Administration and the Federal power marketing administrations have been stopped by now?

And you really have no tax credits for electricity production
from renewable sources?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You can read it here: Feed-in tariffs in Germany

Quote:
The average level of feed-in tariff was 0.0953 per kWh in 2005 (compared to an average cost of displaced energy of 0.047 kWh). The total level of subsidy was 2.4 billion, at a cost per consumer of 0.0056 per kWh (3 per cent of household electricity costs).

I don't know since I don't know anything about Germany's utility system, but just reading the article, it seems that the 'feed in tariffs' are something different that government subsidies that assist utility companies to produce energy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
You can read it here: Feed-in tariffs in Germany

Quote:
The average level of feed-in tariff was 0.0953 per kWh in 2005 (compared to an average cost of displaced energy of 0.047 kWh). The total level of subsidy was 2.4 billion, at a cost per consumer of 0.0056 per kWh (3 per cent of household electricity costs).

I don't know since I don't know anything about Germany's utility system, but just reading the article, it seems that the 'feed in tariffs' are something different that government subsidies that assist utility companies to produce energy.

We have those too - we just refer to them as 'tax breaks.'

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, it is in your quote as well.

Buiding wind turbines isn't subsidised - that's the reason for feef-in tariff law.
Same with water.

Photovpoltaik is (though reduced by now), but only for private users (however, the electricity companies must buy the not-used electricities according to the feed-in tariff).

Coal for power stations as well uranium is tax-free here.

According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the feed-in tariff is no subsidy but an "aid".

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't know since I don't know anything about Germany's utility system, ...

Like mayn other things, electricity is mainly a European thing: electricity markets are governed by a Europe-wide directive on liberalization.

Our 'Stadtwerke' (something like 'municipal utilities', but run independly-privat from the town business and offices) buys the energy at the European Energy Exchange AG (Germany's energy exchange, which the leading energy exchange in Central Europe).

So we get electricity from .... anywhere in Europe, where it is the cheapest. (Gas, however, we get only from 'EWingas', which is a subsidary of Russian Gasprom - beecause they got an excellent price over a certain period. [Perhaps related to the fact that our former town clerk is a manager there.])

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I don't know since I don't know anything about Germany's utility system, ...

Like mayn other things, electricity is mainly a European thing: electricity markets are governed by a Europe-wide directive on liberalization.

Our 'Stadtwerke' (something like 'municipal utilities', but run independly-privat from the town business and offices) buys the energy at the European Energy Exchange AG (Germany's energy exchange, which the leading energy exchange in Central Europe).

So we get electricity from .... anywhere in Europe, where it is the cheapest. (Gas, however, we get only from 'EWingas', which is a subsidary of Russian Gasprom - beecause they got an excellent price over a certain period. [Perhaps related to the fact that our former town clerk is a manager there.])

But the question is, does the government pay the utility companies to produce/provide electricity to the people of Germany? Does it own any part of the utility companies or the electricity the utility companies buy and resell to you? If so, then the comparison of the real costs of producing/providing electricity between what Germans pay and what Americans pay is probably not reflected in the electric bill.

0 Replies

TKO wrote :

Quote:

I thought it was more expensive to be eco-sensitive?

there is the initial cost of the demand meters to consider , but from what i know after as little as two years the meters will be paid for and the reduced peak demand would at least delay the construction of additional power plants .
a look at the daily consumption curve of ONTARIO HYDRO , as an example , shows that the reason for needing to construct additional power plants is NOT the average consumption but the PEAK demand particularly on the hottest days of the summer - and that's when we have the highest pollution levels already , at least partly caused by firing up the dirty coal-fired power stations .

and to use another example , if i drive fewer miles per year , i can be eco-friendly AND save myself some money .

when we have to purchase a new car , we will certainly buy one using less gasoline . perhaps some of the powerful and fast european turbo-diesels will be available at that time - perhaps built in canada ? one of those would probably cut our consumption by 50 % .
btw we did have a VW-rabbit diesel from 1979 to 1988 . it was not the cleanest burner but did give us 35 mpg . unfortunately , the european cars in those days had a hard time standing up against the road-salt in canadian winters . the engine was as good as new after 150,000 miles - sadly , the body started to fall apart .

so : let's be ECO-FRIENDLY AND SAVE MONEY - i think it's called : WIN-WIN , is it not Question

:wink:
hbg

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But the question is, does the government pay the utility companies to produce/provide electricity to the people of Germany?

No, as far as I know.

Foxfyre wrote:

Does it own any part of the utility companies or the electricity the utility companies buy and resell to you?

Not at all - acrually never in German history. (In my state alone we have more than 120 electricty utilities - and there are some smaller states with even more companies. Plus: you can buy electricity from any utility in the EU, in theory. In practise only from any of the more than 1,000 German utilities and some big EU-companies.)

Foxfyre wrote:

If so, then the comparison of the real costs of producing/providing electricity between what Germans pay and what Americans pay is probably not reflected in the electric bill.

Okay.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

According to a ruling by the European Court of Justice, the feed-in tariff is no subsidy but an "aid".

That is a mere bureaucratic euphemism. It is a subsidy.

Consumers of electricity in America, Germany and most countries pay the AVERAGE cost of generating the power provided by the utility or consortium of power producers that sells it to them.

In general terms hydroelectric power (6% of our consumption) is the cheapest available source. Published data for the United states lists Nuclear power (20% of consumption)as the next cheapest source (about 80% the price of power generated from our ample supplies of high quality coal). Geothermal power (about 3% of our consumption) is rather variable in its cost, perhaps due to the widely different conditions under which it is produced. There are some relatively efficient plants in Northern California that operate at close to the cost of coal-fired plants. Coal fired plants produce about 52% of our electrical power. Next up the cost ladder comes gas turbine plants. These are typically small and because they are easily started up and shut down are used in major part to meet diurnal peak power demands. However, because of the opposition of nutty NIMBYs and environmentalists,they constitute most of our new plant construction for the past two decades and now amount to about 16% of our production. (This is very wasteful because without it we could divert the natural gas to vehicles and eliminate most of our petroleum imports.) Depending on the site & location, wind and solar power cost between 2 and 3 times the cost of power from coal and together they amount to no more than 2% of our consumption - despite the large special subsidies given to them by law.

From Walter's comments I conclude that the situation in Germany isn't much different. (Indeed I have read about some controversy there surrounding the construction of some new coal-fired plants.)

0 Replies

one of the cost factors that should be included in the cost of energy produced from NON-renewable sources is the long-term cost of pollution and adverse effects upon human health and well-being (think : acid rain) .
from what i know , thse costs are NEVER include in the cost of the energy .
wind farms may offend someone's view of natural beauty , but i have not heard that they have given people asthma or other lung diseases .

the link to the article below spells out some of the work that's being done now in canada to bring more wind power online .

btw we were astounded when we took a cruise from england to russia and back some years ago . the coastlines of denmark and sweden as well as the adjoining waters (north-sea and baltic) were almost covered with wind turbines as far as the eye could see . many of the turbines were several miles off shore - far away from human habitation .

i would doubt that denmark and sweden would be any more wastefull than either the united states or canada in spending their money .
all countries give subsidies to various industries - so why should subsidies to GREEN businesses be any worse than subsidies to polluting industries ?
hbg

WIND POWER IN CANADA

0 Replies

Interestingly, in the United States nuclear power producers are required to fund the eventual decommissioning and cleanup of the plants as part of the cost of current operations. In addition they pay a tax to cover the eventual cost of disposing of the spent nuclear fuel - in addition to paying the current cost of storing it today in wet and dry cask facilities adjacent to the plants. No other source of power is made to bear the equivalent costs. Despite this nuclear is still much cheaper than coal.

Solar and wind power are not without their environmental costs, which in the case of solar, involve some environmental effects of the materials used to construct them. However the big impediment for them so far is cost which still remains very high and -until better technologies are developed - will severely limit their application.

0 Replies

On any bill for electricity (which comes only once per year [you pay the monthly average per month or with a bonus per year by means of a debit entry] or when you ask (which I actually did today), any supplier of energy in the EU has to list from what sources he gets his electricityy.

In November our electricity here consisted of 23% nuclear power, 51% fossile energy and 26% renewable energy.
I do think that these numbers are average since they buy the electricity per week or even per day.

Our new planned coal power stations are the idea of our conservative state government ...

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

one of the cost factors that should be included in the cost of energy produced from NON-renewable sources is the long-term cost of pollution and adverse effects upon human health and well-being (think : acid rain) .
from what i know , thse costs are NEVER include in the cost of the energy .
wind farms may offend someone's view of natural beauty , but i have not heard that they have given people asthma or other lung diseases .

the link to the article below spells out some of the work that's being done now in canada to bring more wind power online .

btw we were astounded when we took a cruise from england to russia and back some years ago . the coastlines of denmark and sweden as well as the adjoining waters (north-sea and baltic) were almost covered with wind turbines as far as the eye could see . many of the turbines were several miles off shore - far away from human habitation .

i would doubt that denmark and sweden would be any more wastefull than either the united states or canada in spending their money .
all countries give subsidies to various industries - so why should subsidies to GREEN businesses be any worse than subsidies to polluting industries ?
hbg

WIND POWER IN CANADA

This is an interesting site and if the sources are as advertised, the data should be reasonably credible as shown:

http://www.abelard.org/briefings/tables.htm#electricity

It would suggest that wind technology in the USA is keeping pace with that utilized in other countries. However, I am already seeing the escalation of wind farms across Eastern New Mexico and West Texas and this escalation is producing some definite eyesores blocking once magnificent views.

I also question how many of these wind farms would be necessary to replace a substantial portion of the fossil fuels produced energy consumed here or anywhere else. And that doesn't even consider the wildlife conservationists protesting the rather frequent shredding of migrating birds. If you put wind farms on every available square foot of space, would they generate the energy produced by two or three nuclear plants?

I am not in any way opposed to new and better and cleaner sources of energy. I do think however that the results need to measure up to the motives for an improved climate/environment before we expend precious resources toward that end.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

...
Where is your science for the ocean being the primary source for CO2 in the atmosphere.
...

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

On any bill for electricity (which comes only once per year [you pay the monthly average per month or with a bonus per year by means of a debit entry] or when you ask (which I actually did today), any supplier of energy in the EU has to list from what sources he gets his electricityy.

In November our electricity here consisted of 23% nuclear power, 51% fossile energy and 26% renewable energy.
I do think that these numbers are average since they buy the electricity per week or even per day.

Our new planned coal power stations are the idea of our conservative state government ...

Apparently they are motivated by a shortage of available power. Would you prefer to freeze in the dark?

Forgive me, but I am skeptical of the 26% renewable figure you quoted (here the figure would be about 12% including hydro & geothermal). What is included in it? What about natural gas which Germany imports in abundance?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
On any bill for electricity (which comes only once per year [you pay the monthly average per month or with a bonus per year by means of a debit entry] or when you ask (which I actually did today), any supplier of energy in the EU has to list from what sources he gets his electricityy.

In November our electricity here consisted of 23% nuclear power, 51% fossile energy and 26% renewable energy.
I do think that these numbers are average since they buy the electricity per week or even per day.

Our new planned coal power stations are the idea of our conservative state government ...

Apparently they are motivated by a shortage of available power. Would you prefer to freeze in the dark?

Forgive me, but I am skeptical of the 26% renewable figure you quoted (here the figure would be about 12% including hydro & geothermal). What is included in it? What about natural gas which Germany imports in abundance?

My immediately preceding post does provide some statistics on this though I'm not qualified to fully interpret them.l

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

However, I am already seeing the escalation of wind farms across Eastern New Mexico and West Texas and this escalation is producing some definite eyesores blocking once magnificent views.

We have an etching from the town my ancestors started their mill-business: this rather small place had in 1830 two churchtowers but eight wind mills. Around in the rural countryside were about 60 more in a circle of 15 miles. (Different situation in my native town: we live there in Mill Street, leading to Mill Gate > since 1400 all the windmills (12) were situated out of town, only the two town/church owned watermills were inside the walls.)

Certainly we don't see many windmills now around here - just some dozens - but more than 600 wind turbines in the nearer neighbourhood.

People get used to them, like they dod and did with pit frames or oil pumps.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know