Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project

Expand Messages
  • Denis Frith
    Edison I agree that policies should be adopted in the developed and developing countries to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, so reducing the likely
    Message 1 of 28 , Jul 31, 2011
      Edison
      I agree that policies should be adopted in the developed and developing countries to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, so reducing the likely severity of the impact of climate change. Installation of renewable energy systems can make a worthwhile contribution to the supply of energy as the use of fossil fuels declines. Germany appears to be leading the way in that regard. However, focusing on the positive side of such projects as the solar breeder without taking into account their limited lives is misleading. The article conveys the impression that it is providing a solution to the energy supply problem when, in reality, it is a short term palliative.

      Denis


      --- On Sun, 31/7/11, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

      From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project
      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
      Received: Sunday, 31 July, 2011, 10:03 PM







       









      Denis



      One point is that data ( as I posted here) on per capita per year production of CO2, proves that there are developed countries ( i.e , Germany, Belgium , Japan to mention few ) where this production is considerably lower than the production in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The data suggest that their production ( those 3 countries) could be reduced by at least 50%, without hurting their quality of life, significantly.



      Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC) ( 2008) show emissions of Australia US, Canada, with , respectively, with 18.9, 17.5, and 16.4 , while emissions from Germany, Belgium , Japan are, respectively, 9.6, 9.9. and 9.5.



      I believe it is time for more responsability and initiatives to resduce unecessary emissons. Note: Typical emisions for many African nations are around 0.3!



      Edison




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Arthur C.
      Patrick, the disagreement here is not nitpicking. Do I have your big picture correct here? This is what I m seeing. You insist that it is a great idea to
      Message 2 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
        Patrick, the disagreement here is not nitpicking. Do I have your big picture correct here? This is what I'm seeing. You insist that it is a great idea to stay with significant parts of the status quo, building huge wind generators and solar electric plants in huge numbers. Along with this, over time we will forced to rationally consider our situation, peacefully lose 6 billion people or more, depending on when we all get rational about this. And when this mass rationality sweeps through humanity, current divisions of politics, religion, ethnicity, race, will vanish and we will move into an unspecified political-economic system where people cooperate widely everywhere on everything. There will be a agricultural system that is extremely vague as far as current specific problems of agriculture. These big wind-solar conversion devices and additional massive infrastructure of long distance powerlines, energy storage, will continue to be built through all this radical political- social change. Because population and per capital resource use will start falling with sudden desire of everyone to be rational, severe environmental problems will be avoided. This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?

        Arthur Noll



        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
        >
        > "solutions- don't use resources faster than they renew or replace. Population and how much is used per capita, are consciously limited by these things, with"
        >
        > Arthur, these solutions can and should be part of the solutions that I've suggested. In fact, I have argued that population reduction would be necessary as part of my overall argument. You are just picking out one aspect of my argument and not considering all the other aspects that would make that one aspect work. You have to consider the big picture, while what you are doing is nitpicking to death one particular aspect of my argument and then declaring that the entire argument is refuted. That's like saying that the concept of a car is impossible because you can't explain to someone how the car works by explaining the functioning of the spark plug.
        >
        > No one can know for sure what people are going to do in the future. It is all speculation. So this criticism applies equally to your own argument.
        >
        > -Patrick
        >
        > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Well, Patrick, you are right back to the problem of saying you know something about the unknown, that you are sure people can find what they need, when they need it, things that are currently unknown. You feel everyone should work on solutions to the problems that have been gotten into by this faith that these solutions exist. The majority of humanity freely made this bet, and are in so deep now that they see no choice but to continue. You clearly identify here with this point of view.
        > >
        > > I never liked this bet. I don't identify with the majority who made it and want to go deeper with it. It was an objectively irrational, arrogant bet to begin with and it looks no better now. The problems of which you write have simple solutions- don't use resources faster than they renew or replace. Population and how much is used per capita, are consciously limited by these things, with conservative factors of safety that go in the opposite direction of current common bets about reality. If irrational, arrogant bets are lost, people more rational and less arrogant about what they know, can win, they should survive at much higher rates.
        > >
        > > Arthur Noll
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Denis,
        > > >
        > > > Your criticism of renewable energy that it distracts from other issues can be applied to any solution of any issue. So, people dealing with water scarcity could be said to be distracting from the energy problem. People dealing with food security could be said to be distracting from the water problem, etc., etc. You can't fault a solution for not solving things which it wasn't intended to solve, and in fact, this is a highly counter-productive argument since it would discourage the solution of anything.
        > > >
        > > > -Patrick
        > > >
        > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      • papp20032000
        Patrick, That is a Wikipedia general and theoretical approach. The figures I have given on the capacity factors in Germany for wind energy (17.6%), refer to
        Message 3 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
          Patrick,

          That is a Wikipedia general and theoretical approach. The figures I have given on the capacity factors in Germany for wind energy (17.6%), refer to one full year operation and for 24 GW of wind installed power. These are official data given by the German government, which is paying hte premium tariffs and knows very well and accurately how much is REALLY being produced and I believe they are more reliable that those fragmented data of Wikipedia.

          The same for the photovoltaic installations, with a 9.3% capacity factor for Germany. They are also governmental official sources in REAL WORLD, taken for a one full year cycle and for a whole country, measuring installations for 7.7 GW of solar PV. A single, well cared PV installation in the Atacama desert in Chile, may have much bigger efficiency, but I was talking about REAL WORLD, not scattered examples in well insulated regions.

          Spain, however, is much closer to the figures given by Wikipedia, but this is the sunniest country in Europe and also windy (trade winds in the Canary Islands or in the Gibraltar Strait or in the many mountain passes or from valleys to the big central plateau. But is is obvious that this country, with 500,000 km2 has already taken the best wind fields (2,500 to 2,200 hours/year) and now the promoters are in search of windfileds of 1,800 hours a year. Offshore, on the other hand are not so promising, because the costs and other factors.

          I think it is a good moment to start considering, like we are doing here in Spain, from independent, non biased sources, the limits to the modern renewable sources fom a top-down perspective.

          If the world has created the IPCC with thousands of scientists in the belief and deep concern that modifying 1/10,000 parts of an air component in the atmosphere (CO2) may cause permanent alterations in the world climate and is provoking an irreversible global warming, I am sometimes amazed that we intend to capture and intercept, for instance, 25/10,000 of all the winds in the planet (1,200 TW) to generate electricty and pretend that it is not going to have any effect on the wind related effects on global climate.

          Pedro from Madrid


          --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
          >
          > Typical capacity factors:
          >
          > -Wind farms 20-40%.
          > -Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%.
          > -Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%.
          > -Hydroelectricity, worldwide average 44%, range of 20% - 75% depending on water availability.
          > -Nuclear energy 70% (1971-2009 average of USA's plants).
          > -Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants).
          >
          > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factor_and_renewable_energy)
          >
          > -Patrick McCleery
          >
          > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "papp20032000" <papp20032000@> wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > Germany is a good example of a national program of modern renewable energy systems.
          > >
          > > Spain, which is about half of the electricity consumption (300 TWh) than Germany (621 TWh in 2010) and about half the population, has already about 17% of the electricity demand covered just by wind energy and last June has set a record of 5% of the electricity demand with solar energy (mainly PV but also a growing portion of CSP).
          > >
          > > But I understand that in Energy Resources the main problem is not trying to create employment, which is always the alibi to support the promotion of modern renewable energy systems. We are rather trying to see if modern renewable systems may replace in time and volume and applications to the 12,000 MToes/year that the world is consuming, from which about 10,000 MToes are fossil fuels.
          > >
          > > I have recently investigated the impact of the decision of the German government to phase out the nuclear power (in Spanish, see http://www.crisisenergetica.org/ficheros/pprieto_herencia_nuclear_alemana.pdf), where I describe the present primary energy consumption in Germany, the energy mix and the electricity consumption, with its mix also.
          > >
          > > It is interesting to note that Germany has now 9 nuclear reactors operating; 8 nuclear reactors have been stopped. What the German government has decided is not to reopen the last 8 reactors. But this is nothing drastic, as the life cycle of the 8 reactors was shortly due, most of them between 2014 and 2016.
          > >
          > > As for the decision to close the 9 operative nuclear reactors by 2020, again is a game to shorten a little bit their life cycles, foreseen between 2021 and 2028.
          > >
          > > What is almost unknown is that Germany had already shut down 17 other nuclear reactors for different reasons. And they were of many technologies, even a fast breeder reactors. Another unknown issue for most of the people is the years taken by Germans to dismantle the shut down nuclear reactors. Out of the 19 nuclear reactors shut down, only 4 of them have completely finished the dismantling works (even knowing that a full dismantling consists in storing the highly radioactive sh..t in other pools or containers, awaiting for final deposits. The faster dismantling was 3 to 4 years and most of them have taken 15 to 20 years and have not yet finished. This gives a good idea of how complex is to dismantle nuclear reactors.
          > >
          > > The projections made with renewables by the Merkel government is to be admired, specially because is the only nuclearized country that has taken serious and rational measures after the Fukushima problem. They appear intended to avoid problems like the one of Fukushima, that may end with the whole country as such country, something that probably will happen in Japan. But even the ambitious declared program for renewables, when analyzed in detail, is based in trying to reduce and minimize the foreign dependence of fuels for the electricity generation (uranium is mostly if not all, imported in Germany). With this program, what is clear is that Germany comes back to coal generation, as coal is of national origin. And when the renewable energy program is completed, as programmed today, it will still make Germany a 25% dependant of imported fuels.
          > >
          > > When comparing the data of wind energy and solar energy in Spain and Germany, it appears something interesting:
          > >
          > > Wind in Germany has a very poor performance. Looking to the average installed power in 2009 (24.86 GW) and the wind energy generated this year (38.4 TWh), the load factor is very poor: a mere 17.6% or about 1.540 hours/year at nominal power. Spain, with 17.6 GW installed power in 2009 generated 37.2 TWh, with a load factor of 24%.
          > >
          > > Considering that the first wind fields are the most promising in load, there are few possibilities to believe that the costly offshore installations are going to change this dramatically.
          > >
          > > As for solar, the situation is even worst. Despite of Germany being the first country in the world in solar PV installed power, with 9.6 GW (an average installed power in 2009 of about 7.7 GW) and they generated with them 6.4 TWh. This is a poor (very poor) performance, with a combined national load factor of 9.3% or about 832 peak hours in a year.
          > >
          > > Spain, with more than 4 GW installed power in solar PV in 2009 generated an equivalent to 1.500 peak hours a year. This is an amazing 80% higher efficiency at equivalent installed power.
          > >
          > > The reasons are clear: first, Germany has much less irradiance than Spain. Second, Germany has chosen rooftop scattered small installations, versus the multimegawatt on-the-ground installations in Spain. The later being much more efficient, with better orientation procedures, much less shadowing and much better and rational maintenance.
          > >
          > > It seems that Germany is targeting, with a very disciplined population, to promote solar PV installations, to cope with the solar PV market at global level. They use the premium tariffs to leverage national manufacturers and not mainly in module's assemblies, but rather in selling to everyelse in the world sophisticated equipment goods, and know how, like testing machines,doping technics, calibrated instrumentation, ingot cutting, assembly robots, lab designs, etc. etc.
          > >
          > > Because if we look at the production figures, the reality is very, very discouraging.
          > >
          > > Pedro from Madrid
          > >
          >
        • e_bittencourt
          Denis Dennis Consider the data below Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), kg CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP) (UNFCCC) UN data Address
          Message 4 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
            Denis

            Dennis

            Consider the data below


            Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), kg CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP) (UNFCCC)

            UN data

            Address

            http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=Carbon+dioxide+emissions+(CO2)%2c+metric+tons+of+CO2+per+capita+(CDIAC)&d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3a776

            Cuntry - 2007/1990

            Australia .53/.67
            Belgium .32/.47
            Canada .49/.61
            Denmark .29/.41
            Finland .38/.49
            France .22/.28
            Germany .31/.51
            Italy .28/.32
            N.Zealand .33/.40
            Portugal .28/.28
            Spain .29/.29
            UK .26/.44
            Uni.States .47/.64

            One can see that countries in the higher side in 1990 ( above .60) are still leading in Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), kg CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP), that is , Canada, United States, and Australia. Some countries that were quite low in the 90's remained low - Portugal and Spain, while other made significant reduction ( i.e. Denmark, Gemany)

            Furthemore, see

            In Carbon dioxide emissions [tonnes] per capita ( but not per $1 gdp) a more complete data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita



            Comparatively,

            United States 17.5
            Japan 9.5
            Brazil 1.9
            Representative of many African countries .1

            See also: America's Homes Get Bigger and Better

            "The average single family home was 2,349 square feet in 2004, compared to 1,695 square feet in 1974. The size of the kitchen alone has doubled to nearly 300 square feet. Ground-floor ceilings have grown by more than a foot, and bedrooms are now an average of 12 feet by 12 feet, compared to 9 feet by 10 feet 30 years ago. That's more home for less people. Today's average family size is 2.6 people. Then, it was 3.1 people."



            Another interesting set of data ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_siz_of_hou-people-size-of-houses , proportion of houses with more that 5 rooms), shows Australia 70%, NZ, United Kindom, United States, grouped between 72 -75%; Germany , 40%; France 36%; Japan 31% ; Finland 14 % ( !). The main point is : build smaller- houses and cars. Not necessarily associated with with emerging technologies- just smaller


            Disparities shown in the data show that lifestyle ( big houses, big cars ) are a strong factor in CO2 production. Therefore, much can be done independent of short term, still questionable technologies.Some nations are living beyond its means, which means economic meltdown sooner or later

            Edison












            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Denis Frith
            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 12:58 AM
            Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project



            Edison
            I agree that policies should be adopted in the developed and developing countries to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, so reducing the likely severity of the impact of climate change. Installation of renewable energy systems can make a worthwhile contribution to the supply of energy as the use of fossil fuels declines. Germany appears to be leading the way in that regard. However, focusing on the positive side of such projects as the solar breeder without taking into account their limited lives is misleading. The article conveys the impression that it is providing a solution to the energy supply problem when, in reality, it is a short term palliative.

            Denis

            --- On Sun, 31/7/11, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

            From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
            Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project
            To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
            Received: Sunday, 31 July, 2011, 10:03 PM



            Denis

            One point is that data ( as I posted here) on per capita per year production of CO2, proves that there are developed countries ( i.e , Germany, Belgium , Japan to mention few ) where this production is considerably lower than the production in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The data suggest that their production ( those 3 countries) could be reduced by at least 50%, without hurting their quality of life, significantly.

            Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC) ( 2008) show emissions of Australia US, Canada, with , respectively, with 18.9, 17.5, and 16.4 , while emissions from Germany, Belgium , Japan are, respectively, 9.6, 9.9. and 9.5.

            I believe it is time for more responsability and initiatives to resduce unecessary emissons. Note: Typical emisions for many African nations are around 0.3!

            Edison

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • pmccleery5
            Pedro, You misunderstood the intention behind my post. I was merely trying to show typical capacity factors. Germany is apparently not well suited to either
            Message 5 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
              Pedro,

              You misunderstood the intention behind my post. I was merely trying to show typical capacity factors. Germany is apparently not well suited to either wind or solar, but they can overcome this with additional capacity. Another option would be to obtain their energy from elsewhere, but this would require that they have something worth trading for the energy.

              -Patrick



              --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "papp20032000" <papp20032000@...> wrote:
              >
              > Patrick,
              >
              > That is a Wikipedia general and theoretical approach. The figures I have given on the capacity factors in Germany for wind energy (17.6%), refer to one full year operation and for 24 GW of wind installed power. These are official data given by the German government, which is paying hte premium tariffs and knows very well and accurately how much is REALLY being produced and I believe they are more reliable that those fragmented data of Wikipedia.
              >
              > The same for the photovoltaic installations, with a 9.3% capacity factor for Germany. They are also governmental official sources in REAL WORLD, taken for a one full year cycle and for a whole country, measuring installations for 7.7 GW of solar PV. A single, well cared PV installation in the Atacama desert in Chile, may have much bigger efficiency, but I was talking about REAL WORLD, not scattered examples in well insulated regions.
              >
              > Spain, however, is much closer to the figures given by Wikipedia, but this is the sunniest country in Europe and also windy (trade winds in the Canary Islands or in the Gibraltar Strait or in the many mountain passes or from valleys to the big central plateau. But is is obvious that this country, with 500,000 km2 has already taken the best wind fields (2,500 to 2,200 hours/year) and now the promoters are in search of windfileds of 1,800 hours a year. Offshore, on the other hand are not so promising, because the costs and other factors.
              >
              > I think it is a good moment to start considering, like we are doing here in Spain, from independent, non biased sources, the limits to the modern renewable sources fom a top-down perspective.
              >
              > If the world has created the IPCC with thousands of scientists in the belief and deep concern that modifying 1/10,000 parts of an air component in the atmosphere (CO2) may cause permanent alterations in the world climate and is provoking an irreversible global warming, I am sometimes amazed that we intend to capture and intercept, for instance, 25/10,000 of all the winds in the planet (1,200 TW) to generate electricty and pretend that it is not going to have any effect on the wind related effects on global climate.
              >
              > Pedro from Madrid
              >
              >
              > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
              > >
              > > Typical capacity factors:
              > >
              > > -Wind farms 20-40%.
              > > -Photovoltaic solar in Massachusetts 12-15%.
              > > -Photovoltaic solar in Arizona 19%.
              > > -Hydroelectricity, worldwide average 44%, range of 20% - 75% depending on water availability.
              > > -Nuclear energy 70% (1971-2009 average of USA's plants).
              > > -Nuclear energy 91.2% (2010 average of USA's plants).
              > >
              > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Capacity_factor_and_renewable_energy)
              > >
              > > -Patrick McCleery
              > >
              > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "papp20032000" <papp20032000@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > Germany is a good example of a national program of modern renewable energy systems.
              > > >
              > > > Spain, which is about half of the electricity consumption (300 TWh) than Germany (621 TWh in 2010) and about half the population, has already about 17% of the electricity demand covered just by wind energy and last June has set a record of 5% of the electricity demand with solar energy (mainly PV but also a growing portion of CSP).
              > > >
              > > > But I understand that in Energy Resources the main problem is not trying to create employment, which is always the alibi to support the promotion of modern renewable energy systems. We are rather trying to see if modern renewable systems may replace in time and volume and applications to the 12,000 MToes/year that the world is consuming, from which about 10,000 MToes are fossil fuels.
              > > >
              > > > I have recently investigated the impact of the decision of the German government to phase out the nuclear power (in Spanish, see http://www.crisisenergetica.org/ficheros/pprieto_herencia_nuclear_alemana.pdf), where I describe the present primary energy consumption in Germany, the energy mix and the electricity consumption, with its mix also.
              > > >
              > > > It is interesting to note that Germany has now 9 nuclear reactors operating; 8 nuclear reactors have been stopped. What the German government has decided is not to reopen the last 8 reactors. But this is nothing drastic, as the life cycle of the 8 reactors was shortly due, most of them between 2014 and 2016.
              > > >
              > > > As for the decision to close the 9 operative nuclear reactors by 2020, again is a game to shorten a little bit their life cycles, foreseen between 2021 and 2028.
              > > >
              > > > What is almost unknown is that Germany had already shut down 17 other nuclear reactors for different reasons. And they were of many technologies, even a fast breeder reactors. Another unknown issue for most of the people is the years taken by Germans to dismantle the shut down nuclear reactors. Out of the 19 nuclear reactors shut down, only 4 of them have completely finished the dismantling works (even knowing that a full dismantling consists in storing the highly radioactive sh..t in other pools or containers, awaiting for final deposits. The faster dismantling was 3 to 4 years and most of them have taken 15 to 20 years and have not yet finished. This gives a good idea of how complex is to dismantle nuclear reactors.
              > > >
              > > > The projections made with renewables by the Merkel government is to be admired, specially because is the only nuclearized country that has taken serious and rational measures after the Fukushima problem. They appear intended to avoid problems like the one of Fukushima, that may end with the whole country as such country, something that probably will happen in Japan. But even the ambitious declared program for renewables, when analyzed in detail, is based in trying to reduce and minimize the foreign dependence of fuels for the electricity generation (uranium is mostly if not all, imported in Germany). With this program, what is clear is that Germany comes back to coal generation, as coal is of national origin. And when the renewable energy program is completed, as programmed today, it will still make Germany a 25% dependant of imported fuels.
              > > >
              > > > When comparing the data of wind energy and solar energy in Spain and Germany, it appears something interesting:
              > > >
              > > > Wind in Germany has a very poor performance. Looking to the average installed power in 2009 (24.86 GW) and the wind energy generated this year (38.4 TWh), the load factor is very poor: a mere 17.6% or about 1.540 hours/year at nominal power. Spain, with 17.6 GW installed power in 2009 generated 37.2 TWh, with a load factor of 24%.
              > > >
              > > > Considering that the first wind fields are the most promising in load, there are few possibilities to believe that the costly offshore installations are going to change this dramatically.
              > > >
              > > > As for solar, the situation is even worst. Despite of Germany being the first country in the world in solar PV installed power, with 9.6 GW (an average installed power in 2009 of about 7.7 GW) and they generated with them 6.4 TWh. This is a poor (very poor) performance, with a combined national load factor of 9.3% or about 832 peak hours in a year.
              > > >
              > > > Spain, with more than 4 GW installed power in solar PV in 2009 generated an equivalent to 1.500 peak hours a year. This is an amazing 80% higher efficiency at equivalent installed power.
              > > >
              > > > The reasons are clear: first, Germany has much less irradiance than Spain. Second, Germany has chosen rooftop scattered small installations, versus the multimegawatt on-the-ground installations in Spain. The later being much more efficient, with better orientation procedures, much less shadowing and much better and rational maintenance.
              > > >
              > > > It seems that Germany is targeting, with a very disciplined population, to promote solar PV installations, to cope with the solar PV market at global level. They use the premium tariffs to leverage national manufacturers and not mainly in module's assemblies, but rather in selling to everyelse in the world sophisticated equipment goods, and know how, like testing machines,doping technics, calibrated instrumentation, ingot cutting, assembly robots, lab designs, etc. etc.
              > > >
              > > > Because if we look at the production figures, the reality is very, very discouraging.
              > > >
              > > > Pedro from Madrid
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • pmccleery5
              You insist that it is a great idea to stay with significant parts of the status quo, No, what I ve suggested is a significant departure from the status quo and
              Message 6 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
                You insist that it is a great idea to stay with significant parts of the status quo,

                No, what I've suggested is a significant departure from the status quo and this response of yours indicates to me that you either A. haven't been listening or B. are looking for a straw man to argue against.

                I am describing one possible scenario, not the most likely scenario. You seem to be focused on what is likely, and that's fine. However, we need to consider not just what is likely, but what is desirable. What you are overlooking is the fact that maximum carrying capacity is going to be a lot lower under the scenario you describe - probably less than 100 million people worldwide, I would guess. This means a lot more people are going to have to die under your scenario, with all the violence and chaos that comes along with it. I'm trying to minimize that violence and chaos through a graceful powerdown. You just want to yank the cord out and let God sort 'em out.

                -Patrick


                --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@...> wrote:
                >
                > Patrick, the disagreement here is not nitpicking. Do I have your big picture correct here? This is what I'm seeing. You insist that it is a great idea to stay with significant parts of the status quo, building huge wind generators and solar electric plants in huge numbers. Along with this, over time we will forced to rationally consider our situation, peacefully lose 6 billion people or more, depending on when we all get rational about this. And when this mass rationality sweeps through humanity, current divisions of politics, religion, ethnicity, race, will vanish and we will move into an unspecified political-economic system where people cooperate widely everywhere on everything. There will be a agricultural system that is extremely vague as far as current specific problems of agriculture. These big wind-solar conversion devices and additional massive infrastructure of long distance powerlines, energy storage, will continue to be built through all this radical political- social change. Because population and per capital resource use will start falling with sudden desire of everyone to be rational, severe environmental problems will be avoided. This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?
                >
                > Arthur Noll
                >
                >
                >
                > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
                > >
                > > "solutions- don't use resources faster than they renew or replace. Population and how much is used per capita, are consciously limited by these things, with"
                > >
                > > Arthur, these solutions can and should be part of the solutions that I've suggested. In fact, I have argued that population reduction would be necessary as part of my overall argument. You are just picking out one aspect of my argument and not considering all the other aspects that would make that one aspect work. You have to consider the big picture, while what you are doing is nitpicking to death one particular aspect of my argument and then declaring that the entire argument is refuted. That's like saying that the concept of a car is impossible because you can't explain to someone how the car works by explaining the functioning of the spark plug.
                > >
                > > No one can know for sure what people are going to do in the future. It is all speculation. So this criticism applies equally to your own argument.
                > >
                > > -Patrick
                > >
                > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@> wrote:
                > > >
                > > > Well, Patrick, you are right back to the problem of saying you know something about the unknown, that you are sure people can find what they need, when they need it, things that are currently unknown. You feel everyone should work on solutions to the problems that have been gotten into by this faith that these solutions exist. The majority of humanity freely made this bet, and are in so deep now that they see no choice but to continue. You clearly identify here with this point of view.
                > > >
                > > > I never liked this bet. I don't identify with the majority who made it and want to go deeper with it. It was an objectively irrational, arrogant bet to begin with and it looks no better now. The problems of which you write have simple solutions- don't use resources faster than they renew or replace. Population and how much is used per capita, are consciously limited by these things, with conservative factors of safety that go in the opposite direction of current common bets about reality. If irrational, arrogant bets are lost, people more rational and less arrogant about what they know, can win, they should survive at much higher rates.
                > > >
                > > > Arthur Noll
                > > >
                > > >
                > > >
                > > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Denis,
                > > > >
                > > > > Your criticism of renewable energy that it distracts from other issues can be applied to any solution of any issue. So, people dealing with water scarcity could be said to be distracting from the energy problem. People dealing with food security could be said to be distracting from the water problem, etc., etc. You can't fault a solution for not solving things which it wasn't intended to solve, and in fact, this is a highly counter-productive argument since it would discourage the solution of anything.
                > > > >
                > > > > -Patrick
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > >
                > > >
                > >
                >
              • pmccleery5
                Denis, define short term please. Are we talking centuries, decades, years? The SBP does take into account the limited lifespan of the installations. That is
                Message 7 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
                  Denis,
                  define short term please. Are we talking centuries, decades, years?

                  The SBP does take into account the limited lifespan of the installations. That is basically the entire point of the project, to demonstrate that a solar panel can generate enough energy to both build a replacement panel and generate a surplus. Both extraction of silica and manufacture of solar panels would be done with solar energy. If this is possible, then the process can be replicated indefinitely so long as we have a supply of sand. When are we expected to run out of sand?

                  -Patrick McCleery

                  --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Edison
                  > I agree that policies should be adopted in the developed and developing countries to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, so reducing the likely severity of the impact of climate change. Installation of renewable energy systems can make a worthwhile contribution to the supply of energy as the use of fossil fuels declines. Germany appears to be leading the way in that regard. However, focusing on the positive side of such projects as the solar breeder without taking into account their limited lives is misleading. The article conveys the impression that it is providing a solution to the energy supply problem when, in reality, it is a short term palliative.
                  >
                  > Denis
                  >
                  >
                  > --- On Sun, 31/7/11, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
                  > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project
                  > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                  > Received: Sunday, 31 July, 2011, 10:03 PM
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Denis
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > One point is that data ( as I posted here) on per capita per year production of CO2, proves that there are developed countries ( i.e , Germany, Belgium , Japan to mention few ) where this production is considerably lower than the production in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The data suggest that their production ( those 3 countries) could be reduced by at least 50%, without hurting their quality of life, significantly.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC) ( 2008) show emissions of Australia US, Canada, with , respectively, with 18.9, 17.5, and 16.4 , while emissions from Germany, Belgium , Japan are, respectively, 9.6, 9.9. and 9.5.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > I believe it is time for more responsability and initiatives to resduce unecessary emissons. Note: Typical emisions for many African nations are around 0.3!
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Edison
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • pmccleery5
                  Arthur wrote: This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration,
                  Message 8 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
                    Arthur wrote:
                    "This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?"

                    I suggest everyone read this:

                    http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/roots_up.htm#

                    The author makes many of the same conclusions I've argued for. I'm sure he just doesn't know what he's talking about, though.

                    -Patrick McCleery
                  • Denis Frith
                    Edison The data you provide below just confirms my understanding. The hidden price of the development in many countries has been the emissions from the use
                    Message 9 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
                      Edison
                      The data you provide below just confirms my understanding. The 'hidden' price of the development in many countries has been the emissions from the use of fossil fuels have instigated rapid climate change that is having a global impact. The best that can possibly occur is that the industrial countries rapidly cut back on their emissions, partly by installing renewable energy systems and partly by not wasting so much energy. The decline in the availability of oil will aid the adjustment. All that these palliative measures will do is to reduce the severity of the impact of climate change slightly. The damage has been done. Industrialization has upset the climate.There is no turning back the clock. Global society will have to learn how to adapt to the consequences of what industrial civilization has done. Ironically, flora and fauna are leading the way!

                      Denis


                      --- On Tue, 2/8/11, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

                      From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>
                      Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project
                      To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                      Received: Tuesday, 2 August, 2011, 1:04 AM







                       











                      Denis



                      Dennis



                      Consider the data below



                      Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), kg CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP) (UNFCCC)



                      UN data



                      Address



                      http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?q=Carbon+dioxide+emissions+(CO2)%2c+metric+tons+of+CO2+per+capita+(CDIAC)&d=MDG&f=seriesRowID%3a776



                      Cuntry - 2007/1990



                      Australia .53/.67

                      Belgium .32/.47

                      Canada .49/.61

                      Denmark .29/.41

                      Finland .38/.49

                      France .22/.28

                      Germany .31/.51

                      Italy .28/.32

                      N.Zealand .33/.40

                      Portugal .28/.28

                      Spain .29/.29

                      UK .26/.44

                      Uni.States .47/.64



                      One can see that countries in the higher side in 1990 ( above .60) are still leading in Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), kg CO2 per $1 GDP (PPP), that is , Canada, United States, and Australia. Some countries that were quite low in the 90's remained low - Portugal and Spain, while other made significant reduction ( i.e. Denmark, Gemany)



                      Furthemore, see



                      In Carbon dioxide emissions [tonnes] per capita ( but not per $1 gdp) a more complete data at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita



                      Comparatively,



                      United States 17.5

                      Japan 9.5

                      Brazil 1.9

                      Representative of many African countries .1



                      See also: America's Homes Get Bigger and Better



                      "The average single family home was 2,349 square feet in 2004, compared to 1,695 square feet in 1974. The size of the kitchen alone has doubled to nearly 300 square feet. Ground-floor ceilings have grown by more than a foot, and bedrooms are now an average of 12 feet by 12 feet, compared to 9 feet by 10 feet 30 years ago. That's more home for less people. Today's average family size is 2.6 people. Then, it was 3.1 people."



                      Another interesting set of data ( http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_siz_of_hou-people-size-of-houses , proportion of houses with more that 5 rooms), shows Australia 70%, NZ, United Kindom, United States, grouped between 72 -75%; Germany , 40%; France 36%; Japan 31% ; Finland 14 % ( !). The main point is : build smaller- houses and cars. Not necessarily associated with with emerging technologies- just smaller



                      Disparities shown in the data show that lifestyle ( big houses, big cars ) are a strong factor in CO2 production. Therefore, much can be done independent of short term, still questionable technologies.Some nations are living beyond its means, which means economic meltdown sooner or later



                      Edison




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Denis Frith
                      Patrick I am assessing what is likely during the remainder of this century. How industrialized society will move forward as natural resources become scarcer
                      Message 10 of 28 , Aug 1, 2011
                        Patrick
                        I am assessing what is likely during the remainder of this century. How industrialized society will move forward as natural resources become scarcer and the environment more degraded. The contribution that solar systems may make to what happens is only one trivial issue. I am focusing on the holistic scenario which consists of a vast range of interdependent issues.
                        Denis


                        --- On Tue, 2/8/11, pmccleery5 <pmccleery5@...> wrote:

                        From: pmccleery5 <pmccleery5@...>
                        Subject: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project
                        To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                        Received: Tuesday, 2 August, 2011, 4:37 AM







                         









                        Denis,

                        define short term please. Are we talking centuries, decades, years?



                        The SBP does take into account the limited lifespan of the installations. That is basically the entire point of the project, to demonstrate that a solar panel can generate enough energy to both build a replacement panel and generate a surplus. Both extraction of silica and manufacture of solar panels would be done with solar energy. If this is possible, then the process can be replicated indefinitely so long as we have a supply of sand. When are we expected to run out of sand?



                        -Patrick McCleery



                        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, Denis Frith <denisaf2000@...> wrote:

                        >

                        > Edison

                        > I agree that policies should be adopted in the developed and developing countries to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible, so reducing the likely severity of the impact of climate change. Installation of renewable energy systems can make a worthwhile contribution to the supply of energy as the use of fossil fuels declines. Germany appears to be leading the way in that regard. However, focusing on the positive side of such projects as the solar breeder without taking into account their limited lives is misleading. The article conveys the impression that it is providing a solution to the energy supply problem when, in reality, it is a short term palliative.

                        >

                        > Denis

                        >

                        >

                        > --- On Sun, 31/7/11, e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...> wrote:

                        >

                        > From: e_bittencourt <e_bittencourt@...>

                        > Subject: Re: [energyresources] Re: Solar Breeder Project

                        > To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com

                        > Received: Sunday, 31 July, 2011, 10:03 PM

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > Denis

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > One point is that data ( as I posted here) on per capita per year production of CO2, proves that there are developed countries ( i.e , Germany, Belgium , Japan to mention few ) where this production is considerably lower than the production in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The data suggest that their production ( those 3 countries) could be reduced by at least 50%, without hurting their quality of life, significantly.

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > Carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), metric tons of CO2 per capita (CDIAC) ( 2008) show emissions of Australia US, Canada, with , respectively, with 18.9, 17.5, and 16.4 , while emissions from Germany, Belgium , Japan are, respectively, 9.6, 9.9. and 9.5.

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > I believe it is time for more responsability and initiatives to resduce unecessary emissons. Note: Typical emisions for many African nations are around 0.3!

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > Edison

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        >

                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                        >






















                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Arthur C.
                        I have some online experience with the person who wrote this. He is one of the moderators on the Running on Empty list. He comes up with a lot of facts and
                        Message 11 of 28 , Aug 2, 2011
                          I have some online experience with the person who wrote this. He is one of the moderators on the Running on Empty list. He comes up with a lot of facts and information that I have no problem with, but on some vital things I feel he is quite vague and is completely ignoring observations I've made on that list, same as I've made here. For example, he covers a lot of different ways of getting electricity and looks at some of the problems, but never comes up with anything or any combination that looks practical when you look at more details. Not for the amount of electricity he feels is needed, anyway. He is ignoring problems I've observed with John Jeavons ideas about growing food. He ignores my observations of problems with money and how that could be solved. He wants people to be responsible about reproduction but gives nothing about how that might be achieved. The idea that selection might happen for this and other things isn't part of his understanding. He is adamant that we should be trying to create completely separate human ecosystems and not try to integrate with natural ecosystems. That doesn't make much sense to me. He raises questions about health care and then doesn't answer them.
                          I could go on with this but I think you might get the idea. Though perhaps not, since I feel you are equally vague about many of the same things. If two people with vague, confused ideas about reality, agree with each other, does that equal clarity? Maybe to them it does, but not to me.

                          Arthur Noll

                          --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Arthur wrote:
                          > "This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?"
                          >
                          > I suggest everyone read this:
                          >
                          > http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/roots_up.htm#
                          >
                          > The author makes many of the same conclusions I've argued for. I'm sure he just doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
                          >
                          > -Patrick McCleery
                          >
                        • htraite
                          Patrick, I am sure at some points in time he did know what he was talking about; communicating ones impressions and perceptions is however another story. This
                          Message 12 of 28 , Aug 2, 2011
                            Patrick, I am sure at some points in time he did know what he was talking about; communicating ones impressions and perceptions is however another story.

                            This is not only chemistries that we discuss. If it was we might expect that the same elements/compounds placed in contact and with the same catalysts to produce the same results, repeatedly. This is not mere physics that we discuss. If it was we might rest at the expectation that such as yourself to weigh approximately 470 kilo whether you are standing in Guatemala, napping in Maui, or singing opera. Failure to recognize such as your newest, the "treatise" as opinion is common, and perhaps I find such fundamental failure more frustrating and more annoying because it is so common.

                            No one knows the future, Patrick, and that is a fact. In the projections of trends experience and an open mind are quite influential and apparent. However minute a point of datum might seem none can be dismissed as inconsequential. And however well rounded an education, however experienced someone may seem, his/her and/or others expressed projection of trend is still an opinion.

                            Anothers opinion is not a defense of ones own opinion with an exception of contests in popularity. Anothers opinion is not sufficient ground for building further treatise, further hypothesis.

                            Failure to recognize projections of trend as opinion is serious flaw; along with the failure two human characteristics are also unrecognized - Trust and Hope. Now, one might argue that in such and such a situation, or in that one or the other, trust and/or hope are irrelevant, and one may be correct, but that is in such and such a situation, or in that one or the other. Another fact is that trust and hope is somethings we humans do, and another fact is that in the big picture the observer, the scientist, can not be removed from the observed and so his/her and/or others influence must be factored in.

                            We are dealing in opinion, Patrick, which does not of itself invalidate factualness, scope, vision, nor any lack thereof. It does, I believe, need to be recognized as opinion.


                            Howard
                            Home Earth




                            --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Arthur wrote:
                            > "This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?"
                            >
                            > I suggest everyone read this:
                            >
                            > http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/roots_up.htm#
                            >
                            > The author makes many of the same conclusions I've argued for. I'm sure he just doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
                            >
                            > -Patrick McCleery
                            >
                          • Bálint Czúcz
                            Wow! Nice concept, nice discussion, even though I am not really convinced that the idea is really feasible given the numerous hurdles mentioned. But from an
                            Message 13 of 28 , Aug 2, 2011
                              Wow!
                              Nice concept, nice discussion, even though I am not really convinced
                              that the idea is really feasible given the numerous hurdles mentioned.
                              But from an other perspective, solar breeders are a viable concept,
                              providing perhaps the only viable solution for our problems.

                              Solar breeder plants do already exist. They are called plants.

                              Best regards,
                              Bálint

                              --
                              Bálint Czúcz
                              Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences
                              H-2163 Vácrátót, Alkotmány u. 2-4. HUNGARY
                              Tel: +36 28 360122/137  +36 70 7034692
                              magyar nyelvű blog: http://atermeszettorvenye.blogspot.com/



                              On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 20:35, pmccleery5 <pmccleery5@...> wrote:
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Given the current discussion I thought this would be of interest:
                              >
                              > http://www.gizmag.com/sahara-solar-breeder-project/17054/
                              >
                              > http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Solar+breeder
                              >
                              > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_Solar_Breeder_Project
                              >
                              > If the project works it will be proof that solar power is capable of replicating itself and providing surplus energy.
                              >
                              > -Patrick
                              >
                              > ~~~~~~~~~EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~~~
                              >
                              > Or Not!
                              >
                              > ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
                              >
                              >
                            • pmccleery5
                              Arthur, I feel you are making the same fallacy again and again. X has not been proven/demonstrated, therefore X is false/impossible. This is an appeal to
                              Message 14 of 28 , Aug 2, 2011
                                Arthur,

                                I feel you are making the same fallacy again and again. "X has not been proven/demonstrated, therefore X is false/impossible." This is an appeal to ignorance and is a common logical fallacy. The reality is that you have not demonstrated that X is false, therefore X is possible.

                                I should also point out that just because something has not been adequately explained to your satisfaction, does not mean that it is false.

                                You have yet to point out a single technical problem with what I've proposed that is insurmountable. You just keep pointing out the lack of clarity, lack of detail, etc. Well, sorry, but I don't have a team of a hundred scientists/engineers working for me. Probably, to work out the level of detail you want, you would need top experts in virtually every field working together. Just because that level of detail doesn't exist yet doesn't mean that what is being described is false or impossible.

                                -Patrick McCleery

                                --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Arthur C." <arthurcnoll@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I have some online experience with the person who wrote this. He is one of the moderators on the Running on Empty list. He comes up with a lot of facts and information that I have no problem with, but on some vital things I feel he is quite vague and is completely ignoring observations I've made on that list, same as I've made here. For example, he covers a lot of different ways of getting electricity and looks at some of the problems, but never comes up with anything or any combination that looks practical when you look at more details. Not for the amount of electricity he feels is needed, anyway. He is ignoring problems I've observed with John Jeavons ideas about growing food. He ignores my observations of problems with money and how that could be solved. He wants people to be responsible about reproduction but gives nothing about how that might be achieved. The idea that selection might happen for this and other things isn't part of his understanding. He is adamant that we should be trying to create completely separate human ecosystems and not try to integrate with natural ecosystems. That doesn't make much sense to me. He raises questions about health care and then doesn't answer them.
                                > I could go on with this but I think you might get the idea. Though perhaps not, since I feel you are equally vague about many of the same things. If two people with vague, confused ideas about reality, agree with each other, does that equal clarity? Maybe to them it does, but not to me.
                                >
                                > Arthur Noll
                                >
                                > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "pmccleery5" <pmccleery5@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Arthur wrote:
                                > > "This new system of wind and solar will eventually run for somewhere around a billion people an electric grid giving basic lights, refrigeration, water, sewer, communications, health care, electric railroads, on a reduced amount per person but still much like today, and give enough energy to maintain and recycle everything, rebuild everything as is needed. Do I have this big picture of yours about right?"
                                > >
                                > > I suggest everyone read this:
                                > >
                                > > http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/roots_up.htm#
                                > >
                                > > The author makes many of the same conclusions I've argued for. I'm sure he just doesn't know what he's talking about, though.
                                > >
                                > > -Patrick McCleery
                                > >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.