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

Re: Renewable energy growth

Expand Messages
  • stevell88
    Lasallia, Yes,I was saying that the IPCC does not present information that is accurate and considered current in their projections of Population Growth and
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Lasallia, Yes,I was saying that the IPCC does not present
      information that is accurate and considered current in their
      projections of Population Growth and other specifics If that means
      that I do not think they know what they are talking about, then so
      be it. If the IPCC is suppose to represent the "concensus" of the
      scientific community they should at least be consistant with what
      the Scientific community considers current data.

      Overpopulation has been the mantra for special interests groups for
      a long time. It does not set well with these groups to have
      scientist point out that population growth is considered "under
      control" and will not double in the foreseeable future. This also
      puts some pressure on the projection formulas (GCM's) that link
      population growth directly with growth in fossil fuel emissions.

      In order for the dire IPCC projections of global warming...resulting
      in all the computer generated horrible side effects.....to occur
      they must project a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the
      atmosphere. This is a manufactured number. The projections of the
      dire consequences is not an observed entity but a projection of
      computer models that depend on population growth projections.

      Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not going to double in 50 or 100
      years. Observations over the past 20 years indicate a very small
      growth even with the huge consumption of fossil fuels. Continued
      use of fossil fuels will have the same effect they have had in the
      past 20 years. Not much of a change unless you consider 1+ ppmv a
      large growth per year. Not very large when you consider that man is
      responsible for only 1/30th of the CO2 released into the atmosphere.

      I agree that we should divert energy production to alternate sources
      as the economic opportunities present themselves. I also have no
      problem with subsidies for alternative energy methods to enable them
      to come on line and challenge the economies of carbon based fuels.
      It is the right thing to do but not because we are distroying the
      planet. It is the right thing to do politically and logically. You
      don't need to scare people to get them to do something that is
      logical.

      Sincerely,

      Steve L.


      --- In globalwarming@y..., lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > I'm sorry, I missed the undertones of respect and regard in your
      post.
      > It seemed like you were saying they didn't know what they were
      > talking about. I didn't disagree with their projections, just
      stated
      > that we could do better given the political will.
      >
      > Let me make my position clear on this. We are hauling fossil
      fuels
      > out of the ground at an unsustainable rate, although I know that
      the
      > price increase will make it profitable to dig ever deeper in the
      > future. The business of oil and coal is messy and polluting and
      we
      > are wasting a great deal of the energy. We have alternative
      sources
      > and should be utilising them, conserving oil and coal for
      industries
      > which require a great deal of heat, such as steel production. CO2
      is
      > well known as a greenhouse gas, without which we wouldn't be able
      to
      > survive. Carbon which has been locked in the earth is being
      released
      > at a rate that the cycle can't deal with. It seems sensible to
      use
      > renewable energy where we can. My big problem is that the fuel
      > companies are fighting this for no better reason than greed. If
      we
      > could reduce our need for fossil fuels there would be less
      pollution,
      > fewer oil spills and less risk to miners. Whether or not you
      believe
      > that our atmosphere is being changed there are plenty of reasons
      to
      > switch painlessly and profitably to renewable energy sources for
      many
      > of our requirements. The Kyoto Protocol is really to ensure there
      is
      > cooperation among nations; I don't think there is any penalty for
      not
      > reaching the set limits, and the limits are not written in stone
      > either.
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
      > > Lasallia, You stated in your last post, " I'm going to ignore
      the
      > > spurious attempt to discredit the IPCC and cancentrate on this
      > > section: "
      > >
      > > spu·ri·ous adj. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or
      > > origin; not genuine; false.
      > >
      > > Please explain to me what was SPURIOUS about my pointing out
      that
      > the
      > > IPCC may be using overestimates of population growth? Does that
      > mean
      > > that you are SPURIOUS for doing the same thing regarding their
      > > projections of energy conversions?
      > >
      > > I have a high regard for many of the Scientists that work within
      the
      > > IPCC framework. I do not have the same regard for the
      Politicans
      > > that use the Scientists to promote their own agenda.
      > >
      > > Sincerely,
      > >
      > > Steve L.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In globalwarming@y..., lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > > I'm going to ignore the spurious attempt to discredit the IPCC
      and
      > > > concentrate on this section:
      > > >
      > > > - total energy produced each year from non-fossil sources
      such as
      > > > wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, and nuclear are
      projected
      > > to
      > > > increase to more than ten times its current amount,
      providing
      > > more
      > > > than 40% of the world's energy, rather than the current
      10%. "
      > > >
      > > > I'm sure we can do better than this. I realise that, like the
      > > > population estimates, this is a 'scenario' used for just one
      of
      > the
      > > > models, but there was no mention of fuel cells, which should
      be a
      > > > major transport energy source in the near future. There has
      been
      > > much
      > > > progress with both technology and usage of solar power.
      > > >
      > > > From solarcentury.co.uk:
      > > >
      > > > 20 January 2002 The grid-connected market for PV - which
      > > dominates
      > > > global PV shipments - grew explosively in 2001 (PV News,
      January).
      > > > Final figures for this sector are expected to show a 50%
      increase
      > > in
      > > > sales compared to 2000. The year saw 20,000 Japanese consumers
      > > > purchase PV systems, totalling some 110 MW of capacity. In
      > Germany,
      > > > new capacity for the year could top 75 MW. The total market in
      > 2002
      > > is
      > > > set to exceed 400 MW.
      > > >
      > > > 07 January 2002 Intersolar is to receive half a million
      pounds
      > > of
      > > > government assistance to build Europe's largest solar cell
      > > > manufacturing plant. Following a two year reserch period
      > Intersolar
      > > > aim to volume manufacture thin film PV cells at only 70p ($1)
      per
      > > Wp.
      > > > (Source: The Times.)
      > > >
      > > > In the UK:
      > > >
      > > > "Solar grants are now available to home owners, housing
      > > > associations, public authorities and commercial organisations.
      > > >
      > > > Home owners can apply for grants of up to 50% of total
      > > > installation costs.
      > > >
      > > > Housing associations and public authorities can apply for
      grants
      > of
      > > > up to 65% of total installation costs.
      > > >
      > > > Commercial organisations can apply for grants of up to 40% of
      > > > total installation costs."
      > > >
      > > > The roofs are connected to the grid by a reversible meter.
      You
      > > take
      > > > out, you pay; you put in, you earn. This has the additional
      > > benefit
      > > > that power is produced much closer to the user so less energy
      is
      > > lost
      > > > along the line. I know this is not news to many of the
      members of
      > > > this club but some readers may be unaware of the possibilities.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.