Ecopolis

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Pitfighter, Jan 19, 2011.

  1. Pitfighter

    Pitfighter Valued Member

    Was watching this on either Natgeo or Sci channel.

    Basically the conclusion of the series is that solar energy is the best most readily available alternative to fossil fuels.

    I'm as eco-friendly as the next guy but damn solar technology has been around since the 70's. Its had about 40 years to take hold but hasn't done so on a large scale.

    I'm not saying its not part of the solution it is IMO but we need to start to create incentives for alternative energy solutions.

    Now at the risk of sounding unpopular I think the only way to create an energy paradigm shift is cap and trade.

    Now for all you free marketeers out there let me explain my rationale before you start going off on how it disrupts the market.

    First of all if your truly capitalist I can't see how you can be against cap and trade. Pollution is a waste whether its trash, gas, liquid. We all pay to dispose of trash but for some reason industries oppose paying fees for polluting air and water.

    There may be some fees but as far as I'm concerned industry lobbies are keeping the fees below market value. As far as I'm concerned any polluters should be monetarily responsible for pollution, the more you pollute the more you have to pay. Can't afford it? Well find a cheaper alternative.

    As far as I'm concerned big polluters have been given a free ride.

    Another thing we spend a lot of taxes and incur debt stationing our military in oil-rich nations. We may not be paying higher prices at the pump but we are paying hidden costs through taxes and debt. Nevermind the bloodshed exposing our troops to hostile foreign nations.

    So between offering tax deductions and tax credits for businesses willing to do things green and using cap and trade to discourage pollution. I don't see how ppl can oppose it.

    Put the costs upfront instead of hiding them. What could be more capitalist than that?
     
  2. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Don't know anything about economics outside of what I learn in politics so I can't comment on getting people to be green but about solar power, ignoring the money in oil anyway isn't solar still stupidly expensive? I'm pretty sure the UK introduced schemes to make houses greener including solar panels but the main complaint was that they're just too expensive to install.

    Also how would solar, or any other alternative energy source, compare in effectiveness? I mean how big a panel or how many wind turbines would you need to match the output of an oil refinery and power plant?

    Reason being the UK has seen quite a few law suits with people trying to block turbines and other alternative energy sources being built anywhere near them because they spoil the view so if you're looking at something bigger than what we use now you've got to find somewhere to put it without ****ing people off.

    Final question vaguely related: Why are governments seemingly leaning towards nuclear energy? From what I remember of my long hours in science there's nowhere to dump the fuel other than in the sea (which will have no repurcussions...) or in the land which I assume isn't good considering chernobyl is sinking into the Earth...

    Add to that that the generators only work for a couple of decades then take far longer to deconstruct because of the radiation. I do not see how nuclear energy is the best way to replace oil?

    Sorry, none of that answered your question and the nuclear part is OT but its something I've been thinking about a fair bit recently
     
  3. Emil

    Emil Valued Member

    Although solar power may be one of the cleanest methods of energy production currently achievable, they simply aren’t ready for mainstream consumer use. Firstly, the accumulators (solar panels) are very expensive and are easily damaged as they are made of fragile materials. As such, they require a high maintenance budget.

    In addition to this, each solar panel is only about 40% efficient. We can currently bypass this problem by gathering a large number of panels together. This does allow us to convert solar energy into more useable power, but takes up a lot more space. In fact, for a 2000 square ft house, a 200 square foot collector area is needed.

    Although we are not currently equipped to run the world off solar power, no doubt in the future, innovations will be made. As the cost of fossil fuels rise, the availability of sunlight will always remain constant. We just need to make sure that the politicians and bureaucrat do not try to introduce widespread adoption of solar energy too soon in order to make themselves appear ‘green’.
     
  4. Mitch

    Mitch Lord Mitch of MAP Admin

    Even Lovelock thinks we have to go with nuclear power now and on a grand scale as renewables are simply too far away as realistic alternatives.

    On another issue if a Govt really wants to reduce CO2 they could set up mass production of solar panels/small wind turbines and give some to every business and household in the UK. I reckon the cost would be small relative to tax income.

    This would destroy power companies, lose tax revenue, put people out of work, unbalance the economy and have a few other minor effects however, so no Govt ever will.

    Mitch
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom De-powered to come back better than before.

    I'm not familiar with the economics/politics of this as well. But wasnt one of the other main reasons why its taken so long for Solar panels to become readily available is that as of a few years ago, the panels were ridiculously expensive and only now the costs have lowered?

    I see quite a few solar panels now powering bus stops, lights etc...
     
  6. Slindsay

    Slindsay All violence is necessary

  7. illegalusername

    illegalusername Second Angriest Mapper

    This is true.

    Also the first few generations of solar panels were grossly inefficient but with new miniaturization tech they got smaller, more efficient, more durable and just plain cheaper.
     
  8. AZeitung

    AZeitung The power of Grayskull

    Cheaper, yes, more efficient, not necessarily. I went to a colloquium about this a few months ago, given by a speaker who was in favor of taking everyone off the grid and giving them personal solar power. He has a business that's invested in bringing this technology to 3rd world countries. Among other wealthy and powerful people, the CEO of Tata motors is on his board of directors.

    Anyway, since one of the main drawbacks to solar power is the cost of the solar cells, his lab created a new type of solar cell that's very cheap, although not as efficient as other types. It seems that the choice right now is either cheap and somewhat inefficient, or efficient and very expensive. Interestingly enough, excess power would then be used to extract hydrogen from water via electrolysis for storage and later use, when the sun isn't shining. Since this could be done on waste water, burning the hydrogen would also produce a source of clean drinking water.
     
  9. brendo

    brendo Banned Banned

    So, how does this work? Really how?

    Big polluters pollute, not because they enjoy it but because, we the general public demand their product. Your whole hypososis removes any responsability from the consumer and just promotes a bogey man

    No company exists in a vacume, any on=cost just makes the end product more expensive. If you add an energy-waste tax the market reacts by building the product in China/India/Africa/Brazil......all you are really doing is moving the pollution elsewhere where standards aremuch lower than ours, because there is still a demand for the product.

    If you somehow remove the demand for crap that we dont need how do you tell the 400 million Chinese peasants that have been lifted out of poverty by buiulding said products that they should go back to the rice feilds?

    The only way we can deal with our limited resource globally is population control on a massive scale, but no one is going to or indeed can do that.
     
  10. Pitfighter

    Pitfighter Valued Member

    I assume your trying to say it took combustible engines even longer than solar technology so we need to give it time, right?

    I'm just assuming that's your point but my point is if the technology is truly useful we need to enact policies to facilitate it. I think its a pressing issue not just in terms of our environment but also our not so distant economic outlook and security concerns.

    @ Brendo

    I think there's a popular misconception that manufacturing industries are the largest souce of C02

    It's not manufacturing output that is the largest source of C02, fuel for electricity is. We wouldn't export our powerlines to China and India regardless. This is something that's a domestic issue in terms of energy replacement.

    So with all due respect the example of outsourcing doesn't really apply. The only sense it does apply is that we are overextending our military into hostile oil rich nations and I would rather sever ties with these countries who use oil as leverage.
     
  11. StevieB8363

    StevieB8363 Valued Member

    Except big polluters are big producers, whether it's goods or power. Used by the consumer: you and me. If you apply that pollution tax to them, they pass it down to us. Everything you do becomes more expensive.

    Three problems with solar.

    1: High cost.

    2: Low output/mediocre efficiency.

    3: Intermittent power supply. It might produce decent power during the day, but helps you none at night, when you need lights etc. Every time you convert or store that solar power, you loose some - efficiency drops again. Yes, it might be part of the solution one day, at the moment it's still of little practical or economic use.

    Isn't going to work unless it's done on a world-wide level. Otherwise companies will just shift to countries that don't tax their pollution. Getting a majority of nations to agree on anything like this will be extremely difficult.
     
  12. brendo

    brendo Banned Banned

    Ok, you have changed your stance from your origional point, but you still fail.

    How much land area would we need to cover in solar panels if we were to stop burning oil and coal for power?

    How much will that cost you and me the end user?
     
  13. Pitfighter

    Pitfighter Valued Member

    Nope not at all.

    My point was misunderstood.

    The show of ecopolis said solar power was the key. I said solar power is part of the solution.

    I believe creating good policies to encourage alternatives to oil is the key.

    Sad thing about honest discussions about serious issues is people talk past each other. I'll stop bothering on the internet as much as I can.
     

Share This Page