|
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2931624)
When I was getting an engineering degree in 2008 I had a required class called "Engineering Earth" where our professor talked about this a lot. According to him, when he worked in industry he was involved with a project where they found a cost-effective way to sequester CO2 in the early 90s. He said the biggest adversary to the tech was the Soviet Union/Russia because rising global temperatures meant that they could finally gain access to natural resources in Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. It would also shift the "bread-basket" region into an area more favorable for them.
Personally, I think the evidence for climate change is pretty resounding. There are just too many independent studies analyzing different aspects (satellite imagery, global CO2 ppm, global temperature readings, core samples, etc) that all reach the same conclusion. My fiance is a scientist (unrelated to atmospheric science) and I've seen what goes into getting published and peer reviewed, so the theory that all the scientists could even push an agenda is baffling to anyone who understands the process because there're just too many controls and checks and balances to ensure the entire community polices itself. I'm really not surprised that scientists denying climate change are being excommunicated. I mean, Phillip Morris had no problem finding some sell-out who'd claim cigarettes weren't bad for you well into the 2000s, but if you're gonna listen to the 1% of scientists who said cigarettes weren't bad for you it's your fault for getting cancer. With climate change every big industry leader from energy, utilities, auto, construction, agriculture, aviation (I'll admit it), etc would love a sell-out, so how do you think the community would react to them? Things like the Green New Deal were the worst thing to ever happen to climate change action, because it was nothing but a socialist Trojan Horse that caused everyone whose not far left to circle the wagons. I think the Right needs to get on board and instead of just pretending the issue doesn't exist, find a palatable solution, like nuclear and solar. And not those stupid solar farms. Ever see how many solar panels it takes to generate 100% of a house's electric need? It's not much. They also have an ROI of about 15 years without subsidies and a useful life of 30 years. If it became standard that everyone's southern roof was a solar roof, most people got electric cars for local commuting, and we replaced existing coal with nuclear, preferably in places not prone to Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (sorry California and Japan), that'd pretty much solve our crisis. Instead it turned into this BS politicized issue where we have to choose between becoming socialists who can never afford a big house, our own car, or red meat ever again, and the other side, which just pretends the problem doesn't exist. |
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2931624)
When I was getting an engineering degree in 2008 I had a required class called "Engineering Earth" where our professor talked about this a lot. According to him, when he worked in industry he was involved with a project where they found a cost-effective way to sequester CO2 in the early 90s. He said the biggest adversary to the tech was the Soviet Union/Russia because rising global temperatures meant that they could finally gain access to natural resources in Siberia and the Arctic Ocean. It would also shift the "bread-basket" region into an area more favorable for them.
Personally, I think the evidence for climate change is pretty resounding. There are just too many independent studies analyzing different aspects (satellite imagery, global CO2 ppm, global temperature readings, core samples, etc) that all reach the same conclusion. My fiance is a scientist (unrelated to atmospheric science) and I've seen what goes into getting published and peer reviewed, so the theory that all the scientists could even push an agenda is baffling to anyone who understands the process because there're just too many controls and checks and balances to ensure the entire community polices itself. I'm really not surprised that scientists denying climate change are being excommunicated. I mean, Phillip Morris had no problem finding some sell-out who'd claim cigarettes weren't bad for you well into the 2000s, but if you're gonna listen to the 1% of scientists who said cigarettes weren't bad for you it's your fault for getting cancer. With climate change every big industry leader from energy, utilities, auto, construction, agriculture, aviation (I'll admit it), etc would love a sell-out, so how do you think the community would react to them? M Things like the Green New Deal were the worst thing to ever happen to climate change action, because it was nothing but a socialist Trojan Horse that caused everyone whose not far left to circle the wagons. I think the Right needs to get on board and instead of just pretending the issue doesn't exist, find a palatable solution, like nuclear and solar. And not those stupid solar farms. Ever see how many solar panels it takes to generate 100% of a house's electric need? It's not much. They also have an ROI of about 15 years without subsidies and a useful life of 30 years. If it became standard that everyone's southern roof was a solar roof, most people got electric cars for local commuting, and we replaced existing coal with nuclear, preferably in places not prone to Earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis (sorry California and Japan), that'd pretty much solve our crisis. Instead it turned into this BS politicized issue where we have to choose between becoming socialists who can never afford a big house, our own car, or red meat ever again, and the other side, which just pretends the problem doesn't exist. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2931626)
Of note, I have a friend in Ohio with solar panels recently installed. Even in the cloudy winters there, their electric needs are more then covered by the panels.
It really depends on how many solar panels they installed, and how efficient they are with their electrical usage. |
Originally Posted by Blackhawk
(Post 2931500)
1978. Late 1970’s.
And that’s the point. Science does sometimes change and often has in the past. Climate study itself is a relatively new science. Yet any one who has questions about it is a “science denier” or a “climate change denier”, neither of which is true. |
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 2931626)
Of note, I have a friend in Ohio with solar panels recently installed. Even in the cloudy winters there, their electric needs are more then covered by the panels.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2931651)
Are they still on natural gas for heating?
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2931651)
Are they still on natural gas for heating?
The other important thing to note is that when you install solar, you're not using the power, you're backfeeding the entire grid. That's why solar has a sort of 'dead-man switch' so that when the power goes out, your solar automatically stops producing power so it doesn't zap the techs who're working on the lines downstream of your house who think the power is off. My uncle is installing solar on his roof, by himself, and he showed me his system. It's actually really simple. It's just a steel bracket bolted to the roof, then the solar panels are attached to it, a plug-and-play microinverter is plugged into each panel, they're daisy chained together, and a wire is run to a dedicated circuit breaker in the main panel. That's it. He had a $600/mo electric bill and for $7k in material he now has 100% of his need, although I'm not sure if that cost included subsidies. Granted, he did it himself and he lives in CA where they have very solar-friendly laws and year round sun, but still. I'm not an expert in high voltage power transmission, but everyone with solar is already back-feeding the grid at least past the transformer on the power pole, so if everyone were feeding the grid, maybe it'd be possible for the West Coast to power the East Coast after dark, or the North to power the South in the summer, and vice versa in the winter, so that there'd really only be a few hours in the middle of the night when we had to rely on non-solar power. I suspect the reason utility companies have fought solar tooth and nail is because they see it as a replacement, but if the grid could mitigate solar's biggest issue, which is reliability, then it could be mutually beneficial. But that's just a theory and I'm interested to hear if anyone knows of any show-stoppers for that. I think what everyone is really pulling for though would be an energy storage method that's more effective than lithium ion batteries. That really could make the grid and utility companies obsolete. It'd also mean that there would be nothing wrong, from a global resource perspective, with low-density housing and longer commutes in personal transportation, which is the American way of life. You also, theoretically, could set your thermostat to whatever you want, leave the lights on, or if you have an electric car, drive around town as much as you want, without really spending any resources except wear-and-tear. I just think it's funny that socialists have grabbed onto solar to push their agenda, when in reality, it could mean way more freedom and guilt-free energy usage. |
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2931799)
Most likely. Most utility companies ensure that you can only get a building permit for 70-100% of your average need. So in the summer people tend to sell a lot of power back to the grid and in the winter they need to tap in. Usually the utility company gives you credit for the excess power you produce in the summer and applies it to your winter deficit, so it evens out. The way to game the system is unnecessarily run up your electric bill for a year, then as soon as you have solar, install LEDs and throttle back your usage and turn a profit. Obviously, that's precisely what utility companies are trying to avoid, but without their restrictions, odds are there's enough surface area on your roof to meet your demand, even in the winter.
The other important thing to note is that when you install solar, you're not using the power, you're backfeeding the entire grid. That's why solar has a sort of 'dead-man switch' so that when the power goes out, your solar automatically stops producing power so it doesn't zap the techs who're working on the lines downstream of your house who think the power is off. My uncle is installing solar on his roof, by himself, and he showed me his system. It's actually really simple. It's just a steel bracket bolted to the roof, then the solar panels are attached to it, a plug-and-play microinverter is plugged into each panel, they're daisy chained together, and a wire is run to a dedicated circuit breaker in the main panel. That's it. He had a $600/mo electric bill and for $7k in material he now has 100% of his need, although I'm not sure if that cost included subsidies. Granted, he did it himself and he lives in CA where they have very solar-friendly laws and year round sun, but still. I'm not an expert in high voltage power transmission, but everyone with solar is already back-feeding the grid at least past the transformer on the power pole, so if everyone were feeding the grid, maybe it'd be possible for the West Coast to power the East Coast after dark, or the North to power the South in the summer, and vice versa in the winter, so that there'd really only be a few hours in the middle of the night when we had to rely on non-solar power. I suspect the reason utility companies have fought solar tooth and nail is because they see it as a replacement, but if the grid could mitigate solar's biggest issue, which is reliability, then it could be mutually beneficial. But that's just a theory and I'm interested to hear if anyone knows of any show-stoppers for that. I think what everyone is really pulling for though would be an energy storage method that's more effective than lithium ion batteries. That really could make the grid and utility companies obsolete. It'd also mean that there would be nothing wrong, from a global resource perspective, with low-density housing and longer commutes in personal transportation, which is the American way of life. You also, theoretically, could set your thermostat to whatever you want, leave the lights on, or if you have an electric car, drive around town as much as you want, without really spending any resources except wear-and-tear. I just think it's funny that socialists have grabbed onto solar to push their agenda, when in reality, it could mean way more freedom and guilt-free energy usage. |
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2931799)
I'm not an expert in high voltage power transmission, but everyone with solar is already back-feeding the grid at least past the transformer on the power pole, so if everyone were feeding the grid, maybe it'd be possible for the West Coast to power the East Coast after dark, or the North to power the South in the summer, and vice versa in the winter, so that there'd really only be a few hours in the middle of the night when we had to rely on non-solar power. I suspect the reason utility companies have fought solar tooth and nail is because they see it as a replacement, but if the grid could mitigate solar's biggest issue, which is reliability, then it could be mutually beneficial. But that's just a theory and I'm interested to hear if anyone knows of any show-stoppers for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM
Originally Posted by Duffman
(Post 2931799)
I think what everyone is really pulling for though would be an energy storage method that's more effective than lithium ion batteries.
|
Originally Posted by Mesabah
(Post 2931807)
That's the thing, feeding back into the grid is simply cost shifting, and the government is funding a significant amount of the REC's. No actual greenhouse gases were saved in this setup. You have to have your home on a battery, e.g. the Tesla power wall, or similar to save GHGs. If you receive the majority of your power from nuclear as I do, then adding solar panels is actually increasing GHGs.
Also, when I talked about using the current grid I meant existing power and transmission lines. Not power plants. The idea is if the overall demand is reduced then they shut down power plants that run on combustibles. How could adding solar, aside from the manufacturing process, produce CO2? |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 2931875)
Excellent video which discusses this very thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1BMWczn7JM You don't need LI batteries on your house. LI batteries exist to save weight. Your house isn't mobile. You can use heavier less expensive more durable longer lasting batteries instead: https://www.prba.org/battery-safety-...-of-batteries/ |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:25 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands