Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on May 10, 2011, 11:40:00 am
-
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/
Our Crushing Dilemmas
May 5, 2011
How do environmentalists fight without losing what we’re fighting for?
By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 5th May 2011
In my column earlier this week, I discussed the crisis the environment movement is now confronting. I’m using this essay to expand on the problems I mentioned there, and in particular to consider the most interesting of the responses to the crisis proposed so far, by Paul Kingsnorth. Let me begin by spelling out, at greater length, the dilemmas we face.
Guardian readers may have read the short version already.
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
-
NUCLEAR POWER NAO!
Seriously.
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record when asking this question on the first page of every thread, but did you actually read the article in its entirety before posting?
That out of the way, you have some fundamental misconceptions about a number of issues, chief among them apparently being energy production. Read the article, and his related column linked to at the start.
-
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
Basically what MP-Ryan said, this is a serious misconception about what carbon emissions mean. And you've got your wish for low radiological emissions.
-
CO2 emmisions are very, very overrated. The entire human productin is jsut about 2% from the total production on earth, which is circa 260 Terragrams. So not much, really. Besides, CO2 has just about 20% efficiency in absorbing heat as simple water vapor in the air. I would be much more concerned with chopping down the rainforests.
I have seen the global statistics. Nuclear plants have about HALF of the number of deaths for a TWh of energy produced than water plant. That is Chernobyl included. The only "safer" power plant is wind, and those are so expensive in my country to ever massively spread.
About solar pannels, our country have just stopped the subsidities, because the pannels already destabilized our power grid enough to threaten with a major blackout. Furthemore, the subsidity conditions were poorly designed. While the germans only supported pannels on roofs of buildings, our stupid corrupted government finances also those on the FIELDS. Do you get the irony? How much DUST there is? Each fo those powerplants have to employ a person to just go round and rond to wash them, and what happens in 15 years? TONS of unrecyclable dangerous materials.
Now the Fukushima sent europe into such nuclear phobia that i think those people can't think for themselves, just follow the politicians like a stupid cattle. What are they afraid of? Waste with long half time is gonna be burned by the IV generation reactors pretty soon and the modern powerplants have multiple cooling mechanisms. About fukushima, well, not the brightest idea to build a powerplant on the shore in what's possibly the most seismically active area of the world, but hey, when did the tsunami struck Europe for the last time? Oh yeah, that's right, before the dawn of human race :P Even that is smarter than the stupid idea of France to build underwater plants. I can't imagine easier target for terrorists than that, unless they are willing to spend several dozens submarines and ships to keep it under naval quarantine. Just build the plants far enough (Oh yeah, unless your neighbor is Austria, in which case prepare for massive hysteria on the other side and blockade of your borders by civilians)
My apology to Frenchmen and Austrians who are sane in this matter, but that's the bitter truth. Howgh
EDIT: Ultimately, i think the nature can put up with everything. There are much more persistant organisms than humans, so we will go exticnt before all life is destroyed, and new one will evolve :D
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
Low carbon emissions in terms of our industrial processes and mechanical transport. It comes down to the carbon cycle, the locking away and releasing of carbon as a result of the processes of life. Until the industrial revolution masses of the worlds carbon content was locked away in fossil fuels and the carbon in the environment was a fairly stable amount. With the industrial Revolution we started releasing the carbon that was locked out of the environment into it increasing by massive volumes the amount of carbon in the cycle but without any means of removing said carbon from the cycle so over the last 100+ years there has been a significant increase in the amount of carbon in the environment which is contributing to issues like global warming and lowering air quality.
The best thing is many objectives such as preservation of animal x and/or habitat b would be greatly aided by campaigning on green issues like pushing for research into reduced carbon industrial processes and non fossil fuel based energy production and transport.
-
And you've got your wish for low radiological emissions.
Which, I might add in a somewhat less-exasperated tone, is and was a complete non-issue compared with the rest of the mess we've gotten ourselves into.
Now that I'm less likely to move into rant phase, I will also point out that solar is a laughable energy alternative for most of the industrialized portions of the planet, and nuclear energy is hardly something we should be protesting (although better regulation of the extraction of resources for nuclear energy is a laudable goal). Discussing the huge amount of ignorance displayed by people concerning genetically-modified organisms is not where I want this thread to go, but if someone cares to start a topic on it I'd be happy to educate them :hopping:
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record when asking this question on the first page of every thread, but did you actually read the article in its entirety before posting?
That out of the way, you have some fundamental misconceptions about a number of issues, chief among them apparently being energy production. Read the article, and his related column linked to at the start.
Actually I very much understand your point, and decided to post this response just for the record, as well. I'm aware of the issues, just really wish I could explain better than i'm capable of.
However, the entire problem of adressing carbon as a problem, in my opinion, is that I'm not finding much proof that it's a danger to us or the planet - but rather that it's part of the life cycle. The only way carbon is a problem is when there aren't enough trees and plants, but it needs to be much higher than currently tracked to cause that. However, if you want a lower carbon emission the best way seems to be planting forests and plants in great amounts.
There's a lot more out-of-the-box solutions that have been researched, or just seem to be common sense, but seem to just rust away because of big interests in large industries, such as oil. It's important to expand attention away from trying to search for solutions -within- a box, but allow new technologies to take form in stead.
I do agree with him that nations that did away industry, becoming service economies, are in a dilemma. However looking at history, its much more serious than that. When you develop into a service economy, its often only a matter of time until you lose your service economy too, and being dependant on industrial nations, there's a large chance your country gets in debt and, without sufficient growth in jobs and manufacturing/export, very well may cause the country in the end to become a 3rd world country.
The things he adresses; most of it makes sense, but he doesn't discuss the deeper, inner laying elements and effects, often domino effects, of such changes.
I think it's just really hard to decide on what to do without adressing the very important and often deep implications of the choices you have to make - the kind of very long term effects it has, and what it does to the average joe.
I'll leave it at this, lots of editing to get as close to what I mean to add to the discussion as possible. ;)
(Also I dont like radiological emissions at all, even a low amount ;) )
-
However, the entire problem of adressing carbon as a problem, in my opinion, is that I'm not finding much proof that it's a danger to us or the planet - but rather that it's part of the life cycle. The only way carbon is a problem is when there aren't enough trees and plants, but it needs to be much higher than currently tracked to cause that. However, if you want a lower carbon emission the best way seems to be planting forests and plants in great amounts.
I'm not asking this out of arrogance, but rather so I know to tailor [potential future] responses: what is your highest level of education in biology and chemistry?
Carbon is an element. In environmental discussions, carbon is most frequently used to indicate carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (e.g. traps heat at a rate higher than air, although lower than water vapour). However, it can also be used to discuss carbon monoxide (a more potent greenhouse gas), methane (CH4; a MUCH more potent greenhouse gas), and a variety of other volatile hydrocarbons (most of which trap heat at high levels). Heat trapped in the atmosphere contributes to alteration in local climate conditions (making it hotter, colder, drier, wetter, etc). The important elemental presence is carbon, due to its unique chemical properties in forming compounds and their stability (which allow them to absorb large amounts of heat for their atomic mass).
All aerobes (that is, organisms that require oxygen to live) give off carbon dioxide as a byproduct of cellular respiration. Anaerobes give off a variety of compounds, including carbon dioxide and volatile organics. A variety of organisms, most notably photosynthetics (plants, algae, etc) use carbon-based molecules to support life. Thus, a balance of sorts has evolved, whereby fixation and release of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, and sulfur are performed by a variety of different organisms on the planet.
However, humanity, as a byproduct of industrial process, produces massive amounts of carbon-based gases (and others) which cannot be fixated biologically at the rates they are produced. This is altering the chemical composition of our atmosphere. Not to levels unprecedented on Earth, mind you, but to levels which the current biosphere is unable to counteract. Increasing the numbers of photosynthetic organisms sounds like a good prospect until you look at the fixation potential of these organisms and the raw numbers for tonnages of carbon-based elements being released. They don't add up. And while compounds like carbon dioxide have relatively-rapid fixation times, it takes much longer for other greenhouse gases. This is all simple chemistry and biology, and takes into account none of the controversial aspects of "climate change" as a policy item. The simple result is that human activity is releasing greenhouse gases at a rate that exceeds the ability of the biosphere to cope. The net effect remains to be seen, although geological evidence seems to suggest that the Earth's climate has varied widely in the past based on atmospheric composition. Whether human activity is simply accelerating a natural cycle or is actually increasing the magnitude of the effect is unknown (despite the various ideological parties shouting "the science is certain.")
All this is a very long-winded way of saying that planting more plants is not an effective way to address the potential effects of larger and larger quantities of greenhouse gas emission. Even the planet's natural cycles don't balance the equation. The Earth's climate is constantly changing, as is our atmospheric composition. It just happens to be occurring on a geological timescale.
There's a lot more out-of-the-box solutions that have been researched, or just seem to be common sense, but seem to just rust away because of big interests in large industries, such as oil. It's important to expand attention away from trying to search for solutions -within- a box, but allow new technologies to take form in stead.
I hear the claim that industry quashes technological advancement all the time, but I've yet to see a shred of credible evidence. The fact of the matter is that coming up with new alternatives is hard, and there must be financial incentive to do so. I'm not saying industry can't do better, just that it isn't a simple matter of no interest in alternatives.
The rest of your post seems to be meandering thoughts rather than debatable position worth exploring further.
-
It would appear that you know way more on this subject than me. The article says we will need more electricity as we move away from fossil fuels (assuming we do).
Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere. It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.
If any of this is wrong or there are flaws along that please say so
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
sometimes i wonder if the carbon emissions on all those graphs greenies keep putting up have more to do with human population growth than the industrial revolution. 6 or 7 billion carbon factories, i wonder if we should just eliminate a big chunk of those, and its not like we dont have the machines to make it happen. yes, i am definately a nuclear enthusiast, in more ways than one.
-
I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll keep this short for now. Nuke, the human population existing isn't a carbon problem in and of itself. The world has seen much more biomass exist in the past, so having a few billion extra carbon-neutral entities added in doesn't really do anything to upset the balance. No, it's what these extra carbon-neutral entities have been doing (i.e., building lots of industry and burning tons of stuff) that is the problem. And climate change in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem either, just so long as it occurs on a geological timescale. The problem right now is, climate change isn't happening over millenia or tens of millenia, it's happening over centuries and decades. This is what causes massive disruptions in the biosphere, ones which will make life harder for us and our children.
Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere. It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.
The problem with solar is that it does not provide space-efficient enough power generation for heavy, concentrated industry and dense urban areas. Nuclear does, and does it very well in more places and with less environmental impact than hydro, the other big non-fossil fuel energy source we have. You want to power your home with solar? Fine, go right ahead; it'll work great. Want to power those factories over there with solar? I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...
-
Now that I'm less likely to move into rant phase, I will also point out that solar is a laughable energy alternative for most of the industrialized portions of the planet, and nuclear energy is hardly something we should be protesting (although better regulation of the extraction of resources for nuclear energy is a laudable goal). Discussing the huge amount of ignorance displayed by people concerning genetically-modified organisms is not where I want this thread to go, but if someone cares to start a topic on it I'd be happy to educate them
:yes:
I have been wondering about the opposition of the nuclear power for quite a long time - and the opposition on further developing it.
:yes:
Also on the genetically modified organisms. But I'm of the opinion that the testing phase results should be slightly more open to general public - with their own language. Part of the opposition is because quite a lot of people don't actually understand what is meant by genetical modification here.
EDIT:
Want to power those factories over there with solar? I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...
Exactly. Some of the factories here tend to have their own power supply at the yard of the factory, usually in the form of hydroelectric.
-
still you eliminate people, you eliminate their need to expend energy to survive. so all those corpses dont need to make fires to stay warm and too cook things, they dont need to buy computers and cell phones, they dont need to go anywhere so they dont need cars or planes, and the survivors certailnly could use some extra meat. think of all the problems mass murder has solved.
the morale of this story is stop trying to reason with a psychopath
-
What, a reasonable and neutral-sounding article about environmentalists? Cool. :eek: I guess I mostly agree what he's saying, although in some parts I experienced what I think was a bit of a language barrier.
My main problem with environmentalist parties for example is the opposition of nuclear power. I have absolutely no problem with opposition to uranium mining done bad (which might very well be the vast majority of uranium mining; I don't know), but usually the anti-nuclear arguments focus on nuclear waste (and more recently disaster potential) which I don't find to be much of a problem at all.
-
Also on the genetically modified organisms. But I'm of the opinion that the testing phase results should be slightly more open to general public - with their own language. Part of the opposition is because quite a lot of people don't actually understand what is meant by genetical modification here.
There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...
Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.
-
There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...
Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.
Neither of those issues is an inherent problem with GMOs; both are problems with the regulatory scheme in place for agriculture specifically. Notwithstanding the fact that many countries (Canada among them) still produce seed variants for general use which agricultural industries can use in lieu of proprietary branding (AAFC has several research stations in Alberta alone [Beaverlodge, Lethbridge, Ft. Vermillion] that deal explicitly with yearly seed catalogues and experimental farming).
-
I don't have a lot of time right now, so I'll keep this short for now. Nuke, the human population existing isn't a carbon problem in and of itself. The world has seen much more biomass exist in the past, so having a few billion extra carbon-neutral entities added in doesn't really do anything to upset the balance. No, it's what these extra carbon-neutral entities have been doing (i.e., building lots of industry and burning tons of stuff) that is the problem. And climate change in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem either, just so long as it occurs on a geological timescale. The problem right now is, climate change isn't happening over millenia or tens of millenia, it's happening over centuries and decades. This is what causes massive disruptions in the biosphere, ones which will make life harder for us and our children.
Solar power has been dismissed it seems but I don't think it should be. Nano solar film, could take a very large chunk out of that needed power coupled with new battery design. throw into that woven carbon fiber and cars can be self sufficient i guess and those could be adapted elsewhere. It might also not require a brand new power grid system. It would not be able to cover all fossil fuel uses, such as jet fuel and military use, but it could go a long way as a supplement.
The problem with solar is that it does not provide space-efficient enough power generation for heavy, concentrated industry and dense urban areas. Nuclear does, and does it very well in more places and with less environmental impact than hydro, the other big non-fossil fuel energy source we have. You want to power your home with solar? Fine, go right ahead; it'll work great. Want to power those factories over there with solar? I hope you've got some big-ass tracts of empty land handy...
not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.
I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.
as for nuclear, anybody know how far we are away from pop fusion?
-
There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...
Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.
I'm aware of these problems with GM food. They belong under the regulation part in my opinion - and especially the first one (while reasonable from the point of view of the company) doesn't make sense, and I'd expect that those seeds would not see a lot of buyers.
-
not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.
I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.
If you can see through a solar panel, it is not an effective solar panel. Thereby due to reduced amount of power, you need more of them. The other thing to consider is the amount of plastic waste and plastic degradation in the UV light; these panels likely wouldn't last long.
-
nevermind. I just looked it up and feel stupid. i took what my teacher said for fact. its not see through. http://www.nanosolar.com/nanosolar-technology-overview
can i redact the tard like feeling?
-
nevermind. I just looked it up and feel stupid. i took what my teacher said for fact. its not see through. http://www.nanosolar.com/nanosolar-technology-overview
can i redact the tard like feeling?
Don't worry. In time you'll find out that quite a lot of stuff your teachers said back in the school (primary school) changed, or was wrong one way or the other. Checking what teacher says is one way of learning, and then it depends on the teacher how he sees the "troublesome" student.
-
ah mk. ill keep that in mind. still does not seem like a bad idea though. so scratch that on surfaces you need to see through. but you could still put it on buildings.
-
There are a number of problem with GM foods. A big one is a generation of plant that self terminates. If everyone uses seeds terminator seeds, then the assurance of having food goes down. For instance society collapses or some traumatic event occurs and the companies responsible for distributing the seed is unable to do so, there'd be a lot of farmers unable to really grow a crop (or even just a big enough crop) Heirloom seeds can only get you so far in one growing cycle...
Another big one is rights to use a particular seed. A company inserts a little gene into a barley, then it takes out a patent on the seed. Suddenly no one can use this seed without paying royalties. Even an organic farmer in a neighboring field who had some of his crop pollinated with pollen from a GM crop could get sued for copyright infringement. It's as bad as the drug companies.
I'm aware of these problems with GM food. They belong under the regulation part in my opinion - and especially the first one (while reasonable from the point of view of the company) doesn't make sense, and I'd expect that those seeds would not see a lot of buyers.
The problem is, the regulation of a lot of the agriculture industry, at least in the US, is fubar. I lived on a farm growing up, so I have at least a little first-hand knowledge on the subject. The companies that produce seed, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. can get away with an awful lot. I rember one year where there was a really good corn harvest, and all of a sudden, the price of fertilizer and seed just doubled. Not because of any increase in demand or decrease in supply or increased costs, but because they decided that since the farmers made more money that year than usual, they could afford to pay more for everything.
As for those types of seeds not seeing many buyers, the problem is most seed is that way. Most crops, you can't plant seeds and then take some from the harvest and plant those. The companies that produce the best seeds make sure that you have to come back to them year after year to buy more. Farmers don't have much say in the matter, since there are so few companies to choose from, and its hard to choose a type that does not use terminator seeds when the ones that use terminator seeds give 50% better yields or more.
Overall, I don't think GMOs are really that big of a deal, and if we're going to feed a growing population, I think we're not going to have a choice but to use genetically modified crops. Even without a growing world population, if the standard of living of much of the rest of the world rises to that of developed nations, GMOs will probably become a necessity.
-
**** it let's just all live on comets.
-
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/05/05/our-crushing-dilemmas/
Our Crushing Dilemmas
May 5, 2011
How do environmentalists fight without losing what we’re fighting for?
By George Monbiot, published on the Guardian’s website, 5th May 2011
In my column earlier this week, I discussed the crisis the environment movement is now confronting. I’m using this essay to expand on the problems I mentioned there, and in particular to consider the most interesting of the responses to the crisis proposed so far, by Paul Kingsnorth. Let me begin by spelling out, at greater length, the dilemmas we face.
Guardian readers may have read the short version already.
The article sums up nicely what is truely wrong with the environmental movement: It's a combination of fear (of nukes) and wishful thinking (about renewables).
EDIT: I'll also throw this (http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/842/Overblown-The-Real-Cost-of-Wind-Power) in, written in 2008 but still very relevent.
Despite U.K. wind industry subsidies of over $500 million, so far such a massive investment has only provided less than 0.5 percent of the U.K.'s electricity needs. In August 2007, the BBC's Radio 4 “Costing the Earth” program reported that the government’s financial incentives were encouraging wind industry firms to take advantage of massive government subsidies and build wind farms on non-viable sites across the mainland. So it seems winds are too variable even in Europe’s windiest country, with most turbines consistently underperforming as a result. (For more on the “Costing the Earth” report, see “U.K. Wind Blown Off Course,” ET, October 2007.) Jim Oswald, a consulting engineer, analyzed figures submitted to Ofgem (the U.K.’s electricity watchdog) on each wind farm's load factor. He explained to the BBC, "It's the power swings that worry us. Over a 20-hour period you can go from almost 100 percent wind output to 20 percent."
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
When biologists talk about saving the Tiger, they actually mean saving not only the tiger, but also everything that lives in his territorioum, all those differnet plants and animals, bacteria, insects, etc. etc. etc.
Its the same with the polar bear. When Enviromentalists talk about saving the Polar Bear, they actually mean to achieve everything that needs to be done in order to save hte polar bear, which is basically stopping climate change.
However, stopping climate change is a concept few people can fully grasp. Saving the Polar Bear is much simpler, and much more likely to raise money.
-
Sadly from what i've seen, most environmentalist groups seem more focussed on saving polar bears (A honorful thing to want to do, as well) than discuss and protest GMO food and crops, push for cheap non-fossil fuel solutions, push to subsidize solar panels or protest nuclear power plants and chemical toxic spilling in rivers and oceans. I'd really like this movement to get priorities straight and try to educate themselves more, so their time will be more spent to more important things, -and- at the same time saving a whole lot of endangered species, including our own species.
Just my two cents.
EDIT: Also, I'm sure i'm wrong but, on a planet like Earth, how can we even achieve low-carbon emissions? Is it a fool's errand in the first place? (We, and many other animals, are carbon-based lifeforms, we exhale CO2 which plants need to make oxygen, or so i was taught at school - high carbon emissions actually cause plants and trees to grow much faster). I'm more interested in seeing low-chemical and radiological emissions.
When biologists talk about saving the Tiger, they actually mean saving not only the tiger, but also everything that lives in his territorioum, all those differnet plants and animals, bacteria, insects, etc. etc. etc.
Its the same with the polar bear. When Enviromentalists talk about saving the Polar Bear, they actually mean to achieve everything that needs to be done in order to save hte polar bear, which is basically stopping climate change.
However, stopping climate change is a concept few people can fully grasp. Saving the Polar Bear is much simpler, and much more likely to raise money.
Charismatic megafauna!
-
Charismatic megafauna!
Yup. Unimportant in large scope, but necessary to promote causes. Nobody rallies around a call to save species traditionally thought of as "pests." The panda is the best example of this type of conservationism in action. The loss of insects (bees, particularly) is way more important ecologically-speaking, but they don't get anywhere near the donations.
-
and thus you have the genesis of intentional, institutionalized, and systematic dishonesty and manipulation from the environmental movement, for the greater good. :)
-
not conventional solar panels. and no i dont mean just my house. nano solar film. its see through, and its the pigments that are in it that do the energy converting. you can apply it to just about any surface. Including industrial buildings, office builds, cars, and other things if youd like. you cant see it, its a lot more durable and when it hits mass market will be much cheaper than conventional panels.
I dont proclaim it as a panacea. It could take a big chunk out of the energy we use.
as for nuclear, anybody know how far we are away from pop fusion?
How easy is this film to manufacture, how cheaply can it be made, and what materials are necessary to build it? Are they rare? If so, how much of them is required? Etc. The problem with many solar panel technologies (likely including this stuff) is that not only are the usually not that efficient, they require very rare and expensive metals such as gallium or indium to work. This drives the cost up irrespective of how cheap the rest of it is. Besides which, all solar tech has a hard limit of ~1 kW/m2 of power generation, simply because that's the solar irradiance on Earth. Also note that isn't constant; it's usually much less than that even during the day, and there's nighttime, etc. A nuclear plant may take up about 100 acres, and generate several gigawatts of power. A solar station, assuming 100% efficiency and 500 acres of generating area, will generate a maximum of 2 GW. So a nuclear plant, purely from a space standpoint, takes up one-fifth the space of the solar plant's generating area, assuming magical panels. With a realistic efficiency of 20-30%, the reactor's advantage jumps to 15-20 times. Plus it's able to pump out that power day and night.
This is not to say that nuclear power is the One True Path, etc. If you don't need that power continuously, it's not the best choice, because reactors don't necessarily run very well at 50% capacity or whatever, and they can't necessarily change their power output quickly. It is, however, the best option to be the backbone of the power grid, with support from renewables and hydro, including solar. Solar is great for powering homes when supplemented by the grid/batteries for nighttime operation, but homes are not very power intensive (a few kilowatts at most, even during peak hours).
As for fusion, it will come when it does, if it does. I would say we are still a half-century away from practical fusion power at best.
-
The green movement got so many things so awefully wrong the past 50 years that I can't just listen to them anymore.
Which is a shame. I think that we do need a good environmental movement. But this is not environmentalism. This is caveman ideology, a "let's return to be harmonious with nature" new age shenanigan, an anti-humanist movement, where any action by humans that isn't self-restrain should be condemned and chastised as sinful against the goddess of Gaia. A religion, where your christian cracker is substituted by "organic food", where reductionist practices of science are condemned and substituted by "holistic thinking", where paranoia substitutes reason and evidence for argumentation.
No, acid rain did not destroy the forests in the passing of the millenia, as predicted;
No, peak oil didn't "cull" 60 million americans in the year 2000, after it alledgely happened in the eighties (rofl);
No, DDT wasn't poisonous to humans (albeit restraining DDT is now considered good for evolutionary reasons);
No, Nuclear Energy isn't deadly at all, it is in fact the less deadly energy solution we've ever had;
No, MG crops aren't the disease the greens proclaimed them to be (albeit I'm terrified by the related problem called "copyright");
I could go on all night. Their track record is so bad, one could indeed use them as an inversal proxy for truth. Every time I see them in TV saying that "X is dangerous", then I know it is not. If they say that "Y is the solution" then I know it's a ****ty solution. They are that incompetent, always parasiting for attention and publicity in the middle of disasters.
-
There's media-spin involved in there as well though, often in order to represent 'green views' media tend to turn to either political figures who twist facts to suit their own agenda, people who secretly wish they were a Navi, or idiots who think that smashing up a research laboratory is doing humanity a favour in some way.
-
/*brofists Luis Dias*/
-
Solar will be huge.
In 15-20 years. NOT BEFORE. So whenever I see some douchebag telling me on TV that solar isn't ubiquituous just because the "government" doesn't invest in it, I'm just able to see the usual crackpots lining up for the lobby money grabbing.
Why do I say 15-20 years? Mostly due to this chart: http://solarbuzz.com/facts-and-figures/retail-price-environment/module-prices
That price must go south of 20-50 cents to become profitable against other power sources.
-
Solar will be huge.
The question is, should it be? Solar is financially and environmentally expensive - it uses large quantities of heavy metals (which are damned difficult to recycle), and it just isn't practical for a large portion of the Earth's surface under the panel paradigm due to daylight times, storage capacity, land base requirements, and maintenance costs.
If/when someone perfects a practical use of biosolar power generation (using either microbes or simple organelles on plate backings) then maybe solar will become a useful. Until then, nuclear is a much more practical alternative for the future. Solar is a utopian pipe dream at present.
-
I foresee GM fuels.
-
Solar will be huge.
The question is, should it be? Solar is financially and environmentally expensive
Did you even read my post in its entirety rather than just picking that sentence out? Because I have the feeling that you didn't.
... - it uses large quantities of heavy metals (which are damned difficult to recycle), and it just isn't practical for a large portion of the Earth's surface under the panel paradigm due to daylight times, storage capacity, land base requirements, and maintenance costs.
These heavy metals are already in major production for many other reasons. I don't mind them being used for a giant engineering rig, if that rig is economically viable.
If/when someone perfects a practical use of biosolar power generation (using either microbes or simple organelles on plate backings) then maybe solar will become a useful. Until then, nuclear is a much more practical alternative for the future. Solar is a utopian pipe dream at present.
Biosolar is a pipe dream. "Usual" solar will come much sooner. Nuclear is awesome and I approve it, as long as they don't place nuclear plants near fault lines (I think we can say we should learn that lesson by now), but nuclear is also a giant investment upstart with almost ten years from the starting of the project until you see any electricity coming out of them. It has major benefits wrt solar too.
Still, solar will be the future. It's my belief.
-
Solar works great for small applications except when it gets dark or cloudy. It is normally dark half the year, and it often gets cloudy the rest of the time. Also, solar doesn't have enough energy density to power large-scale industrial applications. In addition, the heavy metals used in solar panel construction are rare and toxic. I don't see solar becoming the next big energy source that replaces oil. Nuclear electricity, fission and hopefully fusion in the future, yes. Not the intermittent and space-hungry wind and solar.
-
Solar will be huge.
The question is, should it be? Solar is financially and environmentally expensive - it uses large quantities of heavy metals (which are damned difficult to recycle), and it just isn't practical for a large portion of the Earth's surface under the panel paradigm due to daylight times, storage capacity, land base requirements, and maintenance costs.
If/when someone perfects a practical use of biosolar power generation (using either microbes or simple organelles on plate backings) then maybe solar will become a useful. Until then, nuclear is a much more practical alternative for the future. Solar is a utopian pipe dream at present.
You're right about current solar panels and "traditional" solar power generation practices. There are other ways to do solar power and there's still a lot of R&D to be done. It's like many technologies out there... there is viability but it will take time to get to a point where it may be useful to us on a large scale. Even now ubiquitous internal combustion engine weren't terribly efficient or powerful for a very long time... but those early designs have given way to some really impressive technologies.
I've heard about other types of solar power that may work well.. such as the solar tower using glass mirrors focused on a central tower and heating salt to provide a relatively stable power source even after the sun went down. Has it's issues but under development in a few places... typically in desert conditions where the land is not useful for anything else and the ecological impact of building a few towers and rows of mirrors are slight. I've heard about but don't know a lot about some other solar powered options that didn't involve using rare or dangerous materials...
Just needs R&D and time I think.
-
Did you even read my post in its entirety rather than just picking that sentence out? Because I have the feeling that you didn't.
I did, and the link you provided, and none of it is a convincing argument that solar is clearing any of the technical, environmental, and practical hurdles... just that it becomes more economically feasible as the price of other energy sources goes up and the price to build solar panels drops.
These heavy metals are already in major production for many other reasons. I don't mind them being used for a giant engineering rig, if that rig is economically viable.
Ah, so it's perfectly fine to continue to contribute to an environmental and health problem so long as it's profitable and other industry is permitted to do it. Have you given any thought, by chance, to the proliferation of those materials if solar hardware production undergoes a massive increase? How about what to do with the waste of leftovers? The heavy metals you refer to are either used in small quantities or non-industrial processes, or are recyclable in their other uses. Solar tech is all set to produce a massive amount of waste we can do nothing with.
Biosolar is a pipe dream.
Only if you know nothing about it:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php
http://www.solarfeeds.com/ecofriend/13931-chlorophyll-that-makes-solar-panels-more-efficient
Chlorophyll is everywhere, easy to produce, has simple function, and huge energy potential. An average houseplant produces far more energy than ordinary solar panels in its functional lifespan, involves no ecologically-persistent compounds, and is extremely efficient. As both those links point out, the potential of biosolar is being utilized now.
IceFire makes a good point that the solar of today is not necessarily the solar power of tomorrow - but it's going to take R&D to get there, and this delusional thinking that conventional solar is somehow going to become more practical is exactly that. Even biosolar still doesn't address simple issues like weather. It's not the be-all end-all of energy, and the sooner "greens" and dreamers get that notion out of their skulls, the sooner we can get on with building the needed next-gen nuclear plants that will be powering our society in the coming decades.
-
Even biosolar still doesn't address simple issues like weather. It's not the be-all end-all of energy, and the sooner "greens" and dreamers get that notion out of their skulls, the sooner we can get on with building the needed next-gen nuclear plants that will be powering our society in the coming decades.
Indeed (http://forexfan.co.cc/?p=2272)
Nuclear Power is globally scalable if it does follow rules made up by the anti-nuclear side
Derek Abbott (Australian) wrote “Is nuclear power globally scalable?” to be published in a Future Proceedings of the IEEE. He claims that nuclear power is not scalable globally.
Abbot Claim Land and location: One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km2 (7.9 mi2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure.
Why this is wrong – Many nuclear reactors can be situated on the same piece of land. Most of the land can be used for other purposes. There is no reason it cannot be used for many other purposes other than housing people. If nuclear power replaced coal then the large land areas of coal plants can be repurposed for nuclear power.
And there's plenty more where that came from.
-
Ah, so it's perfectly fine to continue to contribute to an environmental and health problem so long as it's profitable and other industry is permitted to do it. Have you given any thought, by chance, to the proliferation of those materials if solar hardware production undergoes a massive increase? How about what to do with the waste of leftovers? The heavy metals you refer to are either used in small quantities or non-industrial processes, or are recyclable in their other uses. Solar tech is all set to produce a massive amount of waste we can do nothing with.
If they are reciclable, what's your problem? Waste? You talked approvingly about nuclear, and now you're dissing solar because of the waste? Are you ****ing trolling me or what?
Biosolar is a pipe dream.
Only if you know nothing about it:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/mu-mtl081408.php
http://www.solarfeeds.com/ecofriend/13931-chlorophyll-that-makes-solar-panels-more-efficient
On the contrary, it's because I'm pretty aware of the trends that I'm telling you that "biosolar" won't work sooner than "traditional" solar PV. Perhaps ten years of distance between themselves, probably even worse than that. It's still pretty much a myriad of different lab experiments. All amazing science, by themselves, and very rich in its variety. Still, decades until the equivalent of, say, "Nevada Solar One".
Chlorophyll is everywhere, easy to produce, has simple function, and huge energy potential. An average houseplant produces far more energy than ordinary solar panels in its functional lifespan, involves no ecologically-persistent compounds, and is extremely efficient. As both those links point out, the potential of biosolar is being utilized now.
Yeah, sure it produces more in "its lifespan". Do you know the percentage of light that it can transform from the sun to actual energy? At the *most*, tops, it has an efficiency of 8%. Mostly, it gives 3-6%. Which is pretty bad.
And *where* is this "potential* being used in any other thing than agriculture?
IceFire makes a good point that the solar of today is not necessarily the solar power of tomorrow - but it's going to take R&D to get there, and this delusional thinking that conventional solar is somehow going to become more practical is exactly that.
You talk up lab experiments as if they are being almost at production and you dare speak about delusions? When you say "conventional", you should watch yourself. These things evolve incrementally, and with each generation, they are using less and less materials for more and more output in power, with revolutionary means of production, etc. PV is a proven technology being used *now* in the world. Where is your biopower, I mean other than corn ethanol and other wasteful social experiments?
Even biosolar still doesn't address simple issues like weather. It's not the be-all end-all of energy, and the sooner "greens" and dreamers get that notion out of their skulls, the sooner we can get on with building the needed next-gen nuclear plants that will be powering our society in the coming decades.
There will be ways to get around that. It will come through innovation and not by bullying the governments into "doing solar", like the greens are stupidly doing, 'coz dontcha know, we only have 5 years to SAVE THE PLANET, for like 30 years now. These people do not understand the concept of a "marathon". Fortunately, many smart people do, and despite all the green noise, progress is slowly being made.
Nuclear is great, and for the next two decades, I'd bet highly on it. Nuclear and NatGas, which is experiencing a major boom now in the industry due to the new shale gas basins.
Solar will just steamroll everything in about 2025-2035. The reason is simple. Its learning curve is way beyond nuclear and even wind. It will become cheaper than everything else, and it's perfectly scalable, without any radiation worries. Intermittency will be solved with specific types of batteries, which are still in trials.
There are other options too, sure. There are wind kytes, for instance. Very remarkable stuff, and seemingly very weak, but astonishingly cheap. http://kitegen.com/
And we have some marginal fusion breakthroughs attempts, with different approaches. We have EMC2, focus fusion and the hilariously cursed "cold fusion" which is experiencing a sort of rennaissance (which most probably turn out to be wrong).
-
you seem well versed on solar technology, so I would like to risk derailing this thread to ask your opinion on a solar design I thought up a while ago, and an explain why it isn't as good an idea as I think it would be.
solar cells today have a problem in that they have to be designed for a particular wavelength, if the light energy that they collect is at a wavelength below the design it gets turned into heat, if it is above then the portion above is turned into heat, and the stronger the light source the more efficient the conversion. so I considered what if a solar panel was designed with a continuously varying wavelength band (a gradient) and a highly concentrated beam of light is passed through a prism before it hits the panel? this seems like too simple of a solution so I must be missing something basic.
-
you seem well versed on solar technology, so I would like to risk derailing this thread to ask your opinion on a solar design I thought up a while ago, and an explain why it isn't as good an idea as I think it would be.
solar cells today have a problem in that they have to be designed for a particular wavelength, if the light energy that they collect is at a wavelength below the design it gets turned into heat, if it is above then the portion above is turned into heat, and the stronger the light source the more efficient the conversion. so I considered what if a solar panel was designed with a continuously varying wavelength band (a gradient) and a highly concentrated beam of light is passed through a prism before it hits the panel? this seems like too simple of a solution so I must be missing something basic.
something like using a parabolic mirror to focus the light from a given area at the prism?
also i found this interesting when they were on the tv a few years back
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS10
-
you seem well versed on solar technology, so I would like to risk derailing this thread to ask your opinion on a solar design I thought up a while ago, and an explain why it isn't as good an idea as I think it would be.
solar cells today have a problem in that they have to be designed for a particular wavelength, if the light energy that they collect is at a wavelength below the design it gets turned into heat, if it is above then the portion above is turned into heat, and the stronger the light source the more efficient the conversion. so I considered what is a solar panel was designed with a continuously varying wavelength band (a gradient) and a highly concentrated beam of light is passed through a prism before it hits the panel? this seems like too simple of a solution so I must be missing something basic.
Not at all. Research is being done in precisely trying to reach to all wavelengths, specially infrared. There have been some strides in that particular case. MIT was conducting experiments in tryiing to concentrate light with microscopic lens (and there are multiple geometrical solutions for this), so that you could, for instance, only have to have a small photoreceptor for each square meter of incident light. About prisms and your solution, which I don't think I understood it completely, Berkeley has attempted to gather the whole spectrum (http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2011/01/24/practical-full-spectrum/), but the materials used are very expensive. Thing is, for each wavelenght, different material solutions must be found to gather its energy.
-
something like using a parabolic mirror to focus the light from a given area at the prism?
well, yeah, but the concentration part is easy and common place, the only tricky aspect would be in getting the light to be somewhat coherent.
alternatively, perhaps something like a Fresnel lens could do the job of splitting the light into it's colors before concentration.
About prisms and your solution, which I don't think I understood it completely
basically rather than layering different semiconductors on top of each other and having all the light matching the lower layer having to pass through, the upper layers you would have either a smooth gradient of changing band gap along the surface of a single cell or a sequence of normal cells with a different band gap in each of them to approximate a smooth changing band gap. running the light through the prism makes sure that the light hitting the cell(s) has the right wavelength in the right place.
I suppose the answer is material cost.
-
If they are reciclable, what's your problem? Waste? You talked approvingly about nuclear, and now you're dissing solar because of the waste? Are you ****ing trolling me or what?
They are moderately recyclable in their current quantities. A proliferation of solar based on current photovoltaic design would increase those contaminants exponentially. As for nuclear waste, older waste can feed next-generation reactors. Solar is fundamentally a consumer technology, and brings with it all the hazards of putting hazardous waste in the hands of the public and expecting them to know what to do with it. This is already a massive problem with consumer electronics.
On the contrary, it's because I'm pretty aware of the trends that I'm telling you that "biosolar" won't work sooner than "traditional" solar PV. Perhaps ten years of distance between themselves, probably even worse than that. It's still pretty much a myriad of different lab experiments. All amazing science, by themselves, and very rich in its variety. Still, decades until the equivalent of, say, "Nevada Solar One".
You're missing my point. I know it won't work sooner than traditional solar collection. I'm arguing that traditional solar collection is bad. It's environmentally bad, it's not capable of providing power to key northern and southern areas on an industrial scale, it's expensive, and there are much better alternatives. Unless someone suddenly comes up with a method of solar collection that defeats cloud cover, day/night cycles, and produces the massive amounts of electricity required by industry (to which consumer use absolutely pales in comparison), it's silly technology. As supplemental, low-scale generation, fine... but there are a lot of technological hurdles on traditional collection that have to be solved, and I don't think a time scale of 15-20 years is even remotely realistic. Considering the number of nuclear plants that could come online in that timeframe with serious investment, it's a pointless exercise.
Yeah, sure it produces more in "its lifespan". Do you know the percentage of light that it can transform from the sun to actual energy? At the *most*, tops, it has an efficiency of 8%. Mostly, it gives 3-6%. Which is pretty bad.
And *where* is this "potential* being used in any other thing than agriculture?
Lab-scale at present. But as biotech is an exploding industry, there's a lot more hope for sustainable small-scale biosolar than there is for a solution for all the problems I listed above. It's still going to be supplemental to primary generation.
You talk up lab experiments as if they are being almost at production and you dare speak about delusions? When you say "conventional", you should watch yourself. These things evolve incrementally, and with each generation, they are using less and less materials for more and more output in power, with revolutionary means of production, etc. PV is a proven technology being used *now* in the world. Where is your biopower, I mean other than corn ethanol and other wasteful social experiments?
Biological solar power production has been in the works for maybe 20 years, if you're really generous (excluding bioreactors, which are operational and power large numbers of wastewater treatment plants around North America and have been in operation much longer). Photovoltaic cells have existed since 1883. Biosolar is a matter of solving collection issues; traditional solar relies on better materials engineering to improve itself. Given that the mechanisms for biosolar is well-understood and it has been shown to work in the lab in such a short timeframe, my bets are on it.
There will be ways to get around that. It will come through innovation and not by bullying the governments into "doing solar", like the greens are stupidly doing, 'coz dontcha know, we only have 5 years to SAVE THE PLANET, for like 30 years now. These people do not understand the concept of a "marathon". Fortunately, many smart people do, and despite all the green noise, progress is slowly being made.
Nuclear is great, and for the next two decades, I'd bet highly on it. Nuclear and NatGas, which is experiencing a major boom now in the industry due to the new shale gas basins.
Solar will just steamroll everything in about 2025-2035. The reason is simple. Its learning curve is way beyond nuclear and even wind. It will become cheaper than everything else, and it's perfectly scalable, without any radiation worries. Intermittency will be solved with specific types of batteries, which are still in trials.
There are other options too, sure. There are wind kytes, for instance. Very remarkable stuff, and seemingly very weak, but astonishingly cheap. http://kitegen.com/
And we have some marginal fusion breakthroughs attempts, with different approaches. We have EMC2, focus fusion and the hilariously cursed "cold fusion" which is experiencing a sort of rennaissance (which most probably turn out to be wrong).
I don't know where you live, but I live in an area of the world that is covered in snow for 7 months of the year, experiences temperatures below -40°C on a regular basis, has harsh and heavy winds, and an ENORMOUS amount of industry. 15-20 years of traditional solar innovation isn't going to solve that problem. This area is currently powered by a mixture of coal and natural gas. The industrial areas of the world are in places that mach traditional solar unfeasible. You talk about scalability and innovation like these are assured things. Scalability implies more space to put it. People already object to massive wind warms... how exactly do you think they'll feel about fields of photovoltaic panels, which degrade and require constant maintenance, lining the landscape around them? As for innovation - again, photovoltaic technology has existed since 1883. It hasn't come all that far.
-
If they are reciclable, what's your problem? Waste? You talked approvingly about nuclear, and now you're dissing solar because of the waste? Are you ****ing trolling me or what?
They are moderately recyclable in their current quantities. A proliferation of solar based on current photovoltaic design would increase those contaminants exponentially. As for nuclear waste, older waste can feed next-generation reactors. Solar is fundamentally a consumer technology, and brings with it all the hazards of putting hazardous waste in the hands of the public and expecting them to know what to do with it. This is already a massive problem with consumer electronics.
Yeah, I can see what you're getting at. But when I say that prices go down, that also means that the means to get electricity from PVs will improve exponentially (not Moore's law, slower, but something like it). That means that less dangerous materials will be used. e-waste is already a big problem, but it is increasingly being solved, through environmental standards that get more and more demanding.
It's not even a question of "choice". It will happen, so I do think that this issue of the environment should be addressed asap.
On the contrary, it's because I'm pretty aware of the trends that I'm telling you that "biosolar" won't work sooner than "traditional" solar PV. Perhaps ten years of distance between themselves, probably even worse than that. It's still pretty much a myriad of different lab experiments. All amazing science, by themselves, and very rich in its variety. Still, decades until the equivalent of, say, "Nevada Solar One".
You're missing my point. I know it won't work sooner than traditional solar collection. I'm arguing that traditional solar collection is bad. It's environmentally bad, it's not capable of providing power to key northern and southern areas on an industrial scale, it's expensive, and there are much better alternatives.
....as of 2011, I couldn't agree more. That's why you aren't seeing me hyping up current solar projects. Still, they are a necessary burden, to experiment with the concept and the technology.
Unless someone suddenly comes up with a method of solar collection that defeats cloud cover, day/night cycles, and produces the massive amounts of electricity required by industry (to which consumer use absolutely pales in comparison), it's silly technology.
It all comes down to economics. And it *is* getting there. http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/05/glittering-future-of-solar-power.html
The learning rate of solar power is 4 times greater than nuclear's, and still higher than wind. It is still pretty uneconomic, and I'm not betting for it in the next decade. So you're arguing a strawman here. The problem with intermittency is a big issue, but these things will have its solution.
As supplemental, low-scale generation, fine... but there are a lot of technological hurdles on traditional collection that have to be solved, and I don't think a time scale of 15-20 years is even remotely realistic. Considering the number of nuclear plants that could come online in that timeframe with serious investment, it's a pointless exercise.
Ridiculous judgement. The amount of energy that it will be required to power the world in 2050 will make 2010 pale in comparison. We are talking about the whole third world getting into the range of the "middle class". We will need every single energy solution we can get. So yeah, nukes ftw. And they will win the day. Until 2025-2035.
Yeah, sure it produces more in "its lifespan". Do you know the percentage of light that it can transform from the sun to actual energy? At the *most*, tops, it has an efficiency of 8%. Mostly, it gives 3-6%. Which is pretty bad.
And *where* is this "potential* being used in any other thing than agriculture?
Lab-scale at present. But as biotech is an exploding industry, there's a lot more hope for sustainable small-scale biosolar than there is for a solution for all the problems I listed above. It's still going to be supplemental to primary generation.
What are you talking about? Gimme non-laughable examples. I know amazing science is being done in this field. I know Craig Venter's work, for example, and its promises to revolutionize the whole solar industry (or any other field, for that matter), but this is so in its theoretical phase that we might just wait for nuclear fusion instead (which is, contrary to widespread common knowledge, right on schedule).
You talk up lab experiments as if they are being almost at production and you dare speak about delusions? When you say "conventional", you should watch yourself. These things evolve incrementally, and with each generation, they are using less and less materials for more and more output in power, with revolutionary means of production, etc. PV is a proven technology being used *now* in the world. Where is your biopower, I mean other than corn ethanol and other wasteful social experiments?
Biological solar power production has been in the works for maybe 20 years, if you're really generous (excluding bioreactors, which are operational and power large numbers of wastewater treatment plants around North America and have been in operation much longer). Photovoltaic cells have existed since 1883. Biosolar is a matter of solving collection issues; traditional solar relies on better materials engineering to improve itself. Given that the mechanisms for biosolar is well-understood and it has been shown to work in the lab in such a short timeframe, my bets are on it.
So you are betting on an incredibly young tech just because you like it? It hasn't even demoed anything remotely interesting, mathematically speaking. And I'm the delusional one?
I'm all for emotional gambling. I'm a romantic too. But when I'm in that mood, I refrain myself of calling others of being delusional.
There will be ways to get around that. It will come through innovation and not by bullying the governments into "doing solar", like the greens are stupidly doing, 'coz dontcha know, we only have 5 years to SAVE THE PLANET, for like 30 years now. These people do not understand the concept of a "marathon". Fortunately, many smart people do, and despite all the green noise, progress is slowly being made.
Nuclear is great, and for the next two decades, I'd bet highly on it. Nuclear and NatGas, which is experiencing a major boom now in the industry due to the new shale gas basins.
Solar will just steamroll everything in about 2025-2035. The reason is simple. Its learning curve is way beyond nuclear and even wind. It will become cheaper than everything else, and it's perfectly scalable, without any radiation worries. Intermittency will be solved with specific types of batteries, which are still in trials.
There are other options too, sure. There are wind kytes, for instance. Very remarkable stuff, and seemingly very weak, but astonishingly cheap. http://kitegen.com/
And we have some marginal fusion breakthroughs attempts, with different approaches. We have EMC2, focus fusion and the hilariously cursed "cold fusion" which is experiencing a sort of rennaissance (which most probably turn out to be wrong).
I don't know where you live, but I live in an area of the world that is covered in snow for 7 months of the year, experiences temperatures below -40°C on a regular basis, has harsh and heavy winds, and an ENORMOUS amount of industry.
AAAAAAHHHHHhhh. Now I get where you base your negative vibes against solar. Man, I'm not saying that solar will be the only source of energy. That would be ludicrous. What we learn from these energy crises is that the more varied our portfolio, the better prepared we are to face certain issues. BTW, I live in sunny portugal ;).
15-20 years of traditional solar innovation isn't going to solve that problem.
You are still talking about "traditional solar innovation", as if we are speaking of a dead slow boring thing, when it's the fastest learning tech. Solar panels that are being produced in the labs today have little to do with the panels produced ten years ago. From materials to production techniques.
This area is currently powered by a mixture of coal and natural gas. The industrial areas of the world are in places that mach traditional solar unfeasible. You talk about scalability and innovation like these are assured things.
My assumption rests on the pretty stable exponential factor that has been detected for the past 50 years now. Imagine that we are living in the eighties and I would say "in 2010 computers will be all over the place, they will be on the smallest things possible, and PCs will have terabytes of data". You'd call me crazy I guess, even despite the fact that Moore's constant was already pretty stable and predictable.
Scalability implies more space to put it. People already object to massive wind warms... how exactly do you think they'll feel about fields of photovoltaic panels, which degrade and require constant maintenance, lining the landscape around them?
I'm an architect, and I can tell you that there is no comparison between the solutions of solar in NIMBYism to the non-solutions of wind. Wind is getting "better" by scaling up the blades per tower. That means bigger and bigger mills, that completely destroy the scale of landscape. They are visually terrible. Solar can be adequately placed with no nimby issues at all. They'll mostly be invisible, except for the solar "farms", which will be as troublesome to the people as any other farm that exists...
As for innovation - again, photovoltaic technology has existed since 1883. It hasn't come all that far.
Sheer bollocks. It has the fastest growing pace of technology innovation in the energy industry. By writing that marketing sentence that was probably derived from a bull****ter in the nets you show me that you are completely oblivious to the trends that are actually writing history now.
-
basically rather than layering different semiconductors on top of each other and having all the light matching the lower layer having to pass through, the upper layers you would have either a smooth gradient of changing band gap along the surface of a single cell or a sequence of normal cells with a different band gap in each of them to approximate a smooth changing band gap. running the light through the prism makes sure that the light hitting the cell(s) has the right wavelength in the right place.
I suppose the answer is material cost.
The solution you are trying to give is towards a non-existent problem. the layers are transparent to the non-interesting wavelenghts. And yeah, the problem is material cost. It costs less to have a bigger 100 w cell that only gets a certain wavelenght band, than a tinier 100w cell that absorbs it all.
-
My assumption rests on the pretty stable exponential factor that has been detected for the past 50 years now. Imagine that we are living in the eighties and I would say "in 2010 computers will be all over the place, they will be on the smallest things possible, and PCs will have terabytes of data". You'd call me crazy I guess, even despite the fact that Moore's constant was already pretty stable and predictable.
The difference being that computers do many things more efficiently than their competitors (typewriters) so they spread quickly. The same cannot be said of solar. If you want to see why it is so fundementally unscalable, look no farther than the insane power scheme on the Internation Space Station.
-
Yeah, I can see what you're getting at. But when I say that prices go down, that also means that the means to get electricity from PVs will improve exponentially (not Moore's law, slower, but something like it). That means that less dangerous materials will be used. e-waste is already a big problem, but it is increasingly being solved, through environmental standards that get more and more demanding.
It's not even a question of "choice". It will happen, so I do think that this issue of the environment should be addressed asap.
Prices go down, means to get electricity improve... this is speculation. This rests on the premise that the materials engineering improves; that is not an assured outcome. As for the problem of e-waste increasingly being solved - I do environmental enforcement for a living. It's not being solved - it's getting worse, not better.
It all comes down to economics. And it *is* getting there. http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2007/05/glittering-future-of-solar-power.html
The learning rate of solar power is 4 times greater than nuclear's, and still higher than wind. It is still pretty uneconomic, and I'm not betting for it in the next decade. So you're arguing a strawman here. The problem with intermittency is a big issue, but these things will have its solution.
Shall I start linking back to Ballard and their promises of vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells that were a sure thing? Saying it will have a solution in the next 15-20 years is speculation, not fact. Rates of growth and innovation are neither assured nor predictable beyond the short term.
Ridiculous judgement. The amount of energy that it will be required to power the world in 2050 will make 2010 pale in comparison. We are talking about the whole third world getting into the range of the "middle class". We will need every single energy solution we can get. So yeah, nukes ftw. And they will win the day. Until 2025-2035.
Your unfounded demographic predictions aside (the middle class is being destroyed the world over, third world advancement to higher standards of living is most definitely not a sure thing), saying that 15-20 years of solar in innovation is going to fix everything does not make it so. The pace of energy innovation on this planet is stacked directly against it. And again, predicting technological gains decades in advance almost never works out for the person doing the predicting.
What are you talking about? Gimme non-laughable examples. I know amazing science is being done in this field. I know Craig Venter's work, for example, and its promises to revolutionize the whole solar industry (or any other field, for that matter), but this is so in its theoretical phase that we might just wait for nuclear fusion instead (which is, contrary to widespread common knowledge, right on schedule).
Read the first link I posted on the subject. That's not theoretical work, that functions. So again, it's in development, but there's a lot more potential for biotechnology to address the current problems in solar at its present scale in 15-20 years than there is for engineered photovoltaic to suddenly become a huge industry player in the same period.
So you are betting on an incredibly young tech just because you like it? It hasn't even demoed anything remotely interesting, mathematically speaking. And I'm the delusional one?
I'm saying that the potential of biosolar to usurp engineered photovoltaic (since you don't like the term traditional) is much greater than the potential of photovoltaic to suddenly dominate the energy market. Considering investment in natural gas deposits far outstrips solar even today, and those plants are forecast to have operating lives of 45-50 years, I don't see traditional solar as having anywhere near the role that you say. Your argument for the proliferation of solar seems to be that it will become cheaper (debatable; although it may become more economical as hydrocarbon prices increase, it's price point in all the articles you've linked depends on economic forecasts, not absolute cost of solar infrastructure per unit of energy decreasing) and easier to make (which depends wholly on new developments in the materials engineering, which are not a sure thing beyond the immediately forseeable future). I can see biolsolar replacing photovoltaic technologies; in neither case can I see them as dominant players in the energy market. For sustainable personal use, yes, but these are not technologies to power the industries on which we are all dependent.
You are still talking about "traditional solar innovation", as if we are speaking of a dead slow boring thing, when it's the fastest learning tech. Solar panels that are being produced in the labs today have little to do with the panels produced ten years ago. From materials to production techniques.
And yet they still function the same way, with the same downfalls. The materials are still toxic, they still require huge tracts of land, and they are still defeated by climate and environmental conditions (you linked an article that's getting lost in this mess of a reply, but it talks about deterioration due to the sun as if it's the only maintenance cost for solar; sand and dust is enormously destructive, and the world's industrial areas are located where you deal with sand, dust, wind, and snow).
My assumption rests on the pretty stable exponential factor that has been detected for the past 50 years now. Imagine that we are living in the eighties and I would say "in 2010 computers will be all over the place, they will be on the smallest things possible, and PCs will have terabytes of data". You'd call me crazy I guess, even despite the fact that Moore's constant was already pretty stable and predictable.
Kosh answered this post appropriately.
I'm an architect, and I can tell you that there is no comparison between the solutions of solar in NIMBYism to the non-solutions of wind. Wind is getting "better" by scaling up the blades per tower. That means bigger and bigger mills, that completely destroy the scale of landscape. They are visually terrible. Solar can be adequately placed with no nimby issues at all. They'll mostly be invisible, except for the solar "farms", which will be as troublesome to the people as any other farm that exists...
Land space is already at a premium in many locations. This also ignores the reality of finding appropriate placement in areas which have low or difficult lighting conditions. Wind faces the same problem. It's not the size of the mills that is problematic in North America, it's the sheer number and density of the tower placement. Solar is going to be much the same. Most of the northern hemisphere doesn't have a whole lot of optimal solar placement just lying around where no one is going to care.
Sheer bollocks. It has the fastest growing pace of technology innovation in the energy industry. By writing that marketing sentence that was probably derived from a bull****ter in the nets you show me that you are completely oblivious to the trends that are actually writing history now.
Technological innovation is a means to an end, not a solution unto itself. Until that technology becomes practically feasible - and it's not on the foreseeable horizon - I'm going to leave my skeptic's hat firmly in place.
But tell you what, if I'm mounting solar panels on my roof in 15-20 years, I'll arrange them to spell the words "Luis was right" if I have the room :P
EDIT: And these point-by-point replies are getting painful.
-
Prices go down, means to get electricity improve... this is speculation. This rests on the premise that the materials engineering improves; that is not an assured outcome. As for the problem of e-waste increasingly being solved - I do environmental enforcement for a living. It's not being solved - it's getting worse, not better.
But computers are not half as bad as they were. Problem has more to do with the scale of things going up. I'd make a wild unsupported guess that the recent miniaturization of pcs (now people buy laptops instead of big towers, slim TFTs instead of CRTs, iPads instead of laptops, etc.) has got to have some effect on e-waste.
Shall I start linking back to Ballard and their promises of vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells that were a sure thing? Saying it will have a solution in the next 15-20 years is speculation, not fact. Rates of growth and innovation are neither assured nor predictable beyond the short term.
Now you're just bull****ting me. What does solar have to do with Ballard's shenanigans? The trend of solar has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years now, and there's no reason why it should stop. All the fundamentals seem pointed to more and more efficiency. I provide you data and you provide me sneers. There is simply no comparison in the quality of our analysis.
I have always had good judgement on these things, and I dissed out hydrogen long long ago.
Your unfounded demographic predictions aside (the middle class is being destroyed the world over, third world advancement to higher standards of living is most definitely not a sure thing), saying that 15-20 years of solar in innovation is going to fix everything does not make it so. The pace of energy innovation on this planet is stacked directly against it. And again, predicting technological gains decades in advance almost never works out for the person doing the predicting.
The differences between our visions of the future couldn't possibly be more different. Current "middle class" of developed countries are being pressed by the surge of this giant mass of people trying hard to get into "middle class". Should I present you data about the economic surge of the last decade by the entire globe? Remarkably, this was the decade where the world grew faster than ever before, even with the 2008 shock. The world is now climbing at an astonishing pace, and I should be in the least favorable point of view to be able to see this, since I live in ****ing Portugal.
There is no deceleration. And this means that the third world is demanding an exponentially bigger slice of the energy cake. If you do not know this, what on earth are you even doing in this thread?
What are you talking about? Gimme non-laughable examples. I know amazing science is being done in this field. I know Craig Venter's work, for example, and its promises to revolutionize the whole solar industry (or any other field, for that matter), but this is so in its theoretical phase that we might just wait for nuclear fusion instead (which is, contrary to widespread common knowledge, right on schedule).
Read the first link I posted on the subject. That's not theoretical work, that functions.
ROFL. What? The first one is about how a technical hurdle was overcome and efficiency improved, another was about how a technique employed by plants was replicated by mechanical analogues. This type of thing happens every day. Things which I am fairly educated about, I do have competent feeds on my browser about the best of the best of this stuff. They do not show anything remotely working right now. Only lab tests. Try again.
...So again, it's in development, but there's a lot more potential for biotechnology to address the current problems in solar at its present scale in 15-20 years than there is for engineered photovoltaic to suddenly become a huge industry player in the same period.
A sentence based on an emotion, since there is nothing rational residing in it. You are basically saying that a thing that is still theoretical and some parts of it are being tested in a lab is in a better position than proven, working technology to conquer the world in 15 years. Sorry, that isn't rational.
So you are betting on an incredibly young tech just because you like it? It hasn't even demoed anything remotely interesting, mathematically speaking. And I'm the delusional one?
I'm saying that the potential of biosolar to usurp engineered photovoltaic (since you don't like the term traditional) is much greater than the potential of photovoltaic to suddenly dominate the energy market.
I know what you are saying, but you give zero evidence for this hypothesis.
Considering investment in natural gas deposits far outstrips solar even today, and those plants are forecast to have operating lives of 45-50 years, I don't see traditional solar as having anywhere near the role that you say. Your argument for the proliferation of solar seems to be that it will become cheaper (debatable; although it may become more economical as hydrocarbon prices increase, it's price point in all the articles you've linked depends on economic forecasts, not absolute cost of solar infrastructure per unit of energy decreasing)
The articles I linked are far more optimistic than myself, predicting that solar will outstrip the rest of the energy industry in the last part of this decade. I'm really being conservative here.
...and easier to make (which depends wholly on new developments in the materials engineering, which are not a sure thing beyond the immediately forseeable future).
It has always happened, and there is an immense pool of technological improvements in the pipeline of research right now, waiting for replication, viabilization, industrialization, marketization. These things take time, like ten years, so if you do see news about breakthroughs in solar power today (almost every day really), then you do know that evolution in the product per se is guaranteed for the next ten years, at least.
Batteries will, for example, improve astonishingly in the next ten years, given the current research pipelines.
I can see biolsolar replacing photovoltaic technologies; in neither case can I see them as dominant players in the energy market. For sustainable personal use, yes, but these are not technologies to power the industries on which we are all dependent.
That I cannot say or unsay. It really depends upon the systems in use. If information technologies get to a point where they are ultra smart about how, where and when power is allocated, the problems of solar will be managed by very clever AIs on the go. I do not know the potential of this. Having said this, of course that base line power like coal, nuclear, gas or even oil are much more stable than wind or solar.
And yet they still function the same way, with the same downfalls. The materials are still toxic, they still require huge tracts of land, and they are still defeated by climate and environmental conditions (you linked an article that's getting lost in this mess of a reply, but it talks about deterioration due to the sun as if it's the only maintenance cost for solar; sand and dust is enormously destructive, and the world's industrial areas are located where you deal with sand, dust, wind, and snow).
So what? Every energy production has its flaws and problems. Look at Japan, it's a train wreck, and yet I'm very for nuclear. We should always make an economic analysis that takes in consideration all its vectors, and sure, maintenance is costly.
Kosh answered this post appropriately.
No, no he didn't. And there's an evidence against his point. If his point had any validity whatsoever, we wouldn't have seen the evolution we saw in solar. Specially when it was so damned expensive. But we did. So his point is moot, and even increasingly so, as solar gets more and more closer to being competitive.
Land space is already at a premium in many locations.
Urban speculation has nothing to do with energy supply.
This also ignores the reality of finding appropriate placement in areas which have low or difficult lighting conditions. Wind faces the same problem. It's not the size of the mills that is problematic in North America, it's the sheer number and density of the tower placement. Solar is going to be much the same. Most of the northern hemisphere doesn't have a whole lot of optimal solar placement just lying around where no one is going to care.
You live in a bad example, so I'll forgive you for making such a big mistake. Most cities live in favorable conditions. You don't need that all of them are favorable.
Technological innovation is a means to an end, not a solution unto itself. Until that technology becomes practically feasible - and it's not on the foreseeable horizon - I'm going to leave my skeptic's hat firmly in place.
But tell you what, if I'm mounting solar panels on my roof in 15-20 years, I'll arrange them to spell the words "Luis was right" if I have the room :P
Take a picture of that and send it to me then! :D
And sorry for the format of the replies. I'm a bit tired right now ;).
-
OK, I'm going to start point-forming this because this format is rapidly becoming tiresome. First, all your points:
But computers are not half as bad as they were. Problem has more to do with the scale of things going up. I'd make a wild unsupported guess that the recent miniaturization of pcs (now people buy laptops instead of big towers, slim TFTs instead of CRTs, iPads instead of laptops, etc.) has got to have some effect on e-waste.
Now you're just bull****ting me. What does solar have to do with Ballard's shenanigans? The trend of solar has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years now, and there's no reason why it should stop. All the fundamentals seem pointed to more and more efficiency. I provide you data and you provide me sneers. There is simply no comparison in the quality of our analysis.
I have always had good judgement on these things, and I dissed out hydrogen long long ago.
The differences between our visions of the future couldn't possibly be more different. Current "middle class" of developed countries are being pressed by the surge of this giant mass of people trying hard to get into "middle class". Should I present you data about the economic surge of the last decade by the entire globe? Remarkably, this was the decade where the world grew faster than ever before, even with the 2008 shock. The world is now climbing at an astonishing pace, and I should be in the least favorable point of view to be able to see this, since I live in ****ing Portugal.
There is no deceleration. And this means that the third world is demanding an exponentially bigger slice of the energy cake. If you do not know this, what on earth are you even doing in this thread?
ROFL. What? The first one is about how a technical hurdle was overcome and efficiency improved, another was about how a technique employed by plants was replicated by mechanical analogues. This type of thing happens every day. Things which I am fairly educated about, I do have competent feeds on my browser about the best of the best of this stuff. They do not show anything remotely working right now. Only lab tests. Try again.
A sentence based on an emotion, since there is nothing rational residing in it. You are basically saying that a thing that is still theoretical and some parts of it are being tested in a lab is in a better position than proven, working technology to conquer the world in 15 years. Sorry, that isn't rational.
I know what you are saying, but you give zero evidence for this hypothesis.
The articles I linked are far more optimistic than myself, predicting that solar will outstrip the rest of the energy industry in the last part of this decade. I'm really being conservative here.
It has always happened, and there is an immense pool of technological improvements in the pipeline of research right now, waiting for replication, viabilization, industrialization, marketization. These things take time, like ten years, so if you do see news about breakthroughs in solar power today (almost every day really), then you do know that evolution in the product per se is guaranteed for the next ten years, at least.
Batteries will, for example, improve astonishingly in the next ten years, given the current research pipelines.
That I cannot say or unsay. It really depends upon the systems in use. If information technologies get to a point where they are ultra smart about how, where and when power is allocated, the problems of solar will be managed by very clever AIs on the go. I do not know the potential of this. Having said this, of course that base line power like coal, nuclear, gas or even oil are much more stable than wind or solar.
So what? Every energy production has its flaws and problems. Look at Japan, it's a train wreck, and yet I'm very for nuclear. We should always make an economic analysis that takes in consideration all its vectors, and sure, maintenance is costly.
No, no he didn't. And there's an evidence against his point. If his point had any validity whatsoever, we wouldn't have seen the evolution we saw in solar. Specially when it was so damned expensive. But we did. So his point is moot, and even increasingly so, as solar gets more and more closer to being competitive.
Urban speculation has nothing to do with energy supply.
You live in a bad example, so I'll forgive you for making such a big mistake. Most cities live in favorable conditions. You don't need that all of them are favorable.
-The e-waste problem is due to proliferation of consumer technology and lack of adequate infrastructure in the disposal/recycling industry to presently deal with it. It's expensive, and involves shipping waste all over the world.
-The point with Ballard's tech is comparative; speculation abounded from the early 90s onward that technological breakthrough is just around the corner. People, yourself included, are saying the same about solar. The point is that one cannot accurately predict the advancement of technology decades in advance... which is what you (and the people you've linked to) are doing based primarily on economic trend analysis.
-Given that I have a degree in sociology and a number of my classes included demography, I'm sticking with my vision of future class structure. The demographic pyramids for Africa, in particular, bear me out. Energy needs will increase, but we aren't going to see wealth increases in the third world, and indeed the wealth of the middle class in the first world is rapidly being eroded. You referred to a middle class increasing in size; it isn't. Energy demand is going up, but its not related to middle class expansion.
-The first link explains how the process by which chlorophyll converts sunlight to useable energy has been co-opted to power hydrolysis. That simple demonstration is fully capable of burying traditional solar power provided it can be scaled beyond the lab. Given the experiment was performed in 2008, I'd say time is on their side. That's an inorganic technique, incidentally, and doesn't take into account efforts to utilize chlorophyll molecules or their analogues directly. For someone who is arguing that future innovation is finally going to make solar practical, it seems awful strange you're deriding a technique only a few years old for being in the lab stages.
-Your proven technology isn't Your whole premise is that the state of solar in 15-20 years will make it feasible. At present, solar is not sustainable. Again, derision for biosolar research seems misplaced in this context.
-The statement about potential of biosolar is speculation, as is your entire premise that solar will suddenly be a viable wide-scale technology in 15-20 years. Economic forcasts are not proof-positive of a certain outcome, nor is the evidence that biosolar works. We're both guessing.
-The articles that you linked are predicated on economic forecasts and are contigent on advancements in materials engineering and efficiency (and none of them address the environmental concerns of metals composition, I might add). That's nothing more than educated guesswork; and given how well economic forecasting works long term (that is, it doesn't), I'm skeptical.
-Whenever anyone anyone says technological innovation and advancement in anything is guaranteed for 10 years, that's usually a good indication to start selling stock. Nothing contigent on innovative breakthroughs is a guarantee.
-The second you mentioned clever AIs managing power distribution, this conversation became pointless. Let me stop the back and forth right here.
You're arguing that solar is the future because of the state it will be in 15-20 years from now. I'm arguing that predictions of the future advancements in solar are vastly overblown, and that the only way solar power will ever be feasible on a sustainable scale (for all purposes other than industrial) is with significant advances in biosolar technology, the preliminary technical hurdles for which have been solved.
Neither of us can be proven right nor wrong on these points because we're talking about forecasting the future. And as I mentioned a while back, predictions for the future beyond the immediate short term usually make the people doing the predictions look foolish. So, by all means feel free to carry on thinking that solar is the wave of the future, and I'll just leave my skeptics hat firmly in place.
-
No, no he didn't. And there's an evidence against his point. If his point had any validity whatsoever, we wouldn't have seen the evolution we saw in solar. Specially when it was so damned expensive. But we did. So his point is moot, and even increasingly so, as solar gets more and more closer to being competitive.
So enormous government subsidies has nothing to do with its development? I don't recall that happening with computers in the 80's.
Since you haven't taken my point about the ISS, I'll tell you about it, quoting from wikipedia.
The ISS now has the full complement of eight solar array wings.
Each of the Solar Array Wings are 34 m (112 ft) long by 12 m (39 ft) wide, and are capable of generating nearly 32.8 kW of DC power.
And now for it's batteries
The power storage system consists of a Battery Charge/Discharge Unit (BCDU) and two nickel hydrogen battery assemblies.
Each battery measures 40” by 36” by 18” and weighs 375 pounds.[6]
And that is to just give it power for 35 minutes. Now imagine what it would take to give a city on Earth enough power to keep it going for 8 hours at night.
-
And that is to just give it power for 35 minutes. Now imagine what it would take to give a city on Earth enough power to keep it going for 8 hours at night.
Somehow I don't feel like coming across a hurdle is a reason to stop with solar. The sun's energy hits the earth whether or not we feel like gathering it. It outputs a lot of energy in a small amount of time. It's also VERY sustainable, for a few billion years anyway.
It just seems inevitable that solar energy is the way to go. Very inevitable.
-
Not really been following the conversation (since my computer is out of action), but when it comes to Solar Power, there's an interesting application of it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13392408
This sort of thing on a single seater basis I can understand, but I'm not certain how well the technology would scale up.
-
It seems to be the new fad in round the world racing, now that we have balloons out of the way. I remember reading about it somewhere a couple of years back i think it was that one of the British players in the balloon race was building a solar plane to make a round the world attempt.
-
Energy needs will increase, but we aren't going to see wealth increases in the third world, and indeed the wealth of the middle class in the first world is rapidly being eroded. You referred to a middle class increasing in size; it isn't.
Only in the US, and it's stagnation not erosion. In the rest of the civilized world, income inequality has been stable for decades.
-
-The point with Ballard's tech is comparative; speculation abounded from the early 90s onward that technological breakthrough is just around the corner. People, yourself included, are saying the same about solar. The point is that one cannot accurately predict the advancement of technology decades in advance... which is what you (and the people you've linked to) are doing based primarily on economic trend analysis.
Of course you can. What you can't do is what Ballard did, which was to speculate on how a "breakthrough" would come. When trends are solid and continuous, you are not trying to predict black swans, you are just predicting that 1+1 will be 2. Breakthroughs can only increase this trend, and the trend does not depend upon "breakthroughs".
-Given that I have a degree in sociology and a number of my classes included demography, I'm sticking with my vision of future class structure. The demographic pyramids for Africa, in particular, bear me out. Energy needs will increase, but we aren't going to see wealth increases in the third world, and indeed the wealth of the middle class in the first world is rapidly being eroded. You referred to a middle class increasing in size; it isn't. Energy demand is going up, but its not related to middle class expansion.
Africa? Nice strawman there. Sure Africa is still rather stagnant. Do you know what "Brasil" is? Do you know what "China" is? "India"? You say you have a degree in sociology and you aren't aware of the social trends in these juggernaughts? Do you happen to know that the middle class of China has already reached the 100 million mark, and it can only climb upwards? What the hell are you talking about? Go read the books, see wikipedia. Watch the trends. They are undeniable.
At least you are already admitting that the energy demand will increase. Which was the point.
-The first link explains how the process by which chlorophyll converts sunlight to useable energy has been co-opted to power hydrolysis. That simple demonstration is fully capable of burying traditional solar power provided it can be scaled beyond the lab. Given the experiment was performed in 2008, I'd say time is on their side. That's an inorganic technique, incidentally, and doesn't take into account efforts to utilize chlorophyll molecules or their analogues directly. For someone who is arguing that future innovation is finally going to make solar practical, it seems awful strange you're deriding a technique only a few years old for being in the lab stages.
*cough* mathemathics! *cough* Until I see an analysis of the cost of these aritificial leaves per wh, I'll not be amazed by it.
And I'm not "deriding" it. I'm saying it has still too long of a road ahead of it. They have not shown that their leaf is stable for months, say, or even years. I'd say, that's a darn good question, wouldn't you agree? These lab experiments are great. I love all of them, I'm not being sarcastic. I love to see such variety of imagination and engineering at play. But I only get excited when I see real numbers with costs and production face to face.
-Your proven technology isn't Your whole premise is that the state of solar in 15-20 years will make it feasible. At present, solar is not sustainable. Again, derision for biosolar research seems misplaced in this context.
A red herring. I never did such a thing. One thing is to say that in 2025 solar will be huge. Quite another is to proclaim that investment in research of biosolar is stupid. No, no it isn't. All this stuff should be researched. It's good science and we never know what will be found, and where.
-The statement about potential of biosolar is speculation, as is your entire premise that solar will suddenly be a viable wide-scale technology in 15-20 years. Economic forcasts are not proof-positive of a certain outcome, nor is the evidence that biosolar works. We're both guessing.
But you didn't say that biosolar had potential. You said that "conventional" solar is stupid and will never be huge, biosolar would substitute it because it is better.
-The articles that you linked are predicated on economic forecasts and are contigent on advancements in materials engineering and efficiency (and none of them address the environmental concerns of metals composition, I might add). That's nothing more than educated guesswork; and given how well economic forecasting works long term (that is, it doesn't), I'm skeptical.
Of course it is "educated guesswork", which is something a hundred times better than what you've presented here, which is defined by a "gut feeling".
-Whenever anyone anyone says technological innovation and advancement in anything is guaranteed for 10 years, that's usually a good indication to start selling stock. Nothing contigent on innovative breakthroughs is a guarantee.
I'm not even saying to buy stock in solar.
-The second you mentioned clever AIs managing power distribution, this conversation became pointless. Let me stop the back and forth right here.
You're arguing that solar is the future because of the state it will be in 15-20 years from now. I'm arguing that predictions of the future advancements in solar are vastly overblown, and that the only way solar power will ever be feasible on a sustainable scale (for all purposes other than industrial) is with significant advances in biosolar technology, the preliminary technical hurdles for which have been solved.
Yeah, I see you believe this with all your heart. I don't. But I won't complain if biotech saves the world or smth ;).
-
-snip-
You're still trying to say that economic and trend forecasting makes conventional solar a sure thing; it doesn't. And contrary to your simplifications, I'm not using a gut feeling but simply saying that the past history of prediction of technological gain does not bear out the optimism of the forecasts you are presenting as a sure thing.
On the demography, I HAVE read the books, and I've done the demographic pyramids and statistical analysis. India, and Brazil have massive bases in their pyramids - that spells a whole lot of people for not a whole lot of jobs. Your talk about people in China joining the middle class - that's because the definition of the middle class keeps expanding (and 100 million people in China is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to their overall population, which you have to look at when running demographic statistics). China's pyramid is turning into a square (and is then set to become an inverse pyramid), and their social policies are all set to cause a massive problem in their productivity. If you look at REAL income figures (adjusted for inflation), the middle class the world over has not seen income gains since the late 50s, early 60s. The majority of countries have seen a decrease in their real income of their middle classes, pushing them into lower brackets. Across the world, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and demographic growth pressure is pushing the middle class into one of the other brackets. I'm getting really tired of the word undeniable and its synonyms in your posts. You're taking a very simplistic view of the world. The only reason that energy demand will see increases is because of raw population numbers and the expansion of industry in the up-and-coming industrialized nations; not because they are suddenly set to have a huge boom in their middle class.
And again, I'm saying that conventional solar is impractical for the energy demands required today, nevermind 15-20 years from now. Essentially, you (and the opinion pieces you've linked) are looking at past performance of innovation and economics and the figures of today to predict the innovation and economics of 15-20 years from now. Do it if you wish, but that doesn't put your argument on solid footing. I did not say conventional solar was stupid (boiling my post down to this unnuanced simplicity is insulting); my whole point has been that solar is this romantic renewable technology in the mind's of many people, and it really shouldn't be (for all the reasons I've listed again, and again, and you haven't addressed other than by saying some potential future advancement that is presently undefined is going to fix it). I mentioned biosolar because it is one way I could see solar becoming a viable, large-scale technology without many of the detriments I've listed, not because it is an operating alternative today. You seem to be thinking that my argument against conventional solar energy collection rests on the premise that biosolar is going to replace it. That's not my argument. My argument is that solar is not a game-changing technology because of the multitude of pitfalls I've pointed out previously, none of which any of your points or the points in the pieces you linked to have provided concrete information for resolution thereof. It's all speculation. Grounded speculation because it's not based solely on ideology, but it is still speculation nonetheless.
You appear to be arguing definitively that the technology of the future will solve all solar's problems. I don't care if you have the best crystal ball in the world, that's not an argument that can be presented as absolute fact, which is precisely what you've been saying since you first typed the word's "solar will be huge." My position on solar generally is a null hypothesis: namely, that the innovation of 15-20 years is not going to do what you say it will. This isn't a gut feeling, this is pragmatism. I'd rather solve the energy problems of today and the future with the technology that we know exists now; not rely on predictions of how fantastic a romanticized renewable is going to suddenly become. The biosolar is an incidental bit of speculation on my part, but it is not, nor has it been, my core theme. I think it has the potential to eliminate some of the problems with conventional solar technology and make it sustainable for some uses, but that still doesn't solve all the other hurdles of solar power generally.
TL;DR version: unless you have a time machine stashed away somewhere, you cannot possibly substantiate any of the predictions you and the articles have made as undeniable, factual, or in any other way certain. You'd done a lot of hand-waving about research in progress now that may bear fruit in 10 years or so, but you have no means to substantiate it. Until you can do so (and I fail to see how you actually can) this argument is incredibly pointless. I'll check back periodically to see if you come up with anything, but the rest of the argument has really become a moot point at this juncture. This will likely be my last megapost on the subject.
-
Disclaimer: I have attended courses held by top solar cell researchers and participated in building testing equipment for prototype solar cell production lines. That being said, my everyday work is NOT related to the solar cells or solar power. My feeling is that I'm probably going to regret participating into this, but there were a couple of arguments that I could mention.
First, the development of the solar cell efficiency has not been exponential, efficiency curves are linear or logarithmic in comparable times to semi-conductor industry, meaning that further advancements take more work, and more funding.
Secondly, EU has been putting a lot of money into solar cell research, and while top-of-the-line solar cells are improving in the efficiency (~ 43 % as of 2011), the solar cells on the markets are nothing close to that and it is not yet known if such efficiency rates will ever be achievable in mass production. Currently, organic photovoltaic cells have efficiencies of ~ 5 %, while inorganic cells fare better in comparison. I'm not familiar to the biosolar research, so I can't comment much on that.
EU projects have information dissemination requirements; that means public should be informed about the status of the project and thus they usually allocate money for dissemination purposes - EU funding and dissemination make it more vocal technology area than it actually should be in my opinion. Also, the skeptic in me says that had anyone discovered a good, much improved method to produce a photovoltaic cell, that technology would not be found from any publication, but they would form a spin-off company to commercialize the results.
This is not to say that the solar power would not be a good source of power in some occasions, but it will not be responsible of any large scale power development in the future. Perhaps they get more efficient cells that could power a house anywhere in the world, but that's where I would put the limit of it. Even that would require some work being done for the solar cell, to clear it up from ice, snow, leaves and sand. It would mainly be related to areas which have constant sunshine throughout a year.
The issue I have with solar cell research funding is that this funding is also cutting some from nuclear research, which seems to be somehow bad or defective in the eyes of general public.
-
If you look at REAL income figures (adjusted for inflation), the middle class the world over has not seen income gains since the late 50s, early 60s. The majority of countries have seen a decrease in their real income of their middle classes, pushing them into lower brackets. Across the world, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and demographic growth pressure is pushing the middle class into one of the other brackets. I'm getting really tired of the word undeniable and its synonyms in your posts.
That's not true at all. Present your data on this. Only certain countries have seen increasing inequality and none have seen a decrease in real median income.
(http://wiki-images.enotes.com/thumb/0/01/Gini_since_WWII.svg/720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png)
-
-snip-
You're still trying to say that economic and trend forecasting makes conventional solar a sure thing; it doesn't. And contrary to your simplifications, I'm not using a gut feeling but simply saying that the past history of prediction of technological gain does not bear out the optimism of the forecasts you are presenting as a sure thing.
This would have been okay, if you hadn't added then your own gut opinion that biosolar will win while solar will not.
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
On the demography, I HAVE read the books, and I've done the demographic pyramids and statistical analysis. India, and Brazil have massive bases in their pyramids - that spells a whole lot of people for not a whole lot of jobs. Your talk about people in China joining the middle class - that's because the definition of the middle class keeps expanding (and 100 million people in China is the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to their overall population, which you have to look at when running demographic statistics). China's pyramid is turning into a square (and is then set to become an inverse pyramid), and their social policies are all set to cause a massive problem in their productivity. If you look at REAL income figures (adjusted for inflation), the middle class the world over has not seen income gains since the late 50s, early 60s. The majority of countries have seen a decrease in their real income of their middle classes, pushing them into lower brackets. Across the world, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and demographic growth pressure is pushing the middle class into one of the other brackets. I'm getting really tired of the word undeniable and its synonyms in your posts. You're taking a very simplistic view of the world. The only reason that energy demand will see increases is because of raw population numbers and the expansion of industry in the up-and-coming industrialized nations; not because they are suddenly set to have a huge boom in their middle class.
Strawman after strawman, I'm beggining to think we speak different languages here. I never mentioned how "good" or "bad" the middle class was in comparison with other "brackets". I said that this mass of people has increased astonishingly in the past 20 years, and also that the bracket that was labeled as "sheer poverty" has dramatically decreased as well, in relative terms (percentages). If we add to this the fact that the population itself increased as well, we have a boom in demand (which was the most part of the pressure that drove oil prices upwards in the last decade, FYI). This boom is only beggining. We are witnessing a dramatic surge in energy demand in all of the globe, which is putting pressure in all the energy industry to get solutions.
And again, I'm saying that conventional solar is impractical for the energy demands required today, nevermind 15-20 years from now.
Which is entirely written backwards. You wrote that sentence as if technology of solar will only get poorer and poorer over time.
Essentially, you (and the opinion pieces you've linked) are looking at past performance of innovation and economics and the figures of today to predict the innovation and economics of 15-20 years from now. Do it if you wish, but that doesn't put your argument on solid footing. I did not say conventional solar was stupid (boiling my post down to this unnuanced simplicity is insulting); my whole point has been that solar is this romantic renewable technology in the mind's of many people, and it really shouldn't be (for all the reasons I've listed again, and again, and you haven't addressed other than by saying some potential future advancement that is presently undefined is going to fix it). I mentioned biosolar because it is one way I could see solar becoming a viable, large-scale technology without many of the detriments I've listed, not because it is an operating alternative today. You seem to be thinking that my argument against conventional solar energy collection rests on the premise that biosolar is going to replace it. That's not my argument. My argument is that solar is not a game-changing technology because of the multitude of pitfalls I've pointed out previously, none of which any of your points or the points in the pieces you linked to have provided concrete information for resolution thereof. It's all speculation. Grounded speculation because it's not based solely on ideology, but it is still speculation nonetheless.
It is speculation that was written in 2007, and it is still working, despite the crisis that caused great pains in the solar industry. Again, you want to have your cake and eat it. Conventional Solar isn't ready today, therefore it never will, so we must root for another technology which isn't even unready today but it will win tomorrow. I see no pitfalls for conventional solar that aren't the same for "biosolar". So I fail to see your argument.
You appear to be arguing definitively that the technology of the future will solve all solar's problems. I don't care if you have the best crystal ball in the world, that's not an argument that can be presented as absolute fact, which is precisely what you've been saying since you first typed the word's "solar will be huge." My position on solar generally is a null hypothesis: namely, that the innovation of 15-20 years is not going to do what you say it will. This isn't a gut feeling, this is pragmatism. I'd rather solve the energy problems of today and the future with the technology that we know exists now; not rely on predictions of how fantastic a romanticized renewable is going to suddenly become. The biosolar is an incidental bit of speculation on my part, but it is not, nor has it been, my core theme. I think it has the potential to eliminate some of the problems with conventional solar technology and make it sustainable for some uses, but that still doesn't solve all the other hurdles of solar power generally.
I didn't tell you how to solve the world's problems. I didn't tell you what kind of energy plants you should buy or sell.
I only said that in 20 years solar will be huge. That means that until then, there should be other stuff that must be also huge.
I've been clear in this subject and so I don't understand your misunderstandings, really.
The fact that solar will be huge has no implications on the present with the sole exception that we should keep researching it.
Last, but not least, solar problems will be solved by the price factor alone. When solar panels become too cheap to matter, they will be ubiquituous in all urban landscapes.
TL;DR version: unless you have a time machine stashed away somewhere, you cannot possibly substantiate any of the predictions you and the articles have made as undeniable, factual, or in any other way certain. You'd done a lot of hand-waving about research in progress now that may bear fruit in 10 years or so, but you have no means to substantiate it. Until you can do so (and I fail to see how you actually can) this argument is incredibly pointless. I'll check back periodically to see if you come up with anything, but the rest of the argument has really become a moot point at this juncture. This will likely be my last megapost on the subject.
What do you mean I have "no means to substantiate it"? Should I provide you a list of these improvements? I have a life, you know? This stuff is available in the nets. I also don't care if you do not believe me. I just find it ludicrous for you to adopt such a skeptic stance against a vision and be so easy on your own vision, and then call me deluded.
-
That's not true at all. Present your data on this. Only certain countries have seen increasing inequality and none have seen a decrease in real median income.
http://ser.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/81.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Michael+Mann+and+Dylan+Riley&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fichiers/public/PIK2008DYNalvaredo.pdf
http://www.international.ucla.edu/cms/files/Rosenthal-Oct%20finalHRaccept.pdf
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/backgroundpapers/reddy_stagnation.pdf
Real median income is not an accurate measure of the real income of the middle class (and by real, I'm talking about the economic term for inflation-adjusted income). Also, your graph deals with income disparity within a country which doesn't give an accurate picture of the size or status of the middle class. It's a really blunt instrument.
THAT said, you did catch me here... I made a silly broad statement that overstepped the facts at hand, and for that I apologize. Not all nations and not all middle classes have taken a hit over the latter half of the 20th century; the hits have been localized to particular decades and occurred primarily in certain (mostly advanced industrial) nations. I retract the original statement.
-
--snip-
I don't know how I can be any plainer - my brief discussion of biosolar was to indicate how some of the pitfalls of conventional solar might be addressed to make it sustainable. That's all. You keep trying to construct it into the core of my argument and it is not part of it. I am well aware of the potential hurdles it faces, just as I am well aware of the many pitfalls of conventional solar technology. Move on - you're using this as an excuse to avoid addressing the rest of the issue, which I will simplify:
My position: Null hypothesis - there is insufficient evidence to establish that conventional solar technology will develop sufficiently in 15-20 years to address the pitfalls it currently experiences today. As a null hypothesis, the absence of evidence for the experimental hypothesis supports this position. The onus falls on the person(s) presenting an alternative to the null (that would be you).
Your position appears to be, once again, summarized by the following excerpts from your last post:
It is speculation that was written in 2007, and it is still working, despite the crisis that caused great pains in the solar industry.
I only said that in 20 years solar will be huge.
Last, but not least, solar problems will be solved by the price factor alone. When solar panels become too cheap to matter, they will be ubiquituous in all urban landscapes.
There is also this, from you on page 3:
It has always happened, and there is an immense pool of technological improvements in the pipeline of research right now, waiting for replication, viabilization, industrialization, marketization. These things take time, like ten years, so if you do see news about breakthroughs in solar power today (almost every day really), then you do know that evolution in the product per se is guaranteed for the next ten years, at least.
Batteries will, for example, improve astonishingly in the next ten years, given the current research pipelines.
Nowhere in any of this have you provided concrete evidence for your assertions. Indeed, the few articles you did link are opinion pieces based on economic trend analysis (which you rely on heavily yourself). If you're going to take the position, then provide evidence for it. That's how science works. I'm merely being skeptical.
And before you throw biosolar into this, again, I speculated that it may be a way conventional solar might bridge some of its pitfalls (primarily the environmental one). I am not seeking to make the assertion that biosolar will become a dominant or sustainable wide-spread technology in place of conventional solar. Since you've clarified your original statement about the expansion of the middle class as actually meaning something other than how you originally phrased it, I'm not going to further flog that horse.
Address the lack of evidence for your position, or concede that you are merely presenting your opinion (as, I repeat, I have done on biosolar).
-
And that is to just give it power for 35 minutes. Now imagine what it would take to give a city on Earth enough power to keep it going for 8 hours at night.
Somehow I don't feel like coming across a hurdle is a reason to stop with solar. The sun's energy hits the earth whether or not we feel like gathering it. It outputs a lot of energy in a small amount of time. It's also VERY sustainable, for a few billion years anyway.
It just seems inevitable that solar energy is the way to go. Very inevitable.
Without examining the details it would seem to be the case, and while it is true outputs a lot of power, that power is also highly distributed across half the planet. Things like low energy density and an inability to function at night are not merely hurdles, they are fundemental limitations to the technology that cannot be overcome in a reasonable or economic way. The only reason solar has gotten as far as it has is because of government subsidies and politics, not because it is better technology or a better way to go. Just in the past couple of months several western governments were forced to make drastic cuts or in some cases outright can said subsidies because of the budget crunches, in the coming year it will be interesting to see the effects on the industry.
-
THAT said, you did catch me here... I made a silly broad statement that overstepped the facts at hand, and for that I apologize. Not all nations and not all middle classes have taken a hit over the latter half of the 20th century; the hits have been localized to particular decades and occurred primarily in certain (mostly advanced industrial) nations.
In fact, none have seen a fall in real middle class income. There is a slight rise in poverty in the US since the 80s but thats it. The sources you gave did not mention a fall in middle class income. In fact, from Rosenthal:
At the same time, at the middle and the top end of the income distribution, voters have become much richer. This is not just because the growth rate of income at each centile has been increasing in the centile. The poor eligible to vote increasingly vote less than the rich.
The Reddy paper addresses income stagnation, not decline. Alvaredo and Mann talk about inequality, not a real decline in income. None of them address the claim that real middle class income fell. Median income or wages are the best measures of what the average person makes; neither fell in real terms.
-
In fact, none have seen a fall in real middle class income.
Careful. Since you want to talk about median income, the following have some interesting data from the US.
http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_20070905/
http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Median%20Household%20Income.pdf
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/economicsunbound/archives/2008/11/real_wages_cont.html
http://www.workinglife.org/wiki/Wages+and+Benefits:+Real+Wages+%281964-2004%29
Note the graph in the second link. Again, declines were localized to particular time periods (not, as I originally misspoke, continuous throughout the half-century). The first link discusses the situation from 1999 to 2007, the third from 2003 to 2008. The fourth is a numerical list similar to the second.
Median income or wages are the best measures of what the average person makes; neither fell in real terms.
As a matter of ideology, the middle class is not the average person. In order to look at the middle class in particular, you must look only at real income data for (a) particular income bracket(s). This I've seen in statistics classes, but I've yet to find a reputable source that I can link to (I no longer have access to the sociology/demography journal databases through my former university). I'll let you know if I do. Regardless, data from the US alone shows the notion of continuing increases in real income in the latter half of the 20th century is not accurate (nor is my original statement, as I've already said).
EDIT: Here's an article directly concerning the middle class in the US, though it's a narrow snapshot of time. It is fairly current, however. http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/index.htm
EDIT2: [Somewhat on a tangent] By the way, the reason I responded with articles on income disparity is because that's what the graph in your original post was measuring within countries, not declines in particular income brackets. Income disparity looks at total population, not particular brackets. It's a pretty graph that demonstrates a broad comparison, but it doesn't actually have much contribution to what we're discussing here - Gini coefficients are a blunt tool. Since it appears that graph was pulled from Wikipedia in the first place, one would do well to read the section lower down that discusses the disadvantages of the measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient#Disadvantages_of_Gini_coefficient_as_a_measure_of_inequality).
-
Nowhere in any of this have you provided concrete evidence for your assertions. Indeed, the few articles you did link are opinion pieces based on economic trend analysis (which you rely on heavily yourself). If you're going to take the position, then provide evidence for it. That's how science works. I'm merely being skeptical.
Except that I'm not making science here ;). The articles I linked to are exactly what you said. The sources that for years have been informing me of the improvements on solar panels (such as the emergence of thin film, the emergence of technologies of printing solar panels, etc.) or the batteries (such as the improvements made in labs for these past years on density and building techniques) I have not provided. I won't dig up my feeds for the past 5 or 6 years just to please an informal discussion in here. Sorry, that's just too much work ;).
And before you throw biosolar into this, again, I speculated that it may be a way conventional solar might bridge some of its pitfalls (primarily the environmental one). I am not seeking to make the assertion that biosolar will become a dominant or sustainable wide-spread technology in place of conventional solar. Since you've clarified your original statement about the expansion of the middle class as actually meaning something other than how you originally phrased it, I'm not going to further flog that horse.
When I said "expansion of the middle class" I meant it literally: the middle class is growing in size, not in "quality". But even that can be called into question, since many products that are important for this class have been subject to a big deflation throughout these two decades.
-
Median household income depends on the number of people living in a household. Simply having more couples living in the same house will raise household income while having more people living on their own will lower it, regardless of changes in what people actually make. It's not a particularly useful statistic for tracking individual earnings.
I'll give you that hourly wages fell in the United States. This was an American phenomenon, though, not a worldwide one, and it was due almost entirely to the rise in healthcare costs by ten percentage points GDP. Thus the income/wage discrepancy. However over the same period the quality of products available to the American middle class increased greatly, thus they probably feel wealthier (outside the ones who look at the numbers). Consumer goods are a lot cheaper as well thanks to imports. Not saying any of this is a "good" thing, just pointing out that the middle class is in no crisis of purchasing power.
Anyway, you want real dollar incomes by percentile, you got it. Not from Wikipedia, this is from some random socialist website. Show me which brackets went down since 65.
(http://www.theglobalfczone.com/images/Income-Increases-by-Percentile_US-1967-2003.svg.png)
-
Except that I'm not making science here ;). The articles I linked to are exactly what you said. The sources that for years have been informing me of the improvements on solar panels (such as the emergence of thin film, the emergence of technologies of printing solar panels, etc.) or the batteries (such as the improvements made in labs for these past years on density and building techniques) I have not provided. I won't dig up my feeds for the past 5 or 6 years just to please an informal discussion in here. Sorry, that's just too much work ;).
As long as we've established that you're providing opinion rather than hard fact, I have no interest in seeing the sources anyway. But this is common to debates on HLP Gen Disc (now, anyway) - if you're going to present something as fact, you'd better back it up or retract it as opinion. In fitting example, I now have to go address a silly statement I made which Mustang is [rightly] taking me to task over.
-
Thanks for not taking it personally. You have a point, just not as strong of a one as you originally made. I get the impression that the internet gives people, even from other countries, a US-centric view of the world. Yet using the US an example of "everything that's wrong with capitalism" doesn't generalize.
-
Median household income depends on the number of people living in a household. Simply having more couples living in the same house will raise household income while having more people living on their own will lower it, regardless of changes in what people actually make. It's not a particularly useful statistic for tracking individual earnings.
True, but it is a meaningful measure of tracking income trends over time. A major contributor to the apparent rise in family income is due to more members of the family working. Of course, not all the sources I linked are talking just about median household income. Regardless, it is also the most common standardized measure of income because most national censuses collect data based on household, rather than individual. There's a problem with your graph too - the income measure on the y-axis doesn't specify if it's individual or household. Unless said site is using a specialized data set, it's probably household. In my quick backtrack to the site itself, I can't readily find the page where the graph appears.
Anyway, you want real dollar incomes by percentile, you got it. Not from Wikipedia, this is from some random socialist website. Show me which brackets went down since 65.
I already said that I retracted the original assertion. The middle class hit has not been continuous and prolonged since '65. It has, however, taken various hits in decades and net gain has been tiny. In addition, as several of the sources I previously linked to pointed out, taken a continuous hit from 2003 to 2008 - data from 2008-2011 doesn't appear readily available. The definition of the middle class is wildly variable, but in most G8 countries it is commonly accepted as the middle 50% or so of households. Even on that somewhat painful graph, you can quite readily see that the 25th to 75th percentiles have experienced small gains that have fallen back before slight rebounds leading up to 2003 (which concurs with the links I've referenced). As an aside, this is why some researchers have started a 5-way class division, including lower-middle, middle, and upper-middle because they do appear as distinct brackets in some datasets (on your graph, that places middle at the 50th percentile). Other researchers disagree, as the lower-middle and lower are converging, while the upper-middle tends to be a better defining boundary of the upper class (which has no income ceiling, unlike all the others). Hence discussions of the disappearing middle class; the bottom parts of it are closer to the lower class than they are to the top, and the top is increasingly becoming a defining characteristic of the lower ranges of the upper class. You can see this on the graph you provided - the 50th percentile is an almost perfect split between the people that have seen little gain, versus those that have seen enormous gain.
-
Hence discussions of the disappearing middle class; the bottom parts of it are closer to the lower class than they are to the top, and the top is increasingly becoming a defining characteristic of the lower ranges of the upper class. You can see this on the graph you provided - the 50th percentile is an almost perfect split between the people that have seen little gain, versus those that have seen enormous gain.
I think the difference is that you're defining the middle class in terms of relative standing (the Weberian/social hierarchy definition) while I was thinking more in terms of occupation (the usual economist definition). In regards to the former you can argue that the middle class is shrinking (in the United States alone). In regards to the latter if there have been any changes they've been short term.
Here (http://www.russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/basic-trends/household-income-selected-percentiles) are percentiles to 2010. Everyone up to the 95th percentile lost income in 2010 yet the economy grew. It's not that Americans are making less, so much as growth has been ridiculously concentrated in the top few percent. But as a Canadian I don't think you have to worry. Unless you just voted for the Conservatives.
-
I think the difference is that you're defining the middle class in terms of relative standing (the Weberian/social hierarchy definition) while I was thinking more in terms of occupation (the usual economist definition). In regards to the former you can argue that the middle class is shrinking (in the United States alone). In regards to the latter if there have been any changes they've been short term.
Good point. Guess we should have defined our terms =)
Here (http://www.russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/chartbook/basic-trends/household-income-selected-percentiles) are percentiles to 2010. Everyone up to the 95th percentile lost income in 2010 yet the economy grew. It's not that Americans are making less, so much as growth has been ridiculously concentrated in the top few percent. But as a Canadian I don't think you have to worry. Unless you just voted for the Conservatives.
Now THAT is a good graph. You can very clearly see the trends I've been talking about. It's not a phenomenon just confined to the US, although the economic and social particulars of the US tend to exacerbate its income disparity problems. Canada has the same issues, although the wealthy tend not to be as visible here, and our social welfare programs help some of the poorest to increase their standard of living. The UK is fairly similar in that regard. Tough to compare us to countries like China and India, though; their definitions of middle class (in India, it's decided primarily by property ownership) differ wildly from our own.
-
it sure is unlabelled axes in this thread. :/
-
(http://imageshack.us/m/823/4691/percentiles.png)
Fixed for visibility.
Saying that all the curves have gone up is meaningless anyway. The horrible thing about this is that if you look at the 20th and 80th percentile lines and compare them relative to each other...
In 1967, the 20th percentile line was at about 15000 USD while 80th percentile line was at about 55000 USD. This meant that 20th percentile income was about 27% of 80th percentile income.
In 2000, the 20th percentile line was at about 20000 (peak for the graph) while 80th percentile line was at about 87500 by my estimation. This means 20th percentile income was about 23% of the 80th percentile income.
So, the 20th percentile income has reduced by approximately 15% relative to the 80th percentile income.
It doesn't help the low income households at all that their absolute earnings have gone up by a whopping 5000 USD or 33% in three decades, when the higher income households' earnings have gone up by 30000 USD or 60%, because the value of money is not defined by its numbers but by how much goods ands services you can exchange it for, and the low income households don't define the buying power of the money.
If each segment had remained equal in buying power, then each line would have gone up and down in synch with each other. Instead, the lower segments have barely gone up at all while upper segments have gone significantly higher. There is a name for this trend and it isn't "American Dream" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality).
EDIT:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg/2000px-Gini_Coefficient_World_CIA_Report_2009.svg.png)
Russia is a better place in terms of economical equality* than USA. Ain't that a shocker?
If you look at where the majority of blue and light blue are, it should come as no surprise that most of the rest of 1st world countries regards the US socio-economical situation with thinly concealed disgust.
*based on Gini Coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)
-
If each segment had remained equal in buying power, then each line would have gone up and down in synch with each other. Instead, the lower segments have barely gone up at all while upper segments have gone significantly higher. There is a name for this trend and it isn't "American Dream".
I never disputed that inequality wasn't rising in the US; I addressed the claim that the average person made less than they did fifty years ago.
If you're looking for a debate though I'll bite. As a market fundamentalist neocon I'll say that although inequality itself is bad for the social problems it creates, nothing will really become of it and the United States will level off peacefully at Mexican levels of income disparity around 2050. As a second proposition I argue that the measures usually suggested to reduce income inequality, specifically unionization and expanded government pension plans, will reduce economic growth overall. As a third proposition I argue that there is a relationship between race, genetics and... never mind.
-
/me reads Mustang's tongue-in-cheek post and decides to abandon thread before it becomes too dense to escape it's gravitational pull.
-
Surprised Hera never responded even though I more or less argued against prop #2 in an earlier post. The rest was entirely serious though.
While I'm waiting for further articulation of Europe versus America ressentiment let me tell you a story. One of my pals got into a conversation with some Frenchmen. The usual, big bad unilateral neofeudal neoliberal neoconservative America, etc stuff. After they parted ways they each came back to him one by one for information on getting a visa.
Why do you care so much about people in another country? Why is the freedom to live as a diabetic trailer park American Idol watching landwhale so offensive to you?
-
Mustang, the "freedom" is anything but offensive. The arrogance at saying that such lifestyle is somewhat a symbol of "exceptionalism" is. I hope you understand the difference.
-
Mustang, the "freedom" is anything but offensive. The arrogance at saying that such lifestyle is somewhat a symbol of "exceptionalism" is. I hope you understand the difference.
Exceptionalism was never our idea, blame de Tocqueville (another Frenchman). And still, why should you care if you don't live here?
-
Mustang, the "freedom" is anything but offensive. The arrogance at saying that such lifestyle is somewhat a symbol of "exceptionalism" is. I hope you understand the difference.
Exceptionalism was never our idea, blame de Tocqueville (another Frenchman). And still, why should you care if you don't live here?
Why should anyone care at arrogant people who think they own it all, and have the weapons to actually own it all? Yeah, why should we care.
-
Because u jelly, that's why.
-
Because u jelly, that's why.
Jelly of what? I could name a bunch of countries where I'd rather live instead, and lo and behold, that list does not include the allmighty and so amazing united states. The level of pretensiousness reaches a point that is just amazingly silly.
-
the allmighty and so amazing united states
I'm just surprised at the strength of you and Hera's reaction to whatever it is about "Americans" that you don't like when most people I've met here couldn't care less what people in other countries do with themselves.
-
the allmighty and so amazing united states
I'm just surprised at the strength of you and Hera's reaction to whatever it is about "Americans" that you don't like when most people I've met here couldn't care less what people in other countries do with themselves.
Nah, I really don't care that much. And certainly not about "people"... I was discussing more certain idiossincratic ideologies, or just blind beliefs that come from certain countries than "people". Just stop with the "you jellasss" and "you wish you could be as free as we are" and all that bull**** shenanigan and I'll even forget this conversation.
-
Just stop with the "you jellasss" and "you wish you could be as free as we are" and all that bull**** shenanigan and I'll even forget this conversation.
Forgetting about it's probably the best way to stop that emigration itch, I mean come on baby when your economy can't quite sustain the nanny state or the fascists start lebensroaming, you know where you want to be
america (http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-911.gif)
-
Just stop with the "you jellasss" and "you wish you could be as free as we are" and all that bull**** shenanigan and I'll even forget this conversation.
You'd wish you could, wouldn't you. :p
By the way I think Batutta is being serious.
-
If my country wouldn't be in the ****ing mess it is right now, I'd consider laughing...
-
Come live in the UK. We have overcast skies, near-constant drizzle, tea and more chavs than we know what to do with.
-
Mustang, the "freedom" is anything but offensive. The arrogance at saying that such lifestyle is somewhat a symbol of "exceptionalism" is. I hope you understand the difference.
Exceptionalism was never our idea, blame de Tocqueville (another Frenchman). And still, why should you care if you don't live here?
As I recall later on he issued a retraction. :P
-
As I recall later on he issued a retraction.
O rly? I've never heard anything of the sort. If it ain't on wikipedia it ain't true.
-
:hopping: LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS :nod:
-
:hopping: LIQUID FLUORIDE THORIUM REACTORS :nod:
My first thought was, "Oh, my buddy wrote a paper about the viability of that technology in grad school."
My second thought was, "That sounds like the manliest toothpaste ever."
The fluoride is for your enamel, and the thorium is to say that you've got mother****in' thorium in your mouth!
-
Come live in the UK. We have overcast skies, near-constant drizzle, tea and more chavs than we know what to do with.
You have no idea how many times I was this close of doing just so. It's harder when you have kids though.
-
My second thought was, "That sounds like the manliest toothpaste ever."
The fluoride is for your enamel, and the thorium is to say that you've got mother****in' thorium in your mouth!
:D Try new Thorium Fluoride Toothpaste from Thorium Energy Alliance! Germs wont stand a chance! :D
My first thought was, "Oh, my buddy wrote a paper about the viability of that technology in grad school."
So what was his conclusion? Because from what I am reading lately on teh internetz, LFTRs seems to be able to satisfy all of humanity energy needs (at least in theory). Some claim we wont even need fusion if LFTRs deliver.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html
(http://everestlancaster.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/archibald_energy_security_874.png)
-
As for solar, I dont think photovoltaics are the way to go. On the other hand, concentrated solar power (mechanical, not PV) delivers far more bang for the buck - the cost per GWh produced already approaches fossil plants, it does not degrade over time like PV, has far higher efficiency and does not require toxic substances in production and toxic waste after decomission.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/PS10_solar_power_tower.jpg)
-
666, your economic analysis is far from the truth. CSP still costs somewhere around 3 bucks per watt, and that's not really comparable to, say, gas or coal prices per watt, since in solar this "price" is about the maximum wattage possible, which is never really achieved, and goes somewhere around 20% (due to environmental constraints, like solar inclination, dust in the air, clouds, nighttime, etc.)
The 3 bucks per watt is comparable with the price of coal, but the difference is its efficiency and lack of intermittency, which just give it a far too big an advantage.
Before even reaching this reasoning, though, you should just have asked yourself why wasn't solar so much more popular in the industry if it were that "cheap"? The energy industry doesn't care about coal or oil. It cares about profits. If it profits more from solar, it will use solar, even despite all the conspiracy shenanigans. If it isn't using solar, it's because it is not cheaper. And it isn't, far from it.
It will be, but we will have some decade or two to wait for it.
-
My first thought was, "Oh, my buddy wrote a paper about the viability of that technology in grad school."
So what was his conclusion? Because from what I am reading lately on teh internetz, LFTRs seems to be able to satisfy all of humanity energy needs (at least in theory). Some claim we wont even need fusion if LFTRs deliver.
He's pretty enthusiastic about the technology, though it's a little more tempered than, "We won't need anything else evar!" It's a technology that can be deployed today; proliferation risks are lower than with conventional nuclear, and it markedly reduces our fossil fuel demand.
Realistically, though, switching from fossil fuels to fission is trading one finite set of resources for another finite set of resources, so fission can only be a stopgap measure. Of course, there's a lot more hope of developing a properly renewable energy supply before fissible materials run out than doing so before fossil fuels run out.