Comments on: Climate Change & Technology - Better or Worse Than We Thought?

By: Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Green Ink: Forget Gas, Let's Look for Oil

Environmental Capital - WSJ.com : Green Ink: Forget Gas, Let's Look for Oil — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:05:06 +0000

[…] the technology to tackle global warming? The debate continues, in the NYT, Climate Progress, and Talk Climate Change. Much of the debate about climate change is shaped by UN scenarios for economic growth and energy […]

By: Rick Hewitt

Rick Hewitt — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:12:30 +0000

Good Day, Folks; We have a few generic questions to send out to those of you that actually ARE concerned about the future of our precious little piece of galaxial matter. Just look around a little bit at the immense expanse of of “what might or might not” have happened if things weren’t “just right” for life to begin on our own little chunk of material we like to call “Mother Earth”.
To be perfectly distanced from our “average” nuclear-powered sun is, dare I say, “lucky”. Here’s a question–what if we simply just collectively “throw in the towel” and use up our natural resources and roll over to hand the planet back to Mother Nature? Of course, to answer is Earth would continue to take care of and rejuvenate herself, without the “pain in the ass humans!” to mess her up. Next question–What if millions of average humans gave just ten minutes per week of their time to address the issues that we face together? The answer is “That’s all it takes!!” The TerraMadre Foundation respectfully requests your help to channel aid to those tax-exempt groups who can prove that they are un-questionably commited to the preservation of our planet and ALL of the necessary projects and forums, materialy and scientifically, that will benefit from our funding.
Please refer to our blog at http://www.theterramadre.org to continue the project that faces all of us. As always,Peace. Rick Hewitt

By: John McCormick

John McCormick — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 13:39:38 +0000

Heretic,

Your comment regarding on-line factor of wind power is appropriate for this thread. But, 50% on-line factor does not require 2x wind MW deployment to assure load is met. In fact, you could build 4x MW capacity to meet demand but those wind towers sitting idle in a no-wind region are useless.

I am a AGW alarmist and know we environmentalists are overselling fossil fuel alternatives (especially ethanol and biodiesel) beyon any rational point of view.

If we do not soon fess up to our desparate optimism about shifting to a non-fossil fuel economy by replacing burners with solar power towers, wind, etc. the demand for electic power will overshoot capacity and rippling brown-outs and rolling blackouts will panic regulators, large custoerms and the public to build whatever it takes to keep the street lights, subways and computers from crashing.

John McCormick

By: ClimateHeretic

ClimateHeretic — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:47:59 +0000

So they actual product, electricity in the wind power case, is not equivilent to current products nor could it replace the base load generators. Can the problem be solved? Given time anything can be solved.

I also read a report recently that many wind sites actually operate at 16-28% of the installed capacity averaged over time of operation.

Common Misconceptions - Wind Power

So when installing you have to factor in the efficency factor of lets be generous and say 50%. That means you must install twice the peak capacity to reach 100% of project generation. So a 100Mw site would have to install 200Mw of generation to inconsistently produce 100Mw.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:05:10 +0000

I appreciate the intention of the original red post – although the post still highlights the huge maintenance and running cost advantages of some forms of renewable power.

However, what this post attempts to highlight is that the inherent benefits (running costs, low emissions, zero fuel costs) are a) masked by entrenchment of the incumbent technology, and that b) a refinement phase is usually required before new technology is operationally equal to the incumbent – example: digital cameras which were rubbish 10 years ago, but almost universal today.

I’m fully aware of the drawbacks of much renewable and efficiency focused technology today, but refuse to believe that with refinement and focus we will be unable to make significant advances in these areas.

By: ClimateHeretic

ClimateHeretic — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:41:52 +0000

The fact that the product has less employment overhead is not relevant to the quality of the product. The post does not address the shortcomings of the technology itself.

Try reading this article instead Wind Power Loss in Texas

You are confusing the two issues, please note that the Red Post was to address the promise of a new green economy ripe with new jobs in the renewables field.

By: Mark

Mark — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:31:32 +0000

I would actually point you to this
Red post, which emphasises the massively reduced running costs of renewable
energy technologies, apart from the obvious advantage of them being emissions
free.

I guess the problem is that we will struggle to find a commonly agreeable
definition of what constitutes an advantage.

By: ClimateHeretic

ClimateHeretic — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:16:13 +0000

whereby they are almost always initially inferior in terms of cost and reliability compared to the technology they replace. It usually takes several years of continuous refinement for the inherent advantages in new innovations to outweigh the familiarity and maturity of incumbent technology.

The problem is that the benefits of new energy technologies will remain obscured whilst old technologies are still relatively cheap and plentiful and their hidden costs remain shielded.

Inherent Advantages, is that greenspeak for we stuck our litle sticker of approval on it so buy me instead?

The product is not as good as the one it replaces and is more expensive, but it is green, so that makes any side effects or shortcomings completely acceptable as a replacement technology.

No.

It should be at the very least equivilent, green, and more expensive.