I was not happy with this article

[demographic]

Used to run a van on Biodiesel made from chip fat and I'm currently heating my home with ripped out floodhouse floorjoists but the biggest thing that people can do to reduce energy consumption in the home is properly insulate their homes..

The amount of times I get working in a house where the owner is chuffed to bits cos you can see the brickwork/stonework on the internal badly insulated walls, we smile and nod as if impressed and do an eyes to heaven with the other builders and pointedly look in the direction of the stove that's twice as big as it should be if the place was properly insulated.

They tell us the place is warm and toasty and again we know they wouldn't have to put anything like as much heat in there if only they dot and dabbed the walls with insulated boards and put an insulated slab floor instead of sandstone flags.

That to me would make a big difference to the UKs energy usage but you can't tell them that.

 

[British Red]

See my earlier point about sun, wind, water and tide and our ever improving technology

M

Yes indeed but lets not pretend that these technologies are not horribly polluting - they are, ridiculously so.

 

[dewi]

And you get the hydrogen how? People forget that all you do with a hydrogen fuel cell is pollute during fuel production rather than fuel consumption.

Of course hydrogen is a renewable energy and then, much like the much trumpeted other forms of renewable energy, ill informed people think that means "non polluting" when the reality is often that it pollutes far more per kWh than burning fossil fuels.

The point you make on the finite nature of fossil fuels is a good one - they are going to run out and we, as a greedy consumer of power, should be investing heavily in renewables before the fossil fuels run out - even if they contribute more to global warming.

The hydrogen generators run on solar power BR... they have nothing to do with fossil fuels at all.

[video=youtube;jk08Mul_yfw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk08Mul_yfw[/video]

 

[British Red]

They "can" run on solar (or any other power source come to that) - but how are the solar panels manufactured? I don't disagree that solar could work, but people need to look at the whole lifecycle energy inputs...how were the materials to make the PV panels shipped? The heavy metals for the battery bank they will need?

Not against using hydrogen fuel cells btw - but all they do is move the pollution along the line to fuel manufacture or even generator manufacture. Energy is still used to make the fuel. All the hydrogen does is store that energy - rather like a battery (which you could charge from the same PV array). There are some arguments that liquid hydrogen is lighter to transport and quicker to fill than a battery - so it may have some efficiency gains.

 

[dewi]

The problem with the battery is that it needs to be continually charged... and at the moment that charging time from solar runs at around 4 hours (although the bloke in the last video claimed 2 hours... not sure why)

With hydrogen, its true that you lose 50% of the charge that you would get versus a battery, but its transportable and sellable as a fuel unit. So you could sell a cannister of gas that plugs in... the real benefit goes beyond that though.

Think of the energy needed to build a car... the amount of energy that takes. If we abandon petrol engines for electric, thats a lot of wasted energy... but to convert a petrol engine to hydrogen is very, very simple... so it's a bridging technology meaning that we save a fortune in energy... rather than retooling the plants that make petrol engines, we repurpose them. Repurposing is far more efficient.

As we've discussed in this thread, the problem is getting the general populous to buy into a concept. With hydrogen, there is little change from existing fuels. As you run empty, you fill up... you don't have to wait for a charge on a battery. You can sell the fuel by the litre as we do with fossil fuels... so its really no different to filling up your car as you do now. As battery technology improves, it will overtake hydrogen cells, but for now, hydrogen is a great bridging fuel that emits nothing but clean water... and if produced in the right way, costs nothing but the components inside the generator (which need replacing periodically) and as you say, the solar cells themselves.

Elon Musk is dead against the hydrogen fuel cell for the reasons I've pointed out, but he's in the business of selling the electric concept... the problem is exactly as you've said BR... the electric concept relies on huge amounts of energy to produce the electric car in the first place... far outweighing the life span of the car (current estimates is an electric car will last 7 years)

A repurposed petrol engine using hydrogen cells that are produced using solar power and water will give you the bridging technology needed while electric cars develop to their full potential, and/or an alternative fuel source can be found.

The alternatives are being thought of, but the technology is too far in the future to make the difference we need now. Even with far reaching estimates, fossil fuels aren't going to see us right for more than 100 to 150 years... and then what?

 

[santaman2000]

They "can" run on solar (or any other power source come to that) - but how are the solar panels manufactured? I don't disagree that solar could work, but people need to look at the whole lifecycle energy inputs...how were the materials to make the PV panels shipped? The heavy metals for the battery bank they will need? .....

Not only how were the materials shipped, but also how were they procured by the shipper? Solar panels require silver, that usually means minin, that often means hydraulic strip mining.

http://i2.wp.com/insidernews24.com/...argest-Open-Pit-Gold-Mines-in-the-World-2.jpg

 

[santaman2000]

According to the US EPA most greenhouse gasses are produced through electricity pro-duction, industrial energy consuption, and transportation.

If more energy were produced by solar and wind the total production of greenhouse gasses would be significantly reduced - without excessive negative impact on lifestyles.

But yes significant public policy changes of any kind are almost politically impossible. And yes once global warming becomes so irrefutably evident that everyone sees that it is real and that it is a problem it will be too late to prevent. It may already be.....

Even when (if) it becomes that evident that it's real, that still won't prove in and of itself that it's due to man made causes. I personally believe that man made causes at leastcontribute, but that will never be a proven thing.

 

[santaman2000]

..... The good news is that most of us who are allowing it to happen will die of old age before that happens. So surviving will be our grand childrens problem.

Happy New Year.

The US and Canada are already disputing the status of the globe under the Arctic ice cap: is it Canadian national territory or international seas? Whoever's right is irrelevant so lets not make this political. The practical pint is either way it will have a partially positive effect on humanity. If it's Canadian national waters, they will continue to extrsact the oil from there (or whatever other resources become available) On the other hand, if it's international waters, the sea route wil get much shorter (meaning less energy needed for transport of goods)

No, these aren't c onvincing arguments, but they do show that our grandkids will likely adapt to whatever climate they have. After all, humanity is essentially a tropical species that's already adapted (without particularly sophisticated technology) to every environment on Earth.

 

[boatman]

Reminds me of a thing years ago when somebody claimed that solar energy was more dangerous than nuclear because there were, allegedly, more deaths and injuries in making solar power bits and installing them than in the nuclear industry.

 

[Toddy]

Reminds me of a thing years ago when somebody claimed that solar energy was more dangerous than nuclear because there were, allegedly, more deaths and injuries in making solar power bits and installing them than in the nuclear industry.

Ye couldn't make it up, could you ? Just the kind of fact that becomes a statistical nightmare.

I'm with Demographic I reckon that decent insulation is a tremendous cost cutter on the trickery bill. We're well insulated/double glazed now and it droped our bills by a substantial amount

M

 

[David LaFerney]

The US and Canada are already disputing the status of the globe under the Arctic ice cap: is it Canadian national territory or international seas? Whoever's right is irrelevant so lets not make this political. The practical pint is either way it will have a partially positive effect on humanity. If it's Canadian national waters, they will continue to extrsact the oil from there (or whatever other resources become available) On the other hand, if it's international waters, the sea route wil get much shorter (meaning less energy needed for transport of goods)

No, these aren't c onvincing arguments, but they do show that our grandkids will likely adapt to whatever climate they have. After all, humanity is essentially a tropical species that's already adapted (without particularly sophisticated technology) to every environment on Earth.

It's true. No matter what kind of mess we leave them our grand children will adapt - because they won't have any choice. But heh - humans are indeed really adaptable so it's all good. Drill baby drill!

 

[David LaFerney]

Ye couldn't make it up, could you ? Just the kind of fact that becomes a statistical nightmare.

I'm with Demographic I reckon that decent insulation is a tremendous cost cutter on the trickery bill. We're well insulated/double glazed now and it droped our bills by a substantial amount

M

That's probably the best way to implement change through public policy - figure out a a way to make it economically beneficial to take a positive action.

Here's an example of the opposite - Where I live electricity is distributed by so called membership co-operatives which in actual fact are nothing of the sort. Anyway residential customers pay less per KWH if they use more electricity - which subsidises wastefulness of all kinds. People who live in huge houses end up paying less for electricity (per KWH) than those who use modest amounts of energy. It's exactly the reverse of how it should be. I wonder how that happened?

 

[dewi]

That's probably the best way to implement change through public policy - figure out a a way to make it economically beneficial to take a positive action.

Here's an example of the opposite - Where I live electricity is distributed by so called membership co-operatives which in actual fact are nothing of the sort. Anyway residential customers pay less per KWH if they use more electricity - which subsidises wastefulness of all kinds. People who live in huge houses end up paying less for electricity (per KWH) than those who use modest amounts of energy. It's exactly the reverse of how it should be. I wonder how that happened?

Clever contracting... which should promote energy self sufficiency in the form of solar panels or whatever else.... simply to remove the individual from contracts that benefit the richer and disadvantage the poorer.

Oil is a prime example... the individual can not process oil even if they found it, and finding it doesn't give ownership... finders keepers doesn't apply when it comes to oil. So the richer become richer by exploiting the ownership of oil and the capability to process it.

Bypass the oil without inconveniencing yourself, and the rich no longer become richer.

Or in short, pump hydrogen made from a generator you own into a petrol engine... you're removing the power from the people with the oil and transferring wealth.

Silly example really, but the contract of buying a petrol car is that you continue to buy petrol. Replacing the petrol with something else breaks the unwritten contract and transfers the ongoing wealth elsewhere.

If enough people did it, it wouldn't change the oil industry, but it would certainly dent them enough for them to take notice and make such a fuss it'd be noticeable.

All quite simplistic and probably a bit child like in approach, but individually its the only way we can make a change because collectively we just don't care enough about it. As long as we can fill up with fuel at the fuel station, as long as we can switch a light switch on and for as long as we buy cheap plastic rubbish, we'll be reliant on fossil fuels. Collectively we're happy doing it, because it takes no effort.

The day, collectively, we care is when the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground. By that time, the people who own the oil will own the alternatives and the whole cycle will start again.

 

[David LaFerney]

Replacing the petrol with something else breaks the unwritten contract and transfers the ongoing wealth elsewhere.

Exactly - we are already hearing grumbles that drivers of highly efficient cars aren't pulling their weight economically because they are paying relatively little in gasoline taxes - which pay for roads. Same goes for rooftop solar and the like - some states are implementing systems to charge people with those extra fees to use the power grid. The (powerful) utility companies are in the business of selling electricity and they use their influence to discourage people from making their own. Same goes for water - in some states it is illegal to catch rainwater in a barrel and use it to water your garden. And in fact there are perfectly reasonable reasons for that - they are pure BS - Using rainwater is a natural right if ever there was one. BTW, on the survivalist subject - Catching rainwater should be one of the first things anyone does to "prep" - far more important than stocking up on ammo.

 

[Toddy]

Re that last comment….right now that's not a kind thing to say to us. We are awash with rainwater, and indeed many towns and cities, not to forget huge great agricultural acerage is flooded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35192445

Generally speaking rainwater collection is more a rain water disposal issue in this country

M

 

[santaman2000]

Re that last comment….right now that's not a kind thing to say to us. We are awash with rainwater, and indeed many towns and cities, not to forget huge great agricultural acerage is flooded.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35192445

Generally speaking rainwater collection is more a rain water disposal issue in this country

M

Most of this country too Mary. We've been under flood watch for several days now. The states he's referring too are the Desert Southwest, and yes, they really do have a valid reason for it: collecting rainwater prevents it from entering the common water table (bare as it is) In theory it would be like damming a stream and preventing the folks downstream from getting their share. However in MOST of the country, it's still perfectly legal, as it should be.

 

[santaman2000]

Clever contracting... which should promote energy self sufficiency in the form of solar panels or whatever else.... simply to remove the individual from contracts that benefit the richer and disadvantage the poorer.

Oil is a prime example... the individual can not process oil even if they found it, and finding it doesn't give ownership... finders keepers doesn't apply when it comes to oil. So the richer become richer by exploiting the ownership of oil and the capability to process it.

Bypass the oil without inconveniencing yourself, and the rich no longer become richer.

Or in short, pump hydrogen made from a generator you own into a petrol engine... you're removing the power from the people with the oil and transferring wealth.

Silly example really, but the contract of buying a petrol car is that you continue to buy petrol. Replacing the petrol with something else breaks the unwritten contract and transfers the ongoing wealth elsewhere.

If enough people did it, it wouldn't change the oil industry, but it would certainly dent them enough for them to take notice and make such a fuss it'd be noticeable.

All quite simplistic and probably a bit child like in approach, but individually its the only way we can make a change because collectively we just don't care enough about it. As long as we can fill up with fuel at the fuel station, as long as we can switch a light switch on and for as long as we buy cheap plastic rubbish, we'll be reliant on fossil fuels. Collectively we're happy doing it, because it takes no effort.

The day, collectively, we care is when the last drop of oil is pumped out of the ground. By that time, the people who own the oil will own the alternatives and the whole cycle will start again.

In reality ownership of the oil (or any other mineral) was vested with the land owner. It can be sold independently of the land (the energy companies buy only the mineral rights and leave the land ownership with the original owner) or those mineral rights can be retained when selling the land. Thus they have become separated to some extent.

Personally I still own 1/2 the mineral rights on one section of my land (originally a 40 acre section) and 1/4 on the other section. Likewise I still own 1/4 mineral rights that my parents retained on another 40 acres they sold when I was a kid.

And YES, they are energy companies; they just happen to currently be dealing mostly in oil. They really don't give a rat's butt if we switch to another energy source cause they'll just switch to that market also. In fact they would love to see another product that gives them a higher profit margin with less operational and exploration costs (all the easy oil is long gone)

 

[santaman2000]

Exactly - we are already hearing grumbles that drivers of highly efficient cars aren't pulling their weight economically because they are paying relatively little in gasoline taxes - which pay for roads....

Yeah that kinda bit the government in the a$$ after they pushed for us to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. Now they want to monitor the miles driven and tax that instead.

Likewise the airlines are pushing to have the aviation taxes changed. They don't like the current system where they pay taxes based on the number of passengers and the general aviation sector pays based on fuel consumption. They'd rather see the tax be the same for all aircraft based on number of landings. Never mind that our smaller general aviation aircraft don't crumble the runways like their heavy jets do.

 

[petrochemicals]

This is only 63 grand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34647343

Out soon and it isnt that far out of the average persons price bracket, so soon it will be inside it. If petrol is 4 quid for 40 miles thats only ~500,000 miles before you brake even on a petrol model

 

[dewi]

This is only 63 grand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34647343

Out soon and it isnt that far out of the average persons price bracket, so soon it will be inside it. If petrol is 4 quid for 40 miles thats only ~500,000 miles before you brake even on a petrol model

Heavily dependent on what they charge for the hydrogen refills... the German car industry were projecting that hydrogen would sell for slightly more than petrol a few months ago, so you would never break even. You would be driving something with zero emissions providing the hydrogen generator is solar-powered rather than tapped into the grid.