The subject was home installations, generating on site. I see we have changed the flow in order to generate more confusion. Distribution costs are in reality fixed, although they are charged on a per KWH DELIVERED basis. What you generate on site is not delivered.

True, provided the sun shines or wind blows 24/7/365 at that particular home to generate it. Otherwise you still need the offsite system as backup. Its costs continue and can not be ignored. Never mind that you also need it to remove the excess generated and distribute it to someone who isn't able to locally generate enough and to get that offsetting cash payment from the utility. It doesn't go away and just because it may presently be billed on a per KHW basis; with the reduction in everyone converting to local generation it would be billed on a per meter basis.

Unfortunately it is an entire system and you can't look at one small piece in isolation and declare problem solved, unless you aren't interested in a real solution. The planet needs real solutions and not wishful thinking.

---

The subject was home installations, generating on site. I see we have changed the flow in order to generate more confusion. Distribution costs are in reality fixed, although they are charged on a per KWH DELIVERED basis. What you generate on site is not delivered.

True, provided the sun shines or wind blows 24/7/365 at that particular home to generate it. Otherwise you still need the offsite system as backup. Its costs continue and can not be ignored. Never mind that you also need it to remove the excess generated and distribute it to someone who isn't able to locally generate enough and to get that offsetting cash payment from the utility. It doesn't go away and just because it may presently be billed on a per KHW basis; with the reduction in everyone converting to local generation it would be billed on a per meter basis.

Unfortunately it is an entire system and you can't look at one small piece in isolation and declare problem solved, unless you aren't interested in a real solution. The planet needs real solutions and not wishful thinking.

Gary, this is just not true. The homes grid connected, you save at a RETAIL basis according to what energy you produce, and any surplus is sold back at the
wholesale rate.

1:This greatly reduces the needs for commercial production
2:Solar generated energy tends to be mostly produced during peak usage, which
reduces the need for additional capacity
3:It uses the EXISTING grid, which does not require additional infrastructure
4:It is cost effective NOW.

The rest of the FUD you try to share is part of the problem, and has nothing to do with any solutions.

Industrial installations are another part.. and your SOLUTIONS are certainly welcome in this thread.

---

Janice

coal-direct chemical looping

Heating, Not Burning, Coal
Fan discovered a way to heat coal, using iron-oxide pellets for an oxygen source and containing the reaction in a small, heated chamber from which pollutants cannot escape. The only waste product is therefore water and coal ash -- no greenhouse gases. As an added benefit, the metal from the iron-oxide can be recycled.

IGNORE Say: Can't IGNORE Sweet Delicious Clean Burning Fossil Fuel.

p.s. Nice Clean Non-Nasty Link. heaheahe hehe

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

As I used to work for PG&E and have studied the costs of converting from #6 fuel oil to coal with and without scrubbers I can tell you that most of the recent posts on this thread are totally off base.
'to wit:

I'm sure National Grid has some profit built into the .05587 cents, so to be competitive PV Solar must over its lifetime produce power for less or it will not be used.

1/20 of one cent ?? get real.

So called renewables require maintenance. Drive by any of the wind farms and you will see a portion of the windmills not turning at all. Now why is that? Solar panels require cleaning and do not work at night.

Comparisons with coal and or gas usually have a carbon tax and subsidies included so are intellectually dishonest.

Spreading harmful pollutants about to dilute them to background levels is preferable to concentrating them and letting them get into the ground water.

CO-2 and sulphur dioxide are beneficial to plant life.

I dont care how you produce the power, green or fossil you will have maintenance costs and infrastucture costs. Lines break, towers collaspe, insullation breaks down as do insulators.

Have you seen the price of copper. Expect it to go higher. As will wages.

There will never be a no cost system for power generation on a mass scale. And even for a home owner there is still maintenance costs.

---

[/quote]

Old James

For the us at least we have a huge trade imbalance so regardless of the cost

of renewable, every barrel of oil we do not import is a plus, and should be

treated as such in the tax code and elsewhere.

As to cost of oil, there are 3 aircraft carrier task forces policing the Persian

gulf and sea lanes to the us just to protect oil as well as 1 in the

mediterranean. How much does that cost, should the oil company's pickup the real

cost of this?

As to fixed cost for distribution and power demand build out, if I install

solar on my house how are these affected? First less capacity for distribution

needs to be built, second build out for power capacity is lowered because I am

generating power during peak demand and power company's are not stupid they

reduce to hot or cold idle their most expensive plants first.

As to nuclear phase 3 nuclear only uses about 2% of the material to generate

power leaving the other 98% and anything contaminated as long lived nuclear waste.

were as phase 4 can burn the waste and can be built to passively unfocused when

overheated making meltdown impossible as well as use thorium for fuel which is

10 times more available than uranium and can't be made into bombs.

so how is the us doing with this ? We spend us money in India to do research

because it would be unpopular here.

---

Just a reminder of what is happening around us all:


Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed

The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980...

... that may well usher in a permanent change toward extreme, prolonged weather events...

... [Already,] It is almost certainly too late to save the Arctic’s summer sea ice from near-total destruction. Let’s hope the same isn’t true for the biosphere. The time to act is now if we don’t want to betray our children and future generations.


Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean

In a small patch of the Southern Ocean, the shells of sea snails are dissolving. The finding is the first evidence that marine life is already suffering as a result of man-made ocean acidification.

"This is actually happening now,"...


Earth’s Plant Growth Fell Because of Climate Change...

Drought linked to climate change has reversed a decades-long trend of increased global plant growth...


No alternative to atmospheric CO2 draw-down

... The scale and rate of modern climate change have been greatly underestimated. The release to date of a total of over 560 billion ton of carbon through emissions from industrial and transport sources, land clearing and fires, has raised CO2 levels from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial periods to 397-400 ppm and near 470 ppm CO2-equivalent (a value which includes the CO2-equivalent effect of methane), reaching a current CO2 growth rate of about 2 ppm per year...


UK Climate Change Secretary Slams Deniers As ‘Dogmatic And Blinkered’

... You know, when I am confronted by some of the most dogmatic and blinkered people who deny that climate change is happening, I am reminded of the sentiment of the famous USA Today cartoon.

“If we really are wrong about climate change, we will have created a better world for nothing”.

In reality, those who deny climate change and demand a halt to emissions reduction and mitigation work, want us to take a huge gamble with the future of every human being on the planet, every future human being, our children and grand children, and every other living species.

We will not take that risk.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The subject was home installations, generating on site. I see we have changed the flow in order to generate more confusion. Distribution costs are in reality fixed, although they are charged on a per KWH DELIVERED basis. What you generate on site is not delivered.

True, provided the sun shines or wind blows 24/7/365 at that particular home to generate it. Otherwise you still need the offsite system as backup. Its costs continue and can not be ignored. Never mind that you also need it to remove the excess generated and distribute it to someone who isn't able to locally generate enough and to get that offsetting cash payment from the utility. It doesn't go away and just because it may presently be billed on a per KHW basis; with the reduction in everyone converting to local generation it would be billed on a per meter basis.

Unfortunately it is an entire system and you can't look at one small piece in isolation and declare problem solved, unless you aren't interested in a real solution. The planet needs real solutions and not wishful thinking.

Gary, this is just not true. The homes grid connected, you save at a RETAIL basis according to what energy you produce, and any surplus is sold back at the
wholesale rate.

1:This greatly reduces the needs for commercial production
2:Solar generated energy tends to be mostly produced during peak usage, which
reduces the need for additional capacity
3:It uses the EXISTING grid, which does not require additional infrastructure
4:It is cost effective NOW.

The rest of the FUD you try to share is part of the problem, and has nothing to do with any solutions.

Industrial installations are another part.. and your SOLUTIONS are certainly welcome in this thread.

Soft, stop spreading FU and lots of D. You can't see the truth because you aren't in the right frame of mind. Perhaps an example ...

You are the CEO of the Soft power company, a regulated utility. Years ago before you had any other option you signed a long term contract to buy energy from Dirty Coal Generation company with a minimum purchase requirement to get a low rate per KWH. You also signed a contract with your grid transmission company to have that energy delivered from Dirty Coal to your substation on a per KWH basis. These are your costs of energy.

You borrowed money with a long term loan from Greedy Bank to build your substation and you distribution network, power poles, copper wire, switches, breakers, insulators, transformers, etc. to your customers. You have a staff to read meters and fix things that break, trucks, tools, CSR's, etc. These are your fixed costs.

You have 1000 customers. You bill a rate based on how many KWH they use which covers both your energy costs and your fixed costs. Smart PV Solar opens an office in town and says, save money by putting up PV! The legislature in your state has mandated that Soft Power must buy power generated by its customers (and likely set the rate too).

Smart PV Solar convinces 500 of your customers to put up PV Solar and they install just enough generation that on average each makes exactly what they use over a 24 hour period. (Smart PV is marketing that as a zero bill.) Are you still turning a profit?

No you are not. In the day you don't have to buy energy from Dirty Coal, you pay 500 new suppliers for the energy your other 500 customers use. At night you buy the same as ever from Dirty Coal. But on the billing side, you only get a fraction of the revenue you did per day. But you still have 100% of the fixed costs!

That's a problem. If Soft Power raises rates to make up the difference the 500 customers who didn't put up PV are going to scream about subsidizing those who took Smart PV's offer. You have two ways to make this equitable. First take your fixed costs and divide by 1000 and charge them as a per meter fee dropping your per KWH rates (remember you are regulated), or charge your 500 new suppliers a transmission fee per KWH like you have to pay to grid transmission for the power they transport to you.

Either way the customers of Smart PV Solar will have their electric bills go up. Those deals they were promised may no longer be profitable to them, unless the legislature mandated (as some have) that the power purchased from customers be at retail rates and not wholesale rates. I'll leave you to figure out where that puts Soft Power.

The point being Soft, if one or two customers convert, Soft Power can absorb the loss, but if a large number convert, the game changes dramatically. We are talking about converting a large number to save the planet. In that case PV solar has to be cheaper than Dirty Coal per KWH or it will not happen large scale and the moment it is Soft Power will be buying panels and ripping up the contract with Dirty Coal.

---

Wind power not the solution in the UK.

Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists

Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.

The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.

Wind power not the solution in the UK.

Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists

Thousands of Britain’s wind turbines will create more greenhouse gases than they save, according to potentially devastating scientific research to be published later this year.

The finding, which threatens the entire rationale of the onshore wind farm industry, will be made by Scottish government-funded researchers who devised the standard method used by developers to calculate “carbon payback time” for wind farms on peat soils.

Just another example of looking in a too small box for an answer. Or while a wind turbine in a lab setting saves carbon, putting it out in the real world releases carbon. Everything cited in the paper would be true no matter what generator was sited upon that land.

But it does give something to look at. If peat bogs are a 4x better sink than a rain forest, then perhaps we should look at converting land to peat bogs.

---

Wind power not the solution in the UK.

Wind farms will create more carbon dioxide, say scientists ...

That is rather too general and sensationalistic a title.

The actual story is much more sensible:

... Writing in the scientific journal Nature, the scientists, Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith, of Aberdeen University, say: “We contend that wind farms on peatlands will probably not reduce emissions …we suggest that the construction of wind farms on non-degraded peats should always be avoided.” ...

... which makes good sense. Hopefully, that will improve how new wind farms are built and sited.


That doesn't mean that ALL wind turbines should not be built.

That is also a similar story of how the construction industry in general has a very unhealthy predilection for trashing "green field" sites rather than cleaning up existing wasteland 'brown field' areas.


As always, good sense is needed. So what's new?

All that does not make existing fossil fuels generation any less bad and damaging and polluting.

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

power company's are monopoly's city's and states set their rates yes, but never

at a rate that causes the power company to loss money.

if the power company is losing money they go before a board for a rate

adjustment.

being a monopoly big power can be at the mercy of what the market will bare

rather than competition and the lowest price.

coal dumps more radioactive waste into the environment each year than all of

nuclear power has it's history including the accidents.

if the cost of cleaning this up were included coal would be much more expensive.

oil has similar hidden costs not the least of which is our huge trade imbalance.

forcing utility's to buy power brings competition, and encourages domestic

sources of power.

many power company's encourage and even help finance energy efficient appliances

and insulation when it saves them money on projected capacity build out.

but monopoly's do not like competition even when the competition is forced to

use their power distribution lines and are guaranteed a profit because of this,

competition losses them control and, brings in to question the cost of their

practices.

---

instead of providing government fertilizer maybe we should provide biochar.

how biochar works is in the nooks and crannies of the vary jagged partially

burned carbon provide a much lager surface area for for biological action to

occur generating more fertile soil and sequestering carbon.

---

... how biochar works is in the nooks and crannies of the vary jagged partially burned carbon provide a much lager surface area for for biological action to occur generating more fertile soil and sequestering carbon.

That 'trick' kept various old civilizations fed well despite poor growing conditions...

I agree, we should make better use of that. See Wikipedia Biochar.

However... I'm sure the big agribusiness will lobby and FUD hard to spoil adoption for the sake of their profits to wastefully produce ever more fertilizer to denude soils yet further due to bad farming practices...

Industrialized farming is a very big contributor to Global Warming. Better ways of farming might even mitigate against polluting our planet... That has got to be part of the solution alongside taming the fossil fuels pollution...


Good reminder, thanks.

All on our only planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I agree, we should make better use of that. See Wikipedia Biochar.

Slash and burn leaves only 3% of the carbon from the organic material in the soil. Slash and char can sequester up to 50% of the carbon in a highly stable form.

So what does leaving it rain forest sequester? Or is this more little box thinking and grabbing at straws?

---

So what does leaving it rain forest sequester? Or is this more little box thinking and grabbing at straws?

Have you any positivity or can you offer any solutions? Or are you so jaundiced that you have deluded yourself that nothing positive can be possible?...


Obviously... You do not have to slash rainforest to gain biochar. 'Waste' field stubble from existing fields can be used instead for just one example.


Can you try looking for positive solutions rather than doggedly trashing the world around you?... We'd love to hear your positive ingenuity...

All on our only world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So what does leaving it rain forest sequester? Or is this more little box thinking and grabbing at straws?

Have you any positivity or can you offer any solutions? Or are you so jaundiced that you have deluded yourself that nothing positive can be possible?...


Obviously... You do not have to slash rainforest to gain biochar. 'Waste' field stubble from existing fields can be used instead for just one example.


Can you try looking for positive solutions rather than doggedly trashing the world around you?... We'd love to hear your positive ingenuity...

All on our only world,
Martin

Martin, it is obvious you have never been a farmer or read the things you link to, such as the report that said biochar was preferable to slash and burn for clearing additional land. Because you have your blinders pulled fully down, same question applies to a field at the end of growing season, just plow the plants under, or biochar them and then plow them under or burn them to ash and plow? The farmer is generally concerned in getting land that is more workable and has greater nutrient value, this may or may not correspond with sequestering the most CO2. However a report that says biochar is preferable to slash and burn for clearing new land has no bearing on "'Waste' field stubble" especially when it doesn't address a do nothing option.

Someone has to ask the hard questions before uninformed do goods send us down the wrong road.

---

burnable trash can be converted to biochar fertilizer to be added to already

worked fields. This will sequester carbon other then field stubble, or rain

forest, or whatever was there before.


and the heat can be used as power generation in the meantime.

---

burnable trash can be converted to biochar fertilizer to be added to already

worked fields. This will sequester carbon other then field stubble, or rain

forest, or whatever was there before.


and the heat can be used as power generation in the meantime.

Doesn't that trash have to be of a character that before charring it would have been suitable to be converted to fertilizer?

---

anything inducing bone can be composted, but as a practical matter wood does not compost well and will not compost in a landfill.

partiality burning to make biochar is quicker and other trash can be burned as well just no heavy metals.

---