[paraclete]

Tom for you technology solves everything without understanding that you cannot throw money at it and expect a solution. Water is vital in the production of food but irrigation methods are causing problems which will take large areas out of production. Industry consumes vast quantities of water without improving its quality. You drink sewerage if you want too but the areas where population growth is highest won't have this " luxury "

[tomder55]

Why not ? Where there is liberty deserts are productive lands . Where there is tyranny ;fertile lands become deserts .

[paraclete]

Quaint platitudes, you don't solve problems with platitudes. You cannot get more of a resource by wishing it so. The sort of rhetoric you are using was fine in the 1700's with a population of less than two billion but must bow to reality today

[talaniman]

Technology can solve many problems Clete you just have to develop the science, and manage it. And implement it.

[TUT317]

why not ? where there is liberty deserts are productive lands . Where there is tyranny ;fertile lands become deserts .

Hi Tom,

The tyranny you speak of is a political consequence of the science.Nonetheless, science will do what it has always done.

If there are enough dissenters in the scientific ranks then the first port of call will be to modify the hypothesis. Nothing new in this.

I think we are already seeing this happening. We are beginning to see 'climate change' starting to develop as the preferred method of explanation.

Sometimes politics get in the way of the methodology.


Tut

[paraclete]

Tal we have the ability to, as you say, solve many problems through science, but thus far we have not been able to create anything.

Water will become a scarse resource this century if the prophets of doom are right and when that happens food will become a scarse resource. Living on a dry continent I am perhaps more aware of this than those who have adequate water resources, we will see some industries disappear when there is greater control of water, this process has already begun

[talaniman]

I prefer to think we will solve a lot of basic problems, and evolve to better things myself.

[paraclete]

Yes Tal the glass is half full but where did the other half go? Do you know?

[speechlesstx]

Speaking of evolving to better things, in leading the charge to solar energy Germany has decided such subsidies are a "money pit" that threatens their economy.

Germany once prided itself on being the “photovoltaic world champion”, doling out generous subsidies—totaling more than $130 billion, according to research from Germany’s Ruhr University—to citizens to invest in solar energy. But now the German government is vowing to cut the subsidies sooner than planned and to phase out support over the next five years. What went wrong?

Subsidizing green technology is affordable only if it is done in tiny, tokenistic amounts. Using the government’s generous subsidies, Germans installed 7.5 gigawatts of photovoltaic capacity last year, more than double what the government had deemed “acceptable.” It is estimated that this increase alone will lead to a $260 hike in the average consumer’s annual power bill.

According to Der Spiegel, even members of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s staff are now describing the policy as a massive money pit. Philipp Rösler, Germany’s minister of economics and technology, has called the spiraling solar subsidies a “threat to the economy.”

Germany’s enthusiasm for solar power is understandable. We could satisfy all of the world’s energy needs for an entire year if we could capture just one hour of the sun’s energy. Even with the inefficiency of current PV technology, we could meet the entire globe’s energy demand with solar panels by covering 250,000 square kilometers (155,342 square miles), about 2.6 percent of the Sahara Desert.

Unfortunately, Germany—like most of the world—is not as sunny as the Sahara. And, while sunlight is free, panels and installation are not. Solar power is at least four times more costly than energy produced by fossil fuels. It also has the distinct disadvantage of not working at night, when much electricity is consumed.

In the words of the German Association of Physicists, “solar energy cannot replace any additional power plants.” On short, overcast winter days, Germany’s 1.1 million solar-power systems can generate no electricity at all. The country is then forced to import considerable amounts of electricity from nuclear power plants in France and the Czech Republic.

So $130 billion later and what did the Germans get for it? The 2nd highest electricity rates in the developed world, three times what Americans pay.

And what did it do for our planet?

Moreover, this sizeable investment does remarkably little to counter global warming. Even with unrealistically generous assumptions, the unimpressive net effect is that solar power reduces Germany’s CO2 emissions by roughly 8 million metric tons—or about 1 percent – for the next 20 years. To put it another way: By the end of the century, Germany’s $130 billion solar panel subsidies will have postponed temperature increases by 23 hours.

23 whole hours. That much, huh?

I really have to ask, was it worth it? And where were those really smart people who should have known a lack of sunshine just might be a hindrance to using solar power?

[paraclete]

Yes speech we had a similar experience here, agovernment subsidising solar installation and a high feed in tariff suddenly both state and federal governments decided that the whole tokenistic scheme was over subscribed and pulled the rug from under the feet of a burgoning industry

[TUT317]

Speaking of evolving to better things, in leading the charge to solar energy Germany has decided such subsidies are a "money pit" that threatens their economy.



So $130 billion later and what did the Germans get for it? The 2nd highest electricity rates in the developed world, three times what Americans pay.

And what did it do for our planet?



23 whole hours. That much, huh?

I really have to ask, was it worth it? And where were those really smart people who should have known a lack of sunshine just might be a hindrance to using solar power?

Hi Steve,

I guess the problem is that we don't have the ability to jump from one technological breakthrough to another by way of relevation. We have to go through various cumbersome stages every time. For example, when it came to television sets we went though the electronic valve stage to the transistor stage and finally to the micro chip.

It would be next to impossible to have gone from the valve stage to the microchip stage without the between. These less than desirable technologies are necessary to arrive at a better outcome in the future.

Tut

[talaniman]

In science and technology there are many failed attempts before you find one that works, but for sure, if they abandon the attempts, they will find NO solutions.

[paraclete]

That's fine Tal but let's be a little focused. In the past science has advanced with a scattergun approach, shoot at everything and hope to hit something

[talaniman]

You better read up, the Germans took the too much, to fast, crash and burn approach when measured pragmatism was required. Then they wouldn't be locked into such an expensive course of action.

[paraclete]

Not specifically tuned into what you are talking about, I have already answered the post about overspent solar programs, the germans are not alone in failure to estimate demand correctly but then these are the days of "scientific modelling" as a substitute for facts and common sense. There is such a thing as placing limits on a program

[paraclete]

. Thinking and speaking for oneself is not allowed.

Why don't more of you find that disturbing?

Yes I do but some don't that is why they do it. Latest thought, not original is zeapu ~ zero emissions at point of use and the practical application a revolution in road transport and what to do with those redundant filling stations.
The Deakin T2 Car

[speechlesstx]

Why does everyone throw back the "well it takes time" argument every time we mention a failed experiment? Yes, it takes trial and effort and failures and successes.

Solar technology is not new, development began in the 1860s. That's right, the 1860s - not the 1960s. We know it works, we know how to make it work, can we make it feasible before throwing our lot behind it like the Germans did? That would be pragmatic, unlike failing to consider the fact that you don't have that much sunshine before jumping in with both feet and $130 billion.

I know some of you either believe or just willfully propagate the lie that conservatives are against progress, against change. Not so, I'm all for cleaner energy - but not at the expense the left is willing to go to see it happen. Obama said fuel prices must "necessarily skyrocket" and it's happening. Gas prices are the highest they have been at this time of the year ever and it's entirely unnecessary. I happen to object to the fact that the Obama regime is willing to bankrupt us and the country to further his agenda.

Where's the pragmatism in that, Tal?

[talaniman]

The pragmatism we have here is that solar energy is a supplement to the energy we get from fossil fuel and natural gas, and wind and being a Texan like myself you KNOW this, and also know that the old coal facilities are being replaced by newer ones. That's the difference between us and germany who bet the farm on solar and are now having to back of and pursue other avenues. That's only because the are dependent on others for their energy needs.

Pretty much like the right wing Americans who are so afraid they react to anything they don't understand with irrational thoughts and actions. Get your own facts. Let me use our state as an example since this is OIL country, but we are also the second most wind invested state in the union, and at the top of the natural gas development chain as well as solar power that produces electricity. A balanced pragmatic approach, that's being duplicated in many states.

The Germans screwed themselves by thinking that a big investment of solar power would make them independent of other countries for electricity and were forewarned that it would never work they way the were going, but they did it anyway.

Just for the record though, I favor more research into energy from

Chemicals

.Chemical reaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Is Energy Used in Chemical Reactions? | eHow.com

[paraclete]

Let's face it solar enegy might be old technology but that doesn't make it good technology. Solar energy is not efficient and has yet to see the cost curve fall far enough to make it viable. It is also a zero sum gain at best when emissions associated with the production chain are taken into account. It is a niche solution which works well for small remote applications

[speechlesstx]

OK Tal, that sounds rather pragmatic. Why then should we allow this regime to ruin us financially on a pipe dream?