Solar pv generation

[tobydog]

I should have added - for all those people who signed up for 25 year solar PV deals (those who signed away control of their future house sale ) , how long will it be until they are obsolete? 2, 4, 6 years?

 

[Flyfisher]

But hey! Look what came to me in an e-mail first thing this morning:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/12/12/Degrowth-Party/

Do Less with Less, and Love It
That's the message of Vancouver's Degrowth advocates, who scoff at city hall's 'greenest city' pledge.

It's this kind of thinking that may show a survivable path forward. Out of realistic despair come shards of light.

An interesting read - perhaps this is an early example of the sort of unpredicted social changes that cannot be incorporated into the doomsday models.

 

[Penners]

When total oil production actually starts falling there will be a complete collapse of the global financial system.

I have a strong suspicion that the Eurozone may steal the march on the oil market, when it comes to total global financial collapse.

 

[JoceAndChris]

FF - I think you touched on a interesting point about how the steam age would predict what we would be doing in 2011. Thankfully they did try and they weren't very good at it because aren't we now literally reaping the benefits of all the oak that was planted for their future needs. That was only 100-200 years ago and technology moves on in leaps and bounds so where will we be in just 10 years?

I'm not very optimistic about the advances to be seen in 2022. I remember sitting in Geography in 1986 and the teacher saying global warming was happening, and fossil fuel would run out, and we had to find an alternative to the petrol- driven car, and an alternative to fossil fuel power itself. What has happened in those 26 intervening years? A load of hot air.

 

[Lime]

Degrowth?
Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that the idea does not deal with all the people (the majority?) who have borrowed money and need to work for the next 25 years to keep what they have.
The reality for many is that unless they continue to borrow more money in the future their "now" will implode into debts and defaults.
(just like Greece)

I don't live like that.
I would not consider myself "rich" and "better off" if I had a nice car parked in the garage but was upto my eyes in debt.
I haven't lived like that.
I have never wished to live like that.
But a lot of people I know live like that and consider themselves several notches up the social scale than myself because of it.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm not very optimistic about the advances to be seen in 2022. I remember sitting in Geography in 1986 and the teacher saying global warming was happening, and fossil fuel would run out, and we had to find an alternative to the petrol- driven car, and an alternative to fossil fuel power itself. What has happened in those 26 intervening years? A load of hot air.

And me back in 1974, which is why I went to uni to study chemistry and fuel technology, in order to invent a replacement to petrol................

Not one of my most succesful careers :lol:

 

[tobydog]

We may still have the trusty internal combustion engine but at least we don't normally get gassed out like we did in the old days whilst following a Ford Cortina on full manual choke - leaded petrol and all. Mine was a Mk II Delux and in those days I didn't care what was coming out of the back so long as it kept going forward!! I feel the internal combustion engine will be with us for some time yet albeit smaller, leaner and cleaner.

 

[biffvernon]

The trouble with these feedbacks is that they are very difficult to model - they're unpredictable.

So how confident can we be that our models are accurate? And even if they are accurate right now, will they remain accurate over the next few centuries?
...
I understand your point about feedback mechanisms but can we be confident about their runaway behaviour, or more pertinately our modelling of them? Why didn't the last ice age cause runaway cooling, for example? Homeostasis is an endemic mechanism of all life on Earth and Lovelock extended the mechanism to planetary processes so if these things are so difficult to model how can we be sure we fully understand them? It's one thing to fully understand the predictions of a model but if the model is incomplete then so must be the predictions.

Very good points. Always be careful to distinguish between a model and a prediction. With a model one assume certain inputs, certain processes and calculates an output. They can be very accurate, but with the wrong input or the wrong processes the outcome can be a far cry from reality. Making predictions based on extrapolation of current trends usually stray from reality quite quickly, but that's different from modelling. The trouble with the climate feedbacks is that the error range often has greater range on the bad side. Methane has a potential to be released much faster than modelled, from for instance the melting of clathrates, with very little scope for being released more slowly. Ice melting in Greenland an West Antarctic could speed up much more than expected but can't slow down much. The Amazon has the possibility to release much more CO2 than expected but little scope to release less.

There isn't a mechanism available for runaway cooling in an ice age. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have a lower limit (zero) but no upper limit.

The only complete model is the original so, yes, all predictions need to be constrained. If I were to tell you that next July the 12th will be sunny you won't take me seriously, but if I predict that next July will be warmer than this December?

 

[biffvernon]

just a clutching at straws. If we are to accept the science,
...
When the fuel is no longer extractable, and the global economy crashes, what will be the consequences?

If the last straw can break the camel's back perhaps clutching the right straw might save us.

I think you already answered your own question. When the global economy crashes we get all the bad stuff happening - unless we do manage to hang on to the right straw.

 

[biffvernon]

...technology moves on in leaps and bounds so where will we be in just 10 years?

Some technologies move fast but the the serious stuff is a pretty slow process. It takes many years between geological survey to production. It takes the best part of ten years to build a nuclear power station. I'm all in favour of more spending on scientific R&D but it's unwise to expect stuff that hasn't been invented yet to get us out of a hole.

I do expect my solar pv system to last 25 years - that's what the warranty on the box says. For sure, future pv systems will be cheaper and more efficient but that does not render my system obsolete.

Bicycles didn't become obsolete when the internal combustion engine was invented.

 

[biffvernon]

When total oil production actually starts falling there will be a complete collapse of the global financial system.

I have a strong suspicion that the Eurozone may steal the march on the oil market, when it comes to total global financial collapse.

Ah, you're one of the many people who think the Euro is in trouble because of Europeans rather than because economic growth cannot continue without energy growth. The Marxian internal contradictions of capitalism are a complicating sideshow that should not be completely discounted.

 

[biffvernon]

Degrowth?
Nothing wrong with that.

The problem is that the idea does not deal with all the people (the majority?) who have borrowed money and need to work for the next 25 years to keep what they have.
The reality for many is that unless they continue to borrow more money in the future their "now" will implode into debts and defaults.

Degrowth is anathema to the current financial system. Fractional reserve banking requires economic growth. Money equals debt and debt is paid off out of future growth. Without growth the whole house of cards falls down. Since 2008 we've been patching the system to hide the collapse. George Soros: “People don’t realize that the system has actually collapsed” http://t.co/M6uBQQa7

What happens to debts when the collapse becomes apparent will be one of the things that make the times we live in interesting.

Like you, Lime, I am debt-free, but I'm not certain that it is an advantageous position in the long run.

 

[biffvernon]

leaded petrol and all.

They told us that removing lead from petrol was impossible. My son's first TV appearance was as a three month old baby in my arms on an anti-lead in petrol demo. That was one battle we won. He's now a climate scientist fighting a bigger one.

 

[tobydog]

Leaving everyones differences / views aside, I have to say that this has been one of the most compelling off-topic threads on PPUK I've seen so far which is quite something given that it has nothing to do with rotting frames or soggy patches.

 

[Penners]

it has nothing to do with rotting frames or soggy patches.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. If the Antarctic ice cap melts, you'd better get used to soggy patches worldwide.

 

[Flyfisher]

Very good points. Always be careful to distinguish between a model and a prediction. With a model one assume certain inputs, certain processes and calculates an output. They can be very accurate, but with the wrong input or the wrong processes the outcome can be a far cry from reality. Making predictions based on extrapolation of current trends usually stray from reality quite quickly, but that's different from modelling.

But that's a fine distinction isn't it? Modelling may be more accurate than a simple extrapolation but its very complexity may mean more chance of errors or omissions.

A recent New Scientist article (19th Nov) reported on the first climate model forecasts for 2300, which show a possible 10C rise in global temperature. Pretty bad, I'm sure we'd agree. But the same article includes a chart showing how Earth's average global temperature has cycled between 10C and 25C (we're currently at about 12C) for which we have no detailed understanding of the processes involved.

I'm increasingly on the side of Lovelock's view that climate change is inevitable and that we should be worrying about adapting to it rather than waste time trying to prevent or reverse it. In our favour, I think, is that we're the only species on the planet to have developed technologies to alter own own environment - micro or otherwise - so we can only hope we are able to do so to our advantage instead of to our detriment. Admittedly, we may not have got off to a good start but time will be the ultimate judge of our success or failure. If we fail then we'll simply join the long list of already extinct species on our particular little speck of the universe - but none of us will ever know.

 

[Flyfisher]

Leaving everyones differences / views aside, I have to say that this has been one of the most compelling off-topic threads on PPUK I've seen so far which is quite something given that it has nothing to do with rotting frames or soggy patches.

It's an off-topic that crops up every now and again and I find it interesting that many PPUKers have such an interest in the subject. I presume this is because as a group we probably have a greater appreciation of simpler times gone by.

 

[Keithj]

"We're further from the sun, so a Venus atmosphere is stretching it a bit." That's a common mistake. Venus is hotter than us and nearer the Sun. Mars is colder than us and further from the Sun. But, counter-intuitively, the differences in distance do not actually make much difference.

Er...

Unless the physics has changed in the intervening years, the arriving energy from the sun, on a "per unit area" basis, reduces proportionally to the square of the distance.
Venus is 67.2 million miles from the sun, earth 93 million miles, and Mars 141.6 million miles. I think that says the earth receives approximately half the heat energy per unit area, and Mars a quarter. Still hot, certainly, but significantly different.

If memory serves right, one of the main reasons for the disappearance of the dinosaurs is thought to be global cooling following the impact of a large meteorite, which filled the upper atmosphere with dust, cloaking the earth from solar heat. There are similar predictions of the effects of a nuclear war and the ensuing "nuclear winter".

A very cloudy earth, following all that water vapour condensing in the upper atmosphere, may cool down again. Who knows? We'll have been fried to a crisp long before. Other civilisations will arise. There will again be lemon-soaked paper tissues...

 

[biffvernon]

A recent New Scientist article (19th Nov) reported on the first climate model forecasts for 2300, which show a possible 10C rise in global temperature.

That article is behind a pay-wall for non-subcribers but most of it is reported here: http://www.350resources.org.uk/2011/11/17/hyperwarming-of-the-poles-newly-discovered-positive-feedbacks-10c-warmer-if-we-continue-to-burn-carbon-as-we-do-now/

 

[Penners]

Unless the physics has changed in the intervening years, the arriving energy from the sun, on a "per unit area" basis, reduces proportionally to the square of the distance.
Venus is 67.2 million miles from the sun, earth 93 million miles, and Mars 141.6 million miles. I think that says the earth receives approximately half the heat energy per unit area, and Mars a quarter. Still hot, certainly, but significantly different.

If memory serves right, one of the main reasons for the disappearance of the dinosaurs is thought to be global cooling following the impact of a large meteorite, which filled the upper atmosphere with dust, cloaking the earth from solar heat. There are similar predictions of the effects of a nuclear war and the ensuing "nuclear winter".

A very cloudy earth, following all that water vapour condensing in the upper atmosphere, may cool down again. Who knows?

As I understand it (which is not a strong argument!) your facts are correct. But you have omitted the additional key factor of Venus's permanent covering of thick sulphuric acid clouds, which have a powerful greenhouse effect. Mars, by contrast has very little cloud cover, so almost no greenhouse effect.

So the temperature difference between the two planets is considerably more marked than would be be caused simply by arriving solar energy.