So lets assume its all a lie

you've a crap system...25yrs ago i worked on energy efficient home that a total energy cost of approximately $150 per year...the heating storage tank used with the solar panels kept in the basement was the size of two large hot tubs...and this was home built in the central Canadian prairies mid winter temps of -30 to -40 for multiple weeks is not uncommon...

 

Did you understand what you were doing 25 years ago?

My theroetical system was well engineered. The issues was that I had a standard stick built house, that requires 20,000 BTU's per hour to maintain a 35F temperature differential.

I also designed for several days of no sun.

What was your homes thermal requirements? How many hours of sun did you get a day, and how many days without sun did you design for?

 

Exactly. To be specific, I think that photovoltaics will be the next big thing. Although PV is a little expensive now, it won't always be.

 

obviously it wasn't well engineered if you can't heat a house as well as a stick built house on the frozen prairie with mid-winter max of 8hrs sun per day and temps that can dip to -43c...and weeks of no sun are not uncommon...

I'll admit this was an expensive home, a million dollars when an equivalent size home at the time could be bought for 100K...but it can be done...except for the few times this home would draw on public utilities to make up for shortages it was essentially off the grid...

 

I didn't say it wouldn't heat the house, I said it would take 3 swimming pools worth of water storage (800,000lbs). The cost wasn't justified as I installed a wood burning stove ($850) and planted trees ($100).

As you point out, the difference between engineering ($950) and "enviromentalism" ($900K) is return on investment.

It will hit 95F today. As I write this, my whole house fan ($150) is cold soaking the house, so I can run my air conditioning from 2PM to 7PM, instead of 9AM to 10PM.

 

In my opinion, a federal research university system with campus in every State of the Union and the federal districts, may better promote the general welfare than any system of Cap and Trade.

Advances in those technologies could be partially funded from that public sector means of production as a form of Commerce that is well regulated and taxed to defray that expense.

 

no it was cutting edge HVAC engineering and technology of the day...it was government funded project to see what could done with the technology as it was then...much of that technology is used in every new home built today...heat exchangers, air exchangers, solar panels, heat storage, energy storage, insulation, high efficiency heaters, high efficiency doors and windows....as well as all the electronic monitoring of all systems and performance efficiency...

the home was actually sold for about 150K, the owner was required to agree to take part in a 25yr study monitoring the home...

 

Don't forget the NIMH (Not in My Home) crowd.

Something as simple as vertical blinds on the south side of the house, flat black on one side (closed to convert sunlight to heat) and mirrored on the other (closed to reflect summer heat), can reduce heating and cooling significantly - except my wife would never let me do it.

She still complains about the water heating panels, and they have been up 25 years. The only way I can install solar panels is to build a shed with the roof at an angle she can't see them.

She even veto'ed a swimming pool. That reduces energy use significantly when used as a heat sink for my heat pump.

 

good ideas no reason why they can't look good as well...my local university has constructed a new energy efficient building with louvered awning/shades above the windows, very simple, low maintence and effective for cooling while not obscuring the view outside... http://www.contractglaziers.com/EEELannouncement.htm

I was considering solar panels but now as my roof is nearing time for a new shingle covering I'm looking into solar shingles...it's all very expensive the cost of energy is still less than the cost of being energy efficient...

30yrs ago my brother built a home that was partially buried in a hillside, three sides were in the ground up to 4' level, warmer in winter and cooler in summer, exposed walls above ground were insulated to R40...the 4th south facing side had a two story glass front 800sq ft atrium that even in mid winter raised temps to a tolerable level without any supplied heat, using only ceiling fans to circulate rising warm air...

 

No, of course not. And no one is mandating that they not use incandescent lightbulbs either. And no one is putting in systems where the government can control, individually, how much electricity you're allowed to consume.

I have no problem with moving away from petroleum for energy. But, it's like I'm standing on the edge of a cliff and want to move away, if I can't see which direction is safe to move in, I'm not moving at all. Solar and wind are a joke. The vague promises for the perpetual motion machine that will be developed after we've destroyed the infrastructure are worthless and dangerous.

Lastly, you missed the whole point of AGW. Taxes. Income redistribution. That's what the "conflict" is really about. It's a solution desperately looking for a problem.

 

wolervine asks why solar and wind are a joke and the best you can do is repeat the comment with no explanation...it appears you don't know and are only reciting some denier world mantra...

 

That isn't science - it is politics. Attacking the science out of political beliefs doesn't negate the actual science.

 

Bureaucrats have a choice of what science to fund, and they benefit funding science that results in more control, more taxes.

Have you seen any scientific reports that proved CAFE standards have resulted in 1000's of more highway fatalities?

 

No valid citation = made up assertions.

 

I'm a bit of a denier. Not a denier of the fact of global climate change, but a denier that if it is manmade that it can be stopped.

Solar makes sense. Eventually it will get to a point where solar is economically worth it. (probably the next 10-20 years). Fossil fuels are currently the way to go. There is no better form of energy.

The current mileage requirements are ok. The proposed 54.5 MPG average is ridiculous. Even Europe with their $10 a gallon gas doesn't achieve that average.


Back in the late 1980s, I was wholeheartedly a believer in the greenhouse effect (early name for global warming, which is now global climate change). The thing is, if the predictions made then were true, I'd be living on the beach instead of 2 miles from the beach. IMHO, the global warming computer models aren't accurate enough to use as justification to devastate the global economy.

 

What observations are you basing your opinion? What funds have been granted that require science to come to a conclusion demanded by bureaucrats?

No

 

http://www.stretching-it.com/bromleyisms/2006/entries_autos/Deathbythegallon_USAToday.htm

 

Wind is an impractical solution. Windmills are big, noisy, and kill a lot of birds, in addition to being an unsteady source of electricity.

 

Can you show me these predictions of scientists of the 1980's? Or did you read about them in newsweek?
How long has it been "global climate change"?

 

As long as the substitutes are economically viable, there is no problem leaving fossil fuel behind. The problem is that there are no economically viable sources at this time.

 

And you do realize that there are losses in those lines.

Also, wind is not constant. Windmills can't produce electricity when the wind is too high or too low. In addition, windmills are noisy and kill birds.

 

Because they are not as practical--primarily they are much more expensive.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

 

Tidal sources and hydro generation devastate aquatic environments.

 

Well, I was a graduate student in marine biology at the time. Don't recall the exact source, but IIRC they were done by Hansen.

 

Only if you ignore the indirect costs such as wars, environmental damage and health.

Windpower can supplement the US's increasing demand for power.
So you are willing to ignore environmental damage from obtaining FF but are critical of windpower?

So you are willing to ignore environmental damage from obtaining FF but are critical of tidal and hydrogenration?