Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

I was watching a documentary on cable concerning our (the US at least) addiction to oil/petroleum. The program discussed how were our addiction started and how we have kept it going from being a major exporter of oil to being the importer of 2/3s the oi8l we consume. The end portion of the program (last 5-10 minutes) discussed all the alternatives to petroleum produced energy; solar, hydrogen, etc... the several sound-bites of experts (scientists & corporate reps of energy companies) telling us why that alternative power sources are just not a current viable solution to our need, then it struck me (I know, how long does it take?!) these guys are representing current producers or consumers or petroleum energy; power plants, auto companies, etc... they're talking about replacing the current "grid" with an alternate "grid"! They brought up the corporate conversion of nat. gas and water to hydrogen, and solar tower arrays in the deserts, and the recreation of the automobile into those that consume hydrogen and utilize fuel cell technology, but in a much bigger picture what they're are saying is NOT true... at least from an individuals perspective. Not at all!!

Over the last 20-30 years of my life the "alternative energy" technologies have been developed and taken root. Peoople all over the US have decided to take personal responsibility for their power consumption and have installed PV or Wind systems. They've mounted panels and arrays on their roofs, and they've purchased and maintained energy efficient appliances to compliment their personal energy systems. Though I have no "proof" I suspect that there are those who are even plugging their cars into their houses at night to recharge their car.

So I make this observation to pose this question, "What if the US government, in a concerted effort to change thier energy consumption methods and patterns, gave individuals AND alternative energy businesses substantial tax credits to purchase and install, and produce alternative energy equipment?" In other words, what if the level petroleum use was SUBSTANTIALLY lowered due to the increase of personal power systems?

Even landlords of appartment building could set-up roof-side arrays or wind mills, maybe city neigborhoods could come together to replace, or off-set their petroleum eneergy consumption. What if the goverment gave tax credits for energy production off-sets- so those who are at least making the attempt to switch have a financila reason to do so. Note, I am NOT saying 'give people money' I'm saying cut the taxes of people who are trying to lead the US into a difficult transition... giv'em a break, don't pay them off.

I think that the bigger unknown is if given an affordable opportunity , would people rise to the occasion?

This is my two cents anyway!

Tony

Indeed Anthony... a simple and obvious choice of action... all but those in power, and those with vested interests... seem either oblivious to... or choose DELIBERATELY to ignore...

Sadly IMO... it is the latter... because those in power are lobbied and controlled by those same vested interests... and often have those same vested interests themselves...

One point you touched on, but did not completely explore nor added to the survey is the cost. The need for the "grid" will always be there as storage of electricity is not cost effective or environmentally friendly. Solar is the most reasonable option, yet depending on your location and time of year is only excisable 50% best case. Then the cost of said system takes it beyond most peoples reach. And even if you can afford it, it makes no since if you consider that the cost savings vs. lifetime of the system is usually about equal. Hydrogen IMHO is a joke as it takes quite a bit of energy to separate it from water - where you going to get that energy?

Tax credits are nice, but you don't get anything for free. We know the guys in Washington are not going to just give away money for free. They will make it up somewhere else which might involve taxing oil companies or worse Cap&Trade. That will only raise the cost of energy for everyone and those that can least afford the increases will get effected the most. So then you get into tax credits for the poor and the cycle just never stops. It is clear that the FEDS are totally out of control with the spending and have no clue how to manage a budget. You really trust these guys to make descission for you and your children?

IMO the government needs to stay out of it and let the free market decide what will happen. The one area where they could make a difference would be to open up the "patent market". Much of the technology exists, but is sitting behind the patent vault. And guess who owns those patents - yes those same companies like BP that claim to go beyond petroleum. That will never happen though as along with Goldman Sacks, they are all in bed with the members of congress - all vile beings barely qualifying to be called human.

And then you must consider the question; Why? Do you really buy into global warming? Ask Al Gore as he sits under two feet of snow in DC if he really believes it....nobody I know does, but then again I don't know the self serving, profit mongering Al Gore.

What do have to work with now? Nuclear! Is it safe? Absolutely! Is it cost effective? Absolutely! Just like air travel, we have learned from previous incidents and now have a great track record. Technology exists to safely contain the waste and all this at a cost on par with fossil fuels.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for going green - I would not be here if I was not. Home energy production is not viable, nor cost effective. Perhaps small reactors or collectors at the neighborhood level could be made cost effective. For me, the best thing I can do is conservation. It is good on my wallet and good for the environment.

Mark

If people can afford the alternative energy systems in the first place, then yes, people personally setting up systems would greatly affect the situation.

Right now though, I fear few people feel they have the cash reserves to invest in such things (at least I don't think I can afford it at the moment even if I want to.)

And through much of the USA, the McMansions don't have enough roof area or yard area for solar and wind power to provide even a fraction of their heating and cooling bills but it would still be a start.

While the currently available technologies might not be a complete answer, they are at least a start. Forever doing more research is not going to solve any problems, we do have to start doing what we can now.

I'm hoping that once I build my new house, it will be very energy efficient to start with then hopefully I'll be able to scrape up enough money to have polar power make a real dent in the energy we use for it.

Laws that require the installation of solar water heaters in all new homes, like the ones in effect in Israel, and more recently in Spain, certainly change the country's need for fossil fuels and energy in general. But because of different climates, this isn't possible in every country!

Also, small home sized systems can never be as efficient as bigger operations. For instance, capturing energy from the sun is most efficient at a very high temperature, which is why there are solar power stations with a huge area of mirrors focussing on a single tower.

This also means that bigger operations need less material to provide the same energy output. Don't forget that producing things like PV panels costs a lot of energy and resources!

For instance, a Dutch study has found that a large windmill that produces 5000 GJ of energy in its lifetime, will cost over 3000 GJ to build, transport and maintain. Smaller (home sized) windmills are probably even worse; in their lifetime they might not even produce the energy that they cost to make.
For photovoltaic panels, the energy production vs energy cost is a bit better, but they still need to run for about 3-4 years to produce the energy they cost to produce and transport!!!

In conclusion, I don't think the technology for sustainable energy has developed enough, yet.

Ah, but the technology won't develop until the market sees the demand for it. So we should do what we can with what we have if we want to see better to come in the future.

And it was personal investment that saw Denmark leading the world in wind energy use.

Now it might seem that it isn't good enough yet but imagine if you will that the fossil fuels that power our currently cheap electricity become more scarce and the cost of that electricity goes way up, the costs of the renewable things will also go up. I'm hoping I can buy some of this stuff before the current grid electricity becomes too costly.

I agree that the current technology is not a perfect answer but right now it's all we got. There are people out there living "off grid" with what technology we currently have and there are people out there managing to sell electricity back to the grid with what we currently have so that says it is definitely good enough for a start now even if we should still be looking for better as we go.

Actually this has been happening in Australia for a few years now. Right now we can get around $AU 5,000 rebate for a 2kw grid connected system and only pay around $AU 8,000 to 11,000 out of pocket (Average Australianin individual income ~$AU 60,000). Depending on use and climate this system will produce about 50 to 60% of an average house's energy, payback time 5 to 10 years depending on use, life of system 25 years.

Not bad but if you take the rebate away the payback time gets very close to the life of the system and is no longer worth it, the $AU 12,000 used to reduce a mortgage over the payback time could be a better option.

I am sure it could be done cheaper but larger production volumes would be needed, and at this stage most people can not afford it.

I have not read or seen any Al Gore book or film but I take it he thinks global warming is real.

I personally always wear a seatbelt when driving a car because 99% of car safety experts agree from their scientific research that using a seatbelt will reduce the risk of injury in a motor vehicle accident.

If 99% of the worlds climate science experts tell me that global warming is occurring and it is a bad thing then I believe them. Is there some sort of conspiracy when buy they are profiting? Maybe they all bought from the same batch of faulty thermometers? Maybe they just smoked too much pot at university?

Why would you not believe them, I wish it wasn't true but pretending they are all wrong because it is snowing is not going to help.

The cold weather "Up Over" (as apposed to "Down Under") is probably due to global warming or more accurately climate change caused by global warming. Global warming is not as simple as saying everywhere will get hotter at an even rate, if it was the Snap Frozen Yanks (Canadians) would be rubbing their hands together and planting mangoes.

Global warming increases the mean ocean temperatures which in turn changes the old reliable weather patterns that we depend on for food production. Just because one place happens to have a colder, hotter, drier, wetter year and people think this is a good thing does not mean it will be the same next year. Climate change produces these extremes of weather being experienced in all parts of the world.

But it is so much easier to just sick our heads in the sand.

Disclaimer: I believe that while climate change as the result of global warming is very likely happening, it being caused by human green house gas emissions alone still needs to be proven.

Conspiracy no, not on any large scale. But, the climate fear means there is a lot of money being made available. Academics and researchers live by the adage, "publish or die", which means they need money to conduct the research to have something to publish - most of this comes from government or industry grants. So, conspiracy, no, but there is a hell of a vested interest.


One of the things you learn as a geologist is that there has never been anything stable or constant about the Earth in it's 4.5 billion year history.
The continents are always moving, the magnetic poles switch ends every 100,000 years or so, sea-level goes up and down, the atmosphere changes, and, of course, the climate changes too. It's self-centred of us and derogatory to nature's ability to handle change, to think we cause this with a incremental increase in atmospheric CO2 - there have been far bigger changes in that past, long before we existed and nature coped just fine. It's pure arrogance on our part to think we can fix it !


Now, finding alternatives to our energy and raw material requirements is a completely different matter. Certainly our current wasteful practices with these finite resources is disgustingly wasteful and is completely unsustainable !
However, none of it has any requirement to link to "global climate change" - it's a separate issue altogether.

+1

You're both right.... the climate has continually changed over time.... and the system has always had complex inter-relationships and interactions built in that attempt to balance...

The current extremes are a demonstration of the inbalance that exists... and the science is quite clear that the last 100 years of industrialisation has added huge pressures to the natural eco-system... resulting in huge swings...

I don't see anything contradictory in the evidence, or current localised events... indeed I see it as an obvious substantiation of the premise...


Sorry Chilli... but it's NOT a separate matter at all.... our dependance on fossil fuels ... in all aspects of our lives... IS THE CORE CAUSE of global climate instability....

And as suchcan be addressed... and overtime the natural systems will correct... one way or another... the imbalance....

UNLESS we stress the systems beyond a point of natural correction ... to the point of collapse and some sort of catastrophic event...

AND THATS WHAT THE CORE DEBATE SHOULD BE ABOUT... because that's what the science is suggesting...

The worst thing that has happened is the adoption of the term "global warming"... because it has muddied the water... and let the dissenters seize on "examples" that seem to contradict the science.... when in fact, looked at in totality... it in fact confirms the science IMO...

WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.... as long as we are prepared to... and as long as we are prepare to DEMAND that it is done... and punish the bastards that continue to pollute...

There is little reason for business to pollute... other than pure cost idioms... technology exists that would enable a vast % of industry to be clean... or substantially cleaner.... but profit dand gutless lack of ethics and vision... usually dictates otherwise...

Ice core records from the arctic and antarctic show CO2 levels have varied by much more than the current levels many times over the last 20,000 years Rupe - none of that was us and we didn't fix it.

NASA has reported, several times, that the polar caps on Mars are showing the same changing behaviour patterns over the last couple of decades as those on Earth. We can't take credit for that one either.

Our little collection of weather observations over the last 200 years is too statistically insignificant, compared to 20,000 year long records that show constant change, to support a premise that we're the driving force all of a sudden and that nature has taken a back seat.

However, we do agree on the the fact that our current material cycles (oil, iron ore, etc) are unsustainable and our environmental practices are fracked (the floating collection of plastic in the northern pacific horrifes me). This all definitely needs fixing, climate change or no and it is a change we can make.

Google Climate Change Email Scandal - the science is faulty, they know it and they change the numbers to make it look like they have a clue. They do not! Oh - and they just happen to lose the original data so that it cannot be verified. And since when is CO2 a polutant? Oh ya, since someone figure out they can make money if they declared it to be. What are you going to do - regulate how much the people and wild life can breath. Should a runner pay higher taxes because he breaths more then me? Should my brother in-law pay more in "energy tax" as he has more kids then me? This is not science? It IS an agenda. And at the end of the day, you cannot say the proof is in the numbers...it just is NOT!

Again - Don't get me wrong, I'm all for leaving this place cleaner for my children and do what I can to conserve and recycle. Those are things we can do something about. I also believe you should buy local and quit sending money to China to support the cheap child labor and support your own community instead, but that is another issue.

Mark

Agreed Chilli.... and that in itself proves that nature has the capacity to correct imbalances... irrespective of cause...

But those same records show alterations in levels over time spans far greater than those that the last 100 years or so...

And that's the point that's being made by reputable science... not that things haven't always fluctuated.... but that the recent fluctuations are extreme, and condensed time wise.... and seem to correspond to human actions... and that such could cause the natural systems to react extremely... and in much shoter time spans than previously in history... perhaps catastrophically....

As I said... I don't see any contradiction in that... merely substantiation...


Show me the evidence from NASA on that... from everything I've read... that suggestion doesn't come from NASA at all... but lunatic fringe sceptics...


Sadly Chilli... as statistically insignificant is the observations may appear.... certainly when looked at over eons...

They do suggest that human behaviour has become the driving force... in a very short condensed period of time...

IF this is true... then it's not about right or wrong... or percentage right or wrong... it's about RISK MANAGEMENT....

If taking action to address our current practices and thinking does nothing else than change our mindset and approach to how we interact with the planet.... then IMO.... I just don't see a NEGATIVE... or downside in doing so...


And at least here we can agree... and if we end up with a less polluted and environmentally raped planet...then I'm sure my children and grandchildren will thank us for it...