Climate Change Dilemna

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

if u don't mind me asking - what were your costs for the wind generator? ... broken up by the main parts ... batteries, turbine and pole ...

at the time; early 1980's; the cost of the generator complete was $18,000 usd. i used deep cycle batteries which ran about $70 usd a piece for a total of $840.
my current system is 12 Kw at the panels and the complete cost was $26,000. i'm now using high tech batteries which cost $1100 each and i use 16 because i refuse to give up my waterbad and i have a big freezer. my neighbour just bought a system for $11,000 but his house is half the size. he's using the cheap deep cycle batteries which he'll probably have to replace every 3 years.

surferdude

onelongsong wrote:

at the time; early 1980's; the cost of the generator complete was $18,000 usd. i used deep cycle batteries which ran about $70 usd a piece for a total of $840.
my current system is 12 Kw at the panels and the complete cost was $26,000. i'm now using high tech batteries which cost $1100 each and i use 16 because i refuse to give up my waterbad and i have a big freezer. my neighbour just bought a system for $11,000 but his house is half the size. he's using the cheap deep cycle batteries which he'll probably have to replace every 3 years.

Do you know what the environmental costs of the batteries are? Both in production and recycling?

polaris

onelongsong wrote:

at the time; early 1980's; the cost of the generator complete was $18,000 usd. i used deep cycle batteries which ran about $70 usd a piece for a total of $840.
my current system is 12 Kw at the panels and the complete cost was $26,000. i'm now using high tech batteries which cost $1100 each and i use 16 because i refuse to give up my waterbad and i have a big freezer. my neighbour just bought a system for $11,000 but his house is half the size. he's using the cheap deep cycle batteries which he'll probably have to replace every 3 years.

i heard there is new battery technology in the works that holds the same amount of power but is way quicker to charge while lasting singificantly longer (20 years +) ...

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

i heard there is new battery technology in the works that holds the same amount of power but is way quicker to charge while lasting singificantly longer (20 years +) ...

if you get a name or manufacturer please pm me with it. i'd greatly appreciate it.

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

Do you know what the environmental costs of the batteries are? Both in production and recycling?

no but if you have the info i'd like it. i don't think my batteries are lead but i could be wrong. since lead is an element it already exists here so in my mind we're just moving it from one place to another.

polaris

onelongsong wrote:

if you get a name or manufacturer please pm me with it. i'd greatly appreciate it.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/new_nanotechnol.php

i don't know if they are for commerical sale yet

surferdude

onelongsong wrote:

no but if you have the info i'd like it. i don't think my batteries are lead but i could be wrong. since lead is an element it already exists here so in my mind we're just moving it from one place to another.

I wasn't asking to call you out on it. I think it's great where you're at and I'm envious. But I find the lack of science behind this part of the enviro movement quite astonishing and unscientific. Basically we're being told to follow a model that we have no proof is any better than the existing model.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

I wasn't asking to call you out on it. I think it's great where you're at and I'm envious. But I find the lack of science behind this part of the enviro movement quite astonishing and unscientific. Basically we're being told to follow a model that we have no proof is any better than the existing model.

c'mon man - this is beyond belief ... if anyone wanted to capture the full embodied energy of his batteries and solar panels and whatever ... they can do that ... its just he hasn't bothered ... but at the end of the day - he is definitely reducing his footprint significantly ... it doesn't take an engineer to see this ...

the model is reduce energy use and your footprint ... there doesn't need to be anything scientific about it ...

onelongsong

surferdude wrote:

I wasn't asking to call you out on it. I think it's great where you're at and I'm envious. But I find the lack of science behind this part of the enviro movement quite astonishing and unscientific. Basically we're being told to follow a model that we have no proof is any better than the existing model.

dude; i didn't take it that way at all. you brought up a good point and i would like the information. can new batteries be somehow made from old batteries? i really don't know. i'll take all the knowledge you can throw my way.

onelongsong

polaris wrote:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/new_nanotechnol.php

i don't know if they are for commerical sale yet

thank you. i'm checking it out now.

sonicreducer

those who are informed should spend more time teaching others how easy it is to conserve and make a difference.

it's hard to break old habits.

Jeanie

onelongsong wrote:

at the time; early 1980's; the cost of the generator complete was $18,000 usd. i used deep cycle batteries which ran about $70 usd a piece for a total of $840.
my current system is 12 Kw at the panels and the complete cost was $26,000. i'm now using high tech batteries which cost $1100 each and i use 16 because i refuse to give up my waterbad and i have a big freezer. my neighbour just bought a system for $11,000 but his house is half the size. he's using the cheap deep cycle batteries which he'll probably have to replace every 3 years.

hmmmm............:)

breakmarysfall

surferdude wrote:

You've accepted that global climate change is real and that man contributes to it. You have a finite amount of money to spend to address the issue. Youe have three options in spending your money;

1. Spend it all, 100%, on prevention or lowering of man's contribution to global climate change. This may result in millions of deaths if climate change is at the point of being irreversable as some scientists think, or if the change is very slow in being reversed as many scientists think.

2. Spend it all, 100%, on adapting to climate change. This may too result in millions of deaths, and is a poor course of action if man is the primary contributor to climate change.

3. Split your spending between prevention and adapting. Otherwise known as not putting all your eggs in one basket. This lowers your risk and is the course of action anyone with any risk management knowledge would take.

Which is the prudent path to take?

Man has a remarkable record at adapting yet I've yet to see more than a handful of scientists ask for money to be spent on adapting. The scientists behind the IPCC report seemingly want course 1. taken with no money spent on adapting to climate change.

It took me the whole weekend to make a decision here.
But now I go for option No. 1.
..and thanks for asking a good question!

All papers and news are full about that subject here since many days on a daily basis,
.. although there are pumping up some other interesting news now...

but anyway, I wanna explain my choice here now:
Since so long I wanted to draw the attention to this subject,
sometimes optimistic mostly desperated.
Now all attention seems to be on this subject....
...and Angela's reaction? She protects the german car industry but demands by the citizens to lower energy need and use.

The new cars will have information about the amount of Co2 emission, but it is still up to the citizen to decide for a new car, BMW- X5; MERCECES - Trucks; PORSCHE Cayenne (66liter of gas per 100 kilometers... so crazy!!!); OPEL (GM newest sports car): VOLKSWAGEN - Touareg vs. AUDI - Q7... just to announce the biggest car companies and their best sellers made in Germany .
- now so well protected by Angela and her Glos im Hals.

The environmental minister wants to exchange the government's CO2 emission by spending the same amount of money (that it costs to our world) for underdeveloped countries to improve their environmental protection industry (a big one in Germany so to say )

So many suggestions but the way is just one way:
to spend all effort to reduce the CO 2 emission immediately.

Yesterday they said on Telly that all hopes lie on Australia cause their folks experience the effects of Climate change already too clearly.
The west part is becoming a desert.

We do, too... but ignorance is bliss!
Blooming Alpes in February... so bad for the ski industry.
- so lets make it plastic -

And about solution No. 2
I just want EARTH and LIFE to survive.
I do not care about Humans anymore... we destroyed it, we made too much wrong... and still do!
we lazy plathemic- what ever this means - bastards!!


and p.s. We Germans are indeed the worst - beside our big brother US-a.
We are working already on pumping the fluid Co2 deep into the earth.
We already have the results of this try to avoid reduction and a step back:
the fluid Co2 comes back as Methan gas... which is around 4 times as bad as Co2.
Thanks Germany for making it so much worth and double the effect within a too short time.

and p.s. 2 The Americans work on pumping it up into the universe.
seems the same stupid idea.


and p.s.2 I am having my day off and, hence, be a bit high on emotions regarding the world.