Thinking - maybe I shouldn't.......(NB)

[BobOwen]

Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

A posting on the liveaboard forum regarding reducing pollution and the recent Horizon program about the problems, got me thinking - along these lines. (And my VAT and TAX paperworks in today, so I'm doing nothing for the rest of the day)

Two questions

Q1.
The emissions from burning fossil fuel enter the atmospere.

These emissions cause many problems - greenhouse gases - solar cooling etc.

There is a finite amount of fossil fuel available.

These limited fossil fuels are going to be burnt, no matter what, until they run out. I understand its expected to run out this century.

Reducing usage now means the introduction to the atmosphere of these gases is slower, not reduced overall.

If, as I presume, these gases will be in the atmosphere for good..........

Is there any advantage in trying to reduce its use? Or have I missed something (Quite probable!)?


Q2.

On the same theme, does anyone know how much energy / pollution is produced manufacturing items such as a solar panel, versus its probable energy return?

This is to take into account its actual manufacturing process, the energy used manufacturing the individual parts sourced in such as the wiring, energy used in the workers getting to work to make it, the energy burnt up transporting it, advertising it, producing paper to promote it, travelling to the shop to buy it (It seems endless).

If you consider every aspect of getting the panel from conception to your boat, I wonder just what are the returns. I have an uneasy feeling its well negative. Anyone any idea? Are we all doomed anyway we go? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Danny_Labrador]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

You may have hit it right on the head. This whole energy thing is the biggest dilemma ever to occur for us humans and the more you understand it the more complex any solution seems to be.
For years I have been absolutely against nuclear power, based on the premise that eventually everything that humans have hand in will have a cock – up event. Cock-ups whilst undesirable in most fields are totally and absolutely unacceptable with atomic energy. Even 0.00000001% chance is far too big a risk.
However the more you look at the alternatives and the unfortunate baggage they all seem to carry what can we do ?
OK, so called renewables are to be encouraged but they will only ever clip the usage curve the big input will always have to come from something like fossil or nuclear. (total energy usage here – transport, heating the lot)
Perhaps we should cram all our effort behind fusion – this is pollution fee isn’t it ? but what say it doesn’t ultimately work ? oh bugger.

 

[BigART]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

Yes. Interesting one. I have a friend who is a nuclear physicist and he claims that all the wind turbines, solar panels all take more energy to get materials/construct/transport/install/maintain/dispose them than they will ever generate. No idea if it is true and you may guess that he has a vested interest.

Something to investigate.

 

[Alastairdent]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

I dunno if your physicist friend is correct - it would be difficult to calculate.

If you slow the rate of fossil fuel use, and increase tree planting, then you capture back some of the released CO2. That's got to help.

Best thing is to reduce energy use - that's cheaper than building things to generate more! Turn off a few lights.

Almost any boat livaboards (not plugged into shorepower) will use soo little energy compared to house-dwellers. So to be environmentally responsible, we should all move onto boats.

 

[Stemar]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

The overall energy sum is irrelevant. What matters is that politicians and activists can brag about how they're doing something.

I've also heard that hi-tec wind turbines use more energy than they produce, and am inclined to believe it. Even if it isn't true, while they may reduce our use of fossil fuels a little, they'll do nothing for our dependence on them, because there'll always be a time when the wind doesn't blow. "I'm sorry Mrs Jones, you can't watch Corry because there's no wind" You'd have a revolution on your hands. Come to think of it that's a tempting idea until you look at the history of revolutions and the %age that have actually lead to an improvement for the majority of thre population.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

[ QUOTE ]
If, as I presume, these gases will be in the atmosphere for good..........


[/ QUOTE ]

A hugely complex subject, but on the whole no. eg CO2 is used by plants and photosynthetic organisms in the oceans (one of the issues of cutting down huge areas of rainforest, is that they used to absorb CO2, and now all that stored carbon is being realeased and CO2 no longer absorbed), sulphur dioxide is usually washed out by rain (hence acid rain) though substances like CFC's can remain in the atmosphere for very long periods.

 

[BlueMan]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

I seem to recall hearing that nuclear power stations never produce as much energy as they took to build either!

 

[AlexL]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

You're Q2 relates to a concept called 'embedded energy'. i.e every product has used an amount of energy and hence produced CO2 in its manufacture. The issue is then one of payback - i.e do you save more energy than you have embedded in the energy saving product. However the issue is much more complex, as sometimes you have to do something which looks like a negative return in order to proove out the technology, or the energy payback is reliant on high manufacturing volumes so the first few products are not viable on paper.
Q1 is interesting - there may even be an argument to get it over quicker -to drive investment in 'renewables' whatever they may be! ( sure as hell ain't gonna be wind - windmills have bben around for hundreds of years, the modern equivalents for decades and still no one can come up with a convicing way to make them really work).
However I am a firm believer in 'efficient' energy use. I don't subscribe to the eco warrior view that we should all go back to living in caves as everyone likes their transport, mobiles, computers, central heating etc too much, but what we should do is use the fossil fuel as efficiently as possible. i. e why drive an SUV which does 15 to the gallon when a Car can do the same journey with the same occupants and luggage at 40 to the gallon?

 

[philmarks]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

And if we all moved on to boats how much would that raise the sea level by? Of course, the land mass would rise ever so slightly with the reduction in weight on it. So we end up with another environmental problem...

 

[clouty]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

If you were living on your boat, you would rise above any increase in sea level /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[CharlesM]

Re: Thinking - maybe I shouldn\'t.......(NB)

Hmm...

I had not thought of the energy cost and pollution involved in the construction and sale of solar panels and other renewable source power generation...

This was a thing that has bothered me slightly for a day or 2 after reading the thread until it struck me. One cannot compare the full life cycle energy consuption (during construction and use) with only the use life cycle of another. One must compare like with like - ie construction and use of both forms.

So, if one uses a generator - there is energy use and pollution in the construction of that as well. Same again for windfarms and tidal farms and nuclear stations (which I think we should really be looking at) and for coal power stations etc etc

later