@ Jamiet

It has done that, it's true, but the reduced unit cost is still relatively expensive in the grand scheme of things. From what I recall the Tories used the reduced unit cost to help justify their slashing of the subsidy on the grounds that it was no longer needed.

And yet Japan managed to criticize Canada for being the only country in the world to renounce the treaty. Japan has remained committed to emission reductions, Canada has abdicated its responsibilities completely. Canada's word is mud in the international community right now.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7ND2XL20111213

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL3E7ND2XL20111213

'Not to mention it's infinitely renewable and, to my understanding, minimally polluting.'

well, i'm sure they will require maintenance, be damaged by rocks, bird poo and meteorites... the question becomes whether the time they will last makes the initial investment worth the cost.

Or if they are technically too difficult to maintain.

How and Ever, i think it's great to distribute a percentage of the energy supply to people's homes and roofs. That means in the future individuals will benefit when energy prices continue to rise, though unless they produce more than they need their own costs will still go up.

But it's good for the network aswell, even if it forces a re-design of the electricity network to handle weather patterns where cloud cover in one area force supplies to come from another... This kind of distribution prevents any one part of the network being more important than any other... i think, like the internet, this is inherently more stable (once you design for it).

Let's remove the CO2 argument for a second. Current energy production is based on unsustainable resources. I don't think there's a clear single source answer as to where it's going to come from in the future so it's importan for us to explore all avenues. Of all the sexy renewable solutions being heralded as the cure to all our energy woes, IMHO solar is the most mature and promising.

All new enegy technologies require patience and subsidies in their infancy and I think abandoning solar power because of it's current deficiencies is extremely short sited.

You certainly wouldn't want to abandon solar power. There are some large scale solar power plants being built that are rather exciting and quite elegant. The subsidies in question here, somewhat sadly, have done little except better develop the production lines of bog standard old technology panels, and line the pockets of those who have erected them (often in unsuitable areas). Imagine the benefits if that money had instead been spent on R and D

http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/solarseville.jpg

solar power towers look very promising, not only do they avoid the cost of purifying silicon, they use fairly well tested technologies (like the steam engine)

However, that is not what this thread is talking about, this is home based photo-voltaics in the UK (known for it's sunshine?), and our PV technology is far from mature, they is tonnes of research into making it cheaper and based on something other than perfect silicon wafers...

In my mind, one of the great advantages of solar power is that you can smack it just about anywhere.

One of the major issues with wind and solar is their power density. You need a massive amount of space to replace the power output of a conventional power plant. With solar, however, you can fit the panels in urban space. Not only does this cut down on transmission losses but it also doesn't require demolishing large areas to make room for the power plant.

Other than cost, public acceptance of the aesthetics of solar power is a major obstacle. I'm in favour of most initiatives that promote the urban use of solar panels. That being said, I don't really know the guts of the uk laws so I can't comment intelligently on it.

On here owing to GR, but couldn't help reading this thread.

I'm pretty sure that none of us here really knows enough to assess to what extent global warming is happening, why, and whether it is/isn't a problem. Nevertheless there are some points that can be made.

First, solar panels use some pretty energy intensive manufacturing techniques, and if you aren't careful where you put them, they are actually carbon producing over their lifespan. At best the benefit is marginal. This does not apply to the same extent to large solar-thermal powerplants, however they produce more power than the feed-in-tariffs allow.

Second, politics being as it is, there is little prospect of effective action against this kind of thing. You're basically setting up a worldwide international game of the prisoner's dilemma, and you sure as hell know people (China, the middle-east...) are going to defect unless there is some enforcement mechanism. So we need an enforcement mechanism (army) that could compel China to make hugely costly decisions, and be willing to use it (start a war) if China doesn't comply. To have its use plausible, it needs to be separately governed to national governments, and immune to electorates (because no elected government would start a war with China over a climate treaty being broken. The realities of public choice mean a global government would be almost immune to the people anyway)

Even if everyone complies, we've now got a global army capable of forcing the hand of *any* national government, with its own governance that is immune or almost immune to any democratic process).

Now I'm not sure that the certainty of that is less scary than the uncertainty of global warming. The only feasible method to prevent global warming without some excellent technological advance that makes it much, much cheaper to take the action necessary is, to me, already an Armageddon situation.

Third, the major problems of global warming already exist, and are just expected to be much accentuated. We have good ideas on how to deal with tropical storms, coastal flooding etc. which we have much more of a handle on how to develop and improve. This kind of research may be less risky approach than researching how to stop global warming, which nobody (in light of the fact that the cost needs to be enough for politicians and voters to stomach) can be sure will work.

Fourth, moving off fossil fuels will cause serious economic damage, and will itself kill millions of people. We'd better put away any hope of alleviating poverty soon if we achieve a switch to renewable fuel in the sort of time-scale many people talk about.

Fifth, if we don't take action now, and take a deal with it when it comes approach, we will be facing these issues, in about a centuries time. By then, we will all be much richer, and the expenses related to relocating/ building coastal defences will likely not actually take out all of our gains in wealth. The IPCC's own statistics suggest that this analysis is valid. Unless you view global warming as something that will make the earth uninhabitable, rather than just stormier and more flood/drought prone, this kind of argument will work up to the point where you think we will have to pay about 5 times the current world GDP to fix the problems (using tomorrow's technology)

It is tempting to say that "prevention is better than cure", but prevention seems unlikely, and has immense, very real human costs. I don't claim to know the answer, but I have a hunch that it's going to require an extremely strong case that global warming is going to really, really bad before I am convinced that the cost of prevention is worth it.

If you had time for that. I'm sure you have time for a game...

Anywho, I think you're overestimating the cost of moving away from fossil fuels and, at the very least, ignoring what will happen when the resources are exhausted. We need extensive infrastructure in place to switch to when the supplies start running out.

I also think that you're overestimating out ability to manage massive environmental disasters. Look at new Orleans, Japan, etc. Not doing all we can to limit the frequency and size of the imminent catastrophes is irresponsible imho

I think the main thing to prevent is disruption of the global food supply.

even without global warming a decrease in total oil production (which i think has stagnated in the past 5 years) will have a huge impact on two important areas, mechanised farming and transport.

The fact is, humans have occupied every square inch of the earth, grown to hte point where we're using every bit of useful land resource.

If global warming causes any sizeable change in weather patterns (any drought and any flooding) this will be another hit to our ability to grow food.

Without some kind of global agreement we're not going to be able to maintain the current supply situation. Under the current market system the poorest nations will suffer first as food prices rise.

Any country blocking food exports, for their own internal food security, will aggravate the situation by reducing what is available on international markets.

There is some disagreement over peak oil, though examples of oil companies pushing for more dangerous/difficult to find resources in order to keep up production abound. However much oil there still is to be discovered, the easy to find and produce oil was obviously the most profitable and thus the first to be exploited - we will only have a harder time exploiting the rest of the resources.

Switching to alternatives makes a lot of sense. Even if photo-voltaics are not one of the sensible alternatives. (at least in the UK, there are places where greater sunshine makes more sense)

However, there are currently very few alternatives for the transport and mechanisation of farming issues.

I think investing in something now to ensure food security makes a lot of sense, and a global agreement is vital. You don't need a huge army to force china to reduce emissions, you can do with agreeing to pay them...

"Not doing all we can to limit the frequency and size of the imminent catastrophes is irresponsible imho"

Whilst I see the appeal of this position, doing *all* we can to limit the frequency and size of, say, hurricanes means putting everything else second to that, for instance producing food. I am obviously taking an extreme here, but it does point out that you are not really expressing your position precisely when you say "all". Rather, you can only think we should do "more" or "less".

"I also think that you're overestimating out ability to manage massive environmental disasters. Look at new Orleans, Japan, etc."

Compare that to our ability to manage CO2 levels, if you will.
I don't think we take a good approach to this kind of thing at the moment. I would rather see people making better choices about where to live to avoid these problems more, and take more responsibility for protecting themselves. I'd have loved to see the Walmart lorries allowed into New Orleans rather than held up on the outskirts.

"Anywho, I think you're overestimating the cost of moving away from fossil fuels and, at the very least, ignoring what will happen when the resources are exhausted. We need extensive infrastructure in place to switch to when the supplies start running out."

Current supplies will last a good few decades, we know of other supplies that will become economically viable as prices rise, and the transition will be slower than tackling AGW demands, and we are still able to search for new oil. People were being told that there was only a few decades of oil left 50 years ago, and it will continue to be so as prices rise, techniques change and demand shifts (relatively slowly).

"I think investing in something now to ensure food security makes a lot of sense, and a global agreement is vital. You don't need a huge army to force china to reduce emissions, you can do with agreeing to pay them..."

But who is going to pick up the tab? You can't do it by paying people without taxing them first. I don't know of any mechanisms that are actually effective (which is why you get junk like Kyoto)

Ok. Not "all" we can but divesting from the most co2 intensive energy sources isn't a massively drastic move. Not doing it because of an overstated economic risk is irresponsible decision.

Yeah, 'assured resources' will continue to increase as the cost for fossil fuels increases but alternative energy sources will become more and more economically competitive as this happens.

I just don't see enough of a reason NOT to invest in pv etc. The risk of needing it later far outweighs the economic risk of investing in it.

Also, forget pv for a bit, how about other co2 'free' sources like,say, nuclear?
Regarding not living in danger areas. Let's put aside the millions who live in india. The u.s is primarily situated on the coast. San Francisco is on a massive fault line. Etc. There isn't much we can do with where people live now.

'But who is going to pick up the tab? You can't do it by paying people without taxing them first.'

well the common agricultural policy is still one the EU budget's biggest expenses (~€49.8 billion maybe down a bit from 48% in 2006) Part of this is to encourage farmers to grow food on land in the EUrope (and it is particularly hated by developing countries which can only compete with the EU in agriculture)

Similarly it is about 8% of US federal spending @ $288Bn (~ €221Bn) - though some of this is spent on biofuel subsidies.

we're already doing something to ensure our local food supply, it's not like i'm proposing extra taxation for something which has never been done before...

And yes, more oil will become economically viable as the price rises, and the rising price will increase both the cost of mechanised farming and oil based transport.

Decreased oil usage will be a direct consequence (because the money isn't there to spend) and thus oil production will likely fall - there is a huge difference in predictions of future oil production (see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/PU200611_Fig1.png )

“ It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive. ”

— Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008

Combined with any shift in climate patterns this is a recipe for a collapse of our food supply systems.

The more complex the systems get and the longer the distance travelled by a goods between the primary source and consumer, the more vulnerable it is to collapse.

Of course it is easy to predict disaster, people have been cautioning against famine scenarios for as long as i know. That doesn't mean this caution is lightly ignored.

'I just don't see enough of a reason NOT to invest in pv etc. The risk of needing it later far outweighs the economic risk of investing in it.'

I disagree with investing in the production of current generation of PV, instead investing in basic science for the next generation.

@orathaic
I really had a good laugh at your steam engine idea (for non-engineers: that's saying you don't need a laptop/tablet/whatever, because paper was invented over 2000 yars ago)
Before I give a serious response, did you even consider and inform yourself about what arguments at both ends of the table are?

"well the common agricultural policy is still one the EU budget's biggest expenses (~€49.8 billion maybe down a bit from 48% in 2006) Part of this is to encourage farmers to grow food on land in the EUrope (and it is particularly hated by developing countries which can only compete with the EU in agriculture)
Similarly it is about 8% of US federal spending @ $288Bn (~ €221Bn) - though some of this is spent on biofuel subsidies."
These are (at least in Europe) inter-EU aid from well-developed areas (less agriculture, eg England) to less-developed areas (more agriculture eg Slovakia). I guess this works the same in the US. True, some products like grain should not be subsidized in the EU, but that's where most of the money is going to. And btw, how would you compare quality and safety from developing countries to that in the EU?

"And yes, more oil will become economically [less] viable as the price rises, and the rising price will increase both the cost of mechanised farming and oil based transport.

Decreased oil usage will be a direct consequence (because the money isn't there to spend) and thus oil production will likely fall - there is a huge difference in predictions of future oil production (see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/PU200611_Fig1.png )


“ It is pretty clear that there is not much chance of finding any significant quantity of new cheap oil. Any new or unconventional oil is going to be expensive. ”

— Lord Ron Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, October 2008"
Euhm, do you actually know how you get the most oil out of an oil field? Judging your statement you don't. What you're saying is BS! An oil field is usually drained for 20 to 30%, depending on the position of theoil field and withdrawal rate, then enhanced techniques (using gases and ultimately polymers) are used to go a total withdrawal of 60% (so an additional 30%) from the initial oil. A slower withdrawal rate (or oil production) of a field increases the amount you're able to get from the oil field. A technique for increasing the withdrawable oil by 1% would make you an instant billionaire (if not trillionaire), that's what Shell means with there's 'no cheap oil left'.

"Combined with any shift in climate patterns this is a recipe for a collapse of our food supply systems.
The more complex the systems get and the longer the distance travelled by a goods between the primary source and consumer, the more vulnerable it is to collapse.
Of course it is easy to predict disaster, people have been cautioning against famine scenarios for as long as i know. That doesn't mean this caution is lightly ignored."
As you already imply, I'll be outright stating this is speculation on the system. So you want the production to consumer lines to be small? If only there was some fancy way in which the government could make sure this happens... But, without subsidizing.... Hmmm.... only method left: import taxes which would catapult us back to the post-WW2 era in food trade.

"I disagree with investing in the production of current generation of PV, instead investing in basic science for the next generation. "
So you do think it's neccessary to improve your equipment in order to gain a better solution at the end? OK, so you think buying something that's outdated (it's sold to customers, therefore not the on the edge of current research) is better than actually donating those very funds to the company that developed the units?
Reasons like: 'creating an infrastructure and standards so other people don't bump into the same problem as you did or can future customers can get the units cheaper' are 4 combined reasons, all more valid -in my opinion- than yours.

'These are (at least in Europe) inter-EU aid from well-developed areas (less agriculture, eg England) to less-developed areas'

What's you point? mine was merely that we don't have to raise new taxes to spend on food security, because we're already raising money. contrary to the suggestion made by OurGhostMaker.

'And btw, how would you compare quality and safety from developing countries to that in the EU?' - em, i'm not sure what you're implying. Did i say anything about using external sources of food for the EU market? but to answer, you compare by looking at the end product and making sure packaging lists the source, which is a popular at the moment in any case.

I'm pretty sure, at least when talking about kyoto, and mitigating the worst effects of climate change, i'm talking about including food supply and security in a international climate change treaty. Something which attempts to guarantee food security to all nations which sign up - not to change current trading practices as they stand, but to put a system in place which assumes current practices will fail and to distribute food under those failure circumstances.

'So you want the production to consumer lines to be small? If only there was some fancy way in which the government could make sure this happens... But, without subsidizing.... Hmmm.... only method left: import taxes which would catapult us back to the post-WW2 era in food trade.'

No, you are entirely putting words in my mouth.

I didn't say shorter supply lines are better, I said we have long supply lines.

The fact is we have a vulnerable system. Empires have fallen in the past when the trade upon which they built their economies collapsed. (due to external factors)

Oil supply could be an external factor here, as could climate change.

'Reasons like: 'creating an infrastructure and standards so other people don't bump into the same problem as you did or can future customers can get the units cheaper' are 4 combined reasons, all more valid -in my opinion- than yours. '

Currently in the UK subsidies to PV production on house roofs makes the excessive cost of the technology more affordable, that money could be spent on the basic science research, companies spinning out tech from research will do so when they have results which are economically feasible.

Feel free to disagree, but i don't think much of the current generation of PV, and as pointed out, it can be a net carbon emitter over it's life-time if used in a low sunlight area (like parts of the UK)

It is good to see such a wide variety of opinions in an environmental discussion. I don't believe that there are any ideal solutions or magic bullets so I'll throw out a few ideas for thought:

- The planet is currently emerging from the last ice age. Yes, man's activity is most likely accelerating the warming process, but the idea of a constant global temperature is unrealistic given what we know about our planet's past. The planet is going to get even warmer before the next ice age sets in. In the long term, an increased level of GHGs might be in the best interest of the human population's long term survival.

- Secondary energy sources such as PV and wind are unreliable. Yes they can help supplement energy usage but the primary energy base still needs to be based on a combination of nuclear, low emission coal and gas turbine technologies.

I am a Nordic skier at heart so I'd appreciate any changes that we can make to accelerate the start if the next ice age ;-) Bring on the snow! My skis are waxed and ready to glide. Carpé Ski'em!

I can't stand the term 'low emission coal'.
Everything I've read makes it seem like clean coal is nothing more than an elaborate (and maybe unintentional) pr scheme that misleads environmental policy makers.

P.S. I got to stand next to an operating turbine at a nuclear plant today. It was really very cool and strangely not that noisy.

i was under the impression that 'low emission coal' was low in soot and more healthy for anyone living in the area around where they inhale the exhaust from coal burning plants.

Generally much lower impact on human health, while having about the same impact on the environment.

There's all sorts of ways that they claim to make coal more environmentally friendly. Low emissions might refer to a specific one and I'm just confusing terms.

Dusty, care to shed some light on it for us?

i did a little bit of research, and there are not just all sorts of claims, there are all sorts of technologies.

They may have started with attempts to reduce pollution in cities, and reducing acid rain. But they continue with carbon capture schemes, to extract not just the sulphur dioxide but also the carbon dioxide...

There are also criticisms that some of these technologies are too expensive or ineffective.

I think the confusion is not helped by the variety of things being done...