A 10 Year Cooling Trend Predicted?

[billvon 2,991]

>The problem is that land is being taken away from legume crops,
>also, which is essential for a proper vegetarian diet.

If we went to a primarily vegetarian diet, all our food problems would disappear overnight. It takes 10 calories of grain to produce 1 calorie of meat, and thus we'd free up a tremendous amount of food - or the land equivalent of that food.

> We are now hung up on biofuel and its advancement, yet we've thrown
>away forty years worth of possible growth in the nuclear industry.

Google GE AP600 and PBMR.

>At this point in the game, our electric bills could have been $20 a month . . .

Mine is $5 a month.

>and we could even afford to drive electric cars.

Even at current electricity rates, charging an electric car enough to give it a 220 mile range costs costs about $6 using standard California electric rates, about $1 if you use time-of-use metering. Nowadays your average car will go about 6 miles on $1 of gas.

> Why again, are we leaving oil in the ground, anywhere?

Several reasons.

1) To protect our future. Our military runs on oil.
2) To lessen the shock that will come when we run out of cheap oil. At that point we will be _very_ glad that we left some in the ground.

> The hugest waste of land are the right of ways and medians on
>interstates. Those could be leased to farmers for the growth of such
>products, leaving the good land for food production.

Not a bad idea, as long as safety/accessibility issues can be worked out.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

> The hugest waste of land are the right of ways and medians on
>interstates. Those could be leased to farmers for the growth of such
>products, leaving the good land for food production.

Not a bad idea, as long as safety/accessibility issues can be worked out.

It's worth crunching the numbers and considering the value as to how those areas function as quasi-conservation easements & provide habitats, in odd-shaped & small parcels. In Illinois, some of the best preserved prairie grassland is alongside old rail lines.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,991]

>In Illinois, some of the best preserved prairie grassland is alongside old rail lines.

I agree on the rail lines. However, most highway margins/medians are pretty heavily cut/maintained, at least around here - so I wouldn't worry too much about losing "natural" habitat.

[sfc 1]

Quote

>In Illinois, some of the best preserved prairie grassland is alongside old rail lines.

I agree on the rail lines. However, most highway margins/medians are pretty heavily cut/maintained, at least around here - so I wouldn't worry too much about losing "natural" habitat.

The thought of eating food grown next to or on a highway is not appealing, I bet some of the pollution that cars and trucks pump out would make its way into the food.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. It would be a bad place to grow tubers - they tend to suck up everything.

"Introducing Chernobyl Spuds - grown on highway medians."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,991]

>The thought of eating food grown next to or on a highway is
>not appealing, I bet some of the pollution that cars and trucks pump
>out would make its way into the food.

Quite literally, yes. The CO2 that cars emit would be absorbed by the plants. All plants do this anyway, and the CO2 that cars generate is no different than any other CO2, so I can't see it having much impact.

I think that the sort of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used on traditional crops would result in far more contamination than any additional contamination from things like sprayed oil, diesel soot or hydrocarbons from cars with broken emissions control systems.

But in any case, even if we grew food crops on highways, most of the grain we grow goes to cattle feed, not human consumption - so you likely wouldn't be eating it anyway.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>The problem is that land is being taken away from legume crops,
>also, which is essential for a proper vegetarian diet.

If we went to a primarily vegetarian diet, all our food problems would disappear overnight. It takes 10 calories of grain to produce 1 calorie of meat, and thus we'd free up a tremendous amount of food - or the land equivalent of that food.

So we'd turn into cheese eating surrender monkeys, but without the cheese?

Quote

>At this point in the game, our electric bills could have been $20 a month . . .

Mine is $5 a month.

That's your marginal cost - what's your true cost amortizing your power system?

[billvon 2,991]

>what's your true cost amortizing your power system?

Let's see. I have a 30 year mortgage, so let's amortize the system over 30 years. $14,000 (original 1.5kW system) plus $10,000 (additional 1.3kW) is about $800 a year, or $66 a month.

But wait! That assumes no increase in resale value. Per the US Home Appraisal Institute, a solar electric system increases home value by $20,000 for each $1,000 in annual reduced operating costs. Since I saved about $1030 a year, that means the value of my home is up $20K. Averaged over 30 years, that's $55 a month.

So the "true" cost is $5 + (66-55) or $16 a month.

Now, what's the true cost to you of coal power? To calculate that, you have to determine what a year of your life is worth, and calculate how much coal power is reducing that, as well as the damage acid rain is doing to your house, car and property. How much it injures you depends on where you live; in Massachusetts in some areas the average is a six month reduction in lifespan.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>what's your true cost amortizing your power system?

Let's see. I have a 30 year mortgage, so let's amortize the system over 30 years. $14,000 (original 1.5kW system) plus $10,000 (additional 1.3kW) is about $800 a year, or $66 a month.

First order costs are what I was interested in, since they were actual costs, and quantifiable. Potential real estate value is less known - should increase while power costs do, but also decrease as it ages or technology passes it.

Does the $24k include any tax rebates (state or fed) - and are those still available? I understand that in its infinite wisdom, Congress has wind and solar credits set to expire next year (while extending oil subsidies long term).

With the costs of the power problems to CA in the past decade, it doesn't seem crazy to spend any energy money in the form of residential solar panels.

[billvon 2,991]

>Does the $24k include any tax rebates (state or fed)

On the $14K cost I got about a 40% buydown credit from California, so final cost was around $9K. On the $10K I did not get any credit, since I did that myself with Ebay panels. (To qualify for the buydown you have to have a licensed installer, electrical inspection, utility inspection, new-from-the-factory panels etc.) Overall it was actually a little cheaper to go with the Ebay panels, even without the buydown.

[Butters 0]

Quote

Let's see. I have a 30 year mortgage, so let's amortize the system over 30 years. $14,000 (original 1.5kW system) plus $10,000 (additional 1.3kW) is about $800 a year, or $66 a month.

If only everyone could afford a $25,000 solar system ...

PS: I guess the rest of us will just keep giving money (through taxes/fees/etc...) to the government and large corporations to invest in new "cleaner" energy sources (which we'll then pay for ).

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>On the $14K cost I got about a 40% buydown credit from the taxpayers of the state of California, so final cost was around $9K.

I don't believe that any state is primarily a stand alone income generating body.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>If only everyone could afford a $25,000 solar system ...

Plenty of people can afford $35,000 SUV's, which means they can also afford a cheaper car and a solar power system. (Doesn't mean they have to do that, just means that the disposable income is available for a large fraction of the population.)

>I guess the rest of us will just keep giving money (through
>taxes/fees/etc...) to the government and large corporations to invest in
>new "cleaner" energy sources.

Or you can continue to give money to large corporations to pay for power from coal. Your choice.

[lawrocket 3]

There are now providers of solar who are entering into leases with homeowners. The homeowners are leasing solar systems.

http://www.fresnobee.com/business/story/573395.html

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>On the $14K cost I got about a 40% buydown credit from the taxpayers of the state of California, so final cost was around $9K.

I don't believe that any state is primarily a stand alone income generating body.

As I alluded to, CA is spending billions on new power generation directly and indirectly, so it may well be most cost effective even in the short run just to subsidize folks like Bill. When I've done the simple division of cost/number of households served, new gas generators don't seem cheap, and they have to be fed to work. Solar credits are definitely effective in the long run, both for advancing the technology to helping meet the state's goals on emissions by 2020.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

so it may well be most cost effective even in the short run just to subsidize folks like Bill.

nonsense - those that have enough money to afford these systems should be taxed MORE, not less.

just trying to be pure

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,026]

www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin
I guess you won't be voting for McCain.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us/politics/13mccain.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin
I guess you won't be voting for McCain.

I sure as hell dont want to. However the other choices smell even worse

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

This is potentially bad. I hope it's not what I think it is:

=============
Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide And Methane, Rise Sharply In 2007

ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008) — Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase. NOAA scientists released these and other preliminary findings today as part of an annual update to the agency’s greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.
==============

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

This is potentially bad. I hope it's not what I think it is:

=============
Greenhouse Gases, Carbon Dioxide And Methane, Rise Sharply In 2007

ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2008) — Last year alone global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6 percent, or 19 billion tons. Additionally methane rose by 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase. NOAA scientists released these and other preliminary findings today as part of an annual update to the agency’s greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.
==============

That's interesting. Global man-made CO2 production is around 30B tons annually, so it seems that without our help CO2 levels would be decreasing - presumably back to pre-industrial levels.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,991]

>so it seems that without our help CO2 levels would be decreasing

Yep. There are plenty of built-in mechanisms to balance CO2 in our environment, including increased rate of plant growth, carbonate formation etc. We're just overwhelming them.

I am more worried about methane increases. If the permafrost or the clathrates have started to release methane in a big way, we're in trouble.

[lawrocket 3]

Are you thinking that the clathrate gun has just been cocked?

I'm not so worried about the methane - it's trend is up 5 ppb to about 1784 in the last 4 years.

CO2, though, just keeps growing and growing! It's yearly low is above the yearly high in 2004.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/images/methaneglobal.jpg

[billvon 2,991]

>I'm not so worried about the methane . . .

Right now methane is rising at a rate such that it's only adding about 10% to the warming over the next 20 years, compared to CO2. But if clathrates/permafrost really does start outgassing, then we end up with a very rapid positive feedback cycle where warming releases methane, methane warms the air etc etc.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

>so it seems that without our help CO2 levels would be decreasing

Yep. There are plenty of built-in mechanisms to balance CO2 in our environment, including increased rate of plant growth, carbonate formation etc. We're just overwhelming them.

I am more worried about methane increases. If the permafrost or the clathrates have started to release methane in a big way, we're in trouble.

I expect someone will be on here soon to tell us it's all good for us.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Oneironaut 0]

Quote

>The thought of eating food grown next to or on a highway is
>not appealing, I bet some of the pollution that cars and trucks pump
>out would make its way into the food.

Quite literally, yes. The CO2 that cars emit would be absorbed by the plants. All plants do this anyway, and the CO2 that cars generate is no different than any other CO2, so I can't see it having much impact.

I think that the sort of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers used on traditional crops would result in far more contamination than any additional contamination from things like sprayed oil, diesel soot or hydrocarbons from cars with broken emissions control systems.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. How much lead do you think is in the soil adjacent to highways, from decades of using leaded fuels?

As for pesticides/herbicides, these are largely surface contaminants of food. Nothing that a good wash with soap and hot water won't take care of. I've never seen any evidence that they are absorbed into the food in any sort of levels that I would be concerned with.

Fertilizers, unlike pesticides and herbicides are not toxic per se (a little bit of nitrogen, potassium and phosphate isn't going to hurt you), but they have a huge environmental impact. When they leech into waterways they can cause algal blooms which lead to eutrophication (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophication). And the production of ammonia for fertilizers (through the Haber process) uses HUGE amounts of energy, which ultimately comes from fossil fuels. This is in fact the largest fossil fuel input into conventionally grown food, not harvesting, transportation, processing, etc.

Quote

But in any case, even if we grew food crops on highways, most of the grain we grow goes to cattle feed, not human consumption - so you likely wouldn't be eating it anyway.

CO2, agreed. Heavy metals and other pollutants? Not so much. Ever heard of bioaccumulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification)?

"The knack to flying is to fall and miss the ground"
-Douglas Adams