1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Solar Power

Discussion in 'SC Archive' started by anarchist, 18 Mar 2005.

  1. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

  2. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 29 Aug 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    Kyoto agreement means nothing until all the major G7/8 (whatever you want) sit up and take notice... mainly the US
     
  3. quantum

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,353

    It does mean something, just not as much as it could mean. As for the Government wanting to find more efficient ways to fund it ---- who knows what that means. They probably want PFI to fund it on a loan basis. It jsut aint good enough or serious enough.
     
  4. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 29 Aug 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The governments aim / strategy for re-usable energy is completely unrealistic imo.

    We, as in the UK, are already behind in the levels co2 reduction that Westminster said they would meet.

    Its hard to pass through proper motions and agreements about cutting pollution when large oil producing companies can effectively buy the heart of the US lobby, and to a lesser extent here.
     
  5. quantum

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,353

    It will only really hit home when we the USA experiences a real major environmental issue that hurts them. Until then, it's FF's all the way baby
     
  6. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Kyoto is a failure, and rightly the US should tell them to stick it. No other country will be punished economically the way the US would, and they would never accept a deal that did, so them why does everyone expect the US to?

    I dont believe there will be any major disasters. But I do believe that soon it will just be economically and politically unviable to depend so heavily on unrenewable sources of energy. These changes take time, but the seeds have been put in root. It is a huge effort to convert such a fundamental part of a society as its energy sources, and one that depends on political, economical, and technological factors. They all must meet for this to be able to happen.

    So, in the same way you cant force democracy on a country, you cannot force them to change their power sources. It will happen when the factors are right.
     
  7. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    But if they are permanently destroying the environment then they deserve to be punished surely? If the reasons for not changing are purely political, or for reasons of corruption (i.e. they don't change because the oil lobbyists are too powerful), then again they should be punished for that. There is only planet earth after all. Why should one country use up a huge chunk of the planet's resources simply for it's own gain, and to the detriment of other countries?
     
  8. Biohazard

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 29 Aug 2003

    Posts: 31,334

    The US economy would slow drastically if they started to shun oil industries - they won't do it till it is forced upon them. Having said that the US is currently spending too much on foreign produce such as oil and gas – nearly 7% BDP – which is causing nearly $666bn of a deficit (reported this quarter). With the deficit so high there is the risk of a downturn in US investment which could cause a major panic with people trying to jump ship; another market crash. With the dollar value and share prices at the floor high interest rates would cause a further great slow down. This would not affect the US on its own, but the globe would suffer economically.

    Once this happens maybe the US could, once on its knees, look at other viable options other than oil burning
     
  9. nero120

    Soldato

    Joined: 12 Jan 2004

    Posts: 6,824

    Location: Londinium

    Then you can use the same argument for everyone else. Kyoto is unfair in that they would be punished out of proportion for their size and power (something the rest of the world relies on). My point is that you are being biased because you dont like the US, but if it were us that faced major economical crisis because we are harming the planet with our industry which would possibly mean you and your family were affect, Im sure your POV would be different. One rule for them another for us isnt it.
     
  10. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: 22 Jun 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Back to the original article, if an industry relies on subsidies then its not a viable industry imo.

    This might actually be a good thing - it will force the solar panel manufacturers to cut costs which will ultimately mean more people installing them. I don't know about any of you, but I didn't know I could get government help installing a solar panel on my house, and I'm damn sure that I haven't a clue how to go about getting this help, though I imagine it will involve more than a few hours of form filling and beaurocracy.
     
  11. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    So if an environmental policy can't punish based on environmental destruction, then what can it punish on?

    I'm true to my beliefs. I'm an above average earner but I would happily trade that extra for an anarchy where I would be treated equally. And the same goes for the environment.

    Thing is, as I said, if America's refusal to explore alternative energy is simply a result of corruption and oil lobbyists etc. then I think they should be forced to stop that. Similarly if the world is being harmed simply to line the pockets of the oil company owners then surely you would want to see that stopped too?
     
  12. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Strange that isn't it? Anybody would think it was in the government's interest to keep us using fossil fuels... ;)
     
  13. mrthingyx

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 3 Apr 2003

    Posts: 15,503

    Location: Cambridge

    But that is surely a consequence of the US relying on oil for far too long, i.e. all there own fault? Admittedly, the son should not be made to pay for the sins of the father but the US has to do something to curb their manic energy consumption. The issue is the preservation of the American way of life - successive presidents have used that excuse for war-mongering, application of legal straight-jackets and generally distancing themselves from the rest of the world. On paper, preservation of an ideal is a good thing but it becomes something much worse when it's to the detriment of others.

    Imagine how quickly a president would fall out of favour if he/she put petrol (gas) prices up to UK-type levels and levied huge tax on vehicles that emitted vast quantities of noxious gases, etc. The country wouldn't like it because it would seem like a violation of their identity.

    Anyway, back on topic - to try and view this objectively, it would appear that the government is simply forcefully renegotiating a contract (which I understand they have every right to do going by the article alone) that is costing them too much money for too little gain. Imagine a company was spending vast quantities of money on a venture that was not benefitting them very much - would any sensible manager want to continue with it?

    I think that this part of the forum is all too ready to slate this government for the things they do - admiittedly, it's understandable to a degree (look at the NHS, public transport, wars, etc.) - but this time around it looks like they're trying to do something to save money. Once again, the finger could be pointed at cost cutting as a result of needless expenditure (I'll leave it to you to decide), but I think the PV industry is playing Klinsmann over this one.
     
  14. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    But to me it seems illogical to spend many billions on a war for oil, but to cut a few million quid funding for an alternative energy source that would reduce the reliance on oil!
     
  15. mrthingyx

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 3 Apr 2003

    Posts: 15,503

    Location: Cambridge

    We didn't spend billions on a war for oil - we spent billions taking part in somebody else's war for oil. Oh, and looking for WMD of course. :p

    In my opinion, it would appear that the government is cutting funding to these companies purely because their product is still too expensive for any gains made, despite the subsidies.

    Admittedly, it could be the UK starting to shift its position on global warming to be more in line with US policy... I shouldn't have ruled that out. :D
     
  16. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 2 Dec 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    And therein lies the problem, with a system based purely on short term profits rather than long term environmental impact.
     
  17. quantum

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,353

    I would suggest that as with the CAR it consumes far more energy to make one than it does to run one. Making solar equipment probably costs more in energy terms then it will ever return.
     
  18. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 47,848

    Location: Plymouth

    The actual producation costs for Solar powered equipment, both financial and in terms of energy, materials and pollution means that at the moment, the power source makes no sense. It uses far more to make the equipment that you'll ever get back from it.

    Wind is better in this regard, but it's ugly and noisy and it's getting harder to find places to put them up.

    Tidal power is very much an unknown quantity. It will definately work, but the total lack of research on the effects that harnessing (and therefore altering) the tidal surge will actually have on the enviroment puts it high on my list of "hell no".

    As MrthingyX says, it's a nice change to see the government recognising a financial black hole and closing it, rather than pouring more and more money into it.
     
  19. quantum

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 2,353

    Looks like we are only left with Nuclear fission for now and fusion for later. Strange how the answer has been glaring at us for Billions of yearsand I aint talking solar power but it ultimate source, fusion. (err well Gravity and pressure if you want to be really pedantic)
     
  20. atpbx

    Capodecina

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 21,452

    It seems to me, that 31 million pounds compared to the amount this goverment wastes on everything else is such small fry, given their commitment to saving the world, that to cut the funding is nothing short of diabolical.
    They could afford to spend 10 or 20 or even 30 times that and not notice it.