Uh, no
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
- Thread Starter
- #3
That is also fairly useful as a fertilizer...
WC_lun
Senior Master
ummm it is renewable in that there is always gonna be another day with sunlight and wind and the power gained from those can be stored. That is oppoesed to oil which when used is used up.
As far as the politician thing, wouldn't it be great if we could harness the energy they put into BS'ing us into a battery? That and the energy kids possess. If I could harness the energy of my niece and nephew, the whole world would have lights on for a century
As far as the politician thing, wouldn't it be great if we could harness the energy they put into BS'ing us into a battery? That and the energy kids possess. If I could harness the energy of my niece and nephew, the whole world would have lights on for a century
We can't control it - but it keeps happening, and in the short term. Renewable may be the wrong word - but compared to fossil fuels, sun and wind are definitely recurring, and in a much shorter time frame than it would take the planet to regenerate coal, petroleum, natural gas, and radioactive materials. No matter how much energy we generate from the sun and wind - there will be more sun and wind tomorrow, and the next day, and the day after that, on into the centuries. The trick is being there with the equipment necessary to convert sun and wind to energy when sun and wind are available.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,929
- Reaction score
- 1,451
Sustainable ?
"Renewable" energy streams are, by definition, those that are naturally replenished: solar, hydro, wind, tidal,geothermal, etc.....but it may not have been the best choice of labeling....
I think you are correct - sustainable is the term I was looking for. I guess I shouldn't post before breakfast.... need to go renew my own energy!
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Problem with those power sources is that by themselves they are not flexible enough to "ramp up" during demand spikes. IMO there will always be a need for power "generation"..nukes are still probably the best long range energy source. We need to get off of our collective asses.
I wholeheartedly support nuclear power. With modern technology, we'll see far fewer environmental issues. The only problem is that it's REALLY expensive to build one. In the current economic environment, this might not be feasible.
What I like about "alternative" sources is that they can be "ramped down" so they can supplement individual use. People can invest in passive capture sources that serve individual homes and smaller communities and can tailor them to their needs.
This creates a lot of really cool business opportunities and decentralizes our grid, making it less likely to fail catastrophically. Plus, from a personal standpoint, I really like the idea of producing some or all of my power and being self sufficient. I hope that attitude catches on and people realize that they don't have to be so dependent anymore.
- Thread Starter
- #10
How much of that expense would remain if government had the moxie to tell environmentalists where to get off?
Answer: A hell of a lot less.
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
From what I understand the largest hurdle for these "green" power sources is storage and transmission. The infrastructure necessary to convert to a national "green power plan" and the huge expense therein would be better spent on nukes IMO.
Probably. The playing field is definitely tilted away from certain sources, making them way more expensive. Ideology is annoying sometimes.
I have a term I use in this situation, CAVEs = Citizens Against Virtually Everything.
Yup and I think we need to acknowledge the lobby that keeps it this way. The large utility companies want a centralized system because they make more money and it's easier to control. If people were to ramp down these systems and decentralized the grid, it eats into their bottom line. Therefore, the playing field is tilted away from those options even if it isn't feasible to have a huge centralized system of green power.
There, I think I just made an environmental argument for the Free Market!
Archangel M
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
Wow..something we agree on.
I have no problem with "user based" power with unused power added to the grid and nuke plants picking up "demand supply". The problem..as always.. is inertia, and cost. I couldn't afford to refit my house with wind or solar. Not at current costs. Its cheaper to keep paying my utility bill..and less of a hassle.
I have no problem with "user based" power with unused power added to the grid and nuke plants picking up "demand supply". The problem..as always.. is inertia, and cost. I couldn't afford to refit my house with wind or solar. Not at current costs. Its cheaper to keep paying my utility bill..and less of a hassle.
Wow..something we agree on.
I have no problem with "user based" power with unused power added to the grid and nuke plants picking up "demand supply". The problem..as always.. is inertia, and cost. I couldn't afford to refit my house with wind or solar. Not at current costs. Its cheaper to keep paying my utility bill..and less of a hassle.
I looked into retrofitting my house for solar, as I have a nice southern exposure with a park south of me, so I don't have to worry about it being built up - the up-front costs were about $50,000; even with rebates from the power company, I would still have to pay about $25,000. I decided to insulate my house better to lower my heating costs instead (about $1500 - which I'll do as soon as I have the cash saved).
Wow..something we agree on.
LOL and the lions and lambs lie down together.
I wish more lefties would come to the realization that they don't really control the big government monster. Powerful lobbies will always manipulate the process in their favor and there is no way to fix that without shredding the Constitution.
When it comes to power generation, transmission and distribution, the sad fact is that, for now, there is a vested private interest in keeping things the way they are as that's how the big companies make their money.
The odd thing is that that promotes, even in the States, the Soviet model of the "one big tractor factory". That is not the way things have to go if we want to keep a technological society - unless, that is, we crack practical fusion real soon.
There are already some pretty impressive breakthroughs in small scale energy production - if those can be implemented then we are a lot of the way there to solving the problem.
As Angel noted earlier, the sticking point is non-personal/household demand. Good luck running an aluminium smelting plant off solar panels any time soon! So we need a mixed approach and that approach has to include nuclear power.
I've said before on these forums, I've known for a long time that over here in Blighty we are going to be building new nuke stations, despite what the BSP (aka Mumble ... mumble ... Politicians) have been saying for public consumption. Why? Because we've been tasked with producing the control systems for them. The cats out of the bag now of course but I knew five years ago or more!
There are a few things we have to crack if we are going to make it as a species:
Power
Population
Food
Water
Some of these 'questions' are going to need some hard answers and soon. Some will not be pleasant e.g. no, Generic Catholic Person, you cannot have 13 child families because your religion says you can't use contraception.
I pick that one because it's a religious prohibition I am aware of; I am sure that there are many others in many faiths.
What happens when practical need runs up against doctrinaire inflexability?
The energy problem is easy by comparison - there is plenty of energy in the universe going to waste, we just don't know how to harness it yet.
Those other survival needs tho have trouble written all over them with a capital T.
The odd thing is that that promotes, even in the States, the Soviet model of the "one big tractor factory". That is not the way things have to go if we want to keep a technological society - unless, that is, we crack practical fusion real soon.
There are already some pretty impressive breakthroughs in small scale energy production - if those can be implemented then we are a lot of the way there to solving the problem.
As Angel noted earlier, the sticking point is non-personal/household demand. Good luck running an aluminium smelting plant off solar panels any time soon! So we need a mixed approach and that approach has to include nuclear power.
I've said before on these forums, I've known for a long time that over here in Blighty we are going to be building new nuke stations, despite what the BSP (aka Mumble ... mumble ... Politicians) have been saying for public consumption. Why? Because we've been tasked with producing the control systems for them. The cats out of the bag now of course but I knew five years ago or more!
There are a few things we have to crack if we are going to make it as a species:
Power
Population
Food
Water
Some of these 'questions' are going to need some hard answers and soon. Some will not be pleasant e.g. no, Generic Catholic Person, you cannot have 13 child families because your religion says you can't use contraception.
I pick that one because it's a religious prohibition I am aware of; I am sure that there are many others in many faiths.
What happens when practical need runs up against doctrinaire inflexability?
The energy problem is easy by comparison - there is plenty of energy in the universe going to waste, we just don't know how to harness it yet.
Those other survival needs tho have trouble written all over them with a capital T.
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
From the Webster
Renewable Energy: energy generated from natural resources which are naturally replenished on a time scale useful to human beings.
Therefore - wind, solar & geothermal = renewable. If we ever figure fusion from water, that will be renewable, too. Cats with buttered toast on their backs and a turbine up their butts - probably renewable, so long as we keep making cats and toast.
"Wind and solar are energy sources with serious obstacles to cost-effective application" works
"Wind and solar as energy sources aren't as easily controlled as fossil fuel energy" works
"Wind and solar aren't renewable" is the same as saying "Cats aren't felines."
Renewable Energy: energy generated from natural resources which are naturally replenished on a time scale useful to human beings.
Therefore - wind, solar & geothermal = renewable. If we ever figure fusion from water, that will be renewable, too. Cats with buttered toast on their backs and a turbine up their butts - probably renewable, so long as we keep making cats and toast.
"Wind and solar are energy sources with serious obstacles to cost-effective application" works
"Wind and solar as energy sources aren't as easily controlled as fossil fuel energy" works
"Wind and solar aren't renewable" is the same as saying "Cats aren't felines."
Well we probably would except (and just MY speculation) for two reasons...
1. Oil companies would go BROKE very soon even if they ramp up the prices per barrel and
2. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island are still fresh in memory. The potential for an even more lethal accident grows with each new nuke plant we create. So until we make them SAFER ... well it's kinda like a huge stock pile of fireworks in your basement with no lights and walking down there using a candle to see by ... you'll get away with it only so often.
