The Future of Energy

[joeuser]

Bra not sure where you are getting your info but the friends I have that have solar panels installed on their roofs and yes for a cost. Are now selling power back to the hydro companies every month not the other way around lol peace out Headband707

I already said you CAN in the suburbs...please READ what people say before replying...thank you.

The problem is MOST people live in cities and IF you were to try to replace the power generated by fossil fuels...you'd need hundreds of square miles of solar panels...and windmills...and coastline...plus HUGE HUGE HUGE batteries for at night. We're ALREADY broke...where is this going to come from? Are unicorns going to shit out solar panels? Wind turbines? Can YOU go ahead and pay for the switch for your place? $25,000. Does an apartment dweller in the city have that kind of money so the building can switch? It takes MONEY to do this...the government is fucking broke...it'll take multi-TRILLIONS to change over from fossil. Is this ANOTHER thing to add to our overall debt?

 

[joeuser]

Bra not sure where you are getting your info but the friends I have that have solar panels installed on their roofs and yes for a cost. Are now selling power back to the hydro companies every month not the other way around lol peace out Headband707

I already said you CAN do it in the suburbs. It's the cities where most people live that you can't. To replace fossil fuels, you'd need hundreds of square miles of solar panels and wind turbines, and tide generators.

It's not practical and we can't afford it! Is the "government" supposed to pay the $25,000 per "home" (house/apartment)? Are you willing to borrow for it? Then HOW does it get done?

The people are broke...the government is broke...how do we do it?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

What you're suggesting ain't the plan joe, not even in the greenest wet dream. This will be a gradual transition where transition itself won't nix carbon energy. But we'll become less dependent on foreign energy sources and help clean up the environment in the process.

 

[headband 707]

I already said you CAN in the suburbs...please READ what people say before replying...thank you.

The problem is MOST people live in cities and IF you were to try to replace the power generated by fossil fuels...you'd need hundreds of square miles of solar panels...and windmills...and coastline...plus HUGE HUGE HUGE batteries for at night. We're ALREADY broke...where is this going to come from? Are unicorns going to shit out solar panels? Wind turbines? Can YOU go ahead and pay for the switch for your place? $25,000. Does an apartment dweller in the city have that kind of money so the building can switch? It takes MONEY to do this...the government is fucking broke...it'll take multi-TRILLIONS to change over from fossil. Is this ANOTHER thing to add to our overall debt?

Bra you do know they spend billions on the war monthly right ?LOL.. and just to try and catch grow-ops here BC Hydro is going to spend 1 billion or should I say we are going to spend 1 billion. LOL so before you go on about what our Gov spends lol . I suggest you take a closer look at the truth of Gas/Electricity/Big Pharma. Follow the money bra they are only broke for the important things YOU!!! lol peace out Headband707

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Looks like economics in Cali are looking up. Wonder if it's got anything to do with green energy investment?

S&P Raises California Credit Rating To Stable From Negative


REUTERS First Posted: 7/7/11 Updated: 7/7/11

NEW YORK (Edith Honan) - Standard & Poor's raised its credit outlook on California to stable on Thursday in one of the first significant pieces of good news for state and local governments as they work their way out of the Great Recession.

The outlook was revised to stable from negative on what S&P said was the better balance between the money coming and cash being spent on state operations.

The S&P action comes on the heels of a $129.5 billion budget agreement for fiscal 2012 that closed a gap projected to reach $26.6 billion through the end of fiscal 2012.

"The state's economy does seem to show some signs of life and I think the deficit that was projected six months ago ended up being a little smaller than most of us anticipated," said Kenneth Naehu, a managing director at Bel Air Investment Advisors, a California firm that oversees $6 billion in assets.

Like California, state and local governments suffered terribly during the financial crisis as tax revenues crashed and unemployment soared. That caused havoc throughout the $2.9 trillion municipal bond market where investors dumped their holdings on growing fears about the stability of municipal finances.

S&P said its change for California covers the "two-year outlook horizon.

"We believe the enacted budget makes a lot of progress in improving the state's fiscal structure and should reduce the risk to its liquidity," S&P said in the release. "The negative outlook had been linked to the possibility of a recurring cash deficiency that we now believe the enactment of the fiscal 2012 budget is likely to mitigate for the most part."

The rating agency also said California's enacted budget "represents a bit of a missed opportunity" because it did not
address the "backlog of budget obligation accumulated during the past decade."

S&P affirmed its A-minus long-term and underlying ratings on California's general obligation debt, as well as affirmed the A-minus and BBB-plus long-term and underlying ratings on the state's Proposition 1A and appropriation-backed debt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/california-credit-rating-raise_n_892572.html

 

[TLoft13]

....energy is getting more expensive...

The funny thing is there is a way out. The more expensive energy gets(be it through subsidies, higher cost of raw materials, whatever) the more sense it makes to make your own and "get of he grid" as much as you can. That's a pattern we see here in Germany, small and medium businesses are investing in PV and wind to get an reliable second income and an insurance against rising energy prices. Win-Win, so to speak.
A friend of mine who works in a PV firm read an article in a businesspaper recently, by an papermill owner(these mills need BIG amounts of energy) who was scared by rising energy prices- which he blamed mostly blamed on renewable energy subsidies. He was in fear of loosing his sucessfull business, employing thousands of people which has been in family hands for generations.
Well, my friend contacted him, and the millowner will now install a package of PV, wind and water generators, thereby decoupling a large part of his energy needs from the rising market price. Change, or be changed.

 

[TLoft13]

Tough decisions? Limited recources?? Where do you get this? Foundations of economics? It's all about scarcity and shit, isn't it?

What exactly do you say is limited?

That's what they told me back in school: Shit is limited. Fresh water is limited(what a bullcrap).... Oil is limited... iron, gold diamonds and all that shit is limited.
Well fuck that. Sun is plentiful... You can grow hemp nonestop, windpower, tidal power. That shit has no limits!

It does not have to be limited. There are no limits for humanbeings and we have already proven it for many times.

The only tough decision we will have to make is wether we want to believe in a world of ABUNDANCE or SCARCITY.
Yet someone has already decided for us some time ago, so what the fuck are we to decide?

The only reason why they want resources to be limited is to put price on it and let that price grow as the ability to extract those resources becomes diminished by ignorance and overindulgence.

The basis of Economics is a fucking bullcrap. Shit is not limited. Human ignorance makes shit limited!

I understand both of your viewpoints, and imho they must be amalganated. The viewpoint that we have the ability to make a "good life"(something resembling our western living standards of today) available for the projected population we will have on earth in the next decades is, well, a bit naive. You may put it in perspective by extrapolating our lifestyle on the current worldpopulation. All people fly a much as we do: Probably 3-6 months until there is no ozonelayer left! That is flying alone!
All people live as we do: Probably less than a decade until there's basically no crude oil left, and we have to start digging up half of Canada for their tar sands ect.
The strain on the oceans when everybody puts as much hormones, fertilizers, medication, heavy metalls ect. in them...the extinction of species and reduction of the ecosphere...the additional dust in the air when everybody extracts and builds as much as we do...is mindboogling.
Serious population reduction should be our main goal worldwide. Maybe a one-child-policy for a few decades, untill the population stabilizes, heavily enforced. And i don't suggest this lightly, because I'm freedom loving and would like to have 4- 8 kids, personally.

 

[alkalien]

Ok, I did a few calculations to show what solar thermal energy can do for the USA.

A thermal powerplant like Andasol 1 in Spain delivers 50MW of power. The USA have a peak electrical power consumtion of arround 800000MW. This means you'll need about 16000 times the size of that spanish powerplant to deliver all the energy you need.

Andasol 1 is about 2km² big, that means you'll need about 32000km² of solar thermal power plants. I know thats pretty big but compared to the size of Texas, thats just 4,6%.

If you wouldn't, and that's what I'd recommend you to do, install that power plants all in Texas but arround the USA, that would be 0,3% of the total size.

Tell me how this is a problem? Don't you guys have a few deserts you could spare? Just mount the parabol mirrors a little bit higher an you can herd sheep an cattle underneath them.

Sure, there are quite a few problems with this idea but it is for sure worth considering it.

BTW: I'm talking about powerplants which store the daylight and produce the power round the clock.

 

[TLoft13]

.....

BTW: I'm talking about powerplants which store the daylight and produce the power round the clock.

That's the biggest problem right now for PV and the renewable energies in general, all solutions are expensive, inefficient, maintenance intensive or not available everywhere.

 

[Dudesome]

alkalien, great calculation.

And notice that he is only talking about PVs. That's not the other green sources included.

Respect. 1 post to kill them all.

 

[alkalien]

That's the biggest problem right now for PV and the renewable energies in general, all solutions are expensive, inefficient, maintenance intensive or not available everywhere.

I'm not talking about Photo Voltaik but about solar thermal power plants. PV uses the photons the sun emmits to accelerate electrons which is current, solar thermal power plants heat up a liquid which then drives gas turbines. So all you need is mirrors to concentrate the light and a pipe with fluid to heat. The resulting steam you simply let drive the turbine. Not really rocket science...

The party bit is the possibillity of storing the heat in either melted salt or even sand. This buffer is heated to about 400°C during the day and used to drive the turbine during night.

But that's just for those of you who didn't know the difference, probably most of you knew.

PV isn't bad either! The demand for energy peaks around noon and is lowest at night. It peaks in the summer and is lowest in the winter. Notice something?

As for the costs, they are gigantic! Thats for sure! Andasol did cost 300 million €. I'm sure the costs should be a lot less if build in the USA and ordering more than oneof them. All added together I'd predict costs in the region of what the USA spent for the war in Iraq till today.

 

[TLoft13]

Sorry, i've read your post in a hurry. What i said still holds true though, the storage of the energy is a problem/ makes it more expensive, even if it is integrated in the system like solar thermal power plants. Google "Druckluftspeicher" oder die angedachte Nutzung Norwegischer und schwedischer Stauseen für unsere Windenergie wenn du Interesse an sowas hast.
Have a nice day!

 

[Dudesome]

Oh, I thougth u meant the PV. But solar thermal power plants don't sound any worse!

 

[alkalien]

Storage of energy is problem in two ways. It's ironic

The first problem is you need to store the energy for times when the demand is bigger than the production. Now you could say that you simply increase production so that it allways meets the demand. But if you do exactly that you have too much power on the grit and the price for the energy becomes negative. You actually get paid for using energy. That happens several times everyday in europe.

That's where your ideas like soring energy in pressuriced (spelling?) air or pumping water up a hill kick in. Those ideas waste a good amount of energybut who cares?
You get payed for wasting the energy and you get paid for emptying your storage

I did a lot of reading on the whole energy thing because of my hate for nuclear power. Now it kind of fascinates me. This thread is great, I feel challenged.

 

[grapeman]

its your ignorance showing through b/c i stated that Sun Edison supplies ALL solar panels, installation and maintenance and they get paid by selling the energy produced to the customer at a stable price. a price that is obviously competitive enough to attract customers.

but why would your believe me, check them out for yourself.

It's funny that you think MY ignorance is showing through.

The only FUCKING reason the "customer" is getting a "stable price" (as you put it) is because the whole operation (from manufacturing, sales and installation) is FUCKING subsidized by government. From the Feds, to the State of California on down to the city/county of San Diego, artificially affecting the price of solar at the cost of the common taxpayer.

What the fuck don't you understand about that?

Sun Edison wouldn't be here if the subsidies were removed from the equation from top to bottom.

What the fuck don't you understand about that?

Why do you think that a company that survives on working the system at taxpayer's expense and not on the free market is worthy of hero worship?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

How long have we been subsidizing big oil? A hundred years? Isn't ExxonMobile THE most profitable company, at least in the energy business? Looks like those hundred-year subsidies turned into 3x(+) profit margins.

At least solar subsidies mean cheaper pricing for the consumer. Since 2001, oil subsidies just mean more profits for big oil.

 

[grapeman]

The funny thing is there is a way out. The more expensive energy gets(be it through subsidies, higher cost of raw materials, whatever) the more sense it makes to make your own and "get of he grid" as much as you can. That's a pattern we see here in Germany, small and medium businesses are investing in PV and wind to get an reliable second income and an insurance against rising energy prices. Win-Win, so to speak.
A friend of mine who works in a PV firm read an article in a businesspaper recently, by an papermill owner(these mills need BIG amounts of energy) who was scared by rising energy prices- which he blamed mostly blamed on renewable energy subsidies. He was in fear of loosing his sucessfull business, employing thousands of people which has been in family hands for generations.
Well, my friend contacted him, and the millowner will now install a package of PV, wind and water generators, thereby decoupling a large part of his energy needs from the rising market price. Change, or be changed.

While I agree with you, the problem is that the cost of energy is "artificially high", due to government intervention.

Why we as citizens, put up with government bullshit is beyond me. I know it has a lot to do with public school educations and pictures of polar bears, each as bad and fallacious as the other.

The fact that "greenie's" love obama's meddling in energy, costing us all "billions" just shows their ignorance.

What children don't understand is that when left to the free market, things will evolve in a positive way that will benefit everyone. When a technology is finally ready for prime time, you will buy and use it and it won't need to be subsidized by the government. Until then, we'll use oil, which is cheaper then bottled water.

 

[grapeman]

How long have we been subsidizing big oil? A hundred years? Isn't ExxonMobile THE most profitable company, at least in the energy business? Looks like those hundred-year subsidies turned into 3x(+) profit margins.

At least solar subsidies mean cheaper pricing for the consumer. Since 2001, oil subsidies just mean more profits for big oil.

I posted up a fact sheet about 50 posts ago that shows we DO NOT subsidize oil.

The fact that you THINK" we do, proves;
1. you don't read or comprehend my posts.
2. you believe everything you hear from obama's lips and watch on msnbc.
3. I'm dealing with an idiot!

Do some fact checking boy.

 

[soil margin]

Subsidizing oil is absurd. Why do we want to lower the price of something we should be using less of? Light sweet crude is a rare natural resource and the price we pay for gas should reflect that.

If people want to drive gas guzzlers than so be it, that's capitalism, but let the free market control the price.

 

[Hydrosun]

Subsidizing oil is absurd. Why do we want to lower the price of something we should be using less of? Light sweet crude is a rare natural resource and the price we pay for gas should reflect that.

If people want to drive gas guzzlers than so be it, that's capitalism, but let the free market control the price.

And it follows that the government should get out of the corn subsidy business as well. If people want to turn food into fuel let them do it on their own dime.

Collectivism sucks!