Slashdot Mirror
Green Energy Almost Cost-Competitive with Fossil Fuels
js7a writes "As reported in the Houston Chronicle, the sharply rising cost of natural gas and other fossil fuels has caused the cost of renewable energy to finally reach the price of nonrenewables. However, wind still has some catching up to do: 'a 10 percent wind- and 90 percent water-generated mix is about $9 per month less expensive than the 100 percent wind plan.' As more wind generation and grid transmission capacity is built, wind will eventually become more competitive than hydroelectric, but hydro and other sources will be required to balance grid demand in calm areas. Slashdot has been following this trend."
1) Fossil fuels have huge investment, economies of scale and infrastructure already, which bring prices down. As sustainable energy gets more popular, it will get even cheaper.
2) Nobody ever factors in the cost of cleanup (at best) or total extinction (at worst) into the cost of fossil fuels. If you add the cost of removing the byproducts and side-effects to each column, sustainable energy pulls way ahead.
Not that I expect the current administration to do anything about it.
why do 'greens' throw so much effort into things like wind, solar, and hydro, when the only real solution to replacing fossil fuels is nuclear power?
The visual pollution is crazy with wind farms. Nothing like industrial machinery stretching across hill and dale to make you want to get out an enjoy mother nature. No, I'd almost rather have nuclear power plant IMBY than a wind farm.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm glad to see research continuing into alternatives. Just because something isn't 100% ready yet is no reason not to pursue it. Just think what weaning the U.S. off oil-dependence (yes, long term thinking here, try not to let your hat fly off your head) would do for its world politics. Whoops. Never mind. This is a message from the oil companies reminding you not to think that way. We now return you to your reality-based TV program.
I've been using green mountain for two years. It's great and makes me feel good (it's about 10-15% more expensive).
Also, it sounds pretty cool to say that my web server is being powered by windmills.
Robert Nagle
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
hardly, as your arguement assumes that rampantly burning gasoline and oil has no negative side effects in the meantime, that the economic tipping point will be reached before those side effects are felt, and that the tipping point will be reached slowly enough that an infrastructure change can occur relatively painlessly.
More realistically, pollution is a problem, and a shift away from oil will be a massive shock to a world economy dependant on the stuff, and we're doing precious little to prepare for it.
My understanding is that most of your objections have been dealt with by using different blade configurations such that you the same power from more slowly-turning blades.
As to being unsightly, that's very subjective.
Until they hit the windmills...
I have a modest proposal that should help increase the effectiveness of wind power.
The current primary obstacle is that there are many days when the weather is calm and there is less wind. My suggestion is, on those days simply CREATE the wind.
First, it is known that as heat rises, it generates a low pressure area that cool air must fill. This can be demonstrated by noticing how some dust and smoke is pulled into a campfire at the base.
Second, our nation is full of unwanted trash storage sites that consume vast acreage and are generally unpleasant to be near.
My suggestion: If we were to light the various garbage dumps on fire on those inconveniently calm days, the massive flames would generate an equally massive low pressure area. As the flames climbed hundreds of feet into the air, the temporary vacuum would be filled by surrounding air. The fires would grow in size quickly, and soon air from across the county would be moving inwards towards the fire to help oxidize this high temperature reaction.
As the air rushes to fill the spaces, the thousands of still windmills across the cities would begin to spin again, providing a continued source of pollution free wind power.
As an added bonus, each dump would eventually be consumed and could be used to build schools, hospitals, and baby milk factories.
It's a win win situation, both for a green future AND for getting rid of trash!
If I had the money I would do it too!
That might be a good theory if the aim was to start using renewable energy as quickly as possible. However, that is not the main objective. Environmentalists want to transfer to green energy before we pump too much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Using all of the oil reserves over many millenia may be sustainable. Releasing all of that carbon in one quick burst most certainly is not. Dynamic systems usually respond better to gradual sustained inputs than to large magnitude step changes. The climate is no exception.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
If we're talking about long term viable solutions nothing competes with nuclear energy. The only candidate would be thermal energy but that's situational/regional and much harder to deal with. When will people get over their petty fears of nuclear ENERGY (not warheads!) and stop talking about wind power and all that other nonsense.
This is great news! California has had an option to select renewable for some time.
BUT!
Being the cynic (skeptic?) I am, we need to be super-careful that the energy is what the distributors claim it is. For example, look at the organic labelling fiasco: food producers lobbied to reduce the standards of "organic" to include "some" organic procedures. They are not the same metrics that constitute "California Organic". As a result, there are misleading standards for organic, which can result in people buying products that could potentially bypass all that is good about organic processing.
Same goes for the Green-ergy.
Hopefully thsi will be monitored properly, so that when someone requests renewable energy, they don't get an earload marketingspeak "plants and animals die and become coal and oil, therefore coal and oil are nature's renewable resources!!!"
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
That's price, not cost. The cost of petro fuels includes bills for things like Iraq wars, hurricanes/floods/droughts, oil spills... We'll be paying that off long after the oil's gone.
--
make install -not war
Wind Power and Temperature Change
You're bitching about wind being not green enough when the other one they had was hydro? Hydro-electric power is really bad for the environment due to the way dams fuck up the eco-systems around rivers. By contrast, wind turbines cause no more damage to migratory birds than any other large building (which is really to say that they do a decent amount of damage).
Of course, if people want a really green source they should look to either nuclear or solar that isn't provided by solar panels (last I checked, the creation of solar panels was not-so-good).
The lip-service paid to inconvenient forms of alternative fuel by United States Federal Government cronies is nothing more than a political ploy to obscure the facts for the benefit of our generation's robber barons.
A real alternative has always been available which can be produced by existing oil-refining equipment and which is capable of powering existing electric generators and sub-generators as well as existing gasoline and diesel engines without modification. That alternative is called biomass.
Pyrolysis, the process of destructive distillation by which crude oil is transformed into usable fuels, is also the process by which fresh plant cellulose--biomass--is converted into charcoal, gasoline, fuel oils such as diesel, and natural gas. By using fresh plant matter instead of ancient plant matter, you establish what is called a 'closed carbon cycle,' in which no new carbon dioxide is being added to the atmosphere.
The most prolific, and also the most sustainable, producer of usable biomass is the industrial hemp plant. It requires no pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, or fertilizer. Its strong, deep roots quickly break up the soil and choke out weeds, and its 3-4 month growing cycle and year-round growing season make it an ideal rotation crop. It also has no mind-altering properties.
For these reasons, several states and numerous agricultural and industrial associations have already petitioned the DEA to issue the hemp farming licenses that it has the authority to issue. In fact, the DEA has already issued pitifully small, ridiculously regulated hemp farming licenses in Hawaii for the purposes of study. The Canadian government--which put an end to hemp farming around the same time our own government did--has recently (1990s) reallowed hemp farming and has experienced no regulatory difficulties.
I therefore recommend that the United States Federal Government mandate that the DEA license and regulate sufficient acreage of hemp farming for the purposes of full biomass fuel production. Additionally, in order that the free market be further stimulated, I recommend that all federal fossil fuel-related subsidies be moved to biomass fuels, and that tax disincentives be enacted on all fossil fuel-related industry.
Thank you, come again.
Art Schools Dietzilla
I think, we had the Altamont topic
topic before. The point was, Altamont farm is flawed. Others do not show such abnormal high mortalities. However, birds die from wind farms, but they die more often from collisions window panes, or cats, or cars, etc. than from wind farms.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Proving once and for all that nothing is perfect. Man has been altering ecosystems ever since we noticed we could eat the moving things, too.
If windmills kill birds in California so people can live longer in Arizona, I don't see the difficulty. The danger to birds is nothing like the danger to salmon from damming spawning streams, or even to miners from breathing coal dust.
I think you need to adjust your perspective a bit. People are more important than birds. Mechanical hazards like a big moving fan blade are much more environmentally friendly than belching smokestacks, or even than whitewater rapids turned into reservoirs.
sigs, as if you care.
Wind and hydro have their own environmental problems. Hydro, in particular, can have severe environmental consequences for regional ecosystems and human populations. Some of these effects may only become apparent after billions of dollars have been spent and many years have elapsed. The Aswan dam in Egypt is a good example of all the things that can go wrong when you try to control a river.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Though I'm loath to inject levity into this conversation, I'm reminded of Morbo, the evil alien newscaster in Futurama:
(due to robot emissions-induced global warming, tortoises are migrating north into Holland)
Morbo (paraphrased): "Morbo wishes luck to the brave turtles."
Co-anchor: "Maybe those windmills will keep them cool!"
Morbo (to co-anchor, enraged): "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Morbo (to camera, still enraged): "GOOD NIGHT!"
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
It is my opinion that more research needs to be done on solar and that communities receiving a lot of sunlight on a yearly basis (like mine) should implement a policy to get solar panels on the roofs of as many homes and businesses as possible. let them be managed and maintanied by the local power authorities. We could really see a lot of energy created here in the Las Vegas valley. hell, the entire American Southwest for that matter.. This would certainly reduce the load on fossil fuels fo our little neck of the woods. It would also free us from the interstate negotiations that occur every so often for the rights to power from Hoover Dam. I say fill my roof up with solar arrays. Hell.. look at all of the roof space provided by every casino in the city.. every highrise.. every other small business.. There is a lot of power being wasted simply to heat my damn terracota roof tiles!
But are politicians and power companies ambitious enough to tackle something like that? Certainly not.
What is your penile percentile?
Yes, and I suppose that "Earth Crash Earth Spirit" is an "OBJECTIVE" source too.
n s. pdf
Perhaps you should do some more research before you start blasting someone who is ESSENTIALLY correct in their statement. The American Birds Conservancy (ABC) has some pretty good data regarding wind generation facilities:
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm
And another study:
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisio
And I would agree... Wind turbines are much more fun to look at than coal plant smoke stacks.
It's surprising, or maybe not actually, that articles such as the Houston Chronicle piece referenced by the OP completely ignore the most obvious approaches to "green" energy use. Insulation of every building, passive solar heating and electricity generation on every rooftop where it's feasible, more public transportation, and a crash program to incentivize use of fuel efficient cars would go a long way to mitigate if not solve the energy problem. It's not sexy but it works.
Up front costs may be higher for solar and other alternative and supplemental systems, but long term the payoff is there. You have to be willing to wait 10-15 years for your solar power array to pay for itself and then some.
Americans have a centralized power mindset; it's difficult to imagine a power plant on every block, or solar and fuel cells in every house. Yet, that's much more in keeping with the American tradition of pioneer self-reliance.
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Have you ever seen a commercial windfarm? The blades are enormous, slow, and waaaay above the ground. The "base of the pole" is relatively small. You could build houses among them without difficulty-- and at least in the midwest, they are typically built in farmland that still functions as farmland. The single windfarm I've seen in california was built in what was clearly middle-of-nowhere desert. The only other thing I saw near it was a parking lot/graveyard for unused commercial airplanes.
Generally, windmills are a way to make the land do something extra, rather than less than it is capable of.
Of course, there's always the offshore farms, too-- and that's even better. The plans for the farm off the coast of new york puts them far enough out you can't see them from land. They're gigantic, so complaints about "hazards to navigation" fall a little flat-- if the boat's captain can't avoid a ginormous windmill, how does he expect to navigate around invisible sandbars and shallow areas?
All that said, I'd love to see working fusion, too, and have nothing against well-run fission plants-- but why not put windmills on farmland or desert? Or even housing editions in the suburbs? The space is there, and adding windmills to the average middle-of-nowhere midwestern farm does very little to its farming output.
Here in Oklahoma they are putting up ALOT of new windfarms Cheap land, it can be dual use (cows and horses can still graze on a windfarm). Alot of empty land and a calm day here is a 10mph wind, drove back from lunch with a nice 20-25mph breeze blowing over the highway. the plains from the Dakotas down to oklahoma get alot of wind and large expanses of either unused land or land where livestock are grazing and thus could graze in and around the windfarms.
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
Lets dispel that "bird killer" myth once again with some actual numbers.
Remember, windows are the number one man-made bird killer. Where's the anti-window lobby when you need it? Heck, the very power lines that take the power away from the wind turbines are more likely to kill birds than the turbines themselves.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
I have a open-loop geothermal system at my home. It's used for heating and cooling of the air. It takes water out of my well, which is a moderated temp year round and uses it to transfer the heat into it during the summer, and takes the heat out of the water in the winter.
You can do the same thing with a closed-loop system (you just pump the water in a big circuit of underground pipes). In a closed-loop system you can even use antifreeze (that stuff that transfers the heat out of your engine block and through the heaters in your car) and the system works simiarly to that.
I'm slowly working on converting some of my more sustained power requirements to a solar/battery powered system. I have a simple parts page online that will allow you to start building a small system to operate lighting or other must-need devices (basically, build your own UPS and charge off of solar/wind/whatever DC voltage source you want).
I just got a 700W inverter on sale recently, and have some older car/boat batteries that the previous owner left here. I just ordered a solar charge controller kit, and am going to borrow some 12-24V solar cells from a friend to do some testing.. If it works well, i'm going to expand my cells and get some good batteries to operate some of my necessary devices.
[quote]Boston Globe: Nov. 8, 2004.
A long-awaited federal report on the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound says the project would do little or no harm to fish, birds, and the surrounding seafloor, and would not drive down local property values -- all key findings as Cape Wind Associates seeks final approval to start construction next year.
The 4,000-page draft environmental impact statement by the Army Corps of Engineers will be formally released tomorrow. But a detailed 26-page executive summary obtained by the Globe seems to undercut opponents' arguments that the 130-turbine wind farm would cause deep, lasting damage to the environment.
Specifically, the draft says the estimated 420-foot-tall turbines could kill as many as 364 birds per year -- about one a day -- but notes that number is unlikely to affect endangered species or specific populations of birds. In predicting the project's impact on shellfish and fish populations -- a concern of environmentalists as well as fishermen -- the report says any effects would probably be felt only during construction.[/quote]
I can't say I've done some detailed search on this, but I'm pretty suspicious of the bird deaths specifically because VIRTUALLY EVERY article critisizing bird deaths brings up Altamont Pass, which is only one of many wind farms across the country/world. Moreover, it uses old, outdated turbines that spin much faster than modern turbines.
Coal kills a lot of birds too. There is no free energy source -- in financial or environmental effects.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
You Crazy Dams are some of the greatest enviromental disasters EVER. Look what the the large Nile dam (can't remember the name) did to the fishing industry of the Nile delta. I can go on for days. Hydroelectric power is definately not GREEN an any sense of the word. Look at some of D.N.A's evnivromental books and paper for more info. Yes, the inpact can be significantly reduced, but you might as well strip mine for a similiar effect. Just because it doesn't cause "greenhouse" gases doesn't make it eviromentally safe.
Wind, Hydro, Nuclear... great for electricity but does nothing about Gas and Oil.
Until electric cars become efficient enough to run all day on a single charge with half a day of stored energy still available, petrol is the energy source we need to replace.
I'm betting on Biodiesel. It's still more expensive to refine than crude oil but that gap is closing fast. With current subsidies you can actually buy biodiesel for cheaper than Gasoline...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Have you ever seen a mountaintop removal/valley fill mine? We've lost over a thousand miles of streams already. RIP
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
You're new here, aren't you? :)
Well... it depends on the kind of wind you're talking about.
--- Ban humanity.
Why do "nuke nuts" get so into nuclear power that they fail to see how a mixed power system is more practical?
I love nuclear power. But I don't see why nuke plants should keep us from putting solar shingles on our rooftops-- so what if they only make 50% of the power you need, and only during the day? It's just that much less load on the nuke plants. At the very least, it would soften the peak load from my air conditioner in the summer daytime.
And why not stick a few windmills in the middle of farmland? Indiana farmland is like a giant, flat, patchwork quilt. It's not the sort of grand scenery you'd mind a windmill in the middle of, and you can farm around the poles just fine.
Why can't anybody take a moderate, practical look at things and realize that both solutions *together* are our most likely bet to get out of the coal and oil dependency?
Nobody's going to survive on windmills alone just yet. But why not use them where it's practical?
Damn, man, what are you gonna replace plastic with?
.are you ready for it?
With. .
Plastic!
Petroleum isn't the only source of plant based hydrocarbons. There just happen to be a lot of partially processed plant based hydrocarbons lying around for the taking at the moment.
Not that we could grow enough plants to meet our current demands, let alone our extrapolated future demands, but that's a somewhat different issue.
KFG
Please rate the sightliness and sound volume of the following energy-related facilities:
(a) Strip Mine
(b) Oil Spill
(c) Nuclear Waste Disposal facility
(d) coal-fired power plant
(e) Hydropower reservoir
http://www.solarbuzz.com/SolarPrices.htm
So are birds. ;)
this isn't a problem - it's a solution.
Get ready for "Tyson Free Range Pheasant"
It's an uncounted negative externality.
Our naturally windy environment is being destroyed by people selfishly extracting wind energy from our atmosphere! Wind is a natural force that moves clouds around and keeps our weather going. Everyone knows that windmills extract this much-needed power from our air. If we extract all the wind energy from our atmosphere, imagine the horrible consequences! Clouds would stop moving causing torrential rain on only one spot while causing severe droughts across the street! Countless yachts would be forced to use fossil fuels instead of sailing! And the multi-million dollar wind surfing and kite flying industries would be devastated! Please, stop harvesting wind energy from our atmosphere!
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
You are hitting on something though. What will it cost to refine this shale oil? We need to reduce our dependence on oil, particularly foreign oil, while it is still inexpensive.
There's a lot that can be done in the US, Japanese and British people consume about 45% less energy than American people, per capita. Should the cost of energy suddenly go up, as I would expect, particularly for political reasons, they will be much less hard hit than we are.
Well, a windy part of the country will get you around 5MW per square kilometer. As tech improves, this will as well. In 2001, the US used 3.602 billion MWh of power, which if we assume constant use (more on this later), would imply ~400,000 MW power generation. That would be 80,000 square kilometers (~31,000 square miles). The US, with its 3.6 million square miles of land, would need to use roughly 2% of its land to generate its power needs - the best areas being little used badlands, mountainous regions, and low-cost midwest farmland. The land underneath wind farms can generally be used for farming, too (if it was initially usable).
Now, realistically it's not feasable to use wind power for all of the US - it works great in some parts, but not so well in others.
To handle the non-constant-use issue, hydro power is often proposed. Dams can control the amount of water that they release, so during low-wind or high demand times, they can make up the difference. Other proposals often involve things like surplus capacity fuel generation (hydrogen, etc), which is then used in power-shortage conditions or sold if not needed.
Nobody wants wind power? The heck nobody wants it! I do, and I'm sure many other posters here do too. I don't find it ugly - I think the turbines look quite nice.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Never mind the birds... All those windmills interfere with natural air currents. Air currents, in turn are what moves weather patterns like hurricanes. Too many windmills, therefore, will slow air masses to a standstill, creating unprecedented ecological disasters. Specifically, consider the recent hurricanes that impacted the south eastern US. Without wind to eventually blow them out to sea, they'd still be floating over Florida, wreaking havoc.
Just say NO to wind-farms! Do it for Florida!
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
"Importance" is a human concept. It may be based on objective factors, but without humans there would be nobody (on Earth, at least) to judge importance at all. Nature doesn't tell us that people are more important than birds or vice versa. Nature just is. However, as a human being myself, I find it rational to attach more importance to the survival of myself and of fellow humans than other animals. I think it's important not to needlessly kill other animals because people can appreciate them, and because killing them off can lead to negative effects for humans. But realistically, we are going to kill animals (other animals kill as well anyway), so it's best to do so in a manner that has the best cost-benefit ratio. I'm no expert, but I can easily see how killing a few birds with wind farms has less of a negative impact on the environment than other sources of energy. The smart thing to do is find the best way to produce the most energy with the fewest drawbacks, not to refuse to do anything until some as of yet non-existent source of plentiful energy with no negative repercussions can be found.
English is easier said than done.
Anyone looking for a recent, comprehensive evaluation of wind power should look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cape Wind project.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Dinosaurs: Millions of years ago, nature destroyed them. Help them get even... use fossil fuels.
Ok, on a more serious note, I had seen an interesting news article years ago about someone who setup some windmills, except they were a little different than most. They consisted of long three sided objects... like the turning signs car dealerships put on the top of cars except they were long and skinny rather than short and squat. These were built into the concrete dividers on the highway. The traffic driving in opposite directions on opposite sides created MORE than enough wind to turn the rows of hundred mini-windmills.
No eyesore (no worse than a concrete divider) No dead birds (if they fly into these they deserve to die) No changing wind patterns (any more than they already are that is)
Hydrogen as an energy source... ??
Maybe I am missing something, but the fact that hydrogen combustion is very
efficient its great for rockets or cars, that are weight concerned, but that does not mean it is an energy _source_.
When people say "If we could find a cheap way to extract hydrogen..." well, sorry,
but that's the problem. Hydrogen can serve to store energy efficiently, but there is
no free hydrogen on earth, so it is not an energy _source_.
Its basic thermodynamics, yep, you get a lot from combining hydrogen with oxygen,
but if we do not have free hydrogen we will _never_ have but the difference between
what we obtain minus the energy required to get the hydrogen in the first place.
Now, this is not a technological limitation, it's a law of physics.
The reason why we all love oil its because, although dirty and smelly, its there
underground for you to pump it. Now, if there was free hydrogen underground....
Then it would be an energy source.
My two cents.
Hydro can not be considered green. Hydro power displaces ecosystems, changes environments, slows rivers down, etc. There are many environmental problems with hydroelectric power. Nuclear is actually a more viable green solution if the waste products are kept onsite in sufficient containment and the waste water is allowed to cool first.
It's amazing that all these people complain about each and every power producing system. The problem I see is more these people complaining, not the power production methods. All these complaints are partly the reason(along with decaying infrastructure) California, and many other states have sever power problems, and they are not going to get any better if all people do is complain that this system is bad cause of birds, or this system produces a waste that we still haven't found a place for.
I like the idea of renewable energy systems. Wind/Solar/Geothermal seem like nice ways to generate power, without damaging the eco-system to the point of a coal burning power plant. Shoot, even a Nuclear power plant is a better option, in my opinion, than plants powered by fossil fuels.
After these systems are in place, then come up with solutions to the problems that are produced.
Wind energy is far cheaper that oil. Look at it this way:
The cost of wind energy:
Buy land in windy place
Build windfarm.
The cost of oil:
Forge alliance with dictators, oppressors, torturers and terrorists.
Provide covert funding and weapons to people who will later bite you in the ass, for example: Osama bin Laden, Sadam Hussen, the shah of Iran, the Taliban, etc. etc.
Station tens of thousands of troups in 3rd world countries full of extremists who get off on killing Americans... during PEACETIME.
During war station hundreds of thousands of troops in said countries.
Fight on average 1 major war per decade at the costs of hundreds of billions of dollars to protect oil producing hellspawn from non-oil-producing hellspawn.
I think we need a new tax. No, really.
Gasoline should have an additional $0.50 per gallon tax and traditional lightbulbs should have an $0.10 per bulb tax.
The funds from this should directly fund research into alternative energy, means of conservation, and entirely new technologies.
I've heard that if every household in America installed only 1 compact florescent in place of a standard bulb, it would be the environmental equivelant of taking 1,000,000 cars off the road.
The only way America is going to change is if it's given an economic reason that hits home.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
I agree - we must keep in mind that the True Cost (tm) of fossil fuels is much larger than most people think. This is because many of the drawbacks of fossil fuels are obfuscated, such as pollution and reliance on foreign and sometimes hostile nations. Also, much of the true cost of using oil is subsidized by the military. After all, we don't have a lot of oil here in the US, so going after world oil supplies has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy for quite some time. While it is true that, pound for pound, oil is the easiest way to harness energy given current technologies, the equation begins to shift when you factor in what we must do to secure that oil. In some ways, shouldn't the resources being spent fighting in Iraq be tacked-on to the "cost of using oil"? Unfortunately, that is a more abstract concept, and hence, people often do not consider such things... its not quite so easy to measure how much one of our soldier's lives is worth in dollars and cents.
Fossil fuels are *far* more expensive than the market price would indicate.
my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
oh, did we successfully transfer the world economy off of fossil fuels when I wasn't looking?
Nothing has been proven yet. Do you have any idea what it's going to take to make such a shift? We either need to have several years left of relatively cheap fossil fuels, minimum, or we should have started this shift years ago. This is not as simple as *poof* we're using green energy now because a price per kilowatt hit a magic number. Green energy isn't even ready to take over yet, nevermind the economics involved with the infrastructure shift.
We're in for a ride my friend. I don't know what industry you're in, but I've seen my manufacturers raise prices 2-4 times this year and our shipping costs are quickly climbing as well. There is a lag between rising energy and rising everything else, and we're just starting to get the effects of the first jump in price. I'm scared of what's going to happen *next year*, and there is no way green power is taking over that fast.
We're not necessarily doomed, but glibly saying "hey, keep using oil" shows a complete lack of respect for the factors at work here. We could very well be in big trouble here because we haven't been diligently working to prepare for a switch from a fossil-fueled economy. We certainly should be NOW, and we still are not. It's starting, but I seriously see it as too little, too late at this point. The math just isn't working out anymore, not with China and India in developement booms.
So, where are all the dams going to go
There.
It's amazing people still call hydroelectric power "green", but then hypocrisy in defense of liberal ideas is no vice...
You fucking troll. It's renewable, not magical. Every action causes a reaction, our energy needs aren't going away, but there are ways to minimise the impact of our actions. Hydroelectric damns cause dammage, but the impact of a local flood is not in the same ballpark as the impact that the floods from melting the artic and antartic with greenhouse gases would have.
You can't take the sky from me...
It's the infinite energy source we've all been waiting for.
-- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
Health problems caused by air pollution kill more people every year than terrorism ever has. Maybe you, personally, haven't died yet, but thousands of people die every year due to various lung diseases aggravated by pollution. Many more suffer severe asthma and allergies. It's not the immediate end of the world, but pollution is definitely a problem.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Hmmm... so what you are saying is that we need to balance the use of burning fossil fuels, thus creating CO2, thus warming the planet, with the use of windmills to cool the planet. ;-)
I would be interested to see that article. A 2 degree global temperature change is pretty big. I don't understand how that would really happen. The laws of conservation of energy should show that the energy is not being "taken away". The turbines create heat (moving parts), many of the devices that use the power create heat, and I am sure there are lots of other places that the energy is turned into heat. Yes, that energy would be turned into other forms of energy (light etc.), but then again, it wasn't in the form of heat to begin with. I am not saying that there wouldn't be environmental impacts... I just don't know that I agree it would cause a drop in temp. Then again, I am no physicist and I don't know what I am talking about.
Sure, there are people who don't like the look of wind farms, because you can see the things, just like there are people who don't like seeing cell phone antennas. I've driven by the Altamont Pass wind farms fairly often, and once looked into renting a house that was located out there, and ok, it was a bit spacey, and if you've got epilepsy it might not be where you want to live, but the wind turbines are nowhere near as ugly as a smokestack or a coal strip-mine.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Why waste the money placing the solar arrays on empty land? The metropolitan areas in the southwest have plenty of real estate for you to use. It's all sitting on top of homes and other buildings covered in terracota tiles! Seriously.. Why haven't the power companies (with the help of state gov't?) in the area implement a program to get solar panels on rooftops? Cities such as Phoenix, Las Vegas and San Diego and such are missing out on opportunity here. They'd be doubly praised by the environuts: 1) for using solar energy and 2) not destroying any habitat (except maybe pigeons, but who cares about them?). I've had this idea in my head for years, but I never see anything happen in this area.
What is your penile percentile?
I'm all for clean low-cost energies, but wind technology just doesn't work. The silicon valley outskirts near Livermore has had wind turbines for decades. Those things are rarely spinning, and are often broken. It can't be cost efficient to replace this giant motor/generator all the time because the technology sucks. If they worked, there would be more of them sprouting on Them Thar Hills- but its just the opposite, they're not rebuilding them as they fail.
And hydroelectric energy is hardly good for the environment either. Anything downstream from where the dam is built will be forever changed, and rarely for the better.
Its silly to invest in alternate energy supplies just for the sake of doing something different. Often the environment is worse of for it.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
God spoke to me.
Funnily enough in the last 5 years I have not seen a single bird hit any of my windows.
How about your hood scoop?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Dude, they have always hated us, get over it
Maybe you just don't study history, but have you ever heard of the Crusades? Follow that by the betrayal following WWI where France and England carved up the middle east from the old Ottoman Empire rather than putting them in charge of their own land. Then follow that up with the US forcing dictatatorial rule on them from the Shah of Iran (you know we overthrew a democracy to put him in charge, right?), the Saudi royal family, massive support to Saddam from Reagan, etc., etc., etc.
It make you wonder why they hate us doesn't it?
Or maybe history just isn't patriotic enough for you.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
First off, each of us (yes, including me) live our lives wrong. We also tend to live in (and work in) buildings designed wrong. Now, both of these statements are pretty bold - but both are very true.
How much do you throw away? What do you throw away? How much do you recycle? How much do you recycle? How much do you reuse, and what do you reuse? These are the key questions, and the answers are the key to free energy.
Want your eyes opened? Take a look around your neighborhood on trash day. If your city has such a program, especially take a look on "bulk pickup" day. What do you see? What are people literally paying to have hauled away and buried?
I have seen bikes, refrigerators, computers, car parts, engines, dishwashers, cut up trees, wood, etc. All of these items took a lot of energy to make. Several of them could still work just perfectly, if we would only take the time to fix them. Those that can't be fixed, still could be put to other uses. The wood and the cut up trees could be further processed for the raw materials, or used as simple fuel. Water heaters could become storage tanks for solar heated water. That old window could become the front to a solar collector panel. That old engine and car alternator could become a cheap and easy to build power generation system (heh - heat the scrap wood in that old 55 gallon drum using a solar panel made from busted mirrors epoxied onto an old K-band sat dish, drive off the wood gas, power the engine with that (or cook with it), the stuff left over - charcoal for a barbeque!). All of this junk - going to waste.
Go to a landfill (even better, go to one that handles construction scrap only) - watch as thousands of tons per day of scrap wood, steel, aluminum, sand, dirt, concrete, etc - get buried in huge piles! All of this could be used and reused! How many times have you seen busted up concrete (or broken brick and block) being thrown away? Why not build a wall or a living structure out of it? What about that dirt - maybe a rammed earth house, perhaps? The wood, the steel - all of that has obvious uses. Why are we throwing it away?
As far as our houses and buildings are concerned - we build all of these wrong. We build them as energy wasting monstrosities. A monolithic dome house, or a thick-walled earthship-style house - will be much more energy efficient in the long run than a stick-frame constructed house. Build it out of scrap and throwaway items, and it becomes even cheaper. Build in skylights for daytime lighting. Collect rainwater in tanks to use for the garden and yard instead of the tap. Collect your greywater runoff as well. Collect your black water runoff into a methane digester system to produce fuel. Heat your house with solar panels made from scrap plywood, windows, and 2x4s. Install LED lighting for nighttime use. Build a wind generator using old automobile brake rotors and rare-earth magnets. Build a solar oven and slow cook your food.
The answers are endless, and so are the possibilities. None of this is fiction, or dreamwork. Many people have done this and are doing it everyday. There are tons of accounts on the internet - most show "how-to" methods. Want to start? Start by building a simple solar box oven, and cook some chili or rice in it. You can easily build one using cardboard boxes, a scrap piece of glass, and newspaper for insulation. For the glass, go to a glass shop and ask - many times they have odd sizes or whatnot they can't sell, and will happily give them to you. Or, go to Lowes, to the glass cutting area - many times they will have scrap glass (and acrylic, too) that they will give away for the asking. Or, find an oven door and take the tempered glass from it (or how about an old refrigerator - use an old glass shelf). There are tons of recipies online for solar ovens - give it a shot (yes, it will work in the wintertime - you just need sun). I guarantee you will be pleased. You will then know that it is possible to get free energy. There are tons of other ways (I know of several to get free cooling in the summertime!). Think about it, learn about it, and realize what you are missing!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Yes. It's so helpful, let's talk about it a little more...
Terrawatt/years! There's a unit of measurement you don't see every day. It's probably a really useful unit of measurement, too, so let's examine it.
All of the nuclear plants, combined, in the US have a peak output of 99 gigawatts. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_rea
So how many windmills would it take to equal the 99 gigawatts of peak output from our nuclear plants? GE has a 1.5 megawatt wind turbine now. You'd need 66000 windmills to get an equal peak amount of output from those wind turbines. Several very large windfarms in each state.
That turns out to be, well, completely wrong. The output of the latest turbines has really jumped, though, so we'll forgive you. If I've calculated this right, you were only off by a factor of about... fifteen thousand.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
California was looking into a bill like that. Read this article. You can google it for more info.
As a PE Mech E specializing in power systems and a former electrical power trader, I continue to marvel at the propeller heads who think wind is the savior of US power. Wind is a nice little side supply where the winds are right and someone is willing to foot the bill. It does not make much economic sense in most areas because of the power it is replacing. Most baseline (efficient) plants, such as cogen, coal and nukes are slow to start and stop. The least efficient generators are used to meet the peak demand on a given day because they can be turned on and off. Wind is only able to replace the peak load because an operator cannot take a large plant off line on a whim. Even on the peak power side, you would still have to maintain reserve generation for days where the wind does not blow but it is still hot. So the competition is between the marginal cost of FF generation vs the capital recovery of the wind farm. The wind farm cannot trade into the forward markets well because he cannot choose when to come on line. If the wind operator does take a forward and the wind does not blow he will be forced into the daily market to cover his obligation when prices are the highest. Often he will be able to come into market when the wind is blowing, often cooler, when the temps are lower. More supply less demand, lower prices. The theory is great, it all looks good with the averages. In practice, the no one gets the average cost of generation, they get the market price when they can bring it to market. From personal experience, the wind traders were almost always on the bad side of a trade. If you need green power, go nuclear!!
The article quotes numbers for a 90%
hydro and 10% wind mix. It doesn't say
pure wind is cheaper.
If hydro weren't competitive, then humans
wouldn't have been building hydro-electric plants
for the past 100 years or so (and fossil fuels
used to be really cheap before the 1970s).
The only problem with hydro is that there's
not enough of it, or at least not enough of
it that isn't tied up by environmental
concerns (fish gotta live too), or indigenous
people claims such as in Quebec. If there
was enough of it, then don't you think all
power plants would hydro and not fuel burners?
Nothing new to see here.