If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up.
Erecting a wind genie isn't all it takes, the electricity has to be transmitted as well. Do you recall those rolling blackouts in California several years ago? A wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatts of power sat idle because the power cables were not strung up to deliver the power.
If a technology is truly worth implementing then it will stand on its own and not need to be subsidized.
Does that also apply to all other energy sources? Bush and McCain want to subsidize nuclear power. McCain doesn't want to subsidize solar but he will nuclear. I agree subsidies distort markets, that includes subsidies for nuclear power.
interstate electrical transportation is not practical on a large scale. This is exactly what I was saying about two posts up.
Do your research
Do your own research. High Voltage DC transmission does not have the problems AC does over long distances. Hint, it was linked to in your link. Path 66 is part of a high voltage DC transmission network from Oregon to Southern California. The only problem cited with it is where it's in mountains where too much snow settles on it. Look at the map, that's a hell of a lot longer than it is from Oregon to Seattle.
I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light.
Overpriced CFLs? When the last incandescent light bulbs I had burnt out early this year I bought a pack of 2 CFLs from Walmart for under $4. My 12 watt CFLs put out as much as a 60 watt incandescent bulb, or I could have gotten 15 watt bulbs that put out 75 watt equivalent. While I'd prefer if they were a little cooler, more blue instead of the yellow they are, I could have gotten CFLs with a lower colour temperature. Well I didn't see any at Walmart but they are available.
I'm not going to bring a week's worth of groceries for a family of four home on my bike or on the bus
I'm with you there. When I didn't have use of a car I had to go grocery shopping 3 or 4 tymes a week. However I think zoning laws and regulations have partially created this problem. Here's where city farms and gardens can help, they won't feed everyone but they take pressure off some.
I'm going to keep my house at the temperature I like rather than feel hot and sweaty all summer and cold all winter.
Properly insulated buildings shouldn't need any heating or cooling to keep comfortable. Where heating is needed, because of bad insulation in old buildings for instance, geothermal under floor heating is efficient. Actually though it's cheaper to add insulation to a building than it is to add geothermal heating.
Cut back expenditure through self-denial? Screw that. Life is too short for it to be unpleasant as well.
So make others pay in the future so you can remain comfortable?
by logical deduction any solar panel that is economically cost-effective must also be net-energy positive, so as long as it makes economic sense it will automatically make technological sense too.
While true, my point was that cost wasn't dependent on energy input alone. Something may be energy positive but can still cost too much. So relying on cost as an indicator won't help in determining some thing's efficiency.
I only meant attractive in an economic sense.
The problem with using economic sense, as it's used now, doesn't really tell you whether something is attractive. Subsidies distort markets, as do external costs those costs producers and users pass on to others. For instance if burning fossil and releasing greenhouse gases causes Global Warming when sea levels rise it's not those who produce or use the energy produced that pay, it's those who's home get flooded that do. As does the farmers who's land becomes a desert. Currently economics does not take these into consideration. Only when, and if, producers and users have to pay those costs can it be determined if an alternative energy source is economically attractive.
However, Seattle was simply an example of an area where solar power would be impractical due to weather conditions. It was an example because Seattle is actually already very environmentally friendly in power generation since hydroelectric is so easily utilizable in the area.
Seattle can get it's solar power from Oregon, Oregon can produce plenty to share. As for hydro being environmentally friendly, dams are not friendly to the environment. Ask the salmon. Take a look at Klamath River and what's happened there. Also eventually they need to be dredged, adding to the cost.
Big words coming from someone busily plugging away at a keyboard which is attached to a computer that is certainly sucking up its share of electricity. Gee, where you do you think that energy is coming from? Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?
I agreed with you until I got here. Where I live wind genies produce some energy and a lot more can be added. As for where GP can get his energy, New York is a good location for more wind genies. Between Massachusetts and North Carolina, NYC is in there, the offshore resources for wind are good too. Unfortunately NIMBYs are preventing offshore wind farms, er doing what they can to stop them.
Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?
I rent now but I want to build my home Off the Grid and build a hybrid power system using solar and wind.
Do you grow and eat your own food?
Though I live in a city, downtown Minneapolis is about 15 minutes bike ride (as it's too much a hassle I will not drive there), I have shared some of the food I grow in my garden with neighbors. By the end of the month I should be able to start making sauces and soups from the basil, onions, tomatillos, and tomatoes I'm growing then can it. The food I can should last me the rest of the year. Then again though I'm single, as I said earlier I also share what I grow.
I had a car for decades but you find out that you can become healthier and less frazzled by getting rid of your car.
I used to ride my bike more than 100 miles a week. That ended when I was hit while riding my bike which left me with a permanent disability. Now I wish I had died instead of lived. I will never willingly get rid of my car now.
You should have your freedom to own your stuff and you should pay for the true cost of owning that stuff.
On this I agree. If I could I'd replace the income tax with a pollution tax, as well as reduce the size of government.
Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases
Actually nuclear power does emit greenhouse gases. The major building materials for nuclear power plants are concrete which is made from cement and steel, both of which require massive amounts of energy to make. Cement has to be fired in a kiln which is fueled by coal, coke, or natural gas. While recycled steel has lower embodied energy than virgin steel, it's still takes a lot of energy to make. And that's not counting the mining and refining of the uranium.
Its not like "alternative energy" is some issue that only enviromentalist hippies care about. Republicans want it too
That's why Republican Reagan increased alternative energy funding? Oh that's right he dropped it like a hot potato. I bet if he had kept Carter's work going we'd be a hell of a lot closer to being energy independent.
dependent on a lot of unstable governments
That explains why Reagan and Bush Sr opposed Saddam, except they both supported him. Heck Reagan even armed Saddam with those WMDs Bush Jr invaded Iraq for. And I'm still waiting to see them. However I doubt I will because he used them while Reagan supported him.
Personally I don't believe boxing ourselves into a corner where only a miracle can save us is sound policy. Obviously you do, thus faith based policy.
Aren't you boxing yourself in by relying on offshore drilling?
And I can promise you that if you idiots get control of the US economy and drive us into 2nd World status the ONLY thing American voters will care about is regaining our 'lost glory'.
I bet it's likely to happen, the US economy going down the toilet, whether McCain or Obama wins. It already is.
We can argue about when we will hit Peak Oil, nobody disputes the evident truth that we will hit it. So replacing oil isn't a question of whether, but one of what and when. So just suck it up and let the marketplace sort this out
I'm all for letting the free market sort it out. And by that I mean end all subsidies to coal and petroleum as well as agribusinesses.
I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.
You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.
If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.
Oil is not a long-term solution.
Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.
Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.
Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.
Because we need energy NOW.
Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.
First of all, thirteen cents of every dollar you spend on gasoline goes directly to the Federal Government. That is hardly aiding the petroleum industry.
Spending billions of dollars a day in a war on a country that didn't attack us, but has vast oil reserves is a subsidy.
Second, getting the Federal Government involved in encouraging commuting and public transportation? The results might be as good as our public education system!
It depends of how government does it. Where I live private companies operate buses not the government.
It's not the Federal Government's job (assuming you adhere to the Constitution, of course) to use force to make people use a certain kind of energy.
But that's exactly what happens when government gives hugh subsidies to the coal, oil, and nuclear power industries, as well as large agribusinesses.
"the Government will save us attitude?" No, subsidies aren't what we need; what we need is for capitalism to work.
I agree with the sentiments but as long as power generation is subsidized then solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources should be as well. Bush, and McCain want to give the nuclear power industry massive subsidies. We've gone to war over oil.
the cost of the product instantly answers its energy requirements.
I agree it's answerable but the cost has nothing to do it's energy requirements. Much more goes into the cost than just energy.
The fact that most solar solutions are still not attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint suggests that their energy efficiency is still marginal.
Not attractive compared to what? Oil? How many wars are fought over oil? Coal? How many mountains have to be leveled, and how many miner's lives, does it take to provide the coal? With both coal and oil, how many will have to pay for Global Warming?
I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something because the price of energy itself fluctuates with time.
Actually it quite appropriate to question the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) or Embodied energy. If it takes 10 KWHs to create something that only produces 1 KWH in it lifetime that's bad. However if the same 10KWHs makes something that produces 100 KWH, heck just use 20 KWH, then it's a good investment.
The same thing can be seen when producing ethanol. For each barrel of ethanol used to make ethanol produced from corn, you get just about 2 barrels in return. However using sugarcane ethanol instead you get more than double the amount of ethanol.
Forbes mentions that Mojave Desert real estate is becoming more valuable because many companies want to build solar facilities there.
It's not just solar farms that are sprouting up in the Mojave, wind farms are as well. Actually there's one wind farm that virtually sat there silent back when CA had those rolling blackouts because the transmission capability wasn't there.
Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank.
More and more mortgage companies are financing solar energy systems. Some allow borrowers to borrow more because of such systems. With an alternative energy system installed living costs are reduced so they are willing to lend a higher percent of the what the borrower's income would suggest.
It is that simple, not just Monsanto but other GE companies want farmers to buy seeds instead of saving them. Here on/. a few years ago, 2004, there was a story about how Paul Bremer then the American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government wanted a law requiring Iraqi farmers to pay a seed license, Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses. Those farmers had been saving seeds since agriculture started.
The logical conclusion of your argument (that Monsanto shouldn't control the seeds) is a ban on GM crops.
Though that's a separate issue, yes I do oppose GM crops. There is no need for them, the only reason they exist is because of the profit motive of the businesses that create them. Patent life then require farmers to pay a toll to grow food.
Slashdot Mirror
We have gotten ourselves down such a massive hole the only two options are to fight fire with fire or fight warheads with warheads.
There's a third option. We can pool our research with theirs to create clean energy and share it with the world.
Of course, I can hear a chorus of doubters and naysayers.
Falcon
If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up.
Erecting a wind genie isn't all it takes, the electricity has to be transmitted as well. Do you recall those rolling blackouts in California several years ago? A wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatts of power sat idle because the power cables were not strung up to deliver the power.
If a technology is truly worth implementing then it will stand on its own and not need to be subsidized.
Does that also apply to all other energy sources? Bush and McCain want to subsidize nuclear power. McCain doesn't want to subsidize solar but he will nuclear. I agree subsidies distort markets, that includes subsidies for nuclear power.
Falcon
interstate electrical transportation is not practical on a large scale. This is exactly what I was saying about two posts up.
Do your research
Do your own research. High Voltage DC transmission does not have the problems AC does over long distances. Hint, it was linked to in your link. Path 66 is part of a high voltage DC transmission network from Oregon to Southern California. The only problem cited with it is where it's in mountains where too much snow settles on it. Look at the map, that's a hell of a lot longer than it is from Oregon to Seattle.
Falcon
Are you are saying the judge was wrong?
Falcon
I'm tired of installing overpriced compact fluorescents that give dim, ugly light.
Overpriced CFLs? When the last incandescent light bulbs I had burnt out early this year I bought a pack of 2 CFLs from Walmart for under $4. My 12 watt CFLs put out as much as a 60 watt incandescent bulb, or I could have gotten 15 watt bulbs that put out 75 watt equivalent. While I'd prefer if they were a little cooler, more blue instead of the yellow they are, I could have gotten CFLs with a lower colour temperature. Well I didn't see any at Walmart but they are available.
I'm not going to bring a week's worth of groceries for a family of four home on my bike or on the bus
I'm with you there. When I didn't have use of a car I had to go grocery shopping 3 or 4 tymes a week. However I think zoning laws and regulations have partially created this problem. Here's where city farms and gardens can help, they won't feed everyone but they take pressure off some.
I'm going to keep my house at the temperature I like rather than feel hot and sweaty all summer and cold all winter.
Properly insulated buildings shouldn't need any heating or cooling to keep comfortable. Where heating is needed, because of bad insulation in old buildings for instance, geothermal under floor heating is efficient. Actually though it's cheaper to add insulation to a building than it is to add geothermal heating.
Cut back expenditure through self-denial? Screw that. Life is too short for it to be unpleasant as well.
So make others pay in the future so you can remain comfortable?
Falcon
by logical deduction any solar panel that is economically cost-effective must also be net-energy positive, so as long as it makes economic sense it will automatically make technological sense too.
While true, my point was that cost wasn't dependent on energy input alone. Something may be energy positive but can still cost too much. So relying on cost as an indicator won't help in determining some thing's efficiency.
I only meant attractive in an economic sense.
The problem with using economic sense, as it's used now, doesn't really tell you whether something is attractive. Subsidies distort markets, as do external costs those costs producers and users pass on to others. For instance if burning fossil and releasing greenhouse gases causes Global Warming when sea levels rise it's not those who produce or use the energy produced that pay, it's those who's home get flooded that do. As does the farmers who's land becomes a desert. Currently economics does not take these into consideration. Only when, and if, producers and users have to pay those costs can it be determined if an alternative energy source is economically attractive.
Falcon
However, Seattle was simply an example of an area where solar power would be impractical due to weather conditions. It was an example because Seattle is actually already very environmentally friendly in power generation since hydroelectric is so easily utilizable in the area.
Seattle can get it's solar power from Oregon, Oregon can produce plenty to share. As for hydro being environmentally friendly, dams are not friendly to the environment. Ask the salmon. Take a look at Klamath River and what's happened there. Also eventually they need to be dredged, adding to the cost.
Falcon
Big words coming from someone busily plugging away at a keyboard which is attached to a computer that is certainly sucking up its share of electricity. Gee, where you do you think that energy is coming from? Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?
I agreed with you until I got here. Where I live wind genies produce some energy and a lot more can be added. As for where GP can get his energy, New York is a good location for more wind genies. Between Massachusetts and North Carolina, NYC is in there, the offshore resources for wind are good too. Unfortunately NIMBYs are preventing offshore wind farms, er doing what they can to stop them.
Does your house/apartment/whatever run completely on solar/hydro/wind power?
I rent now but I want to build my home Off the Grid and build a hybrid power system using solar and wind.
Do you grow and eat your own food?
Though I live in a city, downtown Minneapolis is about 15 minutes bike ride (as it's too much a hassle I will not drive there), I have shared some of the food I grow in my garden with neighbors. By the end of the month I should be able to start making sauces and soups from the basil, onions, tomatillos, and tomatoes I'm growing then can it. The food I can should last me the rest of the year. Then again though I'm single, as I said earlier I also share what I grow.
Falcon
I had a car for decades but you find out that you can become healthier and less frazzled by getting rid of your car.
I used to ride my bike more than 100 miles a week. That ended when I was hit while riding my bike which left me with a permanent disability. Now I wish I had died instead of lived. I will never willingly get rid of my car now.
You should have your freedom to own your stuff and you should pay for the true cost of owning that stuff.
On this I agree. If I could I'd replace the income tax with a pollution tax, as well as reduce the size of government.
Falcon
The ideal efficiency for a solar panel is 20%, but I don't see even 20% efficiency doing much for Seattle.
Seattle is close to Oregon isn't it? Oregon has more solar energy potential than both Germany and Japan yet they lead in solar installations.
Falcon
Nuclear does have the benefit of no greenhouse gases
Actually nuclear power does emit greenhouse gases. The major building materials for nuclear power plants are concrete which is made from cement and steel, both of which require massive amounts of energy to make. Cement has to be fired in a kiln which is fueled by coal, coke, or natural gas. While recycled steel has lower embodied energy than virgin steel, it's still takes a lot of energy to make. And that's not counting the mining and refining of the uranium.
Falcon
Prove it! And prove there will be no dangerous radioactive waste left.
He admires the European model of Government so much why doesn't he see they were wise in using nuclear power?
Even "Businessweek" admits it can take 10 years to build a nuclear power plant in Europe. Like that's going to help us now.
Falcon
Its not like "alternative energy" is some issue that only enviromentalist hippies care about. Republicans want it too
That's why Republican Reagan increased alternative energy funding? Oh that's right he dropped it like a hot potato. I bet if he had kept Carter's work going we'd be a hell of a lot closer to being energy independent.
dependent on a lot of unstable governments
That explains why Reagan and Bush Sr opposed Saddam, except they both supported him. Heck Reagan even armed Saddam with those WMDs Bush Jr invaded Iraq for. And I'm still waiting to see them. However I doubt I will because he used them while Reagan supported him.
Falcon
Personally I don't believe boxing ourselves into a corner where only a miracle can save us is sound policy. Obviously you do, thus faith based policy.
Aren't you boxing yourself in by relying on offshore drilling?
And I can promise you that if you idiots get control of the US economy and drive us into 2nd World status the ONLY thing American voters will care about is regaining our 'lost glory'.
I bet it's likely to happen, the US economy going down the toilet, whether McCain or Obama wins. It already is.
We can argue about when we will hit Peak Oil, nobody disputes the evident truth that we will hit it. So replacing oil isn't a question of whether, but one of what and when. So just suck it up and let the marketplace sort this out
I'm all for letting the free market sort it out. And by that I mean end all subsidies to coal and petroleum as well as agribusinesses.
Falcon
I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.
You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.
If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.
Oil is not a long-term solution.
Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.
Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.
Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.
Because we need energy NOW.
Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.
Falcon
First of all, thirteen cents of every dollar you spend on gasoline goes directly to the Federal Government. That is hardly aiding the petroleum industry.
Spending billions of dollars a day in a war on a country that didn't attack us, but has vast oil reserves is a subsidy.
Second, getting the Federal Government involved in encouraging commuting and public transportation? The results might be as good as our public education system!
It depends of how government does it. Where I live private companies operate buses not the government.
It's not the Federal Government's job (assuming you adhere to the Constitution, of course) to use force to make people use a certain kind of energy.
But that's exactly what happens when government gives hugh subsidies to the coal, oil, and nuclear power industries, as well as large agribusinesses.
Falcon
"the Government will save us attitude?" No, subsidies aren't what we need; what we need is for capitalism to work.
I agree with the sentiments but as long as power generation is subsidized then solar, wind, and other alternative energy sources should be as well. Bush, and McCain want to give the nuclear power industry massive subsidies. We've gone to war over oil.
Falcon
the cost of the product instantly answers its energy requirements.
I agree it's answerable but the cost has nothing to do it's energy requirements. Much more goes into the cost than just energy.
The fact that most solar solutions are still not attractive from a cost-benefit standpoint suggests that their energy efficiency is still marginal.
Not attractive compared to what? Oil? How many wars are fought over oil? Coal? How many mountains have to be leveled, and how many miner's lives, does it take to provide the coal? With both coal and oil, how many will have to pay for Global Warming?
Falcon
I think its a misnomer about how much any energy it takes to make something because the price of energy itself fluctuates with time.
Actually it quite appropriate to question the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) or Embodied energy. If it takes 10 KWHs to create something that only produces 1 KWH in it lifetime that's bad. However if the same 10KWHs makes something that produces 100 KWH, heck just use 20 KWH, then it's a good investment.
The same thing can be seen when producing ethanol. For each barrel of ethanol used to make ethanol produced from corn, you get just about 2 barrels in return. However using sugarcane ethanol instead you get more than double the amount of ethanol.
Falcon
Forbes mentions that Mojave Desert real estate is becoming more valuable because many companies want to build solar facilities there.
It's not just solar farms that are sprouting up in the Mojave, wind farms are as well. Actually there's one wind farm that virtually sat there silent back when CA had those rolling blackouts because the transmission capability wasn't there.
Falcon
Suppose you're having a new house built: if you could install a ten or fifteen kilowatt solar plant and inverter for ten grand, you might figure it's worth it to borrow a little more money from the bank.
More and more mortgage companies are financing solar energy systems. Some allow borrowers to borrow more because of such systems. With an alternative energy system installed living costs are reduced so they are willing to lend a higher percent of the what the borrower's income would suggest.
Of course the mortgage crisis does have a negative impact, it has hurt solar businesses.
Falcon
It's probably unanswerable, but I wonder how much energy it takes to make these cells, and how long it takes for them to offset that?
You mean the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) or Embodied energy don't you? According to this thin film panels, which First Solar makes, has low embodied energy. This TFA says the embodied energy will be repaid in 3 years.
Falcon
It is that simple, not just Monsanto but other GE companies want farmers to buy seeds instead of saving them. Here on /. a few years ago, 2004, there was a story about how Paul Bremer then the American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government wanted a law requiring Iraqi farmers to pay a seed license, Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses. Those farmers had been saving seeds since agriculture started.
The logical conclusion of your argument (that Monsanto shouldn't control the seeds) is a ban on GM crops.
Though that's a separate issue, yes I do oppose GM crops. There is no need for them, the only reason they exist is because of the profit motive of the businesses that create them. Patent life then require farmers to pay a toll to grow food.
Falcon
How so? A creator can't create more after he or she is dead.
Falcon
Kissimmee though it is close to Orlando.
I think a few thousand hungry alligators dropped into each park every morning would take the luster off of the mouse
Gatorland, between Orlando and Kissimmee, can provide the gators. The Magic Kingdom was built on the gators' homes though.
Boy, can I go for some fried gator tail now.
Falcon