Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interesting take on solar/wind

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    One factor not mentioned is there just seems to be a lot of consensus thinking focused on solar right now. Whether it's better or worse than wind is an endless debate, but if most of the mindshare of speculators and young scientists and entrepreneurs is devoted to solar, it will tend to outpace development of other forms.

    As for nuclear, older readers will recall that through our whole lives we've been told that safe, neighborhood-scale reactors are "just around the corner" every year now for the last 30 years. And they're still "just around the corner".

    Same with the "any day now" breakthroughs on toxic waste storage or waste-free reactors. We've made baby steps, but the future (as predicted) keeps going two steps forward and about 1.9 steps back.


    Comment


    • #62
      http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/re...el-29-05-2017/

      India cancels plans for huge coal power station — because solar energy is getting so cheap

      The Indian state of Gujarat announced the cancellation of a proposed 4 GW coal ultra-mega power project, citing a surplus of energy in the area and a desire to continue moving away from coal. That was just the start.

      Now, in total, 13.7GW of planned coal power projects have been canceled this month alone, which is quite a figure.

      Analyst Tim Buckley, director of energy finance studies at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) said that tariffs have dropped so much in India that a tipping point has been reached: solar energy is now cheaper than coal.

      Comment


      • #63
        I have read many horror stories about CO2 emissions emitted creating solar and wind power products. Has anyone else heard that the creation of a Tesla battery emits 17.5 Tons of CO2. Thus, you would have to drive a gas car for 8.2 years to reach that amount not to mention the CO2 emitted to power the Tesla and not considering battery life.

        http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-...terier-6851761
        Enormous hopes are linked to electric cars as the solution to the automotive industry's climate problems. But the electric cars' batteries are environmentally friendly when manufacturing. Several tonnes of carbon dioxide have been released, even before batteries leave the factory. IVL The Swedish Environment Institute has, on behalf of the Swedish Transport Administration and the Swedish Energy Agency, investigated the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries from a life-cycle perspective. There are batteries for electric cars included in the study. Both authors Lisbeth Dahllöf and Mia Romare have done a metastudy, that is, reviewed and compiled existing studies. The report shows that battery manufacturing leads to high emissions. For each kilowatt-hour storage capacity in the battery, emissions of 150 to 200 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent are generated, already in the factory. The researchers have not studied the individual car brand's batteries, just how they were produced or what electrical mix they used. But if we understand the importance of battery size, one example: Two standard electric cars on the market, Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model S, have batteries of approximately 30 kWh and 100 kWh respectively. As soon as you buy the car, emissions of approximately 5.3 tonnes and 17.5 tonnes, respectively, have been made for batteries of these sizes. The numbers may be difficult to relate to. By way of comparison, a trip for a person returning from Stockholm to New York by air causes emissions of more than 600 kilograms of carbon dioxide, according to the UN organization ICAO's calculation model. Another conclusion in the study is that about half of the emissions occur in the production of raw material and half in the production of the battery itself in the factory. The mining itself accounts for only a small part of between 10-20 percent.

        Comment


        • #64
          Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist

          https://www.amazon.ca/Confessions-Gr.../dp/0986480827

          "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist is Dr. Patrick Moore's engaging firsthand account of his many years spent as the ultimate Greenpeace insider, a co-founder and leader in the organization's top committee. Moore explains why, 15 years after co-founding it, he left Greenpeace to establish a more sensible, science-based approach to environmentalism. From energy independence to climate change, genetic engineering to aquaculture, Moore sheds new light on some of the most controversial subjects in the news today."

          Comment


          • #65
            Well gee... if a Brazilian beauty who has a 14,000 sq foot house and a 50 million dollar plane is a climate alarmist and "UN Ambassador for the Environment" I guess I should listen...She must believe the crap she spews...hahahaha

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEf65L-DUrA

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Nos View Post
              The biggest problem with solar/wind is base load. You can't rely on them 100% of the time, so you need a backup. There are two ways to deal with this, one is with other power generation backing them up. Today, I think nuclear is the answer, though it has it's own set of problems (cost and public perception). The other option is with storing the power, which is either batteries (long way to go here) or other means (like pumping water up hill to a reservoir and using hydroelectric when it flows back down). Regardless of which is chosen, there's a huge impact on actual cost of going "green" which most supporters of solar and wind tend to leave out.
              If you can figure out a way to store AC power in a battery, you my friend, will be a rich, rich, man.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by tickdog View Post
                Well gee... if a Brazilian beauty who has a 14,000 sq foot house and a 50 million dollar plane is a climate alarmist and "UN Ambassador for the Environment" I guess I should listen...She must believe the crap she spews...hahahaha

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEf65L-DUrA
                Well, she was literally talking about trash and she was correct. You have something against trash talk?

                Comment


                • #68

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Interesting, but comparing present efficiencies (on a per worker basis) of a new industry, thats still developing, to one thats mature doesnt make any case, imho.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Marcus Aurelius View Post
                      Interesting, but comparing present efficiencies (on a per worker basis) of a new industry, thats still developing, to one thats mature doesnt make any case, imho.
                      Exactly. Re-reading this article it's even more of a joke than it was originally. Power per worker is a senseless metric anyway, never mind the fact that green build out is occurring now, skewing the numbers.

                      There's further idiocy in the claims about vast acreage being wasted by renewable energy like solar. For 20-30 years in Europe, practically every building from a modest house to a supermarket has solar panels. It hurts nothing and saves them considable money and energy.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Touchdown View Post

                        Exactly. Re-reading this article it's even more of a joke than it was originally. Power per worker is a senseless metric anyway, never mind the fact that green build out is occurring now, skewing the numbers.

                        There's further idiocy in the claims about vast acreage being wasted by renewable energy like solar. For 20-30 years in Europe, practically every building from a modest house to a supermarket has solar panels. It hurts nothing and saves them considable money and energy.
                        My neighbour put solar panels on the entire south roof of his massive quonset. His son will be lucky to see a gain on that project.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Grainshoveler View Post

                          My neighbour put solar panels on the entire south roof of his massive quonset. His son will be lucky to see a gain on that project.
                          That doesn't reduce the amount of arable land, as the foolish original propaganda piece suggested. As for the "gain" on the project, what gain? Dollars? Perhaps it will, or perhaps not. Perhaps our already rather expensive electrical energy price will continue to rise at multiples of inflation. Or perhaps the gain was already there in not having to run a kilometer of electrical service.

                          What if the gain is measured in 3 fewer people getting lung cancer, or our grandchildren having a slightly better world? Worth it, not worth it?

                          I personally haven't made large scale renewable energy purchases for the reason you suggest: return on capital is hard to find. But I wouldn't pooh pooh it either. I have made large investments in conservation though, which pays both real and social dividends.

                          Comment

                          Announcement

                          Collapse
                          No announcement yet.

                          Announcement

                          Collapse
                          No announcement yet.
                          Working...
                          X