How solid is the theory of green energy?

Liquid Smoke

Great artists steal™
@Gold
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
15,192
Reaction score
2
I have a simple hypothesis: there is no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Now like I said, it's just a hypothesis. I might be completely wrong. Hydroelectric seems to be a good alternative, but only if you live near a waterfall. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before losses would consume the gains, so that is only a local solution at best. Nuclear is good, but that caries its own set of risks. I don't thinks solar or wind will ever be able to produce as much power as cheaply as digging a hole in the ground and pulling up compacted biomass.

Now since energy utilization is literally everything, increasing cost will decrease the quality of human life. There's no way around it. Transportation, heating, manufacturing, all depend on cheap energy. And the increased costs will have worse impacts on the poor.

So what's say you war roomers? Proving me wrong would be great news. I'm open to hearing it.
 
I have a simple hypothesis: there is no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Now like I said, it's just a hypothesis. I might be completely wrong. Hydroelectric seems to be a good alternative, but only if you live near a waterfall. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before losses would consume the gains, so that is only a local solution at best. Nuclear is good, but that caries its own set of risks. I don't thinks solar or wind will ever be able to produce as much power as cheaply as digging a hole in the ground and pulling up compacted biomass.

Now since energy utilization is literally everything, increasing cost will decrease the quality of human life. There's no way around it. Transportation, heating, manufacturing, all depend on cheap energy. And the increased costs will have worse impacts on the poor.

So what's say you war roomers? Proving me wrong would be great news. I'm open to hearing it.

What?
 
There must be millions and millions of waterfalls in America’s hat.
 
Beautiful.
I would say it's on shaky ground. There are many valid criticisms of the theoretical foundation, and it's dumb.
 
Fuck you guys, I'm no hydroelectric power expert.
 
If all goes well we'll probably eliminate fossil fuels. Solar gets more efficient with time. Germany was able to derive over 30% of its power from solar and wind just a few years ago. Buy all the desert land you can and cross your fingers that superconductivity really takes off in our lifetime so you can earn that sweet solar farm money. Biofuels have some juice behind them now with companies like Shell investing. Biopetrol is probably not too far off. Imagine energy farmed in Death Valley being used to charge your plug-in hybrid 350hp 8 cylinder bio gasoline pickup truck that gets 30 carbon neutral miles to the gallon! Soon!
 
Soon ICE cars will suck compared to their electric counterparts. Yes, most EV's will be powered by coal for the near future, but as electricity wins out there will be more incentive for solar, wind, and nuclear (preferable to fossil fuels IMO).

The cost of solar systems needs to drop maybe close to half before they widely adopted in the US. Just as with the electric cars batteries might be the biggest hold-up. Lead acid batteries have to be used for a solar array to be close to economical. Maybe the next gen solid-state lithium batteries can change that. The $/kwh is still too high.

There have been some interesting developments with flow cell batteries, but the cost is supposed to be competitive with lithium ion unless things have changed recently. There are some benefits to these systems in terms of usability and longevity.

I think we are a couple generations of battery technology away from the majority of the world going green.
 
Some of these alternatives may never become the dominant source of our energy but the more inexpensive something like solar becomes, the more it will make sense to at least install it on roofs/ etc in sunny areas. You may still need to get additional energy outside of it but the point would be it would be significantly less.

I do think nuclear energy has the biggest future but needs to be heavily regulated and centrally planned. It always surprises me something that would require that doesn't get more support from the left than it does the right.
 
Is nuclear considered green? House about nuclear, combined with some geothermal, natural gas, and solar plus wind, and then we revamp our infrastructure so we dont need that much electricity.

Like why cant we cap all non commerical/passenger car engines at 4 cylinder inline, and a max HP, and max MPH. At the same time make them much lighter.

We can switch all lighting to LED style to use less electricity. Do our HVAC units really need that much BTU or Amps? I am sure there are ways to make our HVAC units more energy efficient.
 
I have a simple hypothesis: there is no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Now like I said, it's just a hypothesis. I might be completely wrong. Hydroelectric seems to be a good alternative, but only if you live near a waterfall. Electricity can only be transmitted so far before losses would consume the gains, so that is only a local solution at best. Nuclear is good, but that caries its own set of risks. I don't thinks solar or wind will ever be able to produce as much power as cheaply as digging a hole in the ground and pulling up compacted biomass.

Now since energy utilization is literally everything, increasing cost will decrease the quality of human life. There's no way around it. Transportation, heating, manufacturing, all depend on cheap energy. And the increased costs will have worse impacts on the poor.

So what's say you war roomers? Proving me wrong would be great news. I'm open to hearing it.


Scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany have successfully conducted a revolutionary nuclear fusion experiment. Using their experimental reactor, the Wendelstein 7-X (W7X) stellarator, they have managed to sustain a hydrogen plasma – a key step on the path to creating workable nuclear fusion. The German chancellor Angela Merkel, who herself has a doctorate in physics, switched on the device at 2:35 p.m. GMT (9:35 a.m. EST).

As a clean, near-limitless source of energy, it’s no understatement to say that controlled nuclear fusion (replicating the process that powers the Sun) would change the world, and several nations are striving to make breakthroughs in this field. Germany is undoubtedly the frontrunner in one respect: This is the second time that it’s successfully fired up its experimental stellarator fusion reactor, a serious competitor to the tokamak model.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/germanys-fusion-reactor-creates-hydrogen-plasma-world-first/
Last December, the team managed to suspend a helium plasma for the first time, and they’ve now achieved the same feat with hydrogen. Generating a hydrogen plasma is considerably more difficult than producing a helium one, so by producing and sustaining one in today’s experiment, even for just a few milliseconds, these researchers have achieved something truly remarkable
 
It's sad that the government went down the path of providing billions of dollars in subsidy in response to bullying from the climate change lobby. Green energy just can't stand on its own economically.
 
Scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany have successfully conducted a revolutionary nuclear fusion experiment. Using their experimental reactor, the Wendelstein 7-X (W7X) stellarator, they have managed to sustain a hydrogen plasma – a key step on the path to creating workable nuclear fusion. The German chancellor Angela Merkel, who herself has a doctorate in physics, switched on the device at 2:35 p.m. GMT (9:35 a.m. EST).

As a clean, near-limitless source of energy, it’s no understatement to say that controlled nuclear fusion (replicating the process that powers the Sun) would change the world, and several nations are striving to make breakthroughs in this field. Germany is undoubtedly the frontrunner in one respect: This is the second time that it’s successfully fired up its experimental stellarator fusion reactor, a serious competitor to the tokamak model.

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/germanys-fusion-reactor-creates-hydrogen-plasma-world-first/
Last December, the team managed to suspend a helium plasma for the first time, and they’ve now achieved the same feat with hydrogen. Generating a hydrogen plasma is considerably more difficult than producing a helium one, so by producing and sustaining one in today’s experiment, even for just a few milliseconds, these researchers have achieved something truly remarkable
Huge if true. Unironically.
 
Worldwide, some 73 gigawatts of net new solar PV capacity was installed in 2016. Wind energy came in second place (55GW), with coal relegated to third (52GW), followed by gas (37GW) and hydro (28GW).

Fyi, that was 2016.

The shit works and has done for a while.

Decentralized, no emission, no ongoing inputs energy generation is herr, it's popular, and it works exceptionally well for peak demand.

Only issue is base load, in terms of cost per unit of energy renewables clearly lead, but consistent supply is still an issue albeit mainly because on cost basis fossil fuels can't compete.
 
Back
Top