How solid is the theory of green energy?

[Fedorable]

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Most brains are the consistency of hotdog wieners or pepperoni sticks actually.

No, no it is not.

This is according to some smrt guy on quora:

"They feel kinda like tough jelly, you can push it and it'll dent and snap back when you let go, unless of course you use too much force and you puncture it. Brains aren't one big piece though, so you'd need to cup it or you'll lose a hemisphere."

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-consistency-of-the-brain

Yeah bitch, science!

 

[Lead]

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.

Just like how mentioned nuclear, I'm surprised republicans are usually against solar. The possibility of it being big means a decentralized power source. You'll even see nutjobs radio pundits that diss on solar then talk about their doomsday shelter that has these panels.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

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.

So more energy was due to solar and wind than natural gas and coal? That's great if true but at what cost? The panels and turbines aren't free. Also oil is conspicuously absent from that list.

Good post though...

 

[Kframe]

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 this question as well. People here want to just build a billion solar panels and those ugly wind farms yet the sun is not always shining, and a solar panel in shade looses a lot of its generation capability. Also the wind is not always blowing. Most of the time I see these huge wind farms, they are not doing anything. None of them moving. Just sitting there. How are we to power all of America on something that does nothing most of the time?

I think nuclear is were we need to go, but instead of just warehousing the damn spent fuel, why the hell are we not recycling it? The nuclear fuel can be recycled and reused.

http://www.anl.gov/articles/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-offer-plentiful-energy


http://world-nuclear.org/informatio...ecycling/processing-of-used-nuclear-fuel.aspx


Going whole sale nuclear would allow us to make a massive cut in our CO2 emissions as we could power almost every home and business in the US with it.. But the green movement seems to be against it, despite that it will do almost everything they want..

 

[Kframe]

Just like how mentioned nuclear, I'm surprised republicans are usually against solar. The possibility of it being big means a decentralized power source. You'll even see nutjobs radio pundits that diss on solar then talk about their doomsday shelter that has these panels.

But solar panels loose a lot of generation capacity in cloudy times, and that is more often then not.

 

[Kframe]

What?

You can't make hydro power if you are not near a river..

 

[Kframe]

There must be millions and millions of waterfalls in America’s hat.

Were do you get that idea?

 

[Kframe]

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.

You can have those Fujitsu like units, with each room of the house having a small cooler and it only runs when you are in it and you can turn it off if you are not using a room.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

You can't make hydro power if you are not near a river..

 

[LangfordBarrow]

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.

You have to calculate the costs associated with how much damage different types of fuels cause. If it costs more to make hydroelectric dams, or wind or solar farms, but then you don't have the same problems with pollution, it might be cheaper in the long run. And also technology keeps improving so at some point biofuels won't be the cheapest source.

 

[HIMBOB]

So more energy was due to solar and wind than natural gas and coal? That's great if true but at what cost? The panels and turbines aren't free. Also oil is conspicuously absent from that list.

Good post though...

No, most generation is from fossil fuels. But most new generation is renewable. People don't really build new fossil fuels because it's slightly more expensive per unit of energy, is at the whim of fuel supplys and because they are 50 year investments and it would be fucking insane to think you will not have to pay for pollution within that time frame.

Renewables are cheaper, it's happened, it happed around 2014-16, depending on source.

This was electricity production. Oil is used occasionally but as a very very last resort unless you get it basically free like in Saudi Arabia. Way to expensive.
If you are using oil, then solar and battery is cheaper right now.

 

[Lead]

But solar panels loose a lot of generation capacity in cloudy times, and that is more often then not.

The panels are more economical in certain areas. A place like Nevada is ideal for using them.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Since burning fossil fuels speeds up climate change and that costs billions when there are more natural disasters how can anyone say with a straight face "alternative energy isn't economically viable."

 

[Bald1]

How green is the theory of solid energy? Solid rocket boosters just sound dirty to me.


Disregard if this is a serious thread...

 

[Liquid Smoke]

Since burning fossil fuels speeds up climate change and that costs billions when there are more natural disasters how can anyone say with a straight face "alternative energy isn't economically viable."

Because unless the real cost is buried in government fuckery, alternative energy costs more out of pocket. That's kind of the whole point of this discussion, science denier.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

How green is the theory of solid energy? Solid rocket boosters just sound dirty to me.


Disregard if this is a serious thread...

Now now baldy, lets not get clever with wordplay here!

 

[Kframe]

The panels are more economical in certain areas. A place like Nevada is ideal for using them.

I mean, I am for the .Gov putting out a trillion dollar spending bill to put a full roof of Grid Tie panels on every roof in America. It wont take away fully our need, but it will drastically help reduce it, and in the end, work with other sources which will eventually take us off of FF.

 

[GSP_37]

The rich oil bastards will stop solar and wind from going mainstream.

 

[Kframe]

Since burning fossil fuels speeds up climate change and that costs billions when there are more natural disasters how can anyone say with a straight face "alternative energy isn't economically viable."

They are not fully viable in the face of the facts that they are not consistent. The sun is not always shining, there are clouds, and the wind is not always blowing. Most of the huge Wind fields near me are sitting idle more often then not.. I never see them moving.