How solid is the theory of green energy?

[Lead]

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.

I think it would be more key to have a state policy with this. A place like Minnesota, it may not make much sense at this point. But reducing the cost of utilities is something that greatly impacts the average citizen. I'm always for policy that works to lower costs. If you lower costs, you reduce the cost/needs of a safety net when cost of living itself is inexpensive.

 

[Kframe]

I think it would be more key to have a state policy with this. A place like Minnesota, it may not make much sense at this point. But reducing the cost of utilities is something that greatly impacts the average citizen. I'm always for policy that works to lower costs. If you lower costs, you reduce the cost/needs of a safety net when cost of living itself is inexpensive.

Problem is, States cant really finance things on such a massive cost scale. They can't print money like the federal government can. I can't imagine the tax cost if any state tried to do it that them selves.. I mean, as I laid it out. A full roof of Grid Tie panels. That would be an astronomical cost for a state and put it at a disadvantage to any state that didn't do it.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

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..

Batteries can store energy for situations like that. Some buildings make giant blocks of ice off peak hours, then use them for cooling during the day, instead of higher rate electricity.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

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.

What does this post have to do with my post your quoted. Just out of curiosity.

 

[Lead]

Problem is, States cant really finance things on such a massive cost scale. They can't print money like the federal government can. I can't imagine the tax cost if any state tried to do it that them selves.. I mean, as I laid it out. A full roof of Grid Tie panels. That would be an astronomical cost for a state and put it at a disadvantage to any state that didn't do it.

I wouldn't do it in the sense you are saying. You would likely subsidize the cost rather than just handing them out because I think there may be a massive amount of waste in people who don't want to use them properly. When you subsidize, you still employ the free market with buyers who have incentive to take it over a blanket policy.

There are federal grants for renewables but they usually are portions with matching funding the state promises to fund. I would say the state does shell a decent amount of the cost in these projects but I'm open to seeing information with someone more knowledgeable about it.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

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.

when you pay for all the destruction from natural disasters due to climate change i still don't see how it's cheaper and that cost will continue to go up as time passes.

Hurricane Harvey cost 180 billion dollars. Scientists believe climate change made rainfall and the entire storm far worse.

But if you don't believe in science I don't know what to tell ya

 

[Kframe]

Batteries can store energy for situations like that. Some buildings make giant blocks of ice off peak hours, then use them for cooling during the day, instead of higher rate electricity.

Battery tech sucks and is super expensive. I priced out a off grid system which requires battery storage and the cost of using lead acid batteries was an additional $12000 ontop of the cost of the rest of the system. Not to mention that current deepcycle lead batteries need to be replaced about every 3 years according to the homesteading guys I talked too. That expense adds up if it is every few years.

 

[Kframe]

What does this post have to do with my post your quoted. Just out of curiosity.

You said it was economically feasible. I pointed out why I disagreed. Solve the sun not shining/cloudy day problem and the fact that the wind wont blow all the time problem and I will be fully onboard.

 

[Kframe]

when you pay for all the destruction from natural disasters due to climate change i still don't see how it's cheaper and that cost will continue to go up as time passes.

Hurricane Harvey cost 180 billion dollars. Scientists believe climate change made rainfall and the entire storm far worse.

But if you don't believe in science I don't know what to tell ya

Still does not address the current facts on the ground that currently renewables can not totally replace FF. Not now, and not until we have workable and affordable home scale fuelcell tech and a renewable that works 100% of the time, day or night.

 

[Kframe]

I wouldn't do it in the sense you are saying. You would likely subsidize the cost rather than just handing them out because I think there may be a massive amount of waste in people who don't want to use them properly. When you subsidize, you still employ the free market with buyers who have incentive to take it over a blanket policy.

There are federal grants for renewables but they usually are portions with matching funding the state promises to fund. I would say the state does shell a decent amount of the cost in these projects but I'm open to seeing information with someone more knowledgeable about it.

It wouldn't be handing them out, it would be the .Gov paying the contractor directly. Even if it is a subsidy, right now, solar panels are fucking expensive. Just to buy enough to fill the roof with tiles, and no supporting hardware is over 11k$ even with the state incentive. It would have to be a massive incentive. Also, most people just wont do it, it would have to be forced via law to have any real meaningful effect.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Still does not address the current facts on the ground that currently renewables can not totally replace FF. Not now, and not until we have workable and affordable home scale fuelcell tech and a renewable that works 100% of the time, day or night.

I’m not arguing against that I’m simply asking when you start combining these natural disasters that get worse year by year fossil fuels are not economically viable either.

 

[Liquid Smoke]

when you pay for all the destruction from natural disasters due to climate change i still don't see how it's cheaper and that cost will continue to go up as time passes.

Hurricane Harvey cost 180 billion dollars. Scientists believe climate change made rainfall and the entire storm far worse.

But if you don't believe in science I don't know what to tell ya

So how much extra are you willing to pay to solve the problem? And what are you personally doing right now about it? You're not just virtue signalling with other people's money are you?

 

[HIMBOB]

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.

If not for government fuckery/legislation solar would have smashed fossil fuels by now. It's undeniable with even a modicum of understanding.

Solar is cheaper and produces in line with peak demand aka when energy is most expensive. Fossil fuel generators make their money during the day, solar would replace them. But then at night fossil fuel generators need to provide for the whole market which they wouldn't do because they would lose money during the day and therefore close.

That's fairly simplistic but point is if you think lack of a free market is what keeps renewables around you are dead wrong, in fact you could not be more wrong.

 

[HIMBOB]

So how much extra are you willing to pay to solve the problem? And what are you personally doing right now about it? You're not just virtue signalling with other people's money are you?

Well you are spending your childrens money so please don't you think have a leg to stand on.

You may not believe the facts of the matter but spending a dollar now to save 10 in a decade or two is good policy.

And seeing you don't believe science believe the most simple motivator of all, self interest. No one in the developed world is putting real money into new coal plants. This is not an ethical stance, it's simple profit seeking.

 

[trident]

Fossil fuels ARE necessary

That said, a WWII effort to supplement with renewable energy could cut a deep swath into that necessity.

But don't expect that under this current regime

 

[MASShole]

I had solar panels at my last house. If they weren't so expensive, or were massively subsidized by the government, I'd do it again.

You don't go for a 1:1 replacement of energy due to clouds, seasonal changes, etc. Most solar companies try to do a 120% calculation of energy needs on average, get the amount of panels that will do that, and then you bank your overages in the summer to use during shorter winter days. The energy companies receive your overage, and take it away during the winter. If there was better battery storage technology, that could be wiped out, and someone could be fully off the grid.