General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEnergy source Poll. please give your input.
11 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
We should switch to Solar and Wind , Biomass and Biofuel as soon as possible. | |
7 (64%) |
|
Keep Nuclear and/or Coal industry. | |
3 (27%) |
|
1 (9%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Renewables encompass a wider array of technologies than just wind and solar. There are also several hydro technologies, biomass, biofuels, and three distinct contributing geothermal technologies.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Sorry. I will change it.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Firstly, renewables are not just "wind and solar"; there's hot rock, large scale hydro-electric, small scale hydro, on shore wind, off shore wind, PV solar, concentrator solar, tidal and wave.
Try
1) Move to renewable sources only as rapidly as possible by reducing consumption
2) Move to renewables as major sources but keep some nuclear and fossil fuel
3) Integrate renewables but keep nuclear and fossil as the major sources
4) Renewables will alway be more expensive stick with nuclear and fossil fuels
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)My speech professor sounded like you. Try .. and this... And this! Lol sorry!!
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)So much for "real options". Switching ASAP is the only reasonable choice on that poll (even if some of the phrasing could be improved).
http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/solar-global-grid-parity-by-2020-111513
^snip^
Solar photovoltaic installations will be cost-competitive with more traditional electricity sources by 2020, according to a report released earlier this week.
Navigant Research, a firm dedicated to researching emerging technology markets for investors, recently released its Solar PV Market Forecast. The report explores the increasing affordability of solar as well as the expiring incentives and subsidies globally.
The market has been around long enough and seen enough growth that researchers now have the data and tools to accurately forecast its growth, Navigant asserts.
Following years of solar PV module oversupply and unsustainable, often artificially low pricing, 2013 is expected to be the year that the global solar PV market begins to stabilize, according to the executive summary.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I was offering suggestions for a more informative poll.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Your 4th choice says "always be more expensive".
I was simply trying to inform you, and any other readers, that it is not reasonable to assume that they will always be more expensive.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)like "more expensive".
And anyway I was only offering suggestions to the OP.
My personal views have been expressed elsewhere but to save you the trouble of searching I'll make it clear that I have always supported renewables and in the past couple of years moved from my original position that nuclear kettles would assist.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)If a few billion dollars blown on the Middle East wars (>$2,000 per second) was spent on Hydrogen storage tech we'd already be independent
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)It is prone to leaks, highly flammable and burns with an invisible flame. I like the idea of converting solar energy into a transportation fuel, but I don't think it would be safe to use, especially if the public were to dispense it into their vehicles as we currently do with gasoline.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)he's using 6Li (lithium-6) H (hydride) for storage and he gets ~400 miles from the tanks you see in the still shot.
EDIT to add: BMW has a hydrogen car now, so does Honda
The BMW Hydrogen 7 is the world's first production-ready hydrogen vehicle. It's already proving itself in the real world too: we're putting 100 of them to the test as loan cars for leading figures from the worlds of culture, politics, business and the media, including Oscar-winning film director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and Erich Sixt, chairman of rental car company Sixt AG.
Real-world experience shows that switching to hydrogen can go hand in hand with the comfort, dynamics and safety you'd expect from a BMW.
http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/technology/efficient_dynamics/phase_2/clean_energy/bmw_hydrogen_7.html
I repeat:
Water is (almost) everywhere- h20
Split the oxygen from the hydrogen in a garage with a battery-hooked to solar
put the gas in a tank
Some R+D would be able to solve this if the US wasn't spending all the time and brains on drones and spying
6Li is used to store hydrogen safely and efficiently. It is also one of the key components in making a thermal-nuclear weapon, but by itself is not dangerous. Because of crony capitalism and ignorant politicians, the US government has banned 6Li and the buying and selling of it. However, the making of 6Li H yourself with your own particle accelerator IS NOT!
Bob uses solar panels to power an H1 generator which produces H1 from H2O (water). For the safe and efficient storage of the dangerous H1, 6Li H must be created with a particle accelerator and used for H1 storage in high compression tanks. With the H1 generator, H1 is forced into the 6Li H tanks through the syringe compression process.
Bob is the owner of of United Nuclear Scientific and Switch2Hydrogen. Jon is the owner of ODEMAX and director of this video.
If we can fly 2 men to the moon we can figure out how to store hydrogen.
And it's everywhere water is.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)My experience with hydrogen is with its use as a coolant in large electrical generators (GE Frame 7FA turbine generators). Hydrogen gas performs much better than air in that application. I'm sure you know the difficulties and precautions applicable to handling hydrogen as H2 - it is dangerous.
I'm unfamiliar with the technology you referenced, but it would be great if it can do what you say at reasonable cost.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)It is a good way to store extra energy so that it is not wasted, but not a reasonable primary energy source.
It will always take more energy to produce the hydrogen than you will get out of it. In rough numbers, you get back about 75% of the energy used. So ~25% is lost, just to store that energy as Hydrogen. If you are going to still use batteries to power electric vehicles, then the extra step of making hydrogen makes little to no sense. If you are going to power the vehicles with hydrogen directly it does make a bit more sense.
Unfortunately, natural gas works just as well as pure hydrogen for this purpose. It is also less expensive and easier to produce. Sure, you can extract the hydrogen from the natural gas, but that makes no sense either. You are just adding a step (again) and releasing the carbon into the atmosphere at a production site somewhere instead of in the vehicle.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)from solar.
Electrolysis can be free.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)You use electricity to separate out hydrogen and use that hydrogen to produce electricity.
That process reduces the net amount of electricity you have.
That also raises the costs, nothing is free.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)darkangel218
(13,985 posts)Do you?
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Whether you like it or not, fracking is here to stay. Our use of natural gas as a fuel to generate power has increased substantially in the last 5 years and natural gas combined cycles are replacing most of the retiring coal fired capacity. All the forecasts I've seen project substantially increased use of gas for the next 25 years.
Sorry, but your poll is ridiculous if you leave out natural gas.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Earthquakes have been caused by it. Ground water has been contaminated by it. Farmers have been outbid for water rights due to it.
It is here now, but that does not mean it will always be here.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)A substantial portion of our energy future is built around fracking and virtually every forecast I've seen projects substantial increases in natural gas usage for at least the next 25 years.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)But projections have solar energy being cost competitive with non-renewable sources (presumably natural gas included) in 2020.
Projections also have the (I hate these terms but they are the ones that are used) white vote falling below 2/3 of the electorate in 2020.
It will be nearly impossible for the (R)s to continue as a national party beyond that point unless they somehow increase their percentage of the non-white vote.
I hope that once these two changes occur, almost simultaneously, that a real energy policy will emerge and Fracking will be greatly curtailed if not phased out.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Lots of Democrats come from oil and gas producing states. Not only that, but the prospect of reducing our trade imbalance by exporting LNG would have appeal on both sides of the aisle.
As far as solar being cost competitive, it likely will be at some point. Cost, however, is not the onmly consideration. Without major breakthroughs in energy storage, grid stability will be a concern as larger and larger amounts of uncontrolled generation are connected to the grid.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)There are hidden costs to burning fossil fuels. Once the price per KWh cost is similar then those hidden costs will actually make fossil fuels more expensive.
As I mentioned above, farmers are being outbid for water rights just so energy companies can frak. Ground water is being polluted from this fraking liquid and earthquakes are being caused because you are displacing a gas with a liquid (not to mention climate change and air pollution).
I think another 6-8 years of this will help sway public opinion, assuming the profits no longer have such an overwhelming influence.
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)The best way would be to suggest what our strategy should be by ordering the various options - but that is not possible iwthout a pretty sophisticated polling tool.
Another question is do we need to get used to using 1/2 to 1/3 of the energy we are using right now in the US.
Bryant
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)What's wrong with using a candle late in the evening. I grew up doing my homework on an oil lamp.
Or the lanterns who are motioned powered.
Use electrical only if absolutely necessary.
Javaman
(62,568 posts)we have solar.
we currently have a $395 energy credit.
our "extra" energy gets distrubed to our immediate neighbors...at a charge by the city, of course.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)I wish people would finally understand how effective Solar power is.
Thank you for doing what you're doing.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)90.5% of US energy usage is nuclear and fossil fuels. Biomass is mostly waste forest products burned by paper mills and cogeneration plants. The next largest source of renewable energy is hydroelectric, but people don't want more rivers dammed.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)like Germany @ 50 north latitude
Large PV power plants in Germany include Senftenberg Solarpark, Finsterwalde Solar Park, Lieberose Photovoltaic Park, Strasskirchen Solar Park, Waldpolenz Solar Park, and Köthen Solar Park.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
Right now drones and big bank bailouts and 24/7/365 spying are Washington DC priorities.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)And note that even with more solar for electrical generation, it doesn't affect the use of fossil fuels for industrial and transportation applications, which are the largest consumers of energy.
solarhydrocan
(551 posts)size of land in sq miles of Germany: 134,623
People seem to always be able to come up with a million reasons why ideas are silly. It's quite a shift from the Kennedy mindset of going to the moon in a decade.
The American people deserve to be dependent on foreign oil, fracking and risky leaky nuclear fission reactors. Because the big warning sounded in the early '70s and since then nothing has been done at all. Neither the (R)'s or the (D)'s have done a GD thing.
And how much energy is spent and has been spent on conquering lands 8000 miles away? Global warming? What a joke. The US military contributes more in 5 minutes to any warming than the entire nation does driving cars and leaving lights on for weeks.
The naysayers and the do nothings have ruled for at least 40 years too long. It's way past time to think outside the boxes and do something. Maybe pull some scientists off the latest drone projects, or repurpose the brains that build huge data centres for an org that spies on the world.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Just be sure your out-of-the box solutions are consistent with physics, chemistry, and economics.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)It's coming...
Bet your ass...Fusion is the way of the future! Once we harness the energy of stars things will change on a massive scale-
Laelth
(32,017 posts)I say keep and expand nuclear, eliminate coal (if we can), continue to support solar (in some areas it works), and eliminate wind (a complete boondoggle).
How's that for a nuanced response?
-Laelth
sakabatou
(42,261 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)read: Fusion.
BainsBane
(53,153 posts)Note that I am exercising great restraint.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)When someone puts it in the zone, there is almost a moral obligation to swing.
BainsBane
(53,153 posts)Let me help you fill in the blanks
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)That's it, I'm not sharing my discovery with YOUUU!!
BainsBane
(53,153 posts)I can handle eating the toast. The vectors, fogetabout it. The real question is, does it work on dogs?