Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Green energy has overtaken total Nuclear energy productionFollow

#1 Aug 27 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
ABC wrote:
worldwide installed capacity of renewable energy has now surpassed that of nuclear power. In fact, global investment in clean energy, driven by enlightened, forward-looking national policies, grew to a record US$243 billion in 2010, up 30 per cent from the previous year.

Indeed, in less than a decade, clean energy has grown from a niche industry to a significant source of trade, investment, manufacturing, and job creation. Since 2004, annual investment in the sector has increased by an impressive 630 per cent. We need to ensure that this encouraging trend continues.


LINKY.

Quote:
By the end of this year, solar modules are expected to cost half as much as they did four years ago. ...Europe continues to lead the world in such investment, attracting US$94.4 billion in 2010, a 25 per cent gain over 2009. Investment in Germany more than doubled, to US$41.2 billion, surpassing the United States to take second place globally.


Edited, Aug 27th 2011 2:54pm by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2 Aug 27 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Natural gas and coal are still the best bet. At least that's what the ads paid for by the natural gas and coal associations tell me.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#3 Aug 27 2011 at 1:00 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Natural gas is actually a really good transition energy source. And it is BRILLIANT when used in CHPs. But it needs to be sourced from deposits other than coal seams, because extracting N.Gas from coal seams totally ***** people, their houses, and farms over when the waste flows back into the water table and aquifers. Deadly Poison, Dude. Flaming tap-water.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#4 Aug 27 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
I was inforned frackking was totally safe. Why would the CEO of a gas company lie to me?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#5 Aug 27 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
So he can frackk you good and hard?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#6 Aug 28 2011 at 8:22 AM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
So he can frackk you good and hard?

I could use a good frackking
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#7 Aug 29 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
***
1,701 posts
Frack you later, Frankenpuss.
____________________________
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.


This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
#8 Aug 29 2011 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Fracking news.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#9 Aug 30 2011 at 10:32 PM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
I'm really disappointed. Where are the people crying that forcing a changeover to sustainable power will cost jobs? Where are the people crying that sustainable power will never provide baseload energy? And before you say it doesn't, bay I direct your enquiries to tidal power, several designs of which have taken off, which go all day every day, except at two perfectly predictable times at slacktide?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#10 Aug 31 2011 at 6:33 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
Avatar
***
1,089 posts
Wind farms are beautiful.
____________________________
SSubZero wrote:

MNK: "OK we're gonna go in and get those items."
WHM: "Did you have a plan?"
MNK: "Plan? I was going to walk through the front door and start punching people."
#11 Aug 31 2011 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
It's good that we're moving away from fossil fuels, but neglecting Nuclear power during the transition is a mistake.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#12 Aug 31 2011 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Quote:
By the end of this year, solar modules are expected to cost half as much as they did four years ago. ...Europe continues to lead the world in such investment, attracting US$94.4 billion in 2010, a 25 per cent gain over 2009. Investment in Germany more than doubled, to US$41.2 billion, surpassing the United States to take second place globally.

If Europe were really so great, they would have stated the values in Euros.

Suck it, Europe.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#13 Aug 31 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm really disappointed. Where are the people crying that forcing a changeover to sustainable power will cost jobs? Where are the people crying that sustainable power will never provide baseload energy? And before you say it doesn't, bay I direct your enquiries to tidal power, several designs of which have taken off, which go all day every day, except at two perfectly predictable times at slacktide?


Because that's never been the argument? The argument has been that these alternative forms of energy are less efficient at producing energy than the forms they're replacing. An article praising the massive amounts of money spent on those alternatives doesn't exactly change that, does it? It just shows how broadly the exact wrong measures of success are used in our media.

Try comparing the total cost per unit of energy for these alternatives. That's where the real story is. But articles like this don't want to tell that side of it. It's all spin.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 31 2011 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Because that's never been the argument? The argument has been that these alternative forms of energy are less efficient at producing energy than the forms they're replacing. An article praising the massive amounts of money spent on those alternatives doesn't exactly change that, does it? It just shows how broadly the exact wrong measures of success are used in our media.
Slavery is the most efficient source of labor. What is your point?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#15 Aug 31 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,646 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
Because that's never been the argument? The argument has been that these alternative forms of energy are less efficient at producing energy than the forms they're replacing. An article praising the massive amounts of money spent on those alternatives doesn't exactly change that, does it? It just shows how broadly the exact wrong measures of success are used in our media.
Slavery is the most efficient source of labor. What is your point?


The point is that we need slaves to run on large hamster wheels to produce energy.

SOLVED.
#16 Aug 31 2011 at 3:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,740 posts
Egyptians had the right idea.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#17 Aug 31 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
What if we put the slaves in slutty clothing, is it 'less bad' to rape them?
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#18 Aug 31 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
What if we put the slaves in slutty clothing, is it 'less bad' to rape them?


As you know first hand, it's not rape to have *** with your own property.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#19 Aug 31 2011 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I think one of the big points of "new" energy is the de-centralization of energy production. Transporting electricity over hundreds of miles with high-voltage lines is, I seem to recall, horribly inefficient and destroys large swathes of the environment, among other problems. Lining homes and other buildings with solar cells, mini wind turbines, etc. requires zero transportation. Large cities, industrial complexes and other constructs of that nature will of course require much more power demands but not nearly as much as also servicing all of the supporting suburbs, outlying towns, smaller cities and the odd hick villages out in the middle of nowhere.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#20 Aug 31 2011 at 8:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,925 posts
Debalic wrote:
I think one of the big points of "new" energy is the de-centralization of energy production.


There are trade-offs in both directions though. One of the pluses of centralization is that the pollution generation portion of the power generation is all in one place where it can be contained as well as possible (and not put right in someone's backyard). We don't know yet what environmental effects having solar panels on every roof and wind turbines in every backyard will have. And we also don't know what'll happen 10-20 years out when all the stuff we're putting on people's roofs and in their backyards break down and end out in a landfill. Centralized systems can be monitored and regulated far better than decentralized ones can.

Quote:
Transporting electricity over hundreds of miles with high-voltage lines is, I seem to recall, horribly inefficient and destroys large swathes of the environment, among other problems.


Actually electricity lines are arguably the most efficient means of transporting power. But the bigger issue is that even with all the solar panels and wind turbines, nearly every house that's hooked to the grid today will be hooked to the grind 10 years from now. Certainly, unless every house in a neighborhood disconnects fully (which isn't really feasible since it's not sunny and/or windy all the time), the parts of our electric grid with the largest impact will remain in place. Most of that stuff is underground anyway. Again, you're replacing wires under the ground in most cases, with solar panels and wind turbines which are above ground. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Quote:
Lining homes and other buildings with solar cells, mini wind turbines, etc. requires zero transportation.


Except getting them to the homes, installing them, and then removing them when they eventually fail or are replaced. And as I pointed out above, you're still going to have wires hooked to your home. The grid will still be in place. You may be drawing less off it, and I absolutely think that's a good direction to go. But it's not a magic bullet either.


Quote:
Large cities, industrial complexes and other constructs of that nature will of course require much more power demands but not nearly as much as also servicing all of the supporting suburbs, outlying towns, smaller cities and the odd hick villages out in the middle of nowhere.



I think a better sell is to look at the cost per unit of energy. That tells us if something is more or less efficient. Solar cells are rapidly getting there. The one unknown is the environmental impact from making and then disposing of the cells themselves. The solar power is renewable but the materials used in the cells are not. Wind isn't even remotely close to cost effective and it's hard to see if there's a path that will ever make it so.


I think that there are lots of good reasons to pursue alternative energy. I just also happen to think that most of the reasons people are sold for using them *aren't*. This causes us to incorrectly evaluate the true value or cost of what we're doing. I'd prefer we chart a course based on good solid science and planning rather than based on the equivalent of ideological advertising.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Sep 01 2011 at 8:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Yes, we all know how you value solid science

Quote:
I think a better sell is to look at the cost per unit of energy. That tells us if something is more or less efficient. Solar cells are rapidly getting there. The one unknown is the environmental impact from making and then disposing of the cells themselves. The solar power is renewable but the materials used in the cells are not. Wind isn't even remotely close to cost effective and it's hard to see if there's a path that will ever make it so.
I don't disagree with this sentiment generally, but I'm not sure I can really take your statement about wind not having a path to become more cost effective seriously. Solar was certainly terribly non cost effective, but by continuing to persue it it became better. You can't evaluate future energy possibilities by how they perform now.

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 9:33am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#22 Sep 01 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:



I think that there are lots of good reasons to pursue alternative energy. I just also happen to think that most of the reasons people are sold for using them *aren't*. This causes us to incorrectly evaluate the true value or cost of what we're doing. I'd prefer we chart a course based on good solid science and planning rather than based on the equivalent of ideological advertising.

You make assumptions you have no right to make, and then make judgement calls and accusations based on those assumptions.

I would like to see us diversify our energy sources for many reasons

1. A diverse market is a healthy competitive market.

2. Regional considerations to efficiency. Solar may be the best choice for those in the desert while wind for those on the coast, etc etc.

3. Cleanliness and healthyness to the over-all environment/ecology.

4. Accessibility and sustainability.

5. Cradle to grave considerations. ie, Currently solar panels produce good clean energy though unreliable. However, the solar panel, once unusable has some disposal issues (platinum). These can be worked out, emissions can be scrubbed, metals can be retained, solventy stuffs can be broke down to inert substances - lets see how willing the industries are to take responsibility. This is where nuclear really takes a hit as we still have no good disposal options for spent fuel.

6. Newer and better stuff can continue to be R&D's IF there is not a monopoly on one energy source as they will tend to stifle anything that might be viable competition.

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 4:45pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Sep 01 2011 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You also have falling water hydro, tidal and geothermal which I suspect make up a good portion of that "renewables are bigger than nuclear" number. If you're waving the eco-flag, you may want to consider the fate of China's rivers (and those of the American West) before cheering too loudly.

Wind power can be effective but you need the right areas for it and those areas aren't in wide supply. Regionally though it can be of use. My personal dream is a mixture of nuclear and natural gas augmented by solar with traditional coal & oil plants filling the holes. Sprinkle with wind and hydro-types as regionally effective.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Sep 01 2011 at 8:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You also have falling water hydro, tidal and geothermal which I suspect make up a good portion of that "renewables are bigger than nuclear" number. If you're waving the eco-flag, you may want to consider the fate of China's rivers (and those of the American West) before cheering too loudly.

Wind power can be effective but you need the right areas for it and those areas aren't in wide supply. Regionally though it can be of use. My personal dream is a mixture of nuclear and natural gas augmented by solar with traditional coal & oil plants filling the holes. Sprinkle with wind and hydro-types as regionally effective.

The Salad Bowl energy approach.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#25 Sep 01 2011 at 9:02 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
When you're thinking about renewables you kind of have to go that way, don't you? A solar panel in Phoenix is worth more than one in Seattle. Our geothermal resources are out west. Many wind-heavy places aren't near anything and not every river or coast is suitable for hydroelectric applications.

I think a realistic approach also requires admitting that even with our best tech in the best places, there's a lot of the US not suitable for a pure renewables approach. So we should look at the best "traditional" sources for energy generation which, in my opinion, are nuclear and natural gas. When clean coal gets more advanced, you can add that as well. From a domestic policy standpoint, almost all of this means US provided energy; get electric or NG cars on the road and we could be well into the black in the energy account book.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Sep 01 2011 at 11:22 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
This was what I was trying to get at - thank you both for elaborating on my idea. Not that we can replace all big power plants with small-scale green energy, but localized alternative sources in appropriate areas can definitely make an impact and lessen the burden on major power plants, not eliminate them.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 73 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (73)