Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Green energy has overtaken total Nuclear energy productionFollow

#1 Aug 27 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 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
Avatar
*****
15,923 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
*****
12,000 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
Avatar
*****
15,923 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
******
43,937 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
Avatar
*****
15,923 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
*****
15,264 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
*****
14,063 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.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#13 Aug 31 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 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
******
30,643 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
******
43,937 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
******
31,748 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
*****
19,980 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
******
31,748 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
*****
16,065 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
*****
16,065 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
*****
19,980 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.
#27 Sep 01 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
I thought the other thing holding back wind and solar is that it's way too variable of a source of power to make up much of a % of the capacity of a grid. Puts extra stress on an outdated grid, needing excess capacity, no efficient way to store excess energy, etc.

Also living in a rain forest means lots of hydro power. Who's got green energy?

Das right.

Smiley: waycool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#28 Sep 01 2011 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
I thought the other thing holding back wind and solar is that it's way too variable of a source of power to make up much of a % of the capacity of a grid. Puts extra stress on an outdated grid, needing excess capacity, no efficient way to store excess energy, etc.

In theory, it would supplement a traditional power plant. The more output from your solar or wind farm, the less the plant works. You can also mitigate this by selecting optimal locations so, while it may not always be sunny (or windy) in a spot, it usually is and you can make some sensible predictions on how much it'll provide.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 01 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
I thought the other thing holding back wind and solar is that it's way too variable of a source of power to make up much of a % of the capacity of a grid. Puts extra stress on an outdated grid, needing excess capacity, no efficient way to store excess energy, etc.

In theory, it would supplement a traditional power plant. The more output from your solar or wind farm, the less the plant works. You can also mitigate this by selecting optimal locations so, while it may not always be sunny (or windy) in a spot, it usually is and you can make some sensible predictions on how much it'll provide.


Right, but I thought all that was the crux of the problem as well. Not that it's not solvable.. There are places in the world that are getting up there in renewable percentages, but the outdated US Power grid isn't really set up to handle a large amount of variable power.

So even as wind/solar gets better, you're still talking about infrastructure replacement regardless. Albeit replacement that is overdue anyway.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Sep 01 2011 at 12:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No arguments here. I made this point back during the last presidential election when they were discussing domestic energy production; namely that neither of them was laying out a serious plan for the infrastructure.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Sep 01 2011 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
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.


It's not really about technological advancement, but basic physics. We've known for decades that solar energy had great potential. What was blocking us was sufficient technology to tap into it efficiently. Thus, as we've advanced the technology, we've advanced our ability to use solar power. This is just not the case with wind though. There's a physical hard limit to the amount of energy the wind has at any given location. Building a more efficient turbine can't increase the energy that's physically present. And in the vast majority of locations that potential value of wind energy is pretty small.

There are also some pretty severe ecological effects from large scale wind farms. This is why I mentioned the whole ideological thing. Sometimes people seem to favor one energy technology over another seemingly purely because someone else labeled it "green". When you start digging into the actual environmental impact of the various technologies though, the green ones often aren't a whole lot less damaging than the non-green ones. It really is sometimes just about an arbitrary label.

As Joph points out, hydro power causes extreme environmental impact. Same deal with tidal/wave power. Wind farms are directly harmful. Solar panels are quite clean at the generation point, but are quite "dirty" at the location where you're building the panels themselves and the landfills the panels ultimately will end up in. The whole "electric versus gas car" issue raises this problem as well btw. Large scale solar power plants are amazingly efficient, however they also cause amazing ecological harm in the immediate area as well. Nuclear is the only power source with nearly zero impact at the generation point (barring an accident of course!), but is dirty at the source and endpoint of the raw material used (and isn't renewable). Coal, of course, is dirty all the way around (relatively speaking), but is incredibly cheap and plentiful here in the US.


There's no magic bullet here. I just think that some people use the phrase "alternative energy" as though the fact that one is an alternative automatically makes it "better". In most cases and in most ways, they aren't though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Sep 01 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That said, a given wind farm is a lot less ecologically harmful than your standard coal strip mine. You can say all modes of generation are "harmful" in their own way but that's like saying all cats are "dangerous". I'd rather get scratched by a tabby than bitten by an ocelot and rather ocelot-bitten than leopard mauled.

Also: Natural gas.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Sep 01 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Elinda wrote:
You make assumptions you have no right to make, and then make judgement calls and accusations based on those assumptions.


I make assumptions you disagree with. I certainly have a right to make them though. Smiley: wink

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

1. A diverse market is a healthy competitive market.


Only if the energy sources are competing on an even footing. And yes, I'm aware that we subsidize energy all the way around and in every direction. My point is that I don't think anyone can look at our current energy market and call it either "healthy" or "competitive".

Quote:
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.


Absolutely true!

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


Yup. But this is the area where I really do believe that the cart sometimes strays well ahead of the horse. People assume that because something is labeled "green", that it must be better. But in most cases, we're trading one form of environmental impact for another. I just believe that it's important to point this out.

Quote:
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.


But this is also where the "perception is reality" bit comes in. Because some energy sources are labeled as clean/green/whatever, people perceive them as better, and thus they actually work to make one cleaner than another. You're correct that we should do this, I just think that quite often we don't do a good job fully considering the costs and benefits of each power source.

Quote:
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.


I think that this is feared more than it happens. We always hear about how the electric car was killed by oil interests. I just don't buy it though. It's not like there's one company selling oil, or one company making cars. There fact that one energy source may dominate a given area doesn't really have anything to do with monopolies and doesn't have the same anti-competitive aspects of a monopoly. It's really a very different thing.

The companies who sell power don't really care how the power is generated. If they can make more money generating power by having people run on giant hamster wheels, that's how they'll do it. There are some inter-industry interactions which may act as blocks for newer sources entering the market, but those factors really don't have nefarious purposes. If an energy source really is cheaper and/or more abundant, companies will fall over themselves to develop it and make a buck off it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Sep 01 2011 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That said, a given wind farm is a lot less ecologically harmful than your standard coal strip mine.


Taking into account total area affected to generate a given amount of total power over time? They're a lot closer than you think. I think what tips it against coal really is the pollution generated when actually burning the coal for power. The total impact of mining, while extreme right at the source, is relatively minor when you consider the total amount of power compared to square acreage of land impacted.


Quote:
You can say all modes of generation are "harmful" in their own way but that's like saying all cats are "dangerous". I'd rather get scratched by a tabby than bitten by an ocelot and rather ocelot-bitten than leopard mauled.


That's a pretty crappy analogy.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Sep 01 2011 at 1:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
They're a lot closer than you think.

Yeah, I'm going to take that with all the credentials it deserves, Mr. Oil Subsidies & Off Shore Drilling/Production Expert Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Sep 01 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're a lot closer than you think.

Yeah, I'm going to take that with all the credentials it deserves, Mr. Oil Subsidies & Off Shore Drilling/Production Expert Smiley: laugh


How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph? How much per square mile of wind farm? Both make the land they're on unusable for anything else, so why not do the math?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Sep 01 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're a lot closer than you think.

Yeah, I'm going to take that with all the credentials it deserves, Mr. Oil Subsidies & Off Shore Drilling/Production Expert Smiley: laugh


How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph? How much per square mile of wind farm? Both make the land they're on unusable for anything else, so why not do the math?


I thought you could do traditional farming around wind turbines? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#38 Sep 01 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're a lot closer than you think.

Yeah, I'm going to take that with all the credentials it deserves, Mr. Oil Subsidies & Off Shore Drilling/Production Expert Smiley: laugh


How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph? How much per square mile of wind farm? Both make the land they're on unusable for anything else, so why not do the math?


I thought you could do traditional farming around wind turbines? Smiley: dubious


Around, but not directly under. You can graze animals under them though. The problem is that they create significant air turbulence, so they're usually put on already cleared land. There are still a lot of studies underway to look into the full impact of large scale implementation of wind turbines. At this time, we really don't know the full impact. We know that they alter temperatures nearby, harm birds if they're in the migratory path (which happens to often be the best places to put wind farms), the turbulence may affect soil quality and definitely limits what sort of plants can grow under them, and they produce noise. In terms of energy return on investment, they're not terrible (like solar and biodiesel are right now), but nowhere near as good as coal or hydro power.


And honestly, we still don't know what the effects are of really large scale implementation over time. You don't get energy for free btw. While this may seem fanciful, every unit of energy transfered to the wind turbine is a unit of energy no longer acting as "wind". We can't even begin to predict what effect that might have. We think of a windmill as "free energy", but nothing is really free.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Sep 01 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph?

Lord knows when you've insisted these things are obvious in the past, you've never failed to make hilarious errors so, again, I'll take your proclamations with all past credibility they deserve.

Nice narrow thinking though Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Sep 01 2011 at 3:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph?

Lord knows when you've insisted these things are obvious in the past, you've never failed to make hilarious errors so, again, I'll take your proclamations with all past credibility they deserve.


So because you've disagreed with me in the past, you'll disagree with me now? Great logic you're using there! Let's not bother to check to see or engage the brain or anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Sep 01 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not "disagreed". Because you have consistently made up "facts" wholesale when discussing energy policy (things that you states are "absolute!" and "certain!") which were then easily disproven time and time and time again removes any credibility from your comments when discussing energy policy today.

By your reasoning, Norm should have run to the encyclopedia to investigate every claim Cliff ever made or else Norm is at fault for laughing off Cliff's remarks.

Quote:
Let's not bother to check to see or engage the brain or anything.

Your sad attempts to shame me are laughably ironic when one considers how rarely you've checked your own facts or enagaged your own brain when making piles of erroneous claims in previous threads. The lack of which on your part is the entire reason for this posting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Sep 01 2011 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They're a lot closer than you think.

Yeah, I'm going to take that with all the credentials it deserves, Mr. Oil Subsidies & Off Shore Drilling/Production Expert Smiley: laugh


How much energy do we get per square mile of strip mine Joph? How much per square mile of wind farm? Both make the land they're on unusable for anything else, so why not do the math?


I thought you could do traditional farming around wind turbines? Smiley: dubious


Around, but not directly under. You can graze animals under them though. The problem is that they create significant air turbulence, so they're usually put on already cleared land. There are still a lot of studies underway to look into the full impact of large scale implementation of wind turbines. At this time, we really don't know the full impact. We know that they alter temperatures nearby, harm birds if they're in the migratory path (which happens to often be the best places to put wind farms), the turbulence may affect soil quality and definitely limits what sort of plants can grow under them, and they produce noise. In terms of energy return on investment, they're not terrible (like solar and biodiesel are right now), but nowhere near as good as coal or hydro power.


And honestly, we still don't know what the effects are of really large scale implementation over time. You don't get energy for free btw. While this may seem fanciful, every unit of energy transfered to the wind turbine is a unit of energy no longer acting as "wind". We can't even begin to predict what effect that might have. We think of a windmill as "free energy", but nothing is really free.


Well okay, they need to stand somewhere. Smiley: rolleyes

I just went with looks close. *shrugs*
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#43 Sep 01 2011 at 3:31 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The turbine in that first link is clearly in the midst of a wheat field. I suppose wheat and turbine bases can't occupy the same space simultaneously though.

Edit: My error; my work monitor kind of sucks. From the home computer I can see the color difference better. That said, the clearing seems to differ from turbine to turbine.

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 5:27pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Sep 01 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not "disagreed". Because you have consistently made up "facts" wholesale when discussing energy policy (things that you states are "absolute!" and "certain!") which were then easily disproven time and time and time again removes any credibility from your comments when discussing energy policy today.


There you go mixing up fact and opinion again. Simply pointing to some source which disagrees with me doesn't "disprove" anything. Nor does it mean that my "facts" are wrong. You do this constantly btw.


Wind power is not a magic bullet and it's not without its problems. All alternatives have problems. I don't understand why you insist on dancing around the core question at hand like this.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Sep 01 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Well okay, they need to stand somewhere. Smiley: rolleyes

I just went with looks close. *shrugs*


The second picture is labeled as a "rendering". No caption on the first, but you can see that the area around the windmills themselves is cleared quite a distance. It's not just the cement base. You may also not realize the scale. Those things are very tall. That's not a tiny area around them that's cleared.

Also, as I've said before we don't know the full effects of windfarms on the surrounding area because large scale use in less remote areas is relatively new. My point is that because it's labeled as "green" a whole lot of people blithely look the other way and don't ask the same questions they'd ask if these were oil wells for example. Perception becomes reality for many people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Sep 01 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, not at all. You have been provably, factually wrong multiple times when discussing energy policy. When discussing ANWR, when discussing off-shore drilling, when discussing oil use, when discussing oil subsidies, when discussing nuclear power.

Quote:
Simply pointing to some source which disagrees with me doesn't "disprove" anything.

Hahahahaha... Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh Yeah, I love it when I link to articles and studies from professional organizations and agencies and you say "Well, that doesn't mean anything! My answer is just obvious! Engage your brain!" You remind me of my ex who once argued that both the summers and winters had longer daylight hours in her hometown than in Chicago. When I pointed out that this was scientifically impossible, she started ranting that I wasn't respecting her "opinion" and her statements had just as much validity and anyone else's.

Quote:
Wind power is not a magic bullet and it's not without its problems.

I never once stated that wind power was perfect or without problems. I don't understand why you insist on making these strawman arguments wheneve--- hahaha... ok, I totally know why you do it. It's still pathetic though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Sep 01 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
Giant wind turbines are only one form that wind power comes in, though. There are smaller, even "micro" wind turbines that can be used. I've seen them on several buildings in the nearest city, and can envision them whirring happily away mounted to buildings in the canyons of, say, NYC or Chicago.
____________________________
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.
#48 Sep 01 2011 at 4:29 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Debalic wrote:
There are smaller, even "micro" wind turbines that can be used. I've seen them on several buildings in the nearest city, and can envision them whirring happily away mounted to buildings in the canyons of, say, NYC or Chicago.
They'd prove their worth the minute a pigeon flew into one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Sep 01 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,872 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Well okay, they need to stand somewhere. Smiley: rolleyes

I just went with looks close. *shrugs*


The second picture is labeled as a "rendering". No caption on the first, but you can see that the area around the windmills themselves is cleared quite a distance. It's not just the cement base. You may also not realize the scale. Those things are very tall. That's not a tiny area around them that's cleared.


Ugh sorry, I thought I cleared out that one. Smiley: frown Google images was giving me a hard time with links, was just pulling them from here. Also I'm assuming it's about 1/4 acre per turbine?

Edit: I should actually read the link from that page... all sorts of juicy number it seems.

Edit2: The wind farm in the pictures had 400MW of capacity and resulted in 71.7 hectares of permanent D.I. area apparently, which includes the roads and such.

I can read. Smiley: grin

I'm also learning you can get up to 2MW from one ton of coal, and you can get up to 1,000 tons of coal per acre from a strip mine back east...
[/i]

Edited, Sep 1st 2011 4:32pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#50 Sep 01 2011 at 4:35 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,980 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
There are smaller, even "micro" wind turbines that can be used. I've seen them on several buildings in the nearest city, and can envision them whirring happily away mounted to buildings in the canyons of, say, NYC or Chicago.
They'd prove their worth the minute a pigeon flew into one.

The result? Pre-plucked urban chickens for the homeless to cook!
____________________________
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.
#51 Sep 01 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,937 posts
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Debalic wrote:
There are smaller, even "micro" wind turbines that can be used. I've seen them on several buildings in the nearest city, and can envision them whirring happily away mounted to buildings in the canyons of, say, NYC or Chicago.
They'd prove their worth the minute a pigeon flew into one.
The result? Pre-plucked urban chickens for the homeless to cook!
More, and clean, energy for the masses, cheap low cost food for the impoverish, and pest control.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 86 All times are in CDT
angrymnk, Calthine, Kavekkk, Poldaran, TirithRR, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (80)