California green energy - Oops

[Arcticdude]

Here is the problem. Or should I say problems?.....Until then, we need a solution on countries who have more children than they can grow food for.

I have a solution. Stop sending food, money and medicine to every over populated shithole country around the world.
The problem would solve itself very quickly. And it would save the US tax payers billions of dollars every year.

 

[Kevin L]

Solar is not a renewable resource, the panels fail, the batteries fail and teh electronics fail. It creates huge re-cycling problems. It consumes huge amounts to energy to produce the products and is not cost effective. I like solar as an off grid option but it cannot compete against municipal power costs. I think the true answer will be hydrogen fuel cells. Development has been slow (lack of funding and resistance from oil industry) but it still continues.

I agree 100% with your points and with most of the points indicated by the other posters . . . solar is, indeed, not perfectly renewable, but it's probably more renewable than petroleum.

As for the crookedness of the investment money being shuffled where it shouldn't be . . . well, it is crooked, but that doesn't detract from the idea that renewables should be done.

As for the technological benefits of the Cold War, I agree 100% . . . but to say that the Cold War justified the innovations that came from it is like saying that the medical discoveries that came from the AIDS eidemic means that AIDS is good thing to have around.

Also, what innovations may come from committing to fixing climate change?

Just food for thought.

 

[Kevin L]

I've always had the idea that places like the Great Salt Lake in Utah, and the Dead Sea in Israel would be great places to create renewable electricity.

My idea involves anchored, floating pontoons that each support a solar panel. This electricity is used for electrolysis of salt water, which yields hydrogen for a pipeline that carries itisto where it's needed for either fuel cells (as Urban prep suggests), or an internal combustion engine/generator that supplies electricity.

The Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake haver very little in the way of life, so there would be less impact to plants and animals. Also, both places are in desert environments, so the sunshine would be very reliable.

I don't suppose that this scheme would fix all renewable energy answers, but it would show proof that such things either would (or would not) work.

I imagine Salt Lake City could be completely powered by such a setup, and would show proof of principle.

 

[Arcticdude]

I've always had the idea that places like the Great Salt Lake in Utah, and the Dead Sea in Israel would be great places to create renewable electricity.

My idea involves anchored, floating pontoons that each support a solar panel. This electricity is used for electrolysis of salt water, which yields hydrogen for a pipeline that carries itisto where it's needed for either fuel cells (as Urban prep suggests), or an internal combustion engine/generator that supplies electricity.

The Dead Sea and the Great Salt Lake haver very little in the way of life, so there would be less impact to plants and animals. Also, both places are in desert environments, so the sunshine would be very reliable.

I don't suppose that this scheme would fix all renewable energy answers, but it would show proof that such things either would (or would not) work.

I imagine Salt Lake City could be completely powered by such a setup, and would show proof of principle.

The problem with a lot of these schemes is that most people don't want it in their back yard. I suggest that any new experiments be done back east. Theres lots of sunshine in the South and South East.

 

[DrHenley]

Kevin, when you electrolyze salt water, not only do you get hydrogen and oxygen, you also produce sodium hydroxide (lye) in the water and chlorine gas in the air.

 

[Kevin L]

Kevin, when you electrolyze salt water, not only do you get hydrogen and oxygen, you also produce sodium hydroxide (lye) in the water and chlorine gas in the air.

I know . . . all of which are useful for any number of purposes. Oxygen for welding and medical purposes, and chlorine is used for any number of products . . . as is sodium hydroxide.

This could be a profitable sideline.

 

[Joe SA]

BTW, Obama killed Bush's hydrogen fuel initiative.
Obama kills the hydrogen car by slashing research funding

They will kill anything energy related that does not give em big bucks.

 

[Arcticdude]

They will kill anything energy related that does not give em big bucks.

The possibility of a return on investment is what drives inovation. Until there is a true need for a product, in this case energy, there is little intrest for a company to spend a lot of money developing something when there is no competitive market for it.
We already have massive amounts of clean, reliable and reasonably priced enegy sources available.

 

[Morgan101]

I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.

 

[Brent S]

I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.

I used to be a big pro nuclear fan too. But the impact isn’t small by any means. The waste isn’t easy to solve and the risk shown after Fukushima just aren’t worth it. As far as the government pushing incentives for cleaner energy sources goes I’m all for leaving my kids and grandkids a cleaner place to live. Big for profit companies don’t give a crap about the environment and will only do what makes more profit. Why would they change from a profitable gig without some push from the government? We know that oil is polluting. We also know that we all want and need energy. Easing into new and cleaner ways of producing it just makes sense.

 

[Maverick]

I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.

On the surface, nuclear power seem the best bet until you look what goes on behind all this concrete.

The problem with nuclear energy is it's waste. Each plant creates 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste a year, the waste ends up sitting on site because there is nowhere else to put it according to the DoE. "When we remove fuel from the core after its final usage, we store it in a pool on site, according to the DoE. So, how much lands and waterways do we need to contaminate for this clean power

Then we have the problem such Three Mile Island accident which was a multi layer failure, all nuclear power plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans. Take Washington State famed Hanford Site along the shores of the mighty Columbia River, it's been shut down for years and it was part of a super fund cleanup, all of it's waste is still there buried in multiple safety layers and it's still leaching out. Hanford has onsite 53 million gallons, 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste, nuclear power plants are not clean energy when you take in to account it's waste.

Then we have earthquakes with Fukushima style incident.

 

[Morgan101]

Renewable energy sources aren't nearly as clean as people think, and nothing is free. How are you going to dispose of all those batteries when they go dead? Where are you going to mine all the rare earth elements that are needed? Look up neodymium in China, not that anybody cares what China does to their environment. A "push" from the government is just profit using taxpayer funds. There isn't a company on the planet that does it for philanthropical reasons.

Fukushima should never have been built where it was; another government failure. It isn't the technology that is at fault.

We could debate this until the cows come home, but it is very hard to get to the truth. Addressing the true cost of renewable energy is almost impossible to determine, and nobody wants to discuss the downsides. The best you will hear is that renewable energy is a better alternative in the long run.

 

[Maverick]

Yep, look at pegmatite mining of lithium, all those fancy batteries used in electric cars. No such thing as green energy, green energy is more damaging than natural gas and petroleum.

 

[Arcticdude]

Yep, look at pegmatite mining of lithium, all those fancy batteries used in electric cars. No such thing as green energy, green energy is more damaging than natural gas and petroleum.

Absolutely correct. Many people are always looking for some pipe dream that will magically save the planet and make themselves feel good about "doing something". The answer has been right under our feet all along. The infrastructure is already in place and it's very abundant; oil, gas and coal. Its clean, easy to extract and to transport and reasonably priced. Why do some people continue fighting it. Naivety and gullibility is all I can figure.

 

[Maverick]

Safety in comparison

Deep Water Horizon 1 incident (the worst in US history)
82,000 birds of 102 species; about 6,165 sea turtles; as many as 25,900 marine mammals

Green Energy per year (US only)
Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds, 16,200 to 59,400 birds killed annually by solar farms just in southern California alone

So, everyone picks on natural gas and petroleum, so where is the g'damn outcry regarding green energy, it fxxken pathetic people pushing green energy don't give a rats ### about land destruction and wildlife deaths except when it pertains to oil fxxk em, the US had 44 oil spills since 1969 and not all spills killed anything thats 51 years.

 

[Morgan101]

Why do some people continue fighting it. Naivety and gullibility is all I can figure.

They have an agenda that is just as profit and money driven as fossil fuels. Oil and Gas are mature industries. Awfully tough to crack that lineup. Renewable energy is a brave new world. Who is going to be the next John D. Rockefeller? You have the government giving billions in subsidies, and then passing laws to mandate people are forced to use your product. Why not fight for a bigger piece of the pie?

 

[Brent S]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

Oil is not finite, as long as there are living things on the planet.

 

[Arcticdude]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

Have you ever looked around at all the wind and solar farms that are already out there?? These eyesores are everywhere. These so-called renewables have been tapped for years. The problem is they aren't as reliable or as cheap as oil and gas is. Take the government subsidies away and they'll all shut down tomorrow. They also have a lot more impact on the environment than oil and gas does. Yes, oil and gas could run out some day. But that won't be for at least another thousand years. New oil/gas deposits are being discovered every day. Quit drinking the kool-aid and fighting the best energy source that has ever been discovered. Some day when there's a true need for another source of energy somebody will come up with it.

 

[Arcticdude]

Safety in comparison

Deep Water Horizon 1 incident (the worst in US history)
82,000 birds of 102 species; about 6,165 sea turtles; as many as 25,900 marine mammals

Green Energy per year (US only)
Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds, 16,200 to 59,400 birds killed annually by solar farms just in southern California alone

So, everyone picks on natural gas and petroleum, so where is the g'damn outcry regarding green energy, it fxxken pathetic people pushing green energy don't give a rats ### about land destruction and wildlife deaths except when it pertains to oil fxxk em, the US had 44 oil spills since 1969 and not all spills killed anything thats 51 years.

Another little secret that many people don't know, or chose to ignore, is that there is more oil that naturally seeps out from the ocean floor than has ever been spilled. Eskimos used the natural oil seeps for their lamps since they first stumbled in to the arctic. Many other places around the world still have oil and gas seeping to the surface.