Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on February 07, 2012, 10:17:23 AM
-
Interesting story in the LA Times of all places, on the political agenda bedfellows of environmental NGOs and the renewable power industry.
My own thoughts on solar energy have always been that it is a viable "personal power" source for those who are interested in it. The roof of a house already has a pre-existing footprint to use. Creating a miles square "roof" over open land is simply silly, especially when you can produce a bajillion times more power from a nuclear reactor with 1/100th of the footprint.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-desert-20120205,0,762414,full.story
-
My question is how cheap would alternative energy (solar, wind, etc) be if given half the resources for research that oil exploration has been given? Also how cheap would oil and gas be if not only we were drilling more in this hemisphere but also using these alternative sources more than we are?
-
I agree wmenorr67. I think we discount alternative energy too easily because it isn't easy, isn't cheap, and out of plain obstinance. We can't replace all oil-based functions with other methods, but by replacing the easy uses, we reserve more oil for functions where it's the best or only choice. I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing.
Chris
-
It's simply a matter of the Left poisoning good ideas by association.
-
Our entire way of life - the quailty of our lives depends on cheap energy. That is the backbone of our civilization.
The only practical way forward with cheap, abundent energy into the future is nuclear power.
-
I agree wmenorr67. I think we discount alternative energy too easily because it isn't easy, isn't cheap, and out of plain obstinance. We can't replace all oil-based functions with other methods, but by replacing the easy uses, we reserve more oil for functions where it's the best or only choice. I'm not sure why that's such a bad thing.
Chris
I don't discount alternative energy, I applaud the technical experimentation, especially when privately funded or via things like DARPA created tech. I just don't like to see it forced as a one for one replacement, especially in areas where it's much less efficient than other energy sources. Solar clearly shines (pun intended) as a distributed energy network product, but it's simply not efficient as a large, centralized energy node. That's where stuff like nuclear is the way to go.
-
No disagreement Ben, but the point I was making is where it is a viable replacement to oil/gas solar/wind needs to be used. How much could be saved if solar energy was mainly used to heat water for example?
-
The environmental movement is nothing but a ploy to get the big money into the "right hands." We need cheap energy, but we need cheap de-centralized energy more.
-
"Sacrificing the desert?" Really now?
-
My own thoughts on solar energy have always been that it is a viable "personal power" source for those who are interested in it. The roof of a house already has a pre-existing footprint to use.
I agree. I'm in favor of personal power generation and increased independence of individuals/homesteads.
Unfortunately we have seen increasing instances of local governments not being fond of "off the grid" lifestyles. Can't have people being all independent of government mandated/supported infrastructure. Next thing you know people will be growing their own food and wanting to provide for their own self defense.
-
The environmental movement is nothing but a ploy to get the big money into the "right hands." We need cheap energy, but we need cheap de-centralized energy more.
We have a winner!
Gov't subsidy for fuel ethanol, renewables, etc. is just robbing regular folks to benefit cronies and secure one's own base. Nothing more.
If these alternative energy sources had a snowball's chance in hell of becoming viable and profitable, VCs would be all over them.
-
"Sacrificing the desert?" Really now?
Yes, a whopping 6 square miles and the desert is now ruined!
-
It's simply a matter of the Left poisoning good ideas by association.
The environmental movement is nothing but a ploy to get the big money into the "right hands." We need cheap energy, but we need cheap de-centralized energy more.
Much wisdom here....
-
My question is how cheap would alternative energy (solar, wind, etc) be if given half the resources for research that oil exploration has been given? Also how cheap would oil and gas be if not only we were drilling more in this hemisphere but also using these alternative sources more than we are?
No cheaper than its now. Physics is what is holding it back...solar and wind are low-density energy sources, compared to nuclear and fossil fuels. As it will always be thermodynamically more efficient to operate any power source on a higher density heat engine, distributed systems will always lose out.
Case in point: the current solar cell record is in the mid 40% range...after literally tens of billions in direct research and leveraging technologies developed with hundreds of billions in other areas (semiconductor fab, etc). That efficiency is comparable to a 20 year old combined cycle gas turbine (which are now upwards of 50-60%)
-
I don't think "alternative" sources like wind and solar are any kind of solution.
That said, I used to live in Mohave. I remember the Kramer junction solar array. It did not bother me that they covered miles of desert with solar panels. If someone wants to do that, and make it economically viable, so be it.
But it should not be subsidized by my tax dollars.
-
I live off grid in the desert, many of my post are solar powered.
the panels are on the roof, as are the windmills.
I'm all for pipelines and drilling. As well as alt power.
When they make an electric pickup that can go 500 miles without needing a charge and that can get a charge as quick as filling a tank of gas then I'll buy one, I mean get a ride to the store in one.
Desert rats will quickly destroy ugly monstrosities destroying the desert ecology, both the two legged and 4 legged kind.
-
Our entire way of life - the quality of our lives depends on cheap energy. That is the backbone of our civilization.
To the 2nd power.
-
It's simply a matter of the Left poisoning good ideas by association.
Wow, fistful is completely correct. Call the Mayans, we're screwed for sure now. I grew up in an earthy-crunchy household half the time, in a more APS friendly house the other. The government and the left has pushed the granola agenda so hard as to render it illegitimate. I want to see people off grid, I like personal wind and solar. I don't want my tax dollars to subsidize these on a large scale. But on energy the left talks out of both sides of its mouth and therefore needs to be punched in it. They don't want carbon emissions but oppose nuclear. We can't rape the landscape for coal and hydro-fracking( that occurs several miles below the water table) but if we want to raze mountaintops for wind or trash the desert for solar well okey-dokey!
If someone wants energy independence or reduced carbon emissions but they don't actively support current nuke and nuclear research then they're just a lying POS.