What is the best source of energy in your opinion.

[dhinojosa]

Poll question: What is the best source of energy in your opinion.

What is the best source of energy in your opinion.

When you are evaluating your answer please consider:

• environmental protection during use


• amount of output


• waste and waste handling


• safety


• cost

[jobycom]

1. Jolt! Cola. nt.

[MADem]

58. Yeah, we will feed you a twelve pack

...and put your ass on a bike hooked up to a generator!! There's the power for NYC for a week!!! Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!

[darkenedhalo]

152. I love Jolt!

But they quit selling it here locally a couple years ago. I have no idea why. None of the stores carry it anymore. :-(

[gristy]

2. One nit

Hydrogen is not a "source" of energy. There is not any and never will be any quantity of economically "mine-able" hydrogen on this planet.

[Carolab]

3. Hemp. n/t

[troubleinwinter]

10. ! Interesting and worth looking at. Worked for hundreds of years.

[Carolab]

11. Works for everything. More here.

http://www.thehia.org/faqs/faq7.htm



FUEL
Hemp biomass as a source of fuel is the most under-exploited use of hemp, due to the fact that is economically unfeasible at this time. Hemp stalks can be used in the generation of energy through a process called 'chemurgy" which is a cross between chemicals and energy. The hemp stalk can be converted to a charcoal-like substance through a process called pyrolysis, and used for power generation and to produce industrial feed stocks. Auto giant Henry Ford was a pioneer in the pyrolysis process, and operated a biomass pyrolytic plant at Iron Mountain in Northern Michigan.

Hemp as an auto fuel is another potential use. Almost any biomass material can be converted to create methanol or ethanol, and these fuels burn cleanly with less carbon monoxide and higher octane. In fact, the diesel engine was invented to burn fuel from agricultural waste yet ended up burning unrefined petroleum. Hempseed oil can also be refined to produce a type of hemp biofuel. Woody Harrelson just toured with a diesel bus run on hemp biofuel, and a hempcar is touring this summer, demonstrating the environmental benefits of biofuels.



Read it all. The uses are endless.

[troubleinwinter]

14. Thank you for the link! It is an incredibly valuable resource.

[slor]

109. You can support Hemp right now...

Link with zip code Take Action Now:
<http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?bill=7766161>

[slor]

101. Help support H.R. 3037!

This would legalize Hemp. Link below:

<http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?bill=7766161>

[slor]

108. Support HEMP right NOW!

Link with handy ZIP code Take Action Now:

<http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?bill=7766161>

[Gnostic]

115. Hey genius

This thread is about energy sources. Unless you have invented a way to grow enough hemp plants and convert them all into some super fuel that people can actually light and heat their homes and buildings with, take your incessant hemp chant elsewhere, or contribute something worthwhile to the discussion, and put down the bong.

[slor]

119. Again, I see that you are showing the fact that...

you have no idea about Hemp. I guess you even missed the fact that several posts in this very thread bring up Hemp. And may I ask, how exactly, is your idiotic rant, contributing to the discussion?

[YapiYapo]

133. Bamboo is beter than hemps when it come to biomass.

Bamboo is beter than hemps when it come to biomass,however even with bamboo it won't be enought to cover all the energy we use.

[Gnostic]

153. Nuclear

You call me idiotic when all you seem to be able to do is chant legalize hemp over and over, even in threads where it completely is not relevant. I really think you've been hitting the bong too much. Back AWAY from the pipe....slowly.....

I have been "ranting" for the consideration of alternative energy sources, since it seems a few fine folks here seem to think nuclear for instance is an evil thing. What is evil in my mind is continued dependance on foreign oil that has so obviously bore out awful consequences. So I'm "ranting" for the consideration of that source, and it's continued advancements. You, on the other hand, sit there and yell about hemp over and over as if your mind has become atrophied from too many hooka hits. But knock yourself out dude.

[Carolab]

178. Hey, I started the hemp discussion and I can assure you I'm no pothead.

I just happened to start reading about the many uses of hemp recently, including biodiesel fuel, and it strikes me as a good idea.

And so do THESE people:

http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?cs_party=DEM&billid=7766161&cs_status=C&cs_state=ALL

Cosponsor? Cosponsor Name Cosponsor Date Send Mail
Arizona
Raul Grijalva (D 7th) 06/22/2005
California
George Miller (D 7th) 06/24/2005
Fortney Stark (D 13th) 06/22/2005
Sam Farr (D 17th) 06/22/2005
Massachusetts
Barney Frank (D 4th) 07/12/2005
Washington
Jim McDermott (D 7th) 06/22/2005
Wisconsin
Tammy Baldwin (D 2nd)

[Warren DeMontague]

192. Hey genius

Maybe if you stopped being such a smartass for a minute, you might learn something or another.

Hemp is relevant to the alternative energy discussion for a number of reasons. It's also relevant to any environmental discussion, period. The illegality of the hemp plant is a travesty on a whole messload of levels. You don't need to be a pothead (green tea is my drug of choice, T.Y.V.M.) to be aware that the "war on drugs" is a cruel and destructive sham, and that criminalizing a rapidly renewable, eco-friendly plant that can be used for (to name just a few) paper, food, fabric, medicine, and, yes, fuel is WAY more fuckin' idiotic than any Cheech and Chong movie.

Industrial Grade hemp won't even get you high.

But... maybe you still think a $40 billion-a-year DEA budget aimed mostly at pot is a GOOD idea.

As far as nuclear- fuck, I'm no neo-luddite. But I don't think problems like radioactive waste with a 10, 20, or 100K year half-life are anything to sneeze at, or even to say "we can deal with it later, but lets produce the shit now, maybe stick it in some gallon drums and let our grandkids figure it out" If there were some foolproof way to shoot that crap into the sun, for example, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Trouble is, there's a lot of fools on this planet.

[Carolab]

179. Thanks, I did! n/t

[nonconformist]

18. Agreed. nt

[bullimiami]

4. turkey plant waste into oil and natural gas...amazing stuff

http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Oil-From-Turkey8jun03.htm

changing world technologies.

[porphyrian]

5. Biodiesel.

Check it out: http://www.biodiesel.org/

[titoresque]

6. I've alway's wondered why

we don't have solar panels on top of the light poles on the freeway's? Here in sunny Az I bet we'd conserve a lot.
Any thoughts? Is this possible or am I missing something?

[MADem]

60. We do here in MA

They seem to power the new cameras that take our pictures on the major routes....hmmmm.

[gordontron]

7. ok who said nuclear?

we need to have a little talk about the supply problem with uranium

[T Town Jake]

24. I, for one. But then, I'm educated.

n/t

[gordontron]

32. then you know that we will most likely run out of uranium

within this century, unless something miraculous happens

[CantGetFooledAgain]

111. Can one nuclear energy supporter PLEASE tell me

...what we are supposed to do with the waste?

And while you are at it, please also tell me why I would be incorrect to state that disposal of existing nuclear waste is one of the most serious and insoluble problems facing this age of mankind?

[Gnostic]

116. I will

What are we supposed to do with it? I thought Yucca mountain was perhaps an acceptable repository? Or perhaps another way to recycle or dispose of it should be investigated heavily.

But while you are at it, could you kindly tell me why you think burning fossil fuels to heat your home (or electric, which again is fossil fueled if your local power and light company operates a coal or gas fired plant) is an acceptable alternative? Could you also explain why you are so against such alternative fuel sources when you are sitting comfortable in your eazy chair in front of a power hungry computer you are using to spill nonsense about energy sources? How about that refrigerator in the kitchen? The TV and radios. Oh, let's not forget that CAR or three you have parked out in your ASPHALT DRIVEWAY.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy concerning this issue. I don't see ANYBODY living in a cave, including you. Before we condemn any alternative energy source that may help wean this energy addicted nation off foreign oil, we should all move into a cave. What do you think? Oh wait, don't answer that, it may take an extra watt or two in foreign fossil fuel to supply your computer with the energy to do so.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

145. What makes you think that I'm a fan of fossil fuels??

WTF? I'm desperate for alternative energy. I fully support any clean, renewable energy source, and would happily pay higher taxes to fund any government effort to develop and subsidize these technologies. And I would and will use them as soon as they become available. And, my next car will be a hybrid. Where do you get off accusing me of being a hypocrite??

I don't see nuclear as "alternative energy" as it creates highly toxic waste products that will not be safe for many generations.

So what I think I hear you saying is that shipping nuclear waste by train and truck across the USA to store it in a mountain is a great idea? If it's such a fantastic solution, why do the people in Nevada oppose it so fervently? Would you be happy to have tons of nuclear waste transported into your state and stored there forever?

For me, a viable alternative energy source must be both renewable, and cleaner than fossil fuels. Nuclear fails that test because it produces highly toxic waste.

[Gnostic]

154. hazards

The reason I bring up the hypocrisy word is because most of the people I see who are against nuclear or other alternative sources because of waste or other such concerns are doing so while at the same time not giving up one single modern convenience. You have a nice home, you have vehicles, you have a furnace in that home that keeps you from freezing to death, or an air conditioner that keeps you from burning up. On and on and on. Not one iota of modern creature comforts is given up by your crowd. What really antagonizes me are the "environmentalist" types who bash alternatives like nuclear to no end yet after their "work" day is done they climb into that nifty guzzling SUV to pick up the kiddies from soccer practise and take them back to their half million dollar homes with paved driveways (asphalt is a petroleum product by the way, so jackhammer up all that stuff and revert your driveway back to dirt ok?) and nice big gas/oil fired furnaces/boilers. Cute. Hypocrisy in the extreme.

My point is, foreign fossil fuel has been so disastrous for this country politically and environmentally and NOW economically that ANY alternative would warrant consideration and a better look at rather than continuing down the same path we're on. Far as "safe" fuels go, they are'nt at the point yet where they are economically or even technologically feasible as of yet to power entire metropolises and states and industries, when they are I will be the first to sing halleluja and jump on the bandwagon. But it's not here yet and I still have a job to drive to every morning and a house to heat very soon, and I'll be damned if I'm going to have a dirt driveway or live in a cave. So I refuse to be a, yes, HYPOCRITE. By the way, this is not a safe world. Yes, if it meant that we could tell the Arabs and Neocons to stick their oil up their collective asses I would be all for having a train of nuclear waste run through my neighborhood, as long as reasonable precautions were in place and extreme care was practised. Life is about taking risks, and existence on this planet is not assured to be safe safe safe all the time. If you want to live comfortably in a modern world you must take a few risks from time to time, or you could just be totally safe and find a mountainous cave somewhere to live and hide out in with a plastic bubble inside of it you can curl up in. What I'm trying to say is though I agree that nuclear has a way to go before it becomes safer and less hazardous waste-wise, I will not condemn it off the cuff and just say it's an evil alternative while I'm about ready to go drive my fossil fuel burning car to the grocery store once again that is climate controlled and refrigerated by, yes, fossil fuels. Because, in my mind, dependance on foreign energy sources is driving this country into the toilet financially and making a mockery for years of our foreign policies and contributing to bloody wars and the enrichment of the oil barons. That is where I am seing the hypocrisy sir, no offense intended.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

156. Conservation should be the first step in any energy policy

A few laws, such as mandatory fuel efficiency levels from auto manufacturers, could have drastically reduced this country's dependence on foreign oil. What if the government created tax incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles, or for houses built with solar panels?

There are so many common-sense measures that just aren't being taken, because they will cut into the profits of the oil and gas businesses.

At the same time, alternative energies "aren't there yet" in part because there's been so little incentive to develop them, or because they have been actively suppressed for years. There should have been an alternative energy "Manhattan Project" beginning at least two decades ago. Had that happened, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in right now.

Now, it looks as though this greed, corruption, and short-sightedness has forced us into a situation where we need to supplement our massive foreign oil imports with nuclear energy even though (and this is my original point) it produces waste that remains deadly for thousands of years. Oh, and nuclear plants are great targets for terrorism too.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

174. know of whom you speak.... I don't own a car, by choice, no AC...

I turned off the gas heater in my apt. (I use a space heater when it freezes.) No lights are on unless they are being used.

I would happily move to a cave, but there are none in Portland.

Nuclear scares the shit out of me. I don't want that mess in my backyard, or being transported across country in rail cars to be buried in the ground.

Wind power would be great, if it weren't for the birdies getting chopped up. :(

Biodiesel would be great, but with no fertilizer and pesticides (made from oil) how will we grow enough? :shrug:

We have a lot of work to do, and people need to get along with less.
It is possible, people have been doing it for thousands of years.

[Massacure]

121. Spent nuclear fuel is by no means "waste"

Current reactors in the U.S. are 30+ years old and need their fuel to be rather free of nuclear actinides. However, the EBR-II showed that spent fuel can be bred and reprocessed down to the point where its volume is only a fraction of what it normally would have been and make it so it is less radioactive than the ore that was mined out of the Earth after just 300 years.

[politicat]

167. If you'll tell me what to do with the radioactive wastes generated by coal

Yes, coal.

The average train car of coal is more radioactive than the uranium used to produce the same amount of energy. Remember, coal is old and carbon. It's a great sink for stray electrons. Living near a coal burner plant is more dangerous in terms of radiation than living near a 70s and 80s era nuclear plant.

The majority of radioactive waste in the US comes not from nuclear medicine or nuclear power production plants, but from coal ash. That ash takes up cubic miles of space, rather than the very small footprint of the waste produced by most generators each year. The amount of true nuclear spent fuel produced annually on the earth could be boosted into space and aimed at the sun (where it would not matter); the reason we have to look for Yucca Mountain sites is the coal ash.

There are reactors that use up their fuel far better than the 60s and 70s era reactors that are currently standing - you might want to read up on the Pebble Bed Reactor research ongoing in Europe and South Africa right now.

Finally, we can reuse nuclear waste to produce further energy, but to do so requires a time and intellectual and monetary research investment that we have not been able to make because the budget for nuclear energy research has been cut every year for the past 20. Would it not be better to use this waste for energy than to worry about it for the next 1000 years?


http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

[SidDithers]

136. Got a source for that claim? nt

Sid

[CantGetFooledAgain]

147. It's my opinion

Based on what I have heard from various sources, I happen to believe that the large quantities of highly toxic nuclear waste stored and being created at facilities around the world present a serious problem to future generations. From what I have heard, there are problems with secure long-term storage and transportation of these materials. Maybe I'm wrong about this, and I would welcome any information to the contrary, but it seems intuitively obvious to me that any material that remains highly toxic for thousands of years should simply not be created.

Here's a link that seems to support my position:

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/nuclear/whatawaste/waste_toplevel.html

[wuushew]

158. No one is running out of Uranium 238

which exists in vastly greater quantities than U235. The solution is to bring ever greater numbers of heavy water reactors online. True deuterium is quite expensive but it is neither rare nor is it consumed in the power generation process.

[MADem]

8. I voted for SOLAR but...BIG BUT ...(no snarky comments, mind)

...recognizing that they are now, today, are producing a solar panel that can realize gain under three inches of snow, I realize also that that is not ALL. This is just not an either/or game. We have only just STARTED, and so much MORE is to come!

I would be very interested in seeing wave energy developed along with the fabulous opportunities that WIND offers. Hell, if we could harnass the wind in Congress, we would be energy independent for a thousand goddamn years!

I like them all, and we need to get fucking busy!!! They are not mutually exclusive!!!!

[Pobeka]

20. And we must not forget passive solar for heating.

That's solar too...

[MADem]

23. Concur, totally...

My point, it is ALL GOOD...

[Booster]

39. I voted for solar also, but it better work better than my yard lights

or we'll all be freezing to death in the winter. A firefly puts out more light.

[MADem]

57. Those yard lights in many cases are JIVE

The panel needs to be at an angle to the sun, unless you are in AZ you are not gonna get enough light to power them with their small collectors. From what little I have learned about solar, the ANGLE is key...

Wouldn't you think these cheesy companies would develop yard lights that you can adjust the angle, depending on the time of year? Ah, but most of them are made in China, and they do not give a shit about us....

[rucky]

180. My gut says researchers are even closer than advertised...

which would explain the "live for the moment" attitude of the big-oil corp. gluttons.

[Snotcicles]

9. Solar - - - - this company is doing big things

http://www.ovonic.com/
There symbol is ENER check out what there stock has done in the past three months.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

12. Article on "spray-on solar cells" at National Geographic online

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News
January 14, 2005

Scientists have invented a plastic solar cell that can turn the sun's power into electrical energy, even on a cloudy day. The plastic material uses nanotechnology and contains the first solar cells able to harness the sun's invisible, infrared rays. The breakthrough has led theorists to predict that plastic solar cells could one day become five times more efficient than current solar cell technology.

Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery. The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs.

"The sun that reaches the Earth's surface delivers 10,000 times more energy than we consume," said Ted Sargent, an electrical and computer engineering professor at the University of Toronto. Sargent is one of the inventors of the new plastic material.

"If we could cover 0.1 percent of the Earth's surface with large-area solar cells," he said, "we could in principle replace all of our energy habits with a source of power which is clean and renewable."

(clip...)

[titoresque]

16. wow this is amazing!

Dammit why are we not utilizing this tech.?
Thanks for the post. :hi:

[cynatnite]

13. There was one about using the energy of ocean waves...

has anyone heard of it?

[gordontron]

17. um what kind there are a bunch of different methods n/t

[I_Make_Mistakes]

21. I actually dreamed about harvesting the power of the ocean. I have

no clue about the dam system and the technology used to harvest the power. In my opinion, both solar and oceanic tide power would be more abundant than wind (both occur frequently without any natural stimulation). However, when the wind blows, it really blows.

I chose solar, because it is available, but all three are God given rights!

[Joebert]

15. Solar can be integrated into buildings and homes...

Imagine if you had a couple of panels on your roof. Free water heating.

Run those water pipes through the floor a la radiant heating, free heat.

Instead of shingles, you put in solar shingles. You generate enough during the day to make your house use very little to no grid power.

Power outage barely affects you, if at all.

Solar is fantastic and improving every day. Since the idiots that run my neighborhood can't even handle a small shed in the back yard, they'd explode if I put up solar.

So, I'm moving.


I want to get to the point where I can generate my own power locally, and charge an electric car. I mean, if I only need to go 20 miles or so a day, if I could get it on one battery charge, I'd be set!

Add to this the micro-grid stuff that's starting to get some press, and your neighborhood would be able to share the power everyone generated, even if the grid went down.

So much potential, but already ready as well.

It should be mandatory for 50% of new construction over 2000sq ft. in the southwest to have solar. Start making it something everybody just has. Start with the expensive houses, and make it optional on the smaller ones.

I mean, NM, AZ, CA, CO, UT, NV... Some solar panels on houses could cut the A/C bill significantly.


I will say this. Solar is a piece of the bigger puzzle, wind in Montana, Wyoming, etc. Hydro where it makes sense.

But of all of them, I LOVE SOLAR!

[titoresque]

19. You're right it needs to be mandatory! eom

[Joebert]

22. I just went to the Sustainable Living Fair in Fort Collins, CO...

They talked up the solar. They had exhibitors showing it off, etc.

It was fantastic.

The big thing is if they can figure out how to make the cells out of cheaper silicon. They fix that, and the price falls through the floor.

The ONLY decent thing that happened in the energy bill was a big credit for putting in solar (in specific configurations)

Something like $2000.00 up for a residence can be credited back.

I need to read the whole thing, understand it, and see what I can do in my current house. (or if I have to move)

[Snotcicles]

26. A perfect place for a mass solar transition would be NOLA

every building rebuilt should have solar roofing. The Democrats in Washington should demand it. They could cycle the electrical overflow back into the grid. A win win for all.

[Joebert]

28. They have to rebuild. Do it right, and make their lives easier too!

What is the #1 power draw in many parts of the country? Cooling the house.

Now, why do you have to cool the house? It's hot, the sun is out.

Absorb that sunlight, reduce the amount getting in the house, generate electricity to offset the cost of cooling what does get through.


Look at New York City, most of the buildings have black tar roofs. Replace that with solar, reduce the internal heat, reduce the internal cooling costs, etc.

[Snotcicles]

31. We'er onto something here. n/t

[Snotcicles]

33. Enough solar usage world wide could turn the tide on global warming n/t

[Joebert]

40. Look to the Chinese for an idea on that.

China, Beijing specifically, got the Olympics.

They have some of the world's worst pollution. What was their idea to clean up? They're growing grass on their roofs. The grass leeches the pollution, it cools the house down, everything.

Smart choices, can really make a difference.

Global warming is too far gone. Unfortunately, so many people don't want to hear about it, they get angry.

I don't talk about global warming, because people's minds shut off.

If you talk pollution, and free electricity for 20 years, etc, people do listen.

[MADem]

63. But,...but....but

The CRONIES of CAPITALISM cannot benefit, ergo, in BUSHWORLD, it is just...WRONG!!!

No FREE ENERGY in BushCO!!!

[I_Make_Mistakes]

41. I absolutely agree and have been trying to figure a way to get this

to the powers that be.

[Joebert]

44. Unfortunately, the powers that will control it, won't listen.

The companies who get the contracts to rebuild certainly won't do it.

Habitat for Humanity is going to build a lot of places, but there's no way they can get fancy when so many houses have come down.

If we were in the habit beforehand, it would be implemented naturally as they built.

Wish I wasn't so pessimistic about it, but I don't believe any level of gov't is going to help on this anytime soon. Too much big money at the power company and the connectors. Um, Enron anybody?

[DarkTirade]

183. My parents get that water heating

because of bad design... their water pipes run right under the roof. :) They have to run the water for a minute to let the hot water out before they start a load of cold laundry. Ruined a few sets of clothing before they figured out what was going on. :)

[yurbud]

25. other: solar, wind, ocean hydro, biofuel--depends on location

[I_Make_Mistakes]

29. I think solar is the only one that is universal. Where doesn't the sunshine

It's kinda a joke!

[Joebert]

36. Solar is fantastic in most places.

But Michigan/Wisconsin/Western NY State have very low insolation.

Solar will work there, but you need major batteries and major panels to make up for the cloudcover that they tend to get.

The grid can move all that extra sun that we get in the southwest.

[Massacure]

122. You serious? The grid is old and rickety.

It will only transfer power a few hundred miles.

[yurbud]

150. Oregon in the winter

I grew up there. We have 9 overcast months a year.

I live in California now, and it drives me nuts that they don't have a solar panel over every piece of puckerbrush and tumbleweed in the desert, but I can see how solar by itself would not be enough in the Northwest or upper midwest.

In that part of the country, it rains so much, small scale hydro should be a viable alternative.

[FM Arouet666]

27. Nuclear

Based mainly on output and sustainability. Solar and wind are great for the environment, but are limited to location, and output. I agree, nuclear is atrocious when you factor in safety and waste handling. However, as we run out of fossil fuels, human kind will have to utilize nuclear and hydro as the main energy sources.

Fusion would be the best, little pollution and enormous output, but we are decades or more from this kind of reactor.

Feel free to bash away, it has been a few years since my environmental science courses at Berkeley.

[garybeck]

34. I'm sorry, you are wrong. Nuclear power is not needed at all.

Nuclear energy is simply not needed. Period. Renewable energy sources can supply 100% of our energy needs. I can prove this easily.

The first fact to remember is that 100% of our electricity needs can be powered by photovoltaics. If you do the fairly simple math, it actually comes out to a square, roughly 90 miles X 90 miles. If you cover that square with solar panels in a fairly sunny spot, it would create ALL THE ELECTRICITY WE USE IN THIS ENTIRE NATION.

Manufacturing this many solar panels would spark the ecomony, create jobs, and reduce the price of their production by several fold.

Now tell me why we need nuclear power plants?

[gordontron]

38. not to mention

the states of North and South Dekota, ALONE, could supply our entire country with enough wind energy to have the grid up constantly.

[FM Arouet666]

51. Show me the calculation

Estimates about power production are not made out of thin air. You need to show efficiency, how well is wind energy converted to electricity, impact of weather conditions, area involved etc. Again, from what I recall from the environmental classes is that wind does not have the profile to replace other conventional energy sources. If you have links to show different I would be interested.

[garybeck]

56. OK here it is:

I realize claims like this are not made out of thin air. Wind energy is not part of the equation. I'm just talking about photovoltaics - solar energy.

Here is the calculation:

http://www.solarbus.org/newsletters/nl1.html
see item #3.

Also, to verify that the math is correct, the DOE did a similar study and came to almost the exact same result. They said, and I quote,

"The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules."

you can read their own words here:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

however, my article actually shows the math ;)

peaceout

[Mr_Spock]

141. How much would 17 billion solar panels cost?

And how often do they need to be replaced?

What is the maintenence involved - i.e. keeping dust etc off the panels cleaning/fixing terminations etc...?

What if the desert has a cloudy day? Do we need batteries?

Can we practically distribute DC power to Maine from there? If we have to use massive inverters to make the power into AC so that it can be distributed, what is the efficiency loss?

Did you take into account the massive efficiency losses encountered in the distribution of this power?

There are probably several hundred other questions I could ask if I had time to think about it...

[jpak]

159. Solar works just fine in Maine - no need for imported juice

http://www.solarhouse.com/

There are hundreds (>1000) of off-grid homes in the state and hundreds more with solar hot water heaters and grid-intertied PV systems.

I pass by more solar homes driving to my parent's home in Maine than I do where I live in the Sunshine State.

Also, PV panels utilize sunlight in the UV portion of the solar spectrum - and UV is less influenced by clouds than visible light.

Most PV modules operate at ~60% of name plate output on cloudy days.

Finally batteries are not necessary for all PV applications. Grid intertied systems don't require them and no grid back up is necessary until PV or wind generating capacity exceeds 20-30% of total grid generating capacity.

After that, active load management and back up is required - and backup can be renewable as well (hydro, biomass, biogas etc.).

[gordontron]

148. I didn't make the calculation

its been around the environmental community for quite a while, and I believe it was in the "plant at a crossroads" scientific american. btw I was wrong you have to include texas:

"A U.S. Department of Energy wind resource inventory found that three states -- North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas -- have enough harnessable wind energy to meet electricity needs for the whole country."

[FM Arouet666]

49. Show me a post to this

Photovoltaics have relatively low efficiencies, 12 to 15%, and are also hampered by environmental conditions, such as rain, cloud cover, the day night cycle etc. They also have an enormous cost. Solar is improving, increasing the efficiency will make solar a more viable option. Some of the new cells are approaching 30+%.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/pure-solar-cells.html
http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1999/5000/5410wilt.html

[garybeck]

61. rain is not an issue. you have to learn how solar systems work

the amount of sunlight at the installation site is part of the design of the system. Yes, there is rain and clouds, but that is accounted for when the system is designed.

As far as solar cell efficiency goes, it does not matter how efficient they are. If panels were 1% efficient that would be fine. The limiting factor is cost. Anyone would use 1% efficient panels, if they cost $1 per watt.

As far as cost is concerned, the price of solar panels would come down siginficantly if just the scale of production was increased. In other words, if we used more solar energy, it would cost a lot less. Not only that, it would spark the economy, and create millions of jobs and create tax revenue. It would be a win-win for everyone if we started using solar energy more, NOW, not after we put more research into increasing the efficiency of solar panels.

[FM Arouet666]

78. I am not getting it

If your efficiency was 1%, the area you would need to sustain a useful output would increase, you would run out of room. As for rain and clouds, yes they do matter. The system is designed to buffer out these occurrences to provide an estimated maximum sustainable output. However, if you have an unusually cloudy year your total output will decrease. Buffering occurs with energy storage to smooth out the low output periods. And, as for cost, yes it would be a huge limiting factor, at 1% efficiency the number of cells you would need increases, and at their current cost, you could not offer solar as a reasonable alternative energy source.

[garybeck]

86. let me try to simplify

about the rain:
you are correct in describing the "buffer" system that accounts for the periods of clouds, rain, (and also nighttime darkess, by the way). What I'm saying is all of this is very predictable. Whe people design solar energy sytems, the can predict with acceptable accuracy, how much power it will produce. In places that are more cloudy, yes, the same system will produce less power. That is why, when solar engineers design solar energy systems, half of the equation is accounting for the amount of sunlight and the weather patterns in the area. There is data available, going back 50 years or more, for nearly every city in the country, that allows us to look at averages that are very accurate. When we design the systems, we take all that into account. The rain and clouds are not a problem. They are expected.

about the 1% efficiency:
yes, when efficiency goes down, the amount of area needed to produce the same amount of power goes up. however, space is not a limiting factor in the vast majority of applications. money is. Most residential applications utilize a very small portion of a house's roof to provide the electrical needs of the inhabitants. I can tell you, if there were panels available that were half as efficient as the current technology but cost less per watt, that everyone would use them. you are essentially correct, my point is that efficiency only affects the space required. the bottom line in feasibility is money, not space. there are some applications where space is the limiting factor, but that is the vast minority of applications. the 1% example is an extreme but the point is valid. Just consider this scenario - a panel that is half as efficient as current technology, but costs just $2 per watt (going rate is near $5 per watt). If a panel like this became available, everyone would by it.

[FM Arouet666]

91. Your confirming what I said

For the most part, but I agree, economy of scale would factor into the application. If everyone used the cells, their price would drop and the price per Watt would decrease, making it more viable.

You can estimate the average available area the U.S. home owner uses, the average energy consumption per house hold, and calculate the impact of having solar panels on every U.S. home. Again, you will need to factor into account direct sunlight, and yes I am aware that solar engineers incorporate this into max sustainable output estimations. How accurate was Barstow?

Sadly, we can argue this all night long, but judging from the current administration, nothing will change until we are faced with an obvious disaster. When oil becomes scarce, things will have to change. It is sad that the powers that be, can't see this.

[MADem]

125. Yeah, I was looking at panels and found some that worked through

three inches of snow, I was pretty impressed....

[YapiYapo]

130. Cost is NOT what matter.

What matter is the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested),with your cunning plan we will use more energy to create/transport/install those solar panel than they will produce.

I'm getting tired of people thinking there is a simple and easy answer to the energy crisis.

[NNadir]

62. This is complete nonsense.

Renewable energy sources are sexy. Everybody thinks they are cool. Everybody wants them to be available.

Why then aren't they available? Because they don't work very well. They are extraordinarily expensive and they are unreliable. I note that the amount of solar panels to replace a nuclear power plant would cost over 20 billion dollars and only operate about 30% of the time.

Solar power is rich toys for rich boys. It is not a viable form of energy for the masses.

Moreover solar PV cells are far more dangerous than nuclear power. The external cost of solar power is 3 times larger than the external cost of nuclear. (The measurement is only possible in one country, Germany, since Germany is the only country in the world to have a solar industry large enough to track - and even this is trivial.) The only reason that we don't recognize the environmental cost of solar energy is because the industry is so trivial that it is difficult to see what this cost is.

www.externe.info.

Put another way, the solar industry benefits from mystical hype that derives from the fact that it is nearly useless and therefore none of its putative immunity from environmental risk has been tested.

There is only one option to the complete collapse of our atmosphere: Nuclear energy. As the above link shows, nuclear power consistently has the lowest external cost of any form of energy save wind. It is safer than solar, it is safer than hydro, and it is vastly safer than fossil fuels.

The bullshit about so called "nuclear waste" is pure nonsense as well. No one on the planet has died from the storage of spent fuel and still people - in complete defiance of reality - insist that it is "dangerous."

Air pollution is dangerous. It really kills people every day. Global warming is dangerous. It has killed thousands of people within the last few weeks. So called "nuclear waste" is not.

[Joebert]

66. I don't think that's entirely accurate.

Solar power isn't cheap. Yet. But it makes each individual user self-sufficient. And it is getting much cheaper. No rezoning, no deciding who *HAS* to have the plant nearby, etc.

You still need a grid for nuclear.
You still need security at a nuclear plant.
You still need onsite storage of spent rods.

Solar panels have 20 year warranties. When they wear out, or are damaged, you're going to replace them with far better.

Solar doesn't require constant monitoring, safety, and the ever present potential of something going wrong enough to kill the neighborhood.

Rather than put all the eggs into the few baskets of nuclear plants, companies like Enron moving power back and forth, etc, I'd rather have the power on my roof.

[garybeck]

71. that is not true.

many PV manufacturers, including Solarex right here in the USA uses their own PV panels to produce the electricity to manufacture their product.

solar panels are extremely reliable.

and no, it is not a toy for rich boys. it actually is the answer to our economic woes. going with renewables would spark our economy. check out http://www.apolloalliance.org/

[Dover]

114. Recommended reading: The Sun Betrayed

Excellent research describing just what happened to the solar promise. Nothing 'mystical' about it.

[Gnostic]

157. Awesome post

Succinct, and very intelligent. Great points as well. And agreed 100%

[FM Arouet666]

76. Try this

The link below concerns the new plant proposed to replace the barstow solar plant. It claims a sustained output of 500 MW using an area of 4500 acres or 7 sq miles. This new plant is supposed to supply more solar energy than all the other plants combined. Now, 90x90 miles is 8100 sq mi. Divided by 7 gives the number of new solar plants we need, that is 1157 plants with an output of 500MW, you get 578,571 Mw or 578 Gigawatts. The U.S consumption is approximately 2.27 to 3.3 Terawatts, or 2,270 to 3,300 Gigawatts. So you really need 4 to 6 times the number you estimated using the area of 90x90 miles. A total of about 5000 solar plants. However, these are idealized power outputs, assuming a certain amount of sunlight per year in the given area. Extending solar across the country will not come close to the outputs you get in sunny areas like Barstow. Compare this to a nuclear reactor with 600 to 1200 MW outputs, not hampered by environmental conditions, and you see why nuclear is currently dominant.

I agree, solar is cleaner, and solar is gaining due to an increase in efficiency of the solar cell, but it has a ways to go before it replaces nuclear.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/11236823786632.html
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/KatyHo.shtml

[garybeck]

88. did you look at my math? I stand behind it. and so does the DOE.

it's in a table so I can't paste it here. the numbers are correct.

please read #3 at the link below:

http://www.solarbus.org/newsletters/nl1.html


your math has one essential error. you are talking watts, gigawatts, and terrwatts. these are all RATES of energy use, not QUANTITY of energy. to do any of this math, you have to talk in terms of quantity, not rate. on the scale we are talking this is typically measured in Billions of Killowat-hours. here are the DOE's figures on energy consumption:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html

[FM Arouet666]

97. You might be right

I was trying to estimate things based on the news article regarding the new solar plant. It lists 500 MW/h, but if you calculate a yearly output, it is enormous. I figured that the author meant 500 MWe, total output, akin to a nuclear reactor, which has 600 to 1200 MWe.

With regard to your number, I am concerned about actual output vs estimated or idealized output. Using numbers from a real plant, such as Barstow or the new proposed plant, should yield a more accurate estimation.

You can do the math and prove me wrong, and I hope you do, but I am getting too tired for math.

[garybeck]

103. estimated output

is based on real numbers, based on average number of Peak Sun Hours per day in various areas. they are real numbers. I know what I'm talking about!

[FM Arouet666]

100. But you might be wrong

The DOE estimate of U.S. power consumption is based on total amount of energy used, in BTU, converted to Joules and divided by the number of seconds in a year. Hence, the Watt or in the quoted link the Tera watt. Which is energy over time, or rate of consumption, but it doesn't matter if you are dealing with rate vs total amount, in Joules, as long as all the units are the same. Sure you could convert all the MW values to joules, but you would get the same area and number of plants.

The only assumption I made was that the quoted solar plant was 500 MWe and not 500 MW/h as mentioned in the article, which makes no sense. Given that a nuclear plant is 600-1200 MWe, then a safe assumption is that they are quoting a 500 MWe plant.

Again, the only difference with your article is that I am using a real world solar plant to estimate the area and number of plants.

[garybeck]

105. you are talking about energy used.

i am talking about electricity used. there is a big difference. my numbers are for eletricity use. energy or power use includes fuel burned in vehicles and other forms of energy besides electricity. that is a whole 'nuther discussion, but the same points are still valid. renewable energy can supply all our power needs. the solution involves all the renewable energy sources - solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal,.... there is not one single answer. I gotta get some zzz's. take care.

[FM Arouet666]

110. Yes, I just caught the error, too

The link I have is total energy used, not just electrical. A whole different issue. Way too late to be doing these calculations. I agree ZZZZzzzz time. Fun jousting with you, I offer you another lance. Sleep for now.....

[leeroysphitz]

79. You are wrong. Do the math.

No means of collecting energy comes without an environmental "footprint", with current technology there aren't enough rooftops in the world to produce the power we need for future growth let alone simple survival for a population in the billions that continues to increase as if all resources were infinite, never mind the staggering jump in price per kilowatt hour (which I personally would be happy to live with if it meant a clean source of abundant energy). But even if it were economically possible to produce an adequate number of cells in the time we have left before we run out of cheap oil you must understand just how much SPACE would be required to accommodate them. Do the math and ask yourself just how many species of plants and animals unable to cope with having their SUNLIGHT blocked forever you'd be willing to sacrifice for solar power.

[garybeck]

87. I did do the math. did you?

I provided the link to the math, which is corroborated by the DOE's analysis.

the math:
http://www.solarbus.org/solar.shtml

DOE's statement:
http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html#1

It is a mathematical fact: a square 100mi x 100mi, or roughly just 1/5th the state of arizona could provide 100% of our electrical needs. i invite you to look a the math. try the calculation yourself and see what you come up with.

your statement

"there aren't enough rooftops in the world to produce the power we need..."

is based on what math? show me the math. do you have any idea how much power we use as a nation? as a planet? maybe you should do the math. I've shown you my math. Where is yours?

[deadcenter]

149. How long and

how much will it cost to build a solar plant that covers 10,000 square miles? Just trying to imagine what such a plant would look like in terms of ground coverage is mind boggling. Not to mention the Environmental Impace Statement for such a project would require a forklift to move.

I'm for more solar, one of the many things I don't understand about Arizona is why there isn't more use of something as simple as passive solar hot water heaters. If I owned rather than rented, I'd be using one now.

Looks to me like nuclear is best currently available form of production. Run by professionals, it is remarkably safe, take a look at our navy's nuclear history.

[Massacure]

123. I did a post on the cost of this in Environment and Energy.

You should search for it. It would cost about $10 trillion dollars, and that isn't even starting with batteries.

[YapiYapo]

128. How do you build the photovoltaics ?

Photovoltaics panels need oil to be build and lot of it.If you take in account the energy needed to produce ,transport ,install them , the net energy gain is way worse than nuclear,coal,oil etc.

Do you know what the EROEI of photovoltaics is ?

Biggest PV power plant in the world : 6.3 MW Mühlhausen, Germany 57.600 solar modules
A Superphénix,nuclear reactor = 1200 MW

What source of electricity will you use at night ?

How will you power car with solar panel ?

[Gnostic]

117. No bashing here

I agree 110% and it's refreshing actually to see an opinion on this here that is'nt dripping with hypocrisy.

[garybeck]

30. Hydrogen is not a source of energy

it takes energy to make hydrogen. hydrogen is only a storage for energy.

to answer your question, there is no single best source of energy. the answer to our energy problems lies in a balanced approach. But it can definitely be done with all renewables. Nuclear is not needed.

[dhinojosa]

107. All energy needs energy

Whether you mine it, gather it, manufacture it, split it, etc., you have to commit energy in order to get to it.

Plus it is the first element in the periodic table of elements. How "source" can you get?

[YapiYapo]

132. Where do you find pure hydrogen ?

Fact, you can't as opposite to oil, you have to make it.Which at the moment cost more energy than it take to produce hydrogen.

All that matter is EROEI (energy returned on energy invested), to give you an example, when we first started to extract oil , 1 barrel of oil returned 50 barrel, now it's 1 for 10 in Saudi Arabia, 1 barrel for 3 in USA.Simply put to be able to use hydrogen we will need a tremendous amount of energy,those amount of energy won't be available before we succeed in fusion power.

[darkenedhalo]

35. solar

From what Ive read we have made some big strides in photo voltaic cells lately. Its solid state, its free and will last at least billions of years. Sounds perfect to me.

[garybeck]

37. Solar cells have not made any major technical advances in the last 20 yrs

However, they are fine just the way they are. They have come down in price a bit. People think we need them to improve their efficiency or something, before they become viable, but we don't.

[Joebert]

42. Solar IS improving every day, and is better than 20 years ago...

But it has gotten better lately. And some very good stuff is around the corner.

I *think* it was U. Toronto that came up with a way to stimulate cells with infrared light as well as visible, increasing their efficiency.

While solar cells may not have improved, the charge controllers, inverters, and options to grid-tie, and create micro-grids are changing every month.

Add to all this Energy Star appliances, CF bulbs, and you don't need to use as much power as we used to.

[Snotcicles]

47. Here is a good example

http://www.ovonic.com/res/2_2_thin_film/thin_film_phot.htm

[garybeck]

67. Thin film technology has been around for decades.

Their development is an innovation in the production process. The real question is whether or not it will mean lower prices. I hope so! But solar energy is viable now, with current technology!

[FM Arouet666]

85. It should be easy enough to support

Look at the Barstow plant, the largest in the U.S. What is it's real world sustained power output. Using the cost of the plant, area of the plant, you can then extrapolate the number of plants needed, and total cost, based on the the U.S. total energy consumption. However, you will need to consider correction factors for sustainable output in areas with less annual sunlight. All the data is available on the net, what is the estimation? You make a lot of claims with little data. College environmental classes instruct you in making these calculations so that claims can be judged for merit. You may be correct, I am just too tired to pursue it anymore tonight.

[garybeck]

89. I gave you the link to the math twice, have you not checked it? n/t

[garybeck]

64. people, we must realize

first, I'm talking about solar panels that you can actually buy. the truth is there has been very little change in what is available in the last 20 years. Believe me. I know. I've been selling the stuff for almost that long.

OK, now in reference to all the reserach and new technology, that's great. but I've seen and read hundreds of articles about breakthroughs in the lab, new inventions, etc... and it just doesn't happen. maybe it just takes a long time, and it will in the future, and that's fine. that would be great.

my point is that the solar panels we have now are great, just the way they are. we have to stop thinking about solar energy as being an option in the future, after they make the cells more efficient, or a new technology is developed. solar energy works now. it is cost effective in many areas and applications. if more people used it, the cost would come down more. if utility companies and the government ever got serious about using renewables, it would be the biggest boom to our ecomony since the invention of the transistor. and that's with today's technology.

[Joebert]

68. I completely agree.

It's good now, no need to wait for what's better.

But the whole solution hasn't been stagnant, the charge controllers, batteries, etc, they've improved.

The solution is very good. Now.

[FM Arouet666]

54. Actually they have.

I just posted a few links above. In late nineties they were 12-15%, with 14% quoted as the minimum for solar to be economically viable. Oops, a sin, but a fact. If it is not economically viable you will not see it used. However, I spotted some recent posts showing new cells with 30%, but they are new and very expensive. Solar does have potential, but is still limited due to cost and non-continuous energy production.

[Joebert]

55. The big change will be when they can do it with cheap silicon

instead of microprocessor grade silicon.

Right now there is a shortage of good cells because the solar industry has to bid against the chip industry.

But we're getting there, and it's fantastic.

[Snotcicles]

70. deleted second thoughts

[Joebert]

73. Not sure what you mean there. Am I WAY off on my above post?

[garybeck]

90. Texas Intruments announced over 10 years ago that they discovered

a way to use metal grade silicon instead of crystalline. they started building a manufacturing plant to make panels. they stopped half way through. i've tried to get them to explain why but they have no answer.

[garybeck]

74. that is ludicrous

viability is not based on efficiency. it is based on price. if anyone says viability is reached at a certain cell efficiency, they don't know what they're talking about. If the cell is 50% efficient, it would not be viable if it cost $500 per watt, would it? Of course not.

On the other hand, if it were 1% efficient, and $1 per watt, it would be extremely viable.

the only factor in viability is cost. Efficiency is unrelated.

[FM Arouet666]

84. No, they are related

Efficiency translates into the number of cells you need, and thus the area of solar gathering you need. There is a limited number of areas in the U.S. which offer enough yearly sustained direct sunlight to make solar viable. If you had a cell with 50% efficiency, you could concentrate plants in high yield areas and produce electricity more efficiently than if you had cells with 1% efficiency. Yes, cost is key, if the 50% cell was 1,000 times the cost of the 1% cell, you would have a problem. However, factoring into account that the 1% cell would require a much larger area, you then run into the other problem with solar, sun light availability.

I don't claim to be an expert, just posted on whim, but I did review a lot of solar energy sites, most of which quote efficiency, area, sun light availability, and yes, cost of the cell. All necessary to construct a model for solar to replace other energy sources.

[garybeck]

94. there are always limitations in every variable

of course a .0000001 % efficient panel wouldn't be very practical even if it were nearly free.

but my example of a 1% efficient panel at half the cost per watt is within the realm of feasibility. Since you commented you are not an expert, I will throw in that I am. I've been designing, selling, writing about and teaching about solar energy for over 15 years.

If you don't like the 1% example, that's fine. It really was just thrown in there as an extreme to make a point. Here is a more realistic example. Just take the current technology and compare it to a panel that is half as efficient but costs half as much per watt. Sure it would take up twice as much room but the fact that it costs half as much is really the final say. Yes there are limitations, but within a certain range of reasonable parameters, the cost, in terms of dollars per watt, is the deciding factor, when comparing solar technologies.

when comparing different sources of energy, you have to talk in watt-hours, because this is quantity of energy.

peace

[LeftyMom]

43. Depends on the area

Around here hydro and wind are effective options- although large-scale hydro isn't the greenest thing in the universe we have to dam for flood control and water supply here anyhow. We have small-scale solar and biomass in the area too.

In other places other methods might work better, depends on the wtather and lay of the land and what resources are in the area.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

46. Check out my post in state forums New Jersey. It starts with

Hey NJ'ers did you know that we have a really good solar... Rest to be read. We are not the sunniest state, but only 1 of 3 states that actually pay most of the installation costs of solar (and apparently wind technology), please follow up and report to your reps. I bumped, the post, hoping you all would jump on the wagon, no bites then but maybe now!

[LeftyMom]

59. I'll check it out

I don't know what California's state-wide solar policy is like, but our local utility, SMUD, is really great about helping with energy-efficiency upgrades and such and I know they help with the cost of solar projects. I don't know too much about the details because I rent. I'm thinking of putting PV in when we move, but we'll probably be another state and it looks like they're not as helpful on the solar front.

[whistle]

45. Tesla's free energy receiver.....

<snip>
Free Energy Receiver
chapter 9

For starters, think of this as a solar-electric panel. Tesla's invention is very different, but the closest thing to it in conventional technology is in photovoltaics. One radical difference is that conventional solar-electric panels consist of a substrate coated with crystalline silicon; the latest use amorphous silicon. Conventional solar panels are expensive, and, whatever the coating, they are manufactured by esoteric processes. But Tesla's „solar panel" is just a shiny metal plate with a transparent coating of some insulating material which today could be a spray plastic. Stick one of these antenna-like panels up in the air, the higher the better, and wire it to one side of a capacitor, the other going to a good earth ground. Now the energy from the sun is charging that capacitor. Connect across the capacitor some sort of switching device so that it can be discharged at rhythmic intervals, and you have an electric output. Tesla´s patent is telling us that it is that simple to get electric energy. The bigger the area of the insulated plate, the more energy you get.

But this is more than a 'solar panel" because it does not necessarily need sunshine to operate. It also produces power at night
Of course, this is impossible according to official science. For this reason, you could not get a patent on such an invention today. Many an inventor has learned this the hard way. Tesla had his problems with the patent examiners, but today's free-energy inventor has it much tougher. At the time of this writing, the U. S. Patent Office is headed by a Reagan appointee who came to the office straight from a top executive position with Phillips Petroleum.

<more>
<link> http://www.t0.or.at/tesla/tesfreee.htm

[Silverhair]

163. Junk science.

If this garbage actually worked, some country, during the last 100 years would have gone to it completely. Nobody has because it doesn't work.

Of course, for the believer in this garbage, the reason we don't see it everywhere is always some paranoid conspiracy theory.

[buzzard]

48. Interesting concept on windfarms in the sky.

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/ae7bf79cab965010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

"Wind power is the world’s fastest-growing energy source. Existing capacity worldwide is approaching 50,000 megawatts—roughly equivalent to that of 50 nuclear power plants. But there are problems with this seemingly benign wellspring of pollution-free electricity. Aside from being noisy, the whirling turbines interfere with television reception and are generally considered terrestrial eyesores rendered useless when the wind stops. Bryan Roberts, an engineer at the University of Technology in Sydney, Australia, has a solution: Instead of erecting wind turbines on the ground, float them in the jet stream, a screamingly fast current of air that circles the globe, fluctuating between altitudes of 15,000 and 45,000 feet.
Roberts has partnered with three other engineers to form Sky WindPower, a San Diego, California–based start-up that is developing something it calls a Flying Electric Generator (FEG). As Roberts envisions it, huge squadrons of airborne FEGs will hover in the jet stream like giant kites. Winds of up to 200 miles an hour will spin rotors on the FEGs, generating an electrical current that’s transmitted along superstrong tethers to ground stations linked to the utility grid. “You might have 600 of them, each producing 20 megawatts,” he says. “They could generate enough power for two Chicago-size cities.”

In the next two years, Sky WindPower intends to build a working 200-kilowatt version and fly it in a remote area in the U.S., provided the Federal Aviation Administration will grant the com-pany permission to do so. “We’ve done all the designs, sizing, weights and costs,” Roberts says. “Now we just need $4 million to build the prototype.”

[gordontron]

50. thanks for posting that

I've never heard about it. seems a bit risky though if they somehow come out of the jet stream and crash into a city.... cool idea though

[buzzard]

53. I have read other articles about it but can't locate them now it does

seem to be something worth pursuing if all the wrinkles can be worked out.

[Tactical Progressive]

52. Nuclear is the only source

that can provide the levels of energy we need with the energy distribution system we have now in an economically feasible timeframe.

Used in conjunction with serious development of ethanol-solar-wind-tidal etc, and conservation of course, we might be able to survive the historical stupidity of our spendthrift consumption. If any of the others, or ones we haven't seen yet, prove viable on the huge scale we consume at, we can minimize the need for nuclear and maybe even phase it out later.

But for now, we have to start commissioning safe, clean reactors.

[gordontron]

65. again:

unless something miraculous happens we will run out of uranium within this century. Given the amount of uranium left in warheads and in the ground, it is unlikely that nuclear is a viable energy source.

[Tactical Progressive]

72. Yes true

and that pretty much makes my point. This century is going to be a bitch to get through energy-wise and we'll need time to develop viable alternatives and implement the multi-trillion dollar distribution systems we're going to need. I posed nuclear as exactly that kind of carry-over solution.

[gordontron]

80. why build plants when we will run out of uranium in about 50 years of so?

I highly recommend the scientific american that came out recently called "plant at a cross roads" or something to that effect.

[Xithras]

99. Are you forgetting about breeder reactors?

Modern nuclear technology makes it possible to generate our own nuclear fuel

[jpak]

160. Breeders have been under development for nearly 60 years

No one has built one that works reliably or cheaply or safely.

No one.

All of them have had sodium fires and several suffered meltdowns.

They just don't work.

[Gnostic]

181. Not true

Your right about breeder reactors being around awhile, however your quite wrong about their feasibility. France has a large breeder reactor program as an example. There are also, by the way, other technologies as well, and just as old, that enable the elimination of enriched uranium at all, though they rely on the equally costly "heavy water".

[jpak]

186. France's "large" breeder program is being dismantled

They closed their experimental Phenix breeder reactor several years ago - it's only used now for limited low power irradiation experiments.

Their Superphenix reactor suffered a roof collapse, serious sodium fires and is being decommissioned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix

Japan's Monju breeder also suffered a serious sodium fire and is still undergoing repairs.

In the US, EBR-1, the Teleodyne experimental reactor and Fermi-1 suffered sodium fires and core meltdowns.

Russia has abandoned its breeder program (due to maintenance costs from repeated sodium fires). Germany and the UK have abandoned their breeder programs as well.

Kazakhstan is desperately seeking international aid to decommission its defunct BN-350 breeder reactor.

The bottom line - the fucking things do not work...

[Gnostic]

191. Well OK

I don't really have time to do serious research on this issue. And I'm certainly no expert. So I'll accept what you say at face value.

I still have a hard time believing that just because of the potential future scarcity of natural uranium that nuclear should not be considred an option. As has been said in this thread before by others, nuclear may just be the thing to carry us over to the time when solar, hydro or other forms of power generation advance to the point they are actually feasible on the massive scales needed. It is certainly IMO a better, safer, cleaner and more promising technology than what we're using now.

But noooo. 3 mile island had to happen, and the hysteria inducing media had to make a mind-blow out of it along with the environmentalists who stil, seem to enjoy driving their nifty SUV's with the central air conditioner running at the McMansion.

[garybeck]

75. no, you are wrong

a square 100 miles X 100 miles covered with solar electric panels with todays technology could power the entire country. we don't need nuclear power at all.

[rman]

96. that can provide the levels of energy we need with the energy inefficiency

we have - the wasteful way in which we use with energy.

[Fox Mulder]

69. Solar all the way.

The sun is going to be around for another 4 billion years or so, so why not use it?

I also love the idea of wind generators. Half of my college campus is run by a single wind turbine.

[I_Make_Mistakes]

77. The sun is giving us skin cancer at alarming rates, it is time to

listen to natures cries.

My sister and I, tan queens in our younger years, had a serious talk about 10 years ago. I had a greater tan by the beginning of July (working and hitting the pool on weekends), than I did when I was a kid at the pool from 8:ooam to 5:00 thru 9:00pm. all summer. We both agreed, something was really going on, in 1995!

You either pay attention to that which is happening or not.

[baron j]

81. Geothermal.

Though you have to live in places like Iceland, over volcanic activity.

[Xithras]

102. Not true

Geothermal power can theoretically be built anywhere. There are experimental geothermal designs that feed cold water into extremely deep wells. The heat at the bottom of the wells boils the introduced water (which is fed entirely by gravity), producing power within a locally contained generator. That electricity can then be fed back up to the surface long the same pipes that provide the water.

It's expensive, but it works anywhere that the crust is relatively thin (along coasts and fault lines primarily).

[MuseRider]

168. Using it in Kansas.

It works very well. We are getting ready to build a system for our new house. We are running the pipes through the pond. With the extremes in temperature figured we should be able to use just a tiny amount of electricity to heat and cool the house. It will pay for itself in 6 years. We will add solar later.

[baron j]

82. To add to the solar power discussion, solar panels could be

placed all along the wasted space along highways through the country, and the world, and many people could be employed to look after them.

[Joebert]

83. All those easements on both sides of the road, eh?

In Colorado, they sold space for a fiberoptic company to run networks up and down that space.

What would be wild, but expensive, would be to shade the road by putting the roads under the solar arrays.

Keep the rain, snow, and such off the cars.

That would be very weird, but would generate a bunch o' power.

[BlueIris]

92. You forgot Boron.

Yes, I realize that Boron is not considered a "clean" source of energy. But, to quote a great American, we wouldn't have to go to war to get it.

[Rhiannon12866]

93. Bill Clinton said that the solar panels on his library

have cut energy usage by 34%. And that's one big building!:wow:

[I_Make_Mistakes]

95. NJ has a really good solar reimbursement program. 70% reduction

in utility bills and approx. 2/3'rd reimbursement for the trouble. Check out the NJ Forum. Then talk to your rep's about it!

[Rhiannon12866]

151. Thanks. And wow! That IS impressive!

But, though I agree with you, I kind of cringed when I made this post. My late father was head of the utility in this part of NY State and he was definitely opposed to solar, said it was unreliable. He preferred nuclear, yikes! And I got the same feeling in the pit of my stomach when I e-mailed my senators, opposing nuclear power plants. I just wish that my Dad was still around and could see how far the technology has come...:-)

And if by my rep, you mean my congressman, he's a Republican. He's usually pretty enlightened when it comes to environmental issues, but recently reversed himself on drilling in ANWAR. Said he'd closely monitor the situation to make sure that the environment wasn't harmed. Yeah, right...:-(

[Laelth]

98. I voted wind.

Yes, the wind mills are an eyesore; they make some noise, and they're expensive to build, but telephone poles are an eyesore too, streets and highways create a lot of noise, and cars are expensive. So what? We can and will get used to having wind mills on top of every house and on top of many hills in the same way we're accustomed to telephone poles and vehicle noise. Plus, you may have noticed that 7 of the top 10 companies in the US either produces cars or fuel for cars. Wouldn't it be great if 7 of the 10 top companies in the US produced either wind mills or electric cars?

Wind mills are expensive, you say? I say, all the better! That makes them good for the economy (just like cars).

just my 2 cents ...

-Laelth

[slor]

104. We could help LEGALIZE HEMP RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!

Call your reps and tell them you want H.R. 3037 passed! Link below:

<http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/bills/?bill=7766161>

[Xithras]

106. We won't have perfect energy until we master the Unified Field Theory

For non-science geeks, that's the theoretical theory (;)) that should unite physics and explain how our universe works. It will explain how gravity works, how atoms are held together, how the EM force works, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, how they all fit together. We understand some pieces very well, other pieces somewhat, and others are merely educated guesses right now.

When we understand how the forces work as a continuum, it introduces the possibility that we'll be able to do direct energy transformations. Imagine generating electricity from gravity, or light. Imagine splitting an atom and having its contained energy released as electricity rather than heat and light.

Solve this puzzle, and humankinds energy problems will be on the road to a permanent solution. Since most of the work in this field is done by university physicists working on their own time, however, it's slow going.

[Dover]

112. GOP Manure....recycled Bushit. An endless supply makes it a

sustainable resource. But the smell.....?

[Dover]

113. I think we need to use them all........diversity of sources rather than

a single source, depending on the situation and the location.

[Dover]

118. Read: The Sun Betrayed - A Report on the Corp. Seizure of U.S. Solar

Energy Development (by Ray Reece). The research is impeccable...and eye opening.

"Why hasn't the U.S. government embarked on a crash program of solar energy development aimed at energy independence for the American people?

Why does solar energy continue to be treated as an exotic and expensive fuel of the distant future?

Why have thousands of small entrepreneurs and solar inventors been deprived of government R&D support in favor of Westinghouse, EXXON, ARCO, et al?

This book is a superb and much-needed investigation of the shoddy attempt by large corporate interests - in league with utilities and government officials - to control the sun. It is also a primer for community self-defense."

-- Tom Hayden, Chairperson, SolarCal Council, CA.

[_TJ_]

120. Raisin Wheats of course :-)

[Poppyseedman]

124. Wave generators for coastal regions

Combination of solar and nuclear inland

[Silverhair]

126. Thermal Depolymerization

Oil from organic material. 85% efficiency. No pollution. Processing plants are cheap to build. The technology is moderately scalable, to the same extent that an oil refinery is scalable.
It even helps reduce global warming. Also converts TRASH into oil.

http://www.changingworldtech.com/

[nolabels]

127. In the shuffling kaleidescope that brings a new paradigm new modalities.

of thinking come. Accepting and understanding that all changes are never really permanent and everyday is a gift is when life becomes much easier or even fun.

The will is all that is needed

[KittyWampus]

129. I've Got Two Words For You "Thermal Depolymerization" :-D

shades of "The Graduate" :D

It's real, it works and if implemented on a local basis, it's close to ideal.

It transforms just about ANY waste into fuel.

[GliderGuider]

131. Another vote for biodiesel - specifically algal biodiesel

If there is a way out of the energy trap, this is probably it. The other "alternatives" except for nuclear don't have all the needed qualities, and are too expensive in terms of EROEI. Petroleum is, of course about to become the problem rather than the solution. Nuclear is about to become a necessary evil - we'll probably need (and come to accept) more of it in order to buy ourselves the time to switch to a new fuel.

Biodiesel has huge advantages - the ability to be used as a fuel in existing engines with no modifications, no net carbon production, an EROEI of 3+, lower emissions than petroleum fuels, transportability and biodegradability, and if made from algae it has very high yield - 10,000 to 20,000 US gal/acre/year. As the crowning touch, algae ponds can be sited on non-arable land, so there's no reduction in food production capacity.

Since trasnsportation fuels are the big problem we're going to face in the next 10 years, biodiesel would allow us to keep our transportation systems running while using our remaining petroleum stocks for more valuable purposes.

Biodiesel is the future.

[IDemo]

134. Here's a good article on algal biodiesel

By Mike Briggs of the University of New Hampshire.

[IDemo]

135. PV/solar panels on every rooftop are not the best way to go

Solar thermal offers better efficiency when applied on a larger scale, plus offers the ability to power the Stirling motor gensets with virtually any source of fuel during nightime and on cloudy days.

[Mr_Spock]

137. FUSION

Ultimately we will create our own little suns and harness the energy from fusion. And solar does that also but is still pretty impractical for many of us - I'm surprised that more people don't realize this.

[Snotcicles]

138. This is a great topic and I recommended it.

I think all these ideas are good and with a multi-layer approach we could
transform this country into the leader and respected superpower we once were, again. The big oil blood suckers would just have to settle on what
market is left, or join in and contribute to the movement. Rewards will come later in the form of national pride and profits.

[IDemo]

142. Agreed, recommended n/t

[CabalPowered]

139. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion

The long lost brother of renewables..

http://www.nrel.gov/otec/

[stepnw1f]

140. Water Current Turbines

I like the idea and actually caught part of a educational program that highlighted the use of turbines in the English Channel. As long as there is current, there is power.

I believe all should be used except for Nuclear and limited fossil feuls.

[BlueEyedSon]

143. TIDAL

[dhinojosa]

164. I always liked that idea.

An energy that keeps on giving.

[CascadeTide]

144. what would the effects of large scale wind farms be on weather?

Maybe I'm crazy but if we started putting up huge wind farms would it be enough to alter the weather patterns? I'm sure it would at some level but I wonder if it's a level we would ever build to.

[GraysonDave]

146. I think solar is best long-term for most of the world

Hopefully it's not that far off.

[newspeak]

155. combination

bio-diesel, solar, and wind--also I always thought it would be nice to find someway to enhance energy 100, 500, 1,000 times more than the initial amount of energy. Think Gilligan's Island where they generate energy by pedaling a bicycle. Well, how about a car that you get in and work a pedal for five minutes and can go 100 miles by enhancing the energy. I mean we consume more energy than most of us expend. Sitting in front of the television does not use much energy. Then on the passenger side of the car could be a pedal where the passenger could pedal when energy becomes low. For the handicapped, they'd have a hand clutch. Just think of it, energy that we produce and we'd all be in great shape. Then, there'd be these stationary bicycles at the power plant in front of TeeVees , so you wouldn't get too bored and they'd generate energy, you know like hamsters on a wheel. We'd employ more people and the economy would be on the rebound. Just got to find something that greatly expands energy output.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

161. If the sun can drive these stinking hurricanes.... well then that just

about explains the correct answer.

[Mob Mama]

162. A new Prius engine that costs 5k. Heh, heh.

[jmowreader]

165. I'm going with geothermal

Geothermal is good for two things: generating electricity and heating via geothermal heat pumps.

If you poke around a bit, you'll find that the only renewable technology that's actually generating more electricity than geothermal is hydroelectric.

It's a known technology. There's a field in Italy that's been running for 98 years.

It produces electricity with something like 98 percent uptime.

The reason it works so well is that only part of it is "new innovative tech." Once you get past the part that pulls heat out of the ground, you're basically dealing with a steam-powered turbine generator--the basis for almost all power generation.

And like hydro but unlike wind and solar, geothermal generates electricity all the time. Wind cuts off when the wind dies down and solar when night falls, but the magma under the surface of the earth, the source of geothermal power, stays hot all the time.

It's also cheaper than wind or solar, in large part because most of the technology is known and proven.

It's not sexy like solar or wind. A geothermal plant looks pretty much like any other industrial building. But it works well, it's fairly inexpensive to use and we should go for it.

[shance]

166. I heard through the grapevine a while back that sugar can be converted?

True or was my friend pulling mah layug?

[dhinojosa]

173. hmm.. dunno

interesting though, it surely makes us fat, so why couldn't it be energy.

[Gregorian]

169. SEX.................doh!

Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It has to be made.


Solar. For now, that looks like our best option.

People say nuclear doesn't produce poisonous exhaust. I say bullshit. If radioactive material that lasts a billion years isn't poison, then I'll eat my undies.

[despairing optimist]

170. Other: Bush's body heat

How many BTUs does Bush give off per liter of alcohol consumed? There should be a way to harness that energy and give it back to the sources he drank it from. If we put Bush in a big plastic bubble, would moss and lichens create a closed ecosystem?

[skids]

171. Solar HEAT.

Everyone's obsessed with electricity. What do we use electricity for? Mostly HEAT of various forms and AC/cooling. Second to that, lighting and transportation propulsion.

But electricity is expensive to store. Heat (and cold) is not.

Naturally you need electricity or gas for some things, including "top up" heating and cooling, but having hot and cold storage tanks would remove the need for the majority of electricity use. It would only have to drive the "controller" parts of adsorbtion chillers, liquid dessicant ACs, etc.

[alittlelark]

172. Thermal depolymerization

<Thermal depolymerization is similar to the geological processes that produced the fossil fuels used today, except that the technological process occurs in a timeframe measured in hours. Until recently, the human-designed processes were not efficient enough to serve as a practical source of fuel—more energy was required than was produced.
A new approach that exceeded break-even was developed by Illinois microbiologist Paul Baskis in the 1980s and refined over the next 15 years. The technology was finally developed for commercial use in 1996 by Changing World Technologies. Brian Appel (CEO of Changing World Technologies) took the technology in 2001 and expanded and changed it into TCP and has applied for a patent. A Thermal Depolymerization demonstration plant was completed in 1999 in Philadelphia by Thermal Depolymerization, LLC, and the first full-scale commercial plant was constructed in Carthage, Missouri, about 100 yards (100 m) from ConAgra Foods' massive Butterball Turkey plant, where it is expected to process about 200 tons of turkey waste into 500 barrels (21,000 US gallons or 80 m³ of oil per day.>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2004-01-22-kantor_x.htm

[newspeak]

175. solar ponds

In Environmental Science class we learned that there is a city in Israel that uses a solar pond to conduct enough energy for the whole city. This was over 15 years ago. I had to do a report on dams such as the Aswan and Hoover(actually Boulder Dam) and their environmental impact. My conclusions after the study, was that it is better to have localized energy sources, than a few massive energy source for whole states or numerous cities. As a matter of fact, today, with the terror factor, having localized power is a very viable option. In the West solar ponds and photovoltaics can be utilized, and in windy area, wind generators and places with water (utilizing both wave energy and rivers) smaller dams with less impact to the environment.

[NNN0LHI]

176. Perpetual Motion n/t

[newspeak]

177. still a pipe dream

No one has found the great perpetual motion machine. And, the reason might be because of chaos theory. Must have energy to create energy. That's why I thought if someone could find something that magnifies energy to high degree, then why can't we be the energy source. I mean humans consume a lot of energy, why not utilize it.

[DarkTirade]

182. What, no option for...

hampster wheels hooked up to a generator?

[GeorgeGist]

184. Duh...

it's all Solar.

[YapiYapo]

185. By reading all the answer in this thread

Almost make me want to vote Republican.At least they get a clue of what's possible and what's not about energy.

I'm sorry but i don't want my kids to live in a 18 century world because some hippie where thinking solar power was a possible mass alternative energy.It's not and it won't before many year in the futur.
Not a single individual who voted for solar panel seem to know what EROEI solar panel get, hell they don't even know what EROEI is and they claim they have the answer.

Most of the people here also seem to get no idea of the incoming worldwide energy crisis as they choose the most expensive and less efficient way to deal with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_balance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

[Laelth]

187. Sorry we're not all physicists.

I thought the poll asked us, the members of DU, to give our opinions. The pollster asks, "What is the best source of energy in your opinion?" It doesn't say that you've got to have a degree in physics to answer.

BTW, what's your opinion on the subject?

-Laelth

[YapiYapo]

194. I'm not a physicist.

Does it really take year of studying physic to understand that energy return on energy investment need to be positive for a good source of energy ? I think not.

My opinion on the subject is that the incoming energy crisis will be the biggest challenge humanity have never seen.Billions of live are at stack , i think they deserve more thought than "hey solar panel sound cool let's vote for that".

[Laelth]

196. Hmm ...

I'll take that reply for what it's worth.

-Laelth

[IDemo]

188. The poll question was overly simplistic, but:

quote - "Almost make me want to vote Republican.At least they get a clue of what's possible and what's not about energy."

Which Republican sector has you convinced they understand energy issues better in any context outside of governmentally protected profit? We have two former oil men in the White House.

quote - "I'm sorry but i don't want my kids to live in a 18 century world because some hippie where thinking solar power was a possible mass alternative energy.It's not and it won't before many year in the futur.
Not a single individual who voted for solar panel seem to know what EROEI solar panel get, hell they don't even know what EROEI is and they claim they have the answer."

The thing I see repeated by many in energy discussions is the idea that a particular alternative energy technology lacks merit because it cannot by itself solve 100% of the problem. I don't feel that solar photovoltaic panels will 'solve' the looming energy problem. Neither do I think that micro-algal biodiesel will. But each will play a part in the big picture, along with wind, tidal, and solar-thermal.

What is missing in the poll question is that the looming energy problem is multi-faceted; primarily: 1) - liquid (transportation) fuels, gasoline and diesel, 2) - heating oil and natural gas, and 3) - the longterm outlook for electrical energy. There is no single answer to all of these taken together, including hydrogen, solar, and biomass.

And, EROEI/EROI/Energy-Profit Ratio makes sense unless and until you try applying it to exclude using kilocalories of energy to produce calories of food energy for human consumption. We cannot directly metabolize non-carbohydrate based energy sources.

[nashbridges]

193. We did a project in engineering school

To find out how many solar panels the US would need in 1996 to meet energy demands for the entire country. It turns out we'd have to cover an area the size of Wisconsin, Oregon, and North Dakota to power the US for one day, and that was only during summer months.

Since you always lose electricity running power lines over a distance, just covering those states wouldn't work, either. You have to spread that area out over the whole country.

The Northeast was a particular problem, since they don't get enough sun but they use an extraordinary amount of power because of the population density.

[YapiYapo]

195. So that's what it take to get attention there ?

Talking about repuplican...

My point is that on most mainstream forum (fark,something awful etc) the vast majority have understood the incoming energy crisis and all the problem it will bring.They also understand there won't be an easy solution and most of us can say goodbye to our current lifestyle.
I was getting an high opinion of DU however i can express how much i'm disappointed by the (very few) energy discussion we got there.Most of the opinions are total utopia which will only increase the number of deaths toll during the crisis.

What i want everyone to understand is that it's way too late for alternative clean source of energy,we don't have decade,at best a few years therefore if we want to save as much lives as possible we have to go for the most efficient.Bio diesel, ethanol,solar panel and wind power are not efficient, only option is nuclear and coal liquefaction,which will tremendously increase global warning.

[SW FL Dem]

189. I voted solar - but then I live in FL

I have a solar pool heater, it cost 4 grand to install, it has more than paid for itself in 4 years. I would love to have a solar- assisted water heater.

Solar has no environmental issues (to my knowledge) and I am not aware of any safety issues.

[IDemo]

190. Great discussion on energy here

:kick: