This is somewhat dealing with Peak Oil. The idea is that oil itself is an energy carrier from dead organisms, so it is a tradeoff of life for eons
being used today. SO most Peak Oilers know that you need a replacement and some are good and some not so good.
The best are probably solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, and wind, but does the energy it costs to manufacture (lets take one for example) a wind
turbine less than the energy the wind turbine will produce over its lifetime?
For example, it (the turbine) is a product of many pieces and each one requires energy in various forms to produce. Energy to recycle steel,
aluminums, etc. More energy to work the raw materials into the final products. It requires energy to fuel the manpower required to manufacture all
this, and energy to even have a manufacturing plant to make them in. So with all this energy being spent to produce and end product, can one wind
turbine extract enough energy from the wind to pay for all the energy spent making the turbine itself?
I think the answer is probably no, but it would be quite complex to account for everything.
|
You got into the eggnog again tonite Ben hmmmmm? There will be viable alternative sources of energy soon, if the inventors don't keep winding up
dead.
Just kidding mate. Major cities in US would not be considering wind turbine farm viability without tens of thousands of dollars in exploratory
research and exploratory grants. The latest I heard was using geosynchronas sats to microwave solar power to a rectifier in DC form. The first tests
will begin shortly on an uninhabited island. Will try to find link.
[edit on 25-12-2007 by jpm1602]
|
surely as we advance new fuels will become apparent to us or at least better methods of obtaining fuel, i mean if the sun can bring life to this
planet for millions of years i'm sure it could be used to power a toaster conveniently i think we would advance to a point were solar energy could
provide it all, problem is you cant really claim ownership of sunlight so whose gonna make the big bucks.
Refering to your original point surely it depends on the amount of time the energy device is in use in regards too it costing more energy than it
provides
[edit on 25-12-2007 by R-evolve]
|
reply to post by jpm1602
Well that's part of the problem - that of free energy. Most people understand the economics behind not allowing free energy devices, simply because
it takes away the control of making a profit of energy. For those who don't understand it probably own eighteen remote controls and don't feel bad
about buying AA batteries all the time (that is another conspiracy though).
Since it would not be feasible for an energy company or consortium to allow free energy or even an energy source that undercuts whatever it is they
are already doing, they will never allow a device that actually costs less to manufacture than it would put out in equal value in power. If it did,
they would just be losing money directly or indirectly depending on their relationship to the manufacturer.
In other words, if it costs $100,000 to produce a wind turbine, you can be assured that it is designed to not produce $100,000 worth of electrical
power - ever. If it actually made money out of thin air indefinitely, then it would be a free energy device and building enough of them could in
theory put power companies out of business. Instead, the business model would follow that the service life of the turbine will be short enough that
the cost to produce it will be more than what you would normally get out of it.
|
Suffice it to say, we agree to disagree on this topic. I will do my homework on life expectancy maintenance cost of large wind turbines. I believe
Holland was using them to grind grain, pump water long before Jed missed the possum and started churning out the Texas tea.
|
Hemp doesn't only account for one of the best biofuels you can make, it could just about replace our dependency on paper, wood, cotton, plastic, and
a ton of other stuff. It would make a lot of things better at once instead of just creating more problems.
There is less than %0.3 of any illegal substance in it, so it won't get anybody under the influence anywhere, but we're not allowed to talk about it
here, so please do some research on it outside of this website.
|
I guess it's the the rhetorical 'ever' that kind of irked me about your post.
I think we can all agree that carbon emissions are not good for us or our planet. To encapsulate the feasability of viable alternative energy to
'never', is in my mind stinky thinkin'.
|
