It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Green" energy is expensive, does not avert climate change.

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Climate change has been going on for millions of years. The earth goes through cycles and the pollution harms humans more than the earth per say. True people do impact the earth; but the earth can and will replenish itself.
By passing on the green incenitive costs to consumers the utlity companies are makimg life harder for customers. I know next year my bill will be $136/month for a one bedroom apartment! I don't use a lot of electrcity either. For heavens sake; I never use my oven or stove, I put everything on surge protecters and unplug them. I use flashlights for lighting; the only time I turn on lights is when I am the computer, cooking or reading. I turn off anything that uses electricity when I am not using it. I am on budget billing now just so I don't have to worry about huge bills in the summer. I only use my heat when it is below 40! I have made drastic and uncomfortable changes all so my budget will stay low yet it doesn't matter because electricity went up almost 18%! When they recalculate my budget it will put me well beyond my means. That is simply a luxery to pay that much for electricity! My highest actual bill was $134 in august the hottest month. It looks like electricity companies are ripping off their customers to make a profit! It is disgusting! It is for the sake for the green inciative! My average bill went from $50 a month to $63 a month ( the actual balance)!

[edit on 19-11-2009 by dreamseeker]




posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Here is a classic example of just how useless wind generation is...:



Notice that wind energy produces little to no energy the vast majority of the time. I don't know about you, but I would like to have the lights on more than 12 hours per week, or 7% of the time. Our industry needs energy more than 7% of the time, and almost every aspect of our life needs energy more than 7% of the time, hospitals, fridges, you name it. During the 93% of the time wind generates little to no electricity, guess where the power comes from instead? Coal, and Gas. What happens when we run out of gas, or the price skyrockets like it has in the past?

That's where proponents of renewables are simply kidding themselves. They assume that wind and solar will be generating at peak capacities all the time. They don't. On average, they generate around 10 - 40% of their rated peak capacity, which makes them economically significantly worse than any alternative, such as Nuclear. Of course, proponents of renewables will then claim that with enough geographical separation we can make up for these shortfalls. While true - the expense for this is massive as 2 - 10 times the capacity (infrastructure) is needed.

One question that is commonly asked is - "why do we need all this power?". Electricity use has increased rapidly for the past 50 years, and will continue to do so. Worldwide energy demand is set to double by 2050, and in the West, we are going to have new technologies such as plug-in hybrids running from the grid. We need new capacity. The excuse that "energy efficiencies" will somehow save us is rubbish, the United States gets only 2% more efficient in terms of energy required per unit of GDP output per year (and economic growth is on average 3%). Claiming that "energy efficiencies" will save us is merely talk from big oil / big gas energy companies whom are trying to prevent long term solutions. It is also procrastination, delaying the inevitable adding of capacity.

We need a way off fossil fuels for electricity generation. The only platform that can rationally accomplish this goal is Nuclear.

Thanks.

Note: When I refer to renewables, I mean the usual solar and wind. Other forms of renewables may not apply (e.g. ocean thermal energy converters, geothermal, tidal).

[edit on 14/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   
The GREENS want us to buy hydrogen and electric cars and junk our gas cars for one reason.

They know that solar and wind will never provided the power to use hydrogen and electric cars.

This will keep people from going places and doing anything and the greens love that idea.
They will control you without any effort on there part because you can not afford to buy the power or hydrogen to run your cars.

This will control you better then all the internal passports and checkpoints the communist had in there countries without the expense



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Using bio diesel fuels could be a start to reducing emissions, running cars with say coconut fuel instead of high grade diesel or petrol engines would reduce the carbon/pollution emissions significantly as well as lower costs for the use of fuels such as these.
I just think the oil/gas industries have too much say in the types of fuel or power supplys that are being used, as people wanting green alternate sources will eventually lead to less profits for those types of big industries.



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Okay a few points.

First off I have yet to hear anyone point to 'green energy' as the magic wand that is going to fix climate-change. As a proponent of both alternative energy and mitigating the potential impacts humans have on the global climate I can assure you this is not a common 'idea' in my camp.

Second the 'Opinion Editorial' you linked is just that, opinion. It also fails to do anything substantial to support it claims that high unemployment in Spain and a bad economy is the result of Green Energy or that the Green Economy did not repair Spain's issues. That is other than simply say it is all related. Look around Europe, they are in dire straights and have been for the last decade. This argument that Green Energy has something to do with that, or is a failure as it did not solve this problem, is manipulative and weak.

Third, there is very few people who are really interested in and support the alternative energy market who believe that the alternatives will produce all of our energy without help from the staples of today.

There is plenty of proof that Green Energy is a growing field nad will undoubtedly create jobs and energy.

Exxon Sees Fater Growth in Green Energy Today Than 1 Year Ago

Every year, Exxon Mobil publishes an “Energy Outlook.” It is a thoughtful view of what the company believes the future holds.

For those of you keeping score at home, here are the exact predictions. Exxon now sees wind/solar/biofuels growing at 9.6% a year from 2005 through 2030 versus 9.3% a year ago; oil is now 0.8% versus 0.9% and coal is 0.5% versus 0.6%. Now, these might seem like modest changes, but there are fortunes to be made and lost in these fractions. No change in Exxon’s view of future nuclear, gas, biomass or hydro/geothermal growth.


How a Solar-Hydrogen Economy Could Supply the Worlds Energy Needs

Abbott argues that a solar-hydrogen economy is more sustainable and provides a vastly higher total power output potential than any other alternative. While he agrees with the current approach of promoting a mix of energy sources in the transition period toward a sustainable energy technology, he shows that solar-hydrogen should be the final goal of current energy policy. Eventually, as he suggests, this single dominant solution might supply 70% of the world's energy while the remaining 30% is supplied by a mix of other sources.


Plastic Solar Breaktrhough

The Californian startup Solarmer has been making good progress with its plastic organic PV in the past few years. It hit 6% efficiency in 2007, 7.6% a few months ago, and they've now broken their own record with 7.9% (a number that has been certified by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory). This technology has the potential of bringing the cost of solar energy down, and also to allow us to put solar panels in all kinds of places.

First, low-cost plastic is used as the active materials to convert solar energy into electricity. Thanks to the extraordinary light absorption capability of the plastics, the active plastics layer is extremely thin - only a few tenth of micrometer thick, i.e. less than 1/1000 of silicon cell. This material cost is significantly lower.

Second, very low cost printing techniques can and will be used to manufacture plastic solar cells (just thinking of the newspaper). The combination gives much lower cost of equivalent energy (only ~10 - 20% that of silicon technology). In addition, the fabrication process is both low temperature and environmentally friendly, significantly reduces the amount of energy consumption in the manufacturing process.


Solar Roadways Awarded a DOT Contract

The 12- x 12-foot panels, which each cost $6,900, are designed to be embedded into roads. When shined upon, each panel generates an estimated 7.6 kilowatt hours of power each day. If this electricity could be pumped into the grid, the company predicts that a four-lane, one-mile stretch of road with panels could generate enough power for 500 homes.

Although it would be expensive, covering the entire US interstate highway system with the panels could theoretically fulfill the country's total energy needs. The company estimates that this would take 5 billion panels, but could "produce three times more power than we've ever used as a nation - almost enough to power the entire world."


These primarily focus on Solar but that is only because Solar is where my personal interests lie. There are plenty of other examples of the growing green energy market here and abroad. Notice too this is happening with-out subsidies.

Pew Finds Green Energy Economy Creates Signifigant Job Growth

The number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007, according to a report released today by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Pew found that jobs in the clean energy economy grew at a national rate of 9.1 percent, while traditional jobs grew by only 3.7 percent between 1998 and 2007. There was a similar pattern at the state level, where job growth in the clean energy economy outperformed overall job growth in 38 states and the District of Columbia during the same period. The report also found that this promising sector is poised to expand significantly, driven by increasing consumer demand, venture capital infusions, and federal and state policy reforms.

America’s clean energy economy has grown despite a lack of sustained government support in the past decade. By 2007, more than 68,200 businesses across all 50 states and the District of Columbia accounted for about 770,000 jobs.


So there is plenty of evidence the Green Energy Economy DOES create jobs.

At the end of your post you compare the cost of building enough wind-turbines to produce enough energy to meet the output of one nuclear power plant. If I remember correctly you said $17bil for Wind verse $7bil for the nuclear. This figure on the front end is significant but leaves out the potential environmental consequences of producing highly dangerous waste, the cost of mining the materials to be used in the reactors, and the cost of processing and storing this waste. Factors that do not play into the cost of wind.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
Here is a classic example of just how useless wind generation is...:




FYI ONE MEGAWATT (1)MW Powers 1000 homes. So based on your chart it is safe to assume that this station is powering THOUSANDS of homes even at its low points. Link
(For me to be more accurate link to the Origin of the chart please?)

At its peak it has the potential to supply power to 11,000,000 homes.

No it is not constant, but it does enter the GRID and reduce the amount of energy that needs to be produced by other means (ie) coal, etc. . .

Hardly Useless.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Animal]



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

First off I have yet to hear anyone point to 'green energy' as the magic wand that is going to fix climate-change.



How a Solar-Hydrogen Economy Could Supply the Worlds Energy Needs.

www.physorg.com...



A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables

Un-Scientific American.



THE REAL ANSWER IS SOLAR, WIND AND
WATER POWER.

---

Please pursue clean renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydrogen fuel cells
etc.

---

Please look into Windmills and Solar Energy!

Watts Bar Unit Two - Response to comments.


I sure hope it is a minority in your camp, because it is delusional thinking. Many of the others in your camp, want more renewables quarterbacked by natural gas, similar to Exxon Mobil.


Second the 'Opinion Editorial' you linked is just that, opinion. It also fails to do anything substantial to support it claims that high unemployment in Spain and a bad economy is the result of Green Energy or that the Green Economy did not repair Spain's issues. That is other than simply say it is all related. Look around Europe, they are in dire straights and have been for the last decade. This argument that Green Energy has something to do with that, or is a failure as it did not solve this problem, is manipulative and weak.


The argument is that wind and solar are failures because, despite the large spending, they do not create large amounts of energy, and do not create large amounts of jobs per unit of capacity. But you are correct, renewables are growing very fast, albeit from a tiny base.

Here is the actual study...:

Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources



Third, there is very few people who are really interested in and support the alternative energy market who believe that the alternatives will produce all of our energy without help from the staples of today.

The staples of today are mainly Coal and Natural Gas. Building renewables does not significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.


I am actually on Internet speeds slower than dial-up, so I won't be able to reply in full till the 22nd when my full Internet speed is back.

[edit on 18/12/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   

If I remember correctly you said $17bil for Wind verse $7bil for the nuclear. This figure on the front end is significant but leaves out the potential environmental consequences of producing highly dangerous waste.

The waste is hardly highly dangerous. There has never been a fatality from the transportation or storage of Nuclear waste within the United States.


the cost of mining the materials to be used in the reactors, and the cost of processing and storing this waste.


That's factored into Variable O&M.













That's why I believe we need an electrical source that can provide us with carbon free electricity without needing natural gas backups. Nuclear is the only way to accomplish that. And again, if you look at the graphs above, it is pretty clear that even the 10% growth of renewables you are promoting is merely a drop in the bucket, this is even shown in the Exxon report you used.


How a Solar-Hydrogen Economy Could Supply the Worlds Energy Needs

Any source of industrial process can aid in Hydrogen production. Small modular Nuclear units are very well suited to hydrogen production, desalinization, as well as oil shale production. And again, most of the disadvantages of solar still apply in this field, also. Now... the article you linked... 6 billion dollars to decommission a reactor? Who dreamed up that number. That's more in line with one gigawatt construction costs of a Nuclear reactor. Decommissioning are an order of magnitude lower than that.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Sorry, but slightly over 1 Gigawatt of electricity does not have any hope in hell of powering 11 million homes. In Australia has about 22 million people with an average household size of 2.0 - 2.5 people per household. That's 11,000,000 - 8,800,000 homes and we have 51.4 gigawatts (GWe) generating capacity. If we built 51.4 GWe of electrical capacity with wind, then Australia would still need massive amounts of gas, and coal generation to make up for winds poor (



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You people are fools. Human beings are the cancer of this planet. You say you want to provide clean an efficient energy through nuclear energy? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CREATE THAT ENERGY? By mining the earth of its nonrenewable resources. You people, if you can even be considers people, just want to keep digging away robbing the earth of it's natural life source. The true way to energy is to utilize the nature, even if that requires poorer countries to not be able to develop, and eventually die off. It's called evolution you dumb dumb dumb fools.

GREEN IS THE FUTURE, I DON'T CARE HOW UNLOGICAL YOU THINK IT IS.




[edit on 8-1-2010 by mosesgunner]



posted on Jan, 8 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
After a very long and lengthy debate with Omega85 in ATS chat, it seems I had missed out two alternative renewable sources that I had not covered. Due to time constraints these were not further discussed. If anyone thinks I have missed something, then please allow me to explain.


Care to comment Omega85?



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Solar Industry Says End Fossil Fuel Subsidies And Expect A Solar Boom.

A report by the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) found that power from the sun could generate 15 percent of America's power in the next decade, but only if Washington levels the playing field on subsidies. The fossil fuel industry, led by oil and coal, received $72 billion in total federal subsidies from 2002 to 2008, but earlier this year President Obama called for those subsidies to end.

Putting the subsidies even with those for fossil fuels would create jobs and dramatically cut the country's global warming causing emissions.

www.treehugger.com...


These people are lying through there teeth, feeding is one dishonest absurdity, one after another. The United States had consumed about 20 million barrels oil/day at an average of $60/barrel during the years between 2002 to 2008, getting over 3 trillion dollars worth of revenue. Fossil fuel subsidies, therefore, made up only about 2% of its total revenue. Not a big difference, especially when you consider the taxes on fossil fuels, which push the argument in the other direction. 45.6 c/kWh average gas tax in the US means the US gets $350 billion over the same time period for gasoline alone. Therefore, overall, oil is actually GIVING the government money. And this is not counting Europe, where oil taxes are FAR higher. Do fossil fuels have a 2% profit margin? I THINK NOT.

Solar, meanwhile, between the years of 2002 and 2008, only generated 4.2 TWh/e, which is barely worth $350 million at the average retail rate of 8.32 c/kWh. Their subsidies were bigger than their actual revenue! It gets even worse, in Spain, for example, "The production of electricity of photovoltaic origin is remunerated at a price equivalent to 575% of the Spanish reference rate (TRM) for the first 25 years and 460% from then on". This is equivalent to 63.8 cents/kWh, of which about 53 cents is subsidized. By comparison, average cost of electricity in Spain is 11.0 c/kWh. In Germany the average subsidy is 68 c/KWh, and in Ontario, Canada, it is 44.3 c/kWh and 80.2 c/kWh respectively, for commercial and residential installations. Animal, OF COURSE renewable growth is happening because of subsidies. They get even more subsidies than the actual cost of the electricity they sell.




And when these are removed, or even changed... the solar market has many issues...


Forced to revise the subsidies -- known as feed-in tariffs -- that it used to spur photovoltaic power last fall, Spain became one of the principal causes of the downturn in the solar industry. And its faulty regulations have become a watchword for how government renewable-energy programs, poorly conceived, can go awry.

"[The crash] was an inevitable consequence of a policy that was not ... a long-term sustainable market design," said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy at U.S.-based SunPower Corp. "Whenever you've got something that's unsustainable, eventually it gives. And lo and behold, that happened."

New York Times.


Thanks.

[edit on 11/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I just checked my electric bill. It's gone up another 25%. The reason is some kind of environmental BS. People are being priced out of energy. Things are not looking good.



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ViperFoxBat
 



As long as you are taking about "ignorance", some of you are more ignorant then the most people i know in "real live".

For a damn fukcing nuclear reactor you need the #ing Uranium, and to the get that #, you have to dig in sand with #ing trucks, larger then a house, producing co2 like a volcano!! #! How can green energy be a bad thing?! Are completely insane. Do you really think you can destroy the whole planet because your #ing # energy bill is 20% cheaper! What the # is going on with you people?! Dumb and proud of it until the last day comes. Oh god please, common - kill this #ing cancer called mankind. They will never learn, never see, and never learn feel - so for what - for what is all this #?! Bahhhh!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by cushycrux
 


The funny thing about celery is it takes more calories to digest then it contains.
The funny thing about recycling paper is it takes more energy to do then it does to cut down trees from a plant farm.
the funny thing about your comment is that it's ignorant.


[edit on 11-1-2010 by mosesgunner]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
< br />

how much energy do you think is being converted to co2 here?

[edit on 11-1-2010 by mosesgunner]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mosesgunner
 


Yes and a nuclear power plant and a earthquake is a safe thing:





posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mosesgunner
 


yes sure
- a bit bigger




posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
According to the Integrated Sustainability Analysis department at the University of Sydney (whom were winners of the Green Globe Awards 2009 Public Sector Sustainability Award) in a report called Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia, Nuclear emits 60 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity. This compares with Photovoltaics at 106 grams, and Wind turbines at 21 grams. To give you perspective, "Clean" Natural gas is at 577 - 751 grams, and coal is at 863 - 1175 grams. So again, what you're stating is simply ignorance.

[edit on 11/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Gramms CO2 per kWh electricity
Solar power, water power and wind power
10 - 40
Nuclear power plants
37 - 140
Combined heat and power in private houses
220 - 250
Gas buring plants
330 - 360
New coal burning plants
1'000 - 1'100

timeforchange.org...



For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is EQUAL TO that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station.

www.energybulletin.net...



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join