the false dilemma

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
The main problem with clean sources of power like wind or solar is that they are not steady producers of power. Without a way to store excess power on the electrical grid, wind and solar require auxilliary sources of electricty.

So we're still going to need sources of power . . . the question is, how are we going to generate it? NG? Coal? Still require drilling and mining, which some of the greens don't like. They don't like nuclear plants, either. So we're at an impasse even if we add wind and solar to the grid sources.

In that case I'd like to strangle both sides and move on to discussing this with people who aren't complete idiots. Too many people on both sides are looking for the magic bullet, although for vastly different reasons, and nobody wants to do ANYTHING until we have a 100% solution. Or rather, what they REALLY want to do is score political points at the expense of the other side, and solving problems together doesn't do that.

I honestly can't believe you'd call that a "problem" with wind and solar, unless you mean it's a problem because some people think it is. Solar power could provide all of our power some of the time, and while we might need other sources of power when the sun isn't shining, it would still represent a huge drop in non-green energy usage that we'd be retarded to ignore.

The main problem with solar right now is cost. There is significant worldwide government money being dumped into solar and that is causing shortage of materials to build solar panels. This of course is driving up cost as there is not enough capacity to meed the demand. The greens think solar is a magic bullet, but in reality is a clean but expensive solution. It is basically like paying for all your electricity for 30 years up front. And then you add in the fact that cost of solar has been dropping about 50% every decade, it just stops making sense as solution for now. In a couple decades when the costs come down, I would imagine rooftop solar is going to be a big thing.

But as far as rooftop solar goes, the place to start is not on consumers rooftops, but on the roofs of big box stores, government buildings, and other large commercial buildings where some scale can be built into the projects. It is probalby far cheaper to build a 60kw array on top of target, than build 20 3k arrays on consumer rooftops.


The point is, if we are going to have subsidies, lets at least get the most bang for our buck.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Vic
I agree with the OP. The problem IMO is the necessary balancing act between drilling and conservation/alternatives, which few seem to want to be reasonable about.

Here, here. :thumbsup:

There are no single fixes. We need to conserve, move to cleaner energy sources, better utilize our energy consumption, increase production of fossil fuels along with other forms of energy.

A big :thumbsup: for a comprehensive energy policy. Bush has blathered on about alternative energy for the past 8 years and done virtually nothing. It's time to get off our collective ass and do something tangible. Plus, we could invest in a bunch of alt energy public works projects (e.g. massive solar array) that would help boost the economy, help reduce unemployment, while producing tangible results.

Sure he has. Millions(billions?) have gone to big ag for corn ethanol. We get what we pay for with big govt.

As for the OP, certainly a well thought out editorial. Alternative energies are the future not the present. Which is why I have been saying we need to drill more while alternative energies sort themselves out. There is no magical source that will materialize over night. This will take decades. No need hamstringing our economy while the transition happens.

Alternative energies aren't going to "sort themselves out" unless we are the ones who sort them out. I have no problem with the gist of what you're saying, but the problem is that the majority of the time it seems to be a cover for doing absolutely nothing except maintaining the status quo. If someone supported the idea of continuing to explore for traditional energy sources while at the same time putting significant effort towards alternative energy research, I'd be all for that. But it seems that the choices are either people who demand instant use of only alternative energy and people who want to drill for oil in the panda enclosure at the national zoo while giving lip service to alternative energy research.

I have no problem with continued research and dev of alt energies.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
The main problem with clean sources of power like wind or solar is that they are not steady producers of power. Without a way to store excess power on the electrical grid, wind and solar require auxilliary sources of electricty.

So we're still going to need sources of power . . . the question is, how are we going to generate it? NG? Coal? Still require drilling and mining, which some of the greens don't like. They don't like nuclear plants, either. So we're at an impasse even if we add wind and solar to the grid sources.

In that case I'd like to strangle both sides and move on to discussing this with people who aren't complete idiots. Too many people on both sides are looking for the magic bullet, although for vastly different reasons, and nobody wants to do ANYTHING until we have a 100% solution. Or rather, what they REALLY want to do is score political points at the expense of the other side, and solving problems together doesn't do that.

I honestly can't believe you'd call that a "problem" with wind and solar, unless you mean it's a problem because some people think it is. Solar power could provide all of our power some of the time, and while we might need other sources of power when the sun isn't shining, it would still represent a huge drop in non-green energy usage that we'd be retarded to ignore.

The main problem with solar right now is cost. There is significant worldwide government money being dumped into solar and that is causing shortage of materials to build solar panels. This of course is driving up cost as there is not capacity to meed the demand. The greens think solar is a magic bullet, but in reality is a clean but expensive solution. It is basically like paying for all your electricity for 30 years up front. And then you add in the fact that cost of solar has been dropping about 50% every decade, it just stops making sense as solution for now. In a couple decades when the costs come down, I would imagine rooftop solar is going to be a big thing.

But as far as rooftop solar goes, the place to start is not on consumers rooftops, but on the roofs of big box store, government building, and other large commercial building where some scale can be built into the projects. It if probalby far cheaper to build a 60kw array on top of target, than build 20 3k arrays on consumer rooftops.


The point is, if we are going to have subsidies, lets at least get the most bang for our buck.

So put money into research of more efficient/cheaper panels. The technology is out there, it just needs some support. Technology does not evolve on its own, and I think of the potential sources of alternative energy, solar is the most promising. But not if we just ignore it because it's not quite ready yet.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Vic
I agree with the OP. The problem IMO is the necessary balancing act between drilling and conservation/alternatives, which few seem to want to be reasonable about.

Here, here. :thumbsup:

There are no single fixes. We need to conserve, move to cleaner energy sources, better utilize our energy consumption, increase production of fossil fuels along with other forms of energy.

A big :thumbsup: for a comprehensive energy policy. Bush has blathered on about alternative energy for the past 8 years and done virtually nothing. It's time to get off our collective ass and do something tangible. Plus, we could invest in a bunch of alt energy public works projects (e.g. massive solar array) that would help boost the economy, help reduce unemployment, while producing tangible results.

Sure he has. Millions(billions?) have gone to big ag for corn ethanol. We get what we pay for with big govt.

As for the OP, certainly a well thought out editorial. Alternative energies are the future not the present. Which is why I have been saying we need to drill more while alternative energies sort themselves out. There is no magical source that will materialize over night. This will take decades. No need hamstringing our economy while the transition happens.

Alternative energies aren't going to "sort themselves out" unless we are the ones who sort them out. I have no problem with the gist of what you're saying, but the problem is that the majority of the time it seems to be a cover for doing absolutely nothing except maintaining the status quo. If someone supported the idea of continuing to explore for traditional energy sources while at the same time putting significant effort towards alternative energy research, I'd be all for that. But it seems that the choices are either people who demand instant use of only alternative energy and people who want to drill for oil in the panda enclosure at the national zoo while giving lip service to alternative energy research.

I have no problem with continued research and dev of alt energies.

I'm not saying you do, but I think some people reject the idea on principle because alternative energy is most often seen as a "lefty" issue.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
The main problem with clean sources of power like wind or solar is that they are not steady producers of power. Without a way to store excess power on the electrical grid, wind and solar require auxilliary sources of electricty.

So we're still going to need sources of power . . . the question is, how are we going to generate it? NG? Coal? Still require drilling and mining, which some of the greens don't like. They don't like nuclear plants, either. So we're at an impasse even if we add wind and solar to the grid sources.

In that case I'd like to strangle both sides and move on to discussing this with people who aren't complete idiots. Too many people on both sides are looking for the magic bullet, although for vastly different reasons, and nobody wants to do ANYTHING until we have a 100% solution. Or rather, what they REALLY want to do is score political points at the expense of the other side, and solving problems together doesn't do that.

I honestly can't believe you'd call that a "problem" with wind and solar, unless you mean it's a problem because some people think it is. Solar power could provide all of our power some of the time, and while we might need other sources of power when the sun isn't shining, it would still represent a huge drop in non-green energy usage that we'd be retarded to ignore.

The main problem with solar right now is cost. There is significant worldwide government money being dumped into solar and that is causing shortage of materials to build solar panels. This of course is driving up cost as there is not capacity to meed the demand. The greens think solar is a magic bullet, but in reality is a clean but expensive solution. It is basically like paying for all your electricity for 30 years up front. And then you add in the fact that cost of solar has been dropping about 50% every decade, it just stops making sense as solution for now. In a couple decades when the costs come down, I would imagine rooftop solar is going to be a big thing.

But as far as rooftop solar goes, the place to start is not on consumers rooftops, but on the roofs of big box store, government building, and other large commercial building where some scale can be built into the projects. It if probalby far cheaper to build a 60kw array on top of target, than build 20 3k arrays on consumer rooftops.


The point is, if we are going to have subsidies, lets at least get the most bang for our buck.

So put money into research of more efficient/cheaper panels. The technology is out there, it just needs some support. Technology does not evolve on its own, and I think of the potential sources of alternative energy, solar is the most promising. But not if we just ignore it because it's not quite ready yet.

But solar is not being ignored and significant money is going into it, both for research and subsidized production.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: Vic
I agree with the OP. The problem IMO is the necessary balancing act between drilling and conservation/alternatives, which few seem to want to be reasonable about.

Here, here. :thumbsup:

There are no single fixes. We need to conserve, move to cleaner energy sources, better utilize our energy consumption, increase production of fossil fuels along with other forms of energy.

A big :thumbsup: for a comprehensive energy policy. Bush has blathered on about alternative energy for the past 8 years and done virtually nothing. It's time to get off our collective ass and do something tangible. Plus, we could invest in a bunch of alt energy public works projects (e.g. massive solar array) that would help boost the economy, help reduce unemployment, while producing tangible results.

Sure he has. Millions(billions?) have gone to big ag for corn ethanol. We get what we pay for with big govt.

As for the OP, certainly a well thought out editorial. Alternative energies are the future not the present. Which is why I have been saying we need to drill more while alternative energies sort themselves out. There is no magical source that will materialize over night. This will take decades. No need hamstringing our economy while the transition happens.

Alternative energies aren't going to "sort themselves out" unless we are the ones who sort them out. I have no problem with the gist of what you're saying, but the problem is that the majority of the time it seems to be a cover for doing absolutely nothing except maintaining the status quo. If someone supported the idea of continuing to explore for traditional energy sources while at the same time putting significant effort towards alternative energy research, I'd be all for that. But it seems that the choices are either people who demand instant use of only alternative energy and people who want to drill for oil in the panda enclosure at the national zoo while giving lip service to alternative energy research.

I have no problem with continued research and dev of alt energies.

I'm not saying you do, but I think some people reject the idea on principle because alternative energy is most often seen as a "lefty" issue.

I think most people reject solar for getting their electricity because of cost. I dont know of anyone that rejects further research in the area of solar. There is a far bigger difference between researching a technology and mandating the use of a very expensive technology.

 

[charrison]

But on the subject of false dilemmas and government subsidies, let me the ask this question. To make solar cheap enough so people will install it, it the goverment has to subsidize about 50% of the cost. For a typical household install this is probably a subsidy of $10k-$15k. If the goal is less pollution, would we not be better offer offering a 50% subsidy to households to upgrade their hvac to energy star levels? Say an average new hvac is $6k and 1/2 is paid for by subsidy. The same subsidy for one solar household could greatly reduce consumption in 3-5 normal households.

When it comes to pollution and energy consumer it appears most people want to avoid the obvious and simple solutions.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: XMan
The main problem with clean sources of power like wind or solar is that they are not steady producers of power. Without a way to store excess power on the electrical grid, wind and solar require auxilliary sources of electricty.

So we're still going to need sources of power . . . the question is, how are we going to generate it? NG? Coal? Still require drilling and mining, which some of the greens don't like. They don't like nuclear plants, either. So we're at an impasse even if we add wind and solar to the grid sources.

In that case I'd like to strangle both sides and move on to discussing this with people who aren't complete idiots. Too many people on both sides are looking for the magic bullet, although for vastly different reasons, and nobody wants to do ANYTHING until we have a 100% solution. Or rather, what they REALLY want to do is score political points at the expense of the other side, and solving problems together doesn't do that.

I honestly can't believe you'd call that a "problem" with wind and solar, unless you mean it's a problem because some people think it is. Solar power could provide all of our power some of the time, and while we might need other sources of power when the sun isn't shining, it would still represent a huge drop in non-green energy usage that we'd be retarded to ignore.

Maybe problem was a poor choice of words. I simply meant that since sources like wind and solar are not consistent, they have to be backed up by more conventional sources of electricity. They would definitely be a help, but not a final solution.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: XMan
The main problem with clean sources of power like wind or solar is that they are not steady producers of power. Without a way to store excess power on the electrical grid, wind and solar require auxilliary sources of electricty.

So we're still going to need sources of power . . . the question is, how are we going to generate it? NG? Coal? Still require drilling and mining, which some of the greens don't like. They don't like nuclear plants, either. So we're at an impasse even if we add wind and solar to the grid sources.

Excellent point. I think this is THE most misunderstood issue surrounding power generation. Electricity is literally the world's most perishable product. Any electrical power not immediately consumed by the grid never even existed at all.
Because of this, the grid has to have 2 different types of power plants. A baseload plant, usually coal or nuclear, that runs constantly to handle the 24 hour load, and a peaking plant, usually gas or hydro, plant that can be brought online quickly to handle peak loads during the daytime.
Fitting wind and solar sources into those is difficult because their power production is not always predictable. Ocean wave power would work nicely but that technology is probably still decades away.
IOW, we really need some kind of super battery. It would solve all our energy problems. This isn't a new realization either. The science fiction author, Robert Heinlein, wrote decades ago about the mythical "shipstone," a battery so powerful that one the size of a shoebox could power a car or a house for a whole year. In his book, Friday, the Shipstone company became a global monopoly that owned everything.
That's the holy grail of energy.