Why do we still use fossil fuels and other polluting energy?

[William Gaatjes]

I only ever took apart one doorbell, but I thought it had a spring to return it to the off position. What is using power when a doorbell is off? The neon light in the button, if so-equipped?

Well, most doorbells i know of that are used here, only feed about 9V to about 12V AC, maybe even 24V AC. But it is low voltage AC, so cheap wiring, and cheap isolation of the doorbell switch it self can be used and there is no hazardous voltage present if it would be raining or high humidity. No danger of shock because of the transformer.

Soft-off: Yes, definitely an issue. At least newer supplies are suppose to have lower power consumption when off. But I still see 0.5W as a fairly common idle-mode power consumption. It's quite a bit of power to do absolutely nothing useful.
It's still better than the big wall-warts that were just a transformer and a bridge rectifier. They'd get fairly warm with no load.

True, but all combined, taking into account several devices for lots of households... And it starts to add up.

 

[William Gaatjes]

No one said we don't WASTE power (we do) but I don't think it can be said we use too much power. Power if a finite resource, if we used too much then it would cost more and then we would use less. The market is self correcting in that way.

Using too much power, i think with every newly bought appliance, that the amount of used power drops. I do not know what is the case in the US, but here in Europe, devices have an energy label to see how much they consume. If someone is interested in that, they can decide on what brand and model to purchase based on power consumption as well. I assume that in the US a similar rating system is present ?

 

[Rakehellion]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities

Lol? You have no idea what current technology is capable of.

We don't have the money, the infrastructure, or the production capacity to do anything you're suggesting.

 

[KMFJD]

Seems like nothing else can supply that amount of power. From what I hear, solar, wind, and water can't even meet what we're currently using even if we put a dam on every river and a solar or wind farm on every available square mile of land. Our power usage would have to go down, and humanity as a whole hates like hell to back off of a resource once they've gotten used to having a certain amount.

http://fusion.net/story/129075/elon...-would-be-needed-to-power-the-u-s-with-solar/

 

[SlitheryDee]

http://fusion.net/story/129075/elon...-would-be-needed-to-power-the-u-s-with-solar/

That sounds like great news to me. It actually looks doable based on that map. Looking at the article it seems it isn't even a best case scenario.

 

[sm625]

http://fusion.net/story/129075/elon...-would-be-needed-to-power-the-u-s-with-solar/

That graphic is a fine example of the near-blind shortsightedness of the typically naive greenie. The problem with that graphic is that it does not include the amount of land required to house the factories required to build that many solar panels. Or the amount of land to house the factories required to build the infrastructure necessary to route that much concentrated power around the country. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build that many solar panels. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build enough factories to support the building of that many solar panels. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build enough factories to support the building of the supporting equipment, such as batteries or some other form of energy storage. Or the amount of land required to extract the petroleum beneath it to provide the energy to power the building of all those solar panels, panel manufacturing facilities, mining equipment manufacturing facilities, supportive equipment facilities, and of course provide power for the mining equipment. Or the amount of land to house the toxic byproducts of polycrystalline solar panels, of which there are many. Have I forgotten anything? I'm sure I have. And we wonder how government projects turn into boondoggles...

 

[Grooveriding]

Power can be defined as all resources, I wasn't just referring to oil. We use too much fossil fuels, water, electricity, food etc. All of these resources are deeply intertwined; things like food and electricity consume huge amounts of fossil fuels and water to produce. It's not sustainable at the rate of consumption.

We tend to see things in the immediate, as in it will it affect me before I die, it already has in the form of higher costs, droughts etc. In the long term the simple math of higher consumption than rate of replenishment will bring us to a tipping point and crisis. Just one shortage will cause a crisis across the board. Fossil fuels become scarce; electricity and food prices go up. Water shortages; electricity and food prices go up. Food shortages; people die.

 

[CPA]

Not me. I wish I lived in that world today. I commute for an hour and a half total everyday. If I could do my internet neffing during that time then I would have so much more leisure time to do other things. Like more internet neffing.

Sorry, don't want the government in control of my vehicle, and that's exactly what would end up happening.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Sorry, don't want the government in control of my vehicle, and that's exactly what would end up happening.

I'd like to live in the in-between time where the self-driving functionality is working really well, but car companies still have to provide an override in order to move any vehicles. The next generation after that will be asking themselves why they need steering wheels at all, but until then you might be able to get the best of both worlds.

 

[K1052]

OP, what makes you think the wars would stop? Lithium is the most used element in EV batteries. It isn't made in a lab, it has to be extracted. Guess where most of it is located? Chile, Argentina Russia and China (and some African countries). Guess who will hold us by the balls if EV's become the norm? Oh, and in case you're wondering, Lithium has the same peak issues as oil.

The US actually has enormous, largely unexploited, lithium reserves. Among the reasons Musk put the gigafactory in Nevada was easy access to raw materials.

 

[K1052]

I'd like to live in the in-between time where the self-driving functionality is working really well, but car companies still have to provide an override in order to move any vehicles. The next generation after that will be asking themselves why they need steering wheels at all, but until then you might be able to get the best of both worlds.

I'm in my early 30s and count me as part of the generation who doesn't care if there is manual control or not. In fact I don't even want to own it personally and instead use a service that provides them.

For those of us that grew up with more technology the road to acceptance is going to be much smoother.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Sorry, don't want the government in control of my vehicle, and that's exactly what would end up happening.

They control your vehicle now via laws- how fast you can drive, where you can drive, etc. Heck they control who can drive via licensing.

Plus quite honestly the federal government moves too slow to completely control all the innovation that will happen in that segment, at least initially. Managing where everyone is going would take a technical competence that they don't have when you consider the last major tech project they took on (the exchange website).

The local governments will do or give anything these autonomous car companies want to get their city to early on the adoption list. Decades of poor decision making means that autonomous cars are the only chance those cities have at keeping traffic at current levels in the future. They aren't going to get in the way of the companies that will save their skins.

I just don't see it as a real problem.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Energy density is a good part of it as someone previous stated earlier.

The other is some forms of energy are impractical for certain applications. Electrically powered aircraft make no sense with current battery technology. Even hybrid aircraft will require massive advances in weight savings for electric motors and materials for a hybrid to make sense. On top of that, the initial costs and maintenance for such a machine theoretically could be much MUCH higher due to being more complicated functionally.

In social terms, you also have personal views. For instance work on propfan engines (pic above) for airliners guaranteed massive fuel savings over the available turbofan engines of the 80s, sometimes as much as 30+ % in terms of reduced fuel burn for almost the same cruising speed. Interestingly, in terms of sociology and psychology, prop powered aircraft are seen as inferior to jets by virtue that props are seen as more primitive and less comfortable because of noise and old views and experiences of people who have been on piston-powered prop aircraft.

What what didn't pan out so well for them is like turboprops, they are much more noisy than a turbofan which has a shrouded fan which creates problems with so many airports having noise restrictions and the possibility of a very noisy passenger cabin. Also, fuel prices went back down to manageable levels in the late 80s, coupled with advances in turbofans (some advances thanks to propfan research) that mitigates some of the fuel burn advantages of the propfan, though propfans are still being proposed for future airliners.

 

[Ruptga]

Plus quite honestly the federal government moves too slow to completely control all the innovation that will happen in that segment, at least initially. Managing where everyone is going would take a technical competence that they don't have when you consider the last major tech project they took on (the exchange website).

By the time that's a technology practical for public implementation the NSA will have been doing it for five years, maybe ten. Trying to stand in the way of technology development is pointless, but I wouldn't count on our government's incompetence to keep them from using new tools to pry or interfere in our lives.

 

[poofyhairguy]

By the time that's a technology practical for public implementation the NSA will have been doing it for five years, maybe ten. Trying to stand in the way of technology development is pointless, but I wouldn't count on our government's incompetence to keep them from using new tools to pry or interfere in our lives.

Maybe, but I don't see people here saying "I don't use the internet because the NSA is watching all of it." We all (obviously) use the internet, and we have come to expect as a society that at any point the cost is NSA observation.

I don't see how self driving cars are any different other than the Minority Report-esc feature that the cops can shut them off in a chase (which would actually save a lot of lives).

 

[brainhulk]

greedy oil and auto industry. /tinfoil

https://youtu.be/PSS1ZMdt3FQ

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/synopsis

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car?

 

[Brian Stirling]

When I can drive LA to Vegas non-stop, fuel in Vegas in 15 minutes and return non-stop. In a car that costs less than $30k. And where the manufacture/disposal of the batteries is not more polluting than the emissions of a gas engine.

And solar panels?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...r-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking/

Your link is yet another piece by someone with no concept of how things are made so the the mere mention that a chemical like sodium hydroxide is used implies that solar is therefore dirtier than oil -- nonsense. Most of these pieces appear to be written by the type of journalist that didn't do very well in math or science so writing was the field they entered. So, not knowing much about science they nonetheless feel as though they can label something like the production of solar panels as worse than oil.

The production technology is similar to the manufacture of LCD panels for TV's etc and similar to the process for making computer chips. The use of a wide range of chemicals is just part of the deal and they often pay little attention to the controls put in place to limit or eliminate the release of those chemicals.

Further, oil isn't pumped straight from the ground and into your gas tank and there are a great many steps along the way the release pollution. Who here wants to live next to a refinery.

Lastly, once a solar panel is installed it emits zero pollution and it does that for the entire life of the installation that can be more than 30 years. Every time you operate your car it emits pollution -- every time!


Brian

 

[natto fire]

Sorry, don't want the government in control of my vehicle, and that's exactly what would end up happening.

I hate to reach, but if that technology was also used to disable a fleeing vehicle, which ultimately lead to a loved one of yours not dying in a collision with a vehicle the police were chasing, would you support it?

US road deaths have been declining lately, a testament to how safe vehicles are nowadays (driver habits are certainly not improving). That said, there have still been over 3.6 million US road deaths since 1899. Per capita has dropped significantly, but if we have the technology to close that gap even further, why not improve it?

I get where you are coming from with the government not always being the best at applying justice, considering how many people have been found innocent years after their incarceration. Not to mention various other invasions of privacy, and just generally being terrible.

 

[Ham n' Eggs]

Granted, they were cool 15 years ago, but given current technology and battery capabilities I see absolutely no reason to even mess around with fossil fuel anymore. It's just easier to use solar or wind to charge batteries and be done with it and not have to refine oil over and over again.

Not to mention they sound quieter.

Because money and profit.
Because people in power are sociopaths who want more for themselves... more mansion, more yacht, more luxury, more car, more jet, more vacation, more of the power that money buys. For them it is get it while the getting is good... and that is understandable, it isn't nice but it is understandable.

Who do you think is pulling more strings in govt. and megacorp. leadership circles around the world? environmentalists & climate scientists or established oil conglomerates and the banking types who are heavily invested... both of which are rich beyond imagining and more powerful than the presidents and prime ministers of the western world because they provide the financial means to those politicians to gain political office. They give them money, politicians get a job. Sounds like an employer employee relationship to me. ...and that money in the hands of the oil conglomerates and banker types was/is the profit generated from the current system.

a very nice tidy circle of money profit and power.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Every house has a doorbell, and almost all of those doorbells have a bell transformer.

Nope.

Mine does not.

My brother's house does not.

I've visited several houses that do not.

Your argument is invalid

 

[Red Squirrel]

That graphic is a fine example of the near-blind shortsightedness of the typically naive greenie. The problem with that graphic is that it does not include the amount of land required to house the factories required to build that many solar panels. Or the amount of land to house the factories required to build the infrastructure necessary to route that much concentrated power around the country. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build that many solar panels. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build enough factories to support the building of that many solar panels. Or the amount of land required to mine the resources necessary to provide the raw materials to build enough factories to support the building of the supporting equipment, such as batteries or some other form of energy storage. Or the amount of land required to extract the petroleum beneath it to provide the energy to power the building of all those solar panels, panel manufacturing facilities, mining equipment manufacturing facilities, supportive equipment facilities, and of course provide power for the mining equipment. Or the amount of land to house the toxic byproducts of polycrystalline solar panels, of which there are many. Have I forgotten anything? I'm sure I have. And we wonder how government projects turn into boondoggles...

Obviously you would not put them all in one spot, they would be spread out. And what about the amount of land required to build every single object we have today, such as... lumber and house shingles? We have that land, apparently. So why not solar panels or the buildings to make them in? Heck look at all the cars on the road, we have enough factories to build those. (correction: China does. )

As for the pollution generated by making solar panels or batteries, reality check: all products generate pollution when they are manufactured. Of course we want to try to curb that as much as possible, but it's a fact, that when you are dealing with melting chemicals, melting adhesives, grinding stuff, or whatever is involved in the manufacture of a specific product, there is some pollution, as well as energy being used. I'm sure casting an engine block for a gas car also generates pollution and uses lot of energy. But with renewable devices like solar panels, the pollution stops after it's manufactured, and only resumes when it's disposed of... which will be a serious issue that we need a solution for. Same goes for all the ewaste, it is a pretty big issue. But for a device such as a combustion engine, it pollutes for it's entire life. So in the end, solar panels are still more green than a gas generator for the same amount of power. Of course this is speaking on a per unit basis, the manufacture of any object is continuous as we want to make more and more, so the process does need to be refined to minimize pollution as much as possible.

Now back to that map, I don't think there is that much vacant land in all of the US, so this would not be pure solar farms in a given area, but rather solar panels on roofs and other existing places that could accommodate them. You'd also want to concentrate on areas that make the most sense, like California where it's always sunny.

This would not solve the storage problem though, when it's night time you still need to produce energy, the grid is not a big battery, and you can't turn down/up power plants at a finger snap, so to accommodate this much panels you need storage for it to make sense... and I think that is where Tesla was going with their Powerwall. Anyone who gets a Powerwall also gets enough panels to charge it during the day. If everyone does this, it means less strain/reliance on the grid. If enough people do this that the total square metre of panels combined is that of that picture, it technically covers the entire US's needs. That's basically the point he was making I think.

 

[IBMJunkman]

Your car takes 15 minutes to fuel ???

Tank is 19 gals. Many pumps seem to trickle the gas out. Then you have to deal with the cashier. I chose 15 minutes because that is enough time to gas up but not juice up a battery.

 

[NoTine42]

If someone wants to make a positive difference in the world ... Get rid of dumb traffic lights.
Improve traffic light timing, and all vehicles produce less emissions.

Tech is at the point where a raspberry pi with 4 cameras (heck you could go all out and use 4 pi) could do a better job while running an app created by freshman college students. No federal or state funding of an intersection should be approved if it lacks a smart traffic light.

 

[Red Squirrel]

If someone wants to make a positive difference in the world ... Get rid of dumb traffic lights.
Improve traffic light timing, and all vehicles produce less emissions.

Tech is at the point where a raspberry pi with 4 cameras (heck you could go all out and use 4 pi) could do a better job while running an app created by freshman college students. No federal or state funding of an intersection should be approved if it lacks a smart traffic light.

That is true, traffic systems are ancient, did you ever see the control cabinet for one of those, while it looks pretty sexy, why is it so complicated? And the actual timing could definitely be smarter, such as track traffic conditions throughout every intersection and they could all work together in harmony to make the traffic flow more efficient. For example in my city there's not a soul on the road at night. All traffic lights should be green on the highway, but flashing for the intersecting side roads. So through traffic just goes but if you want to get on the highway, you have to treat it like a stop sign.

But during the day especially at 8am, 12pm and 5pm it's RIDICULOUS. Some roads get completely backed up. Traffic lights in those areas could change dynamically to ease the flow of traffic. The entire thing could be automated.

 

[MajinCry]

As others have stated:

Money. Corporate lads, that get their money 'n' power through coal 'n' oil, are gonna fight tooth 'n' nail to keep that cash-baby kickin'.

Inefficiency. Coal 'n' oil has a much longer history, so more stuff's been done to squeeze out more usage, unlike the modern alternatives.


I wonder how connected the oil barons an' the like are, to the green-energy companies? Do they own 'em an' go out of their way to make sure they don't horn in on the action? Do they own most of the business and strong-arm the progress of the technology?


On the subject o' self-driven cars...I can't drive. It'd be swanky to have something that can drive me places. Would also make insurance a hell of a lot easier, nay? Removes the human error, so ya gotta be reimbursed for shizzle.