Will green be the next bubble?

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Balt
I don't think it has the weight behind it that housing does, but some green projects really do seem like an unsustainable fad.

Green things are inherently sustainable. Wasteful things are unsustainable. Continuing to pollute our planet unfettered just so we can make more money is unsustainable.

Green is where it's at. Watch the little wind power companies shoot up in value when they are used instead of nuclear.

IMO, op, you should be known as "Bait". :light:

This thread is flamebait.

 

[RU482]

didn't at least part of the green bubble already pop?

Ethanol - corn price collapse, 6-14% drop in Iowa farm land prices in this quarter
hybrids don't command the price they used to. what else

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Seems like we're wasting a lot of money not harvesting solar energy when it's basically given to us for free!!!

and all this coal and uranium was jsut given to us for free too, its just sitting there underground for us to take. And yet coal and nuclear platns still cost billions of dollars to build. The same is true for solar or wind plants of the same size, they cost billions as well (twice as many billions as coal and nuclear though ).

As for bubbles, I think ethanol is the clear example, the green movement is turning on it, and as soon as it loses its government subsidies its done for.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Phokus
Seems like we're wasting a lot of money not harvesting solar energy when it's basically given to us for free!!!

and all this coal and uranium was jsut given to us for free too, its just sitting there underground for us to take. And yet coal and nuclear platns still cost billions of dollars to build. The same is true for solar or wind plants of the same size, they cost billions as well (twice as many billions as coal and nuclear though ).

As for bubbles, I think ethanol is the clear example, the green movement is turning on it, and as soon as it loses its government subsidies its done for.

I saw this thing on the discovery channel recently, where in Spain they aimed thousands of mirrors at the top of a tower, and it heated it up to 3000 degrees Celsius. This caused water to boil, and in turn generated electricity for an entire town.

They said it was actually very cost effective.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: Phokus
Seems like we're wasting a lot of money not harvesting solar energy when it's basically given to us for free!!!

and all this coal and uranium was jsut given to us for free too, its just sitting there underground for us to take. And yet coal and nuclear platns still cost billions of dollars to build. The same is true for solar or wind plants of the same size, they cost billions as well (twice as many billions as coal and nuclear though ).

As for bubbles, I think ethanol is the clear example, the green movement is turning on it, and as soon as it loses its government subsidies its done for.

I saw this thing on the discovery channel recently, where in Spain they aimed thousands of mirrors at the top of a tower, and it heated it up to 3000 degrees Celsius. This caused water to boil, and in turn generated electricity for an entire town.

They said it was actually very cost effective.

They lied... Although maybe not entirely because the cost of electricity in much of Europe is 2-3 times what it is here. CSP (concentrating solar power) is what you are referring to there are a few plants of the same design in the USA, but they are more for "proof of concept" than economic power production. If you are concentrating solar power to produce steam you still need the same "secondary" systems that any power plants needs (steam turbogenerator and related equipment), the only difference is that the primary side is a bunch of mirrors instead of a nuclear reactor, or a coal fired boiler. So you really aren't saving any money since all those mirros take up a TON of land and cost alot and have to be maintained regularly. Where you really LOSE money though is the fact that solar power is not constant. The capacity factor is like 10% if the peak times you can produce 100MW you are only AVERAGING 10MW. This is because of day/night cycles, and the seasons (sun is at a lower angle during winter). In other words you have to buy a power plant that costs 10 times as much as what you will be producing on average. IF you take a nuke plant that costs 3 Billion lets say then turbine building only costs 1 billion, well for the same yearly energy output you would have to spend 9 billion on a solar plant (nuke plants are only on 90% which is why its 9 Billion and nto 10).

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Balt
I don't think it has the weight behind it that housing does, but some green projects really do seem like an unsustainable fad.

Green things are inherently sustainable. Wasteful things are unsustainable. Continuing to pollute our planet unfettered just so we can make more money is unsustainable.

Green is where it's at. Watch the little wind power companies shoot up in value when they are used instead of nuclear.

IMO, op, you should be known as "Bait". :light:

This thread is flamebait.

Well, not really. Everything that is labeled green certainly isn't. Using corn to create fuel that will never meet our demand for energy anyway and consequently driving up food prices doesn't seem like a sustainable policy to me.

Regardless, the larger question is whether at some point there is going to be a "falling out" of sorts. I think there probably will be. As others in the thread have pointed out, there will probably be a limited number of "green" projects that turn out to be successful relative to the number of ones that are tried. Even the successful projects may not be as efficient as some of the other successful projects. That means in the free market that they are scrapped. Depending on how much backing there is in some of the projects that may turn out to be unsuccessful, there could be some larger financial consequences.

As for the claim that I'm baiting.. very lame assertion.

 

[Sacrilege]

This is such a ridiculous topic. The present economic downturn aside, demand for resources has been growing at never before seen rates the past few decades as Asian nations develop. The environmental costs are huge: incredible pollution in China and other Asian nations that is simply not sustainable. The alternative to cutting down on pollution generation is simply death from lung cancer.

As demand for fossil fuels increase, prices will go up and the "green technologies" lampooned in this thread will be economically viable.

Climate changes and rising sea levels probably cannot be abated. Humans simply can't quickly change all of our existing technology, and have no control over whatever other natural cycles such as solar cycles may be at work. These climate changes will put extra pressures on people forced to relocate, move to higher ground, move to places more suitable for agriculture, etc. All of these migrations and changes will require efficient energy and practices. The era of throwing away resources is over.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Balt

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Balt
I don't think it has the weight behind it that housing does, but some green projects really do seem like an unsustainable fad.

Green things are inherently sustainable. Wasteful things are unsustainable. Continuing to pollute our planet unfettered just so we can make more money is unsustainable.

Green is where it's at. Watch the little wind power companies shoot up in value when they are used instead of nuclear.

IMO, op, you should be known as "Bait". :light:

This thread is flamebait.

Well, not really. Everything that is labeled green certainly isn't. Using corn to create fuel that will never meet our demand for energy anyway and consequently driving up food prices doesn't seem like a sustainable policy to me.

Regardless, the larger question is whether at some point there is going to be a "falling out" of sorts. I think there probably will be. As others in the thread have pointed out, there will probably be a limited number of "green" projects that turn out to be successful relative to the number of ones that are tried. Even the successful projects may not be as efficient as some of the other successful projects. That means in the free market that they are scrapped. Depending on how much backing there is in some of the projects that may turn out to be unsuccessful, there could be some larger financial consequences.

As for the claim that I'm baiting.. very lame assertion.

That's because they switched to ethanol without increasing corn production. With the current prices, it is more lucrative to grow corn, and we should see more production come on-line.

It's easy to cherry-pick examples where green technology is not viable, but the thing is, people with money are only going to invest in green technology where it is viable. There are plenty of examples of this, such as wind power which I already pointed out.