OFFLINE

We were discussing some of this in a different topic earlier, so I thought I'd open one devoted to renewable energy sources here.  

For purposes of clarification (coz I had to look it up)..what is renewable energy? As i understand it, renewable energy is sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat...naturally replenished. Solar thermal power stations operate in the USA and Spain, and the largest of these is the 354 megawatt (MW) SEGS power plant in the Mojave Desert. Thats a lot of power isnt it? Of course...it may not be practical everywhere.

Trash incineration is an excellent example of killing two birds with one stone. (Oops...can I say killing?). Burning trash and waste (which we'll always have) provide energy. Plus I think there are methods to do this in a clean manner that wont cause pollution.

Hydroelectric power is a good source of energy. One of the more interesting ideas (imo) is tidal and wave power. We already use hydroelectric turbine on rivers and dams. These can (and are) be modified to work in the oceans. The UK, Ireland, South America, much of Europe and Israel are all developing methods to harness the power of the world's oceans. While I agree that Nuclear Power is a good source, and I think I read that nuclear plants are safer than ever, Hydroelectric power, if successful, could make nuclear energy obsolete.
Geothermal Energy
The world's largest geothermal power installation is The Geysers in California, with a rated capacity of 750 MW. Brazil has one of the largest renewable energy programs in the world, involving production of ethanol fuel from sugar cane, and ethanol now provides 18% of the country's automotive fuel.

Solar Array
Globally, an estimated 3 million households get power from small solar array systems. Micro-hydro systems configured into village-scale or county-scale mini-grids serve many areas. More than 30 million rural households get lighting and cooking from biogas made in household-scale digesters. Biomass cookstoves are used by 160 million households.

Biofuels
While ethanol has been said to be a cause of rising prices of corn (and rising food prices), it can also be produced from sugar beets, sugar cane, molasses and any sugar or starch that alcoholic beverages can be made from (like potato and fruit waste. So it seems to me that a comapany like ...Ore.ida, for example, can buy potatoes from farmers, peel them and use them for their own product...then sell the peelings and waste material to a biofuel company to make ethnol. Same with sugar beets and cane. Sell the waste, keep the main product.

I cant see why any of that would cause food prices to rise since you are actually profiting from stuff you'd normally throw away or feed to cows and hogs.

All of these ideas are ways to become more independent. And notice I said nothing (yet) about drilling in ANWAR. But I dont see why Obama feels that exploring these ideas would (quote) necessarily cause utility prices to skyrocket.

OFFLINE

i don't see any of these as being the answer. maybe as technology progresses, but not right now. they can help alleviate our dependency on fossil fuels, but not completely, and they all have major drawbacks.

OFFLINE

The answer to what?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:
The answer to what?

the answer to our energy needs.

OFFLINE

additionally, there are just too many people on this earth to live in harmony with nature. we now exist, in a sense, outside of nature, no longer subject to the forces which thin out populations.

OFFLINE

Well, decades ago, the idea of clean energy was sold to us as a sort of be kind to earth thing.  Car pool so you dont pollute.  Etc.

Now, however, oil prices are gonna force us to do something.  I hear its around $7 a gallon in europe.  Its over $2 / gallon here and I've read some comments from Europeans who feel we should be GLAD its only $3/gallon.  (Which shows how bad the economy is there).

I'm all for drilling.  I wish my state would build about 10 new refineries and put our people to work too!  Lol.  

But I'm also all for exploring other possibilities such as hydrogen power and all that stuff I mentioned.  We're insane if we dont throw off the yoke of oppression from OPEC.  Why we pay tax dollars to import oil from people who are really our enemies (Chavez, etc) I'll never understand.

What gets me is...it ought to work!  Why we havent done more toward renewable energies I'll never understand.  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

What gets me is...it ought to work!  Why we havent done more toward renewable energies I'll never understand.  

simply put, it's not as economically feasible as fossil fuels. can you imagine if all of a sudden we had no choice but to run our cars on hydrogen? where's it all going to come from? i say, let the markets take care of it. you can't force a demand for something that's more expensive, and less productive.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
additionally, there are just too many people on this earth to live in harmony with nature. we now exist, in a sense, outside of nature, no longer subject to the forces which thin out populations.

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese." -- Mr. Burns (The Simpsons)

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

What gets me is...it ought to work!  Why we havent done more toward renewable energies I'll never understand.  

simply put, it's not as economically feasible as fossil fuels. can you imagine if all of a sudden we had no choice but to run our cars on hydrogen? where's it all going to come from? i say, let the markets take care of it. you can't force a demand for something that's more expensive, and less productive.

But why does it have to be either-or?  Why cant it be both?

Why cant we continue to use fossil fuels and at the same time begin to develop renewable sources of energy?  Slowly making the transition when the infrastructure is in place?  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Argan Johnson:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:
additionally, there are just too many people on this earth to live in harmony with nature. we now exist, in a sense, outside of nature, no longer subject to the forces which thin out populations.

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she's losing. Well I say, hard cheese." -- Mr. Burns (The Simpsons)

*poison monkeys*

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

Originally Posted by Dennis Young:

What gets me is...it ought to work!  Why we havent done more toward renewable energies I'll never understand.  

simply put, it's not as economically feasible as fossil fuels. can you imagine if all of a sudden we had no choice but to run our cars on hydrogen? where's it all going to come from? i say, let the markets take care of it. you can't force a demand for something that's more expensive, and less productive.

But why does it have to be either-or?  Why cant it be both?

Why cant we continue to use fossil fuels and at the same time begin to develop renewable sources of energy?  Slowly making the transition when the infrastructure is in place?  

sure we can, but is that the government place to force (oops, i mean encourage) such changes when they clearly cant stand on their own two feet? simply put, if there is an economic demand for something, you don't need the government to subsidize it for it to make any money. the private sector will fill the niche on its own. we don't need to subsidize hybrid cars, and then turn around and offer a $7500 subsidy for people who buy them. we don't need to force regulations on light bulbs that turn out to have mercury in them, and don't last as long as promised. we don't need to subsidize the building of wind turbines, and solar panels. we don't even need to mandate fuel economy standards, because guess what. the more gas costs, the less people are going to buy gas guzzlers. we don't need cash for clunkers and we don't need tax credits for buying energy star appliances. we don't need the government to fund amtrak, when it's losing money. if there's a demand for more trains, let the free market meet that demand.

OFFLINE

Oh I agree with all that.  I'm all for private enterprise and dont think our govt needs to build another govt-run high speed train.  Lol!

What our govt can do, though, is remove allt he restrictions and over regulation imposed on free enterprise and business.  Our nation also has the highest corporate taxes in the world.  Such things strangle free enterprise.  It encourages business to build overseas, hire foreign workers and stimulate their economies instead of ours.  We also ought to stop flooding the market with dollars (monetizing the debt).  This weakens the dollar, and, as Beck sez, it is tied to oil, so it also makes oil prices rise.

OFFLINE

agreed. but every time you hear the government talk about all these green energy initiatives, what do you think that translates to? cha-ching, cha-ching.  

OFFLINE

Well, the problem with encouraging new green technologies isn't so much a straight market forces "the best product will win"  one, it's an "economy of scale" one. It's sort of hard for ppl to move to hybrid/biofuel/hydrogen/electric powered cars when you only have one or two places in your entire state where you can top up again. Every technology has a "critical mass" of production quantity you have to get to before ppl see it as a viable option to whatever they have already. Until you hit that tipping point, then emerging green tech needs all the encouragement it can get.      

OFFLINE

look at HD TVs miles. when they first came out, only the rich could afford them. now, they're basically as much as a regular TV used to be. better yet, did the government subsidize gas stations when cars first became available? the government didn't even lay the rails across this country, it was private companies. the problem is that many people see there being no choice but for the government to step in, but if given time, the government isn't needed.