• giveaway ENDS SOON! Cutest Baby Fowl Photo Contest: Win a Brinsea Maxi 24 EX Connect CLICK HERE!

what are y'all saving from the wild to deal with coming crisis?

Pics

Hydro is not considered renewable energy in the US. So solar and wind are responsible for about 8% of US production. Worldwide they are less than 1%.

Natural gas made coal unprofitable. We have fracking to thank for that low cost energy enabling the US to reduce its CO2 by more than most (or any) industrialized country. Solar/wind only appear to be cheap because all of their hidden costs are not factored in. Solar/wind actually increase the cost of electricity wherever they are implemented on a large scale.
 
This is really *not* a technical problem whatsoever.

Actually, it's totally a technical problem. With the current state of technology it is impossible to run a 24/7 industrialized society on 100% renewable power. Ships, airplanes, trucking, etc. etc; the list goes on and on. People who think otherwise are living in a dream world and don't know how the real world works.
 
Hydro is not considered renewable energy in the US. So solar and wind are responsible for about 8% of US production. Worldwide they are less than 1%.

Natural gas made coal unprofitable. We have fracking to thank for that low cost energy enabling the US to reduce its CO2 by more than most (or any) industrialized country. Solar/wind only appear to be cheap because all of their hidden costs are not factored in. Solar/wind actually increase the cost of electricity wherever they are implemented on a large scale.
To the best of my knowledge CBS is an American news concern. If you are saying they've got their data wrong then some evidence rather than a lot of rhetoric would be handy;)
 
To the best of my knowledge CBS is an American news concern. If you are saying they've got their data wrong then some evidence rather than a lot of rhetoric would be handy;)
The 'news' reports false stuff all the time here in Houston.
It isn't really a trusted source nowadays.
 
First off, renewables make the grid unstable. Anything above about 10% starts to introduce instability. So it does not improve the infrastructure, but it does make everything more expensive because dispatchable generation (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro) has to run in "spinning backup".

Secondly, home generation can't power an industrialized society that runs 24/7. Nor can home solar run a house and power an electric car. Also, that's a very expensive proposition compared to simply paying 10-15 cents/ kWh. The vast majority of people are not able to afford a home solar system.

Thirdly, electric energy can only be transmitted so far before line losses make a super-wide area grid like you're suggesting unfeasible. This is kind of bizarre and inconsistent because on one hand you're proposing that localized power generation is the answer, and on the other that a super large grid is the answer.

First, no it does not introduce instability. That is absurd, and bad science.

Second, I did not suggest home generation powers an entire industrialized society. Further, its significantly LESS expensive than fossil fuels. And yes, solar can power a home. There are many, many homes in NJ that not only run all their power needs from solar, but get energy credits by putting power back into the grid for others to use.

Third, this has nothing to do with anything, since there's no need to change to a "super wide area grid" as I did not suggest that either.

Please do not change what I actually said into some strawman.
 

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom