Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
In my experience, gov't research is political and industry research is self-serving. I remember when Black and Veatch was a hired gun for the electric utility industry. So, who can you rely on?
I really don't think the US government wants to go green, if it did it would have realised the opportunity back in 1973 when the problem first arose. Call it lobbyism, special interest groups, apathy, whatever you want, I don't think the US government is at all keen on making the switch.
Therefore the fact that a study by a government instution basically prooves the whole BS rhetoric Bush has been using for so long that going green will end up throwing the economy back decades wrong is only more proof that there has to be some major substance to it.
Of course, a fair dose of scepticism can't harm anyone, but it's not the only source where I have read that thermal solar is actually way more affordable than most people are made to believe.
Its a good question why this sort of solar power where not photovoltaic panels but turbines and generators are used to produce power, are not more distributed so far. I know that in Spain they just built a major plant. Thats a good start but not nearly enough of course.
The major problem with this energy source is however that its limited to very hot and sunny regions. So for Europe mostly Spain. In America their are more regions with good potential.
Good question indeed.
The energy source is though not so limited as you suggest, the largest solar furnace in the world that reaches up to 3.000 °C just concentrating solar rays is in France, I admit, the southern part, but still.
Countries like Germany and (taking its size into consideration) also Austria are pretty much worldwide leaders when it comes to the amount of solar collectors for water heating which suggests to me that appearently, there has to be some serious solar potential in our latitudes as well, but it's obvious that the farther south you go the better results you'll be getting.
Still, there's always the possibility to massively develope thermal solar plants in the northern part of Africa and then transport it to Europe using HVDC technology for transmitting the large amounts of energy to the continent. It's no problem generating green power for Europe. I personally also see no big problem with Europe remaining more or less dependant on energy imports - considering the small size but huge consumption, I don't see an energy independant Europe anywhere in the next century to tell you the truth. The big problem for Europe though is the high fluctuation of energy prices - a problem that can be effectively countered if you have a system that will always produce energy at constant costs, like solar power. By providing countries like Morocco or Algeria with a very valuable assett to their economies (export of electricity) we do not only take huge steps towards meeting our Kyoto protocol goals through the Clean Development Mechanism of it, we also effectively reduce our need for fossil fuels and economic instability that comes with it as well as help the development of countries like the ones I listed above which should have a direct impact on the immigration problems specially Spain is facing by helping create a well developed "buffer" zone between the countries where most refugees comes from and Europe.
The southern parts of Europe have great solar ressources while the northern parts have great wind ressources. Around 20% of electricity produced in Denmark already comes from wind eventhough it still is a fairly new technology compared to hydro-power, for example. The cost of electricity from windpower is already highly competitive.
I really don't think the US government wants to go green.
US Government is about power politics. Such power derives from economic leverage. From an Entropy perspective, 'economic' can be understood as the progressive transformation of usable energy into unavailable energy. This leads to an overall decrease in our living ability—except that the sun’s outside gift of energy may compensate for this decrease by driving the earth’s large-scale regenerative cycles (carbon, oxygen, etc). The sun’s finite input, however, can only compensate if economic activity’s Entropy production is not too large. Go solar or die.
US Government is about power politics. Such power derives from economic leverage. From an Entropy perspective, 'economic' can be understood as the progressive transformation of usable energy into unavailable energy. This leads to an overall decrease in our living ability—except that the sun’s outside gift of energy may compensate for this decrease by driving the earth’s large-scale regenerative cycles (carbon, oxygen, etc). The sun’s finite input, however, can only compensate if economic activity’s Entropy production is not too large. Go solar or die.
I agree with you, but I'll not back up from my logic that the US government (even if it's wrong and even dangerous) is not all too keen to switch, different to the EU for example, which has made serious steps towards an energy policy that actually has a future only a couple weeks back.
You'r absolutely right on the go solar or die statement though. The level of entropy that humans would have to engage in in order to live "substainably" without using solar energy (which I will currently limit to direct radiation, wind and hydro) is so low that humans probably couldn't even live. We're only "lucky" that (fossil) fuel sources have accumulated for millions of years so that we get the sensation that entropy when it comes to energy conumption/production doesn't matter, which of course is wrong.
Your statement about "sun's finite input" is kind of disturbing and conflicting though. If by sun's finite energy you mean its ability to, over time, create new fossil fuels, of course, agreed. But in general, the amount of energy the sun radiates being finite has no relevance since that amount is so large it could cover our needs thousands of times over, but of course you'd have to go solar. As long as its solar energy, it doesnt matter how often you "transform" it (drive the level of entropy up) since there's plenty of it anyways.
...in general, the amount of energy the sun radiates being finite has no relevance since that amount is so large it could cover our needs thousands of times over, but of course you'd have to go solar. As long as its solar energy, it doesnt matter how often you "transform" it (drive the level of entropy up) since there's plenty of it anyways.
The interceptable flux (energy/sq ft/sec) that can be given over to collection is finite, but perhaps large enough if all roofs, for example, were utilized. I have not done such a calculation. We certainly cannot collect on all of the earth's surfaces. The usage rate could conceivably exceed the collection rate? Can anyone shed 'light' on this?
The interceptable flux (enegy/sq ft/sec) that can be given over to collection is finite, but perhaps large enough if all roofs, for example, were utilized. I have not done such a calculation. We certainly cannot collect on all of the earth's surfaces. The usage rate could conceivable exceed the collection rate? Can anyone shed 'light' on this?
Only today i read the "thousands of times over" statement in an energy report of the province of Styria, where I live in. I'll do some research tomorrow though, as I should have the sources for it at work.
Regerative breaking can't supply the bulk of battery charging needed--that will have to come from plulgging in to a polluting electric utility. Coal gasification's price is not the main issue--its pollution is.
Neither coal gasification nor electric cars are environmentally acceptable according to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As I explained above, both create more environmental disorder than benefit--and one doesn't even have to do the details to conclude this.
Go solar or die of disorder.
Neither poster seems to 'get it'.
I live in the real world. We arent going to have 100% solar. Ever. We cant even get about 1/4 of the people in our country to admit the planet is warming.
Its a good question why this sort of solar power where not photovoltaic panels but turbines and generators are used to produce power, are not more distributed so far. I know that in Spain they just built a major plant. Thats a good start but not nearly enough of course.
The major problem with this energy source is however that its limited to very hot and sunny regions. So for Europe mostly Spain. In America their are more regions with good potential.
I really don't think the US government wants to go green, if it did it would have realised the opportunity back in 1973 when the problem first arose. Call it lobbyism, special interest groups, apathy, whatever you want, I don't think the US government is at all keen on making the switch.
Therefore the fact that a study by a government instution basically prooves the whole BS rhetoric Bush has been using for so long that going green will end up throwing the economy back decades wrong is only more proof that there has to be some major substance to it.
Of course, a fair dose of scepticism can't harm anyone, but it's not the only source where I have read that thermal solar is actually way more affordable than most people are made to believe.
The US Govt is just a reflection of the US people. Like anybody, money comes first. After the oil crunch of the 70's ENDED, people didnt see a reason to switch, oil was cheap again, people could buy the big, safe cars again, climate change didnt start getting exposure until what.. the late 80's early 90s?
Linear Mode
