Kazikli Bey

We all hear about how the conservative spectre (generally) do not believe that Global Warming is happening, or maybe, not to the extent that Al Gore claims. My question is though, even if Global Warming is not happening, what is your stance on the slow process of bringing in more renewable energy sources (solar, windmill, etc) and the phasing out of older forms (coal power, natural gas power, even nuclear power)?

__________________

Shiva_TD

The answer is obvious. COST

Solar energy, whether you are tapping it directly with solar collectors or from the winds it creates, costs more than coal, oil, or nuclear power. You can say that the government could subsidize it but this merely hides the costs and does not eliminate them.

I was involved in solar energy in the 1970's and people kept saying "the costs will come down" but the insiders knew this was a false hope. The primary costs related to solar are materials and land. The costs of materials are not going to go down and the land required for collecting solar energy are huge. Remember that there isn't a whole lot of energy in a square foot of sunlight. Certainly the cost of land is not going down either.

So if you want solar then get ready to pay for it. I would guestimate that the average home electric bill would go up well over $100/mo to switch from coal to solar but that is a guess. It could be much more. This is not to say that we might be paying more in environmental costs using coal but they aren't evident to the individual writing out their montly check to the power company.

prag

Can you explain how the 2nd Law of Thermo was taken into account in your conclusions? If not, I can't see how you have any credibililty on energy issues, whatsoever. See posts # 1 and #3 under Go Solar or Die.

FRYandBENDER

I don't think we should get rid of nuclear power, but I'm all for weening off of coal and oil.

__________________
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars. ... I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask no one to live for me, nor do I live for others. I covet no mans soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.

Ayn Rand, Anthem.

Common insult examples and how to avoid them

AzTeK

Reading http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/39291.pdf should clear that misconception up a bit, and that article is only talking about "direct" solar power.

Wind power has long been a very feasable alternative from an economic point of view, eventhough not all regions have areas where wind can be exploited. In my home province, Styria, around 25% of total wind capacity has been exploited already, and we are still barely producing 1% of our electricity needs with wind. Things look different when you have stuff like shores though. Thermal solar collectors to provide 100% of your warm water needs (4 person household) on your roof cost no more than (a one-time investment of) around €3500 and pay for themselves in around 7 to 10 years.

And nuclear power only seems cheap at first glance due to the massive government subsidies for it. Not to speak of the fact that the "cost" of nuclear energy does not include "little" aspect that you need to store the waste for tens of thousands of years.

For a start to get the market forces kicking in on green energy, the government should stop subsidising conventional fuels (oil companies, for instance, or nuclear plants). Hell, even coal is subsidied in some countries.

__________________

prag

Are you aware that nuclear plants create radioactive waste in direct proportion to the energy produced—some of which (Plutonium 40) must be guarded in environmental isolation for hundreds of thousands of years? Nukes also routinely release radiation to the surroundings. Are you ok with that?

How much fossil fuel pollution does it take to build, operate, and decomission a nuke? Have you looked into that?

One doesn't have to know the details of non-solar machines; they all create more earth disorder than order according to the 2nd Law. See 'Go Solar or Die' where this explained. How can you blithely ignore this fact?

Grez

Guess its back to horse and buggy then, but I'm sure PETA would get pretty mad. Damn, seems we can't win.

TheHat

Well as a conservative myself, I would have to say that bring in all forms of competition as humanly possible. We will never rid ourselves of oil, coal, etc. Those will always be around in some form, to many things are made with them to cut them out completely.

As for solar, wind, etc. Out in the real world, not the "these are better b/c they pollute less" world, but the real world where cost dictates what comes into play (except when governments create artificial economies, like the ethanol stuff we are seeing now), they will not be cost effective until they are equal or less then in price to the others. And that is just a plain fact. Plus solar and wind can only be most effective in areas where there is no obstructions to sunlight and where there is enough wind to pump out enough power. Those are huge limits when you can go dig for coal and have power at any given moment.

Plus, when you have to spend $10,000 to get solar, you havent saved and can never save the money you spent gettint it. Yeah you can say you can pay it off in 10 years or whatever, but you still spent $10,000 for something that you can get for far cheaper from the power company. You can never make up the $10,000 you spent b/c that is $10,000 you could have spent elsewhere during the same time for other needs.

I know, I know "what about global warming"? Well, if the planet wants to get warmer, we arent going to stop it I dont care what anybody says. We just dont have the techology to destroy an entire planet, sorry. If we had that kind of technology it would be used for other things throughout the world dont ya think?

I mean this whole hysteria about us warming the planet is just foreign to me. And it should no way drive an artificial economy and energy source that cannot produce the equivalent of what we already have in price and in efficiency. To do so would just be stupid unto itself. It would not be a good business decision, nor a good energy policy for any nation to artificially inflate prices through fear of man killing the planet. Lets face it, global warming as a movement, has created its own stock market where people buy and sell carbon credits. This market is completely predicated upon continuing a false premise where man can actually destroy the planet, while the same people professing our own doom, are sitting around making millions off of it while "supposedly" the world burns.

nerv14

Im not a conservative, but i want to respond anyway

Even if renuable energy sources are more expensive, since many of them will be created in America they will create jobs which will in effect put more money into our own economy.

Even if the individual has to pay more for their energy the long term economic effects may be better than what we have today with a large trade imbalance, even if the energy is relatively cheap. An energy substidy may be economically sound.

Caltex

I foresee a distant future in which we use biology to solve our energy needs.

Cows eat grass and harness the energy to power themselves. Pigs eat just about everything as a fuel source. If we can ever figure out how to artificially metabolize fuel sources such as grass as efficiently as cows do, then use that energy to create a usable portable fuel source, we'd be just fine. I think it is only a matter of time before such problems are resolved, not if they are resolved.

As with many other inventions of man, we're really just copying aspects of life into machines. Why not take a lesson from a few billion years of evolution.

__________________