|
Post by jeffolie on May 25, 2009 12:30:54 GMT -6
Without huge government subsidies 'green energy' would not exist. The passion of finding a solution and for government to 'do something' drives this approach. If 'green energy' was cost effective, then it would be thriving without inflamed emotions motivating what little there is of it. The fact that there would have to be a six-fold increase in 'green energy' needed to even impact the global energy mix demonstrates how ideological and impractical the current technology is. One caveat is that with all the research, 'green energy' may get lucky and really have a large impact someday but just not today. =========================================================== The International Energy Agency praised the "green energy" elements of the economic growth stimulus packages of the world's 20 largest economies, though saying they aren't enough. Tanaka said there needs to be a six-fold increase in investment in renewable energy for it to make an impact on the global energy mix. www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=200905241002dowjonesdjonline000327&title=iea-headfears-mid-term-oil-supply-crunch-on-lack-of-invest
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on May 25, 2009 12:49:12 GMT -6
Emotions do run wild with advocacy groups promoting 'green energy'. For example in the article below the group expects a 10 fold increase in funding for their choice of solar energy production. ============================================================== "Solar power plants are the next big thing in renewable energy," said Sven Teske of Greenpeace International and co-author of the report. The technology is suited to hot, cloudless regions such as the Sahara or Middle East. The 28-page report said investments in concentrating solar power (CSP) plants were set to exceed 2 billion euros ($2.80 billion) worldwide this year, with the biggest installations under construction in southern Spain and California. "Concentrating solar power could meet up to 7 percent of the world's projected power needs in 2030 and a full quarter by 2050," it said of the most optimistic scenario. That assumes a giant surge in investments to 21 billion euros a year by 2015 and 174 billion a year by 2050, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Under that scenario, solar plants would have installed capacity of 1,500 gigawatts by 2050. That is far more optimistic than business-as-usual projections by the Paris-based IEA, which advises rich nations. It indicates that "by 2050 the penetration of solar power would be no higher than 0.2 percent globally," the report noted. www.businessinsider.com/by-2050-25-of-the-worlds-electricity-will-be-solar-2009-5
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 27, 2009 1:07:54 GMT -6
Without huge government subsidies 'green energy' would not exist. The passion of finding a solution and for government to 'do something' drives this approach. If 'green energy' was cost effective, then it would be thriving without inflamed emotions motivating what little there is of it. The fact that there would have to be a six-fold increase in 'green energy' needed to even impact the global energy mix demonstrates how ideological and impractical the current technology is. One caveat is that with all the research, 'green energy' may get lucky and really have a large impact someday but just not today. That's a pretty good synopsis. If there was a real demand for green energy, we'd already be producing it. But there's not. And when the government dumps our tax dollars into something that there's no demand for, it's a complete waste of our money. In fact, it's little more than grand theft-- grand theft taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by kramer on May 28, 2009 11:10:24 GMT -6
And then there is cap-and-trade. I've read through the bill a little and also read some reviews of it and it looks as if some of the higher energy costs from cap-and-trade will be given to other countries. Call me a nut but I believe some of this money (if it does end up in them) will be used in those countries to build up their infrastructure so that they can support manufacturing and other jobs. And I believe that those jobs will come from developed nations, in particular the US.
|
|
|
Post by beatle on Aug 23, 2009 14:12:14 GMT -6
Well, my niece is married to a near genius. Maybe he is one. He obtained his first college degree at age 18. Entered college when most his age were in 9th grade.
His take is there is no energy crises...we have an inexhaustable supply of energy at our disposal, even the fabric of the universe itself being a tapable source. He noted that research is directed in a manner that assures selling energy at a profit.
His suggestion is to give up the cave-man mentality of burning things to obtain it..(coal ,oil, bio-fuels, etc.) and direct research into tapping already inexhausatable sources that can be produced within each individual home. Problem: the energy would be so cheap as to have no market value.
Some of those capabilities already exist.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 23, 2009 14:38:51 GMT -6
The use of mechanical energy is a great boon to mankind. It multiplies work performance.
I wish there was "energy ...so cheap as to have no market value". This is just a perpetual motion machine type of misinformation. Perhaps this 'near genius' can make it happen, that would be great; but, for now one has to deal with realty.
|
|
|
Post by beatle on Aug 23, 2009 15:55:21 GMT -6
Not a perpetual energy machine...just the means to tap into already existing energy. That energy is perpetual...not any "machine" that taps into it.
Everything consists of energy including yourself and the magnetic energy of the planet itself. The spinning of the earth creates energy in its own right. Anything that involves motion releases energy....like water moving through a generator. Motion (energy) only needs to be captured and redirected.
The Chinese moon adventure is in preparation of establishing solar collectors on the moon. Many, many times more efficient than anything we could do on earth. Energy will be beamed back to China.
The "movement" of energy into space is constant. Light itself travels...is in motion. We live in an ocean of energy...it only has to be re-directed to where we want it. Research isn't geared in that direction. Energy is so abundant, that if captured it has no market value.
|
|
|
Post by jeffolie on Aug 23, 2009 17:46:14 GMT -6
I stand by my first position:
"Without huge government subsidies 'green energy' would not exist. The passion of finding a solution and for government to 'do something' drives this approach. If 'green energy' was cost effective, then it would be thriving without inflamed emotions motivating what little there is of it.
The fact that there would have to be a six-fold increase in 'green energy' needed to even impact the global energy mix demonstrates how ideological and impractical the current technology is. One caveat is that with all the research, 'green energy' may get lucky and really have a large impact someday but just not today."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further more, "Everything consists of energy" is clearly wrong. Einstein theorized that matter could be converted into energy. That means that matter is not energy until it goes through the process of being converted. Matter can easily be in different states such as water being liquid, frozen or vapor. It takes a change in pressure and/or energy to change water into different states. Light is well known to have the properties of a wave and a particle. Capturing the impact of light is what happens in solar energy. Re-directed energy takes change. That change is not free. Man creates machines and devices to make the change and thus capture the energy. Reality bits hard and the costs to re-direct energy are significant in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Aug 23, 2009 23:48:15 GMT -6
That infinite source of energy is called "Zero Point Energy" - and it gets very complicated after that. Suffice to say that some very bright people have tried to tap into it and failed but it attracts scientists because a cubic inch of the stuff is sufficient according some calculations to turn all our oceans into steam.
Even if we could tap the Dirac Sea(that's the source BTW) we still need conventional power plants albeit of a smaller scale to generate electricity(water, steam powered turbines, voltage converters, etc) from it.
It would be nice but I know some very large military contractors who would love to have access to such a power source as well.
The Chinese moon adventure is in preparation of establishing solar collectors on the moon. Many, many times more efficient than anything we could do on earth. Energy will be beamed back to China.
It would also make one of the most dangerous weapons ever conceived - basically a giant microwave beam that could cook cities and turn continents into waste lands. BTW this is why all the talk of space based solar power structures was essentially stopped when some military types pointed this out.
Energy beaming system = weapons system when a few tweaks are added.
And don't think the Commies don't know this and wouldn't consider blackmailing entire continents.
The good news is that the Chicoms may never get there. They are about where we were in the late 50's and this is after stealing most of NASA's latest space technology. BTW the same thing happened with the Soviets.
The bastards are so corrupt that their attempts at making their own microprocessors fabrication plants were a abject failure(India has a similar problem as well).
Thats the problem with being corrupt, lazy ass copy cats, you end up lacking both scientific and industrial know how and work ethic since your scientists become dependent on others for the hard work.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Aug 30, 2009 17:38:40 GMT -6
my problem with this statement is this: "Without huge government subsidies 'trans-continental railroad' would not exist. The passion of finding a solution and for government to 'do something' drives this approach. If 'transcontinental' was cost effective, then it would be thriving without inflamed emotions motivating what little there is of it.
(the government subsidies were land btw)
"Without huge government subsidies 'panama canal' would not exist...
"Without huge government subsidies 'hoover dam' would not exist....
"Without huge government subsidies 'national interstate system' would not exist...
"Without huge government subsidies 'modern telecommunications' would not exist...
the problem is that the civilization of mankind crossed a threshhold after the industrial revolution, where the power of mass production overwhelmed individual effort. This resulted in a population explosion that now requires the efficiencies of mass production to simply sustain it. And with that comes financing "by the masses".
whether or not you believe green energy will be viable simply comes down to whether you believe peak oil exists or it doesn't.
eventually- that source of energy is going to get more expensive.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 4:41:27 GMT -6
Well, my niece is married to a near genius. Maybe he is one. He obtained his first college degree at age 18. Entered college when most his age were in 9th grade. His take is there is no energy crises...we have an inexhaustable supply of energy at our disposal, even the fabric of the universe itself being a tapable source. He noted that research is directed in a manner that assures selling energy at a profit. His suggestion is to give up the cave-man mentality of burning things to obtain it..(coal ,oil, bio-fuels, etc.) and direct research into tapping already inexhausatable sources that can be produced within each individual home. Problem: the energy would be so cheap as to have no market value. Some of those capabilities already exist. Maybe that near-genius should have taken a basic physics classes instead of reading popular mechanic articles about zero point energy. Or maybe he saw too many Stargate episodes.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 4:42:53 GMT -6
Not a perpetual energy machine...just the means to tap into already existing energy. That energy is perpetual...not any "machine" that taps into it. Everything consists of energy including yourself and the magnetic energy of the planet itself. The spinning of the earth creates energy in its own right. Anything that involves motion releases energy....like water moving through a generator. Motion (energy) only needs to be captured and redirected. The Chinese moon adventure is in preparation of establishing solar collectors on the moon. Many, many times more efficient than anything we could do on earth. Energy will be beamed back to China. The "movement" of energy into space is constant. Light itself travels...is in motion. We live in an ocean of energy...it only has to be re-directed to where we want it. Research isn't geared in that direction. Energy is so abundant, that if captured it has no market value. This is metaphysics, not real science, Greenie.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 4:45:46 GMT -6
The Chinese moon adventure is in preparation of establishing solar collectors on the moon. Many, many times more efficient than anything we could do on earth. Energy will be beamed back to China.
It would also make one of the most dangerous weapons ever conceived - basically a giant microwave beam that could cook cities and turn continents into waste lands. BTW this is why all the talk of space based solar power structures was essentially stopped when some military types pointed this out. Energy beaming system = weapons system when a few tweaks are added. And don't think the Commies don't know this and wouldn't consider blackmailing entire continents. The good news is that the Chicoms may never get there. They are about where we were in the late 50's and this is after stealing most of NASA's latest space technology. BTW the same thing happened with the Soviets. The bastards are so corrupt that their attempts at making their own microprocessors fabrication plants were a abject failure(India has a similar problem as well). Thats the problem with being corrupt, lazy ass copy cats, you end up lacking both scientific and industrial know how and work ethic since your scientists become dependent on others for the hard work. The Chinese aren't building anything like this now or any time in the future. A) They don't have the technology, and they never will. B) It is unfeasible even for the US. C) Their GNP is too small, and so is their per capita PPP. D) This is all fantasy sci-fi B.S.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 4:48:04 GMT -6
my problem with this statement is this: "Without huge government subsidies 'trans-continental railroad' would not exist. The passion of finding a solution and for government to 'do something' drives this approach. If 'transcontinental' was cost effective, then it would be thriving without inflamed emotions motivating what little there is of it. (the government subsidies were land btw) "Without huge government subsidies 'panama canal' would not exist... "Without huge government subsidies 'hoover dam' would not exist.... "Without huge government subsidies 'national interstate system' would not exist... "Without huge government subsidies 'modern telecommunications' would not exist... the problem is that the civilization of mankind crossed a threshhold after the industrial revolution, where the power of mass production overwhelmed individual effort. This resulted in a population explosion that now requires the efficiencies of mass production to simply sustain it. And with that comes financing "by the masses". whether or not you believe green energy will be viable simply comes down to whether you believe peak oil exists or it doesn't. eventually- that source of energy is going to get more expensive. One little problem with this theory: the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, Interstate System, and Modern Telecommunications improved the "general welfare of the people". Green Fascism does nothing but piss money down the drain and it doesn't accomplish anything but more expensive energy and Democratic-Union thuggery. The Green Fascist projects going on now is better likened to the Erie Canal system of the 18th century. As soon as the money was spent, and the canal was built, the railroad put it out of business. These Green Fascists projects ARE NOT the Panama Canal, ARE NOT the Hoover Dam, ARE NOT the Interstate Systems.
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Jan 2, 2010 11:13:35 GMT -6
How's This for IMPACT ........ ? CNNMoney.com -- A new proposal to curb global warming could jump start stalled Senate greenhouse gas discussions and put an average of $1,100 a year back into the pockets of American consumers.Known as cap-and-dividend, the recently introduced bill would require oil, coal, and natural gas companies to buy permits each month to sell their fuel. Three quarters of the proceeds would be returned to the public each month in the form of a dividend check, with the remaining money going towards renewable energy, conservation or assistance programs. By driving up the cost of fossil fuel and making renewables more competitive, supporters say the plan will result in the same emission reductions as the current cap-and-trade bills before Congress. But they say it will be much more simple to operate. "The act provides businesses and investors with a simple, predictable mechanism that will open the way to clean energy expansion while achieving America's goals of reducing carbon emissions," Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said in a statement announcing the bill earlier this month. But critics fear the bill may stifle innovation. By limiting Wall Street's role in the trading of carbon credits they fear new technologies will die on the vine, missing out on needed capital from the investment community. Currently, the most talked about method of reducing greenhouse gases is through a cap-and-trade plan. Under it, power producers and other large emitters of carbon dioxide would be required to obtain permits each year from the government. Those permits would decline in number annually - hence the cap. The industries could either pay to clean up their operations, or buy the permits from one another - hence the trade. A version of this plan has passed the House, and one has been introduced in the Senate as well. It's a complicated system that critics say is too compromised. To woo votes, sweeteners were thrown in for just about everyone: Farmers are allowed to make money selling carbon offsets, the coal industry was cut a break, Wall Street is allowed in on the trading. The main difference between cap-and-trade and the new cap-and-dividend idea is the cap-and-dividend cuts out the trade part, and with it the Wall Street traders. While consumers will see their gas or electricity prices rise, supporters say cutting out Wall Street will prevent speculators from driving up the cost of carbon credits just to make a buck, and ultimately save consumers money. 0:00 /7:27Nobel advice for saving the planet A staffer for the bill's other sponsor, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said that after receiving some $1,100 in rebate checks each year and paying higher gas and electric prices, the average Maine consumer would come out $102 ahead. While savings or costs for cap-and-dividend will vary from state to state, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a cap-and-trade plan would cost consumers $175 a year on average nationwide. Roughly 80% of the population would end up either breaking even or making money under cap-and-dividend, said the staffer. The remaining 20%, generally wealthier people who use more energy in things like multiple dwellings and air travel, would lose money. "Climate change legislation must protect consumers and industries that could be hit with higher energy prices," Collins said in a statement. The Democrats in the Senate are having a rough time mustering enough support to pass the bill even within their own party. Many Senators fear the legislation will be too costly for their constituents. Getting the Senate to pass a bill, and ultimately have the United States enact mandatory cuts in greenhouse gases is seen as essential in securing a new worldwide global warming treaty.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Jan 26, 2010 12:07:55 GMT -6
I got no problem with raising taxes to meet expenditures of goverment, so fat banksters don't gorge themselves off our interest payments cause of debt. I have a big problem with Green-Commies absolutely raping science and the education level of the public with their Global Warming Satanism. And that's what you Greens are, you are Satanists, agents of evil and death and destruction; the muslims have done their worse but the damage the Green Satanists can and will cause has not been seen yet.
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Feb 12, 2010 13:49:28 GMT -6
A report was recently issued by The President's Biofuels Interagency Working Group regarding the status of advanced biofuels: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/growing_americas_fuels.PDFAs I read through this report, I couldn’t help but think that it appeared to have been written by an optimistic cheerleader rather than by someone conducting a sober assessment of the situation. It contains very little of "Here is why we have fallen more than 90% short of our advanced biofuel targets." Instead, the report is completely full of Rah! Rah! Rah! Bear in mind that the advanced biofuel mandate for 2010 was 100 million gallons. The report admits that the shortfall will almost certainly exceed 90% (as I have been saying it would for at least a couple of years), and the report coincided with an announcement that the former 100 million gallon (cellulosic) mandate for 2010 is being reduced to 6.5 million gallons. Turns out that the government is learning that you can’t mandate technology after all.Where the report does get into specifics, it makes excuses, suggesting that the technologies themselves aren't the problem, lack of funding is. To that I say that I can make all sorts of things work "commercially" if I am willing to throw enough money at them. But they will only continue to remain "commercial" so long as I am supplementing them with outside funding. This report would seem to have been written by people who believe that technological progress is inevitable. All barriers can be broken down by throwing enough money at them. While I am a technology buff, I have a different view on technology. Generally, technological successes are built upon a great many resolved technical problems. Yet it may require only a single unresolved problem to lead to technological stagnation, or failure. For example, consider the scale-up of a process from the laboratory. I have run laboratory reactors and distillation columns - and scaled those up - so I am familiar with some of the things that can go wrong. The scale of a laboratory process may be on the order of a few pounds a day. At that scale, things behave differently for a number of reasons. When scaling up a lab process to something like demonstration scale – say a factor of 100 times greater than the lab process – many things can go wrong. In fact, I think it is safe to say that most good ideas die in the lab when practical realities intrude upon theoretical considerations. One of the most important aspects to manage is the heat inputs and outputs. In the laboratory, the size of the equipment is such that the heat losses from surface areas is a much greater percentage of the total than when the equipment is scaled up. What does this mean? It can mean that it is difficult to replicate the temperatures achieved in the lab. It can mean that the temperatures at scale are much hotter than desired, or it can mean that there are undesirable temperature variations within the process. In my experience, this is a frequent cause of failure when scaling up from the lab. Each successive scale-up filters out more seemingly good ideas, and in a world in which commercial success hinges on actually being able to earn money from a project, this filter works well. In a world in which technological failures are met by excuses and then optimistically throwing more money at the problem, then end result will be a massive amount of spending, and later congressional inquiries into why we wasted so much taxpayer money with so little to show for it. So success for these projects is far from assured. Even success at one level of scale-up doesn't assure success at full commercial scale. I can rattle off a dozen things that have gone wrong and been apparent only as projects progressed to full commercial scale. Trace contaminants that can easily be disposed of in the lab can become big headaches at scale. Corrosion is often a killer once some of these projects begin to operate at bigger volumes. But for the technological cornucopians, these are not real problems: They just require more money and they will be solved. But then why do cancer and heart disease still kill so many people each year? Why does my laptop battery only lasts a few hours instead of a week? Why don't we commercially fly people from London to New York in an hour? The reason is that not all problems are solved by throwing more money at them, because the laws of science sometimes get in the way. Further, solutions are generally advanced an incremental step at a time – not exponentially as our cellulosic ethanol mandates were designed to be. As I have pointed out, cellulosic ethanol technology is more than 100 years old. You heard it here, and you can hold me to it: There will be no breakthrough that suddenly makes it cost-competitive to produce. On the other hand, press releases that announce big breakthroughs for small incremental steps? No end to those I am afraid, nor any retraction when they can't replicate results outside the lab. The impression this leaves is a steady upward march in the commercialization of cellulosic ethanol - and no setbacks that weren't simply related to lack of funding. Cellulosic ethanol will never be produced in large volumes for less money than corn ethanol can be produced for - and keep in mind that we are still subsidizing that after 30 years. What may happen is that it eventually can be mildly successful in certain very specific instances. But to think that a billion tons of U.S. biomass will contribute a major portion of the U.S. fuel supply via cellulosic ethanol? Hogwash from many people who have never scaled up anything. The reasons are not from lack of funding, they are fundamental based on physics, chemistry, and the nature of biomass. Technological breakthroughs won’t get around the laws of physics. The previous was written by Robert Rapier -- a Chief Technology Officer for a bioenergy holding company -- for The Oil Drum, a discussions group about energy and our future.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 12, 2010 15:49:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Cactus Jack on Feb 16, 2010 13:09:14 GMT -6
Are you Robert Rapier?
Nope! I'm not him. I thot it was a good article. Wanted to share it with intellectually astute members.
|
|