OT: Alternative Energy
- Thread starter fg7321
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, there was three mile island that was top of mind then while climate change wasn’t considered. The tech has changed but it also can’t be the only solution.
Correct: wind, solar and EVs are not 100% clean. But they are CLEANER than the alternatives. And adapting those sources of power will buy us time.
In the long run it’s a much more efficient system. In the short run it will be costly and require vast mineral resources to build out.
Batteries are too resource intensive and the idea that it could represent base load energy is not realistic. In the long run nuclear is the best base load. In the short run it’s gas.
Well said. Gas isn’t going anywhere any time soon. And there’s plenty of opportunity to make it much more efficient, while decreasing its role in other areas. In theory, you could get to a point in the not too distant future where no fossil fuels are needed during the day, while batteries, wind and nat gas cover the night time hours. With nukes running all day long.
And cleaner. That technology keeps improving, and more and more can be done to facilitate that. I actually consider that a better investment than some of the stuff governments are pushing.
Do need to get fugitive emissions under control though. CH4 is ~30x more potent at trapping heat than CO2.
Formula 1 racing have already tested running the cars using an apparently much lower carbon-footprint fuel (same engines, different means of fuel production involving hydrogen) and will be using that cleaner fuel for all cars in all races starting 2026.
A lot of folks are pouring money into research for this, including Porsche and other high-end sports car manufacturers. The problem to solve is how to more inexpensively produce it (it's way too expensive for mainstream use at the moment). But a lot of folks are very motivated to get it working so it's possible that at some point down the road, all the gas we use in all ICE vehicles will be vastly cleaner with a vastly lower carbon footprint.
California and several other states have adopted clean fuel standards which are driving a lot of this. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard is a really good framework that’s driving renewable fuel growth and decarbonizing the value chain - there are still a lot of emissions from extraction, refining, transport that can be reduced.
A bunch of stuff is not going to work via battery power any time soon (probably not for a very long time, if ever). Airplanes, ships and most trains, for example. Stuff that's already very heavy and constantly draws a huge amount of power over long periods of time.
Figuring out ways to decarbonize fuel burning and fuel production would be a hugely significant thing. Perhaps ultimately representing a much more significant impact on overall carbon emissions than a wholesale switch from ICE to EVs for passenger cars.
P.S. Don't mention that to EV evangelists or most Tesla shareholders, they really don't want to hear it. 🙂
Even in the net zero scenario, there will still be 300 million ICEVs on the road globally. Oil and gas will drop off, but they aren't going away. I think folks dont realize what an enormous economic opportunity this is for the United States. Distributed and Renewable energy creates so many new markets in the developing world for emergent industries and US products. China sees it (and anyone who says China isnt going green has their head up their asses - they add more solar than the rest of the world combined - because their products are more competitive if the energy to make them is effectively free) and we're sitting around bitching rather than going the 100 mph we should to capture this opportunity.
Also - here is an overview of CARBs LCFS - pretty cool stuff.
We’ll use them all with the goal of reducing carbon. If that can be done with gas engines, so be it. Of course one has to consider the full cycle production including the shipping via tankers, rail and trucks.
Global small modular reactor pipeline hits 22 GW, with US leading the market: WoodMac
Growing interest from heavy industry and a 25-nation agreement to triple nuclear power globally by 2050 are tailwinds as the first commercial SMR comes online in China.
waste product from junked solar panels? Anyone factoring that into the equations? I expect there are lots of factors and measurements we have not taken into account.
You really have to tell newbies to wait until the end.. the way he presents things sounds like he is backing whatever wild theories and "histories" he is presenting.. when often that is not the case. It is entertaining.
Do other forms of energy come waste product-free? Did you factor that into your "equation" .. or nah?
You mean the CO2 we are complaining about as the waste product of gasoline?
Really.. did you think at all before the knee-jerk response? The whole idea of "green" energy is what I am questioning. How green is it.. not "how green" is oil and natural gas or coal.. those are known commodities at this point. Its the idea that EVs are "green" and alternative energy wind and solar are "green".. that is the question.
Well, it’s not just CO2. Combustion of gasoline also emits NO2, benzene, CO, PM 2.0, PM 10, etc. some of which are carcinogenic. These are less buoyant than CO2 and are inhaled, leading to respiratory and cardiac issues from prolonged exposure.
It’s not debatable that wind and solar are more green over the long term. That is unless you solve for carbon emissions across the traditional energy chain which is a dubious proposition. Drilling, fracking, refining, transporting, driving to gas stations etc etc. and while you point to waste with renewables much of that will be recycled in the future. And you have lots of waste from traditional sources including polluted water and spills on top of that. That being said, we need it and we need it to be cleaner. Using energy from the sun and wind will certainly be cleaner over the long run.
Let's also not forget that consumption of taco bell leads to emission of some pretty noxious gases.
Electrifying the developing world with renewable energy will also create billions of new consumers for American products. We are so short sighted. It’s not possible to do that with a fossil energy system. Even if oil and gas weren’t destroying the planet, there’s simply not enough to accomplish that.
show your math because the power, materials, and labor used to construct these outweigh the energy generated for decades
The mandates are stupid. The tech is not there.. yet. At least teh tech we know about.. a recent vid I saw about how patents get held in secret by the government has me concerned that the tech IS there but the lords of energy and their minions in the government do not allow it to exist in the real world. Open up all those secreted patents and then we can discuss what is possible/feasible today.
SolarCraft Response to COVID-19 - SolarCraft
Browse our solar energy myths & facts online. SolarCraft offers dependable solar system installation services throughout California. (415) 382-7717
solarcraft.com
I don’t like the mandates, but they aren’t stupid at all. They were smart, and they’ve already accomplished their goal, for the most part.
Except for CA and maybe another state or two, they will keep being pushed off as political needs dictate. And that’s fine, IMO, because the EV ball is already rolling, which was the whole point.
Boy you’re looking for a lot of different units of calculation. As I said, long term.
The current process of exploration, extraction from deep sea to fracking. All requires massive amount of materials. Then the extracted oil travel by pipelines, massive cargo ships (tug.boats to move into harbor), where the product moves to refineries which are massive projects. Once refined they then move on truck, rail, pipeline and ship to distribution and onto gas stations all of which have massive steal tanks underneath them. We then drive our cars to these gas stations to get filled up.
Or massive amounts of materials to build renewable wind and solar which will come from utilities (some onsite) which will be distributed through wires to our homes where we plug in overnight. Does this require massive investment, yes but over 50 years we will be happy we did it.
If you’re saying we have massive sunk costs I agree and it we could decarbonize the current platform it would great. The conspiracy theory that there is the tech and we hide it is hard to believe. Who’s sitting on it? The energy companies? The car companies?
In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation
Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated. Gates was in the tiny community of Kemmerer Monday to break ground on the project. The co-founder of Microsoft is...
In Wyoming, Bill Gates moves ahead with nuclear project aimed at revolutionizing power generation
Bill Gates and his energy company are starting construction at their Wyoming site for a next-generation nuclear power plant he believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated. Gates was in the tiny community of Kemmerer Monday to break ground on the project. The co-founder of Microsoft is...www.yahoo.com
Hope they get it done. Also requires time, energy and materials. 4 billion and online by 2030. We need lots of them.
Nuclear power is 'overblown' as an energy source for data centers, power company CEO says
AES Corporation CEO Andrés Gluski said the 'euphoria' over nuclear power has been a 'little overblown.'
Yeah, considering the less obvious factors is useful, so long as it is added to the equation for evaluation of ALL energy production methods.
Usually such factors only come up (as memes, usually) when they are convenient to be used to denigrate SOME energy production methods...
The key one here is the utility scale solar with storage. That gets to more of an apples to apples.
And despite all that, carbon energy is still far cheaper than "green" energy.
I will say this, though... perhaps it is that huge investment in carbon infrastructure and stock (and even the carbon credits "game") that keeps alternatives too high to compete. How about we unlock all those patents held secret for national security reasons and all those bought up and locked away by energy companies? Let's start there.
Isn't this why we're always looking to start wars around the globe? To feed all those invested in defense-related industries? Pelosi and Nikki Haley have to feed their bulldogs.. right?
- Status
