Why Clean Energy Went Bust...

[jplinville]

I see no mention of energy density here. The problem with green tech is first and foremost that nothing matches the energy density of petroleum, with the exception of uranium. All green technologies together generate less than 10% of the energy used nationally, and most of THAT is generated by hydroelectric. This isn't going to change until we have a major breakthrough in our understanding of the laws of physics.

Nonetheless...an interesting read.

Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust | Magazine

[MTI]

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/2781173-post18.html

Another Wired Magazine article by somebody named Gates.

[panZZer]

Ide say nothing matches the density of old farts brains with a penchant for old polluting energy sources.


Damn those evil 21'st century types for attempting to straighten out humans situation on the planet.

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by panZZer

Ide say nothing matches the density of old farts brains with a penchant for old polluting energy sources.


Damn those evil 21'st century types for attempting to straighten out humans situation on the planet.

Hmmm... it appears that you are all for cramming something down the throats of unwilling citizens. Are you wearing your jack boots today?

[jplinville]

Originally Posted by MTI

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/2781173-post18.html

Another Wired Magazine article by somebody named Gates.

What that article barely touches on is the amount of energy used to create the batteries needed for electric cars, much less the waste created.

One interesting paragraph...

I think people deeply underestimate what a huge problem this day-night issue is if you’re trying to design an energy system involving solar technology that’s more than just a hobby. You know, the sun shines during the day, and people turn their air conditioners on during the day, so you can catch some of that peaking load, particularly if you get enough subsidies. It’s cute, you know, it’s nice. But the economics are so, so far from making sense. And yet that’s where subsidies are going now. We’re putting 90 percent of the subsidies in deployment—this is true in Europe and the United States—not in R&D. And so unfortunately you get technologies that, no matter how much of them you buy, there’s no path to being economical. You need fundamental breakthroughs, which come more out of basic research.

I'm in agreement with Gates, that subsidies are being used incorrectly. If they were to invest that money in true R&D, like what was done with the nuclear program in the beginning, then a quality product could be had...at a cheaper price in the long run. Investing in R&D doesn't hamper the creative side of thinking, it actually gives it more of a boost. Investing in the deployment side puts too many rules and regulations in mix, making it costly.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by jplinville

What that article barely touches on is the amount of energy used to create the batteries needed for electric cars, much less the waste created.

One interesting paragraph...


I'm in agreement with Gates, that subsidies are being used incorrectly. If they were to invest that money in true R&D, like what was done with the nuclear program in the beginning, then a quality product could be had...at a cheaper price in the long run. Investing in R&D doesn't hamper the creative side of thinking, it actually gives it more of a boost. Investing in the deployment side puts too many rules and regulations in mix, making it costly.

There are dozens of assumptions embedded in your POV on this. The inefficiencies in our energy usage are huge.

And patience bucko, fossil fuels will go bust one day as well. And the sun will still be shining.

[Dudesky]

Originally Posted by jplinville

What that article barely touches on is the amount of energy used to create the batteries needed for electric cars, much less the waste created.

One interesting paragraph...

Besides the amount of energy used, a lot of toxic wastes are created too. So where is the offset?

Heard today Obama's algae fuel maker is coal fired.....cool.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Besides the amount of energy used, a lot of toxic wastes are created too. So where is the offset?

Heard today Obama's algae fuel maker is coal fired.....cool.

Hot dam keep on burnin that coal.

Whip

[ah-kay]

As an user, if you crunch the numbers then renewable energy never works out. The costs is just too high for now compares to the grid. The only system that is effective and with a short pay back period is roof top 'Hot water' system. If the 'feel good' factor is important then solar is OK.

As for provider, it gets very complicated. Transmission costs is high if you put it in the middle of no where to avoid the NIMBY issue. Or there is no back up when there is no sun/wind, i.e. oil/gas/coal/nuclear power plant is always needed.

[retmil46]

Originally Posted by jplinville

I see no mention of energy density here. The problem with green tech is first and foremost that nothing matches the energy density of petroleum, with the exception of uranium.

Exactly spot on. That's the problem with electric vehicles as well - one gallon of gasoline has the equivalent of 56 KW of energy. Even the high-tech battery packs in vehicles such as the Prius, weighing hundreds of pounds, are lucky if they even have one-third of that (ie, the equivalent of 1/3rd of a gallon of gas) TOTAL capacity, with useable capacity being much less.

[Dudesky]

Originally Posted by retmil46

Exactly spot on. That's the problem with electric vehicles as well - one gallon of gasoline has the equivalent of 56 KW of energy. Even the high-tech battery packs in vehicles such as the Prius, weighing hundreds of pounds, are lucky if they even have one-third of that (ie, the equivalent of 1/3rd of a gallon of gas) TOTAL capacity, with useable capacity being much less.

And what of the toxic element in manufacturing those batteries?

I read when energy demand is greatest, wind more often than not is dead, hot windless summer days and dead cold Artic freeze, which put greater demand on fossil fuels.

[chasinthesun]

Wind is the only savior here ,texas leads in wind power generators installed and if the country built wind as its base sustainable green power source ,say 20% of its daily needs, then more technological advances could be realized.The general census is that the more that are built the more advances that soon follow in its development .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas
As far as solar advances for the future ,if each family were to use solar for one room of the dwelling it would be a start in the right direction and the cost would be minimial .
The Media that feeds these kind of energy bias subjective arguments put no light on the good side of green energy and its future infrustracture into the grid,you can then see the delima that will soon come.The energy giants VS the new energy kids on the block ,this is the reality.

[layback40]

Green energy is just a case of the baby that cries the loudest gets the most attention.
Finally its being sent to its room & told not to come out until it has something positive to offer.
Green energy is just driven by handouts, take them away & it doesnt stand up.
Over on this side of the pond we have had subsidies for solar hot water for years, the price follows the level of subsidy. Same goes for wind turbines. Hydro works well until you have a drought.

I expect to get flamed by many who dont know any more than what they read in the media but they are very eloquent at presenting their argument.
To those I say, go study thermodynamics for a couple of years at least & then see what you think.

[Crazy_Nate]

Originally Posted by layback40

Green energy is just a case of the baby that cries the loudest gets the most attention.
Finally its being sent to its room & told not to come out until it has something positive to offer.
Green energy is just driven by handouts, take them away & it doesnt stand up.
Over on this side of the pond we have had subsidies for solar hot water for years, the price follows the level of subsidy. Same goes for wind turbines. Hydro works well until you have a drought.

I expect to get flamed by many who dont know any more than what they read in the media but they are very eloquent at presenting their argument.
To those I say, go study thermodynamics for a couple of years at least & then see what you think.

Odd, don't we subsidize oil?

People argue about making the playing field level and watching renewables fail, well, fine. Level the playing field. Eventually prices will dictate which is more appropriate.

I wouldn't bark about thermodynamics. It also tells me how inefficient ICE is.

Sure, they do have a large up front cost - just price out a 10kW solar array if you're curious. With proper application, the payback period is not unrealistic.

With any sort of mismatch between supply and demand you'll need this thing called storage...unheard of in some corners of the world

[OMEGAMAN]

Originally Posted by Crazy_Nate

Odd, don't we subsidize oil?

People argue about making the playing field level and watching renewables fail, well, fine. Level the playing field. Eventually prices will dictate which is more appropriate.

I wouldn't bark about thermodynamics. It also tells me how inefficient ICE is.

Sure, they do have a large up front cost - just price out a 10kW solar array if you're curious. With proper application, the payback period is not unrealistic.

With any sort of mismatch between supply and demand you'll need this thing called storage...unheard of in some corners of the world

No we dont subsidize oil.