Growth in renewable energy greater than all others

[Flopper]

You wanna build more dams?? Actually new dams are a HUGE source of CO2... THought that was killing the planet?? Yu green shoots need to get your story straight...

Have you read it, it's not just about dams?

There's a whole industry in developing solar panels, wind farms etc that the rest of the world is buying into while America is wasting money and resources trying to build new pipelines.

Dams, a huge source of CO2?
How so?

Now this is from a group shilling for hydro power, but it's kinda objective..

http://clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Hydropower-GHG-Emissions-Feb.-14-2012.pdf

There's a chart on the 1st couple pages showing the emissions/Mwhr for 3 sitings of hydro.. From natural river gorges, thru arboreal forests, and into tropical regions..

The CO2 emissions range from about 25% of a nat gas plant to more than 1000% of a nat gas plant depending on the land that was flooded..

It's obvious when you think about it.. You flood a large area of land and in the process take that land from a neutral carbon state to only an emitting state. All that buried biomass decays into GHGases.. So the effect is especially bad for NEW facilities... This was only RECENTLY discovered ((if you can believe that)) because countries in TROPICAL regions were starting the expansions you laid out in the OP.. (Does India ring a bell?)

And measurements from some of their NEW dams were jaw-droppingly high..

Anyway --- I'm really NOT impressed by building out renewables because with every Watt of renewable generation -- you need something else to provide the primary power when the sun isn't there and the wind don't blow. Hydro is GOOD for this because it can be dialed up or down quickly.. Much more efficient than dumping good power from a fossil plant.

But then hydro -- at least LARGE SCALE hydro -- isn't even ON THE list of Green alternatives as far as Sierra Club and other Green orgs go...

That's why I said --- you need to get the OFFICIAL LIST of green "alternatives" before you start cheering...

From the summary in the source, "Based on the literature reviewed, we find that hydropower development does emit greenhouse gases (GHGs), but the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies."

On average, I think hydroelectric damns will lower CO2 as compared to fossil fuel. However, that does not mean they are environmentally friendly. Just look at the environmental impact of Hoover Damn. I don't know of any environmental group that endorses building damns.

 

[flacaltenn]

Have you read it, it's not just about dams?

There's a whole industry in developing solar panels, wind farms etc that the rest of the world is buying into while America is wasting money and resources trying to build new pipelines.

Dams, a huge source of CO2?
How so?

Now this is from a group shilling for hydro power, but it's kinda objective..

http://clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Hydropower-GHG-Emissions-Feb.-14-2012.pdf

There's a chart on the 1st couple pages showing the emissions/Mwhr for 3 sitings of hydro.. From natural river gorges, thru arboreal forests, and into tropical regions..

The CO2 emissions range from about 25% of a nat gas plant to more than 1000% of a nat gas plant depending on the land that was flooded..

It's obvious when you think about it.. You flood a large area of land and in the process take that land from a neutral carbon state to only an emitting state. All that buried biomass decays into GHGases.. So the effect is especially bad for NEW facilities... This was only RECENTLY discovered ((if you can believe that)) because countries in TROPICAL regions were starting the expansions you laid out in the OP.. (Does India ring a bell?)

And measurements from some of their NEW dams were jaw-droppingly high..

Anyway --- I'm really NOT impressed by building out renewables because with every Watt of renewable generation -- you need something else to provide the primary power when the sun isn't there and the wind don't blow. Hydro is GOOD for this because it can be dialed up or down quickly.. Much more efficient than dumping good power from a fossil plant.

But then hydro -- at least LARGE SCALE hydro -- isn't even ON THE list of Green alternatives as far as Sierra Club and other Green orgs go...

That's why I said --- you need to get the OFFICIAL LIST of green "alternatives" before you start cheering...

From the summary in the source, "Based on the literature reviewed, we find that hydropower development does emit greenhouse gases (GHGs), but the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies."

On average, I think hydroelectric damns will lower CO2 as compared to fossil fuel. However, that does not mean they are environmentally friendly. Just look at the environmental impact of Hoover Damn. I don't know of any environmental group that endorses building damns.

Your bolded part is the problem Flopper.. The OP was touting all the new hydro being built and planned in India and parts of China.. India --- last time I checked India and parts of CHina would be sacrificing some pretty "tropical" territory.. Wasn't that GIGANTIC 3 Gorges Dam in tropical region?? Looked pretty lush to me.

Yeah and then there's that.. Free the salmon and restore the Hetch Hetchy. BIG hydro really doesn't have any enviro support.. I'm not anti-hydro.. Just want the green agenda to play by their own rules..

 

[idb]

Now this is from a group shilling for hydro power, but it's kinda objective..

http://clf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Hydropower-GHG-Emissions-Feb.-14-2012.pdf

There's a chart on the 1st couple pages showing the emissions/Mwhr for 3 sitings of hydro.. From natural river gorges, thru arboreal forests, and into tropical regions..

The CO2 emissions range from about 25% of a nat gas plant to more than 1000% of a nat gas plant depending on the land that was flooded..

It's obvious when you think about it.. You flood a large area of land and in the process take that land from a neutral carbon state to only an emitting state. All that buried biomass decays into GHGases.. So the effect is especially bad for NEW facilities... This was only RECENTLY discovered ((if you can believe that)) because countries in TROPICAL regions were starting the expansions you laid out in the OP.. (Does India ring a bell?)

And measurements from some of their NEW dams were jaw-droppingly high..

Anyway --- I'm really NOT impressed by building out renewables because with every Watt of renewable generation -- you need something else to provide the primary power when the sun isn't there and the wind don't blow. Hydro is GOOD for this because it can be dialed up or down quickly.. Much more efficient than dumping good power from a fossil plant.

But then hydro -- at least LARGE SCALE hydro -- isn't even ON THE list of Green alternatives as far as Sierra Club and other Green orgs go...

That's why I said --- you need to get the OFFICIAL LIST of green "alternatives" before you start cheering...

From the summary in the source, "Based on the literature reviewed, we find that hydropower development does emit greenhouse gases (GHGs), but the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies."

On average, I think hydroelectric damns will lower CO2 as compared to fossil fuel. However, that does not mean they are environmentally friendly. Just look at the environmental impact of Hoover Damn. I don't know of any environmental group that endorses building damns.

Your bolded part is the problem Flopper.. The OP was touting all the new hydro being built and planned in India and parts of China.. India --- last time I checked India and parts of CHina would be sacrificing some pretty "tropical" territory.. Wasn't that GIGANTIC 3 Gorges Dam in tropical region?? Looked pretty lush to me.

Yeah and then there's that.. Free the salmon and restore the Hetch Hetchy. BIG hydro really doesn't have any enviro support.. I'm not anti-hydro.. Just want the green agenda to play by their own rules..

To be fair, my original point might have been a little obscure.
It is that fossil fuels are on the decline as an industry and the real growth is in 'alternative' energies.
Clinging to fossil fuels may deny the US the opportunity to be at the technological and commercial forefront of a high growth industry.

 

[westwall]

From the summary in the source, "Based on the literature reviewed, we find that hydropower development does emit greenhouse gases (GHGs), but the rate of emissions per unit of electric generation from hydropower (excluding tropical reservoirs) is much lower than for fossil fuel technologies."

On average, I think hydroelectric damns will lower CO2 as compared to fossil fuel. However, that does not mean they are environmentally friendly. Just look at the environmental impact of Hoover Damn. I don't know of any environmental group that endorses building damns.

Your bolded part is the problem Flopper.. The OP was touting all the new hydro being built and planned in India and parts of China.. India --- last time I checked India and parts of CHina would be sacrificing some pretty "tropical" territory.. Wasn't that GIGANTIC 3 Gorges Dam in tropical region?? Looked pretty lush to me.

Yeah and then there's that.. Free the salmon and restore the Hetch Hetchy. BIG hydro really doesn't have any enviro support.. I'm not anti-hydro.. Just want the green agenda to play by their own rules..

To be fair, my original point might have been a little obscure.
It is that fossil fuels are on the decline as an industry and the real growth is in 'alternative' energies.
Clinging to fossil fuels may deny the US the opportunity to be at the technological and commercial forefront of a high growth industry.

They are only growing because no other electrical plants are being built. Further, the government wants to place extremely high taxes on fossil fuels to raise their costs (as has been done in Australia) so they can then spread their propaganda that green energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie.

 

[idb]

Your bolded part is the problem Flopper.. The OP was touting all the new hydro being built and planned in India and parts of China.. India --- last time I checked India and parts of CHina would be sacrificing some pretty "tropical" territory.. Wasn't that GIGANTIC 3 Gorges Dam in tropical region?? Looked pretty lush to me.

Yeah and then there's that.. Free the salmon and restore the Hetch Hetchy. BIG hydro really doesn't have any enviro support.. I'm not anti-hydro.. Just want the green agenda to play by their own rules..

To be fair, my original point might have been a little obscure.
It is that fossil fuels are on the decline as an industry and the real growth is in 'alternative' energies.
Clinging to fossil fuels may deny the US the opportunity to be at the technological and commercial forefront of a high growth industry.

They are only growing because no other electrical plants are being built. Further, the government wants to place extremely high taxes on fossil fuels to raise their costs (as has been done in Australia) so they can then spread their propaganda that green energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie.

I haven't heard so much that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels...just that it's greener.
The costs difference is apparently reducing as technology improves though.

As far as the Australian taxes are concerned, is that the one that they've scrapped? BBC News - Australia PM Rudd sets out carbon tax shift cost

 

[flacaltenn]

To be fair, my original point might have been a little obscure.
It is that fossil fuels are on the decline as an industry and the real growth is in 'alternative' energies.
Clinging to fossil fuels may deny the US the opportunity to be at the technological and commercial forefront of a high growth industry.

They are only growing because no other electrical plants are being built. Further, the government wants to place extremely high taxes on fossil fuels to raise their costs (as has been done in Australia) so they can then spread their propaganda that green energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie.

I haven't heard so much that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels...just that it's greener.
The costs difference is apparently reducing as technology improves though.

As far as the Australian taxes are concerned, is that the one that they've scrapped? BBC News - Australia PM Rudd sets out carbon tax shift cost

We'd all like to identify industries that the US could take the lead in.. Unfortunately idb, wind and solar are now mature commodity items.. We SHOULD be pursuing a WHOLE LIST of worthwhile ventures in energy.. NONE of them are getting the traction they deserve BECAUSE of the fiction of "alternatives"..

Should be pursuing hydrogen and fuel cells.. Should be DEMONSTRATING clean coal and small scale nuclear.. Should be developing biofuels that warp the entire food and energy marketplace..

We need the economy back from the revolutionaries to do any of that..

 

[Old Rocks]

The costs of building coal fired generation of any type continues to go up. Gas fired is coming down a bit, not as much as the decline of construction costs for wind, and solar has the biggest decline of all for construction costs. Once built, wind and solar require little maintenance, and no input of fuel, as does coal or natural gas.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source

Table 2 compares the updated overnight cost estimates to those developed for the 2010 report. To facilitate comparisons, the costs are expressed in 2012 dollars.5 Notable changes include:

•Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) Coal Plants with and without carbon capture and storage (CCS): The updated overnight capital cost estimates for single unit IGCC plants with and without CCS both rose by approximately 19 percent. This change can be primarily attributed to more recent information from current IGCC projects in various stages of the development process.6
•Conventional Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC): The updated overnight capital cost for conventional NGCC plants declined by 10 percent relative to the cost in the 2010 study. In addition, the assumed capacity of these units rose from 540 MW in the 2010 study to 620 MW.
•Onshore Wind: Overnight costs for onshore wind decreased by approximately 13 percent relative to the 2010 study, primarily due to lower wind turbine prices.
•Solar Photovoltaic: The overnight capital costs for solar photovoltaic technologies decreased by 22 percent for 150 MW photovoltaic units from the costs presented in the 2010 study. The size of the smaller photovoltaic units evaluated was increased from 7 MW in the 2010 study to 20 MW in the 2013 study. Although it is not entirely consistent to compare these two systems, there was a significant decline in costs on a $/kW basis from the 7 MW system to the 20 MW system. The overall decreases in costs can be attributed to a decline in the component costs and construction cost savings for the balance of plant.

 

[idb]

They are only growing because no other electrical plants are being built. Further, the government wants to place extremely high taxes on fossil fuels to raise their costs (as has been done in Australia) so they can then spread their propaganda that green energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuels which is an outright lie.

I haven't heard so much that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels...just that it's greener.
The costs difference is apparently reducing as technology improves though.

As far as the Australian taxes are concerned, is that the one that they've scrapped? BBC News - Australia PM Rudd sets out carbon tax shift cost

We'd all like to identify industries that the US could take the lead in.. Unfortunately idb, wind and solar are now mature commodity items.. We SHOULD be pursuing a WHOLE LIST of worthwhile ventures in energy.. NONE of them are getting the traction they deserve BECAUSE of the fiction of "alternatives"..

Should be pursuing hydrogen and fuel cells.. Should be DEMONSTRATING clean coal and small scale nuclear.. Should be developing biofuels that warp the entire food and energy marketplace..

We need the economy back from the revolutionaries to do any of that..

I don't believe any of that.
There's no way that there's no development left in alternative energies.

Go for the fuel cells, leave the coal behind.
Biofuels might be needed to substitute for fossil fuels where they can't be completely eliminated such as air travel, but there is heaps of research and development left there so that we don't have to use vast quantities of food-producing land and resources - algae for example.

 

[flacaltenn]

I haven't heard so much that green energy is cheaper than fossil fuels...just that it's greener.
The costs difference is apparently reducing as technology improves though.

As far as the Australian taxes are concerned, is that the one that they've scrapped? BBC News - Australia PM Rudd sets out carbon tax shift cost

We'd all like to identify industries that the US could take the lead in.. Unfortunately idb, wind and solar are now mature commodity items.. We SHOULD be pursuing a WHOLE LIST of worthwhile ventures in energy.. NONE of them are getting the traction they deserve BECAUSE of the fiction of "alternatives"..

Should be pursuing hydrogen and fuel cells.. Should be DEMONSTRATING clean coal and small scale nuclear.. Should be developing biofuels that warp the entire food and energy marketplace..

We need the economy back from the revolutionaries to do any of that..

I don't believe any of that.
There's no way that there's no development left in alternative energies.

Go for the fuel cells, leave the coal behind.
Biofuels might be needed to substitute for fossil fuels where they can't be completely eliminated such as air travel, but there is heaps of research and development left there so that we don't have to use vast quantities of food-producing land and resources - algae for example.

The only stuff ON the "alternative" list CAPABLE of being useful supplements without side effects are wind, solar.. The rest are either patently BAD ideas or oddities..

That's why i listed stuff that is being HINDERED by massive subsidies to going to political favorites.. Wind and Solar ARE mature.. We shouldn't be expecting miraculous breakthrus on anything but cost and incremental improvements..

Biofuels don't generate electricity particularly.. The "list" is usually presented for Electrical Generation.. Transportation energy is usually considered separately..

 

[Old Rocks]

Geothermal is 24/7, and done right, has no more side effects than solar or wind.

 

[flacaltenn]

Geothermal is 24/7, and done right, has no more side effects than solar or wind.

Geothermal is a DIRTY MINING OPERATION. The true GrandDaddy of fracking technology except that what comes up is corrosive toxic waste --- not nat gas..

Do we have to this again? You've run from this same arg Twice already...

It's isn't even "renewable" by definition, the wells peter out and must be redrilled -- or the corrosion destroys the equipment -- whichever comes first...

That said -- I LOVE the concept.. Let's re-power Detroit with geothermal.. No well blow-out there would be ever be detectable..

There is nothing else on that list (besides solar and wind) even REMOTELY benign or available for wide useage.

 

[westwall]

Geothermal is 24/7, and done right, has no more side effects than solar or wind.

Earthquakes abound. Isn't that one of your peeves about fracking?