Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[Derideo_Te]

At the moment I can't really support either other than on a small scale. For indiviudual use it's good, but trying to do it on a scale to provide power to a large community you're really just trading one environmental problem for another. Sure you might be making a rather miniscule impact in improving air quality, but what about the habitable land you're taking up to do that? And I'm not talking about habitable land for humans, but animals too. You have to see the irony in environmentalists, who are supposed to be for protecting nature and all its creatures, pushing technology these mass wind farm, solar plants. Ethanol as a fuel source, etc.

The production of ethanol is turning into one of the greatest ecological disasters ever. The ecological problems it causes far, far outway the detriment of their non-use. From the dead zones in the gulf created by fertilizer coming from the Mississippi which has increased because of more corn production to the loss of habitat for many animals for the corn. I live in southern Minnesota where most of the country side is corn crops. This is also true of the Dakotas. It wasn't always covered in corn fields though. Millions and millions of acres used to be CRP land. CRP was land farmers owned and the government subsidized them for to NOT plant on to preserve the natural environment. Then Obama, in another one of his moments of infinite wisdom, decided to have all these ethanol fuel mandates and subsidize production of ethanol. All of a sudden it simply became too lucrative to farmers to not plant corn. Now it's nothing but corn fields here and the population of pheasants is at a ten year low.

Again I don't see a problem with using wind and solar on an individual basis. But the simple fact is as far as providing power for whole communities you simply can't match the energy you can get out of square acre of land from wind or solar to what you can get out of fossil fuels. They have a vastly smaller impact on the environment in terms of sqare acerage required to produce it.

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.

Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.

Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.

sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.

Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.

 

[flacaltenn]

You get dual use from land with wind turbines. The land can still be farmed at the same time as producing energy. The fallacy about ethanol was using corn instead of sawgrass. It was more of a boondoggle subsidy for the Farming Industrial Complex than a genuine green energy alternative.

I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.

Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.

Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.

sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.

Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.

All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation.. What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I laughed when I read, "sawgrass". Yes, replace farmland and food with "sawgrass". A win, win, for everyone.

Wind Turbines, extremely expensive, massive amounts of concrete, millions of tons of fossil fuel turned into non-producing wind turbines that do not last 10 years. So sad so many feel so good, just call yourself Green, doesn't that make you feel goooood.

Honestly, Green Energy advocates are using more natural resources than everyone else, Solar Panels, LED bulbs, 200 ton windmills, nickel batteries in cars, simply call it Green and people jump on board, post an article they can find with Google, and wow, they are educated. Follow up with a news report of the president or vice president warning and then all the Green Living folks are validated. Hell, mine as well payoff the Scientist with grants and fat jobs at the universities.

sorry, I am sure you have a very good arguement in favor of Sawgrass and I should just let you tax the hell out of me so you can prove it.

Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.

All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation.. What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sawgrass grows wild, it doesn't require any fertilizers or weedkillers, it isn't grown on farmland either. But don't let your profound ignorance stop you from making a fool of yourself again.

All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation.. What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.

When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass ----- seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..

 

[Derideo_Te]

All of the studies ive seen assume CULTIVATED sawgrass with fertilizer and irrigation.. What youre implying is more bait and switch dishonesty aboutnefficiencies and real costs.

When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass ----- seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..

When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.

 

[flacaltenn]

When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass ----- seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..

When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.

Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted.. Figure im not the one that needs a score.. Sawgrass is your deal. Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing.. im gonna run out the clock here. Your ball.

 

[westwall]

When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass ----- seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..

When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.

Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted.. Figure im not the one that needs a score.. Sawgrass is your deal. Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing.. im gonna run out the clock here. Your ball.

Yep. These guys have received 100 million from us the people and to date no commercial ethanol to be had. They hope to get it going next year.

"Corn-based ethanol, which makes up nearly 10 percent of U.S. motor fuel, has been in large-scale production for years. But Congress was worried about driving up the price of corn used as feed for livestock and poultry. So lawmakers capped the total production of corn-based ethanol and set a schedule for ramping up the use of “advanced” biofuels made from corn husks, switch grass, wood chips and other stuff known as “cellulosic” material to 16 billion gallons by 2022.

There’s one problem, though: So far, no company has produced cellulosic ethanol at commercial volumes."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...c41a70-35c7-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html

 

[Old Rocks]

Given the progress in batteries at all scales, I hardly think that ethenol is worth funding at any level.

 

[longknife]

The truly renewable source of energy is the most available material in the universe - hydrogen!

They already know that hydrogen cell technology could revolutionize the energy consumption in the entire world. Clean with amazing power.

I'll be truly appreciative of "green technology" when an all-out effort is made in this direction. Check out Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and a lot of similar articles.

 

[flacaltenn]

When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.

Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted.. Figure im not the one that needs a score.. Sawgrass is your deal. Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing.. im gonna run out the clock here. Your ball.

Yep. These guys have received 100 million from us the people and to date no commercial ethanol to be had. They hope to get it going next year.

"Corn-based ethanol, which makes up nearly 10 percent of U.S. motor fuel, has been in large-scale production for years. But Congress was worried about driving up the price of corn used as feed for livestock and poultry. So lawmakers capped the total production of corn-based ethanol and set a schedule for ramping up the use of “advanced” biofuels made from corn husks, switch grass, wood chips and other stuff known as “cellulosic” material to 16 billion gallons by 2022.

There’s one problem, though: So far, no company has produced cellulosic ethanol at commercial volumes."



Cellulosic ethanol, once the way of the future, is off to a delayed, boisterous start - The Washington Post

But maybe we're missing that ONE DEMONSTRATION of Celluousic ethanol blowing away corn --- Perhaps we missed the news flash.. Der-Te should get right on that and EDUCATE us !!! After the corn debacle -- I figure they're not gonna get til 2022 to demonstrate it..
I'd say they got more like 2 years..

 

[flacaltenn]

The truly renewable source of energy is the most available material in the universe - hydrogen!

They already know that hydrogen cell technology could revolutionize the energy consumption in the entire world. Clean with amazing power.

I'll be truly appreciative of "green technology" when an all-out effort is made in this direction. Check out Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and a lot of similar articles.

Absolutely.. Most Asian car companies are emphasizing fuel cells over future battery wagon development. AND -- the idea of investing in fuel infrastructure gets more attractive if you can use solar and wind to produce HYDROGEN..

 

[Derideo_Te]

When someone tells you that EVERY study of sawgrass efficiency is based on CULTIVATED sawgrass ----- seems to me its up to you to produce ONE thats not..

When someone with zero credibility like yours says something then the onus is on you to substantiate your allegation.

Ive embarrassed you enough and relieved u of every misconception on renewables that youve asserted.. Figure im not the one that needs a score.. Sawgrass is your deal. Even tho in 20 years there hasnt been a real CELLUOSIC ethanol full scale demonstration worth pursuing.. im gonna run out the clock here. Your ball.

Failure to support your allegation when called upon to do so is a de facto forfeiture on your part. Have a nice day.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Any and all of them.

I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..

All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption.

Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from.

People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any and all of them.

I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..

All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption.

Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from.

People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.

Your assumption is that either wind and solar or both are EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVES to what we currently have. They are not. Solar is an OK daytime peaker technology in limited parts of the world and during certain seasons. If you're only concerned with generating power for 6 hours a day. Wind is a nightmare of sketchy unreliable performance that cant' be scheduled or contracted for.. THAT'S the problem with your analysis.

And BECAUSE of these performance deficits we are reaching the point where INCREASLY DESPARATE measures will be taken to try put lipstick on the pig.. Things like $BILLS being spent in Europe and California now just to keep these sketchy renewables from destabilizing load/demand curves during a day.. Battery Barns as big as a football field -- are being bought that will only store about 3 hours of power for 15,000 homes.

We can continue to stumble that way.. But NOTHING is gonna make these curiousities --- ALTERNATIVES...

The green is what the Texas Grid (ERCOT) demands. The blue is where the entire installed wind capacity decided to come to work.

An example of a SINGLE wind farm (one of the best sited in the world) is shown below in case you don't realize how FAR wind is from really being an electrical generation "alternative".

 

[elektra]

Any and all of them.

I'm sure that when coal and oil first came onto the scene they were cost-ineffective too. But once infrastructure caught up and other countries adopted them it became cost-effective. So it will be with new sources like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc..

All these energy technologies are is steam and figuring out how to turn a big wheel for the cheapest cost. Waves crashing into a wheel turns in like old fashioned water wheels, windmills use the wind, solar generates heat which boils water producing the steam, same with geothermal and nuclear. But only one of those makes large chunks of land uninhabitable for centuries...So the only "good" ones are those that don't cost us energy to produce energy like solar, wind, and tidal. Geothermal works, but not at as high an efficiency as the others. Plus there's a concern about punching holes into the earth above a volcanic region. Holes in the Earth above a magna chamber equals a volcanic eruption.

Oil's only got about 40 years or so left before useful quantities are gone. Nuclear's great assuming nothing bad happens ever ever. Unfortunately that's never the case. Natural gas emits greenhouse gases and getting it wrecks the enviroment it's extracted from.

People objecting to existing 'proven' tech are financial stake holders in those technologies so not exactly unbiased.

Actually, your idea that Coal or Oil were "cost-ineffective" is wrong. Oil has always been cheap until recent political times. Same with Coal.

Oil was developed as cheap alternative to plant and vegetable oils that were used in lamps to provide light. Plant and vegetable oils were being used as a cheap alternative to Whale Oil which was used for lights.