Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[RKMBrown]

Don't think you answered my question.. I NEED 120MW of wind power delivered Tuesday Night between 10PM and 2AM.. Can you deliver it? If not -- you don't have an energy marketplace.. Because the North Arkansas Power Coop needs to CONTRACT it's energy IN ADVANCE before the neighbors line up all the better power deals. That's the real world. We do not run a country this developed and this large on MAYBEs.

That and a NATIONAL grid does not guarantee delivery from one end to the other. Detroit WILL NEVER recieve solar power at 11PM. And it's not likely to recieve any at any other hour of day... The losses in transmission are just too great...

120 mega watt hours in 4hrs?

Dude that's a lot of power. You use more power in an hour than I would use in two years.

You are using like 15% of the entire output of a typical coal power plant for each of the hours you are operating.

Oh its not for me.. It's for the good customers at the N. Ark. Electric Coop region..

Lots of chicken plucking factories up there in the Northern Arkansas Electric Coop area.. (I made that part up).. But 120MW is just enough to keep about 120,000 homes running for that period of time.. Unless I've screwed up the math.. (not bloody likely)

That's how electrical demand contracts are written. They contract for a large REGION for a specified delivery date, time and terms.. ((Except in whacko places like California)).. Individual customers just get the costs passed on to them thru State/Local Utility Rate Commissions.

Ah.. well off the grid you use a rack of batteries... On Grid you use solar & wind to augment during the day. We could use a better grid with less loss.

 

[Derideo_Te]

RGR just told you.. Natural Gas CAN BE a renewable resource.. To the extent we are willing to scavenge it.. OR we could bring it back from Titan, Jupiters moon with an entire atmos made of Methane..

It's part of the lore of the Church of Global Warming, that there is SOOO MUCH methane available in the Arctic permafrost, that should it be released --- it would ROAST the planet..

Would be a shame to let that fuel go to waste --- Drill, Baby Drill.. Before its' lost...

Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.

heh...

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Within the mantle, carbon may exist as hydrocarbons—chiefly methane—and as elemental carbon, carbon dioxide, and carbonates.[12] The abiotic hypothesis is that the full suite of hydrocarbons found in petroleum can be generated in the mantle by abiogenic processes,[12] and these hydrocarbons can migrate out of the mantle into the crust until they escape to the surface or are trapped by impermeable strata, forming petroleum reservoirs.

Abiogenic hypotheses reject the supposition that certain molecules found within petroleum, known as biomarkers, are indicative of the biological origin of petroleum. They contend that these molecules mostly come from microbes feeding on petroleum in its upward migration through the crust, that some of them are found in meteorites, which have presumably never contacted living material, and that some can be generated abiogenically by plausible reactions in petroleum

Said microbes are the reason the oil slicks "disappeared" after the gulf spills.

It makes a helluva lot more sense to me that oil, natural gas are seeping up underground from heat and pressure at the same time that shale based oil & natural gases are being released from billions of years of dead bio mass.

I also find it interesting that it rains oil and/or liquid methane on Titan. I suppose it's because of some ancient biomass? let it rip? lol

Too bad you ignored the mass of factual evidence against abiogenesis in your own link.

Geological argument against

Oil deposits are not directly associated with tectonic structures.
Key arguments against chemical reactions, such as the serpentinite mechanism, as being the major source of hydrocarbon deposits within the crust are;
The lack of available pore space within rocks as depth increases
This is contradicted by numerous studies which have documented the existence of hydrologic systems operating over a range of scales and at all depths in the continental crust.[61]
The lack of any hydrocarbon within the crystalline shield areas of the major cratons, especially around key deep seated structures which are predicted to host oil by the abiogenic hypothesis.[34] See Siljan Lake.
Limited evidence that major serpentinite belts underlie continental sedimentary basins which host oil
Lack of conclusive proof that carbon isotope fractionation observed in crustal methane sources is entirely of abiogenic origin (Lollar et al. 2006)[5]
Mass balance problems of supplying enough carbon dioxide to serpentinite within the metamorphic event before the peridotite is fully reacted to serpentinite
Drilling of the Siljan Ring failed to find commercial quantities of oil,[34] thus providing a counter example to Kudryavtsev's Rule[44] and failing to locate the predicted abiogenic oil.
Helium in the Siljan Gravberg-1 well was depleted in 3He and not consistent with a mantle origin[62]
The Gravberg-1 well only produced 84 barrels (13.4 m3) of oil, which later was shown to derive from organic additives, lubricants and mud used in the drilling process.[44][45][46]
The distribution of sedimentary basins is caused by plate tectonics, with sedimentary basins forming on either side of a volcanic arc, which explains the distribution of oil within these sedimentary basins
Kudryavtsev's Rule has been explained for oil and gas (not coal)—gas deposits which are below oil deposits can be created from that oil or its source rocks. Because natural gas is less dense than oil, as kerogen and hydrocarbons are generating gas the gas fills the top of the available space. Oil is forced down, and can reach the spill point where oil leaks around the edge(s) of the formation and flows upward. If the original formation becomes completely filled with gas then all the oil will have leaked above the original location.[63]
Ubiquitous diamondoids in natural hydrocarbons such as oil, gas and condensates are composed of carbon from biological sources, unlike the carbon found in normal diamonds.[64]
Arguments against the incidental evidence[edit]
Gas ruptures during earthquakes are more likely to be sourced from biogenic methane generated in unconsolidated sediment from existing organic matter, released by earthquake liquefaction of the reservoir during tremors
The presence of methane hydrate is arguably produced by bacterial action upon organic detritus falling from the littoral zone and trapped in the depth due to pressure and temperature
The likelihood of vast concentrations of methane in the mantle is very slim, given mantle xenoliths have negligible methane in their fluid inclusions; conventional plate tectonics explains deep focus quakes better, and the extreme confining pressures invalidate the hypothesis of gas pockets causing quakes
Further evidence is the presence of diamond within kimberlites and lamproites which sample the mantle depths proposed as being the source region of mantle methane (by Gold et al.).[25]

 

[Spiderman]

I have no problem with renewables as long as we don't turn them into multi trillion dollar government boondoggles.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"I'm a die hard NY Yankees fan." < that was the dumbest thing I ever heard.

Congrats, you're #1

Benefits
1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
3. No smog

Wind runs out REGUARLY. I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM... CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY? We all know the answer Matthew. Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?

Solar cant be guaranteed either. You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online? Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.

These are not alternatives.. Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency. Wind is next to useless as a primary source, and problematic as a sporadic supplement..

Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.

the problem with wind and solar

is you cant kick em into overdrive when it counts

if wind and solar become our primary energy

get used to sitting in the dark with no heat or a/c on occasion

 

[jon_berzerk]

You talking about fusion?

sorry RK have been away most of the day

one step at a time

I am mostly interested in hydrogen fuel cells

for electric cars at this point

Yeah that's what I meant by hydrogen is storage. It may be the future for cars but really the point is just that hydrogen is a clean substance to use for storage as the output is water. However if you are burning coal or oil to generate the electricity used to separate the hydrogen from water... well then it's not really the solution its just a storage solution. I think if we had a large excess of nuclear fission/fusion power we would then see a move to hydrogen as the way to convert the excess to a fuel for autos.

I'm not sure if hydrogen will be in the future for cars or not. We've become very adept at using gas. I suppose the government could force us if they wanted us to be less efficient than the countries operating on liquid fuels.

yes

i also see nuclear energy as the future

dont get me wrong i am not against fossil fuels

i just really like hydrogen and hydrogen fuel cells

and as time goes by we will find more and better

ways to free up hydrogen

 

[Derideo_Te]

Benefits
1. renewables won't run out for the next billion years
2. People won't get sick or cancer from it.
3. No smog

Wind runs out REGUARLY. I need 120MW for my North Arkansas Coop Nexr Tuesday btween 10PM and 2AM... CAN U GUARANTEE DELIVERY? We all know the answer Matthew. Why are u ignoring this? Is it someone elses problem to figure out how to make your fantasy real?

Solar cant be guaranteed either. You want to pay for 2 generators for every watt of renewable you need online? Most of us arent that dogmatic or naive.

These are not alternatives.. Solar is a 6hr/day sometimes peaker with limited geographic range of installed efficiency. Wind is next to useless as a primary source, and problematic as a sporadic supplement..

Tell me how you are seeing these as a replacement for RELIABLE sources.

the problem with wind and solar

is you cant kick em into overdrive when it counts

if wind and solar become our primary energy

get used to sitting in the dark with no heat or a/c on occasion

That is never going to happen, way too much invested in fossil fuels like coal and oil. However once solar and wind start playing a bigger role they will be able to compensate for shortages in different regions. The south western states could become major renewable energy exporters to both the northern states and to Mexico.

 

[RGR]

Natural gas refers to fossil fuel gas. You are talking about methane which is natural but is different to what RKM was alleging.

We want CH4 and we don't care where it comes from!! YEE HAH!!!

 

[RGR]

Actually, there are a number of scientists already trying to figure a way to harvest the clathrate methane. Unfortunetly, that does not look doable at present.

It has already been done. There was a presentation given at the 33rd Annual Oil Shale Symposium back in October, and there was a resource modeler from the EIA there. He was discussing those "future" types of resource of immense size, and his number of synthetic crude barrels capable of being produced from hydrates was some trillion barrels or more. And it has been produced, by the Japanese. They sanded out the well, which was producing at the synthetic barrel equivalent of about 70 barrels a day at the time.

Deeper into the resource pyramid we go….oh yeah…and then solar panels had better be REALLY cheap to beat that CH4 supply.

But you are correct, we would be better off harvesting that methane and burning it than seeing go into the atmosphere. On a time scale of a decade, methane is over 100 times as effective greenhouse gas as CO2.

Bring on the combustion of hydrates and save mankind!! I like the idea, makes perfect sense. I won't uninstall my solar panels of course, but I'll burn hydrate CH4 to heat the house just as fast as other kinds of CH4. I do not discriminate in my use of CH4!! The perfect fuel for the future!

 

[elektra]

Feed-in tariffs are taxes, so your profit is a government mandated tax. Government taxes, rules and regulations, that is all Green Energy is. Government rules, mandates, and penalties is what is the Green Energy industry. A new form of government control over our lives, mandated by bureaucrats and politicians.

The graph presented showing growth is the exact same graph used to show billions of dollars of tax money and new government debt that finances said "industry".

There is zero truth to the posts in this thread.

Further, Solar and Wind power are not Green industries, both are extremely polluting, as in the industry that manufactures, the solar and wind manufacturers use a disproportionately high amount of energy to create Solar Panels and Wind Turbines. Both also use massive amounts raw materials, to include oil, so the claim of both being green is actually the opposite of the truth. Hardly renewable when one accounts for the fossil fuels needed to sustain this government mandated industry.

Fact is nothing is more destructive to our planet than Solar panels and Wind turbines.

Sad are the people who blindly read an article and think they understand "Green Energy".

 

[ScienceRocks]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

 

[Mr. H.]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Educate us on the "baseload" of renewables. Then tell us how "renewables" are designed, manufactured, and implemented with zero hydrocarbon input.

 

[Mr. H.]

Matthew the funky monkey.

 

[elektra]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you're trying to compare the tiny amount of pollution solar makes to coal. Well, you better go see the damage of coal in china

Not even of the same world...

Oil is just as bad as society seems to accept huge areas of devastation from it.(about 1/5th of the gulf of Mexico). It is quite amazing to behold a republican bitching about a little bit of pollution.

 

[elektra]

If you're trying to compare the tiny amount of pollution solar makes to coal. Well, you better go see the damage of coal in china

Not even of the same world...

Oil is just as bad as society seems to accept huge areas of devastation from it.

Coal use in China has increased dramatically, in part to support the incredible amounts of energy required to manufacture solar panels, so yes, I see the devastation in China caused by Solar panels.

How about the toxic waste in China that the Solar Panel manufactures create, why do you ignore this or why are you ignorant to this major contributor to pollution.

Seems Matthew does not take into account the manufacture of Solar and Wind power components.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The environmental impact of the coal industry includes the consideration of issues such as land use, waste management, and water, air pollution caused by the coal mining, processing and the use of its products. In addition to atmospheric pollution, coal burning produces hundreds of millions of tons of solid waste products annually, including fly ash,[1] bottom ash, and flue-gas desulfurization sludge, that contain mercury, uranium, thorium, arsenic, and other heavy metals.

There are severe health effects caused by burning coal.[2][3] According to the reports issued by the World Health Organization in 2008 and by environmental groups in 2004, coal particulates pollution are estimated to shorten approximately 1,000,000 lives annually worldwide, including nearly 24,000 lives a year in the United States.[4][5] Coal mining generates significant additional independent adverse environmental health impacts, among them the polluted water flowing from mountaintop removal mining.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spills

 

[elektra]

Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.

Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines

 

[ScienceRocks]

Easing concerns about pollution from manufacture of solar cells

Feb 25, 2008

In a finding that could help ease concerns about the potential environmental impact of manufacturing solar cells, scientists report that the manufacture of solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies. Their report, the first comprehensive study on the pollutants produced during the manufacture of solar cells, is scheduled for the March 15 issue of the ACS' Environmental Science & Technology.


Solar energy has been touted for years as a safer, cleaner alternative to burning fossil fuels to meet rising energy demands.

However, environmentalists and others are increasingly concerned about the potential negative impact of solar cell (photovoltaic) technology. Manufacture of photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium and produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.

In the new study, Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006. The solar cells include four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride.

The researchers found that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies.

Read more at: Easing concerns about pollution from manufacture of solar cells

 

[ScienceRocks]

Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.

Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines

This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.

 

[elektra]

Again, Solar Panel production requires the use of energy from Coal in China, so your solution to manufacture more Solar Panels increases the use of Coal.

Yes, Coal is dirty, so quit using Coal to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines

This we can agree on. Why don't they use renewable energy to make the solar panels.

The simple answer is it requires a massive amount of energy to make a Solar Panel, a Solar plant or Wind Turbine plant can not produce that kind of energy.

Further it takes hydrocarbon chemicals to make Solar and Wind components. Solar and Wind technologies can not exist without Oil. The use Oil at an increased rate to produce Solar and Wind energy is extremely short sighted and wasteful

silicon tetrachloride, one toxic pollutant, a by-product of the not so Green Energy industry.