100% alternative energy worldwide by 2030

[Screaming Eagle]

The "smart grid", what the hell is a smart grid.

It's a pattern of intersecting lines which have achieved sentience.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I will summarize later but just to show wht the facts are

To address the energy requirments to produce fiberglass used in windmills and to identify the companies who are getting rich each of the materials in the report must be researched, where are the mined, where do they come from, who manufacturers these materials, what is the energy requirement for each individual material, than we must add those numbers to the fiberglass production numbers.

I have a shitload of files but just aint put them together. If anyone thinks answering my simple question was simple they would of done it, green energy is not as simple as stating its a good idea. Folks beleive in green energy without an understanding of the industry it takes to make the basic materials.

I will try and avoid articles and post reports, this one from the EPA

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s13.pdf

Raw Materials Handling -
The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of
feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The bulk supplies are
received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
screws, and bucket elevators. From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit. The weighing,
mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
Glass Melting And Refining -
In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from
1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and dissolve. Mixing is effected
by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
into the bottom of the bed.
Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method of heat application
into 4 types: recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and
unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-fired.
Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste heat from
exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber
containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
corresponding brickwork lattice. About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt. Electric furnaces are
either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the electric
current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of the
electrical properties of the glass formulation. Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
9/85

So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years.


I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

What about styrene waste, I will add some facts about the styrene toxic waste, one reason fiberglass production is in china

So if you cannot address or never heard of Propene and Boron usage in the manufacturer of fiberglass you pretty much are going to get an educaction.

I am on a new computer so I have to get my files from my other drive as well as meet some freinds for food and eat but I will post before bed

Styrene waste, hundreds of tons

Boron, extremely limited supply

Propene only comes from oil and supply outstrips demand

How much waste is produced to make your computer?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

 

[kyzr]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward. We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel. If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.

You do understand simple economics, don't you?

 

[mdn2000]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

In the case of windmills why do I oppose, simple, they use more power than they create, facts are hidden from the public. How much power is used to create one, from a 100 tons of fiberglass to the 300 tons of steel we are talking of a structure that is created by using massive amounts of fossil fuel. Windmills are an older technology than oil, by maybe a thousand years. Sure you use some advanced materials but the same can be said of oil.

How much energy does it take to make a computer, good question, I know california charged me a 15 dollar non refundable recycling fee on a 400 dollar laptop, on top of the ten percent tax.

Windmills if you take into account the steel, fiberglass, all the materials, the energy they need to just sit idle, than they are a negative. That is why I oppose them. Windmill farms are now building fossil fuel plants on site, they have to because is lousy energy, do a bit of research or know anything about electricity and you know you cannot have an intermitten system connected to the grid other wise the voltage and current flucuations will destroy the grid.

Ever here of Cap and Trade, the specific reason for Cap and Trade is to tax fossil fuel in order to make green energy competitive. This is fact as stated in reports made during the Clinton administration. I will get the report, my freind/co-worker who turned me onto this site gave me a copy but I cannot find it, I can get another copy and post the report.

It explicitly states they must tax fossil fuels to make green energy competitive.

That is not technology or progress, that is tyranny.

Show me how you can make green energy without fossil fuel, show me how when fossil fuel runs out we can build a windmill. Maybe we can with nuclear power but its an extreme waste of natural resources to build a windmill when the generator sits idle almost the entire year and when it does work the power is erratic.

that same generator could be hooked to the primary coolant system of a nuclear reactor and provide literally ten thousand time the energy without the waste of fiberglass and steel.

Its that simple, idle generators are a waste of the precious resource we all want to save.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward. We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel. If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.

You do understand simple economics, don't you?

So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.

 

[Big Fitz]

Currently all forms of "Green Energy" are incapable of satisfying the needs of the nation or the world. The land use and resource issues of these three sources of energy (Pinwheels, Mirrors and Moonshine) would be so cost intensive, the modern society would collapse under it's sheer weight of inefficiency.

One square mile of nuclear power plant produces more than 300 square miles of wind, plus works 100% of the time. And with nuclear waste recycling and reconditioning (banned by Carter but the French still use it quite effectively), we could eliminate almost all danger from toxic nuclear waste.

And even if this succeeds for the electric grid, you still have portable energy technology issues with battery storage and portable energy.

Unfortunately, all this is in the realm of science fantasy. Barely on the edge of science fiction even.

All this being said, with the exposure of the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming thanks to the Hadley CRU whistle blower, it's very safe to say, this movement is dead.

At least that's my opinion on it.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

In the case of windmills why do I oppose, simple, they use more power than they create, facts are hidden from the public. How much power is used to create one, from a 100 tons of fiberglass to the 300 tons of steel we are talking of a structure that is created by using massive amounts of fossil fuel. Windmills are an older technology than oil, by maybe a thousand years. Sure you use some advanced materials but the same can be said of oil.

How much energy does it take to make a computer, good question, I know california charged me a 15 dollar non refundable recycling fee on a 400 dollar laptop, on top of the ten percent tax.

Windmills if you take into account the steel, fiberglass, all the materials, the energy they need to just sit idle, than they are a negative. That is why I oppose them. Windmill farms are now building fossil fuel plants on site, they have to because is lousy energy, do a bit of research or know anything about electricity and you know you cannot have an intermitten system connected to the grid other wise the voltage and current flucuations will destroy the grid.

Ever here of Cap and Trade, the specific reason for Cap and Trade is to tax fossil fuel in order to make green energy competitive. This is fact as stated in reports made during the Clinton administration. I will get the report, my freind/co-worker who turned me onto this site gave me a copy but I cannot find it, I can get another copy and post the report.

It explicitly states they must tax fossil fuels to make green energy competitive.

That is not technology or progress, that is tyranny.

Show me how you can make green energy without fossil fuel, show me how when fossil fuel runs out we can build a windmill. Maybe we can with nuclear power but its an extreme waste of natural resources to build a windmill when the generator sits idle almost the entire year and when it does work the power is erratic.

that same generator could be hooked to the primary coolant system of a nuclear reactor and provide literally ten thousand time the energy without the waste of fiberglass and steel.

Its that simple, idle generators are a waste of the precious resource we all want to save.

I am pretty sure there are areas with nearly CONSTANT power. At the VERY least they could pick up some slack while Power Plants are IDLE do to preventitive or emergency repairs. Remind me does the wind go out towards the ocean at night of does it blow IN towards the shore?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

If you have noticed I am an advocate of Nuke power as well as alt energy.

 

[Old Rocks]

Currently all forms of "Green Energy" are incapable of satisfying the needs of the nation or the world. The land use and resource issues of these three sources of energy (Pinwheels, Mirrors and Moonshine) would be so cost intensive, the modern society would collapse under it's sheer weight of inefficiency.

One square mile of nuclear power plant produces more than 300 square miles of wind, plus works 100% of the time. And with nuclear waste recycling and reconditioning (banned by Carter but the French still use it quite effectively), we could eliminate almost all danger from toxic nuclear waste.

And even if this succeeds for the electric grid, you still have portable energy technology issues with battery storage and portable energy.

Unfortunately, all this is in the realm of science fantasy. Barely on the edge of science fiction even.

All this being said, with the exposure of the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming thanks to the Hadley CRU whistle blower, it's very safe to say, this movement is dead.

At least that's my opinion on it.

That opinion, and a buck, will get you a cup of coffee.

Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.

And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.

Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward. We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel. If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.

You do understand simple economics, don't you?

So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.

Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.

 

[Old Rocks]

Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward. We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel. If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.

You do understand simple economics, don't you?

So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.

Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.

Wind works right now. Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post. Solar thermal, in any of several configurations, also works. Photovoltaic solar still waits for the $1 a watt panels. First Solar is within 7 cents of that figure right now.

There are some very interesting technologies out there, some that just need to be set up for manufacturing.

 

[Andrew2382]

2030 huh

good luck with that

 

[Screaming Eagle]

So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.

Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.

Wind works right now. Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post. Solar thermal, in any of several configurations, also works. Photovoltaic solar still waits for the $1 a watt panels. First Solar is within 7 cents of that figure right now.

There are some very interesting technologies out there, some that just need to be set up for manufacturing.

No it doesn't work. If you go over 10% wind you start getting blackouts. We don't have storage technology that would result in steady reliable power whether or not the wind is blowing. Therefore it doesn't work. The wind does not always blow. Windmills do.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.

Nuclear is great for stationary sources of energy and outside of railroads going totally electric (not happening any time soon) it's worthless as a source of mobile power. Spare me the electric car. It ain't selling here. I don't do Duracell brand put puts when you have freight to haul.

Wind is unable to create and sustain the energy demands currently required. Spain's finding this out the hard way. Coal has an energy density and efficiency that far exceeds that of your wimpy windmills. I'd rather have function than trendy any day.

Geothermal. Fine and dandy. Too bad it's cost ineffective except in areas that are geologically active. Give it 20-40 years and maybe it'll be more viable for heavy lifting. Till then, Iceland's lucky to have it. And do we really want to consider the amount of power generation facilities place at Yellowstone to get the power this nation would need? Think of all the high tension power lines going all over the nation if you did that. Gonna not complain about those?

And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.

I see. When it busts your narrative it's illegal hacking. When it supports it, it's whistle blowing. This data has been authenticated as being legitimate from multiple sources and we're only seeing the tip of the ice cube because there are forensic science experts culling through the data and discovering lovely little chunks that verify they've been knowingly perpetrating a fraud for over a decade. Now you can be in denial all you want, but your belief does not make it fact.

Anthropogenic Climate impact is now DEAD. Deceased, Pushing up Daisies, Kicked the Bucket, Shuffled off the mortal coil, become wormfood, and is being buried ass up so we have a place to park our bikes.

Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post.

And in 10 years will we be able to provide the other 93% of the state of oregon? How's that going to work out for the heavy industries that require thermal based energies? Gonna use big ole electric heaters? Electricity is not an anodyne or replacement for good old fashioned coal or coke flame.

You're trusting on untested systems that no industry in their right mind trust now that have only been viable in lab conditions if even that. This is not sound energy policy. This is economic suicide. Why can't you realize that you are not operating in some nice neat bubble and in the messy real world where every little decision has a repercussion?

I just can't get your simplistic idealism that doesn't even mirror reality.

 

[mdn2000]

Big Fitz, you should be more careful, you made points that scared all the environuts away from this thread. You may have noticed that the ignorant have continued their endless senseless rant in other threads.

 

[Douger]

There IS NO 2030

 

[Old Rocks]

Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.

Nuclear is great for stationary sources of energy and outside of railroads going totally electric (not happening any time soon) it's worthless as a source of mobile power. Spare me the electric car. It ain't selling here. I don't do Duracell brand put puts when you have freight to haul.

Wind is unable to create and sustain the energy demands currently required. Spain's finding this out the hard way. Coal has an energy density and efficiency that far exceeds that of your wimpy windmills. I'd rather have function than trendy any day.

Geothermal. Fine and dandy. Too bad it's cost ineffective except in areas that are geologically active. Give it 20-40 years and maybe it'll be more viable for heavy lifting. Till then, Iceland's lucky to have it. And do we really want to consider the amount of power generation facilities place at Yellowstone to get the power this nation would need? Think of all the high tension power lines going all over the nation if you did that. Gonna not complain about those?

And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.

I see. When it busts your narrative it's illegal hacking. When it supports it, it's whistle blowing. This data has been authenticated as being legitimate from multiple sources and we're only seeing the tip of the ice cube because there are forensic science experts culling through the data and discovering lovely little chunks that verify they've been knowingly perpetrating a fraud for over a decade. Now you can be in denial all you want, but your belief does not make it fact.

Anthropogenic Climate impact is now DEAD. Deceased, Pushing up Daisies, Kicked the Bucket, Shuffled off the mortal coil, become wormfood, and is being buried ass up so we have a place to park our bikes.

Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post.

And in 10 years will we be able to provide the other 93% of the state of oregon? How's that going to work out for the heavy industries that require thermal based energies? Gonna use big ole electric heaters? Electricity is not an anodyne or replacement for good old fashioned coal or coke flame.

You're trusting on untested systems that no industry in their right mind trust now that have only been viable in lab conditions if even that. This is not sound energy policy. This is economic suicide. Why can't you realize that you are not operating in some nice neat bubble and in the messy real world where every little decision has a repercussion?

I just can't get your simplistic idealism that doesn't even mirror reality.

In Oregon, we have only one coal fired plant, and we will close that dirty monstrousity soon. The rest we get from hydro, and wind.

I work in a steel mill. We no longer smelt, and when we did, we used only electric furnaces for the smelting. 100 tons per pour melted in 20 minutes. At present we use natural gas for heating the slabs for rolling, and heat treating.

Not only is AGW not dead, it is beginning to look as if the "Storms of our Grandchildren", are not going to wait for our grandchildren.

And March, 2010, is shaping up to be, like January and February, a very warm month. If the year continues on this path, the records of 1998 may be eclipsed.

And solar is coming online;

First Solar reaches "dollar per watt milestone" - 25 Feb 2009 - BusinessGreen.com

Thin-film solar cell manufacturer First Solar yesterday announced it has broken the $1 (70p) per watt cost barrier that is widely accepted as the point at which solar panels become cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The company said that during the fourth quarter of last year, the manufacturing cost for its solar modules stood at 98 cents per watt, taking it below the $1 per watt mark for the first time.

Mike Ahearn, chief executive at the company, hailed the achievement as a " milestone in the solar industry's evolution towards providing truly sustainable energy solutions", adding that it provided evidence that solar manufacturers could prosper in the long term even as government subsidies are reduced.

First Solar said it was confident that plans to more than double its production capacity through 2009 to more than one gigawatt would allow it to reduce costs further to a point where energy from solar panels can undercut that from natural gas and coal.

 

[mdn2000]

Solar energy is great for calculators but will never power industry, even with great advances, what the idiots ignore is that the use of Nuclear power is advancing at a rate that Solar cannot keep pace with. Thats right, people are doing research making Nuclear power even better than it is today. So even if you make Solar cheap Nuclear power is still advancing hence Solar will never compete.

Solar will never be a vialble form of energy, the sun does not shine enough and the conversion to electricity is very tiny, insignificant is the energy from solar.

Solar energy uses more water than nuclear power, Solar depletes the worlds resources faster than Nuclear power.