In your opinion what is the greatest drawback of green technologies for energy

[CultureCitizen]

By green I mean renewable and recyclable ( the components of the plant can be reused / recycled ) .
This includes : hydro , solar thermal , solar , wind .

 

[TheOldSchool]

The drawback right now is that they're too expensive. In 100 years they'll laugh at us about how primitive we were.

At least I hope they do. I would hate to think the human race has stagnated on invention.

 

[Spinster]

Way too expensive and the return is negligible, but what the heck our government subsidizes a lot of it. Throwing taxpayers dollars away is something government excellent at doing.

 

[Boss]

One big drawback not really mentioned is efficiency. Just because the source is renewable doesn't mean it's efficient.

 

[Old Rocks]

First, they are less costly per kw than coal or natural gas, and far less expensive than nuclear. Second, they do have a problem with with being intermittent. However, the storage problem is essentially solved, as we have two huge factories in just this nation, one of which is already producing grid scale batteries. And those batteries will be installed at both the site of production and the site of use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Since this was written, Austin has contracted a 1.2 Gw solar installation at less than 4 cents a kw.

 

[Old Rocks]

One big drawback not really mentioned is efficiency. Just because the source is renewable doesn't mean it's efficient.

Well, why don't you define efficiency for us, then? Is the number of children that have asthma from the use of coal fired plants figured in? How about the miners lives cut short by black lung? That figured in? And then there is the destruction of environment, both at the mines, and at the site of generation. We have seen a couple of watersheds poisoned by flyash and chemical spills from the coal fired generators in the last five years in this nation.

The energy corporations have been very good at avoiding any of the external costs of their operations, instead passing them on to the taxpayers. You really think that is efficient? Maybe for the corporations, but certainly not for the taxpayers.

 

[rightwinger]

The biggest drawback is cheap oil which keeps them from becoming cost effective

 

[skookerasbil]

lol......alot of information being put out there in this thread that is nothing more than a bunch of hoooey.

One must ask themselves.......if renewables are such a no-brainer with costs, why is every energy projection out to 2050 ( including the Obama administration's ) showing fossil fuels still dominating the energy landscape and renewables only being at 10% or 11% ( and most of that hydropower btw ). THATS LAUGHABLE!!!

Not to mention...............just go to RENIXX website.....that is the renewabe stock market. Click on the history graph and see the anemic growth of renewable energy. In 2007, impressive............in 2015 about 30% of what it was then = losing. Why? Well duh......only stoopid companies use renewable energy for their power.

 

[skookerasbil]

Important to remember........progressives invariably provide only the nice comfy idealistic "costs" of renewable energy. In other words........they lie their balls off!!!

Most people have no clue what the real "costs" of renewable energy are..........oh but the people of Europe have found out REAL DAMN FAST in the last 5 years!!

There are massive costs associated with wind and especially solar..........its called "the grid" s0ns!!!


"MOST people agree that carbon emissions from power stations are a significant cause of climate change. These days a fiercer argument is over what to do about it. Many governments are pumping money into renewable sources of electricity, such as wind turbines, solar farms, hydroelectric and geothermal plants. But countries with large amounts of renewable generation, such as Denmark and Germany, face the highest energy prices in the rich world. In Britain electricity from wind farms costs twice as much as that from traditional sources; solar power is even more dear. What makes it so costly?"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-0




Ask me how hard Im laughing at the moment as I post up this gem??

 

[Weatherman2020]

Environmental damage. Fish, bird, raptor kills.

 

[skookerasbil]

Behold a recent statement by Bill Gates this past summer..............



"...........the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is beyond astronomical."



Obama’s Renewable-Energy Fantasy


Oh but wait.........the AGW bozo's on this forum know better!!!

 

[Weatherman2020]

Behold a recent statement by Bill Gates this past summer..............



"...........the cost of decarbonization using today’s technology is beyond astronomical."



Obama’s Renewable-Energy Fantasy


Oh but wait.........the AGW bozo's on this forum know better!!!

Call me when Bill gives up his 29 seat private jet and starts flying commercial.
When those screaming it's a crisis start acting like its a crisis themselves, then I'll start listening.

 

[Boss]

One big drawback not really mentioned is efficiency. Just because the source is renewable doesn't mean it's efficient.

Well, why don't you define efficiency for us, then? Is the number of children that have asthma from the use of coal fired plants figured in? How about the miners lives cut short by black lung? That figured in? And then there is the destruction of environment, both at the mines, and at the site of generation. We have seen a couple of watersheds poisoned by flyash and chemical spills from the coal fired generators in the last five years in this nation.

The energy corporations have been very good at avoiding any of the external costs of their operations, instead passing them on to the taxpayers. You really think that is efficient? Maybe for the corporations, but certainly not for the taxpayers.

Please stop vomiting your liberal kook talking points all over me. I'm never going to be on-board with your diabolic plans to destroy the coal industry or tax the energy sector into oblivion trying to "save the planet" from doom.

Efficiency means maximum energy with least effort and expense. The most efficient source of energy we know of is nuclear. The knee-jerk liberal kook reaction you're going to experience is that it's DANGEROUS! First, there is no source of energy production that is not dangerous or potentially harmful to anything ever. Second, in terms of deaths, nuclear is safer than anything else we're doing according to statistics.

 

[Iceweasel]

The primary problem with renewables is that decisions are made by ideological bureaucrats who are not experts in the field. The solution has always been technology. And technology is best served by the marketplace. If someone can make a car go further on gas it will sell. Mandating gas mileage forces companies to find a way, and very light bodies are one of the ways. Sounds all fine and dandy until it gets hit and folds up in your lap.

 

[Boss]

If someone can make a car go further on gas it will sell. Mandating gas mileage forces companies to find a way, and very light bodies are one of the ways. Sounds all fine and dandy until it gets hit and folds up in your lap.

This is true... and there is another aspect as well. I can recall an argument I had once with this guy who had a boner about hydrogen cars. Oh, hydrogen was going to replace gasoline in less than a decade to hear him tell it... (that was 20 years ago.)

My take was.. .we really don't know the long-term effects of using hydrogen as a fuel source on such a mass scale. Given there is so much concern over global warming and the greenhouse effect, the main greenhouse gas is water vapor (aka: the byproduct of hydrogen use). Not to mention, you're not going to survive a hydrogen explosion.

Then there is the deal where a guy invented a carburetor in his garage that would enable cars to get 100 mpg back in the 70s... Big Oil bought him out and never let the technology be developed.

 

[CultureCitizen]

One big drawback not really mentioned is efficiency. Just because the source is renewable doesn't mean it's efficient.

By the numbers Ivanpah seems to be better than many other conventional ( gas / carbon ) plants.
A small set of batteries could make up for sunlight availability during a day.
Seasonal availability seems to be a bigger problem. Admitedly, part of this variability is due to the fact that Ivanpah's production is still in a stabilization stage. But even a 20% of seasonal variability from the average would mean an aditional 20% in excess of installed capacity which would in turn be reflected on the costs. It's either that or a way to store massive amounts of energy for a long time has to come up ( e.g. massive pumped hydro facilities ) .

 

[rdean]

In your opinion what is the greatest drawback of green technologies for energy

Republicans fighting anything that's good for the country and not offering any alternatives.

 

[Boss]

One big drawback not really mentioned is efficiency. Just because the source is renewable doesn't mean it's efficient.

By the numbers Ivanpah seems to be better than many other conventional ( gas / carbon ) plants.
A small set of batteries could make up for sunlight availability during a day.
Seasonal availability seems to be a bigger problem. Admitedly, part of this variability is due to the fact that Ivanpah's production is still in a stabilization stage. But even a 20% of seasonal variability from the average would mean an aditional 20% in excess of installed capacity which would in turn be reflected on the costs. It's either that or a way to store massive amounts of energy for a long time has to come up ( e.g. massive pumped hydro facilities ) .

First problem is that you're using 4,000 acres of land. Granted, in this area it's perfectly fine because the land is worthless for anything else... but you can see where this is not ideally suited as a solution in an ever-growing and over-populated planet.

Another fear to have with solar power... What happens if we have a volcano mega-eruption that blocks the sun for a period of time... in addition to the already existing crisis of that, we have no power! Incredible drops in global temperature and no power doesn't sound good to me.

Don't get me wrong, I like solar power... I want to solar power a cabin and move off-grid... (if my government masters allow me to.) I think it's a great individual technology that has a viable market in the future. I don't see how it can solve metropolitan energy needs.

I actually have a lot of faith in the future of technology. Things we can't even fathom right now... what about antimatter? Just a gram of antimatter could power every major American city for 10k years. If we can figure out how to harness it or create it, we've got a winner in terms of a solution to energy problems. But that's a few Nobel Prizes away for sure.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I actually have a lot of faith in the future of technology. Things we can't even fathom right now... what about antimatter? Just a gram of antimatter could power every major American city for 10k years. If we can figure out how to harness it or create it, we've got a winner in terms of a solution to energy problems. But that's a few Nobel Prizes away for sure.

Fusion ... it's been a pipe dream for decades. Michio Kaku believes we might be able to get fusion by 2040. Meanwhile we seem to be trapped : alternative energy is cheap but unreliable, so we need massive storage facilities, and while conventional oil is acceptable in the short run ( 10 to 20 years ) I cant see the world running on the next tier of fosil fuels : fracking , tar sands , deep oil.
I still think we should be pushing solar at an individual level : whatever tech makes sense with no subsidies.

 

[Boss]

Fusion ... it's been a pipe dream for decades. Michio Kaku believes we might be able to get fusion by 2040. Meanwhile we seem to be trapped : alternative energy is cheap but unreliable, so we need massive storage facilities, and while conventional oil is acceptable in the short run ( 10 to 20 years ) I cant see the world running on the next tier of fosil fuels : fracking , tar sands , deep oil.
I still think we should be pushing solar at an individual level : whatever tech makes sense with no subsidies.

And I think we're seeing a growing trend of market interest in solar... it's definitely promising. We're still a long way from weening off fossil fuels but the good thing about that is, there is plenty of fossil fuel remaining. To me, it's more an issue of environmental impact than availability... we're not going to run out anytime soon.

My opposition is to government being run by liberal environmentalists with an agenda. Socialistic punishing of capitalists under the guise of "saving the planet" is ludicrous. People in power are making a fortune off this crap, playing into fears and ignorance, keeping us divided. We need to aggressively pursue energy independence right now... with the resources available today. Future technology will come in time, we can work on those things.