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

[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!!!

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.

completely irrelevant response......people with responses like that don't know what to say because they don't know dick about what they are talking about

 

[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.

completely irrelevant response......people with responses like that don't know what to say because they don't know dick about what they are talking about

Proving again the envirowhackos really don't care about the environment.
Bird and fish kill are huge problems for solar, wind and hydro generation facilities.

 

[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.

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.

Bullshit. Nuclear is very costly energy, and all it takes is one accident to change the safety stastitics on nuclear. And we have had two that were very close things, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. And one with a definate death toll, Chernobyl.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Bullshit. Nuclear is very costly energy, and all it takes is one accident to change the safety stastitics on nuclear. And we have had two that were very close things, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. And one with a definate death toll, Chernobyl.

More have died in Ted Kennedys car than in US nuclear power plants......

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Silly ass, what you are talking about is a caldera eruption, and were we to get one of those, energy is only one small factor we would be worrying about. As for your other pie in the sky rhetoric, tell it to someone that doesn't remember the sales talk used to sell the idea of nuclear power. Power so cheap that we would not have to meter it. And absolutely fail safe. It has turned out to be neither. And all the waste continues to build up as we have spent rod pools with five times the amount of spent rods that they were designed for.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

Bullshit. Nuclear is very costly energy, and all it takes is one accident to change the safety stastitics on nuclear. And we have had two that were very close things, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. And one with a definate death toll, Chernobyl.

I have my qualms regarding nuclear. The mining process is dirty and there is a risk for those involved in the minning process, keeping the wastes is a headache,but I've heard new reactors are much safer than old ones, on top of that the energy is quite clean ( yes, disregarding the waste part ) .
On average it is more expensive than solar , but it can produce electricity 24/7.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Bullshit. Nuclear is very costly energy, and all it takes is one accident to change the safety stastitics on nuclear. And we have had two that were very close things, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. And one with a definate death toll, Chernobyl.

No, you're full of shit. Renewable, yes. In ample supply from you. Again, yes. The nuclear accidents were over hyped by the media. There's a movie on a number of top environmentalists that have done a 180 on nuclear power called Pandora's Promise. It addresses all the myths you wackos recirculate.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Hydro is nothing new and shouldn't be in that list. Since the green lobby would NEVER approve future massive hydro projects.. One down..

Solar thermal for small scale use is a great idea in some zones. But is not an alternative to anything. Two down.

Solar PV is a daytime peaker technology. No realistic amount of storage is gonna make it more than a 6 hour per day (on a good day in the right place) source.. Three down..

Which leaves wind. Which is a ludicrous worthless waste of time. Is not an alternative to anything we have now.
Have you ever looked at the daily/monthly/year production chart for a GOOD windfarm. It works at capacity only a week out of the year. Works near ZERO PRODUCTION for more than 1/3 of the time. Four Down..

You got some more "ideas" or do we need a new OP??

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Bullshit. Nuclear is very costly energy, and all it takes is one accident to change the safety stastitics on nuclear. And we have had two that were very close things, Three Mile Island and Fukushima. And one with a definate death toll, Chernobyl.

I have my qualms regarding nuclear. The mining process is dirty and there is a risk for those involved in the minning process, keeping the wastes is a headache,but I've heard new reactors are much safer than old ones, on top of that the energy is quite clean ( yes, disregarding the waste part ) .
On average it is more expensive than solar , but it can produce electricity 24/7.

Nothing compares to the waste stream from commercial reactor. It takes 0.7 ounces of fuel to power the average home for a year. That's about a AAA battery.. CERTAINLY --- we can handle that level of waste. Since the "half-life" of the heavy metals getting into landfills right now is LONGER than the toxic half-life of nuclear fuel..

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread is now stoopid.......I basically ended it on page 2.......everything else is a bunch of HOOOOEY sons.

As much as any thread Ive seen in here in years, this one is total Disney from the AGW religion side. Its not even debatable.......every post presented by the AGW climate crusaders does not conform with reality which is......fossil fuels are going to dominate for decades. The only thing that could possibly change that is new technology but there is a 100% certainty it most definitely will not be solar or wind.

Interested parties need to get past the total bull shit presented by the AGW k00ks ( links with ties to green energy........duh ) and partake in a little education on the TRUE costs of wind and solar. The people of Germany sure found out...........with a catastrophic kick to the balls.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/08/cost-renewable-energy


Obama’s Renewable-Energy Fantasy


Germany's Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good - SPIEGEL ONLINE


Bavaria says Germany must curb renewable energy costs


The Cost of Green: Germany Tussles Over the Bill for Its Energy Revolution | TIME.com


http://www.economist.com/news/europ...onomy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/12/the-hidden-cost-of-solar-energy-storage.html


New Grid for Renewable Energy Could Be Costly


And outstanding article on transmission "costs".....something the global warming k00ks don't like to talk about >>

Wind Energy and Examining Cost | The Energy Collective


www.agora-energiewende.de/.../Agora_Integration_Cost_Wind_PV_web.pdf


Study: It’s Cheaper to Shut Down Wind Turbine, Than to Pay for Energy Storage








Who's not winning???

 

[CultureCitizen]

Solar thermal for small scale use is a great idea in some zones. But is not an alternative to anything. Two down.

Solar thermal for a specific purpose : water heating seems both affordable and cheaper than gas/electrical heaters in some zones (southern states mostly).

By the by , the powerwall can store more than enough energy than that required by a household for one day, so the massive storage you talk about will probably be distributed massive storage.

The downside is that at this point I can't call them green ( it is unknown what happens at the end of the battery lifetime: they get recycled or dumped ).
On the other hand Aquion has a rather bulky set of bateries which are a lot greener and last for years.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar thermal for small scale use is a great idea in some zones. But is not an alternative to anything. Two down.

Solar thermal for a specific purpose : water heating seems both affordable and cheaper than gas/electrical heaters in some zones (southern states mostly).

By the by , the powerwall can store more than enough energy than that required by a household for one day, so the massive storage you talk about will probably be distributed massive storage.

The downside is that at this point I can't call them green ( it is unknown what happens at the end of the battery lifetime: they get recycled or dumped ).
On the other hand Aquion has a rather bulky set of bateries which are a lot greener and last for years.

Adding a Powerwall to a home will double your solar installation costs and you live with 500 lbs of toxic waste that has a 10 or 12 year lifetime. And contrary to your assertion, it is NOT sufficient to take your home "off grid". Barely enough to run a load of laundry -- never mind heating or air conditioning or an oven. OR charging your EVehicle. Also means that your solar installation needs to be over-rated by a factor of three or so to PROVIDE the excess for storage and at the same time assure operation on cloudy or snowy days..

And this kind of storage does not scale to commercial or industrial uses. It's a trophy product -- hyped by the folks that sell "trophy cars" to millionaires.

There really are FEW "alternatives" to reliable baseline generation on the electrical grid. Smoke and mirrors. Geothermal is a choice.. But it is neither green or truly "renewable". Since it's a dirty mining operation whose wells and plumbing peter out over time and require further drilling and plumbing because of the toxic nature of the fluids involved.

These prescriptions are a lot of hope and fairy dust actually..

 

[Toro]

The expense.

But that's changing.

I think solar is coming in a big, big way.

 

[flacaltenn]

7KWhrs of storage in a PowerWall would cost you $1.40 if you paid the utility company directly for that power.

So $5000 or $7500 installed for one of these "gadgets" is gonna take a LONG LONG time to be a smart economic investment.

 

[flacaltenn]

The expense.

But that's changing.

I think solar is coming in a big, big way.

Solar PV panels are a mature technology. And also now a commodity product driven by ONLY manufacturing and distribution costs. And YET -- if the massive subsidies went away, it could not be sold at the consumer level..

 

[Pete7469]

They're too expensive, unreliable and have to be subsidized by the tax payer to even be built.

Multiply that with the fact that the entire premise for the development of "green" energy is a massive pile of soft steaming bullshit AKA man made globabble whining.

 

[Pete7469]

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??

Using an article from the Ecommunist.com is just cheeky.

 

[martybegan]

The expense.

But that's changing.

I think solar is coming in a big, big way.

Solar PV panels are a mature technology. And also now a commodity product driven by ONLY manufacturing and distribution costs. And YET -- if the massive subsidies went away, it could not be sold at the consumer level..

You also have to add in consideration for location. PV's are great if you are in Texas, Arizona, or other areas where there is a lot of sunshine. Maine in winter? Not so much.

 

[jc456]

that old socks keeps posting nonsense posts concerning texas. He'll never get it. What a loss of efficiency.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/texas.pdf

Texas is a national leader in the wind energy industry. Texas ranks first in the country for both installed and under construction wind capacity, while supporting over 17,000 wind-related jobs. The wind energy industry in Texas has provided over $26 billion in capital investment and has thrived thanks to smart state policy, such as legislation that created Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) for wind power transmission. The state is home to at least 46 manufacturing facilities, including turbine manufacturer Alstom, tower manufacturer Trinity Structural Towers and numerous component suppliers. Jobs & Economic An investment in wind power is an investment in jobs, including jobs in operations and maintenance, construction, manufacturing and many support sectors. In addition, wind projects produce lease payments for landowners and increase the tax base of communities. • 2014 direct and indirect jobs supported: 17,001 to 18,000 • Total capital investment: $26.3 billion • Annual land lease payments: $42.5 million Wind-Related Manufacturing The United States has over 500 manufacturing facilities producing products for the wind industry that range from blade, tower and turbine nacelle assembly facilities to raw component suppliers, including fiberglass and steel. • Number of active manufacturing facilities in the state: 46

Wind Projects • Installed wind capacity: 16,406 MW • State rank for installed wind capacity: 1st • Number of wind turbines: 9,757 • State rank for number of wind turbines: 2nd • Wind projects online: 112 • Wind capacity under construction: 6,343 MW Current Wind Generation In 2014, wind energy provided 9.00% of all in-state electricity production. • Equivalent number of homes powered by wind: 3.6 million

Yes, Texas is a classic case for the economies of wind and solar. They are a very conservative state, yet lead the nation in investments in solar and wind. Obviously, this is a case of economics being put ahead of ideology.