Which people are those? I know of no one.
The first great energy driven economy came out of Holland with wind power. We currently use water power extensively, but not exclusively. Why not wind also?
Reduce the demand, by using some supply from renewables and you lower costs for other fuels as well.
Jeff
Here are the actual numbers: Coal - 50.1 Gas - 17.5 Oil - 3.3 Total hydrocarbon: 70.4
Nuclear - 19.5 Hydro - 7.1 Geothermal - 0.4 Biomass - 1.1 Solar - 0.0 Waste 0.6 Other 0.3 Total non-hydrocarbon: 29.0
Psst: Both gasoline and coal are cheaper today than they were in 1918.
Yeah. They said the exact same thing about Yiddish, COBOL, and Republicans.
As for the government giving significant grants to expand an industry to benefit its citizens, everywhere that's been tried (Japan comes to mind), it has failed miserably, to the hurt of the country's citizens.
Think of the soybean industry in Atlas Shrugged.
Anytime the government thinks it can jimmy the general marketplace, substitute committee decisions about what should happen instead of letting millions vote in the free market, the government fails.
On 2/17/2011 7:49 AM, jamesgangnc wrote: (snip)exactly how long do you think we will
Well, yeah, it is, actually. But it's not like any of us, or anybody we would recognize as the same species, will be around to harvest it. In
500? years, we have used up what it took ma nature millions of years to lay down. Same thing as for aquifers and forests, just over a much longer time span.
The fact that water used for hydro power runs 24/7 while the wind does not would be one key reason......
Milton Friedman could not have said it better. Well done! It's always amazing to me that some people want to put their faith in govt deciding which technology is going to be the right one, which one is going to be commercially successful, etc. Given what we've witnessed from govt, you'd think they'd learn. Congress has an approval rating of what? 17%? And some people want them to leave it to them to decide what energy solution is going to be correct. I suppose it would work even better if they came up with a 5 year plan of output and production, like the Soviets used to do. We know how well that worked out. And I suspect in some regards, they were better at it then our Congress, as witnessed by recent debacles, like trying to bribe Louisianna and Nebraska with hundreds of millions of dollars to ram through healthcare. Follow that for energy, and soon we'll be chasing moonbeams because some other Senators got bribes or BJ's to pass it.
Jeff Thies wrote: ...
...
I don't agree; the problem is w/ any non-reliable power source one must maintain the reliable reserve in place for when the unreliable source isn't there. That cost has to be subsidized by either higher rates on the conventional to account for the down time or passed on to the non-reliable source as a cost of their business model of only generating when they can, not necessarily when they're needed.
Not to mention that the annual average output for wind is only 40% of installed capacity; that drives that cost up by 2.5X for the generation construction even w/ the zero-cost fuel. It's equivalent of building a
1000 MWe coal unit but only operating it at 400 MWe--that's obviously not an efficient use of the other 600 MWe capacity.--
Good point. Devices are becoming more efficient all the time. I remember in 1982 working on a mainframe that's less powerful than any of the 20 PC's I have in the basement "junk tower." In 30 years, the computing industry has taken enormous strides. As the incredible technical advances made during WWII show, where there's a will, there's often a way. I am confident that there will be tremendous advances in solar, wind and other types of alternative energy once we really get behind funding R&D for them. Once we change our corporate entitlement structure, we'll pay to develop alternative forms of energy instead of subsidizing the oil and gas industry with incentives that *should* have been phased out decades ago.
-- Bobby G.
Inflation will always track energy cost because the cost of energy controls the cost of everything else.
Jimmie
Which people?
Liberal moon bats, I seen em with my own eyes. ^_^
TDD
I see. You're stupid.
He arrived at that conclusion because he's a typical watermellon (or perhaps just another useful idiot).
Back in 1987-88 I was working on a Core of Engineers project where a Cray X-MP Super Computer was being installed. A few years back, I read a story about one of them in Huntsville, Alabama that the state couldn't give away because nobody wanted it. ^_^
TDD
Well, no, it sometimes doesn't.
During the California power debacle a few years back, they closed the spillways on a few dams during the off-peak hours and used power from gas-fired power plants to PUMP WATER BACK UP into the reservoir!
Analysis of some of the moons of Saturn and Jupiter has resparked interest in the theory that oil is not really a fossil fuel but a substance that is created out of geological and not biological processes:
-- Bobby G.
Nature is always surprising that pesky little biological infestation know as Homo sapiens. Wouldn't it be interesting if oil is a product of both sources? Science is all about theory because a scientist may not have a few million or billion years to carry out a practical experiment then publish a paper. I've always wondered what could happen if methane was trapped under the crust of the Earth as it formed so many billions of years ago and the trapped gas was subject to intense heat and pressure in the extreme depths at or near the Earth's core. Scientists are always stumbling upon mysteries from our planet that often defy explanation. One of my favorites is the existence of the crystal caves in Mexico. :-)
TDD
This is true if you consider wind as a replacement for coal, but if you consider this as an alternative to peaked electricity particularly with some kind of pumped storage, it's a different ballgame.
It's a big grid. Wind and solar isn't going to replace coal and nuclear. It has it's place.
No new coal under construction:
My thoughts are that the grid will have to change.
Jeff
For purposes of this dicussion that doesn't really matter. Whatever produced it is not continuing to produce at a rate equal to our consumption of it. For the near term I think we can discount econmically getting from other solar bodies.
No, it's diametrically opposed to peaking in that it is the most unreliable source when it may be needed. Peaking capacity is that which has to be there when there isn't enough baseload; you can't rely on wind for it. Plus, there's no way to ramp it up on demand; either the wind is blowing or it isn't. (In fact, summer a couple years ago in TX Panhandle a wind shift line went thru a large facility and winds went from 20 mph steady to near zero in 30 secs or so...that unexpected drop on a 100+F day nearly brought the local grid completely down).
The problem I still see is that while wind/solar/etc. can provide some replacement energy when they have a fuel source, they're going to remain as "replacement while there" and no matter how cheap it is, there's no getting around there somewhere has to be a reserve source for grid reliability. No matter how cheap you make those, they have the concomitant cost of that reserve. When you can resolve that question/problem, _then_ you'll have something that could make a major difference.
Wolf Creek Nuclear here is the cheapest power on the grid by a significant factor. Owing to 18-mo fuel cycle, it has alternate years where capacity factor is 95% or greater for the entire year, outputting in one day the installed capacity of 10 Gray County farms if they could manage full installed output. But, since they can only run at 40% capacity over the long haul, it's 25 of 'em they need. Since Gray County covers up an are that is roughly 20x80 miles already, one runs out of real estate real quick.
There is some replacement/substitution ability there, granted, but it just ain't the panacea hoped for by many unless the change in the grid you're looking for is to go to the wall switch and hope the light's come on when you want.
--
Taken individually few of the alternative sources are a solution. But all of them in combination with a more intelligent national grid and more efficient consumption, it can all add up to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
LOL. Spoken like a true lib, where the newest technique is to redefine every word in the english vocabulary in a desperate attempt to continue the ways that most American people have rejected. Now allowing certain tax deductions in an industry that pays HUGE federal income taxes as welll as more taxes on the fuels themselves suddenly becomes "entitlements", as if it were welfare handed out to a skunk who dropped out of high school, got pregnant with 4 kids by 3 different fathers, chooses not to work and has never paid any income taxes.
Kind of like the Obama method of starting to count "jobs saved", a term no one, including economists ever heard of before. And for good reason, because it can't be measured and is totally bogus. But of course, the liberal media gobbled that up, hook, line and sinker without ever questioning it or mentioning it had never been done before. Or equating continuing the current tax rates as something "we can't afford", as if it's equivalent to spending. Funny, it's the only thing I've heard so far that the libs have found that we can't afford.....
Here's a novel concept. Let's phase out all subsidies.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.