Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our current electric power system is based on not paying the full cost of generation, transportation or use. Just leaving out the unknown cost of creating and dumping megatons of Carbon Dioxide into the common atmosphere radically distorts the price of electric power. Monopoly and oligopoly ownership does the same. Collusion between coal suppliers, shippers and consumers increases costs.
We do not have and never did have a free market in electric power. The technology is considered a "natural monopoly" and prices are supposedly controlled by public regulation. This is a nearly complete failure by moving the profit points from the electrical utility to the fuel and transport suppliers. This is accomplished by joint ownership of the entire system of just having overlapping management.
The wind doesn't blow all the time and the Sun doesn't shine all the time so these sources of energy are stupid.
Perhaps it would be more effective if one realized that using a fossil fuel for energy (past input) is not as wise as using present energy, provided by our nearby fusion reactor (Sol).
Because once the fossil fuels are depleted, we can't wait 65 million years for a refill.
Yes, but the difference here of course would be substantially higher costs for renewables. If renewables were profitable the private sector would be building them as fast as they could put them up.
Any new technology takes time to become more cost effective. The first personal computers cost about $5,000. Now you can by a netbook for less than $400. The first cars and cell phones were owed only by the rich.
Also the petroleum and coal industry have a vested interest in NOT seeing renewable energy be successful and they have a poltiical lobby deeply committed to that cause.
While the United States lacks the national will by many to make a long term commitment to renewable energy countries like China and Germany are forging ahead with national strategies for renewable energy and major investments in this area. I've noticed that BOTH countries are in much better economic situations than the United States.
Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 12-08-2010 at 05:46 AM..
LOL well they are profitable but the cost is high compaired to the return, it takes up a lot of property for a windfarm or solar plant. It's good technology on a small basis I just don't think it's practical solution for the industry.
People can mount solar panels on their roofs get solar energy. One of the benefits of solar energy is that it allows for distribution of energy sources much more conveniently than huge coal fired, natural gas, or nuclear plants.
Any new technology takes time to become more cost effective. The first personal computers cost about $5,000. Now you can by a netbook for less than $400. The first cars and cell phones were owed only by the rich.
Solar and wind generation aren't new, we've been subsidizing solar long before the PC and cell phones and windmills have been operating for centuries. Yes new tech is always expensive but lets look at the examples you provided, everyone of them did something new or improved and were desirable products wanted by the masses. Someone had a reason to make them cheap and found a way to do it. I think I already posed the question in this thread and asked "If the government was subsidizing expensive cars so everyone could have one does Henry Ford make the model T?"
Quote:
While the United States lacks the national will by many to make a long term commitment to renewable energy countries like China and Germany are forging ahead with national strategies for renewable energy and major investments in this area. I've notice that BOTH countries are in much better economic situations than the United States.
Germany has the second or third highest electric rstes in the EU, top spot goes to Denmark which coincidentally also has the most production of of electric from windmills as a percentage in the entire world. They also produce the most windmills...
As far as China goes have no illusions they are going green. .... let me repeat... they put online a new coal plant every few weeks. The only green energy tech they are investing is plants most likely powered by coal so they can sell expensive green tech to us. They are importing coal from the US to feed their economy.
Any new technology takes time to become more cost effective. The first personal computers cost about $5,000. Now you can by a netbook for less than $400. The first cars and cell phones were owed only by the rich.
Moores law is specific to computer technology, not a general application to all fields. Using it as a base comparison to other technologies is misleading, ignorant, or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
Also the petroleum and coal industry have a vested interest in NOT seeing renewable energy be successful and they have a poltiical lobby deeply committed to that cause.
That is why for the past 60+ years they have been spending millions of dollars a year to find alternative sources in both technology and other mineral applications. Any good business will try to diversify itself and strive to be the first to provide a better alternative. The reason this has not been successful as of yet is due to the fact that the technology is impractical, costly, and wasteful. The only reason you see all this garbage "green technology" out is because it is heavily subsidized by the government which allows these companies to provide failed products by placing the burden of the cost on the tax payer and through regulation force it on the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy
While the United States lacks the national will by many to make a long term commitment to renewable energy countries like China and Germany are forging ahead with national strategies for renewable energy and major investments in this area. I've notice that BOTH countries are in much better economic situations than the United States.
Yes, other countries are applying these impractical solutions to which they are beginning to run into the limitations of them already. Increased costs, lack of supply of key materials, limited quality and performance which requires the consumer to change in order to adapt to the limitations of the product. That isn't progress, its backwards thinking and emotional soap boxing.
Moores law is specific to computer technology, not a general application to all fields. Using it as a base comparison to other technologies is misleading, ignorant, or both.
Talking about Moore's Law as if it were a real law is misleading, ignorant, or both.
Moore's Law is nothing more than what some guy declared at the beginning of the CPU race. It is nothing more than a self-fulling prophecy.
Overall, the price of technologies do tend to drop over time as engineering techniques are refined, manufacturing is perfected, and new designs are adopted. This can be seen in virtually everything from televisions to cars to computers to cellphones.
Today was a perfect example of why the green energy solution is a loser. Today I drove thru an area with at least 100 windmills It was 10 degrees F, a light snow, a complete overcast sky, and no wind, and maybe 10 out 100 windmills were turning... ever so slowly, and one even stopped turning as I watched it. So, if we let the green zealots have their way, and all new energy sources were wind and solar, we would have had black outs today. The only reason we did not have any blackouts was because good old coal-fired power plants were providing the electrical power.
Coal-fired power plants are sources of main power generation, wind and other renweables, except hydro for the most part, are only supplemental power sources. The supplemental power sources are neither dependable nor reliable. I cannot plan my power generation needs for the super bowl game with wind power, because I have no idea if the wind will decide to blow, and if the game is at night then solar is a complete flop.
With coal, nuclear, natural gas, and for the most part even hydro power, I can arrange it so that power generation is there when power is needed for a planned event, like a ball game or even if a cold weather front is predicted to be moving into the area. Even if that cold weather front is supposed to bring wind, I have no real idea if the wind will be steady or just gusting around and cause the energy produced by wind to surge all over the place. I also cannot predict how much sun will shine on my solar panels.
Sorry people, but wind and solar are not a dependable source of electrical power generation, they are too erratic and unstable, and the more wind and solar we dump onto the electrical grid, the less stable and reliable our electrical grid will become, and the more costly the energy bills will be for we the people.
Ocean currents are a potential alternative that isn't subject to weather events since currents, deep below the ocean's surface, flow constantly and provide much more power than wind.
If it were economically feasible, private corporations would have jumped in two decades ago.
In 2003 a company called First Solar Corporation had 3.2 million dollars in revenue. In 2009 the company had 2.066 BILLION dollars in revenue and 640 million dollars in net income.
In 2007 the stock was at $27.000 a share it now trades the around $130 a share.
First Solar FSLR - thin film solar modules (http://www.firstsolar.com/en/index.php - broken link)
In Germany the price per kWh is more than three times that of Portugal, still Germany is doing fine while Portugal is near collapse. At the same the few energy companies operating Germany's nuclear power stations are making billions in profits each year, which of course is also paid for by the consumer (thus of course the fierce resistance to turning the nuclear power stations off as originally planned). Plus, Germany subsidizes its coal mines, which also costs billions of Euros each year.
So why not subsidize technology of the future as well?
In the Netherlands, which is also doing fine economically, the price per kWh is even higher than in Germany.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
