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.
Most of the US could run on solar if the storage issue could be dealt with. Arizona/Nevada/New Mexico/California desert areas get 3,000+ hours of sun per year. If that could be captured and distributed, it wouldn't eliminate all fossil fuels but would drastically reduce them.
In a place like Germany, that just isn't feasible.
It's a valid arguement. "eventually" is not a contigency plan... It's wishful thinking.
If battery technology fails to materialize, our energy grid is fubar.
Having spent my working life doing development I can personally testify that there is nothing unusual about presuming certain problems during the development process will be solved even though you do not know the solution when you start.
That is pretty much the case with utility level energy storage. There are a number of techniques that might work and the industry will have to sort out which does. Solid electrolyte batteries might do it. Or liquid flow batteries. Or direct creation of hydrogen in solar plants. Or simply getting the cost of solar low enough as to allow electrolysis to produce hydrogen. And there are at least a few places where we could resort to hydro storage...Lake Mead being one.
Or maybe we luck out and someone gets fusion to work or Gates et al actually come up with a workable atomic reactor.
With all the parallel paths it is likely something will work. We could turn out to be terribly unlucky and none work. Then again we could get whacked by a meteor.
Having spent my working life doing development I can personally testify that there is nothing unusual about presuming certain problems during the development process will be solved even though you do not know the solution when you start.
That is pretty much the case with utility level energy storage. There are a number of techniques that might work and the industry will have to sort out which does. Solid electrolyte batteries might do it. Or liquid flow batteries. Or direct creation of hydrogen in solar plants. Or simply getting the cost of solar low enough as to allow electrolysis to produce hydrogen. And there are at least a few places where we could resort to hydro storage...Lake Mead being one.
Or maybe we luck out and someone gets fusion to work or Gates et al actually come up with a workable atomic reactor.
With all the parallel paths it is likely something will work. We could turn out to be terribly unlucky and none work. Then again we could get whacked by a meteor.
Did you conduct any of those experiments on unwilling human guinea pigs?
I don't think we're going to eliminate all fossil fuels in the near future. Renewables will increase, but there will still be a role for oil and gas for quite a while.
But coal is just stupid. Dirty, dangerous and inefficient, we can't get rid of it fast enough. You know the saying, "a bird doesn't s**t in its own nest"?
that assumes that we just burn coal straight out of the ground. we dont need to do that these days, as coal can be processed into a much cleaner burning fuel. through the use of coal liquefaction we can make gasoline, diesel fuel, heating fuel, etc. and we can remove the issues of soot, and sulfur from using coal as a fuel.
coal can even be gasified to make a combustible gas similar to natural gas or propane, and again the issues of soot and sulfur can be removed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4g4m
Local TV commercial. Install solar panels to save money on electric costs.
Install panels costing $17,000 to save $37 a month. $37 x 12= $444 Start saving on electric costs in 38 years.
and that is just considering only the cost of the solar panels themselves. add to that the cost of the battery pack, inverters, wiring, and everything else to make the system work, and the costs go up further.
and then you need to factor in the cost of maintenance and repair of the panels, as well as replacement costs when panels get damaged or fail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
Advances in solar, energy storage, and conservation will power the future.
that may be true, for the most part. solar power may well be the primary source of energy in the future, and i can see it happening given the technology that is being developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtnluver8956
I don't know where you are getting your info from, but that's wrong. A sustainable future it not just ONE source, it's multiple sources. People look for the golden gun, but it's going to be a mix of all renewable's.
very very true. we are going to have to continue to use multiple forms of energy to power the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
No, the technology will do more with less required energy.
yep, there are a number of ways to conserve energy. using old technology and just using less energy is only one way, the only way according to those with no vision. making things more efficient is another way to conserve energy as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Have people ever saw the damage that coal mining does to a miners health? I can't understand the idea that people are OK with others getting sick and dying so they can continue to promote their politics. Replacing things like coal shouldnt be a political issue. It should be a human issue.
i have. my paternal grandfather suffered from black lung disease from working in the coal mines. he became a train engineer after that running trains that hauled coal to market. but that was in the 30s when rebreather, and other technologies were not available to miners to protect their health.
modern air filtering technology, among other things will help greatly, as will modern medical treatments. and we can go further as well with robotic technology to mine the coal, already in use by the way, to eventually eliminate having people go under ground to mine coal. they would just need to go down to repair the technology as necessary.
Just one small lake that you can't see at the top of a small hill near here can generate more than a GW.....
And "conservatives" can't understand such things???? Amazing. I say we dunk them in crude oil and feather them...or, give them the choice of that or sitting up on the hill overlooking the river and having a beer?
Which one will they choose for themselves and their kids? You'd have to be a fiction writer to imagine people cheering against all the good things...and for the negatives! Yet, it happens. I'm thinking some crazed meth-addled Russian Fiction Writer may have had an influence on some of these folks.
Most of the US could run on solar if the storage issue could be dealt with. Arizona/Nevada/New Mexico/California desert areas get 3,000+ hours of sun per year. If that could be captured and distributed, it wouldn't eliminate all fossil fuels but would drastically reduce them.
In a place like Germany, that just isn't feasible.
The naysayers will be saying the same thing when we are at 30%, 40% and even 70% renewables.
Remember, the primary method of transport for the Germans in WWII were HORSES.......
"and over the course of the war employed, in total, 2.75 million horses and mules; the average number of horses in the Army reached 1.1 million."
How many did the US and Brits use? Close to zero.
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.
