Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

In the http://www.politicalforum.com/environment-conservation/222836-problem-agw.html thread I posted links showing wind and solar power generating units being abandoned by the tens of thousands.

http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wi...abandoned.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._ghosts_1.html

Nobody disputed those links. Note that the wind units are in primo locations – strong winds and nearby load where electric rates are sky-high. If wind cannot make it in southern California or Hawaii, just where is it feasible?

I posted a similar link about solar.

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/Artic...ia-Desert.aspx

Again, there was no dispute.

Nobody has yet successfully addressed the intermittent nature of wind and solar, either.

In a nutshell, wind and solar in their current state of the art, do not work – at least not well enough to substitute for fossil fuel.

As for nuclear, the hysteria over Fukushima has buried nuclear for decades. Gen IV nuclear is promising and there are permit applications under review. Permit approvals are still decades away. Until permits are approved, construction and testing are completed and operating permits (easily blocked by anyone with a sharp lawyer and a gullible judge) are issued, Gen IV nuclear isn’t replacing anything. We may very well be a half century away from the first kilowatt-hour from a Gen IV reactor.

I also posted about hydro dams being demolished for the sake of fish.

http://www.hydroworld.com/index/display/news_display.1505260210.html

The Governor of Oregon wants to demolish the Grand Coulee Dam. Clearly, Americans have turned against the only workable form of solar power.

So we are back to not having any substitute for fossil fuels.

 

It's only a matter of time until they are efficient enough.

 

I've heard that one since since to 70s. No joy to date.

 

Your point?

 

May not be a controlled experiment but the results are the same - observed change

 

Will not happen with what they cost

 

Obviously the cost will change. Eventually we will need to make the shift out of necessity anyway, seeing as fossil fuel is non-renewable. I think of it as a race between technology advancing fast enough to make renewables a viable option and fuel running out.

 

They cost a million dollars. What makes think it will change. Without government subsidies their is no profit. Another words taxpayers are paying for this failed program

 

What NASA data?

 

Common sense tells me the price will change as the technology advances and becomes more efficient. Why wouldn't it?

 

When you take away the subsidies of FF industry, then cost is not much different.
And how about calculating the total cost of coal.
A report of the real "cost' of coal: ‘Full Cost Accounting for the Lifecycle of Coal’,

more

 

But nobody can quantify this. At best a WAG.

 

Are you an expert in this or are you telling the professionals what they do or do not know?

 

Why would it? How about oil? We are quite technologically advanced in that arena....Why is gas so expensive? Exxon and BP are getting into so-called renewable energy...Meet the new boss....Same as the old boss....(The Who)

 

Why wouldn't an efficiently harnessed, renewable resource be a cheap source of power? Oil is a non-renewable resource. Therefore it stands that its price will continue to rise regardless of technological advances.

 

Oil is getting scarcer

Oil is subject to price controls (google "hydraulic empire") as opposed to a technological advance which, as history has shown, gets cheaper over time - or does your phone cost more now than 20 years ago?? (comparatively)

 

Because there is no such source of power yet. Oil, gas and coal are the most efficient source of energy and the most easy to distribute plus our world infrastructure is based on those fuels.

 

Which makes them even more subject to the principles of a hydraulic empire

 

It sounds like you are confused. Let me put it back into context for you. We are discussing the future potential/efficiency of renewable energy.

And whether it currently exists or not is irrelevant in regards to the question I asked you: Why wouldn't an efficiently harnessed, renewable resource be a cheap source of power?

"Because there is no such source of power yet." Is not an answer.

 

The second law of thermodynamics basically says that energy cannot be 100% recycled. There will always be some inaccessible energy as it is transferred from one form to another. There is no form of energy that can be 100% recycled to be used over and over again so no, it is not 'renewable' at all.

Solar energy from the sun collected in a solar array would not be enough to power a city like New York. However the sun's energy is transferred in other ways. Biofuel can be made from growing plants however, that takes precious land that we need to grow food. Hydro-electric is limited to a few dams, geothermal is also limited the same way. Wind power is also limited to where the wind blows.

Cobbling these sources together is one hypothesis I have heard however, it would be very cumbersome unless distributed by a controlling entity. That would be worse than what we have now in the oil cartel.

Right now the best 'bang for the buck' in energy output vs. waste and the most 'renewable' source of energy we have is nuclear that actually works on the principle of a controlled 'geothermal -type' process yet, environmentalists are constantly throwing up road-blocks and pointing to the scant number of nuclear accidents that have occurred.

If we generated all grid-power from nuclear facilities, our oil consumption would drop drastically and the need for dirty coal-fired plants would disappear. Not only that but the issue of hydro-electric dams killing river wild-life could be precluded. Our landscapes would not have to be littered with giant windmills and we could use all our land to grow food.

In that scenario, if we actually ran out of oil we could access natural gas for our more transportable energy needs.

BTW, the waste product from coal contains more radiation than any nuclear plant would ever create and much of it is emitted straight into the atmosphere. Because environmentalists are blocking nuclear facilities you and I are subject to more radiation. When coal is burned, fly ash has concentrated levels of thorium and uranium. This fly ash will leach into the soil and water. If you live near a coal plant, expect to receive approx. 1.9 millirems of fly ash radiation yearly. Folks living out side the 'stack shadow' of a coal plant receive only about 360 millirems yearly.

 

I guess you are not keeping up

 

They have been around for years and no change

 

So this justifies the EPA costing consumers money they can not afford in this economy of high unemployment?

 

You mean like using corn for ethanol that increases many food prices and makes E-85 as expensive as E-10

 

Show the source of power you are talking about