auto44

The Truth About Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy (Part II)

You don't think half our land area is a big issue???????????????


On Aug 09 09:16 AM oferdror wrote:

> Just to get the numbers straigh: you need 2,000 (not 20,000) acres
> of land to generate about 1GW of solar electricity. Sunlight hits
> the ground at an intensity of about 1kW/m^2. That means that at 100%
> efficiency you would need 1 million m^2 or 250 acres. If you assume
> about 12.5% efficiency (not a high number by today's standards and
> we can probably expect double that in time) you get 2000 acres. Not
> that I think solar power can solve all our prolems. But it is very
> close to the point (i.e. will be there in less than 10 years) that
> it can (if the political will exists....) become a major source of
> electricity (over 10% of US needs).
>
> By the way, even you take your 20,000 acre number, the area needed
> to provide 100% of US electricity needs (500GW or so) is only about
> 40,000 kM^2 which is less that 1/2% of the land area of the US. So
> land is simply not the issue.

The Truth About Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy (Part II)

You must be one of those starry eyed tourist the author refered to.


On Aug 09 09:12 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> The author manages to get so much right and wrong.
>
> First why would we need more refineries when we don't need the ones
> we have now? We won't ever use as much oil as he have before as the
> price is going to rise fast, high. So now the oil industry is shutting
> down or closing refineries to cut oversupply.
>
> Your drill, baby, drill rant has one small problem, we have little
> to drill for as not much left. If we do as you say we'll be completely
> out of oil in 10yrs. I'd rather stretch what we have over a longer
> time frame.
>
> You seem to think there is an energy shortage for some reason. There
> is plenty of energy all around you if you are smart enough to catch
> it. Judging from how uninformed on basic physics, econo101 you are,
> you may not be smart enough. But I think you are, just letting your
> bias get in the way and you believe the bull big oil, coal have fed
> you.
>
> Let's start with our biggest energy resource, eff, conservation.
> WE can over the next 10 yrs cut our energy use by 50%, enough to
> make us independent of both coal and imported oil without hurting
> our lifestyle other than not being wasteful and thinking a little.
>
>
> For $10k a 1500sq' home can have wind, CSP units to give the eff
> home all it's power needs, charge an EV and in many cases, sell it
> back at a profit. Facts are now home wind is only $2k/kw and CSP
> solar is about $3k/kw plus much heat as a bonus.
>
> I'm not sure what big wind, solar farms energy costs but it's not
> higher than coal especially if all coal's costs are in it. But home
> size wind that's lower than coal power is available now though one
> has to hunt for it. Google axial flux or magnets4less.
>
> I like nukes and if their price can be brought down to $4-6k/kw then
> yes but now recent bids for plants are in the $9k/kw range and likely
> to be underbid by as much as all nuke plants in the last 20 yrs have
> had 50-100% cost over runs. So old nuke, OK, new nuke only if cost
> effective.
>
> NG is a good thing. It's far cleaner than coal and without the military,
> economic costs of oil as we have enough. NG will fill the times when
> RE isn't making power and Semi's, other trucks.
>
> Cars are going electric as it's the only way we can afford them.
> Why is they use 1/3-1/6 the energy/mile depending on your energy
> source and one can by wind and/or solar make your own power/fuel.
> Since EV's are simple, cheap to build, they will in 5 yrs cost no
> more than ICE's but cost 1/4 to run.
>
> So basically we need to do Obama's energy, transport plan, Cap and
> Tax oil, coal so they pay all their direct, indirect subsidies, not
> what congress is doing, with a tax cut from the revenue plus help
> switching to a stable, inexpensive energy future.
>
> Now compare that to going fossil fuel instead, we'll be broke, owned
> lock, stock and barrel by big coal, oil, OPEC, Russia and every little
> oil dictator on earth, continually in oil wars or poisoned by coal.
> Your choice.
>
> Actually I shouldn't say it's your choice as next yr oil will spike
> back to $150, even $200bbl and stay there until we go back into recession,
> then everyone will agree we need off oil. And the invisible hand
> will sweep down and clear the path for new thinking.
>
> There are no technical problems to do this cost effectively, the
> problem is political, bought and paid for congress by big oil, nuke
> and coal who want to keep their huge subsidies, corporate welfare
> coming their way..