What about a Green Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ronaldrc

Senior Member
Location
Tennessee
Hello all

I think its time to start a thread about trying to figure ways to become Electrical Energy independent.Doing away with oil and coal as a power source. God knows where going to need it for sure when we go to total electric vehicles.

Make some recommendations no matter how silly or far out they may seem.We the ones that like to discuss things of this nature will let you know if they might fly or not.

Myself I think we might have gotten off the track a little in going so big in wind power.I know wind power is a proven and cheap source. But it is not continuous and the technology of converting it to dc to save it and back to ac is very
expensive or takes very expensive hardware.

I myself think our oldest way of generating power is the cheapest and least expensive and that would be Hydroelectric. I think about 12 or maybe 15 percent of our electric power is generated this way,and it has aways been dependable. Why not try and increase this to maybe 80 percent and use wind and solar to pick up the remainder?

I think atomic is fine with all the safeties but it so expensive to man and maintain is it really worth it, just my opinion.

Anyway whats your ideas?

Ronald :)
 

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
Ronald,

Hydroelectric is a great way to produce electricity, the big problem being that the glaciers

that feed the waterways are going to vanish in the near future. Until the next generation

technoligy shows up, I say go for the only long lasting, clean, green big bright spot in the

sky, the Sun. How ?? I have no idea, but we better get going or we are going to get in a

world that aint gonna be fun.
 

Lcdrwalker

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
Not only is there a problem with burning fossil fuels, the supply is also finite. One day we are going to have to depend on another energy source. Sun and wind are good but as was stated, the sun is only good for half a day at most, and there are times the wind don't blow. I believe more investment should be made in hydroelectric and nuclear. As long as there is rain and gravity, water will flow. In the Navy, I was stationed aboard three submarines. We carried less than 100Kg of U235 and that lasted for ten years. I also think that we need to take a closer look at geothermal. There are several power producing facilities in operation that are using steam from deep well injection. As these technologies are developed and put into commercial use, the efficiency will increase and the cost will decrease.

I also think that a mass wind turbine project near DC would be logical. The hot air there is never ending IMHO.:grin:
 

wbalsam1

Senior Member
Location
Upper Jay, NY
..............I myself think our oldest way of generating power is the cheapest and least expensive and that would be Hydroelectric. I think about 12 or maybe 15 percent of our electric power is generated this way,and it has aways been dependable. Why not try and increase this to maybe 80 percent and use wind and solar to pick up the remainder?.................

Ronald :)

I totally agree. This probably makes too much sense and will not fly. All the extra river dams will affect the environmentalists.
 

Jhaney

Senior Member
Location
owensboro, ky
How about requireing all new houses to be built with some minimum amount of solar power on their roofs? It may not fully run the house but it will reduce to some extent the total amount of electricity we will need to produce. And making it a building requirement will increase the need for research and inovation in that field
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
How about requireing all new houses to be built with some minimum amount of solar power on their roofs? It may not fully run the house but it will reduce to some extent the total amount of electricity we will need to produce. And making it a building requirement will increase the need for research and inovation in that field

These kind of mandates sound like good ideas, but in reality, most of the population lives in multi resident buildings where the amount of solar panels that could be installed just is not worth the effort (not that it is anywhere else either).

The realistic energy reduction mandates have also already been done. There is not much left to do in those areas. About the only thing left is to mandate the use of solar hot water heating which is both economical and practical for single family homes, but lacks the political pizazz of photovoltaics.

The real answer is that if we want to have a 21st century economy, we need energy. I won't argue with those who believe in global warming, or peak oil, or Santa Claus for that matter. Those are acts of faith, and like religion, it is tough to look at them closely.

The only thing that can really help us short term is drill more oil and natural gas, dig more coal, and exploit nuclear energy as much as we can. There just is not much else out there that is useful short term. Put solar and wind into the picture to make the greenies happy, but realize that they can only be a tiny part of the picture.
 

drbond24

Senior Member
All the extra river dams will affect the environmentalists.

Warning...there is some sarcasm below. :)

Nothing ever makes the environmentalists happy. Hydro has dams, wind has windmills, solar has lots of unsightly panels, coal and natural gas have CO2 emissions, and nuclear creates nuclear waste. After they shut down ALL of the power plants for one reason or another we'll be completely in the dark; even the candle factories will be gone. Can't make them the old fashioned way either because that was with animal fat and that is cruel.

My vote is NUCLEAR. As long as the place doesn't blow up, it is the best way to go. :grin:
 

drbond24

Senior Member
Hello all

I think its time to start a thread about trying to figure ways to become Electrical Energy independent.Doing away with oil and coal as a power source. God knows where going to need it for sure when we go to total electric vehicles.

Make some recommendations no matter how silly or far out they may seem.We the ones that like to discuss things of this nature will let you know if they might fly or not.

Myself I think we might have gotten off the track a little in going so big in wind power.I know wind power is a proven and cheap source. But it is not continuous and the technology of converting it to dc to save it and back to ac is very
expensive or takes very expensive hardware.

I myself think our oldest way of generating power is the cheapest and least expensive and that would be Hydroelectric. I think about 12 or maybe 15 percent of our electric power is generated this way,and it has aways been dependable. Why not try and increase this to maybe 80 percent and use wind and solar to pick up the remainder?

I think atomic is fine with all the safeties but it so expensive to man and maintain is it really worth it, just my opinion.

Anyway whats your ideas?

Ronald :)

Here's another thought. (disclaimer: the following numbers were pulled from the internet in a hurry. I make no guarantees that they are completely accurate.) The Hoover dam has a capacity of about 2,000 MW. The total generation capacity for the United States is 1,089,807 MW. That means that we would need 436 dams just like the Hoover dam to reach the 80% hydroelectric generation number you mentioned. One down, 435 to go...
 

brantmacga

Señor Member
Location
Georgia
Occupation
Former Child
I think its time to start a thread about trying to figure ways to become Electrical Energy independent.

we're already independent for electrical energy. we have the largest coal supply in the world, and last i checked we aren't buying electricity from overseas.


i'm fine with burning through our massive reserves of coal, but if there ever becomes an effort shut all the coal-fired plants down, nuclear is the way to go.
 

PCN

Senior Member
Location
New England
I believe solar is the wave of the future. Some wiz kid in Oregon a while ago "re-designed" a solar collector that improved it's efficiency by a huge amount. As the the technology keeps improving it will make it more cost effective and popular.
Remember how slow and expensive a computer was 10 years ago?
 

drbond24

Senior Member
we're already independent for electrical energy. we have the largest coal supply in the world, and last i checked we aren't buying electricity from overseas.


i'm fine with burning through our massive reserves of coal, but if there ever becomes an effort shut all the coal-fired plants down, nuclear is the way to go.

I couldn't agree more.

I'll grant you that I'm biased (I work at a coal-fired power plant), but I don't see how anyone that wants to do away with fossil fuels in a hurry has thought their position through very well. It takes years to build a generating station of any kind, and most of our current generation is from fossil fuels. If we started RIGHT NOW and decided to replace every coal plant with a nuclear plant it would take decades.

I'm all for change and there is obviously a finite amount of fossil fuels in our country so we need to be thinking about the future, but what we've got is what we have to use for now.

Here are a couple of quotes from the intranet site where I work:

"You need a balanced approach [to meeting power demand while considering climate issues], but you can't cut off the most dominant fuel we have. 'Lips that touch coal will never touch mine' isn't viable."

The last nuclear power plant to get a permit and go operational in the U.S. was North Carolina's Harris reactor, which was approved in 1978 and went online nine years later.

Currently, 17 applications are pending for big nuclear plants in the U.S..
 

rexowner

Senior Member
Location
San Jose, CA
Occupation
Electrician
One huge area in which we would really benefit would
be batteries. Affordable, light weight and efficient batteries
could power more electric vehicles, and larger ones could
help solve the variability problem with wind. Despite
it's variabliity, each KWH of electricity generated with
wind is cost effective - it's in the ballpark with coal
and nuclear. I'd say transition to nuclear supplemented
by wind. Solar has been around since the 1960's and
remains hugely expensive except for niche needs like
off-grid, and only becomes affordable when government
programs make someone else pay the bill.
 

dereckbc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Plano, TX
I myself think our oldest way of generating power is the cheapest and least expensive and that would be Hydroelectric. I think about 12 or maybe 15 percent of our electric power is generated this way,and it has aways been dependable. Why not try and increase this to maybe 80 percent...

Well nice thought but not even remotely possible because here in the USA all the hydroelectric power has already been tapped and built out. There are no more rivers or land left to damn up to generate power.

Nuclear, NG, and coal are the only viable options we have for the next 50 years.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Well nice thought but not even remotely possible because here in the USA all the hydroelectric power has already been tapped and built out. There are no more rivers or land left to damn up to generate power.

Nuclear, NG, and coal are the only viable options we have for the next 50 years.
While there is no way that we could ever get close to 80% there a large number of exising dams suitable for small hydro projects that are not now generating power.
 

Jhaney

Senior Member
Location
owensboro, ky
These kind of mandates sound like good ideas, but in reality, most of the population lives in multi resident buildings where the amount of solar panels that could be installed just is not worth the effort (not that it is anywhere else either).

What about area's like in the midwest where there are alot of single dwelling housing plus "i may be wrong on this" isn't there a new solar coating for windows? That would be great for these sky scrapers out there with all that surface area going to waste.
 

Besoeker

Senior Member
Location
UK
we're already independent for electrical energy. we have the largest coal supply in the world, and last i checked we aren't buying electricity from overseas.
Electricity exports: 19.8 billion kWh
Electricity imports: 44.53 billion kWh
i'm fine with burning through our massive reserves of coal, but if there ever becomes an effort shut all the coal-fired plants down, nuclear is the way to go.
I agree with you on nuclear. At current growth rates, it will be a long time before rewables become a viable alternative to current the bulk sources.
 

wireguru

Senior Member
Nuclear is the best way using current technology to cover our energy needs in the foreseeable future. Its clean compared to everything else except hydro. Its impact on the surrounding area is smaller than any other power generation we have today.

I am very upset about this huge push for PV solar. So Cal Edision is spending millions putting panels on roofs, and LADWP wants to do the same thing. The produce a tiny amount of electricity, they take a tremendous amount of energy and natural resources to make, and they cost so much that it takes their entire lifespan to recoup the investment.

This whole 'green movement' we are seeing right now is 95% a bunch of BS.
Example: a 100MM/ per year company is extensivly touting how green they are. Want to know what they are doing? Recycled paper for their printed matter (maybe 20,000 postcard sized flyers a month, and laser paper for their offices) and telling employees to turn the lights off. I suggested waterless urinals for their 75 or so toilets and the 15,000 people a week that use them and occupancy sensors for the lights in their offices, and the response was 'we're not making an investment like that in something we dont need'

Bottom line is most of these green people are full of crap.

These wind farms are ridiculous as well. Entire mountains and vallyes scarred forever with these eyesores, to make what - a few MW of power?

Want to save enough electricity to be able to turn off a bunch of our oldest and dirtiest coal plants? Shut down google and myspace. Do these environmental freaks have any idea how much electricity just these two companies use?

This whole CO2 thing is a bunch of crap too. A couple volcanic eruptions emit more CO2 than how many years of power generation and industry? How many tons of CO2 is this lake spewing out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos

All this recent green BS is helping ruin our country. Look at how much time, money, resources, and energy is being expelled to propegate this green movement that does exactly nothing. These efforts need to be put into something productive.

i could go on for another 20 pages, so thats it for now

/rant
 

wireguru

Senior Member
ok i read my wiki article, that lake has 90 million tons of CO2 in it which they are spewing into the atmosphere. There are 2 more like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top