Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[GlyphGryph]

How do you figure? Aren't the "subsidies" for clean energy still resulting in a higher tax burden than for traditional fossil fuel industries? I think there were one or two years around 2010 where that wasn't the case because of a big injection of federal funding for PR purposes, and has since returned to normal levels.

To compare, the government gives up to 52 billion in subsidies to the coal and oil industry, every year. They give only 12.2 billion to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydro combined - and that number was from a year and a half ago, with all evidence pointing to a significant funding drop since then.

That doesn't sound like a "leg up" to me, forget several.

[Descan]

In absolute terms, it's a leg-up from "let them eat cake" no support whatsoever.

But relative to dirty energy, yes they're not really helping all that much with clean energy.

[GlyphGryph]

If you're in a competition, and someone keeps giving your opponent stuff to insure their victory, handing you a towel to wipe the blood off isn't "giving you a leg up", it's "trying to make you think you owe them something if you somehow pull off a victory, despite that fact that without them you're victory would have been much earlier and easier".

The idea that they are giving the renewable/alternative energy industries a leg up is what we call a "lie".

[DWC]

Afaik, solar power in particular is so inefficient that the production of a solar panel will have consumed more energy (not to mention rare materials like lanthanum and neodymium) to manufacture then it will ever hope to produce in it's expected service life.

So clean energy needs gov't subsidies in order to even be a thing, outside of a few specialist applications, clean energy industry is a net consumer of energy. Which is why you won't see any solar-powered solar panel factories in Arizona or anywhere else.

[Descan]

1) Solar Panels are not the only method of solar collection, there's concentrating the light and boiling water with that light, to use in steam turbines.

2) There have been advances recently to both up the efficiency of solar power and also lower the manufactoring costs and resource use. I would not be surprised if they've become over 100% efficient in terms of life-time use vs cost-to-create.

Not that I've ever heard of that problem, mind you. It makes sense, of course, but I'd not heard of it  being a problem before.

[Nadaka]

1) Solar Panels are not the only method of solar collection, there's concentrating the light and boiling water with that light, to use in steam turbines.

2) There have been advances recently to both up the efficiency of solar power and also lower the manufactoring costs and resource use. I would not be surprised if they've become over 100% efficient in terms of life-time use vs cost-to-create.

Not that I've ever heard of that problem, mind you. It makes sense, of course, but I'd not heard of it  being a problem before.

Most solar panels these days are net positive on energy after 5 to 7 years, net positive on cost after 10 or so years. They then have 0 to 5 more years of use in their expected lifespan. Not great, but not generally negative as DWC claimed.

And yes, solar thermal is a thing. And it is a great thing because a steam turbine running off 800 degree pressurized steam is a near perfect heat engine, vastly more efficient than any internal combustion cycle. And with sufficient heat reservoirs of molten salt, they can produce electricity 24/7 and withstand imperfect weather with minimal drops in power.

[10ebbor10]

Afaik, solar power in particular is so inefficient that the production of a solar panel will have consumed more energy (not to mention rare materials like lanthanum and neodymium) to manufacture then it will ever hope to produce in it's expected service life.

False. That was true 6 years ago, but no more. And even then it applied to solar power is subideal conditions.

So clean energy needs gov't subsidies in order to even be a thing, outside of a few specialist applications, clean energy industry is a net consumer of energy. Which is why you won't see any solar-powered solar panel factories in Arizona or anywhere else.

Nope, solar power already boomed (and collapsed, due to the crisis) in large parts of Europe. And while they were subsidized in some nations, there were not in most of the poorer/ Southern nations.

Hydroelectric               reservoir                                         4
Wind                           onshore                                           12
Nuclear                       various generation II reactor types    16
Biomass                     various                                            18
Solar thermal             parabolic trough                                22
Geothermal                 hot dry rock                                    45
Solar PV                      Polycrystaline silicon                       46
Natural gas           various without scrubbing                        469
Coal                 various types without scrubbing                    1001

Estimated Co² emissions over the lifecycle of a plant  g Co²/ kwh.

((As you can see, Nuclear is the way to go, as third to fourth gen plants are between 20-50% more effiencet))

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Afaik, solar power in particular is so inefficient that the production of a solar panel will have consumed more energy (not to mention rare materials like lanthanum and neodymium) to manufacture then it will ever hope to produce in it's expected service life.

So clean energy needs gov't subsidies in order to even be a thing, outside of a few specialist applications, clean energy industry is a net consumer of energy. Which is why you won't see any solar-powered solar panel factories in Arizona or anywhere else.

Please, for the love of god, stop making me debunk this. First of all, being a rare earth element doesn't actually make a substance rare. It's just a name.

Neodynium is more plentiful in Earth's crust than nitrogen, cobalt, lithium, lead, thorium, tin, iodine, silver, mercury, tungsten, platinum, and gold. I have neodynium in my earbuds.

As for massive growth, that ship has sailed:

Source ? It is improving, but a few percents of efficiency won't help. Other technologies are also improving (though their application needs more time to be effective).

Wind. Solar (look at the first two columns, would use the source but this is an assembled graph).

Sorry, but when people talk about "efficiency" and "more time" in regards to renewables, it is a clear sign that they do not know what they are talking about. Efficiency is a distracting factor. It is good, but what is important is actual power output. For example, the internal combustion engine is only 15% efficient and an incandescent lightbulb is somewhere in the order of (memory) 10% efficient. The latter is not a lightbulb, it is a heat bulb that produces a light byproduct. Nonetheless, both were vitally useful to us.

As for time, the time is now. As long as people still believe this "oh, just a few years" myth (which I personally suspect is disinformation) we will never transition to renewables. The numbers do not lie, both wind and solar are viable, now.

For USA, grid based, oil and coal produce approximatively 13 times the energy of the group geothermal, wind, solar, waste and wood. Which means for the same amount of money, a solar panel (took the whole group, but same) would come of with 15% more (if it was grid only).

Renweables were at 12.6% of US power in 2011 and have grown since then, making your approximation impossible. And this is about subsidization, which is not a purely mathematical problem. The value of subsidization is in its ability to force an increase in market access.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I feel like Arizona would be much more effective as a state if it was entirely solar panel. . I dunno. Seems a bit odd that no one has ever even tried massive scale solar projects [in my knowledge] in places like that.

[Owlbread]

What are your attitudes to wind and wave power, gentlemen? My homeland is getting into it in a big way because 25% of Europe's wind energy passes over our territory, and we have an enormous coastline. We're trying to become the Saudi Arabia of renewables. The USA may actually be in a far better position to exploit such things given the size of its territory and large coastline.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wind is excellent, wave doesn't really have that much potential. Too much work for too little energy.

[Owlbread]

Wind is excellent, wave doesn't really have that much potential. Too much work for too little energy.

Where in the US would wind turbines be best positioned, if somewhere like Arizona would be great for solar energy? I'm not very clued up on the windiest states. I've always heard Chicago was the windy city but I thought that was just a name.

We're actually aiming to have 50% of our energy consumption come from renewable sources, the bulk of which shall be through wind power. In 2011 it was 35%.

Fake Edit:

Sorry, we're actually aiming for 80% renewable energy consumption by 2020. The Germans are aiming for the same percentage by 2050. What is the USA's consumption like?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wind is optimally placed on/near mountain ridges and just off-shore, as these areas have consistant and powerful wind.

Solar would be good just about everywhere, really. There was a somewhat widespread map some time ago due to Fox News claiming the US wasn't viable for solar energy like Germany because the US is less sunny.

Of course, as you can see from the map, Germany actually has about as much solar viability as Alaska, the least sunny place in the US.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

We utilize all that desert for so many things, though. Not a better idea to capture all the jesus-lord-it's-fucking-hotness for energy, no sir.

[Owlbread]

Wind is optimally placed on/near mountain ridges and just off-shore, as these areas have consistant and powerful wind.

Solar would be good just about everywhere, really. There was a somewhat widespread map some time ago due to Fox News claiming the US wasn't viable for solar energy like Germany because the US is less sunny.

Of course, as you can see from the map, Germany actually has about as much solar viability as Alaska, the least sunny place in the US.

That map is very pleasing. There's huge amounts of potential for the West and the deserts out there if solar power can be expanded on an enormous scale.