Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Rocko

New energy sources

52 posts in this topic

Hey everyone.  Many of you may not know but I'm a big clean energy person. I dont know that we are anywhere near a fossil fuel free society but I wouldnt mind seeing one. The arguments that take place between Republicans and Democrats are stupid. Whether you believe in man made global warming (i do) or not you have to believe in the terrible nature of pollution and what it is doing to our air, water sources, and overall health. Im a big proponent of a multifaceted effort. I'm for a huge investment in nuclear power across the country with wind/solar/hydro where it can be most effective. What are your suggestions to move away from the polutant fossil fuels?

Statick, bdog 29, JayOzOne and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same way toward this issue that I feel toward world hunger and a lot of health crises: Making money takes precedent over global welfare and until the people with the resources to resolve the problem decide that it's worth their effort, things will get worse. They're the ones who grease the palms of politicians and nothing will change until they decide that it should. 

Science has created seed that can grow a full plant in the desert with a ridiculously small amount of water and also developed crop seeds that can grow year after year. But to provide either to the people who need it is to end a revenue source, so those people will continue to starve.

And I'm on the conspiracy train that believes that many illnesses would be cured if there wasn't so much money in treatment. I'm not dismissing the efforts of researchers, whom I believe are 100% committed toward ending all manner of diseases. I have a cousin who has a foundation to end cancer because my uncle (his favorite uncle) died from it. But I am dismissing the commitment of government and business leaders to put it at the fore of their priorities. Elon Musk said that he's financing Space X because he has so much money that he doesn't know what to do with it as if hungry kids and a broken education system aren't a thing. Don't get me wrong: It's his loot and he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it. God bless him and everyone who chooses to spend his money any way that he wants.

But global warming is only a contentious issue because trying to resolve it would force the business community to adapt practices and spend money. Trump focusing on reviving the coal industry absolutely befuddles me (and I hope this doesn't become a discussion of politicians or parties).

Personally, I think we crossed the path of no return nearly a decade ago although I'm far from an expert on the science of it. We're seeing the world becoming inhospitable as it grows angrier and angrier and also witnessing a dozen species fade into extinction every day due to climate change and deforestation. The fact that the debate is not about how to handle the situation but whether its economically worth it proves that we deserve whatever is going to happen in the next 40 years. I just feel sorry for the generations who will be impacted by it.

If you think the refugee crisis is bad in 2018, wait around for 20 years to see what happens when the size of deserts doubles and the people who live in them have to relocate due to 125 o temperatures. Hard choices will be made over whether to let them immigrate or die by the millions. Too many people and not enough space is going to prove to be a problem that makes the ethical debate over whether to do something about climate change seem like child's play.

If you think we have a problem with terrorism in present day, buckle up because the ride's gonna get bumpier.

Rocko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sad more didn't engage in this conversation.  Seems like a good one to have instead of fighting all the time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More nukes (SMR's on the horizon) and, to best honest, invest in CCS (or making it work), and coal gasification!  Solar, and wind!  The reason I'm not on the "natural gas" train is because of what they do to get it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 8:03 PM, JayOzOne said:

I feel the same way toward this issue that I feel toward world hunger and a lot of health crises: Making money takes precedent over global welfare and until the people with the resources to resolve the problem decide that it's worth their effort, things will get worse. They're the ones who grease the palms of politicians and nothing will change until they decide that it should. 

Science has created seed that can grow a full plant in the desert with a ridiculously small amount of water and also developed crop seeds that can grow year after year. But to provide either to the people who need it is to end a revenue source, so those people will continue to starve.

And I'm on the conspiracy train that believes that many illnesses would be cured if there wasn't so much money in treatment. I'm not dismissing the efforts of researchers, whom I believe are 100% committed toward ending all manner of diseases. I have a cousin who has a foundation to end cancer because my uncle (his favorite uncle) died from it. But I am dismissing the commitment of government and business leaders to put it at the fore of their priorities. Elon Musk said that he's financing Space X because he has so much money that he doesn't know what to do with it as if hungry kids and a broken education system aren't a thing. Don't get me wrong: It's his loot and he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it. God bless him and everyone who chooses to spend his money any way that he wants.

But global warming is only a contentious issue because trying to resolve it would force the business community to adapt practices and spend money. Trump focusing on reviving the coal industry absolutely befuddles me (and I hope this doesn't become a discussion of politicians or parties).

Personally, I think we crossed the path of no return nearly a decade ago although I'm far from an expert on the science of it. We're seeing the world becoming inhospitable as it grows angrier and angrier and also witnessing a dozen species fade into extinction every day due to climate change and deforestation. The fact that the debate is not about how to handle the situation but whether its economically worth it proves that we deserve whatever is going to happen in the next 40 years. I just feel sorry for the generations who will be impacted by it.

If you think the refugee crisis is bad in 2018, wait around for 20 years to see what happens when the size of deserts doubles and the people who live in them have to relocate due to 125 o temperatures. Hard choices will be made over whether to let them immigrate or die by the millions. Too many people and not enough space is going to prove to be a problem that makes the ethical debate over whether to do something about climate change seem like child's play.

If you think we have a problem with terrorism in present day, buckle up because the ride's gonna get bumpier.

1) Money buys a lot of resources. The people who are starving live in poor countries. Not prioritizing making money (economy) over pointless platitudes leads to shortages, then people die.

2)The same people who cry about world hunger also boycott GMO's.

3)Again, money is not evil. It is a tool. A company that makes no profit has no incentive to research anything.

4)Prove that the benefit is worth the sacrifice and maybe we can agree on doing it. Trying something just to make some people feel good about themselves is just a waste of resources.

5)Live through a few dozen apocalyptic predictions and the anxiety fades. Like finding out that there are no monsters under the bed; it's a part of growing up.

6)Did you know that the entire 7 billion human population of the planet can fit on Rhode Island?

7)Eco terrorists are pretty bad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Doozer said:

1) Money buys a lot of resources. The people who are starving live in poor countries. Not prioritizing making money (economy) over pointless platitudes leads to shortages, then people die.

2)The same people who cry about world hunger also boycott GMO's.

3)Again, money is not evil. It is a tool. A company that makes no profit has no incentive to research anything.

4)Prove that the benefit is worth the sacrifice and maybe we can agree on doing it. Trying something just to make some people feel good about themselves is just a waste of resources.

5)Live through a few dozen apocalyptic predictions and the anxiety fades. Like finding out that there are no monsters under the bed; it's a part of growing up.

6)Did you know that the entire 7 billion human population of the planet can fit on Rhode Island?

7)Eco terrorists are pretty bad.

 

I can't disagree with anything you wrote but I somehow get the impression that you disagree with my post. I placed no value judgments on anyone. I had to read it again to make sure. I didn't even say that anyone should do anything, only pointed out what's not being done and why.

I LOLed at paragraph 2 because I don't eat GMOs. But because they scare me but because Monsanto has deplorable (in the true sense of the word) business practices. Patenting crop seed and manipulating the market through bribes and lawsuits isn't doing the world a favor. It's weaponizing food and I will put a value judgment on that.

Rocko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JayOzOne said:

I can't disagree with anything you wrote but I somehow get the impression that you disagree with my post. I placed no value judgments on anyone. I had to read it again to make sure. I didn't even say that anyone should do anything, only pointed out what's not being done and why.

I LOLed at paragraph 2 because I don't eat GMOs. But because they scare me but because Monsanto has deplorable (in the true sense of the word) business practices. Patenting crop seed and manipulating the market through bribes and lawsuits isn't doing the world a favor. It's weaponizing food and I will put a value judgment on that.

Yeah I'm not a fan of GMOs, but if I was starving id eat whatever you put in front of me. Not to mention ya those business practices are crazy.

Plus I don't know if theres enough study on the long term potential effects. So if you don't have to eat it why would you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife is more worried about the effects of GMOs than I am. I'm on the down side of my journey (mid-50s) and doubt I'll be growing an extra ear before I reach the end. I've enjoyed an Impossible Burger a few times in the past year and that's produced through genetic modification, so I'm not on a high horse about what we'll eventually learn. With that said, I need to see a study on whether the obesity epidemic coincides with the oversatuation of corn syrup in the food market and if that oversatuation came about at the time that corn became the chief GMO crop (along with soy). I'm sure someone has researched it by now but I haven't looked it up. If I find something on some random health conspiracy theorist's blog, I'll discount it unless I see the actual research.

My only point was that nothing like energy or healthcare or the food crisis will be resolved without a fight against people with a ton of resources. If they could monetize solar energy without putting countless billions into it, we'd all have solar cars and homes by now. Nobody will be the first mover in that industry because once they create the model, others will copy and undercut them. Renewable energy is just that: renewable. And as such, it's harder to control and less likely to find its way into reality before someone requires it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for new power sources as long as it is a viable alternative not some significantly inferior tech forced on people.

I don't like GMO's and I try to avoid them whenever possible.

On a side note I fully support going to universal healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewable-energy

A scholar from Stanford made a roadmap for every state to hit 100% renewable energy by 2050. 

I would be interested to see it updated to include nuclear because the plan he made is not politically feasible. 

I am also pro natural gas as an intermediate to get to that 100% renewable. NG has been the biggest at reducing our use of coal and is 50-60% cleaner in terms of CO2. Coal is the worst fossil fuel we use and it needs to stop. It also doesn't even employ that many people. Better to move to natural gas while we ramp up nuclear and renewables. 

Rocko and JayOzOne like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

Here's what it would take for the US to run on 100% renewable energy

https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewable-energy

A scholar from Stanford made a roadmap for every state to hit 100% renewable energy by 2050. 

I would be interested to see it updated to include nuclear because the plan he made is not politically feasible. 

I am also pro natural gas as an intermediate to get to that 100% renewable. NG has been the biggest at reducing our use of coal and is 50-60% cleaner in terms of CO2. Coal is the worst fossil fuel we use and it needs to stop. It also doesn't even employ that many people. Better to move to natural gas while we ramp up nuclear and renewables. 

Fracking destroys the aquifers below!  The chemicals they inject into the ground are NASTY!  Natural gas has a price!

kicker likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/7/2018 at 10:03 PM, JayOzOne said:

I feel the same way toward this issue that I feel toward world hunger and a lot of health crises: Making money takes precedent over global welfare and until the people with the resources to resolve the problem decide that it's worth their effort, things will get worse. They're the ones who grease the palms of politicians and nothing will change until they decide that it should. 

Science has created seed that can grow a full plant in the desert with a ridiculously small amount of water and also developed crop seeds that can grow year after year. But to provide either to the people who need it is to end a revenue source, so those people will continue to starve.

And I'm on the conspiracy train that believes that many illnesses would be cured if there wasn't so much money in treatment. I'm not dismissing the efforts of researchers, whom I believe are 100% committed toward ending all manner of diseases. I have a cousin who has a foundation to end cancer because my uncle (his favorite uncle) died from it. But I am dismissing the commitment of government and business leaders to put it at the fore of their priorities. Elon Musk said that he's financing Space X because he has so much money that he doesn't know what to do with it as if hungry kids and a broken education system aren't a thing. Don't get me wrong: It's his loot and he's entitled to do whatever he wants with it. God bless him and everyone who chooses to spend his money any way that he wants.

But global warming is only a contentious issue because trying to resolve it would force the business community to adapt practices and spend money. Trump focusing on reviving the coal industry absolutely befuddles me (and I hope this doesn't become a discussion of politicians or parties).

Personally, I think we crossed the path of no return nearly a decade ago although I'm far from an expert on the science of it. We're seeing the world becoming inhospitable as it grows angrier and angrier and also witnessing a dozen species fade into extinction every day due to climate change and deforestation. The fact that the debate is not about how to handle the situation but whether its economically worth it proves that we deserve whatever is going to happen in the next 40 years. I just feel sorry for the generations who will be impacted by it.

If you think the refugee crisis is bad in 2018, wait around for 20 years to see what happens when the size of deserts doubles and the people who live in them have to relocate due to 125 o temperatures. Hard choices will be made over whether to let them immigrate or die by the millions. Too many people and not enough space is going to prove to be a problem that makes the ethical debate over whether to do something about climate change seem like child's play.

If you think we have a problem with terrorism in present day, buckle up because the ride's gonna get bumpier.

Food shortage is almost always due to politics. Venezuela is an excellent example.  

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Andrews_31 said:

Fracking destroys the aquifers below!  The chemicals they inject into the ground are NASTY!  Natural gas has a price!

I agree and if the deadline was 2040 or 2050 I would skip it, but we got 12 years. We need to take measures to reduce our CO2 output asap. The fastest way is more regulations and pushing natural gas the next decade while ramping up nuclear. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-02-04-at-11.42.21-AM-10Coal is at 30% and declining. When we get it to zero, we can focus on reducing natural gas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flip Flop said:

Food shortage is almost always due to politics. Venezuela is an excellent example.  

This is true. And sometimes it's the economy that encourages these issues. For example, after Haiti had its hurricane, billions of dollars of aid was refused because its president feared that providing food and services for free would put the local vendors out of business (which it would). Every action has a consequence and sometimes, feeding the masses can lead to more starvation if the economy collapses prior to the aid running out. Then, the country is dependent on foreign aid and probably going to pay more. So what do you do?

And there are countries in sub-Saharan Africa that refuse medical aid for a variety of reasons, choosing to let their people die of AIDS and other illnesses because they don't trust or want foreign assistance. There's also tribal and religious tensions that permit all of the things I listed to stay as bad as they are. Although I stand by my post, it didn't look at every reason for those problems to still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GEORGIAfan said:

I agree and if the deadline was 2040 or 2050 I would skip it, but we got 12 years. We need to take measures to reduce our CO2 output asap. The fastest way is more regulations and pushing natural gas the next decade while ramping up nuclear. 

 

Screen-Shot-2017-02-04-at-11.42.21-AM-10Coal is at 30% and declining. When we get it to zero, we can focus on reducing natural gas. 

 

Forget that necessary regulation for at least two years. Probably forever with the politics it would take to pass it. Maybe if hurricane seasons, wildfires and increasing frequency of tornadoes intensify, people will demand change sometime in the mid-20s. But I seriously don't see it happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JayOzOne said:

Forget that necessary regulation for at least two years. Probably forever with the politics it would take to pass it. Maybe if hurricane seasons, wildfires and increasing frequency of tornadoes intensify, people will demand change sometime in the mid-20s. But I seriously don't see it happening.

On the federal level that is true, but on the state and local level somethings can be done depending on how 2018 goes. The bulk of Coal plants are in the midwest and southeast regions of the country. Dems are poised to actually win big in states like OH, MN, WI, MI, PA, FL with possible wins in GA, IA. controlling those governorships and the down ballot implications of winning by 8-10 points could mean flipping state houses and senates like in Va. 

The main problem is jobs. People stop caring about the environment when they have mouths to feed. Green jobs has to be part of the solution. A Carbon tax of 50-100 dollars plus a green jobs program and other regulation would change the math. 

JayOzOne likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 7:44 PM, GEORGIAfan said:

On the federal level that is true, but on the state and local level somethings can be done depending on how 2018 goes. The bulk of Coal plants are in the midwest and southeast regions of the country. Dems are poised to actually win big in states like OH, MN, WI, MI, PA, FL with possible wins in GA, IA. controlling those governorships and the down ballot implications of winning by 8-10 points could mean flipping state houses and senates like in Va. 

The main problem is jobs. People stop caring about the environment when they have mouths to feed. Green jobs has to be part of the solution. A Carbon tax of 50-100 dollars plus a green jobs program and other regulation would change the math. 

I would like to see a Transfer &Training program to provide employees the ability to slide from their current job in coal into the cleaner energy sectors. That would reduce a ton of strain from the process.  Theres no reason nuclear cant and isnt being implemented on a larger scale other than political reasons. Most dont want the government to fund the startup for it, but if you look back at oil and coal it was funded by the government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rocko said:

I would like to see a Transfer &Training program to provide employees the ability to slide from their current job in coal into the cleaner energy sectors. That would reduce a ton of strain from the process.  Theres no reason nuclear cant and isnt being implemented on a larger scale other than political reasons. Most dont want the government to fund the startup for it, but if you look back at oil and coal it was funded by the government. 

IIRC, there were programs planned to send the children in those regions to college or provide vocational training for free or very low cost. But it was effortlessly politicized and subsequently rejected by people who want their kids to work in mines like their families have for over a century. Change is a frightening concept to embrace.

Rocko likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rocko said:

I would like to see a Transfer &Training program to provide employees the ability to slide from their current job in coal into the cleaner energy sectors. That would reduce a ton of strain from the process.  Theres no reason nuclear cant and isnt being implemented on a larger scale other than political reasons. Most dont want the government to fund the startup for it, but if you look back at oil and coal it was funded by the government. 

 

Political reason is a big part of it. People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima and lose thier minds at the idea of nuclear near their backyard, plus people complain about nuclear waste. And no one wants to actully inform voters and people why nuclear is actually the safest technology and how much advancements have happened. Waste is much less of a problem compared to when we were building our nuclear arsenal. Fukushima was a plant from like the 80s. we have gotten better at protections to prevent disasters.

But we cannot forget costs. The economics of it are not good currently. Utexas has an energy source cost map. Their estimated cost, which is higher than the government's estimates because of how often projects overshoot their estimates is just not economical with how cheap NG is. With that being said, a company called NuScale is making modular reactors that can scale up and down and is suppose to have nearly half the cost of traditional reactors compared to utexas map.

Pair that with a carbon tax of around 50 dollars per ton and we would see a huge change what technology is the cheapest. We would also be able to use that money to fund some of our social safety net and help displaced workers because of job loss. It would also kill coal almost overnight. 

Current: Red = NG, Purp = SOlar, Green = Wind, Blue = Nuclear

vsashcH.png

 

With NuScale estimate + $50 carbon tax. 

LrYo9JO.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, GEORGIAfan said:

 

Political reason is a big part of it. People remember Chernobyl and Fukushima and lose thier minds at the idea of nuclear near their backyard, plus people complain about nuclear waste. And no one wants to actully inform voters and people why nuclear is actually the safest technology and how much advancements have happened. Waste is much less of a problem compared to when we were building our nuclear arsenal. Fukushima was a plant from like the 80s. we have gotten better at protections to prevent disasters.

But we cannot forget costs. The economics of it are not good currently. Utexas has an energy source cost map. Their estimated cost, which is higher than the government's estimates because of how often projects overshoot their estimates is just not economical with how cheap NG is. With that being said, a company called NuScale is making modular reactors that can scale up and down and is suppose to have nearly half the cost of traditional reactors compared to utexas map.

Pair that with a carbon tax of around 50 dollars per ton and we would see a huge change what technology is the cheapest. We would also be able to use that money to fund some of our social safety net and help displaced workers because of job loss. It would also kill coal almost overnight. 

Current: Red = NG, Purp = SOlar, Green = Wind, Blue = Nuclear

vsashcH.png

 

With NuScale estimate + $50 carbon tax. 

LrYo9JO.png

Glad you'll never be in charge of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 7:44 PM, GEORGIAfan said:

On the federal level that is true, but on the state and local level somethings can be done depending on how 2018 goes. The bulk of Coal plants are in the midwest and southeast regions of the country. Dems are poised to actually win big in states like OH, MN, WI, MI, PA, FL with possible wins in GA, IA. controlling those governorships and the down ballot implications of winning by 8-10 points could mean flipping state houses and senates like in Va. 

The main problem is jobs. People stop caring about the environment when they have mouths to feed. Green jobs has to be part of the solution. A Carbon tax of 50-100 dollars plus a green jobs program and other regulation would change the math. 

GaFan, explain the first paragraph??  Using Georgia as an example, GA has two of the largest coal fired powerplants in North America (one is probably the largest), and (IIRC) those two are top 25 in the world!  I say that to say this, those two plants are not getting shuttered anytime soon, and Southern has really powerful people lobbying for them, plus Southern is going to hit back and say that their remaining coal plants have scrubbers, or don't run much (a plant in Rincon, GA).  Southern is also going to point to their commitment to NG (see the plant in Smyrna they converted from coal to a much larger NG plant), and the nuke plant (new units at Vogtle) they are constructing (that you and everyone else in Georgia are already paying for).  Plus, solar sites are popping up all over GA!!!  The problem (as I see it), is not jobs, it's ROI!!!  The technology to make all of this work is there, but it has a price!  Can't lie, this is an area where I side with the GOP 100%!  Oh, I believe climate change is very real, so I'm not in that camp!!

Oh, I want to expand on something Jay said.  It was Hillary Clinton that proposed that in WV (and IIRC OH), but it was glossed over and shouted down during the primaries.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to work for one of the larger manufacturers of wind turbines. I also go laid off by said manufacturer. Why? Because they had to scale back their workforce several years ago when the federal government stopped providing purchase subsidies for wind turbines. It seems no one really wanted to buy them unless they got a break from the government. No orders = no work. The thing is, the price of a wind turbine is not cost effective. I've seen reports that say, even at max capacity/runtime, they do not produce enough energy in their lifespan to recover the cost of purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Padawan Knight said:

I used to work for one of the larger manufacturers of wind turbines. I also go laid off by said manufacturer. Why? Because they had to scale back their workforce several years ago when the federal government stopped providing purchase subsidies for wind turbines. It seems no one really wanted to buy them unless they got a break from the government. No orders = no work. The thing is, the price of a wind turbine is not cost effective. I've seen reports that say, even at max capacity/runtime, they do not produce enough energy in their lifespan to recover the cost of purchase.

But isn’t our gas subsidized.  Would people be happy if it was not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lostone said:

But isn’t our gas subsidized.  Would people be happy if it was not?

My biggest reason for mentioning subsidies is that people say we should remove them from fossil fuels to even the playing field. I say we either remove none or all. Without subsidies, I imagine that fossil fuels would suffer a decline. Without subsidies, wind turbine sales stopped altogether.

JayOzOne likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0