Clean Energy
 

There has been a belief for a long time that if we spend enough money and effort on alternative energy, we will all the sudden discover some new way of doing it, some new form of energy generation that will be cheaper and more efficient than what we have now.

Obama is still saying that same thing.
Unfortunately what he and many other "greenies" will not admit is that we've been throwing money at this for a long time with little or no positive results.

He talks about solar cells as cheap as paint. That is a PIPE DREAM!

Just because he and the greenies wish something would happen will not make it so. They are basing energy policy on unsubstantiated fantasy.

What will happen is we will spend and incredible amount of taxpayer money forcing the consumer (us) to use an alternative energy that costs signficantly more than what we have now.
We will be forced to pay for it's development and it's use, and we will continue to be forced to pay for it even though it costs too much. Think of it as another never-ending energy tax.

We will not export this "new" technology because the rest of the world will be laughing at us and will ask, why would we want to use that technology when it is so expensive and so inneficient it would bankrupt us also?
They will not follow us into failure.

What a load of *****.

"And just last week I visited the Electric Vehicle Technical Center in Pomona, California, which is testing batteries to power a new generation of plug-in hybrids that will help end our dependence on foreign oil. I have to say, Susan, the battery I saw was bigger than that one that's on the desk -- (laughter) -- but that may be the direction we're moving..."

Hello. How are these eletric cars going to be charged??


Sure - we could all use less electric and live in more efficient houses, have a better grid and drive small cars. But as the population continues to grow - the demand will eventually go up!

All this talk is about the demand side. What about the supply side???? How and where are we going to generate the huge amounts of "green" energy our society consumes?

Wind and solar are a farce. A tax write off for wall street and wet dream for greenies.

A the end of the day - this means as much or more fossil fuels as ever. Coal, gas and oil. All release CO2 when burned. Much of it is imported.

These morons are turning the clock back-wards on energy independence.:mad:

Nuclear Fission is the solution

Battery technology is reinventing itself almost every six months -- toward developing more power for longer periods of time.

When has the internal combustion engine last reinvented itself?

Wind Power is emerging as a homegrown American industry. Right now the wind industry is actively hiring technicians to work on windmills - a job which pays six figures a year. In Cali, they can't educate and employ enough people to keep up with the industry's demand. Community and Trade and Tech Colleges are now offering classes in windmill technology and upkeep.

Rep. Richard Shelby has often said sustainable energy is the one true industry that can benefit America. In short, what's green and sustainable cannot necessarily be exported to other countries - like American jobs.

Los Angeles is rapidly emerging to be the greenest million + population cities on Earth. Except for emergency response vehicles, mostly police cars and motorcycles, LA will no longer purchase anything more polluting than clean-burning diesel. The non-emergency city transport fleet is entirely hybrid.

San Pedro dock is slowly converting their hostler tractors to battery power - the trucks are built locally in Santa Ana by a company named Balqon.

No new public structures can be built within L.A. unless they are LEED certified. Millions of dollars are now being saved with less fuel costs and use of recycled building materials. At date, 51 LEED certified Green structures are being built in L.A., which puts a lot of people to work. And that's just L.A.

Solar power still appears to be one of the more popular additions to new home construction in L.A.

So, Green is an industry in its infancy that already employs Americans and manufacturers machinery that creates clean energy. Yeah, it's not quite at the $20 billion a year industry level Clinton projected about ten years ago. but this is a start.

I'm just sayin'...

I assume you mean fusion? Fission is used in ordinary nuclear powerplants. Fusion is one which only leaves low-active byproducts.

Wind can be huge. It's been as high as 18% of the demand in Texas and there's more installed capacity there just isn't enough transmission capacity. Granted this was around midnight when wind peaks and demand drops, but I've seen it almost as high in the middle of a cool Texas day.

The point is, we have excess capacity at night when electric cars would charge. The only issue is that the peak is 5pm when people come home from work. If everyone plugged in their car at 5pm along with turning on the A/C or heat it would be a problem. Smart meters and variable rates would solve much of that problem though.

Cold fusion is back - saw this on my feed this a.m.:

New Scientist Article

This time it's some folks from SPAWAR here in San Diego, so it seems to have some credibility.

The paper has been published.

FWIW.

You assume wrong. I said fission and I mean fission. Fusion does not yet exist, and may never exist. Fission is well understood and safe.

It exists, it just requires more energy than it produces.

I should have added "AFAIK"!

Then it is not a "source" of clean energy. We certainly can make fusion work, after we initiate a nuclear explosion. And we have lots of fusion energy, heating the planet.

We haven't gotten close to break even. And even if one of the Tokomaks makes break even, it is EXTREMELY complex. You need to get the power source to under $2/watt installed, to compete. Nuclear plants are around $2/watt, and the fuel cost is almost negligible, compared to carbon sources.

There is no such beast as clean, consistent energy: The mining of battery components, manufacture of those components, the energy required to "fuel" them during their life-cycle and the eventual disposal of all the battery components is hardly clean.

As well, solar technology requires much the same manufacturing and disposal issues that battery technology represents. Storage of solar power for use during peak hours and during non-solar cycles often rely on battery technology.

I am a big nuke fan, as is all of Europe. Before you flame, do your homework about waste disposal, chance of a core meltdown, etc.

We need a non-Nimby, reasonable look across the spectrum of energy solutions. Then imagine that this Senate and administration had one.

Following the French model for nuclear power is our best choice. The newest French reactor models only generate a 12 oz soda can worth of waste for an entire person's lifetime use.

There is no rational, counter argument. None.

But you still have to store that soda can. Forever. You can't just ship it to the midwest, push some fill dirt on top, and turn it into a ski hill.

Edit: I agree that the french model is the best solution. I'm just saying there are downsides.

My sister is lead environmental counsel for the DOE at the Nuclear Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP) in Carlsbad, NM. The salt dome they are putting transuranic waste in has been geologically stable for one billion years. She was working on the Deaf Smith County, NV long-term storage facility until O cut funding to a minimum.

+1000

Mercy, that's incredible. There exists too much fear, politics, and money to permit a move to nuclear.

The fact is, with advanced technologies, we can get hundreds of years of power out of nuclear fission. We need that time to develop the NEXT source of power.

Congrats on 12,000 posts red-beard!