Jim Morin for May 04, 2010

As I said before, the left is loving it bit too much …

Speaking from the left (ok, I’ll admit it. I am a liberal.), I don’t love it at all. Any man does, I’ll call him an idiot to his face. This is a disaster, and nothing else but.

If only the Fuel Cell and Solar Panel producers had a lobby. Their window is closing on this one. A few more days and the media will be on to the next terrible thing de jour.

If we only could repeal the elemental laws of physics and chemistry, we would have all the energy that we could possibly use, without any side-effects, or costs, for that matter.

What makes lefties so devoted to Utopian ideals?

@Fairportfan2

Producing energy in large quantities is always more efficient than producing it in small units (like combustion engines). This advantage might be in parts eaten up by the loss in transmission and storage, but I’m fairly sure that the overall efficiency will be better.

Apart from that, cars with modern drives will also require modern design, e.g. less weight and less unnecessary power, and this is something that just doesn’t fit into most US-brains, isn’t it?

All the more reason to dump money into research. Very cynical contributors on this site, even more so on energy issues.

“As I said before, the left is loving it bit too much …”

The right totally didn’t eat up that SEC porn scandal, nope nope or recent bombing attempts.

And no one “loves” this.

“The right totally didn’t eat up that SEC porn scandal, nope nope or recent bombing attempts.”

A moral equivalency?

We are not surprised that government apparatchiks failed at their basic responsibilities.

What is frightening is that the left wants to delegate even more power over our existence to this ‘class’.

So Sarah, what’s todays slogan?

Drill, Baby, Drill …… Spill, Baby, Spill …… Burn, Baby, Burn

Just because solar cannot replace our energy needs today is no excuse to give up on it. That’s simply poor reasoning. It’s hardly utopian, petergrt - solar power and wind power work, are cheaper to operate, and over time will be cheaper to implement as the technology improves, especially relative to oil, which is getting scarcer. (And I support the development of fusion power as well, which if realizable would be more powerful and cleaner than any of the alternatives.) It’s not utopian to see two trains heading for a collision – it’s short-sighted to say that they’re both okay for now.

Hi DrC.

” … .solar power and wind power work, are cheaper to operate … .”

That is a good example of utopia …

Do you know, for example, that a wind turbine is not likely to generate, over its useful life, the energy that was needed for its manufacture?

The photo-voltaic cells’ statistics are worse still.

Is it possible that we will someday achieve efficiencies of conversion of Sunlight approaching those of fossil or nuclear fuels?

I hope so, but thus far it is not feasible, except in the case of space exploration.

I am however, vehemently opposed to the wind turbines, regardless of their lack of efficiency -they are a menace on so many levels … .and abuse public and private investment resources at that.

I am however, vehemently opposed to the wind turbines, regardless of their lack of efficiency -they are a menace on so many levels … .and abuse public and private investment resources at that.

How and why?

One estimate I read said that a solar grid of only 100 square miles could supply all the power needed by the US. 100 square miles! Sounds like a lot, but I work at the DOE Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington, and it’s 592 square miles of sage and desert grasses with scattered nuclear facilities. If you’ve ever driven through southern New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada, you’ll realaize that 100 square miles is a relatively small area.

peter, you’re making things equivalent that aren’t. For example: Even low-efficiency solar panels can support existing systems, or supply power where little is needed on the spot. For example, emergency phones on the highway and some warning lights in various states are now solar-powered. They are planting satellite phones in Africa with solar power cells. Toyota has a Prius with a solar roof – not enough to run the car, but enough to help power the air conditioner. Thus, sunny days produce more power to protect you from the sun! You can buy a solar powered charger for your cellphone now. Efficiencies are up to 31-35%, and I have a physicist friend with insider information on someone starting a company that may have a way to boost efficiency on lower-cost (and normally lower-efficiency) solar cells. Unlike other power-generating systems, solar can work at the place it is needed, e.g., the home, the car, wherever. That eliminates the whole power-transport system. I see it as a supplement, not a replacement except in specific places. But that supplement could reduce our fossil fuel needs considerably! Also, as per the costs of wind turbines – I’d like to see a reference for that, because I hadn’t seen that anywhere; sounds like the “dog has a bigger carbon footprint than the SUV” assertion which turned out to be BS. But more importantly, you need to start somewhere. As need goes up and the free market takes over (and I promise you that it isn’t government that’s building and selling all those turbines – it’s ABB, GE, and Siemens and people like that), there will be more competition and greater efficiency and durability. I like solar better than wind, but I haven’t heard a compelling case for why not yet – you say it’s a menace, but compared to nuke plants?

Amazing that the illiterates who want to stay with oil know nothing about alternative energy. Wind turbines return FAR more energy in a brief time than required to produce them, they’re just huge alternators like on your car. (yes, that’s driven by the engine.) Solar definitely returns on the investment. There ARE remaining, some serious consequences from these sources, but some mitigation is possible.

How and why?

Bearing in mind the above stated economic and energetic realities of the wind turbines:

Visually, wind farms are offensive abuse of natural terrain; They kill more birds than all oil-spills and other man-made contraptions, combined; Acoustically, though the latest models are much quieter, their chorus is deafening;

These are just a few that come to mind. Other’s may have other, maybe diferent experiances.

There are a few wind farms outside of Palm Springs - most seem to be out of service, as many of the turbines have lost some of the blades, and most are standing with the blades immobilized … . You see, when the wind velocity exceeds the operating parameters of the turbines, which happens quite often - known as a runaway turbine, it tends to decentigrade - loose a blade or two, and so on, which, needless to say, becomes one deadly wing, so in such instances, the safety system locks up, or attempts to lock down, the impeller.

Asserting that people are happy about an epic oil spill is the 12-year-old argument there CWR. It’s the same childish mentality that says people who disagreed with Bush were terrorist lovers. He even has the gall to spout off some cr@p about moral equivalency. Oh the hypocrisy….

That is what earns Pete a big fat F U.

motve, I love solar, and I agree with almost everything you wrote. Including you acknowledgment that it cannot replace,, but rather augment the major producers of electrical energy.

That said, even with the expected increase of efficiency to 50+/-%, it is not likely to provide economic power to fuel say a subway system, anytime soon, yet your your lefty friends think that solar and wind, and perhaps something as yet undiscovered will replace the current of energy, and that is utopia.

HeeHee. :)

“They kill more birds than all oil-spills and other man-made contraptions, combined; ”

I will concede the bird point. That’s indeed something very serious to consider, in my opinion.

What about offshore wind farms?

Yo, DrC. All done. And you? But I’ve got a busy research summer looming. No rest for the obsessed.