Free energy VS Fossil Fuel

[ttystikk]

tidal has a shit load of problems, the set up is insanely expensive, and sea water is corrosive, so up keep is a bitch

There are other ways to get energy from the sea.

 

[Fubard]

We still lots of holes for oil and gas, drilling more for geothermal is not going to be a problem.

Geothermal energy is accessible with current technology and is not a source of CO². The generation plants can be throttled up and down on short notice to work with variable output from wind, solar and tidal generation. Geothermal is basically limitless.

I've always been in favour of geothermal, but the problem becomes a lot of holes which brings in NIMBYism, people like the idea as long as it's not near them. That goes for most things nowadays, of course, "Not In My Back Yard" is the cry so most plans get scrapped thanks to the NIMBYs and the treehuggers.

I would even go so far as to say that if half as much effort and money had gone into figuring out what to do with nuclear waste as has gone into whining about it, we would have a real solution to that issue. Instead we're pursuing more policies which use a lot of the finite resources the planet has and do so in a way that is certainly not good for any environment, but as people don't like to think of that side of things it gets ignored...

 

[Fubard]

There are other ways to get energy from the sea.

There are, but the same problems regarding corrosive water apply.

There's also the problem of harnessing the power, depending on circumstances. The tidal bore up the Avon in England would be a fantastic source of generation but the forces involved are phenomenal, you can see it clearly with what Top Gear did with a Hilux there, and anything that could handle these forces would end up being too expensive to be viable.

I feel that it has been a missed opportunity though, as the political drive was into the dead end of wind and solar as it was there and they "could be seen to be doing something". As usual, that's where things start going wrong, politicians...

 

[ttystikk]

I've always been in favour of geothermal, but the problem becomes a lot of holes which brings in NIMBYism, people like the idea as long as it's not near them. That goes for most things nowadays, of course, "Not In My Back Yard" is the cry so most plans get scrapped thanks to the NIMBYs and the treehuggers.

I would even go so far as to say that if half as much effort and money had gone into figuring out what to do with nuclear waste as has gone into whining about it, we would have a real solution to that issue. Instead we're pursuing more policies which use a lot of the finite resources the planet has and do so in a way that is certainly not good for any environment, but as people don't like to think of that side of things it gets ignored...

Not nearly as much NIMBYism about geothermal, since no dangerous chemicals are involved.

Your complaint about lots of holes (twice now) doesn't wash with the obvious example of fossil fuels extraction.

Nuclear power is a scam; the deeper you look, the dirtier and more corrupt the industry gets.

 

[ttystikk]

There are, but the same problems regarding corrosive water apply.

There's also the problem of harnessing the power, depending on circumstances. The tidal bore up the Avon in England would be a fantastic source of generation but the forces involved are phenomenal, you can see it clearly with what Top Gear did with a Hilux there, and anything that could handle these forces would end up being too expensive to be viable.

I feel that it has been a missed opportunity though, as the political drive was into the dead end of wind and solar as it was there and they "could be seen to be doing something". As usual, that's where things start going wrong, politicians...

'dead end' of wind and solar? They both generate power for less than just building fossil fuel plants, not even including feedstocks! You've been watching too much propaganda from the Koch smokers.

 

[Fubard]

Not nearly as much NIMBYism about geothermal, since no dangerous chemicals are involved.

Your complaint about lots of holes (twice now) doesn't wash with the obvious example of fossil fuels extraction.

Nuclear power is a scam; the deeper you look, the dirtier and more corrupt the industry gets.

There's no chemicals, that's true, but you wouldn't be drilling more holes where they're drilling for oil/gas, you would be doing it closer to population centres where the power is needed so there would be NIMBYism about the site itself, noise, increased traffic, scaremongered disaster scenarios, and so on even though it's proven tech.

And you could say that all power generation schemes are a scam, wind sure as hell is when you see how much is generated in the UK vs the subsidies paid, and I know exactly how much I have to pay on my bill as a subsidy for all these private solar panels which I get no benefit from.

And that's the thing, I don't think there's one form of power generation that is commercially viable without some sort of funding from the taxpayer, the whole thing is a house of cards, it's all a big scam.

 

[Fubard]

'dead end' of wind and solar? They both generate power for less than just building fossil fuel plants, not even including feedstocks! You've been watching too much propaganda from the Koch smokers.

And, as pointed out, for every kW of solar or wind there is a "conventional" plant running at lower than best efficiency for when the light levels drop and the wind gets too weak or strong. And that's before we think of how much wind and solar is created above certain latitudes in winter when it is needed the most (effectively, zero). You have to run "conventional" plants inefficiently to provide instant cover due to the vagaries of the weather then you are wasting fuel and polluting for no reason, never mind the maintenance costs of, effectively, two power plants to provide the same thing.

How does that make sense?

No, sorry, but you can only take efficiency so far and when there is periods where such "renewables" generate power erratically due to the vagaries of the weather then they become a "dead-end" as you cannot control the weather.

Geothermal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and stable. A good thing.

Tidal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and pretty stable. A good thing.

Hydro? Can be perpetual, but can cause obvious immense environmental damage due to flooding something. But a steady and stable supply and therefore a reasonably good thing.

Sun and wind? Both erratic. Erratic is never a good thing, creates instability. Bad idea.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

solar and wind aren't dead end, but they are limited. why does it have to be all one way or the other? why not use geothermal where its easy to use it, use wind turbines in windy places, use solar in the desert.....they all produce power, why try to dedicate the whole system to one source? seems like one of the problems we're dealing with now

 

[Fubard]

solar and wind aren't dead end, but they are limited. why does it have to be all one way or the other? why not use geothermal where its easy to use it, use wind turbines in windy places, use solar in the desert.....they all produce power, why try to dedicate the whole system to one source? seems like one of the problems we're dealing with now

That's been an issue, solar and wind were quick fixes so politicians could be seen to be doing something, that's always a bad recipe.

Now, we come to the placing of wind turbines and panels. It sounds good, always sunny in the desert, but the further into the middle of nowhere you are the more expensive the infrastructure and maintenance costs and that becomes a problem running new power lines, etc, the costs become prohibitive.

This is not just an issue affecting the US, it's the same over this side of the pond where there has been a lack of investment in infrastructure over previous years/decades, we're barely keeping up with what's needed now, never mind getting ahead of the curve on what will be needed in the future, there's a token amount of charging spots for EV's here but the reality is that the grid and generation capabilities need a stable upgrade NOW if there's any hope of having the infrastructure available for the future needs. Wind and solar aren't really there, storage is only possible on relatively small scales, and there's questions over future tech as until proven to be viable then it's as much use as a dream.

It's one reason I suggest using coastal wind to crack H², it can be done in more remote places where the risk of something going wrong is lessened, and can be either transported or used for generation on site. Like with EV's, there is a place but we're nowhere near ready to use wind/solar as a replacement for fossil or even nuclear, and that's before political considerations such as the coal and oil industry, which Is why I dropped a hint previously about the drive that lead to unleaded fuel and catalytic converters when the better solution, as endorsed by St. Margaret of Grantham, was "lean burn" technology. But the oil companies and car manufacturers decided that would cost too much, politics took it's place, and we are where we are now.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

well, at least in the U.S., if we could get this happening soon, the infrastructure of the country is aging badly, and in need of not only replacement, but standardization. that would be an excellent opportunity to kill several birds with one load of shot. i'm sure similar situations exist in many other parts of the world.
make it mandatory that new dwellings have a certain percentage of their roofs covered in solar panels, with on site storage. it can be used during peak hours to help cut spikes on the system. use wind power in agricultural areas, same premise, use on site storage to run water pumps for cattle tanks and crop irrigation. if everything is hooked to the same "grid", you can use surpluses in one area to offset deficits in another area. have whatever solution is best suited for the area in place, and contributing to the system.

 

[Rrog]

Geo + solar is a good combo. That’s more common all the time.

I have geo

 

[Fubard]

As I say, it's not really different here. We have a grid across the entire EU but it needs some serious updating, especially on STABLE means of generation. It's how you get the boast from Denmark about having so much "green" energy from wind power, but they forget to tell you that they would be screwed if they couldn't get the surplus from the Swedish nuclear plants.

The idea of mandating solar panels on roofs is a noble one, but pointless unless they are pointed the right way. And how many properties, especially in the EU, have space for what is potentially a big explosion bolted onto a wall?

Wind farms in agricultural areas means losing a lot of agricultural ground, you need proper roads and so forth, a non-starter although there's no reason a farmer couldn't turn a field into a solar farm. Again, however, the intermittent nature and absolute lack of viable storage is a major issue that has to be addressed first.

And, of course, then we hit certain latitudes and seasons, and when pretty much every December the output from all Scottish wind power is, effectively, zero percent of demand, and we won't go into what solar can produce in a Scottish winter.

As I say, there is a place but it is not a replacement.

 

[ttystikk]

There's no chemicals, that's true, but you wouldn't be drilling more holes where they're drilling for oil/gas, you would be doing it closer to population centres where the power is needed so there would be NIMBYism about the site itself, noise, increased traffic, scaremongered disaster scenarios, and so on even though it's proven tech.

And you could say that all power generation schemes are a scam, wind sure as hell is when you see how much is generated in the UK vs the subsidies paid, and I know exactly how much I have to pay on my bill as a subsidy for all these private solar panels which I get no benefit from.

And that's the thing, I don't think there's one form of power generation that is commercially viable without some sort of funding from the taxpayer, the whole thing is a house of cards, it's all a big scam.

It's very clear that you know nothing about the technology and you're just throwing words out there.

 

[ttystikk]

And, as pointed out, for every kW of solar or wind there is a "conventional" plant running at lower than best efficiency for when the light levels drop and the wind gets too weak or strong. And that's before we think of how much wind and solar is created above certain latitudes in winter when it is needed the most (effectively, zero). You have to run "conventional" plants inefficiently to provide instant cover due to the vagaries of the weather then you are wasting fuel and polluting for no reason, never mind the maintenance costs of, effectively, two power plants to provide the same thing.

How does that make sense?

No, sorry, but you can only take efficiency so far and when there is periods where such "renewables" generate power erratically due to the vagaries of the weather then they become a "dead-end" as you cannot control the weather.

Geothermal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and stable. A good thing.

Tidal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and pretty stable. A good thing.

Hydro? Can be perpetual, but can cause obvious immense environmental damage due to flooding something. But a steady and stable supply and therefore a reasonably good thing.

Sun and wind? Both erratic. Erratic is never a good thing, creates instability. Bad idea.

That's what geothermal is for. It is becoming ever clearer that you've mistaken propaganda for science.

Educate yourself, it isn't our job to do it for you.

 

[ttystikk]

As I say, it's not really different here. We have a grid across the entire EU but it needs some serious updating, especially on STABLE means of generation. It's how you get the boast from Denmark about having so much "green" energy from wind power, but they forget to tell you that they would be screwed if they couldn't get the surplus from the Swedish nuclear plants.

The idea of mandating solar panels on roofs is a noble one, but pointless unless they are pointed the right way. And how many properties, especially in the EU, have space for what is potentially a big explosion bolted onto a wall?

Wind farms in agricultural areas means losing a lot of agricultural ground, you need proper roads and so forth, a non-starter although there's no reason a farmer couldn't turn a field into a solar farm. Again, however, the intermittent nature and absolute lack of viable storage is a major issue that has to be addressed first.

And, of course, then we hit certain latitudes and seasons, and when pretty much every December the output from all Scottish wind power is, effectively, zero percent of demand, and we won't go into what solar can produce in a Scottish winter.

As I say, there is a place but it is not a replacement.

How exactly does a wind farm render the land useless for agriculture?

Do you watch Fix News all day or something?

 

[Grandpapy]

And, as pointed out, for every kW of solar or wind there is a "conventional" plant running at lower than best efficiency for when the light levels drop and the wind gets too weak or strong. And that's before we think of how much wind and solar is created above certain latitudes in winter when it is needed the most (effectively, zero). You have to run "conventional" plants inefficiently to provide instant cover due to the vagaries of the weather then you are wasting fuel and polluting for no reason, never mind the maintenance costs of, effectively, two power plants to provide the same thing.

How does that make sense?

No, sorry, but you can only take efficiency so far and when there is periods where such "renewables" generate power erratically due to the vagaries of the weather then they become a "dead-end" as you cannot control the weather.

Geothermal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and stable. A good thing.

Tidal? A guaranteed supply, continuous and pretty stable. A good thing.

Hydro? Can be perpetual, but can cause obvious immense environmental damage due to flooding something. But a steady and stable supply and therefore a reasonably good thing.

Sun and wind? Both erratic. Erratic is never a good thing, creates instability. Bad idea.

Is Russia going to be our Oil Savior or the Saudis?
Remember, Corporations are loyal to their largest customers first.

 

[Fubard]

Is Russia going to be our Oil Savior or the Saudis?
Remember, Corporations are loyal to their largest customers first.

The Saudis are on the way out regarding influence, and major changes need to be made in Russia before anything big happens there.

We also know there's still a hell of a lot more oil, and gas, out there which is accessible at the right price, plus the potential for a hell of a lot of shale in places not normally associated with oil. That's not including known reserves which just need the right tech to exploit them.

In theory, the US, as an example, could be self sufficient regarding oil and gas, and could be for some time. But instead we allow a price fixing cartel to operate, which is also something seen in all sorts of other industries including the "not very green" energy business. That's more than merely "corporations", that's also political and that's why the whole "global climate warming change" business to save the baby polar seal penguins is such an absolute clusterfuck.

Politics is the problem, we need rational solutions to energy efficiency rather than short term knee jerk solutions from people who only have to worry about the next 4 or 5 years of employment.

 

[Grandpapy]

The Saudis are on the way out regarding influence, and major changes need to be made in Russia before anything big happens there.

We also know there's still a hell of a lot more oil, and gas, out there which is accessible at the right price, plus the potential for a hell of a lot of shale in places not normally associated with oil. That's not including known reserves which just need the right tech to exploit them.

In theory, the US, as an example, could be self sufficient regarding oil and gas, and could be for some time. But instead we allow a price fixing cartel to operate, which is also something seen in all sorts of other industries including the "not very green" energy business. That's more than merely "corporations", that's also political and that's why the whole "global climate warming change" business to save the baby polar seal penguins is such an absolute clusterfuck.

Politics is the problem, we need rational solutions to energy efficiency rather than short term knee jerk solutions from people who only have to worry about the next 4 or 5 years of employment.

The sooner we can alienate our self from the rest of the world, the sooner we will all be paying the right price to figure out how to control fracturing so we still have drinking water.

Noticed how much the oil industry balked at Trumps tariffs?

China exploiting Africa without US competition...

It's Industry run wild. It's Treason.

https://ispot.tv/a/w3tw

 

[ttystikk]

There's no chemicals, that's true, but you wouldn't be drilling more holes where they're drilling for oil/gas, you would be doing it closer to population centres where the power is needed so there would be NIMBYism about the site itself, noise, increased traffic, scaremongered disaster scenarios, and so on even though it's proven tech.

And you could say that all power generation schemes are a scam, wind sure as hell is when you see how much is generated in the UK vs the subsidies paid, and I know exactly how much I have to pay on my bill as a subsidy for all these private solar panels which I get no benefit from.

And that's the thing, I don't think there's one form of power generation that is commercially viable without some sort of funding from the taxpayer, the whole thing is a house of cards, it's all a big scam.

You really don't know fuck all about geothermal energy production, do you?

Go get your own education, it's not my job to spoon feed the ignorant.

 

[ttystikk]

Is Russia going to be our Oil Savior or the Saudis?
Remember, Corporations are loyal to their largest customers first.

So are countries.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?