• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The $1,000,000,000.00 Solution to our energy problems

Well look at that, Mr. V supports government using his taxpayer dollars to pay people to come up with something instead of letting the private company innovation do it.

How socialist.
Wrong, he is supporting government to award a private company that can actually create an efficient alternative energy source that will allow us all to save thousands per year on energy costs, and billions per year, make that hundreds of billions per year of government cost savings. It sure as hell beats propping failed companies that go bankrupt as soon as they get these corrupt loans. I would say the way how retarded is how Obama is doing it right now....
 
Right, so you're for everyone installing their own little diesel generators, which may I remind you is less efficient than the larger industrial versions.

Here's London during the Industrial revolution, a Libertarian's paradise of de-centralized power distribution: everyone used coal and small is less efficient than big.

800px-widnes_smoke.jpg




Do you guys read history?

A small generator at home used to charge batteries and heat water when wind or solar are not available and handle temporary incresed loads is probably 8 times as efficient as the Centralized Distribution of Energy scenario we now enjoy. Small is much more efficient. That would also be 8 times less pollution...........
 
1 GW is equal to 68.9% of the annual world production of Tellurium (2007), which means CdTe is limited to 1.45 GW annually.

The production of electricity in 2008 was 20,261TWh, which is equal to 20,261,000GWh. There's 8,766 hours in a year, so that electricity production requires 2311.3 GW running continuously for the whole year. Since solar panels can't produce electricity 24 hours per day and the sun doesn't always shine, I'd say electricity production capacity 33% to 35% of the time is the maximum capacity, producing around 0.5 GW annually, based on continuous operation. 67% of the world's electricity production comes from the fossil fuel: coal, oil and natural gas. By my calculations, at our present production of Tellurium and assuming the solar cells produce at capacity a third of the time, it would take 3,204 years to produce enough Tellurium to replace the fossil fuels. The energy would also have to be stored for the times they aren't producing and more capacity added to get through peak times. The good thing about Tellurium is it doesn't really have a use in other things. I remember having a piece of it as a teenager.

Solar of any type will never totally replace fossil fuels. It can only be used to create electricity for load following plants or peaking plants because it is an intermittent source, as you note. I will not argue that solar is even close to totally replacing natural gas (or even more unlikely, coal) for these purposes, it never will. But in correct locations, CdTe has the best chance of reaching grid parity and being competitive for these type of power plants in the next few years without subsidies. It cannot and will not be used in every situation, but it will become economical when used for the correct purposes. For the forseeable future, I think CdTe has the advantage over conventional silicon based PV.


I'd say once they get their price around $0.50 per watt, supply would definitely be a problem. They're already around $0.70 per watt. It's possible there could be some other sources, because it isn't like anyone ever tried. They claim that those smokers in undersea ridges are rich in Tellurium, but nothing has been developed to recover it. There's also some minerials that contain Tellurium, but the amount has never been surveyed. Keeping the price down also requires keeping the material costs down.

We will see, CdTe is scheduled to hit that mark by 2015. If supply does become a problem it may never hit that mark, but it looks to be the most promising technology over the next few years in my opinion.
 
Solar of any type will never totally replace fossil fuels. It can only be used to create electricity for load following plants or peaking plants because it is an intermittent source, as you note. I will not argue that solar is even close to totally replacing natural gas (or even more unlikely, coal) for these purposes, it never will. But in correct locations, CdTe has the best chance of reaching grid parity and being competitive for these type of power plants in the next few years without subsidies. It cannot and will not be used in every situation, but it will become economical when used for the correct purposes. For the forseeable future, I think CdTe has the advantage over conventional silicon based PV.




We will see, CdTe is scheduled to hit that mark by 2015. If supply does become a problem it may never hit that mark, but it looks to be the most promising technology over the next few years in my opinion.

It isn't like they try to make Te and since it doesn't have much use, it's cheap. That little piece I had as a kid was a treasured keepsake, just because it was a strange element I could get my hands on for my chemistry set. Te ought to be there, somewhere, because it isn't that rare of an element. I don't know how it would work out, if demand exceeded supply and what would be involved to produce more of it.

The lack of supply of Te limits economy of scale.
 
A small generator at home used to charge batteries and heat water when wind or solar are not available and handle temporary incresed loads is probably 8 times as efficient as the Centralized Distribution of Energy scenario we now enjoy. Small is much more efficient. That would also be 8 times less pollution...........

No actually a small generator at home is far less efficient that centralized power distribution. And small is less efficient when it comes to power generation, any engineer could tell you that.

Again the media has brainwashed you people into thinking the opposite of what is real.
 
No actually a small generator at home is far less efficient that centralized power distribution. And small is less efficient when it comes to power generation, any engineer could tell you that.

Again the media has brainwashed you people into thinking the opposite of what is real.
Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.
 
Last edited:
Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.

We're not talking about that cliche.
 
Instead of investing in companies that fail, like sooo many are right now, Battery Companies, Solar power failures...

Instead of offering "government loans"... Offer a $1,000,000,000.00 prize to the company that creates, produces and sells an alternative "green" energy solution. Make the whole thing VERY public, and give the prize TAX FREE.

Watch incentive, not politics, create magic.
why just a company? Why not say just a million tax free for those that find reasons nobody in humanity gets along psychologically? How about why the end of times will never come because time is not part of how eternity remains here. Gee bet I get accused of spamming when this moment is the base of every theory trying to convince humans time changes everything.

Solution to 99% of humanity's problem is misleading information.
 
Last edited:
No actually a small generator at home is far less efficient that centralized power distribution. And small is less efficient when it comes to power generation, any engineer could tell you that.

Again the media has brainwashed you people into thinking the opposite of what is real.

I guarantee that you are wrong. The small generator pipes the exhaust into a heat exchanger for potable water and home heating whenever the generator runs and it only runs to charge batteries that are also charged by solar and wind. AC is obtained by plugging into inverters. Lamps are LCD. All appliances/electronics are chosen for efficiency (low wattage). Wahing machines and dryers may temporarily increase loads and require the generator to turn on, but again the exhaust heat is captured in the hot water.
The petroleum cycle converting to electricity is about 13% efficient. The natural gas cycle to electric is about 30% efficient. Nuclear is about 30% efficient. Coal is about 30% efficient. It's not complicated. It is an existing monopoly with huge political clout and not an icon of efficiency. Owns and operates large numbers of politicians. These politicians prevent Renewable Energy initiatives at a local level from being implemented on a National scale.
 
Last edited:
I guarantee that you are wrong. The small generator pipes the exhaust into a heat exchanger for potable water and home heating whenever the generator runs and it only runs to charge batteries that are also charged by solar and wind. AC is obtained by plugging into inverters. Lamps are LCD. All appliances/electronics are chosen for efficiency (low wattage). Wahing machines and dryers may temporarily increase loads and require the generator to turn on, but again the exhaust heat is captured in the hot water.
The petroleum cycle converting to electricity is about 13% efficient. The natural gas cycle to electric is about 30% efficient. Nuclear is about 30% efficient. Coal is about 30% efficient. It's not complicated. It is an existing monopoly with huge political clout and not an icon of efficiency. Owns and operates large numbers of politicians. These politicians prevent Renewable Energy initiatives at a local level from being implemented on a National scale.

Well you do whatever you're going to do Grizzly Adams, but whoever's side your taking with making petrol HALF the efficiency of everything else; the agenda of greens is not exactly green, it's quite mysterious.
 
Well you do whatever you're going to do Grizzly Adams, but whoever's side your taking with making petrol HALF the efficiency of everything else; the agenda of greens is not exactly green, it's quite mysterious.



Usage/Misusage/Global Warming/Ice/Solutions

And you really don’t want to know. You could stop reading now. Did you know that the engines in most automobiles are just 25% efficient? Did you know that all of the heat in your home leaks into the atmosphere and inevitably heats that atmosphere? Diesels and turbines are 30% efficient. Why would we want to know about this? If I said we only actually use about 10-15% of all the energy of the petroleum and natural gas we distribute and we waste the remainder as lost heat to the atmosphere, would that surprise you? You could counter with, “This writer is a card carrying moron.” A statement alluding to such extreme waste would be an indictment of the status quo of energy distribution and use. That is the point. The giant energy companies know this and work hard to make sure you do not. Per usual, it is about the money. Enough surprises, let’s suck it up and look at the facts.
First step in energy distribution is finding the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must develop the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must transport the energy from its source to its user or in the case of oil to its refiner. If it is Natural Gas and used for heating, then all of the energy (BTUs) content of the natural gas, except the amount used for transportation, is lost as heat to the atmosphere. The energy used for transportation may be considered lost as well. Natural Gas destined for a gas turbine generator operating at 30% efficiency only loses 70% of the energy content (BTUs) to the atmosphere. In some instances a co-generation facility makes hot water for heating from the waste heat and that still escapes to heat the atmosphere. In the generation of electricity 5 KWH must be produced to deliver 4KWH to the end user incurring another loss. If you generate this electricity with a gas turbine, 70% of the energy content of the natural gas went out the exhaust as waste heat. That leaves 30% for KWH generated and 4 units out of 5 used (80% * 30%) leaving 24% of the potential energy actually used. We have allowed nothing for discovery, development, and transportation of the natural gas to the generation facility. More losses. These figures indicate that something much more than 30% of the energy content (BTUs) of all Natural Gas is not useful power but waste heat to the atmosphere. If 90% of the world’s Natural Gas is used for heating purposes, then only 10% produces useful power and the rest heats the atmosphere of the planet. That would be wasted energy and could conceivably cause other problems. Two readily apparent problems would be Global Warming and picking the pocket of the local end users, because the resource is not usually of local origination. Very profitable for the energy distribution network that could also be the status quo of big money and I am sure they like this system.
How about Oil? Similar story. Use energy to find a source. Use energy to develop a source. Use energy to transport (tankers, pipelines, trucks, etc.) the oil. First, transport it to a refinery and use energy to refine it, and then use more energy to transport the refined product to its end users (cars, trains, planes, turbines, heating units, etc.), and these end users will operate at 25-30% efficiency and waste the remaining energy content to the atmosphere as waste heat. We have a 70-75% heat loss before we add the energy lost in transporting twice, refining once, and pumping losses. Optimistically, we might use 15% of the Oil as shaft horsepower. That leaves 85% as lost heat to the atmosphere.
 
Most people advocating solar do not expect back-up generators to fill in the gaps. Generators, especially fossil fuel generators, are pretty much contrary to the solar viewpoint.

That attitude is more likely to come from a survivalist than anywhere else, so I don't know which "you people" you are referring to but it sure isn't the solar crowd.

Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.
 
Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.
If you have no power lines then I would expect you to use other forms of heating. MO may not be NY but it freezes here, too, and there's lots of backwoods country. My grandmother used wood-burning stoves all her life until she went to the nursing home. My (step) grandfather split firewood almost 'til the day he died - no joke. I often wonder if that's what kept him alive for 92 years. Today there are wood pellets that (as I understand it) burn fairly clean and hot.

But if you're on the grid then that's what most solar advocates prefer as "back-up". (IDK, maybe the extreme radicals expect more but what can you do about those kind of people? *shrug*)
 
Last edited:
Just a matter of slapping a dream upside the head with reality. I'm from SW New York and sometimes the sun isn't seen for three weeks at at time. You can be a freezing idealist or a warm realist. Not complicated.

I guess you should check your "reality" for some real-life reality.


Cloudy Germany unlikely hotspot for solar power

It rains year round in Germany. Clouds cover the skies for about two-thirds of all daylight hours. Yet the country has managed to become the world's leading solar power generator.

Even though millions of Germans flee their damp, dark homeland for holidays in the Mediterranean sun, 55 percent of the world's photovoltaic (PV) power is generated on solar panels set up between the Baltic Sea and the Black Forest.

So far just 3 percent of Germany's electricity comes from the sun, but the government wants to raise the share of renewables to 27 percent of all energy by 2020 from 13 percent.​


some more real-life reality...


Solar PV Installations from Jersey to Germany

Although many parts of Jersey live up to the state’s nickname of “The Garden State,” Jersey is still part of the Northeast. That means somewhat snowy winters; cloudy, rainy springs (April showers and all that), and hazy, hot and humid summers (with an emphasis on the “hazy” part for our purposes). The Jersey shore, while a fun getaway spot, is not exactly South Beach. According to a Reuters report, only three in every eight Jersey days are sunny.

Yet, Jersey ranks number two in the U.S. in generating solar power, right behind (not-so-surprisingly) California. The cost savings of a solar array, and the popularity of solar in various regions, has far more to do with available incentives than typical weather conditions.​
 
Last edited:
Usage/Misusage/Global Warming/Ice/Solutions

And you really don’t want to know. You could stop reading now. Did you know that the engines in most automobiles are just 25% efficient? Did you know that all of the heat in your home leaks into the atmosphere and inevitably heats that atmosphere? Diesels and turbines are 30% efficient. Why would we want to know about this? If I said we only actually use about 10-15% of all the energy of the petroleum and natural gas we distribute and we waste the remainder as lost heat to the atmosphere, would that surprise you? You could counter with, “This writer is a card carrying moron.” A statement alluding to such extreme waste would be an indictment of the status quo of energy distribution and use. That is the point. The giant energy companies know this and work hard to make sure you do not. Per usual, it is about the money. Enough surprises, let’s suck it up and look at the facts.
First step in energy distribution is finding the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must develop the energy at its source. This uses lots of energy. Next we must transport the energy from its source to its user or in the case of oil to its refiner. If it is Natural Gas and used for heating, then all of the energy (BTUs) content of the natural gas, except the amount used for transportation, is lost as heat to the atmosphere. The energy used for transportation may be considered lost as well. Natural Gas destined for a gas turbine generator operating at 30% efficiency only loses 70% of the energy content (BTUs) to the atmosphere. In some instances a co-generation facility makes hot water for heating from the waste heat and that still escapes to heat the atmosphere. In the generation of electricity 5 KWH must be produced to deliver 4KWH to the end user incurring another loss. If you generate this electricity with a gas turbine, 70% of the energy content of the natural gas went out the exhaust as waste heat. That leaves 30% for KWH generated and 4 units out of 5 used (80% * 30%) leaving 24% of the potential energy actually used. We have allowed nothing for discovery, development, and transportation of the natural gas to the generation facility. More losses. These figures indicate that something much more than 30% of the energy content (BTUs) of all Natural Gas is not useful power but waste heat to the atmosphere. If 90% of the world’s Natural Gas is used for heating purposes, then only 10% produces useful power and the rest heats the atmosphere of the planet. That would be wasted energy and could conceivably cause other problems. Two readily apparent problems would be Global Warming and picking the pocket of the local end users, because the resource is not usually of local origination. Very profitable for the energy distribution network that could also be the status quo of big money and I am sure they like this system.
How about Oil? Similar story. Use energy to find a source. Use energy to develop a source. Use energy to transport (tankers, pipelines, trucks, etc.) the oil. First, transport it to a refinery and use energy to refine it, and then use more energy to transport the refined product to its end users (cars, trains, planes, turbines, heating units, etc.), and these end users will operate at 25-30% efficiency and waste the remaining energy content to the atmosphere as waste heat. We have a 70-75% heat loss before we add the energy lost in transporting twice, refining once, and pumping losses. Optimistically, we might use 15% of the Oil as shaft horsepower. That leaves 85% as lost heat to the atmosphere.

I graduated high school in AP physics/AP math and then 3 more years in college studying nothing but math and physics; dropped out off my ~350 something math and physics classes, I don't like modern physics. I am familiar with all of that stuff, in a "close and personal" way; I tried to break all the laws but couldn't. I am telling you, you are wasting your time.

You are wasting your efforts and your precious time on this stuff.
 
Last edited:
I graduated high school in AP physics/AP math and then 3 more years in college studying nothing but math and physics; dropped out off my ~350 something math and physics classes, I don't like modern physics. I am familiar with all of that stuff, in a "close and personal" way; I tried to break all the laws but couldn't. I am telling you, you are wasting your time.

You are wasting your efforts and your precious time on this stuff.

What do you think about Thorium MSRs?
 
Since it has yet to be mentioned:

The Bloom-Box

Bloom-Box-2.jpg


 
We're still going to be using hydro-carbon fuels even after running out of hydro-carbon fuels.
Since we'll always have organic waste it would be stupid of us not to create hydro-carbons from that waste. Whether we squander it on transportation and electrical power generation is a different story.
 
Since we'll always have organic waste it would be stupid of us not to create hydro-carbons from that waste. Whether we squander it on transportation and electrical power generation is a different story.

"Squander organic waste"? How can you squander what someone throws away.

Say squander a whole bunch of times real fast, it totally loses all meaning.
 
Many people believe the solution to our future energy needs is natural gas.

The USA is the "Saudia Arabia" for natural gas reserves.

The problem with solar power systems is they don't work most of the time.

These systems do not work at night and they do do work well on cloudy or overcast days.

Wind turbines ony work if the wind speed is over 25 miles per hour. Below this speed, the wind energy cannot turn the turbine blades at a sufficient speed to generate a sufficient quantity of electrical energy.

JC

Instead of investing in companies that fail, like sooo many are right now, Battery Companies, Solar power failures...

Instead of offering "government loans"... Offer a $1,000,000,000.00 prize to the company that creates, produces and sells an alternative "green" energy solution. Make the whole thing VERY public, and give the prize TAX FREE.

Watch incentive, not politics, create magic.
 
Back
Top Bottom