• 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!

Windmills stopped at night after bat death

EagleAye said:
I believe the opposite. Wind, Solar, Tidal should be the primary supplier with oil and natural gas and Thorium nuclear as the backup. When AE (Alternative Energy) is unable to meet the load demand, more traditional systems can take up the slack. Traditional energy relies on depletable energy sources, so these sources should be used sparingly and only when really needed. That's why traditional energy should be the backup, not the other way around.

The big issue with AE is storage, which more than one person has pointed out in this thread. Folks are right to bring it up. Well there's many ways to handle that problem. The kneejerk solution people suggest is batteries. I think that's fine for cars, but I hate it as a grid solution. The best battery tech we have requires Lithium, and that's another finite resource, which puts us back where we started. So I say, leave the Lithium for cars (until we find a better idea) and apply different solutions for grid storage. Here's some ideas:

First, battery solutions are getting better all the time:
Battery Technology - Galvanic cells that store chemical energy

Next, here's a top-level "executive view" of many AE storage solutions (settle in, there's LOTS of them):
Energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another one:
Energy Storage Industry Grows To Integrate Wind, Solar | Renewable Energy News Article

My favorites are:

Hydro-electric storage (Water):
Grid energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the best wind is in the mid-west and most of the mid-west is flatter than a pancake, hydro-electric may not be the best solution.

So then you use...Air (compressed that is):
Compressed air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Don't know if this is included in your links. But its one of my favorites.

Largest Flywheel Energy Storage System (FESS) Almost Up in Stephentown, New York | CleanTechnica

Flywheels have GREAT potential in stationary applications.

NASA is working on this technology for the Space Station. In space applications they also serve as gyroscopic stabilizers.
 
American said:
And you know this how?
Click to expand...

Everyone with a fighter plan that's in the same universe as the F-22 also possesses nuclear weapons.
 
EagleAye said:
I believe the opposite. Wind, Solar, Tidal should be the primary supplier with oil and natural gas and Thorium nuclear as the backup. When AE (Alternative Energy) is unable to meet the load demand, more traditional systems can take up the slack. Traditional energy relies on depletable energy sources, so these sources should be used sparingly and only when really needed. That's why traditional energy should be the backup, not the other way around.

The big issue with AE is storage, which more than one person has pointed out in this thread. Folks are right to bring it up. Well there's many ways to handle that problem. The kneejerk solution people suggest is batteries. I think that's fine for cars, but I hate it as a grid solution. The best battery tech we have requires Lithium, and that's another finite resource, which puts us back where we started. So I say, leave the Lithium for cars (until we find a better idea) and apply different solutions for grid storage. Here's some ideas:

First, battery solutions are getting better all the time:
Battery Technology - Galvanic cells that store chemical energy

Next, here's a top-level "executive view" of many AE storage solutions (settle in, there's LOTS of them):
Energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's another one:
Energy Storage Industry Grows To Integrate Wind, Solar | Renewable Energy News Article

My favorites are:

Hydro-electric storage (Water):
Grid energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since the best wind is in the mid-west and most of the mid-west is flatter than a pancake, hydro-electric may not be the best solution.

So then you use...Air (compressed that is):
Compressed air energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

There is no way in the forseeable future that "traditional" power sources are going to be simply a backup. Their is no incentive to base our infrastructure on the the wind solar and tidal technologies you suggest. The technology is not advanced enough or ecomonically feasible. Even if you get them to work in the laboratory they are still a long way from being able to be developed on a large scale. Lots of good ideas out there but unproven beyond a very limited model just not implementable. Alternative energy will continue to grow but the pace will be relatively slow.
 
jambalaya said:
There is no way in the forseeable future that "traditional" power sources are going to be simply a backup. Their is no incentive to base our infrastructure on the the wind solar and tidal technologies you suggest. The technology is not advanced enough or ecomonically feasible. Even if you get them to work in the laboratory they are still a long way from being able to be developed on a large scale. Lots of good ideas out there but unproven beyond a very limited model just not implementable. Alternative energy will continue to grow but the pace will be relatively slow.
Click to expand...

You do realize that in the first 6 months of 2011 that 14.3% of the US' energy was renewable energy, yes?:
Renewable energy in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2010, it accounted for 8%.

Granted, most of that is Hydro-Electric, but wind and solar are rising up fast. They are NOT just in the lab. There are full-scale, not just test systems, wind and solar plants currently operating in the US. It's not a dream. It's a reality. It is growing every day. We went from 8% renewable energy in 2010 to 14.3% renewable energy in only the first half of 2011. To my knowledge, no new dams were built. Soooo...you do the math...It's growing. It HAS to.

This is not a Conservative versus Liberal issue. This is "adapt or die" stuff here. This is "remain the number one superpower, or become the new Ethiopia." I choose America (and Western Europe and Australia) remaining on top. What about you?
 
Ockham said:
Using this logic (as identified in the OP) we need to stop driving any vehicles ... I saw a possum get run over the other night by a car and it was just horrible! :wink:
Click to expand...

There's a difference. The possum committed suicide, it was his right to terminate his life.
 
We will go "BLUE" in the next twenty years. The existing natural gas pipe lines will be transporting hydrogen to our power plants where they will generate power and tons of pure water for the local water supply.

"BLUE" energy will sweep across our planet and drive an economic boom that will last for several generations. Our whole world will have cheap and available electricity. High voltage direct current lines will crisscross Africa in the end and the people will finally have high speed internet.
 
jambalaya said:
There is no way in the forseeable future that "traditional" power sources are going to be simply a backup. Their is no incentive to base our infrastructure on the the wind solar and tidal technologies you suggest. The technology is not advanced enough or ecomonically feasible. Even if you get them to work in the laboratory they are still a long way from being able to be developed on a large scale. Lots of good ideas out there but unproven beyond a very limited model just not implementable. Alternative energy will continue to grow but the pace will be relatively slow.
Click to expand...


This guy is a bit overdramatic but he still brings up a good point. (In reference to the 100th monkey, the exponential crossover in which change bursts through)




Have fun sitting on the sidelines. You can dance as soon as you choose to. Do you believe in exponential knowledge?
 
Iron River said:
We will go "BLUE" in the next twenty years. The existing natural gas pipe lines will be transporting hydrogen to our power plants where they will generate power and tons of pure water for the local water supply.

"BLUE" energy will sweep across our planet and drive an economic boom that will last for several generations. Our whole world will have cheap and available electricity. High voltage direct current lines will crisscross Africa in the end and the people will finally have high speed internet.
Click to expand...

You know I was all for a Hydrogen infrastructure until recently. At this very site, I was talked out of it. To be extremely brief about it, it takes a lot of energy to strip hydrogen out of anything whether it be water or natural gas. Though hydrogen can be extracted from natural gas more easily than water, it makes more sense to use natural gas in it's native state. Any time you convert from energy form to another, you consume energy to run the process and you lose energy. So it's best reduce the number of conversion as much as possible.

I do share your vision of available electricity across the globe. I'm certain that it will happen, and Africa will get internet across the continent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom