The Numerous Problems of Green Energy....

[Tuur]

Serious question on that. How can lawmakers have to know all the ins and outs of the policies that they legislate? I'd be happy if they just understood basic science, philosophy, law, medicine, and ethics.

As for water batteries, Switzerand just completed a closed loop dam for dealing with the variables in green energy.

This giant 'water battery' under the Alps could be a game-changer for renewable energy in Europe | CNN

New pumped storage hydropower facility Nant de Drance uses state-of-the-art technology to store renewable energy for on-demand use. It could play a vital role in stabilizing Europe's grid as the continent transitions to renewable energy.

www.cnn.com

Supposedly that's the job of committees. Committee members are supposed to know the ins and outs of various bills, and recommend that the bill proceed for a vote or not.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Supposedly that's the job of committees. Committee members are supposed to know the ins and outs of various bills, and recommend that the bill proceed for a vote or not.

I remember my dad, a civil engineer, once said that back when the Clean Water Act was being debated one member of Congress argued that there should be no pH levels. As in the pH of water should be zero. Sigh...

 

[mindlight]

Without building a way to store electricity, wind and solar won't cut it. That's the Achilles' Heel of wind and solar and why I keep harping on energy storage.

Side note: It's baffling that some don't seem to understand this. Back in the day, wind powered water systems had a tank mounted on the windmill tower. This did two things: Provide water pressure and serve as storage. The latter is important because wind is inconsistent, in some places more than others. But with a storage tank, it allows water to collect over time. Size the water tank large enough, and it overcomes the problem of inconsistent wind. The same thing holds with electricity as with water. But do policy makers understand this? Noooo. You can see this in their policies.

That is why green energy solutions are accompanied by giant batteries and by the use of surplus energy to create green hydrogen which can be burnt in eco-friendly gas power stations during the down times. If you outfit your house you are offered heat pumps, solar panels, and even small vertical windmills are possible along with batteries that cover the nighttime. They charge each day.

If you add in nuclear then a core supply is possible but also the manufacture of pink hydrogen. In the European context, however, they had to shut down half the French nuclear power stations this year due to the drought. These consume a lot of water in the cooling process.

Arab countries that currently produce fossil fuels are also well positioned to convert their deserts into giant solar farms which in turn convert seawater into clean water and green hydrogen for export to Western markets. It is already happening in fact. I am surprised that more American entrepreneurs have not jumped on the bandwagon yet.

The Hydrogen Ambitions of the Gulf States

Achieving Economic Diversification while Maintaining Power

www.swp-berlin.org

 

[Fantine]

Without building a way to store electricity, wind and solar won't cut it. That's the Achilles' Heel of wind and solar and why I keep harping on energy storage.

Side note: It's baffling that some don't seem to understand this. Back in the day, wind powered water systems had a tank mounted on the windmill tower. This did two things: Provide water pressure and serve as storage. The latter is important because wind is inconsistent, in some places more than others. But with a storage tank, it allows water to collect over time. Size the water tank large enough, and it overcomes the problem of inconsistent wind. The same thing holds with electricity as with water. But do policy makers understand this? Noooo. You can see this in their policies.

Just as nuclear fusion energy has just started being used in class to prevent nuclear waste, so lithium batteries are being made more inexpensively to provide for storage of clean energy. There is a company in my state that is successfully working on ways to make extracting lithium less water intensive and more environmentally friendly. All over the world people are working on solving the storage problem.

 

[Tuur]

They're not working on it in the same degree as pushing wind and solar, and that's where I practically want to scream. The priority should be on energy storage. Not only would that make wind and solar workable, but it would allow existing generation to be used more efficiently.

Sigh.

Maybe it's time for this old man to sit in a rocking chair on the porch and watch the world go by. Nobody wants to hear what an old man has to think, anyway.

 

[WolfGate]

Then you know that R&D is where you explore options and try to make dreams come true. Other aspects of engineering builds what's needed based on existing technology. Develop it first in R&D, then it can be used. The problem is that just because we can dream it doesn't mean we can develop it. Otherwise, we'd have fusion power, and flying cars in every garage. But that's where R&D comes in, to find what's feasible and what's not.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that cell phones came out of already proven technology: radio and radiophones. Cell phones added the concept of radio cells, where a radiophone switched between towers. I don't think anyone built cell towers until that tech existed, and then only when there was a demand for the tech.

R&D is where you also invest efforts to improve existing technology to allow engineering team to then mold improvements into new products and solutions. That is between to two things you listed and is largely where the EV issues the OP mentioned reside today. At that point you are rolling out products based on the existing ready-to-use technology level, which happens even as industry is seeking ways to address the weaknesses that if not addressed will limit even larger scale adoption. My point was that many people argue against a technology because it has clear areas to improve and miss that that improvement is being addressed, but you don't hold up supplying what there is demand for because you haven't perfected the next steps yet.

You are correct on cellular technology from the standpoint that almost all technology development is based on proven technology that came before. My example was referencing the phones themselves, and how heavily criticized they were when they came out as something that would only have limited penetration into consumers. The criticized weaknesses were correct, but the assumptions they would always be weaknesses lacked vision, as recent history has clearly confirmed. The EV is following that same path, just in the earlier stages.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Some scientists have discovered that oil is not fossil fuel, and it's not nearly going to run out.
BUT ya need 'petroleum' to create all these green pet projects.
BUT when the green items are no longer viable, such as old windmills, where do you discard them??

8. Zero emissions is a lie​

It's true that electric cars don't emit any exhaust gases, but the same can't be said of all the power stations generating the electrical energy they rely on. In the UK, the majority of our electricity comes from either coal or gas-fired power stations, which emit CO2 in the process of generating electricity.

According to the National Energy Foundation's CO2 calculator, providing a full charge to the Nissan Leaf's 24kWh battery pack creates 13kg of CO2. That's 13,000 grammes every time the Leaf is driven its full 100-mile range, or 130g per mile, or 81.25g for every kilometre it's driven. Compare that to the 89g/km emitted by the Toyota Prius and you'll start to see that EVs aren't particularly green -- unless you switch to a more expensive electricity tariff that offsets carbon emissions, which as we've seen make them more expensive to drive than some petrol cars.

As Ben Rose says of the Leaf, "Charging this thing is like boiling your kettle for 8 hours solid. Still sound green?"

ten reasons electric cars still stink

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

Some scientists have discovered that oil is not fossil fuel, and it's not nearly going to run out.
BUT ya need 'petroleum' to create all these green pet projects.
BUT when the green items are no longer viable, such as old windmills, where do you discard them??
ten reasons electric cars still stink

The article is from 2010. Things have improved.

 

[JacksBratt]

People who believe that we can give up on oil, only drive electric cars and go with solar panals, wind turbines and battery packs... need to realize that there is not enough lithium and graphite in the world to make all the batteries necessary... and, in the case of EV's... we don't produce enough electricity to switch every car to electric.

If you took oil out of the equation.. you would not have a life.
Solar panals are not green.. they contain toxic compounds and are toxic waste after their 20 year expected life span.

All of this due to a lie that says that the earth will die in 12 years.. well now 9 years, if we don't go to EV's etc.... Scaremongering.

None of the predictions of the scaremongering "scientists" of the early 2000's have ever shown to be true.

Think for yourself.... Taxes don't do one thing for climate change.. It's not "man made" and it has been changing for millenia.

 

[WarriorAngel]

People who believe that we can give up on oil, only drive electric cars and go with solar panals, wind turbines and battery packs... need to realize that there is not enough lithium and graphite in the world to make all the batteries necessary... and, in the case of EV's... we don't produce enough electricity to switch every car to electric.

If you took oil out of the equation.. you would not have a life.
Solar panals are not green.. they contain toxic compounds and are toxic waste after their 20 year expected life span.

All of this due to a lie that says that the earth will die in 12 years.. well now 9 years, if we don't go to EV's etc.... Scaremongering.

None of the predictions of the scaremongering "scientists" of the early 2000's have ever shown to be true.

Think for yourself.... Taxes don't do one thing for climate change.. It's not "man made" and it has been changing for millenia.

Al Gore predicted the 90's...

 

[Homeowner]

I don't agree with Moore on nuclear energy yet. Although it's a clean source, they still
don't have a good way of getting rid of nuclear waste.

Have you ever thought that nuclear energy is the only form of energy production that actually has all of its waste monitored, processed and stored with due regulations through all the way of decontamination process ? None of it is just dumped in the forest, or river , buried somewhere untreated.

Sure we don't have a way to decontaminate the waste for now but we can store it safely with little effort. Usually next to nuclear plants themselves although there are various underground long term facilities planned or just coming online. It is very low bulk compared to stuff like windmills and solar panels that are hugely ineffective compared to nuclear power.

The amount of environmental damage we could save now for the price of keeping very small - relatively - amounts of radioactive nuclear waste properly stored is huge.

People are pretty smart we will figure out how to get rid of the waste. What is not so smart is to worry about that waste in sealed canisters on proper storage area while breathing in air contaminated by that coal plant three miles away with all the disadvantages that brings.

 

[JacksBratt]

Have you ever thought that nuclear energy is the only form of energy production that actually has all of its waste monitored, processed and stored with due regulations through all the way of decontamination process ? None of it is just dumped in the forest, or river , buried somewhere untreated.

Sure we don't have a way to decontaminate the waste for now but we can store it safely with little effort. Usually next to nuclear plants themselves although there are various underground long term facilities planned or just coming online. It is very low bulk compared to stuff like windmills and solar panels that are hugely ineffective compared to nuclear power.

The amount of environmental damage we could save now for the price of keeping very small - relatively - amounts of radioactive nuclear waste properly stored is huge.

People are pretty smart we will figure out how to get rid of the waste. What is not so smart is to worry about that waste in sealed canisters on proper storage area while breathing in air contaminated by that coal plant three miles away with all the disadvantages that brings.

When I was a kid.... Our class asked our teacher why they don't just blast all the nuclear waste toward the sun... in a rocket.
At that time, the 60's, the teacher stated that it was too dangerous. If a rocket exploded it would spread all over...

They have perfected rockets now.... but still they don't send it to space?

 

[Homeowner]

They havent perfected anything. Rockets still fail at times. So considering costs and risk the idea is nonsensical.

 

[Diamond7]

public transport might not be as developed in the USA as in Europe.

Not even close. In Hong Kong, the transit that goes to the airport is very smooth because it floats on electromagnetics. I do not like trains here in America because they are so bumpy.

 

[Diamond7]

Our class asked our teacher why they don't just blast all the nuclear waste toward the sun... in a rocket.

No problem here. We just put all the waste in the old salt mines. We use a lot of salt in the winter.

 

[Diamond7]

How can lawmakers have to know all the ins and outs of the policies that they legislate?

They hire people to do that. They do not actually read that stuff themselves.
It is interesting the stuff they sneak into those bills that are totally unrelated.

 

[PsaltiChrysostom]

They hire people to do that. They do not actually read that stuff themselves.
It is interesting the stuff they sneak into those bills that are totally unrelated.

I totally agree with that that load a bill with stuff that is completely unrelated. So even if it is a good bill and someone opposes it, that someone is now the bad guy.

 

[mindlight]

People who believe that we can give up on oil, only drive electric cars and go with solar panals, wind turbines and battery packs... need to realize that there is not enough lithium and graphite in the world to make all the batteries necessary... and, in the case of EV's... we don't produce enough electricity to switch every car to electric.

If you took oil out of the equation.. you would not have a life.
Solar panals are not green.. they contain toxic compounds and are toxic waste after their 20 year expected life span.

All of this due to a lie that says that the earth will die in 12 years.. well now 9 years, if we don't go to EV's etc.... Scaremongering.

None of the predictions of the scaremongering "scientists" of the early 2000's have ever shown to be true.

Think for yourself.... Taxes don't do one thing for climate change.. It's not "man made" and it has been changing for millenia.

There are extensive resources in the earths crust. Chinas production is quite developed but the real reserves are in South America e.g. Chile and in Australia which are both Westward leaning countries.

The planet Mars has hundreds of millions of tons of the stuff. If Musk builds his fuel processing plants there he might also add a Lithium mine or two and a processing unit. A hundred tons of the stuff would go for about $74m which is actually a viable cost for an export product from Mars.
A ship blasting off from earth takes people and manufactures to Mars. Then Mars exports battery grade lithium back. Both legs of the journey could make handsome profits.

 

[JacksBratt]

There are extensive resources in the earths crust. Chinas production is quite developed but the real reserves are in South America e.g. Chile and in Australia which are both Westward leaning countries.

The planet Mars has hundreds of millions of tons of the stuff. If Musk builds his fuel processing plants there he might also add a Lithium mine or two and a processing unit. A hundred tons of the stuff would go for about $74m which is actually a viable cost for an export product from Mars.
A ship blasting off from earth takes people and manufactures to Mars. Then Mars exports battery grade lithium back. Both legs of the journey could make handsome profits.

There is not enough of everything to replace all the cars on the roads today with EV's. Certainly not enough electricity in the grid. It has a hard time already trying to keep up with A/C units in the summer.

If you are putting your money on going to mars to get raw materials for this..... I admire your optimism.

 

[Homeowner]

There is not enough of everything to replace all the cars on the roads today with EV's. Certainly not enough electricity in the grid. It has a hard time already trying to keep up with A/C units in the summer.

That is about as sensible as saying you can't replace all horses in 1888 with cars because there is not enough gas stations, roads or car parts.

It is like we do not ever plan to develop better and different batteries, or better methods of mining battery materials, or better electric grid or vastly more powerful and efficient energy generation systems or gazillion other things.

What is the logic of we can not switch magically the 1,5 billion cars in the world to electric overnight so it is never going to happen. ?

Of course it is going to happen, of course we are going to make them different and better just like every other technology and of course it will take a decade or two.