Energy Independence - Why liberals are against it.

[del]

NIMBY is a issue with the Kennedys. Too bad, put in the turbines.

As for Feinstein's objections to the big solar farms, I do not know enough to comment one way or the other on the siting.

I do know that we have some prime wind areas here in Oregon that will never be used because they are visual treasures. However, that is irrelevant, because there are tens of thousands of sites that are not.

of course it's irrelevant. it's YOUR backyard.

Del, you are one ignorant bastard. Yes, some of these projects are in my 'backyard', as I consider all of Eastern Oregon to be my backyard.

The specific area that I refered to as visual treasures were the ridges of our mountain ranges. However, there are thousand of basalt ridges all over Oregon, many of them totally isolated from anybody, that have excellant wind potential. These same areas also have Geothermal and solar.

there's plenty of ocean, too. you call fat boy kennedy out for being a NIMBY and then do the exact same thing.

yeah, i'm the ignorant one.

 

[Old Rocks]

of course it's irrelevant. it's YOUR backyard.

Del, you are one ignorant bastard. Yes, some of these projects are in my 'backyard', as I consider all of Eastern Oregon to be my backyard.

The specific area that I refered to as visual treasures were the ridges of our mountain ranges. However, there are thousand of basalt ridges all over Oregon, many of them totally isolated from anybody, that have excellant wind potential. These same areas also have Geothermal and solar.

So ... when will Oregon stop siphoning power from our grid?

Washington uses far more power than Oregon, and Oregon produces more power than we use. We send, for a price, the excess to California and Nevada.

 

[KittenKoder]

Del, you are one ignorant bastard. Yes, some of these projects are in my 'backyard', as I consider all of Eastern Oregon to be my backyard.

The specific area that I refered to as visual treasures were the ridges of our mountain ranges. However, there are thousand of basalt ridges all over Oregon, many of them totally isolated from anybody, that have excellant wind potential. These same areas also have Geothermal and solar.

So ... when will Oregon stop siphoning power from our grid?

Washington uses far more power than Oregon, and Oregon produces more power than we use. We send, for a price, the excess to California and Nevada.

Psshhh ... we use OUR power, from OUR coal and now a nuclear plant. We ship it to you (for a reduced price) ... you then slip what you don't use to others for a higher price. The grid normally works that way, but if your state is soooooo damned good at making electricity then why aren't you a supplier yet instead of a reseller?

 

[Old Rocks]

of course it's irrelevant. it's YOUR backyard.

Del, you are one ignorant bastard. Yes, some of these projects are in my 'backyard', as I consider all of Eastern Oregon to be my backyard.

The specific area that I refered to as visual treasures were the ridges of our mountain ranges. However, there are thousand of basalt ridges all over Oregon, many of them totally isolated from anybody, that have excellant wind potential. These same areas also have Geothermal and solar.

there's plenty of ocean, too. you call fat boy kennedy out for being a NIMBY and then do the exact same thing.

yeah, i'm the ignorant one.

Yes, you are the ignorant one. The one that delights solely in being a troll. The one that I have yet to see put real information in a post.

 

[Iriemon]

Having ties to the energy sector, I find it troubling that we are unable to achieve energy independence in this nation. The problem is less about our ability and more about our inhibitions.

1. Oil - We have lots. Let's get it while it's available and bridge the switch to something better.
2. Wind - Stop protests of windfarms. You can't argue that they are bad for the environment when compared to other options.
3. Solar - I'm shocked to say, but for some reason the liberals protest these too.... why?
4. Nuclear - Quite possibly the safest of plants, and clearly the most efficient, yet we don't build them because they are "bad".

The reason we don't have the options we seek is that it would give large groups of people nothing to complain about. They would instead have to find jobs, something they aren't accustomed to. Further, Al Gore would not make money off his carbon offset credit scam, which is quite possibly the most brilliant scam I have seen in my lifetime.

You title: "Why liberals are against it" IMO is overbroad.

Few liberals I've seen are against wind or solar, and many of them probably aren't against nuclear these days. I'm not.

Oil - I disagree with your assertion that we have lots. And give there is a limited supply, why wouldn't it make sense to conserve our limited supply and use up the ME oil reserves instead? If someone is going to run out of oil I'd rather have it be them first. Why does it make sense to be in a rush to use up our limited reserve?

 

[Hillbilly]

I think the liberals just want things we don't have yet. Solar is the way of the future in my opinion. When we have better storage technology and can put affordable panels on houses. It'll be great, can't wait. Give it 20 years or so and we'll be rocking and rolling.

Right now we need clean coal and nuclear because it works and it exists. That's an important factor, using things that currently exist in reality helps a lot.

I don't like wind and solar in a 'power grid' situation. Here in Texas we are #1 in wind and as long as you are rich I suppose it's fine because you won't be the one getting the daily rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing. Using wind or solar for more than 10% of your total grid power is abject idiocy.

The other thing I don't like about wind is that it is completely pointless right now. I have family working at wind farms and everyone knows they just build the stupid things and collect the subsidy, they don't get hooked up and can't get hooked up to the grid, there aren't any power lines to hook up to. Even if they did it's over 350 miles from lots of the windmills they're building to a major city that needs the power and electricity can't travel forever. We're just throwing our money in a giant pit. The only winner is GE.

Oh, and today's catchphrase: GE - it's the new Halliburton.

 

[wvulax]

I agree using natural wind is unreliable which is why I thought the idea of putting wind turbines on highways was genius. I think what would be easier to design as far as aerodynamics would be to put turbines in tunnels.

what about natural gas? Many municipalities have switched mass transit as well as their service vehicle fleets over to CNG. It burns the cleanest of the fossil fuels, readily available in the US, and it's cheaper than gas. The only problem with CNG is the increased size in fuel storage. It's really only feasible for trucks right now in the consumer market.

 

[HUGGY]

Having ties to the energy sector, I find it troubling that we are unable to achieve energy independence in this nation. The problem is less about our ability and more about our inhibitions.

1. Oil - We have lots. Let's get it while it's available and bridge the switch to something better.
2. Wind - Stop protests of windfarms. You can't argue that they are bad for the environment when compared to other options.
3. Solar - I'm shocked to say, but for some reason the liberals protest these too.... why?
4. Nuclear - Quite possibly the safest of plants, and clearly the most efficient, yet we don't build them because they are "bad".

The reason we don't have the options we seek is that it would give large groups of people nothing to complain about. They would instead have to find jobs, something they aren't accustomed to. Further, Al Gore would not make money off his carbon offset credit scam, which is quite possibly the most brilliant scam I have seen in my lifetime.

You did not think up any of this crap did you. What a fool believes.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think the liberals just want things we don't have yet. Solar is the way of the future in my opinion. When we have better storage technology and can put affordable panels on houses. It'll be great, can't wait. Give it 20 years or so and we'll be rocking and rolling.

Right now we need clean coal and nuclear because it works and it exists. That's an important factor, using things that currently exist in reality helps a lot.

I don't like wind and solar in a 'power grid' situation. Here in Texas we are #1 in wind and as long as you are rich I suppose it's fine because you won't be the one getting the daily rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing. Using wind or solar for more than 10% of your total grid power is abject idiocy.

The other thing I don't like about wind is that it is completely pointless right now. I have family working at wind farms and everyone knows they just build the stupid things and collect the subsidy, they don't get hooked up and can't get hooked up to the grid, there aren't any power lines to hook up to. Even if they did it's over 350 miles from lots of the windmills they're building to a major city that needs the power and electricity can't travel forever. We're just throwing our money in a giant pit. The only winner is GE.

Oh, and today's catchphrase: GE - it's the new Halliburton.

Sheesh. We have many windfarms here in Oregon, and they are all connected to the grid when they are finished. The problem with the grid is that it is not designed for multiple sources. And it does not go into the areas that have the greatest potential for alternative power. Yet.

Now Texas is the size of several Oregons, so you are telling me that the wind is blowing the same everywhere in Texas at the same time?

 

[Hillbilly]

I think the liberals just want things we don't have yet. Solar is the way of the future in my opinion. When we have better storage technology and can put affordable panels on houses. It'll be great, can't wait. Give it 20 years or so and we'll be rocking and rolling.

Right now we need clean coal and nuclear because it works and it exists. That's an important factor, using things that currently exist in reality helps a lot.

I don't like wind and solar in a 'power grid' situation. Here in Texas we are #1 in wind and as long as you are rich I suppose it's fine because you won't be the one getting the daily rolling blackouts when the wind isn't blowing. Using wind or solar for more than 10% of your total grid power is abject idiocy.

The other thing I don't like about wind is that it is completely pointless right now. I have family working at wind farms and everyone knows they just build the stupid things and collect the subsidy, they don't get hooked up and can't get hooked up to the grid, there aren't any power lines to hook up to. Even if they did it's over 350 miles from lots of the windmills they're building to a major city that needs the power and electricity can't travel forever. We're just throwing our money in a giant pit. The only winner is GE.

Oh, and today's catchphrase: GE - it's the new Halliburton.

Sheesh. We have many windfarms here in Oregon, and they are all connected to the grid when they are finished. The problem with the grid is that it is not designed for multiple sources. And it does not go into the areas that have the greatest potential for alternative power. Yet.

Now Texas is the size of several Oregons, so you are telling me that the wind is blowing the same everywhere in Texas at the same time?

It might not be blowing the same everywhere in Texas, it might be blowing in Sweetwater and North from there and nowhere else, but often wind conditions will be the same over very large regions.

Here is a very simple litmus test. Let's say we get 100% of our power from windmills. Our usage is 100mw. If we build nuclear plants that put out 110mw we're fine, all the time. If we build windmills that have a maximum capacity of 110mw we will be having rolling blackouts all the time because some won't be putting out their maximum. Even if we had a windmill capacity of 5X usage we'd still have frequent blackouts, because, quite often, the wind doesn't blow. If it even stops for 5 minutes we'd have to cut someone within seconds or face a large blackout. That's the problem, if the guys at the switch don't see it coming and cut a few grids off within 60 seconds or so the whole things shuts down.

So if we can't depend on wind for 100% of our power, how much of it can we depend on wind for? I think around 10%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hillbilly, nobody that I know of has seriously suggested depending solely on wind for power. There are many alternatives in addition to wind. Passive solar, thermal solar, geo-thermal, tide, slow current, wave, and nuclear. Each has advantages and disadvantages. All should be used. Economics, real economics that takes into account waste storage, secureity, ect, will determine the best for each region.

Above all, what we need to get cracking on is building a distributed grid, one designed to pick up power from homes with 1 kw sources to Giga watt nukes. Combine this with new tech that uses power more efficiently, and we can supply all our own power for industry, transportation, and residential.

 

[Hillbilly]

If you are talking about when and if these options become feasible, I'm all for it. If you are talking about halting production of nuclear and coal plants to build alternative energy in the next year, you're stark raving mad. It doesn't exist, it doesn't work, they make too little electricity, we don't have storage systems in existence for these power supplies. If you are counting on little green men bringing us super advanced batteries I suppose you might have a plan, but I'll wait for them to show up. For today what we need are things that exist and work. You have to have a dependable, night and day, any weather, regular supply of electricity. Wind and solar don't provide that. Wave is pretty goofy. Tidal systems are ok, I could go with a few of those.

The problem is that some people want to jump the gun and do this too soon. Yes, it will be great when we get there in about 10-20 years. However, doing it today would be suicide. In a few years we will have cheaper, more productive solar panels, and better, cheaper, more effective, more efficient, storage devices and everyone will have solar panels on their roof. It will happen, just not tomorrow.

 

[Gunny]

Having ties to the energy sector, I find it troubling that we are unable to achieve energy independence in this nation. The problem is less about our ability and more about our inhibitions.

1. Oil - We have lots. Let's get it while it's available and bridge the switch to something better.
2. Wind - Stop protests of windfarms. You can't argue that they are bad for the environment when compared to other options.
3. Solar - I'm shocked to say, but for some reason the liberals protest these too.... why?
4. Nuclear - Quite possibly the safest of plants, and clearly the most efficient, yet we don't build them because they are "bad".

The reason we don't have the options we seek is that it would give large groups of people nothing to complain about. They would instead have to find jobs, something they aren't accustomed to. Further, Al Gore would not make money off his carbon offset credit scam, which is quite possibly the most brilliant scam I have seen in my lifetime.

Energy independence is a scam itself. None of your options will make us energy independent because neither the Democrats nor Republicans will create the legislation that makes us energy independent. They would have to become lobby and personal gain independent first.

 

[editec]

WE will never be energy independent unless WE (meaning we as individuals) create our own energy.

My point?

The use of WE in this is confusing most of us.

WE are NOT the energy companies. WE are not EXXON or MOBILE, neither are WE the electirci companies in most cases.


So if you wonder why WE are not doing enough to be energy independent WE are not doing that because WE are not as important to our government as THEY who produce the energy and own the oil companies and so forth.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

2. Wind - Stop protests of windfarms. You can't argue that they are bad for the environment when compared to other options.
3. Solar - I'm shocked to say, but for some reason the liberals protest these too.... why?
build them because they are "bad".

Not too sure about "protests" but there are some dirty little secrets that if the general public knew about, they would be far less enamored with some of these "alternatives."

I bet most folks don't know any of these secrets:

Wind power's dirty little secret: It takes 4 barrels of oil per year, per wind turbine, for the gearbox. And another five barrels for the transformer below each turbine. And these turbines leak and sling this oil. Great for the groundwater!

Multiply those figures times a million, two million wind turbines planned -- and you see why oil magnates like Pickens are pushing this. They stand to sell millions of barrels of oil!

Dirty little secret of solar: The production of solar panels involves nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions be released. NF3 is about 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The concentration of it in the atmosphere has increased 20 fold during the last two decades by its use in manufacturing processes. The level is increasing 11 percent per year.

The weaker CO2 stays in the atmosphere up to 100 years. NF3 stays in the atmosphere for 700 years or more.

Dirty little secret of Hydrogen: Water Vapor is the product of combustion. Sounds great, right? But -- Water vapor is far and away the #1 greenhouse gas. This according to the IPCC and every other scientist on both sides of the issue. It's the one thing they do ALL agree on. Hmmm...

Dirty little secrets of Ethanol: Yeah, it's "cleaner" if you believe CO2 is really really bad, because it does produce less when combusted. But it also produces the definite pollutant and definite poison to all living things -- CO (Carbon Monoxide) 100 times more than gasoline! Also, it takes 1,200 gallons of water to make a gallon of this crap!

Cleaner little secret of gasoline powered internal combustion: Today's engines put out 95% fewer emissions than their 1970s counterparts and are 80% more fuel efficient!

It's what they DON'T tell us that really winds up hurting the environment in the long haul. Most of the "alternatives" are actually worse for the environment!

 

[Old Rocks]

Dirty little secret of the people that publish such shit as this, they lie a lot.

 

[Old Rocks]

If you are talking about when and if these options become feasible, I'm all for it. If you are talking about halting production of nuclear and coal plants to build alternative energy in the next year, you're stark raving mad. It doesn't exist, it doesn't work, they make too little electricity, we don't have storage systems in existence for these power supplies. If you are counting on little green men bringing us super advanced batteries I suppose you might have a plan, but I'll wait for them to show up. For today what we need are things that exist and work. You have to have a dependable, night and day, any weather, regular supply of electricity. Wind and solar don't provide that. Wave is pretty goofy. Tidal systems are ok, I could go with a few of those.

The problem is that some people want to jump the gun and do this too soon. Yes, it will be great when we get there in about 10-20 years. However, doing it today would be suicide. In a few years we will have cheaper, more productive solar panels, and better, cheaper, more effective, more efficient, storage devices and everyone will have solar panels on their roof. It will happen, just not tomorrow.

We do not have 20 years, likely not even ten. No, I am not talking about shutting down nuclear plants. However, we should shut down all coal fired plants in a decade or less. No, it won't happen, and we, all of humanity, will reap the results. I will be here to see the beginning of the resulting cess, but many of you here will see the full impact. And be whining about why nobody told you it would happen.

 

[Old Rocks]

Nanosolar has already begun production of their famed solar product, which uses an innovative printing technology. They literally print the solar panels onto sheets of metal, like ink on paper. This technique allows for mass-production at an 80% reduction of manufacturing cost. They didn’t just reach the $1/watt mark, they surpassed it. Even the Department of Energy agrees: they compete with coal. For now, Nanosolar is sold out into the foreseeable future. In time we’ll no-doubt see their products become increasingly common as they diffuse through the solar market. So what’s the catch? Critics point out that the technology relies on indium, which has a finite supply. You can read some interviews, or watch a video for more information.

AVA Solar Inc. is another forerunner as they prepare to mass-produce their stream-lined solar panels. Their technique requires fewer raw materials, causes less waste, and maintains high efficiency–11%-13%. At under $1/watt, AVA Solar has nearly completed a production facility to mass-produce their technology. They promise “efficiency and stability performance comparable to the leading CdTe-based modules currently on the market” –CdTe is cadmium telluride, a popular thin-film composition. Kudos go out to Professor W.S. Sampath at Colorado State for helping to bring this technology to market.
Renewzle Knowledge Base » The Quest for a One Dollar per Watt Solar Panel

 

[Old Rocks]

SOLAR DAILY
Solar Module Sales Price Of One Dollar Per Watt No Longer Theory

Module prices are currently under pressure. Last year's enormous growth of the solar industry and market by more than 100% was caused by a generous feed-in tariff in Spain. Many new companies started production of solar modules. This year, support in Spain has been decreased and capped.
by Staff Writers
Rotterdam, Netherlands (SPX) Apr 08, 2009
"In 2010, our objective is to reach a selling price for solar modules of $1 per Watt," says Lynn Sha, Vice President of Chinese manufacturer QS Solar. In other words, it will become possible in 2010 to produce solar energy cheaper than the cost of electricity from the grid ("grid parity"), and this is without subsidies.
This revolutionary price level could be sufficient to create sustainable growth in the solar energy market (PV) even without the availability of any government incentives. "The solar industry has always claimed that its goal was to attain this level of $1 per Watt. Reaching this benchmark will be the turning point from which markets will emerge and grow without any government aid. It is the start of the solar future," says Edwin Koot, CEO of SolarPlaza, the global, independent solar energy platform.
Solar Module Sales Price Of One Dollar Per Watt No Longer Theory

 

[Old Rocks]

Thin-film solar manufacturer claims to have produced modules at cost of 98 cents a watt

BusinessGreen.com staff, BusinessGreen, 25 Feb 2009
Thin-film solar cell manufacturer First Solar yesterday announced it has broken the $1 (70p) per watt cost barrier that is widely accepted as the point at which solar panels become cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The company said that during the fourth quarter of last year, the manufacturing cost for its solar modules stood at 98 cents per watt, taking it below the $1 per watt mark for the first time.

Mike Ahearn, chief executive at the company, hailed the achievement as a " milestone in the solar industry's evolution towards providing truly sustainable energy solutions", adding that it provided evidence that solar manufacturers could prosper in the long term even as government subsidies are reduced.

First Solar said it was confident that plans to more than double its production capacity through 2009 to more than one gigawatt would allow it to reduce costs further to a point where energy from solar panels can undercut that from natural gas and coal.

According to the company, it has already reduced costs from more than $3 a watt in 2004 to less than $1 a watt now and there is every indication that the trend will continue as production capacity increases.

In related news, Utility Scale Solar, a manufacturer of tracking devices for solar thermal projects with a similar goal of reducing the cost of solar panels below the level of coal and gas-fired power, is reportedly seeking $6m in first-round funding to begin rollout of its technology.
First Solar reaches "dollar per watt milestone" - 25 Feb 2009 - BusinessGreen.com