One thing you can be sure of is that if the government guides the development of alt energy, there will be tremendous waste. Ethanol mandates are a case in point. Most people realize now that they are a terrible alternative to conventional liquid fuels for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that they compete directly with our food supply. The estimates I've seen for the additional amount of airable land that will have to be put in production in order to maintain our food supply and meet these mandates is huge. More than likely we'll import a good portion of the biomass needed to meet them....how ironic, going from importing a large portion of our FF to importing a large portion of our alt energy...lol.
The thing about government mandates and subsidies is that they tend to take on a life of their own, and continue on regardless as to whether they are viable or not. The mandates get carried forward just because no one has the guts to get rid of them, and the subsidies become intitlements.
PeakOil is You
Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy
Re: Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy
by Snik » Wed 24 Dec 2008, 18:06:28
-
Snik - Peat
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Thu 19 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy
by cube » Thu 25 Dec 2008, 17:58:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'I') predict that the growth of renewable energy, other than local and backyard endeavors, will not even be worth mentioning for quite some time. Perhaps ever.
Pretty doomer, even from me, right?
Someone once asked me what is the *cube solution* for renewable energy.
Pretty doomer, even from me, right?
I replied, "It's simple. If 90% of the world population dies-off then there will be enough hydro-electric power for everybody."
How's that for doomer porn?
The biggest issue I have with some people is their Intellectual dishonesty.
"the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context."
//
For example somebody might say, "US wind power grew 45% in 2007".
It sounds impressive until you dig deeper.
Any system in it's infancy can grow by a huge margin (year over year), but once it matures it's growth stops. Look at the Interstate Highway System in the USA, I'm quite sure in it's early days we must of added 45% extra freeway miles in one year. For example if you have only 2,000 miles of freeways how hard could it be to add an extra 45%?
We have over 46,000miles of freeways now. The same feat today would be impossible.
Hell we can't even maintain existing infrastructure properly let alone try to add to it.
//
Wind power makes up how much of our total capacity, 1% maybe?
It's pretty easy to grow when starting from such a small base.
The fact is with wind power you start to hit a very stubborn brick wall at 10% energy production.
I have issues with alot of AE-advocates, I have never met such a blatantly Intellectually dishonest group of people in my entire life.
- cube
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3909
- Joined: Sat 12 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Re: Peakoil and the Growth of Renewable Energy
by yesplease » Fri 26 Dec 2008, 13:38:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('cube', 'T')he fact is with wind power you start to hit a very stubborn brick wall at 10% energy production.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty! The NREL pegs 20% wind power by 2030 as possible w/ a half a cent per kWh premium for transmission of those intermittent sources.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')o reach 20 percent wind energy, the report concludes, will require enhanced and new transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting, improved wind turbine and system reliability and increased manufacturing capacity. Annual installations of wind turbines would have to more than triple, from about 2,000 turbines in 2006 to almost 7,000 in 2017.
That's certainly ambitious, but the 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030 report is encouraging, pointing out that the costs of integrating intermittent wind power into the electricity grid are relatively small, about a half a cent per kilowatt hour.
"The 20 percent wind scenario would only cost 2 percent more than the cost of the baseline scenario without wind," Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Suedeen Kelly said. "At 50 cents per month for the average ratepayer, that is a small price to pay for the climate, water, natural gas and energy security benefits it would buy — and it does not even count the stability provided to consumers by eliminating fuel price risk."
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
-
yesplease - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3765
- Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
