Renewable Energy

[xx44]

As of now it is 10 years to recoup your costs. Cost about $50-60K to setup a 2500 sqft house. Most states give incentives to reduce that $20k.

Obv. the states that have most sunlight will generate more power, however even the NE homes still will produce enough to power their homes . There will be times when solar will not produce enough energy to power your home (cloudy days), therefore you must be hooked up to the grid, and use their power . WHen you have a surplus it is sold back to the power co.

One panel (2x4ft) is enough to produce 125wats, a light bulb. Costs have gone down significantly over the last 15 years, but still have a way to go to make affordable.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear power is the only way forward from fossil fuels thats economically viable.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nuclear power is not economically viable in the private market.

And this thread should probably be in SMP or Poly.

[siouxbrew]

i currently live in north dakota, at 130 in the morning it is wind gusting at 35 mph. I have seen a tremendous increase in wind farm production in this state. I also fly airplanes alot so i get the "birds eye" view of the state. There is a parking lot of around 80-100 single windmill blades waiting for contruction. these things are hudge, like over 100-150 feet. these numbers are all guesses so im not sure but i know the production in ND is going to be increasing.

[Stu Pidasso]

I've thought about putting solar panels on my house. But the price needs to come down a bit more before that can seriously be considered.

Thanks to Germany's subsidy of solar and wind(at the expense of the poor - but thats another thread). I expect the cost of solar to come down soon and it might make my desire a reality.

Stu

[microbet]

I just started a solar power installation company in Southern California. If you're interested PM me.

[mr.giggles]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The US have yet to ratify the Kyoto agreement, basically meaning that they haven't agreed to reduce carbon emissions to certain international targets yet; and until this happens you won't see a massive change in your power supply as the companies won't do to much on their own without subsidies as it simply costs them too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is what must change. Because if it doesn't, bad bad bad things will eventually happen. Maybe not in 20 or even 50 years. But eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

just watched something on the history channel where scientists projected that we will see huge effects in about 100 yrs. if the current trend keeps on going, Im pretty sure that was without even considering population explosion and large countries like China becoming more industrially dominant (ie. using a lot more fossils fuels(

[dragonystic]

Why do we need to save energy?

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
And as I sit here and ponder filling my gas tank tomorrow on the way to the hospital at $3.25 a gallon, I wonder WTF is wrong with us?!?!

[/ QUOTE ]

As oil becomes more expensive, alternative energy sources become economically viable. It's really just as simple as the fact that alternative energy is more expensive to use than combustible fossil fuels.

At some point this will change, (already happening), and we will start to see more and more alternative energy options.

For example, Canada has tons of shale oil, (I know, still fossil fuels) but it isn't economically feasible to extract until oil hits ~$70/barrel. Now that oil has been over that threshold for quite sometime, you will start to see investment into the refinement of shale oil.


[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn’t the government force us to make use of more renewable forms of energy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Change should be adopted because people have an economic incentive to do so. (i.e. they are paying more for oil than other energy sources), not because the government forces action.

Government action has tons of unintended consequences, some of which lead to creating a bigger problem than existed in the first place.

Corn based ethanol comes to my mind. The U.S. is handing out large subsidies to corn farmers to produce corn for ethanol, which in turn is driving up the global demand for corn, which in turn is driving up the price of corn on the free market, which in turn is making corn (many third world countries primary food source) much more expensive.

Corn is also the primary grain used in livestock feed, so as the price of corn goes up, so do items such as milk, beef, chicken, eggs, etc.

Other problems with corn ethanol, is that the amount of energy required to create 1 "unit" of ethanol energy, is greater than the energy required.

Sugar ethanol (primarily produced by Brazil) is much more energy efficient than corn ethanol, yet due mostly to tariffs and import regulations, the U.S. doesn't produce it, and instead hands out government subsidies to U.S. farmers who grow corn for ethanol.

Sorry if this belongs in politics, people's misconceptions about economics and energy is a pet peeve of mine.

[kipin]

[ QUOTE ]
And this is what must change. Because if it doesn't, bad bad bad things will eventually happen. Maybe not in 20 or even 50 years. But eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

It must be easy to be a scientist that has to prove nothing empirically. You can continually move the goal posts of when impending doom is coming, and never be wrong!

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Change should be adopted because people have an economic incentive to do so. (i.e. they are paying more for oil than other energy sources), not because the government forces action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strictly speaking, no. Change should come because people have a general incentive, not strictly an economic one. There are ways of measuring damage beyond the hole in our wallets.