Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308
By the way, what is this you keep going on about energy independence? What part of our electricity isn't independent?
|
I talk about energy independence because for me personally that should be the #1 goal, a very close #2 goal is reduction in pollution. I think we need to get off oil and coal, and the only way to do that is elec cars, and build other sources of electricity to feed the ever increasing demand for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308
The amount of wind power than came on line in 2009 was the equivalent to 9.3 large 1GW nuclear power plants. If you don't think thats fast enough, it is far cheaper to expand investments into wind than to try to put up a single new nuclear power plant. And yes it did make a dent. The wind power that came on line in the last two years was alone enough to power Georgia.
|
So how many non renewable plants shut down because of them? I don't think it's fast enough at all. Do you think it's fast enough? Yea it's probably cheaper to add some turbines and add a few MW of capacity than building a 1.6GW generating plant. New nuclear plants generate 1.6GW of power, while the most powerful wind turbine generates 7mw, and that thing is a monster 413 feet high. China is building 20 nuclear power plants right now, if wind is able to take the lead and is cheaper over the life of service why aren't they just focusing on that? You and I aren't smarter than the guys that do this for a living, if you're the CEO of a power company and you can make more money with product X than product Y you're going to go with X. The reason why wind is moving so slowly is because it's not ready for prime time yet, that's just the facts and you haven't said a thing to disprove it. Saying total wind production for last year resulted in 9.3 GW, which i haven't verified, proves it's not going to cut it. Just like nuclear power plants cause controversy don't think wind turbines don't. I think cape cod just got approval to move forward with theirs, how long has that been in the works, 10 years? I wouldn't be surprised if something else came up that delayed it further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dante2308
But none of this really matters because everything you have said is based on your assumption that renewables built today are invalid until 2050. What is possible reason have you been given to think this or are you just knee jerk skeptical? Are you sure you'd realize when "the future" we were promised arrived or is it always 10-20 years out?
|
Not invalid, but not going to take over, and everything you have said basically proves that my assumption is correct. The reason is because the amount of power needed now and in the future, combined with the hurdles and costs currently associated with wind and solar implementation (plus everything else) makes it not possible for renewables to take over the load. For me 70% clean domestic energy production would mean we arrived, and with your stance it's going to take 30 years to get there. Your data proves it.
And your numbers were best case scenario as well. And you can't just stick a hose in the ground to compress the air, you need certain geological formation to make it work. Pumping water up is often a better solution.
Right now wind power is not able to carry the load, and all of your figures prove it, what I suggest is utilizing nuclear power to allow us to generate the power we need cleanly/independently while continuing to refine and implement wind and other renewable technologies until they're ready to begin replacing non renewable forms of energy. That logic is flawless, you know it