A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
old europe wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

What tiny fraction do you suggest? And where would you put them? And if these would be so easily accomplished and would be so efficient, why hasn't it already been done? Why do you suppose that even in sunny New Mexico where we have far more sun than clouds, few solar companies have been viable and most who have attempted to gain a foothold have failed?

Since you don't remember the source of your above statement, why don't you go and Google some estimates of how much area you would have to cover in photovoltaic panels to meet the energy needs of the US? Might be interesting...

I did. Didn't answer my questions though. Can you?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I did. Didn't answer my questions though. Can you?

And? What did you find out?

(The rest kinda depends on that, I'd say...)

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I did. Didn't answer my questions though. Can you?

And? What did you find out?

(The rest kinda depends on that, I'd say...)

I found out what they are (which I already knew). But I didn't find the answers for my questions. You said you knew though. So please tell me.

Also I would be interested to know what percentage of Germany's energy needs are met by solar power and why all of your energy needs aren't being met by solar power.

0 Replies

No, I'm really too lazy to do your homework. All that information is out there.

If you want to read up on Photovoltaics, here's a good point to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic.

However, with the currently available photovoltaic technology, you would need about 1.5 percent of the land area of the US to meet the energy needs.

It obviously doesn't make sense to switch completely to one source of energy, but if you wanted to do it, it would be absolutely possible. And, concerning the topic of this thread, it's also interesting that virtually all Republican candidates support financing more research of alternative energy sources, including photovoltaic technology.

0 Replies

The truth is the U.S. government already finances considerable research of alternate sources of energy, ranging, from synthetic fuels derived from abundant coal, to photovoltaics and even wind power. The issue today for production is one of relative cost and benefit. Subsidizing relatively more expensive forms of power generation is an excellent way to preserve the high cost of solar and wind power. Capital investment will not naturally flow to high cost alternatives, and excess government intervention is a proven way to screw things up.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

We can just expand our nuclear power like the UK.

Ten UK nuclear power stations by 2020

Because otherwise they would have left just one in 2030.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The truth is the U.S. government already finances considerable research of alternate sources of energy, ranging, from synthetic fuels derived from abundant coal, to photovoltaics and even wind power.

Yes. With an emphasis on the former and less so on the latter.

georgeob1 wrote:

The issue today for production is one of relative cost and benefit. Subsidizing relatively more expensive forms of power generation is an excellent way to preserve the high cost of solar and wind power. Capital investment will not naturally flow to high cost alternatives, and excess government intervention is a proven way to screw things up.

Yes. Sure. You've said that before. Multiple times.

So, george, if you wanted to switch to an energy independent economy, how would you go about that?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Another source--I don't remember where it was--suggested that we could use ALL available land that was suitable for wind farms and solar panels and put wind farms and solar panels on it, and that would produce a relatively small percentage of our total energy needs while eroding valuable farm and ranch land.

The United States cover a land area of more 9.1 million square kilometres.

Now, even by the most pessimistic estimates, a tiny fraction of that covered in photovoltaic panels would meet the energy demand of America.

This is certainly true of wind... and the "eroding valuable farm and ranch land" is nonsense as well. GE's 1.5 MW Windmill equates to "one less cow".

Statements about "tiny fractions of our" need are pretty silly in general. Hoover Dam is a colossal provider of power (2 GW), yet delivers a tiny fraction of our need. While large scale wind production is still not terribly cost effective (roughly double); micro-scale production is actually very competitive. Contrary to popular belief; the power company generally doesn't pay the same price they charge you for feeding excess power back to the grid. Not even close. The "grid" itself is a tremendously expensive infrastructure that the micro producer bypasses by generating his own. Hence, despite the economy of scale inefficiencies; the micro producer can come out well ahead pretty easily. For this same reason; even the big 1.5 MW windmills, that are normally not cost effective, can be very cost effective; IF they are owned by an industry power-hungry enough to devour most of the power produced. This way; they offset the power company's retail price... rather than having to compete from a production cost standpoint.

The inescapable truth remains; the safest, most plentiful, environmentally friendly source of power already provides 20% of our electricity. Increase our nuclear power production capabilities by a factor of 5; and the grid would become as close to 100% carbon neutral as is realistically feasible. This answer has been clear for as long as we've been talking about global warming.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

No, I'm really too lazy to do your homework. All that information is out there.

If you want to read up on Photovoltaics, here's a good point to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic.

However, with the currently available photovoltaic technology, you would need about 1.5 percent of the land area of the US to meet the energy needs.

It obviously doesn't make sense to switch completely to one source of energy, but if you wanted to do it, it would be absolutely possible. And, concerning the topic of this thread, it's also interesting that virtually all Republican candidates support financing more research of alternative energy sources, including photovoltaic technology.

Too lazy to do MY homework? You're the one who made the claim that the person I quoted was wrong. I made no claim at all on that subject. So I think it would be more accurate to say that you are too lazy to do YOUR homework but expect me to do it for you.

I already read that Wiki article by the way which addressed none of the questions I addressed to you.

Where did you get the 1.5%

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Too lazy to do MY homework?

Yup.

Foxfyre wrote:

You're the one who made the claim that the person I quoted was wrong.

Oh, well, that is true. I did claim that.

Foxfyre wrote:

I made no claim at all on that subject.

You reported, I decided.

Foxfyre wrote:

So I think it would be more accurate to say that you are too lazy to do YOUR homework but expect me to do it for you.

Nope.

Foxfyre wrote:

I already read that Wiki article by the way which addressed none of the questions I addressed to you.

True. I think that, lacking reliable information from your source, we'd need some good numbers we could use as a basis before we could address those questions.

Foxfyre wrote:

Where did you get the 1.5%

Well, it's a ballpark figure. People critical of renewable energy use the number of 150,000 square kilometres as meeting US energy needs.

Others, like Sandia National Laboratories (you probably know about them) have stated that "the total electricity demand for the United States today could be supplied by PV systems covering only 0.4% of the nation in a high-sunlight area such as the Desert Southwest."

I'm willing to go with the pessimistic number.

0 Replies

When it comes to wind, Hayden shows wind farms can generate electrical power at the rate of about 1.2 watts (W) per square meter (m2) for most sites, and up to 4 W/m2 in rare sites where the wind always comes from one direction. The goal is to generate enough energy to replicate a 1,000 megawatts power plant operating around the clock. To do that in California, for example, would require a wind farm one mile wide stretching all the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

To produce as much energy as a conventional 1,000 megawatt power plant using solar would require a 127 square mile field of solar mirrors collecting enough heat to turn a turbine. Now that would have quite an environmental impact!

For decades, there have been delirious proclamations that the world would soon run on solar energy. Those statements have always sounded too good to be true and, sure enough, they have always been false.

Solar Fraud will arm you with the basic knowledge to understand all the physics of energy utilization. Energy use creates the power to run society, as well as the statistics that track man's lack of progress when attempting to overturn the laws of nature through the use of impractical energy sources.

Additionally, Hayden's collection of quotes from the purveyors of the solar fraud, when set side-by-side with the physical facts, will convince you that society is not being victimized by well-meaning, wrongheaded people. Instead, the purveyors of the solar energy fraud are intent on bringing industrial society to its knees by stifling society's true, nearly inexhaustible sources of energy.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10648

So this explains why we aren't running any villages, much less any large cities, let alone any countries, on wind or solar power these days, and we should probably raise our eyebrows should any Pols suggest that should be our goal. Continue research and development of course. But there are no magic bullets that are going to solve our energy crisis and I will look most favorably on those who suggest we will need to learn to live peacefully with oil, natural gas, and coal for some time to come as well as reinstate nuclear programs.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

So, george, if you wanted to switch to an energy independent economy, how would you go about that?

A very interesting question. The fact is that U.S. energy production peaked in the late 1990s and has been slowly declining since then, mostly due to declining U.S. pertoleum production. Our 2005 domestic production (total energy) was roughly 33% coal; 30% natural gas;15% petroleum; 13% nuclear and 9% renewables (including hydro). Over the past few decades petroleum has been steadily decreasing (to about half its 1972 level), while nuclear has increased at a fairly high relative rate to about 4 times its 1975 level, and coal and natural gas have increased very slowly. Total renewable production is dominated by hydro and geothermal, and, at least through 2005, has hardly changed since 1980.

U.S. Energy consumption increased by about 25% from 1975 to 2000, though it is increasing at a much lower rate now. 2005 production was about 75% of our total consumption with almost all of the difference representing imported petroleum (though natural gas imports have recently begun to become significant - mostly because cheap gas is readily available from Mexico and Canada).

Increased energy costs and public awareness appear to be the drivers for the currently much lower rates of growth in total consumption, and both are likely to continue. The slowdon in growth is most evident in the residential and industrial sectors, and least in commercial and transportation sectors.

My favored solution would be a $.50/gallon tax on gasoline & deisel fuels; coupled with a significant increase in our production of electricity by nuclear plants (emphasizing new designs and fuel mixtures) with specific measures to divert natural gas from electrical power production to transportation fuels. The realizable potential here could eliminate 80% of our petroleum imports in about 12 years. I would also fund and encourage development of efficient wind and solar sources, but recognize that neither is yet ready for large-scale production without a crippling economic effect. Finally I would continue our research into the development of cellulose-based ethanol production.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

"Any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat?" Really, okie?

Well then, here's my question: How do the Republicans want to wean America off of foreign oil?

Yes, but even those will take quite a number of years, probably at least 20, even if we begin in earnest right now. One of the first things we should do is aggessively drill for our own oil right here, and push nuclear. Mitt Romney explained all of the points the best in a recent debate. I've heard nothing practical from Democrats, in fact it was the Democrats in sympathy with tree huggers that killed all growth of the nuclear industry more than 20 years ago here in the U.S. The solutions offered by Democrats tend to rob private industry of their profits so that it can be spent by government bureaucrats on research, which is the wrong approach in my opinion.

0 Replies

You didn't like the numbers from Sandia, then? Okay. No problem. Let's go by the numbers presented by Hayden (who happens to sit on the "Board of Academic and Scientific Advisors" of a US think tank sponsored by ExxonMobil).

No problem at all.

Foxfyre, citing an enthusiastic book review by the 'Heartland Institute', wrote:

To produce as much energy as a conventional 1,000 megawatt power plant using solar would require a 127 square mile field of solar mirrors collecting enough heat to turn a turbine.

127 sq miles for 1 GW. Okay.

Now, the total Total Generating Capacity of the United States (at least as of January 1, 2004) was 948 gigawatts (GW). According to the EIA.

Would probably be more by now, but lets just work with a number of 1,000 GW.

So, we'd need about 1,000 x 127 sq miles, or about 330,000 sq kilometres, if you wanted to cover the total generating capacity of all US power plants.

Total land area of the United States (according to the CIA World Factbook): 9,161,923 sq km.

So, I guess we can agree that even by those very pessimistic numbers, your source must have been wrong. Completely wrong.

You're welcome.

0 Replies

I should add that the data I offered can be found at variuous U.S. Department of Energy web sites. This is a subject that (for other reasons) I have studied extensively and for which I have compiled extensive notes & analysis.

I wouldn't entirely dismiss solar power. Ultimately we will run out of fossil fuels and the only truly large scale renewable sources we will have then are nuclear fission (assuming new reactor designs and fuel mixtures are found practical - we can't get there on U-235 alone); nuclear fusion (If we can ever get it to work); and solar (let's hope it is ready when we need it).

0 Replies

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
"Any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat?" Really, okie?

Well then, here's my question: How do the Republicans want to wean America off of foreign oil?

Yes, but even those will take quite a number of years, probably at least 20, even if we begin in earnest right now. One of the first things we should do is aggessively drill for our own oil right here, and push nuclear.

So I assume you vehemently disagree with McCain, who is against drilling in ANWR? Okay.

okie wrote:

Mitt Romney explained all of the points the best in a recent debate.

Could you name a couple of those points?

okie wrote:

I've heard nothing practical from Democrats, in fact it was the Democrats in sympathy with tree huggers that killed all growth of the nuclear industry more than 20 years ago here in the U.S.

Democrats who are running for president are not necessarily the same Democrats that "killed all growth of the nuclear industry."

(You should be able to realize that. Otherwise you'll have to explain to me why the Bush administration's handling of the budget is to be considered 'conservative'.)

Anyways, out of the Democratic frontrunners for presidency, all except for Edwards have stated that they are in favour of increasing the nuclear component in the US energy mix.

okie wrote:

The solutions offered by Democrats tend to rob private industry of their profits so that it can be spent by government bureaucrats on research, which is the wrong approach in my opinion.

Again: could you name one specific example for that regarding the energy policy as presented by the respective candidates? That would help to discuss whether or not it's "robbing private industry of their profits" - don't you think?

0 Replies

Foxy; here is the straight dope: The U.S uses 4,130,746 GW of power annually (currently), which averages 471 GW per hour of production. Too reasonably expect to be able to accomplish this with wind; you'd have to have at least 3 or 4 times the rated capacity, since even well placed windmills typically deliver about 30% of their stated capacity. So, just for round numbers let's say we need 2000 GW of capacity to satisfy Foxy's hypothetical "all available land, couldn't do it, bla, bla, bla.". (Ignoring the FACT that over 25% of our power is already carbon neutral) we can see that to use nothing but GE's 1.5 MW windmills for power, we would simply have to install 1.33 million of them. Surely we could find room for 1.33 million windmills in 9 million sq kilometers.

What are we waiting for? :razz:

More realistically: A few thousand reactors would accomplish the same, relatively quickly. Nuclear technology has come a long, long way. For instance; the BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia is a 600MW Fast breeder type reactor that defines "renewable energy". Using this technology; our current supply of Uranium is essentially unlimited (billions of years worth at current consumption rates).

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

More realistically: A few thousand reactors would accomplish the same, relatively quickly. Nuclear technology has come a long, long way. For instance; the BN-600 in Beloyarsk, Russia is a 600MW Fast breeder type reactor that defines "renewable energy". Using this technology; our current supply of Uranium is essentially unlimited (billions of years worth at current consumption rates).

A few thousand?

Uhm. A few dozen should probably be enough.

Don't like the 'fast breeder' type though. Would prefer PBR technology. Also, I realize that the perception of the potential danger of nuclear reactor technology is different when you're living in a country where you actually have vast, thinly populated stretches of land available where you can put those thingies.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
old europe wrote:
"Any of the Republicans have more practical answers to questions than any Democrat?" Really, okie?

Well then, here's my question: How do the Republicans want to wean America off of foreign oil?

Yes, but even those will take quite a number of years, probably at least 20, even if we begin in earnest right now. One of the first things we should do is aggessively drill for our own oil right here, and push nuclear.

So I assume you vehemently disagree with McCain, who is against drilling in ANWR? Okay.

Yes, most definitely.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Mitt Romney explained all of the points the best in a recent debate.

Could you name a couple of those points?[/quote
One was nuclear. Another was I believe encouraging industry through the market attack the problem. Another was conservation. I don't remember word for word, but his answer was totally logical.
[quote]

okie wrote:
I've heard nothing practical from Democrats, in fact it was the Democrats in sympathy with tree huggers that killed all growth of the nuclear industry more than 20 years ago here in the U.S.

Democrats who are running for president are not necessarily the same Democrats that "killed all growth of the nuclear industry."

(You should be able to realize that. Otherwise you'll have to explain to me why the Bush administration's handling of the budget is to be considered 'conservative'.)

Anyways, out of the Democratic frontrunners for presidency, all except for Edwards have stated that they are in favour of increasing the nuclear component in the US energy mix.

They are not the same Democrats, but they still have the same self defeating sympathies for whacko tree huggers, and they do not embrace the free market which holds the best promise for practical solutions.
I have said many times that Bush's fiscal policy is not conservative. Obam a and Clinton may be in favor of nuclear now, however they don't seem to understand or admit it was their brand of political philosophy that stopped the progress of nuclear. A leopard cannot change its spots easily.

Quote:

okie wrote:
The solutions offered by Democrats tend to rob private industry of their profits so that it can be spent by government bureaucrats on research, which is the wrong approach in my opinion.

Again: could you name one specific example for that regarding the energy policy as presented by the respective candidates? That would help to discuss whether or not it's "robbing private industry of their profits" - don't you think?

No problem, I have already heard Ms. Clinton talk about taking the profits of oil companies to give it to government research efforts. This of course will be counterproductive, as the most efficient solutions are not generally found in this manner.

0 Replies

Spain has built solar power grids that are really huge. I forgot the output, but it seems to be paying off, and they have plans to build more.

0 Replies

A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know