NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember watching a program about possible energy sources awhile back and "why haven't people done it yet" popped in my head and I couldnt figure out why not.


Since I am going by memory I might have my numbers wrong, or I might have misunderstood things completely.

If we made a 10,000 sq ft solar plant in the navada desert it could power the entire US.

A few thousand sq ft of wave power generators could power all of the UK

Wind power could be used to power a good bit of the east coast. (I forget completely how much room needed)


This was all supposed to be possible with current technology, so why not?:confused:

Because it's expensive, and people want to make money.

governments waste money all the time. why not make a green power plant as a public works project?

...what'll they do at night?

...what'll they do at night?

doesnt extra energy generated during the day get stored for use over night?

governments waste money all the time. why not make a green power plant as a public works project?How do they waste money?

The governments of most developed nations have made efforts to adopt green energy. The US hasn't been trying as hard as europe, but even we have been making some effort.

The problem is that Americans tend to distrust government control and welcome corporate control more than Europeans do. Corporations are not charities, they want to make money, and the only reason some of them try to be eco friendly is because they expect to capture the hippie market.

Because it's expensive, and people want to make money.

which makes no sense. sure it would cost a lot at first, but if you got three or four energy companies to work together, plus gov't funding, you can have 1/4 of an acre of solar panels up, and once you start producing cheep energy, sell it for the same price and in five-ten years they'll have it all back.

Government funding comes from taxes, people don't like taxes.

Get 3 or 4 energy companies to work together? The government would have to order those companies to do that, right? Americans would consider that fascism or communism.

How do they waste money?

The governments of most developed nations have made efforts to adopt green energy. The US hasn't been trying as hard as europe, but even we have been making some effort.

The problem is that Americans tend to distrust government control and welcome corporate control more than Europeans do. Corporations are not charities, they want to make money, and the only reason some of them try to be eco friendly is because they expect to capture the hippie market.

Governments tend to pay more for items. (ie isn't the joke about the $36 toilet seat based in truth?) not to mention bridges to no where...

There are power issues on the west coast last I heard (brown outs and the like) and the hoover damn, which is a hydro electric plant isn't it, was a public works project during the depression. so why not create a green plant as a public works project to ease power problems in the west?

America has not been trying as hard because you have people that claim it doesn't work. most people, at least to my knowledge, think it wastes more energy running the plants than the plants make.


I don't know how long it will be before going green get big enough for cooperations to actually try.

governments waste money all the time. why not make a green power plant as a public works project?

Less of your logic! :p

Even if every developed country used clean energy, china and india wouldn't do it unless it was cheap. People need cheap energy. That's why nobody bothered to buy electric cars until the gas prices went up.

Government funding comes from taxes, people don't like taxes.

Get 3 or 4 energy companies to work together? The government would have to order those companies to do that, right? Americans would consider that fascism or communism.

Use the project as a reason to cut war funding. Less damage to people that want to stop funding but are scare shitless of looking unpatriotic.

If the government gets into the power business, some companies my work together to push it back out....you know, stomp the competition.

Even if every developed country used clean energy, china and india wouldn't do it unless it was cheap. People need cheap energy. That's why nobody bothered to buy electric cars until the gas prices went up.

another question....

"but china and india don't do it"...why is that considered an argument?

Governments tend to pay more for items. (ie isn't the joke about the $36 toilet seat based in truth?) not to mention bridges to no where... That "bridge to nowhere" went to an island that people lived on, plus the island had the only airport. It makes me mad that the media payed so much attention to a bridge in alaska. It's their bridge, not mine.

America has not been trying as hard because you have people that claim it doesn't work. most people, at least to my knowledge, think it wastes more energy running the plants than the plants make. What? What state are you from? I've never heard anyone say that.


I don't know how long it will be before going green get big enough for cooperations to actually try.Some corporations try really hard... just walk into any whole foods store.

another question....

"but china and india don't do it"...why is that considered an argument?Because, a large part of the world cares so much more about money than they do about air quality. If we don't come up with a profitable clean energy source, the countries that care about money will continue to pollute the air. Some parts of china are so polluted that you need to wear a mask every day to filter the air. That's what they told the olympic athletes to do.

That "bridge to nowhere" went to an island that people lived on, plus the island had the only airport. It makes me mad that the media payed so much attention to a bridge in alaska. It's their bridge, not mine.

What? What state are you from? I've never heard anyone say that.


Some corporations try really hard... just walk into any whole foods store.

I think it was more of the amount of funds the guy was about to get from the government for the bridge that didn't need to hold massive traffic. (It was the first thing that popped in my head, and figered it would be less likely to cause an argument than using the iraq war....I don't know much about the bridge really)

WV hillbilly land.

Some companies yes, but I would say most use it as publicity rather than actually try (imo)

Because, a large part of the world cares so much more about money than they do about air quality. If we don't come up with a profitable clean energy source, the countries that care about money will continue to pollute the air. Some parts of china are so polluted that you need to wear a mask every day to filter the air. That's what they told the olympic athletes to do.

uhhh...

I still don't see why "china will still pollute so we should to" is an argument. I must be missing something.

Yes it is costly to set up, but what isn't? Isn't cost one of the reasons listed as why no more refineries are being built?

sure it would cost a lot at first, but if you got three or four energy companies to work together, plus gov't funding, you can have 1/4 of an acre of solar panels up, and once you start producing cheep energy, sell it for the same price and in five-ten years they'll have it all back.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Solar cells are insanely expensive today; an array to power a single house* costs $20,000 or so. The cost is amortized over many years, of course, but the cells don't last forever. A typical panel has a half-life of about 30 years under ideal conditions. If you have batteries to carry your baseload at night, you'll have to add more cells, and pay for the batteries too; they don't last nearly as long (a few years IIRC).

Lots of people are trying to lower the cost of the cells and/or make them last longer. Other people are working on systems that concentrate sunlight from a large area onto a small area of cells. The best guess in the industry is that solar should be able to compete head-to-head with coal in five years or so, as these improvements lower the cost while the cost of coal creeps up.

*: usually, houses w/ solar power end up buying power from the grid as well, especially in winter. It's certainly possible to buy arrays big enuf to meet winter power requirements and sell the excess power during the summer, but it increases the start-up costs dramatically.

The government spent money on the iraq war because americans supported that war. Americans don't support it any more, but it's too late.

The bottom line is, there isn't green energy because people don't want it. Al gore advocates green energy, but as conservatives love to point out he has a private jet. He just doesn't want to take the regular plane. People complain about gas prices and buy little cars, but as soon as the gas prices go down, SUV sales go up, because there's a failure to anticipate cause and effect until it's too late. There's no good tsunami warning system where I live in the east coast, because that would cost tax money, but they built one in india AFTER the tsumani. Nobody wants to solve a problem that might happen in the future, they want to solve it when it's too late.

uhhh...

I still don't see why "china will still pollute so we should to" is an argument. I must be missing something.What? I never said that. I said that china will pollute if it's cheaper to pollute, so the best solution is to make clean energy the cheapest!

Also, I am not arguing against the concept of green energy. The question this topic asked is WHY people aren't working harder on green energy. The topic didn't ask if green energy is a good idea or not. The answer to the question is that green energy costs money and most of the time people will not spend money unless it benefits them directly and immediatly.

Also, it's not just that americans supported the war. Americans where scared and they where begging for action to be taken against terrorists. Do you remember when everyone had an american flag in their yard? 2001 was nothing like today. Back then you where looked down upon for insulting president bush, even in massachusettes, where I grew up. The government took action against terrorists, but, it cost a lot of money, and now people are sad.

What? I never said that. I said that china will pollute if it's cheaper to pollute, so the best solution is to make clean energy the cheapest!

Also, I am not arguing against the concept of green energy. The question this topic asked is WHY people aren't working harder on green energy. The topic didn't ask if green energy is a good idea or not. The answer to the question is that green energy costs money and most of the time people will not spend money unless it benefits them directly and immediatly.

Sorry. I was taking what you were saying the wrong way because of your other post.

but could it actually help people right off the bat? you after the setup cost, would it cost more to run it than any other power plant?

Also, it's not just that americans supported the war. Americans where scared and they where begging for action to be taken against terrorists. Do you remember when everyone had an american flag in their yard? 2001 was nothing like today. Back then you where looked down upon for insulting president bush, even in massachusettes, where I grew up. The government took action against terrorists, but, it cost a lot of money, and now people are sad.

see what I ment about arguments? ^_^
That was then this is now. the people want out and they only way to force the administration to leave right now is to cut the purse strings. Diverting money to a public works project to aid in releasing us from "foreign energy" (ie importing oil and natural gas) could aid is spin to protect politicians from getting painted as unpatriotic.

That might work, I think it's a good idea. But I don't feel like most people would support something like that, unless the pr campaign was really good.

Also, as parts of the problem:

1.) Costs associated with building and maintaining many "Green" options put it a significant disadvantage price-wise. As long as it is cheaper to build a coal-powered plant, that's what companies will build. Their shareholders demand it.

2.) The various environmental groups work at odds with each other. Want to build a nice clean hydro-electirc dam? Well, your resevoir will flood a breeding ground for something, it will be blocking the fish migration paths of something else, and the power-lines in are going to cut through a grove of some endangered tree, and the water is already being used somewhere downstream for something else. So the environmental lobby wants it impact-studied to death and then halted. Want to put up a wind farm along the coast? Every coastal bird-lover will scream at the thought of chopped up rare seagulls. Wave-based? it's in the way of the known migration path of a given pair of humback whales. Doesn't matter what you try to build, there is someone out there opposed to it.

So coal it is!!!

In martha's vineyard, they're trying to build some windmills in the ocean. They're very inoffensive windmills, they are so far from shore you can barely see them, and yet people have created a huge uproar about how ugly they are and about how they are ruining the natural beauty. This is in massachusetts, which is supposed to be the most liberal place.

Well, until recently, most green energy wasn't cost competitive with fossil fuels. However, that situation is now reversed, and green options are appearing more and more attractive due to their much lower operating costs and immunity to changes in feedstock prices.

A lot of people don't realize the progress made in alternative energy. Wind power installations have not only tripled since 2000 but the rate of installation has accelerated. The same is true of geothermal and solar, even if their current capacities are low; geothermal in particular is attractive because it is a stable source of power, filling in a key problem in renewable energy integration. By and large, the market is showing green options are simply the best in economic, reliability, and environmental terms.

Alternative energy is in the early stage of its boom; the biggest period of growth is yet to be seen and it will benefit us considerably.

We could just subsidize and mandate solar panels on every roof that gets enough sunlight. I tried to get my parents to get one, but they won't.

doesnt extra energy generated during the day get stored for use over night?

Please how?
If you have a viable answer, you have just answered the most difficult problem the energy industry has with "green energy".
As a side note: the only really green energy source is geothermal

Please how?
If you have a viable answer, you have just answered the most difficult problem the energy industry has with "green energy".
As a side note: the only really green energy source is geothermal

one method would be to use extra energy to pump water into a higher lake and use it to make hydroelectric power at night (compressing air could also be done)

some methods of sun energy warm up a fluid which stays hot at night to produce energy.

But yeah, the greatest problem with green energy is that it's so irregular.

btw, why do you consider geothermal the only really green energy source?

I remember watching a program about possible energy sources awhile back and "why haven't people done it yet" popped in my head and I couldnt figure out why not.


Since I am going by memory I might have my numbers wrong, or I might have misunderstood things completely.

If we made a 10,000 sq ft solar plant in the navada desert it could power the entire US.

A few thousand sq ft of wave power generators could power all of the UK

Wind power could be used to power a good bit of the east coast. (I forget completely how much room needed)


This was all supposed to be possible with current technology, so why not?:confused:

While not knowing the condictions for 'green' energy elsewhere, here in the UK, in order to generate solely by windpower the electricity the UK needs would take 35 000 windturbines at the very minimum.
Great for wind turbine makers
Not so good when you consider that even though its a fairly windy country , there are days like today for example where the wind has dropped out and no amount of wind turbines will generate power from no wind, so you are forced to build a backup system (eg gas powered) that can take up the slack from when the wind is'nt blowing.

In effect, you end up building 2 times the generating capacity that you would need if you stuck with gas powered generaters only and that costs money (fancy doubling your electricity costs anyone?)

If you really wnat 'green' power Ie no CO2 emissions, then go with a nuclear baseload capacity of about 85%-90% of what you need, and add in wind powereed pumped storage hydro generating systems for the extra power bursts needed (usually about 5pm - 7 pm on a weekday)

And James Lovelock came up with answer for the 'Nuclear power bad' brigade
"Whats worse: 20 000 possible dead from a nuclear meltdown or 500 000 000 dead from global warming?"

While not knowing the condictions for 'green' energy elsewhere, here in the UK, in order to generate solely by windpower the electricity the UK needs would take 35 000 windturbines at the very minimum.
Great for wind turbine makers
Not so good when you consider that even though its a fairly windy country , there are days like today for example where the wind has dropped out and no amount of wind turbines will generate power from no wind, so you are forced to build a backup system (eg gas powered) that can take up the slack from when the wind is'nt blowing.

In effect, you end up building 2 times the generating capacity that you would need if you stuck with gas powered generaters only and that costs money (fancy doubling your electricity costs anyone?)

If you really wnat 'green' power Ie no CO2 emissions, then go with a nuclear baseload capacity of about 85%-90% of what you need, and add in wind powereed pumped storage hydro generating systems for the extra power bursts needed (usually about 5pm - 7 pm on a weekday)

And James Lovelock came up with answer for the 'Nuclear power bad' brigade
"Whats worse: 20 000 possible dead from a nuclear meltdown or 500 000 000 dead from global warming?"

you shouldn't solely rely on wind power, wave and tidal power would maybe be a good idea for an island.

Nuclear isn't carbon neutral, the stuff they use to power them has to be mined and purified, a very energy intensive process.

There's no good tsunami warning system where I live in the east coast, because that would cost tax money,

The chance of a tsunami occurring in the Atlantic Ocean and reaching the US East Coast is slim to none.

Given the cost-to-benefit ratio, then, developing one would be a horrible use of limited resources.

Everything is a trade-off. Not only CAN you put a price on human life, you don't have a choice in the matter. Reality forces it upon you.

you shouldn't solely rely on wind power, wave and tidal power would maybe be a good idea for an island.

Nuclear isn't carbon neutral, the stuff they use to power them has to be mined and purified, a very energy intensive process.

Aye, but then it takes 4 weeks of power generation to make back the energy used to refine the stuff.

Coal has to be mined in far greater quanties, gas has to be extracted , then pumped to where its needed, heck eeven the wind turbines beloved by the green lobby have to have miles of copper wire wound into the generaters, plus the impact of using all that concrete and carbon fibre building the things.

Every generating process has its downside, but the power generating system described previously has the least I can think of

Every generating process has its downside, but the power generating system described previously has the least I can think of

Geothermal would be the best of all; it's clean, reliable, and abundant. The only real downside is its cost, and even that's falling pretty rapidly due to advances in the field.

However, the main drawback of geothermal is that not all areas have hot enough rock at the depth used for energy generation; it would make sense to use nuclear to make up the shortfalls in those areas and to serve as a basic source of surplus power. Reprocessing centers would increase the effective supply of fuel by a factor of at least 50 and would reduce the side-effects of radioactive waste.

even the wind turbines beloved by the green lobby have to have miles of copper wire wound into the generaters, plus the impact of using all that concrete and carbon fibre building the things.

I agree, but at least it doesn't really pollute a lot after it's built. (except for maintainance). Everything that provides energy costs energy to make of course. I also forgot to mention that once you have built tidal/wave/wind/sun-power plants they cost almost nothing, but nuclear energy costs a lot after the plant is built (producing the stuff and storing the waste etc)

Since I am going by memory I might have my numbers wrong, or I might have misunderstood things completely.

If we made a 10,000 sq ft solar plant in the navada desert it could power the entire US.

The US demand for electricity in 2005 was 746,470 Megawatts
To put this in perspective, Southern California Edison is building a solar facility capable of generating 500 Mw and covers 7 square Miles.

Thats 10,450 square miles, not square feet, to meet demand at 2005 levels.

Despite what hyper-environmentalists will have you believe, 'clean' energy is not a simple easy wonderful and practical solution. If it were, we would be doing it.

The US demand for electricity in 2005 was 746,470 Megawatts
To put this in perspective, Southern California Edison is building a solar facility capable of generating 500 Mw and covers 7 square Miles.

Thats 10,450 square miles, not square feet, to meet demand at 2005 levels.

Despite what hyper-environmentalists will have you believe, 'clean' energy is not a simple easy wonderful and practical solution. If it were, we would be doing it.

I probably ment sq miles instead of feet when I wrote it, but feet stuck. The biggest thing I remembered was them talking about the desert that was, for the most part, empty.




now that I think about it miles makes a hellofalot more sense than feet:headbang:

eye iz da dumarse

Because it's expensive,

So is dirty energy, if you actually factor in the health and environmental costs.

The US demand for electricity in 2005 was 746,470 Megawatts
To put this in perspective, Southern California Edison is building a solar facility capable of generating 500 Mw and covers 7 square Miles.

Thats 10,450 square miles, not square feet, to meet demand at 2005 levels.



Yes, except that almost no-one is advocating that we switch entirely to solar, wind, or any other one source of energy, since all energy sources have their weaknesses. Realistically, we need a portfolio approach that uses a combination of renewable energy sources (where appropriate and technically feasible) and demand side management to phase out the worst dirty energy sources, while using measures such as carbon capture and storage to mitigate the effects of the dirty energy we are still using.


Despite what hyper-environmentalists will have you believe, 'clean' energy is not a simple easy wonderful and practical solution. If it were, we would be doing it.

Actually, clean energy is both technically and economically practical. The reason we're not doing it is simply the lack of political will. Nobody has the courage to step up to the plate and actually make anyone pay the full cost of fossil fuels and other dirty energy so that they actually have to compete on a level playing field. So what we get is a combination of short-term subsidies and voluntary measures that aren't getting the job done.