Open Side Menu Go to the Top

04-09-2011 , 05:07 PM
That's why I included the linked story, as they claim hundreds of millions, but I did read trillions somewhere, and pointed out that the speculations vary.
End coal go 100% solar, hydro, gas, and nuclear.
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
End coal go 100% solar, hydro, gas, and nuclear.
04-09-2011 , 07:34 PM
But the worst is over now?
04-12-2011 , 08:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiggsCasey
I learned long ago that any time you meet someone stridently against even minimal renewable energy investment, immediately do not trust them.
An excellent rule of thumb for this day and age.
04-12-2011 , 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterlinguini
An excellent rule of thumb for this day and age.
Indeed. But while that ploy is rampant on sites like USMB and CapitalHillBlue, I doubt it permeates here too much. Could be wrong.

Either way, when it comes to the energy question, they are easily crushed by merely asking, "ok, where's the data? how much? where? how fast to production? at what rate?"

They almost never answer those questions. Even the paid shills.
04-16-2012 , 12:42 PM
The cutting edge (I assume? That's a lot of money on bad tech) of solar generation and power storage

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Solar-Po...ews-14225.html

.... that's absurdly high $/kwh.
04-17-2012 , 02:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
The cutting edge (I assume? That's a lot of money on bad tech) of solar generation and power storage

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Solar-Po...ews-14225.html

.... that's absurdly high $/kwh.
That is not high, if they can sell the electicity at 5 cents per KWH it should generate $48 million in revenues per year. These things are going up all over California. The nice thing about this is the nighttime power generation since the heat is stored in the salts.

110000*24*365*.05

Some of the largest photovoltaic plants are being installed much larger than this, but they are pv so at night they don't generate power.

NRG is a stock you can buy involved in pv plants, a good one.

PV and solar is much cheaper than coal now.
04-17-2012 , 09:32 AM
Be extremely careful buying energy company stock, especially ones that own nukes, as the marginal price, hence profits, is set by natural gas prices. Natural gas prices have been getting murdered for the past few years. NRG is a company whose value has tanked and I believe is still struggling. We almost bought them a few years ago.
04-17-2012 , 02:00 PM
Fracking causes earthquakes yo

Quote:
The U.S. Geological Survey is set to release its findings Wednesday that a "remarkable" increase of quakes in the U.S. midcontinent since 2001 is "almost certainly" the result of oil and gas production.


04-18-2012 , 03:36 PM
Thought this an interesting article. With Japan and Germany ending their use of nuclear power, with America's large natural gas reserves we could do well exporting this natural resource.

"Exporting U.S. Oil And Gas Is Good For The Economy"

http://news.investors.com/article/60...ant-energy.htm

snippet:

Quote:
...Some environmental activists, such as the Sierra Club, are opposed to LNG exports because, they claim, the liquefaction process results in air and coastal water pollution while endangering wildlife.

They also argue, with little basis in fact, that processing plants and LNG tankers are inherently unstable and prone to explosions. But their real objective is to prevent any undertaking that results in more fossil fuel demand.

As an energy-abundant nation, America should logically be a major energy exporter. This is already the case with coal, and there is no reason we can't become one of the world's largest gas exporters as well, with all the attendant job creation that will entail.

We should also bear in mind that Canada is pushing to become a major LNG exporter and has already issued export licenses for several projects on their Pacific Coast. Let's not repeat the mistake of Keystone XL by imposing roadblocks to exporting America's natural gas.
04-18-2012 , 03:38 PM
^^^ It actually is a good article if you ignore all the BS non sequitur like "Keystone XL"
04-19-2012 , 09:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashington
That's a very interesting graph. I am curious as to why it doesn't show any data for magnitude 3 or greater quakes in mid america before 1970? No seismic records in america pre 1970?
04-19-2012 , 10:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
That's a very interesting graph. I am curious as to why it doesn't show any data for magnitude 3 or greater quakes in mid america before 1970? No seismic records in america pre 1970?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/top...arthquakes.php

TLDR: we're much better at detecting small earthquakes than we used to be.

PS: I also do think fracking causes some earthquakes... but Mag 3 earthquakes are harmless.
04-19-2012 , 10:48 AM
Yeah until a fracking earthquake kills someone or does massive damage no one is going to care. I have to charge my iPhone at an affordable rate!
04-19-2012 , 10:53 AM
It seems to me that it might actually be a good thing...cause small earthquakes, small earthquakes spaced out over time prevent huge magnitude 8 ones that build up over time. But I failed one class in college, and that class was geology, so I'm like almost the last person who should even be commenting on it.
04-19-2012 , 10:54 AM
Also, my friend who's a complete Honda nut sent this to me:



$26,305 Suggested Starting Price MPG 27 CITY 38 HWY (Automatic)

The 2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-n...120418180532:s


http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-n...gas/price.aspx
04-19-2012 , 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/top...arthquakes.php

TLDR: we're much better at detecting small earthquakes than we used to be.

PS: I also do think fracking causes some earthquakes... but Mag 3 earthquakes are harmless.
I just thought it was odd that for 30 years there were precisely 20 mag 3.0+ quakes in that area and no data before it.

Also, according to wiki's piece on the Richter scale there are about 130,000 mag3.0-3.9 quakes recorded every year world wide!

Then I read the mother jones article from which the graph came:

Quote:
Though fracking does cause tiny tremors, the USGS scientists found no links between the process of fracking itself and the larger earthquakes that have been occurring more frequently. They did, however, notice that earthquakes have clustered around wastewater wells in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and neighboring states. Disposing of wastewater by pumping it deep into the ground is standard practice in many industries, including mining, chemical manufacturing, and oil and gas extraction, and the oil and gas industry alone operates tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells. But the recent surge of fracking activity, which uses millions of gallons of water to crack rock deep in the ground and release natural gas, has boosted the volume of wastewater being injected into the ground.
Quote:
Still, researchers caution, the new data is preliminary, and plenty of questions remain. We don't yet know why only a few of the tens of thousands of wastewater disposal wells have induced earthquakes, or whether any specific planned well is particularly likely to cause a quake. It could be because production has ramped up and the sheer quantity of wastewater has increased, or because oil and gas companies are using new techniques for injecting waste fluids. And while there have been no confirmed cases of major earthquakes resulting from the injection of wastewater into the ground near major faults, the possibility can't be eliminated, says Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes.
I don't know why, but I'm starting to feel that since the momentum has left the zomg we have to stop burning fossil fuels due to global warming, then the next item on the agenda is zomg, quake-a- mageddon is coming due to fraking. better stop it quick.
04-19-2012 , 04:24 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I saw a piece on this the other day and thought it had real potential.



Basically they are able to produce twice the amount of energy as landborne air turbines being as the wind blows harder in the upper atmosphere.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...turbine-power/
04-19-2012 , 04:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hector Cerif
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I saw a piece on this the other day and thought it had real potential.



Basically they are able to produce twice the amount of energy as landborne air turbines being as the wind blows harder in the upper atmosphere.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...turbine-power/
When they say twice the amount of energy is that before or after transmission loss. A 1000 watt turbine will lose at least 1/3 of its power transmitted over a 1000 feet, using very heavy copper wire (1/3 inch diameter or so). Drop that to 1/4 inch wire and you're losing all of the power gain (assuming their doubling is before transmission losses).
04-19-2012 , 05:06 PM
I want a moon base solar station (no power lost due to weather or atmosphere) that shoots microwaves at power stations.

Preferably US owned, so we could use the microwave beams as weapons.
04-19-2012 , 08:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by grizy
I want a moon base solar station (no power lost due to weather or atmosphere) that shoots microwaves at power stations.

Preferably US owned, so we could use the microwave beams as weapons.
Finally, practical green energy.
04-20-2012 , 12:29 PM
Fracking video explaining the process. Interesting stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DniNI...eature=related

LNG would be nice to export, it'd obviously raise demand. Natural gas cars would be awesome too since the price, at this current level, would be less than half of what gasoline is. The problem there is there are no pumps. If every gas station had 2 natural gas pumps, I'm sure people would buy natural gas cars in a heartbeat as long as they cost relatively the same.
04-20-2012 , 12:56 PM
I thought it was really cool that my Dodge Ram was E-85 ready until I discovered that there are no E-85 pumps within 100 miles of me.
04-20-2012 , 05:45 PM
what exactly does nuclear waste look like?
04-20-2012 , 08:06 PM
04-01-2018 , 02:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath
Perhaps if you use some of the energy captured in the wind farm directly to pump water that might be worth it (like an old fashioned windmill pump). I don't now how you're going to do that in an ocean wind farm though. But converting wind to electricity used to drive a pump to push water up hill through a pipe into a reservoir from which to generate electricity at a later time by pouring water through a pipe to a turbine is so incredibly inefficient that you have to have about 5 times the generating capacity of what you want to guarantee the availablility of. Also, do you have an idea what size reservoir you'd need to reliably back up all the solar and wind on a calm dark night?
I know this is an old thread, but DoTheMath was implying that we had some beef in politics and I don't remember, so I thought I'd search. Coming across this though I just wanted to point out how incredibly wrong he is about something that's pretty easy to look up. Pumped storage hyrdopower is 70% efficient at the very low end and up to around 90% efficient at the high end. There have been large projects in use for decades to balance power needs completly unrelated to wind or solar. That he could have ever said that thing about "5 times" really calls into question the reliability of someone who presents himself as quite the expert.

Anyway. if you do any vanity seaching and catch this post, here's a message: next time you should actually do the math.
End coal go 100% solar, hydro, gas, and nuclear.
$25m Guaranteed WPM on CoinPoker
Join the action now
Daily Rewards • Splash Pots • CoinRaces
End coal go 100% solar, hydro, gas, and nuclear.

      
m