Fracking = Worse Than Coal

[Madman2001]

jzj1 says: >> There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.<<
Um, no. It would take between 4 and 20 million wind turbines (depending on assumptions, etc) to power the U.S. If you think that this is somehow achievable in the next 10 or 20 or 100 years, let us know how. By contrast, there are some 20,000 right now.

And, not only would the turbines have to be built, but the grid would have to be completely changed to accommodate the fluctuating power (same with solar).

What other renewable energy sources are there? Solar? Same problems as wind, except that solar power is never available at night. Hydro? All the good sites are taken. Biomass? Oh, please. Crops? The energy used to produce ethanol is greater than the energy produced.

And all of these renewables exact environmental damage. Wind turbines and solar panels blight the landscape. Wind turbines already kill thousands of bats and birds. Hydro ruins rivers. And bio-based fuels produce the worst environmental damage of all with fertilizers, pesticides, and the costs of all the machinery necessary.

If you have any information to the contrary, help us out here.

Thanks,

[tracer]

@danny212

Also, we’re wasting a huge amount of energy right now. Absent an appropriately high carbon tax over most of the world, there’s not enough incentive to increase efficiency immediately, which could put off the date we run out of fossil fuels, and maybe even lessen global warming. Fracking is adding to this problem by keeping energy costs lower. I will always oppose new energy production for this reason, whether off-shore oil or methane deposits. It we leave it alone, it will still be there when we really need it, be that 50, 100, or 200 years.

[Underlining mine]

My guess is there are a lot of countries out there that would love to lower their own energy costs, and won’t care much about opposition from ecologically-minded individuals.

[Powers]

@Madman2001

jzj1 says: >> There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.<<
Um, no.

To be fair, jzj1 said “energy sources” not “energy production”. I assume jzj1 was referring to the total potential capacity of such production, not current capacity.
Powers &8^]

[Madman2001]

Originally Posted by Madman2001
jzj1 says: >> There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.<<
Um, no.

Powers says: >>To be fair, jzj1 said “energy sources” not “energy production”. I assume jzj1 was referring to the total potential capacity of such production, not current capacity.<<
I realize he wasn’t referring to current capacity, but I had assumed he was referring to practical potential capacity. And my point was that there is absolutely no way for renewables, using present technology, to provide anywhere near the energy needs of the world.

[Una_Persson]

@jzj1

Cecil,

You have just lost a thirty-year long reader, because you finally answered a question on a subject I actually know a good deal about (regarding fracking and energy) (What’s the straight dope on fracking? - The Straight Dope) and you got the answer substantially wrong.

Regarding fracking:

1. Fracking is not performed because we are running out of fossil fuel: between coal, deep sea petroleum, and frozen methane, we have centuries of such reserves.
2. Fracking is being done as a perceived cheaper and lower greenhouse gas emissions alternative to coal.
3. Fracking is not cheaper when resources such as water reduction and pollution cleaning are taken into account.
4. Fracking is not a lower greenhouse gas emission alternative to coal when methane escape is taken into account.
5. Fracking has indeed been proven to cause earthquakes and subsidence.

Regarding existing energy use:

1. Fossil fuel should virtually never be used as it is produces carbon pollution which is a global warming agent resulting in tremendous environmental harm.
2. Fossil fuel should virtually never be used as it is composed of sets of pre- and post-combustion toxins injurious to nearly all organisms.
3. Fossil fuel should virtually never be used as its extraction is itself destruction of precious resources.
4. Fossil fuel should virtually never be used as it is itself energy-intensive often resulting in little net energy (but merely shifts energy location and form).
5. Nuclear energy is inherently destructive in resource extraction, expensive, dangerous, and results in unaccountable pollution risk.

Regarding renewable energy use:

1. There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.
2. When the real cost of fossil fuel and nuclear energy is taken into consideration, renewable energy is less expensive and vastly less destructive and resource intensive.
3. From a geo-political perspective, renewable energy offers self-reliance which reduces tendencies toward warfare over energy resources.
4. Included on the renewable energy ledger must be energy conservation, which is the expenditure of money toward reducing the need for energy.
5. Predictable technology advances will continue to promote the use of renewable energy over fossil fuels.

Thanks.

Well, your general un-cited opinions which don’t even speak from any claimed authority certainly have convinced me… :dubious:

[Chief_Pedant]

@jzj1

Regarding renewable energy use:

1. There are sufficient renewable energy sources to provide all the planet’s energy needs many times over.
2. When the real cost of fossil fuel and nuclear energy is taken into consideration, renewable energy is less expensive and vastly less destructive and resource intensive.
3. From a geo-political perspective, renewable energy offers self-reliance which reduces tendencies toward warfare over energy resources.
4. Included on the renewable energy ledger must be energy conservation, which is the expenditure of money toward reducing the need for energy.
5. Predictable technology advances will continue to promote the use of renewable energy over fossil fuels.

Thanks.

If we all worked equally hard, shared equally well, and sacrificed equally earnestly, the world would be a utopia.

What you are missing with this pollyanna list–even if it were correct–is execution.
Right now we are all going to put our immediate interests above some future interest. We do this with money (borrowing from our children to pay for government now) and we do it with resources.

Assigning “the real cost” of fossil fuels is meaningless unless the vast majority of us not only accept those numbers but agree to pay them. This will not happen.

What will happen is that the population will continue to expand and nearly all of them will continue to make decisions that are in the best interest of their immediate future.

If you love renewables, one approach would be to show remarkable success in driving renewable energy solutions. Get them approved for My Back Yard and get them commercially viable.

But even then, I suspect that all that will happen is that we’ll add them to the other available energy and all try to live even better. With the population that’s coming online and with the fundamental human drive to live better, we’ll use up every watt of energy from every source and keep driving up the average standard. of living. It’s not like renewable energy will actually decrease use of fossil fuels…

The conversation is about to shift from “avoid global warming” to “how to live with global warming.”

[Martin_Hyde]

@Madman2001

Biomass? Oh, please. Crops? The energy used to produce ethanol is greater than the energy produced.

Most of your points are spot on, but this one actually is not. I’m not quite sure where this idea came from, but it’s not really true.

I’ve posted these cites before in another thread, but basically it’s completely false that in general biomass uses more energy as input than it pulls back out as ethanol.

Large National Geographic Feature, with lots of graphs, interactive charts etc. It shows that for example ethanol produced from sugarcane in Brazil produces 8 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy used in its production.

New York Times article that mentions the 8.3 units of energy for every 1 unit of energy input for sugarcane ethanol.

This World Bank review of renewable energy sources cites the energy ratios around page 28-29.

Sugarcane is one of the better ratios, but even corn is still a net positive, producing 1.3 units of energy for every 1 unit input.

[EmAnJ]

To address some to the statements made related to the process of fracking and water use:

Hydraulic fracturing first started being used commercially in the 1940’s. It is not a ‘new’ technology developed for shale gas. It’s the combination of hydraulic fracturing, high volumes of water use, slick water, and high pressure, that is ‘new’. Cite.

There are new processes, including gas frac, that have been/are being developed to reduce water use. The issues with gas frac are primarily safety - there is a high risk of explosion. Safety pretty much always trumps environment. Companies are working to make it a safer technology, and in most cases want gas frac to work. It’s cheaper, less impact on the environment (yes, companies do work towards minimizing impact, at least in Canada), and studies are showing that recovery is slightly higher.

The flowback rate is not a standard 95%, it varies by formation. For instance, right now in the Duvernay, we’re seeing flowback rates of between 16% and 20%.

Flowback recycling technologies are being developed. There are multiple considerations when working with recycled flowback (and saline sources or produced water) as compatibility with the formation it essential. That said, we’re getting closer to being able to perform 100% reuse on all flowback, and it’s getting more affordable.

One key consideration when discussing the potential for groundwater contamination in shale gas hydraulic fracturing is the location. Not all shale is the same. In New Brunswick, the overlaying formations are highly fractured themselves, leading to a higher risk of migration. In the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, the overlaying formations are other shales, sandstones, etc. and are tight rocks. Two completely different scenarios with a different level of risk.

Yes, induced seismicity is occurring in many places. More study needs to be done. Here’s one from the Horn River Basin in NE British Columbia: Cite.

[Ruken]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Don’t we export a lot of the coal now?

Absolutely. ~100 million short tons per year. Used to be half that. And that does offset some decreased domestic use, but production is still down.

Any of you who really like tables of data should check out the EIA website.

[dzeiger]

One other thing with regards to location–at least in the Dallas area, a lot of the fracking wells that got put in were put in suburbs. I think most people normally think of oil fields being out on their own in the middle of nowhere, but I saw one story about the fracking debate in the suburb of Southlake where one homeowner in a subdivision was looking at a company putting in 21 wellheads all of 1200 feet from her back door.

Thinks like local groundwater or soil contamination are much bigger deals in a case like that than they are when the wells are in the middle of nowhere.

[Madman2001]

Martin Hyde, I will accept the energy-out/energy-ratio for ethanol (which you cited at roughly 8-to-1).

There are still a lot of reasons to dislike ethanol, but apparently the energy ratio is not one of them.

Thanks for the heads-up.
Madman2001

[oogabooga]

A while back someone stated that to supply (presumably Northern) US with wind turbine power would require 10 million turbines, and then asked if we have the technology to do that.

Of course you do! If you can build one, you can build 10 million. We didn’t go through the Industrial Revolution for nothing! The problem with these things is they require modern high tech materials like carbon fibre and nylon gears, which makes them expensive to make in the first place. Some of the richer countries like Denmark and Sweden have been able to build many of them, which are now supplying around 70% of their grid power, last I heard (there’s a lot of windmills in Denmark if you’ve never been there, and I’m not talking about the water dredging kind!).

Drilling fossil fuels, on the other hand is predominantly an older brute force technology. Lots of steel, explosives, a lot of workers, much waste, and a lot of deaths. It’s much cheaper, easier and profitable… at the moment.

The original Straight Dope article claimed that renewable resources even with nuclear power wouldn’t be enough, which is rubbish for two reasons:

1. Nuclear power isn’t renewable - it uses a finite resource and creates a waste product, something my country is profiting from significantly by being paid to bury it in our vast desert (thanks for the business). It’ll be the same fossil fuel debacle all over again in 10 millennia or so. This misnomer must stop now.

2. Again, if you can build one nuclear plant, you can build 10 million. Like all advanced technology, it costs alot to make. France, for example, very nearly exclusively powers itself with nuclear plants.

The problem here is really that some stubborn, rich, and short-sighted people are terrified of advancing, because it might cost them some money in the short term and they seem completely incapable of looking beyond their own lifespan.

The thing that seems to be lost on everyone is that proper renewable power costs almost nothing to run. Only maintenance. It’s basically energy for free (solar, hydroelectric, bla bla, all of it comes from the sun, ultimately). It’s not capable of producing huge amounts from one spot, and costs a lot to setup, but consider they could be selling that “nothing” for exhorbitant prices right now if they bothered. Or they could have. If they had started 20 years ago, and be raking in money while sitting on their arses now that the initial setup cost would have been paid off.
Wait, isn’t that what the Danish power company is doing now? One of the richest countries in the world per capita at the moment.

[Mattias]

September 26th, 2013: All member accounts have been transferred over to our new system. Please report errors to Support.
VoyForums

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 08:19:52 01/27/13 Sun
Author: Mimi
Subject: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS

IT REALLY WORKS-IT’S NOT A SCAM – YOU NEED $6 / TIME / A COMPUTER

!!!QUICK MONEY!!! – FAST CASH
At first I thought this was too good to be true, how wrong I was!! I decided to give it a go, it was only 6 dollars so why not? Well I was astounded!! Money has, and still is coming to my account.

Ok this is all you need:

1. An email address
2. A PayPal account
3. then POST,POST,POST,POST,POST,POST,…

Only hours after implementing this exact system I about fell out of my chair as money ACTUALLY started rolling in. I couldn’t believe it and for that reason, I became a believer in this system.?

WHAT IS IT?
The idea is that of a system that takes advantage of the power of compounding. And in a big way, let me tell you. First and foremost understand that there are countless spin-offs of this system that try to make a “quick buck” off of people. Long lists, the 5 & 10 dollar trees, the birthday systems, etc… Those spin-offs do make money because of the ease of implementation of this idea, but they do NOT use the compounding advantage. This system is THE legit and profitable one.

HERE IS HOW IT WORKS…
There is a list of 6 email addresses (you’ll see it as you read further). Each of these people has already taken part in this system.

When someone new comes along (such as yourself) he/she removes #1 off of the list, moves the other five email addresses up one position (i.e. #6 goes to #5, #5 to #4, etc.), and adds their PayPal email address in the 6 position.

This process is what develops the power of compounding.

The bottom line is this… Honesty and Integrity creates Profitability.
Following this EXACT process is what creates the money, and that is why this system has been raved about in the Altering the system creates weak results. The legality of this system comes from the idea that you are of course creating a mailing list, and a “service” is being provided (more on that later.) Now on to how your message creates BIG money…

INSTRUCTIONS:

STEP 1:
The first thing to do COPY, PASTE and SAVE this entire post in word or notepad on your computer so you can come back to it later.

After that, if you are not already a PayPal user you need to go to the PayPal website at https://www.paypal.com/ and SIGN UP.

To receive credit card payments from other people you must sign up for a PREMIER or BUSINESS account (not just a PERSONAL account). This is highly recommended to allow others easy payment options.

To place the initial $6 into your account, you will have to verify your bank account with PAYPAL (which may take a few days).

PAYPAL is 100% secure and is used by millions of people worldwide.

STEP 2:
Here is where the action occurs. Then next send a $1.00 payment to each of the 6 email addresses on the current list from your PayPal account. To do this quickly and successfully, follow these simple steps:

1. Login to PayPal and click the “Send Money” tab near top of screen
2. In the “Recipient’s Email” field type: the email address
3. In the “Amount” field type: “1” (your $1.00 payment)
4. In the “Category” field select: “Service” (Keeping it legal)
5. In the “subject” field type: “EMAIL LIST”,
6. In the “message” field type: “PLEASE PUT ME ON YOUR EMAIL LIST”.
   (By doing this, you are creating a service and maintaining the legality of the system by “paying” for the service. )
7. Finally, click on the “Continue” button to complete the payment.
8. Repeat these steps for each of the 6 email addresses. that’s it!

(By sending the $1.00 payment to each address, you are implementing
the compounding POWER of the system. You will reap what you sow! )

Here is the current e-mail list:

1. fathe_byl@yahoo.com
2. armoedz@gmail.com
3. ibez@bigpond.com
4. lawrence.a.spann@gmail.com
5. melsott@hotmail.com
6. mattias__ohlin@hotmail.se

STEP 3:
Now take the 1st email off of the list that you see above (from your saved file), Move the other addresses up (6 becomes 5, 5 becomes 4, etc.) and add YOUR email address (the one used for your PayPal account) as number 6 on the list. This is the only part of the document that should be changed.
** Make sure to use the email address you registered with PayPal **

STEP 4 now post new file created in STEP 3 to at least 200 newsgroups or message boards. Keep in mind that there are tens of thousands of groups online!
All you need is 200, but remember the more you post the more money you make - as well as everyone else on the list!

I’ve began to see money roll in before I even hit 100 posts, but try to hit around 200 to allow maximum exposure. Use Netscape, Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, or whatever your internet browser is to search for various news groups, on-line forums, message boards, bulletin boards, chat sites, iscussions, discussion groups, on-line communities, etc.

For example?

Log on to any search engine like yahoo.com or google.com and type in a subject like ‘MILLIONAIRE MESSAGE BOARD’,MONEY MAKING DISCUSSIONS’, ‘MONEY MAKING FORUMS’, or ‘BUSINESS MESSAGE BOARD’, etc. You will find thousands and thousands of message boards. Click them one by one and you will find the option to post a new message. Fill in the subject which will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a particular group, and post the article with the NEW list of email addresses included. THAT’S IT!!! All you have to do is jump to different newsgroups and post away. After you get the hang of it, it will take about 30 seconds for each newsgroup.

HOW THE MONEY WORKS
:
When you post 200 messages in various forums, it is estimated that at LEAST 15 people will respond and send you a $1.00 ($15.00). Those 15 will Post 200 Posts each and 225 people send you $1.00
($225.00), etc. through 6 levels of email addresses. For comprehension purposes, here is an easy viewing chart:

1. 15(1) = 15 people ($1) = $15
2. 15(15) = 225 people ($1) = $225
3. 15(225) = 3375 people ($1) = $3375
4. 15(3375) = 50625 people ($1) = $50625
5. 15(50625) = 759375 people ($1) = $759375

As you can see, your message has multiplied exponentially. What other opportunity that is as simple as this can cash in the way this can?! I’m not going to say this is going to make everyone over $800,000, but within a few WEEKS you begin to see results, thanks to the speed of the internet!

When your name is no longer on the list, take the latest posting in the newsgroups and begin the process again. Simply amazing…Follow the system as described, and enjoy your PROFITS!!!

REMEMBER… HONESTY AND INTEGRITY = PROFITABILITY YOUR NAME COULD CYCLE FOR A LONG TIME!

Good luck!

HOW TO POST TO NEWS GROUPS?
Use Netscape or Internet Explorer and try searching for various newsgroups (on-line forums, message boards, chat sites, discussions.)

Log on any search engine like yahoo.com, google.com, altavista.com, excite.com, etc. Search with the subject "millionaire message board; or; money making message board; or; employment message board; or making money discussions; or; money making forum; or; business message board; etc. You will find thousands & thousands of message boards.

Click on them one by one and you will find the option ‘post a new message’.

Then Post this article as a ‘new message’ by highlighting the text of this letter and selecting copy then paste from the edit menu.

Fill in the Subject, this will be the header that everyone sees as they scroll through the list of postings in a particular group, click the post message button.

You’re done with your first one! It only takes about 60 seconds to complete postings on message boards
after you catch on.

REMEMBER, THE MORE NEWSGROUPS YOU POST IN, THE MORE MONEY YOU WILL MAKE!! !!!GOOD LUCK!!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – THABI LINDIWE MOHANOE (sad), 00:43:50 05/21/13 Tue
Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – ALBIN, 00:15:54 06/27/13 Thu
Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – jutt sohail (sad), 07:52:45 09/27/13 Fri
Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – Lolla, 14:55:33 07/31/13 Wed
Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – john (hi every one iam very happy), 09:35:04 09/21/13 Sat
hi – john (happy), 09:36:33 09/21/13 Sat
Re: hi – john (happy), 09:38:12 09/21/13 Sat
Re: CASH INTO YOUR PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH JUST A FEW CLICKS – ello jackson, 14:45:59 09/24/13 Tue
Making MONEY MONEY – Ello jackson (happy), 01:20:37 09/25/13 Wed
[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message

• HTML allowed in marked fields.
  Message subject (required):

Name (required):
Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)
E-mail address (optional):

• Type your message here:

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums™ is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.

[EmAnJ]

I pretty much agree with everything oogabooga said, especially the fact that humans, in general, can’t think beyond their lifetime (in fact, it’s usually only about 10 to 20 years ahead). Our government and political structure doesn’t help this.

For information on what is coming with nuclear power, you can check out the World Nuclear Association’s Small Nuclear Reactor page. Of most interest is the development of small (around 6 feet square in some cases) reactors that last around 30 years, are buried underground, require no maintenance, and will power 50,000 to 100,000 homes. Of course there are other issues to deal with, including the waste generation and the underground heat effects, but it’s a very interesting option.

Here is an interesting image showing how much surface area of the world would be required to power the world with solar energy (I haven’t checked this person’s math, however): Surface Area Required to Power the Globe.

Half of Northern Germany’s power comes from renewables. They started this transition 25 years ago and admit it’s been tough, but are successfully moving to decentralized power generation (many of the windmills are owned by rural residents, who are making money off of them) and renewable energies.

So yes, it’s possible to move to renewables. It would be very difficult, and our social norms would have to significantly change (which happened pretty quickly in Northern Germany, interestingly), but it’s possible.

[qazwart]

My whole problem with fracking is the money involves just blinds everyone to any possible problems. I know a few people in New York and Pennsylvania who, after years of being struggling farmers are now making millions. They think fracking is wonderful.

The county where they live, which has cut services to the bone due to lack of revenue and now finds itself swimming in money thinks fracking is great.

The people who were unemployed or underemployed because the manufacturing jobs left a long time ago, and now have high paying jobs think fracking is amazing.

The states of New York and Pennsylvania who now can count on tax revenue on the gas that fracking provides to fill their coffers without raising tax revenue just adore fracking.

And, we’re not even talking about the companies that are extracting the stuff and making their own little mint. Most of these drilling companies are independent operators who think they’ve found their economic nirvana with dreams of becoming the next Rockefeller.

This whole thing reminds me of a quote from the movie The Big Fix:

Do you know why being a revolutionary doesn’t work in this country? Being a revolutionary in America is like being a spoil sport at an orgy. All these goodies being passed around and you feel like a shit when you say no.

[chorpler]

@EmAnJ

So yes, it’s possible to move to renewables. It would be very difficult, and our social norms would have to significantly change (which happened pretty quickly in Northern Germany, interestingly), but it’s possible.

Could you expand on what kind of social norms would have to change? Does that mean things like driving personal vehicles and the like?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Powers

To be fair, jzj1 said “energy sources” not “energy production”. I assume jzj1 was referring to the total potential capacity of such production, not current capacity.

Yeah, I suppose if we created Dyson sphere, we could capture enough solar energy to send someone to Alpha Centauri using laser propulsion but right now it is not economically feasible to generate any significant portion of our power from renewables, right? Maybe someday, but not now and this juvenile insistence that we either torpedo our economy or live more like the Amish is not productive at all.

I just saw a 16 year old kid that discovered how to detect cancer for $0.03. Maybe someone will make a breakthrough and figure out how to make dilithium anti-matter reactors or something but lets not all sit in sackcloth waiting for that to happen.

@Martin_Hyde

it’s completely false that in general biomass uses more energy as input than it pulls back out as ethanol.
…
Sugarcane is one of the better ratios, but even corn is still a net positive, producing 1.3 units of energy for every 1 unit input.

WHAT!?!?!!! Seeriously?!!! WTF!!! Why are we even bothering with this stuff? I’d rather have cheap corn for the barbecue and livestock feed than get a 30% return on energy used. This is fucking outrageous, I’d rather put a fucking solar panel on the hood of my car.

@oogabooga

1. Nuclear power isn’t renewable - it uses a finite resource and creates a waste product, something my country is profiting from significantly by being paid to bury it in our vast desert (thanks for the business). It’ll be the same fossil fuel debacle all over again in 10 millennia or so. This misnomer must stop now.

We went from wood to coal to oil to gas in under 200 years. Why wouldn’t we move on to something else besides nuclear in 10,000 years?

2. Again, if you can build one nuclear plant, you can build 10 million. Like all advanced technology, it costs alot to make. France, for example, very nearly exclusively powers itself with nuclear plants.

They also power places like Austria through their grid.

The thing that seems to be lost on everyone is that proper renewable power costs almost nothing to run. Only maintenance.

Are you under the impression that solar panels have an infinite useful life? I think the ones we have today only last about 15 years. So once you amortize the cost of the panels over that time, solar is waaaay more expensive than gas/coal/nuclear. I’m not sure what the deal is with wind but I don’t think they’re made of unobtainium either.

@EmAnJ

Half of Northern Germany’s power comes from renewables. They started this transition 25 years ago and admit it’s been tough, but are successfully moving to decentralized power generation (many of the windmills are owned by rural residents, who are making money off of them) and renewable energies.

Germany has HUGE subsidies for this stuff. The actual cost of their electricity is far higher than ours. And the rural windmill farmers wouldn’t make a dime without those subsidies.

So yes, it’s possible to move to renewables. It would be very difficult, and our social norms would have to significantly change (which happened pretty quickly in Northern Germany, interestingly), but it’s possible.

Not on an economic basis it isn’t.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Damuri_Ajashi

WHAT!?!?!!! Seeriously?!!! WTF!!! Why are we even bothering with this stuff? I’d rather have cheap corn for the barbecue and livestock feed than get a 30% return on energy used. This is fucking outrageous, I’d rather put a fucking solar panel on the hood of my car.

Largely political machinations have caused this. Aside from a limited amount of specialty applications I don’t think we’d be producing a lot of corn ethanol without subsidies and special treatment. Producers respond to subsidies.

[tracer]

@Martin_Hyde

I’m not quite sure where this idea came from,

Probably from this Cecil Adams article.

Or perhaps its follow-up.

[tracer]

@oogabooga

1. Nuclear power isn’t renewable - it uses a finite resource and creates a waste product, something my country is profiting from significantly by being paid to bury it in our vast desert (thanks for the business). It’ll be the same fossil fuel debacle all over again in 10 millennia or so. This misnomer must stop now.

You might want to see Cecil Adams’s 1982 article on nuclear waste.

Upshot: The waste we’re burying out in the desert is low-level nuclear waste – that is, normal items that have become contaminated with radioactivity, either by picking up trace amounts of radioactive dust or by neutron activation. Spent nuclear fuel is high-level radioactive waste, and that stuff is stored on-site at the power plant that produced it, usually in a giant swimming pool.

While nuclear energy isn’t renewable, there are reactor designs out there which are over 50 times as efficient as the light-water reactors currently in use. If we’d get over our skittishness about breeder reactors, there’s enough uranium and thorium in the Earth’s crust to provide electric power at current worldwide usage levels for several million years.