Biofuels and other alternative energy sources

[AFPheonix]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...enewableenergy

Studies now suggest that using more corn for ethanol has jacked up food prices around the world by 75%, driving 100 million people below the poverty line.
But not all biofuels have been responsible for this sudden rise. For example, fuels produced from sugar cane in Brazil has had a negligible effect on food prices.

We need to have a better energy plan than this. The ones we have now only line the pockets of wealthy lobbyists and crap all over poor people the world around.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...813954,00.html
Solar is coming along really well. We're on the threshold of $1 per watt production from new cells. Nuclear energy is another option worth looking into, I think.

What are your opinions?

[protege]

Nuclear energy will probably never happen. Too many people go "O NOEZ" over the plants because of Chernobyl, and 3 Mile Island. Even though the radiation released at TMI was a seriously tiny amount (from what I understand, the average person is exposed to more radiation on a daily basis than the amount from TMI...), and Chernobyl was because of human error. Those fools *disabled* their safety mechanisms while running a test!

There are a few nuke plants here in PA--Beaver Valley (34 miles north of Pittsburgh), TMI, and Peach Bottom (near Harrisburg). Except for the TMI accident, none of the other plants have had problems.

We need to do *something* in this country. Oil prices aren't coming down any time soon, so I'm all for solar and nuclear power. Hell, if I could afford to, I'd put solar panels on my roof!

[Boozy]

Solar energy kicks ass. When it was first introduced as an option for personal home energy, it wasn't very efficient or reliable. It has since come a long way.

My husband and I will be building a home in the next few years, and we did some math. Investing in solar panels will cost us about $8000, but will provide us with enough energy for ourselves and any children we may have. The panels will last about 25-30 years. It's a lot of money off the top, but it will pay for itself over time. Hydro bills aren't likely to get any cheaper.

I am not as well-versed in solar energy for commercial or industrial use.

[the_std]

What about snow affecting solar panels? I live in the prairies of Canada and we have snow on an average of seven out of twelve months of the year. It wouldn't be very efficient to have to go sweep snow off of the panels twice a day, plus, aren't they rather delicate?

[Rapscallion]

I'm interested in wind power, as well as solar. It depends - when I can knock enough lumps off my mortgage, I'm going to start looking seriously at what I can do to reduce my carbon footprint. I don't have a huge footprint - single bloke, not much in the way of heating needs etc - but I'd like to reduce it further.

Rapscallion

[BlaqueKatt]

Solar is coming along really well. We're on the threshold of $1 per watt production from new cells. Nuclear energy is another option worth looking into, I think.

france uses exclusively nuclear energy, canada has quite a few as well(france actually sells excess energy) and pebble bed reactors make any kind of meltdown physically impossible-but your "environmental lobby" causes panic anytime the thought or suggestion of a new plant is mentioned-they point to the old outdated plants as "proof" they aren't safe.

And as far as the $1 per watt production for solar-not quite....it is HEAVILY subsidised by your tax dollars.
article on government subsidies for power to have an even price from the wall street journal here

For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation.

[Boozy]

What about snow affecting solar panels? I live in the prairies of Canada and we have snow on an average of seven out of twelve months of the year. It wouldn't be very efficient to have to go sweep snow off of the panels twice a day, plus, aren't they rather delicate?

Solar panels are hot, angled, and slippery. Snow doesn't generally stick. However, if there is very heavy snowfall over the course of several days, you'll notice some loss of power. Most of the time you'll have enough energy "banked" to get you through.

However, if I lived on the prairies, I wouldn't go solar. I'd use wind power. One rooftop windmill will cost about the same as outfitting your home with panels, and with the prairie winds, you'd get way more power.

It would just be a matter of getting the building permits, and that's not so easy for suburbanites or city dwellers.

[the_std]

Wow. That's pretty nifty, no doubt about it. If I lived out in the country, I'd be on that in a flash. But, in the city, we don't get as much wind as they do out of it. That is, however, like saying that there's less water at the top of the ocean than there is at the bottom.

[AFPheonix]

france uses exclusively nuclear energy, canada has quite a few as well(france actually sells excess energy) and pebble bed reactors make any kind of meltdown physically impossible-but your "environmental lobby" causes panic anytime the thought or suggestion of a new plant is mentioned-they point to the old outdated plants as "proof" they aren't safe.

And as far as the $1 per watt production for solar-not quite....it is HEAVILY subsidised by your tax dollars.
article on government subsidies for power to have an even price from the wall street journal here

For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.

The wind and solar lobbies are currently moaning that they don't get their fair share of the subsidy pie. They also argue that subsidies per unit of energy are always higher at an early stage of development, before innovation makes large-scale production possible. But wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years, and they still account for less than 1% of total net electricity generation.

True, although solar energy has just experienced a breakthrough recently as was pointed out in my link, making it far cheaper and easier to manufacture. I still think wind and solar have a place in a multilateral approach to energy production. I would like to see more nuclear production as it is far safer than it ever has been before and is cheap and clean.

How about this? I actually just came across this today:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003...-Oil1may03.htm
While it would still have the pitfalls of burning oil, namely pollution, it takes care of waste issues, seems like it would be pretty inexpensive once it got off the ground, and not to difficult to implement in a lot of places. What do you think of the viability of this technology?

[Slytovhand]

APF - I loved the article on Thermal Depolymerization - though I did note that it was from '03. I did a quick search and wiki reckons not much has happened since... It would be nice to see some more detail (and it reminds me of Star Trek - now all you have to do is make it smaller, and have it throw stuff out on a nice little plate or cup "Tea... Earl Grey... hot" )

And if it works that well, then it should be all over the planet to reduce land fill, and stop having to pull up more crap from the planet... and certainly down here, I would think the water could be used in agriculture, as we're experiencing major water issues - and agriculture is the biggest problem.

Realisitically - the issues (all combined) need to be put into practice in a combined manner - solar operating with wind. Cut down on waste, as well as what you produce gets worked on (as in TD), while driving your hydrogen fuel-celled car, as the bio-diesel truck rolls past. No single way will do it alone.

[Difdi]

Interesting science exercise: Take a geiger counter and compare the readings near a coal plant ("clean" or old style) to a nuclear power plant. If you think nuclear power plants emit dangerous radiation, the results will astound you.

The cleanest coal plant is far hotter than three mile island ever was. And if you total all the coal plants in the United States, the result is hotter than Chernobyl.

[tyr]

http://www.globalresourcecorp.com/ This machine has a working prototype i have some friends who have invested in it and from what they have told me this could very well save are ass here in the near future ill let the site talk for me but I have high hopes of it.