I'm not, just pointing out we've barely spent anything on renewable technology.FEOS wrote:
If you don't see the problem, what are you grousing about?Dilbert_X wrote:
It doesn't, and a lot of the spending on renewables is by private companies so I don't see the problem.
And again, nine digits per year and climbing is hardly "barely spending anything."Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm not, just pointing out we've barely spent anything on renewable technology.FEOS wrote:
If you don't see the problem, what are you grousing about?Dilbert_X wrote:
It doesn't, and a lot of the spending on renewables is by private companies so I don't see the problem.
NYTimes wrote:
Others think the government is not doing enough to encourage research and development — at least the right kind.
Government subsidies for developing clean energy technology are inefficient and favor the wrong kind of investments, said Jim Nelson, a former private equity investor and the chief executive of Solar 3D, an alternative energy company that is backed by a number of individual investors and produces a new kind of solar chip that aims to maximize the amount of energy it pulls from the sun. “We have a great government system, but they get confused by accomplishing objectives versus getting re-elected,” Mr. Nelson said.
Mr. Nelson said, for instance, that solar energy provides less than 1 percent of all the energy in the world, but accounts for around 50 percent of government renewable energy financing. The problem, he argued, is that the government is backing technologies that are too expensive or inefficient to be widely adopted. That, he said, creates a sinkhole for government dollars.
fixedDilbert_X wrote:
They should just apply a carbon tax and let the market decide.
Inefficient? Are you sure you have an engineering background? You make a lot of false statements based on nothing for someone who claims the background...Dilbert_X wrote:
Long term energy policy of a nation is too big a problem to leave to corporations.
Its why you have inefficient, dirty coal plants and are dependent on imported oil to run an inefficient country.
Its far too big a problem to leave to the government hence why the UK is in the situation we are. It was deemed to unpopular for politicians to replace the aging Nuclear plants so they didn't. Instead we are stretching the design life of the current plants and rushing to build their replacements before we have a power shortage.Dilbert_X wrote:
Long term energy policy of a nation is too big a problem to leave to corporations.
Its why you have inefficient, dirty coal plants and are dependent on imported oil to run an inefficient country.
That's just Dilbert. Prone to fits of hyperbole...Jay wrote:
Inefficient? Are you sure you have an engineering background? You make a lot of false statements based on nothing for someone who claims the background...Dilbert_X wrote:
Long term energy policy of a nation is too big a problem to leave to corporations.
Its why you have inefficient, dirty coal plants and are dependent on imported oil to run an inefficient country.
As I understand the US is still running many ancient (40-50 years old), dirty, low efficiency, coal fired plants - which are limping merrily on as they've been grandfathered.Jay wrote:
Inefficient? Are you sure you have an engineering background? You make a lot of false statements based on nothing for someone who claims the background...Dilbert_X wrote:
Long term energy policy of a nation is too big a problem to leave to corporations.
Its why you have inefficient, dirty coal plants and are dependent on imported oil to run an inefficient country.
So in the interests of the sustainable environment etc, how often should perfectly acceptable power stations be pulled down and replaced with a brand new one? Forgive me If I am wrong but I cant imagine the emissions savings justify the demolition and reconstruction / manufacture of all the materials required for a new plant.Dilbert_X wrote:
As I understand the US is still running many ancient (40-50 years old), dirty, low efficiency, coal fired plants - which are limping merrily on as they've been grandfathered.Jay wrote:
Inefficient? Are you sure you have an engineering background? You make a lot of false statements based on nothing for someone who claims the background...Dilbert_X wrote:
Long term energy policy of a nation is too big a problem to leave to corporations.
Its why you have inefficient, dirty coal plants and are dependent on imported oil to run an inefficient country.
You'd know things like this if you did some reading.
And you've missed the point. The calculations are not trivial. At all. At least not from the perspective of finding all of the sources of pollution that you are using by creating "green" energy. That's the problem with all of this. People have blinders on when it comes to the true monetary and environmental costs of "green" tech. The burden of production is often overlooked/underestimated in the O-face of post-production savings. Then there's disposal burden/costs that aren't bothered with, as well...Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course, the calculations are trivial and boil down to the monetary cost - apart for emissions which are free at present.
If those pushing green tech aren't taking emissions into account, then they are failing, prima facie.Dilbert_X wrote:
As I said, apart from emissions... which aren't currently factored into the calculations for traditional power either - people have blinders on for that too.
The monetary side is simple however.
When one is making an argument for green energy, if the argument doesn't involve both emissions (total emissions) and money, then it's a fail from the start...which is a major reason why the arguments haven't been compelling to date: they are incomplete.Dilbert_X wrote:
In terms of energy cost it boils down to the money.
Until someone comes up with a 'cost' for pumping CO2, SO2, Mercury and other pollutants into the environment then there's not much to discuss.
It would be pretty hard to come up with any alternative green tech which failed as badly as a 50 year old coal plant TBH.
Money? It boils down to money? If we threw enough money into production all the other myriad problems would melt away? Energy storage would fix itself? Transmission would fix itself? Costs would come down? What kind of retarded monkey are you?Dilbert_X wrote:
In terms of energy cost it boils down to the money.
Until someone comes up with a 'cost' for pumping CO2, SO2, Mercury and other pollutants into the environment then there's not much to discuss.
It would be pretty hard to come up with any alternative green tech which failed as badly as a 50 year old coal plant TBH.
Fixed. As I said at the top of this thread solar is purely a WIP/R&D option right now.Jay wrote:
Money? It boils down to money? If we threw enough money into production all the other myriad problems would melt away? Energy storage would fix itself? Transmission would fix itself? Costs would come down? What kind of retarded monkey are you?Dilbert_X wrote:
In terms of energy cost it boils down to the money.
Until someone comes up with a 'cost' for pumping CO2, SO2, Mercury and other pollutants into the environment then there's not much to discuss.
It would be pretty hard to come up with any alternative green tech which failed as badly as a 50 year old coal plant TBH.
That 50 year old coal plant still has an efficiency rating of over 40%. You should know what that means, for every kg of coal burned, 40-45% of that energy is converted into electricity. The steam turbine can not be replaced by tens to hundreds of thousands of square miles of solar panels, sorry.
You don't seem to understand or care that the quality of life experienced by everyone on the planet is in direct correlation to the amount of electricity they have and the efficiency with which it is produced. Everything about our daily lives is governed by access to energy. You would ask us to dump money into less efficient products so you can feel better about yourself. Well fuck you! I'll never willingly lower my quality of life just so you can have more kangaroos to look at on tv.
Your arguments fail because you're asking people to slit their own throat. Moron.
No it doesn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends how you cost the emissions, how the new plant is built, etc.
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-16 08:28:58)
It scares morons. People would rather unknowingly breath the shit from a coal plant than deal with a accident every decade or so.Stimey wrote:
So why aren't we using nuclear again?
