Green Energy is a giant crock of sh...

Very interesting Doc Man. I had never heard of anything along the lines of taking "power" out of the wind via a wind turbine. Do you have any recommended sources for more information on this? Sounds quite fascinating.
 
The_Doc_Man said:
When you take energy out of flowing water, for example, you use gravity to provide the energy to pull water through generators. That potential energy due to the height of the water is what actually drives the generators. But in every dam site I've heard about, the moment you dam up that water, folks downstream demand you send them the water.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm abit confused here. Why is it potential energy that drives the generator? Isn't it just newtons laws of motion?
 
Why is it potential energy that drives the generator?
Click to expand...

It is the same principal as to what keeps a roller coaster going around the track.
There is an initial input of energy as the car is taken up the hill. At the top of the hill you have the mass of the car multiplied by it's height..and something else.. i believe there is a coefcient in there for gravity of 9.something.. (it's been a while since physics class)

At that moment at the very top, you can calculate how much energy is stored within that car. And that gives use the ability to know if it will make it around the track..
Newton just stated that something in motion wants to stay in motion.

Doc Man made some Excellent points, I was trying to think of a way to get the "Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed but only transfered" but i couldn't think how to illustrate the point! thank you!!
 
We should make use of all our technology where appropriate ( or we think so at the time)
Different locations around the world have different ways to generate energy.

Here in Papua New Guinea we nearly all use solar hot water (full time, no electric booster) Maybe not so easy in Scotland.

We have remote places that it surely can be argued that solar and or wind is the best way as apart from both being available around the country, the cost (all respects) of getting mains energy to these places is prohibitive. Again, not the same for developed countries.
Some countries have abundant hydro energy yet generate fossil fuel power. This surely must change and then the countries that have no choice are left with the "dirty" option.

My point is not to pretend I have all the knowledge and I know the experts don't but I believe we should use the best method available for each location.

Think of Australia and imagine if all house roofs have solar hot water and pv panels how much energy would be produced.

Some ten years ago I heard where a paint had been developed that acted as a pv collector - where is this now??

Until we really start using some of these other methods they will not be able to improve enough to overcome the faults they sometimes have.

Not many years ago if we wanted energy all we did was build another power station. That thinking has changed forever now and new methods are regularly found to generate power.
 
No, I respectfully Disagree with PNGBill.
Yes some green power options do make SOME sense, in some locations, but more as a conservative method than as a means of power generation. geothermal is a very interesting means of energy capture because it is much more consistant.. but all forms of energy are not created equal.

Back to my original point that started all of this.. There is better things to spend our money on.. inefficient is inefficient. And currently, green power technologies are not practicle on large scales. Power is not stored, it's made and used or it's gone.. wind and solar are not practicle for anything beyond making is more efficient. But in order to be more efficient it has to be cheaper than creating new energy.

If it was cheaper to buy new clothes than Wash old ones, you would just throw away your clothes and buy new ones all the time. And there would be a reason for it. perhaps the production of clothing material and clothes would be cheaper than the production of soap and the cost of water...

Its a matter of using all our resources efficiently. currently, Nuclear is probably our most efficient.. Then it's a matter of getting better insulation, better bulbs, better applicances... using less.
At the same time research should be done on better ways to STORE energy, which would then make some green energy more practicle. Research should be done to increase efficiency of photovoltaic cells and wind turbines..

My general point is that the Green power options right now are just not practical or efficient enough to justify their complete cost.
 
Rich said:
Surely it has an uphill battle with friction
Click to expand...

lol yes rich. Thankfully friction does exist giving our cars and trucks and bikes the ability to turn, and stop. :)

As an interesting side note completely unrelated... (Anyone notice that Rich seems to be in someway or another always involved in tangents? lol)
If the world had gravity, but 0 friction.. we wouldn't be able to move without the assistance of rockets.. and even then, how would we hold onto them? It would be harder to hang onto than a bar of wet soap!
 
Last edited:
eer the folowing statment is rather well mad e-
"Power is not stored, it's made and used or it's gone.. "
however that not quite true
when there is a surplus of "power" this power is stored very effeciently -

what happens is that surplus power is used to pump water to the top of a hill (or pump water into a dam) this is later released to generate hydo power
so the hydro dams are in effect batteries

however the rest of the comments where spot on - make better use of the exisiting tech - but some locations are prime sites for certain "green" tech

Scotland for wind
Oz for solar - even if its just passive water heating

What freaks me out is that there should be solar water heating in all new builds in Spain Portugal - with the sun-these guys get this should reduce the requiremetns for water heating to almost nothing

another note solar pv panels this is slightly out of date but if we could get them to this stage then it becomes a viable solution to a large percentage of the population as roofs could be used to tap into this -
As of August 26, 2009 a world record efficiency level of 41.6% has been reached


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_module
 
I can't argue with most opinions except where there is end of option statement ie Green Power is Inefficient.

Most things we enjoy now were once Inefficient.

"And currently, green power technologies are not practicle on large scales"

Yes, but maybe they will one be practical if given the chance.

Our "dirty Power" has enjoyed many decades of tax payer funded support so why not give a bit of a chance to alternatives.

We have to be very careful where we think that a particular option just won't work and therefore should not be pursued. Many instances have shown this to be a dangerous road to travel.

Most remote power needs are basic and cover lighting plus limited radio and now mobile phone charging.
A pv small pv system costing USD1,000 can power a family for 5 years plus with no additional cost.
Cost to get mains power to them... most often in the millions and then they have a monthly power bill and lines maintenance issues plus the obligatory daily power outages that accompany developing country life.
After 5 years, you spend USD200 on replacement batteries (not sure what happened to the old ones:eek:) and you are good for the next 5 years.

I know this is of little concern to developed world people but as more then half the population is not living in such a place it certainly is relevant to them.

Green for Green sake is stupid and should be put out with the cat but so should thinking in the other extreme.

We also live in Raglan, NZ and recently a power company wanted to build a wind turbine farm on wind swept farm hills.
Objections came in thick and fast including:

Will harm some of my older patients who like to see the hills from their window and will now also see a wind generator - local doctor.
Noise from the turbine may effect the milk the cows are making and who knows what ailments we will get as a result - local artist.

The hills are not visible from any residential community, just off in the distance on a main road.

back to "efficient power"

If we paid the "true cost" of items then we well be able to make a better value judgment on our options.
eg, is the power you now used subsidised ?? does the cost include environment damage??

If the villager (above) has to be judged on the cost of his battery and what happens to the old one then why not the developed world resident also pay the "full" cost of their power??

Electricity in NZ is double, or more, then that or Australian consumers yet NZ has a higher proportion of renewable energy.
Is the reason Gov subsidy??
 
Just to add some complexity and fire to this topic. Its not simply a technological issue.

Population: If you "save" 10% by going green, but the population grows by 10% all that you have done is postpone the day of reckoning. Admittedly some areas, such as Europe have a declining population so in that sense, a real advantage can be achieved.

Third World Growth: Currently countries like the US use lots of resources to support our standard of living. So even if resource "hog" countries reduce their hogginess, the developing world will become increasingly hoggy in the use of resources to improve their standard of living.

Competing Uses: While this isn't really a "green" issue, we have increasingly competitive uses for land: residential development vs. farms, farms vs. habitat, resource production vs. residential development and so on. Some of the people off the coast of Massachusetts have objected to a proposed wind farm since it would spoil their coastal views.

Regulation: Think we are over-regulated now! Going green will involve a host of new regulations. Building codes that include energy saving features such as requirements for solar power. These regulations will be necessary. Unfortunately efforts to really apply "green" energy will be fought tooth and nail by people screaming about how their rights are being violated.

No Free Lunch: Every green program will have a downside. For example disposing nuclear waste. That has been a real fiasco here and points to the inability of our leadership to actually solve problems. Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. Ethanol was supposed to be a darling solution, the problems: producing ethanol was inefficient and ethanol turned out to be corrosive to pipes so it was expensive to transport. Here is a list of devices that still suck energy while turned "off" or are otherwise passively "on".
 
Last edited:
Before anyone thinks I'm a total whack-job on the subject, I wish to say that I am in favor of conserving energy as much as possible. My objection is more of a "truth in advertising, expose the hidden costs" issue. That's why my opening comment was that it was always a mistake to BLINDLY go "green."

Hadn't seen that article on 41% efficiency in solar power. However, it would have the effect of cutting my sizes in half for the solar-power discussion. Just remember, we can never get more than 6 watts per square meter ANYWHERE on Earth from solar at 100% efficiency and for a station inside the tropics. Even there, it would be seasonally reduced according to the effictive latitude with respect to the solar ecliptic.

Here's another gotcha. You know those lovely all-electric cars with the lithium ion batteries? They work great until the batteries finally degrade to the point of not holding a charge for longer than an hour or two. When you go to dispose of those batteries, they qualify as TOXIC WASTE! Look up what you have to pay for disposal of toxic waste products. Not cheap, and it has the same long-term storage requirements as some radioactives. (Except no radiation shielding.) The stuff can't be allowed to leak into the watershed.

One issue that must be considered is the cost of long-haul power transmission. From a business standpoint, having a lot of smaller, localized power generation facilities has a high overhead. Lots of managers and employees required. But when resistance of the long-haul copper lines is factored in, it might actually be a better business decision (in terms of deliverly of "product" with minimal "shrinkage" due to losses in transmission) to go back towards a more distributed power generation system.

Remember, resistance in a circuit is computed by intrinsic resistance times linear distance and I think there is an added factor due to the inverse frequency relationship of the implied RC and LC frequencies of any circuit. The bigger the circuit, the bigger the R and C, and I think the L factor goes up too. This is one of the reasons why Nikolas Tesla's generators were not efficient. Tesla's system was direct current, whereas Edison used alternating current. Tesla's long-haul lines suffered EMF losses due to LC and RC issues.

For the non-electrical engineers among you, circuits have inherent frequencies based on the Resistance-Capacitance - RC - or Inductance-Capacitance - LC - characteristics of the circuit. When you hear an electronics techie talking about "ringing" in a circuit, this comes from the LC and RC properties of said circuit forming the electronic equivalent of an acoustic resonator box on a guitar or violin.

As I mentioned earlier, just remember that the price you pay for going solar is the amount of square footage you must dedicate to capturing the rays.
 
Doc, as a sidebar since you come across as pretty well informed on the subject (or a damn good bluffer :p), what's your opinion on smaller-scale solar power? The reason I ask is that it's something I've been considering, should I be in a position to build my own house, in the next few years.
 
I know that 3 small 75wt solar panels with 4 x 80ah batteries along with a 550watt charge controller/ inverter provide enough power for a family of 8 to get their lighting, charge their mobile phones and radio batteries plus when we visit to run a small fan and most nights watch one movie on a 14" tv & DVD player. The inverter stops at 30% and restarts at 50% battery.
They are located just south of the equator = to Singapore which is just north of the equator. They have a reasonably high rainfall all year and live amongst some tree so do not get all day sun on the panels.
This small system gives them lighting that would otherwise only be available from kerosene lamps. Haven't thought about the saving in Kerosene but I believe it would amount to a fair bit over say 5 years.

Very sad that we have not advanced battery or alternative storage of energy as we have many other technologies when you consider Henry Ford's wife drove an electric car while he was busy manufacturing internal combustion driven cars for the masses.

If fossil fuel was a little less available back in the early 1900's maybe we would have traveled down a different road, so to speak.

Mini Hydro power is becoming popular in some areas but not all have availability of water head and of course mini wind turbines are very popular on yachts so I assume they do work and are affordable.

I must repeat that when we judge the true cost of one alternative we also must factor in the same for the comparison.
eg. the cost of disposing old batteries - yes but what of the cost of fossil fuel power generators emissions and even end of life decommissioning??

While Governments around the world keep subsidizing these businesses and having an ear to their issues, partly because they are a big employer and maybe, in some countries, they are contributors, when have we calculated the cleanup costs like we do for batteries??

Will carbon trading go someway towards this? but you hear of subsidies being used here so batteries will have to increase to cover disposal costs and carbon costs for manufacture but we still compare that to a subsidized coal/oil fired power station...

When Kevin Rudd was campaigning just before he became Australia's PM he visited a small solar energy business outside Canberra. Had a photo shot with the couple and their new baby and promised to make a difference with the clean energy issue that he accused John Howard of neglecting.
He may have had his environment spokesman with him, forget the name, Peter someone..

Shortly after gaining government they scrapped a scheme to subsidize the cost of installing solar power to houses and the reason given by Peter Garrett - remember his name now - was that it was too popular. What:eek:
Shortly after this the small business outside Canberra was again in the paper but this time, closing down - no sign of Kevin and Peter.

Some "experts" were saying that if Solar energy was given support they would employ a great number of people but, unlike traditional power suppliers, they do not have "one Voice" politically and often don't get the same ear of our leader that "dirty" power do.
 
PNGBill said:
Shortly after gaining government they scrapped a scheme to subsidize the cost of installing solar power to houses and the reason given by Peter Garrett - remember his name now - was that it was too popular. What:eek:
Shortly after this the small business outside Canberra was again in the paper but this time, closing down - no sign of Kevin and Peter.
Click to expand...

I have a small solar setup to run some amateur radio equipment. Anyway, the word "subsidies" should be viewed as a four letter expletive. Obama is pushing subsidies as a form of bread and circuses to buy votes.:mad:

The money for the subsidies comes from your tax dollars, it is not "free" money. Furthermore, subsidies also tend to inflate the cost of the products being purchased. Want to buy an unsubsidized $200 solar panel, well if you get a $20 subsidy, the producer can inflate the cost to $210. After all with the $20 subsidy you are still (wrongly) $10 ahead. Of course the money must come from somewhere, so check your tax bill!

As you correctly note, when the subsidies dry-up, the companies simply close down and lay the people off. The executives leave rich. In a sense a subsidy is a form of welfare.

An appropriate economic approach for going green (which is unfortunately politically unpalatable) is to tax or otherwise increase the cost of non-green products. (We, in the US, have a deficit problem.)

Want people to drive an electric car, do not give tax credits, increase the sales tax on regular cars and gasoline.
 
I agree, subsidies are often wrong and if used should be for research not for general consumption.
Maybe not in the US but in a lot of other countries "dirty" power is subsidized.

Not sure if electric cars are the way to go but cheap oil for so many years cut that option from research until the last few years so who knows where we would be with this.

Maybe in years to come we will have a better battery that holds more energy and can be recycled easier but until we accept that fossil fuel is limited then some of these options may not get a chance.

Our friends from the middle east have done the right thing by increasing the cost of fuel (reducing supply) now so we don't wake up one day and find no fuel and no alternative.

One advantage electric cars have over petrol/diesel is that electricity can be produced from many sources (hydro, wind, solar, thermal, tidal etc)
We just have to get better batteries and more convenient methods to plug in.

Think of how industry adapted and invented from dec 1942 and how quick this happened.
Within 3 years planes were flying that most people never thought could be built.
Yet we are told retooling is not easy and we should keep using the things available now rather then change.
 
Alc, just don't go blindly in any direction. Be prepared to dig just a little bit deeper. It is worth it to save energy. It is worth it to keep the wolf from the door for a while longer. But be aware of the price you pay.

Here's one that I though was a slam dunk until I researched it. Double-pane insulting windows. Great idea, right? Not as much as you'd think. After looking into it, I find that they are often made with aluminum frames. Aluminum is also used in cookware. Do you know why? Because they have very good coefficients of thermal conductivity. Copper is #1, aluminum is at least top 10 on that. Might be top 5. So you insulate the windows, but the solid aluminum frames conduct the heat right through. You know what is the better insulator? Wood frame windows. If you made your double-pane windows with wood frames, you'd have better insulation. As it is, if you were thinking about installing double-pane windows in your house to save money on electrical bills, you get a higher installation cost than ordinary windows. The difference takes at least 10 years to recoup the investment. Which is about how long it takes for the caulking and seals to dry up on the windows so that they must be replaced. If you were planning to install insulating windows to increase the resale value of your house, forget it. You'll never get back what you pay for them without a long-term commitment to the house.

However, there IS a catch to that. If you live in a country that offers an energy-saving tax break, that can offset the cost enough to make it worth your while again. Look into the availability and amount of the break before you take it, though. An example this time, not of a hidden cost, but a hidden benefit.

Oh, as to whether I'm a good bluffer or not... care to visit New Orleans and play some poker? At cards, I never lie. And if you believe that, I've got some prime South Louisiana real estate for you. After the recent well blow-out, it's a real slick deal.
 
New Zealand, where I am supposed to be based, I understand now requires all new dwellings to have double glazing. It is a requirement, just not sure if it covers the whole country and if there are exceptions.

Assuming my understanding is correct then the same rule applies for a house built in Dunedin (Canada) as a house built in Whangarei (Northern California coast)
Dunedin gets foul weather and snow and Whangarei is a much warmer climate that never has anything approaching snow.

My point is that often Governments make a ruling that applies to all even though, as pointed out earlier, the costs do not make sense.

Not directly related to Green Energy but I often wonder why Authorities are concerned about the level of "homeless" people when their building codes and fees are a large part of the cost of a house.
Did we have homeless people 150yrs ago?? or did they just build their house as they saw fit.
Not suggesting we allow this to happen but rules should be for safety not the dreams of council committees. (double glazing in NZ)
 
I think that you will find that double glazing and proper insulation will help reduce your cooling cost not just your heating costs. If you are able to maintain the internal temperature of your house at a comfortable level with minimal reliance on additional heating or cooling, that has to be a good thing.
 
Agreed - but what if the cost of all good things mean you can't afford a house??
 
PNGBill said:
....
Did we have homeless people 150yrs ago?? or did they just build their house as they saw fit.
.... (double glazing in NZ)
Click to expand...

I believe we did they were just know by a different name, swaggies, hobos, bums etc. I think the difference is that these people made up an itinerant work force that move from place to place with the seasonal work. The difference is that this sort of work has largely disappeared with the advent of large scale industrial farming so the people that used to make up this work force are now drawn to large population centres where they are more able to eek out a living (if you can call it that) begging or scavanging.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom