|
Tkman117 -> RE: Free Market communism failure, again and still (6/8/2014 10:48:58 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
Thompson if you dont go by the hype and actually do some research, you'll find green energies aren't very efficient when compared to current fossil fuels and their methods of energy production.
Do not presume to lecture someone who has been dealing with this product for the past thirty years.
Efficiency does not mean free or cheap electricity, to think that's what efficiency means is simply a misunderstanding and one you need to revise. Efficiency means how much energy is captured/retained from a given energy source, for fossil fuels it's the burning of a fuel and how much energy can be used for electricity or other things, much of it is captured and converted to electricity, while the rest is usually released as heat or other byproducts.
This would be your ignorant opinion. You are confusing two different things. Fossil fueled generators cost money to build and maintain and they cost money for fuel to make them run.
Green energy cost money to build and maintain and they do not cost money for fuel to make them run.
If you would perfer to pick fly shit out of pepper as to how many kw can be developed per square foot then have that discusion with someone that is not me cuz I ain't intereste in it.
When considering the renewables on the market today, a lot of solar energy isn't captured by solar panels,
A little research might tell you that capture ratio has increased by several orders of magnitude. This however is more under your desire to discuss effeciency...today's solar cells are more effecient than their predicessors and are less effecient than their successors.
a lot of wind energy is lost through wind turbines,
Not true. Wind technology is highly developed and it has been shown that a three bladed prop captures enough of the wind energy that a candle will burn behind the prop while turning at it's rated speed. There were wind mills at the south pole providing electric lights for the scientist there while new york city was still using gas lights.
and other renewables also fail to capture much of the forms of energy they're exposed to. Human demand for electricity is increasing, and at this rate, if we did a complete conversion in a year's time to green energy, it would be chaos with brown outs and black outs as there wouldn't be enough electricity to serve the needs.
No one has sugested we change tomorrow at three oclock.
Green energy cannot produce electricity fast enough RIGHT NOW to keep up with demand, but there's no reason to assume that given proper funding and research that it never can't.
Yup
In current research, perfect scenarios do produce renewable technologies which are extremely efficient, but you must take cost of production as well as the fact that they're perfect scenarios into consideration. Given time and funding, these technologies will become cheaper, more available and more efficient than the renewables on the market today. But it takes time, and while I wish to move into a greener world ASAP, we can't get impatient and loose our heads about it.
I was in las vegas last week to attend "lightfair 2014" Led lighting was the central theme.
Replace a 40 watt flourescent tube with a 10 watt led tube of the same lumin rating.
Replace a 100 watt incandescent bulb with a 10 watt led bulb of the same lumin rating.
By going to green energy production and lower power consumption appliances I believe we can shorten the time to full green.
Phydeaux has dealt with the environmental industry for about the same time period as you, and if he has taught me anything, it's that experience doesn't always make you more knowledgeable, or right for that matter.
Confusing two different things? Efficiency is not related to money or cost, it's related to how much energy a method can actually take up from a source. If you're talking about efficiency with relation to money, then yes, you are right. But straight efficiency of a renewable technology is not related to money, it's about energy.
I totally agree that the capture ratio has improved, I'm not saying that it hasn't.
And how many people in the south pole were there who needed electricity compared to the droves of people in new york? On a small scale, wind works, obviously. But when you need to supply electricity demands to a city? It's not exactly feasible since you need a wide area to put them, not to mention the harmful vibrational effects on human health in the nearby area. Wind is great in theory but it has a long way to go to be efficient and healthy.
And I totally agree that we can shorten the time towards green energy, by giving people more incentives to invest in green alternatives. But it takes time, and not everyone is going to be as willing to go through this kind of change.
Lastly, you can argue a point without being a dick. Try it sometime, you might find the world a little more enjoyable, because we're on the same side here and you don't need to go insulting everyone who doesn't share your exact opinion. You're not god, and you're not always right, no one ever is.
|
|
|
|
