We Need to Get Our (Green)House in Order

[SpeareChucker]

Now, let us think about this...

Where are we putting soar farms?
In the suburbs where they are needed?
In rural America where it competes with land for food
(or the equally fucking stupid ethanol)?
Are these farms, which will need to increase in size going to go into
wastelands where life struggles to survive and is "endangered?"
And, having situated the power source far enough away, what are the transmission costs?



At the time of the development of the steam and internal combustion engine(s)
did we already have solar and wind power?
Well, that answer is yes.
Why, then are they not as technologically developed?
I would submit that they were no more economically viable than they are now.

What next? A return to the horse and the associated wagon and buggy-whip industries?

I, again, have no problem with the development, sale and use of "renewable energy,' but I don't want to subsidize it through government and I want an honest discussion of all aspects of it. It reminds me of the war on fracking and the lack of science that went into all of the arguments against it.

Catches drinking water on fire?
Give me a fucking break!

(Or a brake!)

 

[SpeareChucker]

https://spectator.org/fossil-fuels-phobia/

 

[DMBFFF]

...

Where are we putting soar [sic] farms?
Not all would be farms. Many might be on roofs, sides of buildings, maybe billboards, maybe sound barriers, etc.

50 million buildings in the US x
400 square meters per roof ÷
1 million sq m/sq km = 20 000 sq km = 2 million hectares > 4.9 million acres

In the suburbs where they are needed?
presumably. Some are being installed.

In rural America where it competes with land for food
minor competition. 1000 sq meters is less than a quarter acre.

(or the equally fucking stupid ethanol)?
from corn is stupid, from sugar cane grown in Brazil, less so. Methanol might be even more efficient—I don't know, but I think it's based on cellulose.

Are these farms, which will need to increase in size going to go into wastelands where life struggles to survive and is "endangered?"
probably not in sensitive areas.

And, having situated the power source far enough away, what are the transmission costs?
What are the inefficiencies? What is the proportion of energy loss of high voltage electricity,per, say, 100 km?

At the time of the development of the steam and internal combustion engine(s)
did we already have solar and wind power?
relatively primitive forms.

I would submit that they were no more economically viable than they are now.
Are wind turbines and today's batteries not much more efficient than windmills and batteries of the late 19th/early 20th centuries?

What next? A return to the horse and the associated wagon and buggy-whip industries?
A mountain-bike might be more efficient.

https://spectator.org/fossil-fuels-phobia/

Fossil fuels served our civilization well, but now they've had their day.


As for the page you linked to:

Relying on solar panels to power a thousand homes requires 32 acres of land. Additionally, that land will be taken up for as long as the power is generated. The grotesque solar panels and windmills will be visible for who knows how long. Windmills kill more birds every year than oil spills ever have or ever will.

32 acres ≤ 14 hectares

14 hectares ÷ 1000 homes = 140 000 sq meters ÷ 1000 homes = 140 sq meters/home.

According to him, it'll take up less area than I'm granting.

I'm not so sure about the comment about birds. The former certainly kills less sea life.


As for storage

1. smart meters to incentivize use during peak production.
2. The wind might blow at night and the sun might shine during calms.
3. transmission grids
4. locate high-energy using industries where it's very windy and/or sunny
5. batteries. A, say, 5 x 5 x 4 stack of car batteries might take a few cubic meters of basement or shed space. Such might cost 5% of what a house costs. 100 batteries x 300 watts x 1 hour = 10 hours at 3000 watts—about what an oven element at full blast requires.

At this point the possible connection between CO2 and climate change is a theory, not a proven fact.

Okay, here we go again. http://www.planetsmilies.com/smilies/rolleye/rolleye0012.gif


(my bold)

Ethanol does serious harm to small gasoline engines.

so modify the engines.

Ethanol produces only about two thirds as much energy per gallon as does gasoline.

but it's renewable.

Also there is electric, hydrogen, and to a lesser extent, natural gas/methane.

 

[DMBFFF]

230 days, 27 hours later (I think)

 

[DMBFFF]

230 days, 27 hours later (I think)

Make that 5 hours—and 30 minutes since my previous post on this thread.