The renewable delusion? Or is it the solution?

[NatMitchelo]

Originally Posted by Metyu

I don't live near either of those. I don't think wind or hydro can meet demand, although they can help towards. I don't think calls for demand to fall is logical or feasible.

I'm a fan of gas-fired CCGT CHP connected to community heating and cooling. I think this is the most feasible and long-term solution (although it will upset some people who think we're running out of gas).

Combined cycle generation offers very attractive efficiency gains and is a great short-term measure.
In response to the depletion of gas reserves: Fossil fuels like coal, petroleum and gas will run out if we continue to rely on them - you only need to compare the time it takes for these fossil fuels to be formed with the rate at which we are using them. This imbalance alone indicates that we will run out! Gas, a long term solution?
I think one of the issues we face is that many people don't feel obligated to pay for any long-term solutions simply because they may not benefit from it or they can't think forward hundreds or thousands of years. We have a responsibility to the generations to come.

And don't forget that reliance on gas-fired generation (no matter how efficient) also upsets those who are concerned about global warming...

[ChrisM.]

The most important question that one can ask with regards to any form of Energy usage (indeed, for many areas of life) is Why?

Whether one has a power source that is renewable or not it is being used for something. Is it being used for, and so supporting, yet more consumer products, consumer electronics, TVs, gameboys/nintendos, and the same mindsets as before, for example.

If this is so, what does this energy provision continue to support, and what are all of the implications of this (continually?) supported provision?

For example, will people continue to sit on sofas watching TV most evenings, and so be less fit, less able to cope with adverse environmental circumstances, more selfish & less capable since they do not socialise so much, yet be very good at TV watching or Gameboy playing? Will community breakdown be maintained? Will the manufacturer of un-needed consumer and other products continue, using up the Earth's resources, emitting chemicals of many types, taking up land, and so on, yet under a Renewable and Sustainable banner?

It is not as much the type of Energy or Sustainable Solution that requires the most attention as it is so often the origin and cause in the first place, the Why something is needed at all (and why there is a perceived need that it is supposed to fill).

What do we want to Sustain? And more importantly by far, what will Nature allow to be Sustained, since this is the governing and ruling factor, not our opinions, whatever these may be at any given moment! Is there a difference between the two?!

All the Best!

Chris.

[Metyu]

Originally Posted by NatMitchelo

Gas, a long term solution?

I think one of the issues we face is that many people don't feel obligated to pay for any long-term solutions simply because they may not benefit from it or they can't think forward hundreds or thousands of years.

And don't forget that reliance on gas-fired generation (no matter how efficient) also upsets those who are concerned about global warming...

Of course, I do understand that resources are limited. Without meaning to sound flippant, the sun itself will eventually run out of resources to burn and collapse in on itself. What then?

How does one define long-term? I don't think hundreds or thousands of years is a realistic timescale for debate, particularly because 1) natural climate cycles will distort any human influence and 2) we have no way of predicting the influence of technology.

What people are not discussing is realistic transition periods. We cannot overnight transform all our existing processes, infrastructure, economics, politics, culture etc.

Gas-fired CCGT CHP is currently economically viable, and it gives the opportunity of kitting out new- and old- build with community heating. This reduces CO2 outputs while meeting demand, and sensibly future-proofs homes for when biomass, solar and wind become more viable.

[NatMitchelo]

I agree that there will be a transition period while we continue to develop clean technologies that can compete economically. A solution during this transition period could not be defined a long-term solution. CCGT is an effective interim measure.

I don't mean that the solutions we implement now should continue to be used hundreds or thousands of years into the future, simply that we should recognise that humans will probably be living on Earth in the year 3000. We have shown throughout history that we are able to manipulate the natural environment with imagination to suit our needs. We should try to minimise the damage and be wary of the influence our actions now will have on people 200 years from now.

By the by, we have a much higher chance of being hit by a massive asteroid before the sun 'runs out.'

[Johnny Electriglide]

The problem to me is that "renewables" lumps CO2 producing power sources with non-CO2 producing energy sources. This is a politically correct maneuver, and an ecological mistake. Saying people will be around in the year 3000 is a big assumption that the latest data is all wrong. It is assuming that we can lower CO2 production 70% minimum in 9 years maximum, or just plain ignorance of this fact. Some think it is far reaching to assume that even this reduction will mitigate the effects enough to stop the methane feedback loop at a point before even more massive releases start from ocean clathrates and hydrates of methane at various depths as the ocean warns deeper. Too many are fooled by global dimming that is only temporary, or the Shield Project that can not be afforded much longer.
As far as windmills and hydro, they may kill some birds and fish, but don't produce CO2, and neither does solar. Manufacturing is usually "paid off" within 2 years. It is easy for someone with half a wit and gumption to build a super insulated relatively independent home without the weakness of the grid system. In my case the systems paid for themselves in a few years because I did the work and thought ahead, buying stuff on sale, and reusing or recycling. The whole field of "renewables" and solar/wind/hydro is rife with profiteers who ruin the financial incentives and payback. The profiteers themselves are a product of human greed and overpopulation, with its demands for resources, energy, money, products and jobs.

[NatMitchelo]

I don't think its a huge assumption to think that we could survive a dramatic increase in temperature and carbon dioxide levels to still be here in the year 3000... We have refrigeration technology that would protect our proteins from denaturing and the knowledge to produce the things essential to our survival. This situation would cause the population decrease, but we may still survive. And a smaller population wouldn't be bad at all!

I definitely agree with using carbon neutral power sources, and increasing the efficiency of our housing.

Yes, 'renewable' power sources like biomass are over-hyped because extracting and transporting the ethanol are energy intensive processes. Although, it is an improvement over drilling for oil and gas since the plants draw on atmospheric carbon to grow.
When you say 'renewable' CO2 sources, do you refer to anything else?

Wind, hydro and solar are definitely the ideal sources for the future.

What are your opinions on hydrogen as a fuel?

[Patrick]

Hydrogen is not an energy source, but an energy carrier. When we do the math we find that the energy we get from the electrolysis process is less than the energy required to run the process, thus there is a net loss of energy. Running the economy on hydrogen makes absolutely no sense, we would be better off with batteries and electric. Btw this exotic new "fuel cell" technology was the same tech they had on the first space shuttles. Nothing new to see here, folks, just move along.

[Patrick]

All of the hype around alt fuels reminds of of the cold fusion debacle... billions spent and no results. The solution lies not in some new technology, but in proper application of the tech we already have. This goes completely against the American idea of progress, the solution has to be something bigger and better, always. Trains and bicycles would go a long way toward solving the emissions problems, but these are written off as out-dated tech by people obsessed with the technofix fantasy.

[Patrick]

An example: Congressman Ridicules Bikes as 19th Century Solution As the photo caption says, someone ought to remind the congressman that the car was invented during the 19th century as well. Dude looks like a prick.