Renewable Energy Sources bills

[Kluden]

Well, here in Maryland, they apparantly just passed a state bill updating themselves to the 21st century.

Renewable Energy Article

How many of your states are involved? I think this should be a huge standard pushed on all states to recieve their federal funding, they have to comply.

I also feel that the miniscule 7.5% requirement is embarassing. This would be much more impressive if the number was atleast 20% by 5 years after the bill is passed.

I've also done some thinking, and states like New York are already under this policy with the Niagara plants, right? or do those not count. States like that should have higher numbers in their platform, just so they look good, and force other states to fill that same higher percentage just to keep up.

Anyways, discuss.

[Akaran_D]

I think it's a safe bet to say that WV will probably end up adopting that as one of the last states. Sad to say, we're still primarily a coal, oil and gas mining state from what I can tell.

[Adex_Xeda]

There needs to be a TON of improvement in the technology for it to be viable.

Regardless, significant reliance on renewable energy in the foreseeable future is essentially a pipedream, according to Dr. Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. Wigley, by the way, is one of those scientists who firmly believes in global warming.

About a year-and-half ago, Wigley and some of his colleagues laid bare the dubious prospects for renewable energy in an article in the journal Science.With respect to solar power, Wigley said current U.S. energy consumption would require an array of photovoltaic cells covering 26,000 square kilometers; worldwide energy consumption might require about 220,000 square kilometers of photovoltaic cells. These requirements would triple by 2050. Unfortunately, however, "all the photovoltaic cells shipped from 1982 to 1998 would only cover about three square kilometers," according to Wigley.

Space-based solar power might require less than 25 percent of the area of land-based photovoltaic cells. But even with adequate research investments, that technology wouldn't deliver energy to global markets until the latter half of the century.

Wind power? Forget it, says Wigley. "It's often available only from remote or offshore locations," he said. Bio-fuels, the chief hope for those 240,000-jobs-by-2020, aren't the answer either for the same reason as all other forms of renewable energy — they take a lot of space to produce only a little energy, said Wigley.

More ridiculous still is the notion that it's actually a good thing to employ more people to produce a given amount of energy. I realize that economics is not a strong suit of environmental activists, but "labor productivity" — the value of output per unit value of labor — is a pretty basic concept. It's generally desirable to be more productive, not less. We want to produce more energy per worker rather than having more workers producing less energy. Workers thus freed from producing energy can then go on to do other productive work.

I used to work on a solar race car back in 97-99. The main problem with photo cells is of the sun energy that hits them, only 11% of that radiant energy gets converted into electricity. The high gain, (and high dollar) photocells used on million-dollar satelites is only capturing 14% of the sunlight that hits them.

Major breakthroughs are necessary before this becomes viable. (And I'm all for researching it)

Another problem with photocells is they have trouble providing surges of current. If all a sudden somone turns on a 1200watt hair dryer while using matching photocells, the sudden change in current demands is poorly responded to by a solar array. Granted this can be fixed by addtional electronics, but this attaches additional costs that in turn make the technology have even less bang for the buck.

Wind power usually depends on generation from remote areas. There is all kinds of loss of energy as you try to pipe that remote electricity to where you need it. Second problem with wind power is when then wind stops, you need to be able to store vast amounts of reserve energy to keep the power grid load humming in the absense of the idle windmills.
Right now we don't have practical ways of storing vast amounts of electrical energy. We pretty much have to use it as we generate it.


Renewable sources need:

1. Superconducting transmission lines to allow remotely generated electricity to make it back to the consumer.
2. A quantum leap in electrical storage technology.
3. A quantum leap in photocell efficiencies, say 50%?
4. A dramatic drop in photocell costs.

I hope we figure this stuff out. I'm want clean air and no economic interests tied to middle-east oil.

I still think it is too early to be passing laws to force this.

Give it a decade.

BTW I'm not an expert, I just play with this stuff in relation to my job, and my brother is a power engineer who I shop talk with.

[Chmee]

From the linked article.

The American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) welcomes the passage by the Maryland legislature of a forward-looking bill that calls for a growing share of the state's electricity to come from renewable sources like the wind and sun. In praising Maryland’s Renewable Portfolio Standard legislation, AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher issued the following statement:

With their inexhaustible potential, environmental advantage, and increasingly competitive cost, renewable energy sources are technologies of choice for the 21st century.

If they were really competitive cost wise, you wouldn't need government intervention to mandate their use. They are probably getting better, but not there yet (or at least not feasible to deliver the required amounts of power competitively).

[Adex_Xeda]

I agree there is some merit to mandates that might spur research.

But you have to be careful. If you mandate too much, you businesses migrate to other states (or Mexico) where energy costs are more affordable.


Keep in mind that industry by far is the largest consumer of electrical energy. Monkeying with the cost of energy production has a dramatic effect on them.

If you're going to do it, at least do it when you have a somewhat mature technology.

[Kluden]

I think the idea behind it is not "replacement", which seems to be what your article talks of. It is a "supplemental" idea. Decreasing fosil fuel usage by 15% would be a huge thing. I don't think that article, or the Dr. who was quoted in it, are looking at it from a practical means. They were looking at a replacement means. Which is wrong.

Right now, the Pentagon has a solar farm. It reports the amount of power it produces. The size of the farm itself is about that of a .5 acre lot, and the numbers reported are easily the power consumption of one house. So yes, solar is a high area consuming alternative...and not feasible in urban areas...but suburban and rural new constructions could benefit highly.

Wind works fine in consistent areas like California coastline, and Maryland's bay area. The wind never stops above a certain level above sea...so it will work in Maryland. No, I would not see Pennsylvania being able to use the wind turbines.

As for high conductivity for the power lines, well, it is not as necessary as you think. The voltage running along power lines is a huge number (something along the lines of 12.47kV in your neighborhood lines). The amperage (or speed the voltage is traveling) is very low. This is done to minimize current loss over the huge distances power lines must travel.

So, superconducting power lines is not a huge necessity. Power storage would be the issue to tackle first.

[Adex_Xeda]

Instead of forcing people to do what you want, a better way is to offer the service and let the consumer decide.

In Texas we have a commercial power regulation system. This means that anyone can provide power to the grid, and any consumer can choose who's power he's going to pull from.

There is one company in Texas that advertises that all of their power generation is from renewable resources. Texans can choose to purchase their share of power from that company for a premium price if they feel strongly about the environment. Businesses are free as well to do this.

If you want to support renewable resources, buy products from a company who purchases it's power from renewable power providers.

If enough people are concerned about fossil fuel power generation, they can support renewable resources by spending their money there.

FREE CHOICE

Notice one senario is Big Government forcing people to do something.

The other is allowing people to make a free choice to support what they believe in.

I support free choice.

[Kluden]

You're speaking about the power company de-regulation...so consumers can choose their provider. Since this occured, the price per kw has gone up.

The freedom to choose a power company hurts your wallet, don't be fooled. The reason for this is, instead of everyone owning the power lines, single companies now own the powerlines, and can charge whatever "transportation" fee they want. There is no regulation on that number, hence why the price for a kw went way up.

Also, that freedom does not allow you to always choose who you want. There should not be a price tag increase to be environmentally conscious. This is something the government needs to subsidize to the maximum degree if it is ever to move forward.

You and I both know it never will move forward fast if private companies are left to their own dollar for R&D...the government has to help out there.

Last, saying 20% of a states power, or whatever percentage, must be generated from renewable sources is not "forcing people to do what I want". If a percentage of the power provided to your neighborhood was generated through these means, you would never know, unless someone told you.

That's the other reason it cannot, and should not, be left up to the people to choose the provider. If the power they receive is uninterrupted (as much as possible that is), then who are they to know or care where it comes from? Also, I don't think the average person knows anything about power generation. They just assume when someone says "technology is lacking", that the source must be crap. Which again, would be false.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you should not have to pay more to be more responsible. Also, the government is forcing nothing on the people, they are forcing it on the power companies as a whole. Believe me, the power company is NOT on your side. They are on the side of their own bottom line. Just my 2cp.

*edited because english has defeated me again.

[Metanis]

Renewable energy sounds good as a campaign plank for the Green Party.

Adex has successfully pointed out some of the real life issues that stand in the way of the viable use of renewable.

Here is another angle, in the linked article a group of property owners are saying NIMBY to a proposed wind farm here in Wisconsin. In this case the property owners are being ignored but you know their protest is making the wind farm more expensive due to the legal eagles getting involved.

http://www.gazetteextra.com/windfarm033104.asp

Judge dismisses wind farm lawsuit

(Published Wednesday, March 31, 2004 09:46:17 AM CST)

Associated Press

FOND DU LAC, Wis. -- A judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a group of property owners against the Marshfield Town Board that sought to halt construction of 44 Navitas Energy wind turbines on neighboring land.

Fond du Lac County Circuit Judge Peter Grimm ruled Tuesday the state's policy of encouraging development of renewable energy resources "trumps," or overrules, common law in the suit filed by Concerned Citizens of Marshfield.

The organization wanted to nullify the development agreement between the town and the Minneapolis-based company. Members cited concerns about noise, safety and declines in property value if the towers were built on neighboring land.

The Green Field Wind Farm project, expected to generate enough energy to provide power for 60,000 homes, is under way and will proceed according to schedule, Navitas director of development Chris Moore.

The joint development agreement calls for participating property owners to receive about $4,000 annually for each tower placed on their land. The Town of Marshfield will be paid about $135,000 a year during the 21-year contract. Fond du Lac County will also receive revenue from the project.

"I was surprised at the verdict, especially at the court's determination that state energy policy trumps the rights of the plaintiffs," said attorney Christa Westerberg, of Garvey & Stoddard, a Madison firm which represented the property owners.

The citizens' group will continue to pursue legal action, spokesman Mike Winkler.

"This is Chapter 1," he said after Grimm's ruling.

Eventually we will come back to nuclear power as the all-around best choice for power generation.

[Aaeamdar]

Instead of forcing people to do what you want, a better way is to offer the service and let the consumer decide.

As a general proposition, I almost always agree with this. In this case, however, I don't. There is a direct link from oil to the funding of terrorism against the US. I personally think it is worth some inefficency (made up for by Federal subsidization) to completely remove our reliance on Foriegn Oil. Provide just enough subsidization so that the US is neither a net importer or exporter of oil. The world (well, the Western World) is going to be a much better place once fossil fuels are no longer used.

Well, I should take that back to an extent. My preference would be to build more nuke plants, as those are cost effective, environmentally sound and, of course, reduce the need for fossil fuels. But politically they are a dead end.

[kyoukan]

You hardly import any arab oil to begin with.

But it would still be nice for the fed to subsidize alternative energy research so the world could benefit from it. It's not likely going to happen when your governmen is half full of people up to their elbows in the oil business though. I remember Bush's state of the union address when he promised to give money to car makers to research alternative energy cars. He basically gave GM a billion dollars in cash and said "here, make sure you use this to research alternative energy!" but never asked them for any kind of results or milestones or even a basic strategy.

[Adex_Xeda]

The freedom to choose a power company hurts your wallet, don't be fooled. The reason for this is, instead of everyone owning the power lines, single companies now own the powerlines, and can charge whatever "transportation" fee they want. There is no regulation on that number, hence why the price for a kw went way up.

In Texas, power transmission and distribution is still regulated. Power generation is deregulated. This means you can buy your power from a producer of your liking.

There should not be a price tag increase to be environmentally conscious.

You bet and there should not be a price tag for every American to have 100% health care from cradle to grave. A noble thought, but not applicable to the real world. Renewable energy sources are less efficient, that means you pay more money per kilowatt. If you want to use that stuff you have to pay the premium for it, one way or the other.

Last, saying 20% of a states power, or whatever percentage, must be generated from renewable sources is not "forcing people to do what I want". If a percentage of the power provided to your neighborhood was generated through these means, you would never know, unless someone told you.

We’ll be told by higher utility bills, and state tax hikes necessary to fund enforcement of these new rules

That's the other reason it cannot, and should not, be left up to the people to choose the provider. If the power they receive is uninterrupted (as much as possible that is), then who are they to know or care where it comes from? Also, I don't think the average person knows anything about power generation.

Ignorance is no justification from violating a person’s freedom to make choices for themselves. I also disagree that an average American is too ignorant to make an informed buying decision.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you should not have to pay more to be more responsible.

Life is unfair, yet the reality remains, renewable energy costs more and if you want it you’ll have to pay for it.

Also, the government is forcing nothing on the people, they are forcing it on the power companies as a whole. Believe me, the power company is NOT on your side. They are on the side of their own bottom line.

Yep, and to maintain that bottom line, companies pass those new costs right onto the consumer’s backs. Either way the consumer gets hit with the cost, only now he has lost his freedom to choose what kind of provider he wants.

Your goal of clean air is a worthy, but it is not worth tearing down people’s personal freedoms to achieve it; especially when you can accomplish your task while preserving freedom of choice via alternate methods.

[Adex_Xeda]

Because of a deregulated power market in Texas, Texans now have choices like this.

http://www.infinitepower.org/greenpower.htm

As a result of the Texas electric industry restructuring law signed by Governor Bush in 1999, power companies are hurrying to build 2,000 Megawatts of new renewable energy power plants by 2009. Together with the state's existing wind, solar, and biomass power plants, this new capacity will provide enough energy for approximately 650,000 Texas homes.

As electricity competition comes to Texas, power companies may offer customers a variety of options, some greener than others. Texas law provides that each option offered come with a "content label" that describes the sources of the electricity and provides details about the average amount of pollution created from each kilowatt-hour generated. This label will help consumers decide which electricity product to choose.

If you want to support a cleaner environment, you can buy green power.

Freedom, it's refreshing.

[Metanis]

You hardly import any arab oil to begin with.

But it would still be nice for the fed to subsidize alternative energy research so the world could benefit from it. It's not likely going to happen when your governmen is half full of people up to their elbows in the oil business though. I remember Bush's state of the union address when he promised to give money to car makers to research alternative energy cars. He basically gave GM a billion dollars in cash and said "here, make sure you use this to research alternative energy!" but never asked them for any kind of results or milestones or even a basic strategy.

WTF is wrong with you Kooky? Why should America subsidize alternative energy research? Why don't you Canadians do it? Or Europe? Or Japan? Or China? Or Russia?

My country is making serious investments in alternative energy... but why in hell do we have to carry your sorry asses?

Regarding GM, even if what you said is 100% true... so what? I follow news and opinion here very closely and I don't recall any big outrage over this. I suspect your mouth and your ass have swapped positions as normal.

[kyoukan]

because you have all the fucking money. well, not you personally. I'm sure you work alongside midnyte at his glorious pizza delivery job, which makes you both think that you are morally justified in saying "we" when you speak of americans that actually contribute to the economy beyond the 12 bucks they send Sony every month for your everquest account.

Canada has a very long standing and expensive alternative energy program. obviously we don't have nearly the resources the united states states has.

christ, engage your fucking brain before opening your cum hole maybe one time?

[Forthe]

You hardly import any arab oil to begin with.

But it would still be nice for the fed to subsidize alternative energy research so the world could benefit from it. It's not likely going to happen when your governmen is half full of people up to their elbows in the oil business though. I remember Bush's state of the union address when he promised to give money to car makers to research alternative energy cars. He basically gave GM a billion dollars in cash and said "here, make sure you use this to research alternative energy!" but never asked them for any kind of results or milestones or even a basic strategy.

WTF is wrong with you Kooky? Why should America subsidize alternative energy research? Why don't you Canadians do it? Or Europe? Or Japan? Or China? Or Russia?

Ignorance is bliss it seems.

----------------------------------

Personally I'm a big fan of hydro (60% of Canadian electricity generation is hydropower) and wind. There was been tremendous advances in wind generation the last 10 years with huge projects in Europe.

Nuclear power just isn't worth the risk IMO when other options are available and I'm glad we seem to be moving away from it.

[Krimson Klaw]

I like this thread. Obviously our problems will be solved when we can harness the Omega Particle.

[Krurk]

Gonna provide an assist to Kooky to back up her claim earlier.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2798197.stm

Collaboration between EU, US, China, Russia, Canada and Japan

It will cost $5bn to construct and take 10 years

The US had previously withdrawn from Iter negotiations undertaking a review of its fusion policy. Now, however, the US and China have declared their commitment to develop fusion energy as a potential source of energy.

Let's hope this works out.

[VariaVespasa]

Its not like 26000 square kilometers is a lot of land either compared to the area of the US. That article objecting to renewable power seemed to imply it was. But thats only about a 100 mile square, or 4 50 mile squares (less than an hours drive) spread across the country. Having driven across the country in 4 different directions I can say I've seen the miles and miles of bugger all that are out there that have gone on for literally hours in some cases. You could lose all 4 of those 50 mile squares in the california desert alone easily and never find them again, let alone the entire country. The land, even land close to the main population centers to deal with transmission practicalities, for such a project isnt the issue except for certain areas of the east coast, especially the New England area.

I dunno about the 11% efficiency of photovoltaics, but I would assume that the acreage required figure quoted is based on that current efficiency so I dont see that as relevant to that portion of the arguement. That "only" really comes in when you start looking at the ongoing cost of production to see if its at all economically viable. I would have to assume its at least not too wildly far off being viable, or it wouldnt be listed as a possibility yet. More info on the cost of cells (and how much mass production might be expected to reduce the cost) and how much power they produce would be good, if anyone happens to have any?

*Hugs*
Varia

[Metanis]

because you have all the fucking money

Life is good. Here's a buck, buy a cup of coffee kid.

[Skogen]

You hardly import any arab oil to begin with.

But it would still be nice for the fed to subsidize alternative energy research so the world could benefit from it. It's not likely going to happen when your governmen is half full of people up to their elbows in the oil business though. I remember Bush's state of the union address when he promised to give money to car makers to research alternative energy cars. He basically gave GM a billion dollars in cash and said "here, make sure you use this to research alternative energy!" but never asked them for any kind of results or milestones or even a basic strategy.

WTF is wrong with you Kooky? Why should America subsidize alternative energy research? Why don't you Canadians do it? Or Europe? Or Japan? Or China? Or Russia?

My country is making serious investments in alternative energy... but why in hell do we have to carry your sorry asses?

Regarding GM, even if what you said is 100% true... so what? I follow news and opinion here very closely and I don't recall any big outrage over this. I suspect your mouth and your ass have swapped positions as normal.

metanis, have you ever looked into how much of the earth's resources we in the good ole USA consume compared to our population & that of the rest of the earth? It's our fucking responsiblity the the rest of the world with the way we have behaved in the past century.

[Krurk]

The United States has 5% of the world's population and imports 25% of the world's oil annually.

Just something to chew on.

[kyoukan]

Life is good. Here's a buck, buy a cup of coffee kid.

Not you personally. I thought I made that fairly specific but I guess asking you to follow a conversation is like telling a mongloid not to shit in his pants on the bus. I would bet you my house that my husband and I paid more federal tax in the US this year than you will pay from now until you retire.

[Adex_Xeda]

Varia,

You misunderstand me.

I support green power efforts.

I do not support the government blow beating it upon everyone. That steals freedom to choose.

We have ways to support green energy research that does not infringe on our freedom. We should focus our money and efforts along those paths.

[Estrosiath]

America imports about 22% of its oil from Arab countries ( Iraq and Saudi Arabia first ), and about 42% from OPEC member countries. So it is still quite a sizable part of its needs.

As for freedom of choice. It's fine and dandy, as long as it only affects you. Or your country. Not when your energetic choices end up affecting, in the long term, the whole of Earth. IMO, that is.

As for someone mentioning 100% health care not being applicable to the real world, Cuba has such a system. Argue all you want it's undemocratic, communist, etc... but it does. I'm also pretty certain that some of the Scandinavian countries have a similar system.

Edit : Updated oil figures for 2003.

[Adex_Xeda]

While this is a tangent, I can't let that go.

YES you can have 100% heath care coverage, but you can't have it without paying more money.

My statement was prompted by an assumption that everyone shouldn't have to pay more for green energy.

Like healthcare you can have 100% green energy, but you must assume the burden of its costs.

[Metanis]

Life is good. Here's a buck, buy a cup of coffee kid.

Not you personally. I thought I made that fairly specific but I guess asking you to follow a conversation is like telling a mongloid not to shit in his pants on the bus. I would bet you my house that my husband and I paid more federal tax in the US this year than you will pay from now until you retire.

I understood you perfectly well my dear. Perhaps you are the one that should be paying more attention? It seems you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let me be blunt. There's a reason we have all the money. We are better than you. Better from the standpoint that our society still allows a degree of personal freedom not seen in much of the world. Even in our current state of perpetual disarray... our... society... produces! Producers get paid. Hence we have all the money. Money talks. Money talks LOUDLY.

By the way, I could give a rat's ass how much tax you paid, your complaints seem to resolve themselves as nothing more than something akin to penis envy. We've got it, you want it, you're gonna cry about it.

Like I said... Life is Good!

[VariaVespasa]

We cant see the forest for the trees? Fuck that, lets cut down those damn trees!!

*Hugs*
Varia

[Niffoni]

Let me be blunt. There's a reason we have all the money. We are better than you. Better from the standpoint that our society still allows a degree of personal freedom not seen in much of the world. Even in our current state of perpetual disarray... our... society... produces! Producers get paid. Hence we have all the money. Money talks. Money talks LOUDLY.

But... but it don't sing and dance =(

EDIT: And it don't walk ;_;

[kyoukan]

I understood you perfectly well my dear. Perhaps you are the one that should be paying more attention? It seems you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let me be blunt. There's a reason we have all the money. We are better than you. Better from the standpoint that our society still allows a degree of personal freedom not seen in much of the world. Even in our current state of perpetual disarray... our... society... produces! Producers get paid. Hence we have all the money. Money talks. Money talks LOUDLY.

By the way, I could give a rat's ass how much tax you paid, your complaints seem to resolve themselves as nothing more than something akin to penis envy. We've got it, you want it, you're gonna cry about it.

Like I said... Life is Good!

Judging someone on the merits of what society they were born in is a large part of what is wrong with your country, and the idiots that live in it. It cracks me up when I see a fucking retard like yourself who probably slobs his way through a minimum wage job taking credit for the USA's success merely because they were born there.

The US was built on the blood and sweat of people who you aren't even worthy of licking their boots. Clueless and ungrateful cunts like yourself are what is wrecking it and allowing your country to slide into the fucking shithole it's currently sliding into. So when I see a prepetual loser like you patting yourself on the back and going "were #1!" I just have to laugh. If you need me to be even more clear then then I can maybe get it translated into mongloid for you.

[Skogen]

Let me be blunt. There's a reason we have all the money. We are better than you. Better from the standpoint that our society still allows a degree of personal freedom not seen in much of the world. Even in our current state of perpetual disarray... our... society... produces! Producers get paid. Hence we have all the money. Money talks. Money talks LOUDLY.

By the way, I could give a rat's ass how much tax you paid, your complaints seem to resolve themselves as nothing more than something akin to penis envy. We've got it, you want it, you're gonna cry about it.

Like I said... Life is Good!

oh god. metanis, leave the country. We don't want you anymore. Hopefully, where ever it is you go, they fucking kill you because you are the epitome of a egotistical, self righteous american.

[Kluden]

A main part of your argument against my points, Adex, is about "freedom of choice". Honestly, I could care less about my freedom of choice when it comes to power companies. If the price is regulated, the government lays down laws for them to follow, then I don't care as long as my power is as uninterrupted as possible.

It's not like I'm arguing to take the right to bare arms away from people, we are talking about power companies here...huge difference in my mind. Obviously not to you, but to me...this is not a bill of rights argument.

As for raising taxes, why would you have to? take a small portion of our war fund, and use that. Compared to what we are spending hunting down one man, it is just a small piddling of money.

With the government subsidizing, it would not be more expensive, that is my whole point with the government stepping in.

*edit: Just wanted to add, that yes, I'm all for nuclear (or New-ku-ler, depending on where your from). I just see it easier to build the renewable sources due to peoples lack of trust for nuclear.

[Adex_Xeda]

Kluden,

I sense a troubling disconnect here. Corporations pass the cost of new taxes and new government regulations right on to you and me. Government subsidies come from taxes on you and me. Government money, one way or the other comes from the taxpayer's wallet. No matter what you do, if you force expensive green energy as part of a government mandate the extra cost will be coming out of every tax payer's wallet. I demand to have a choice about who takes money from my wallet.

If I walked up to you, put a gun to your head and said give me your money, I would be doing something wrong.
If I walked up to you, put a gun to your head and said give me your money and I'm going to spend it on solar cells, I'd still be doing something wrong.
Why? because I took your money without your consent.
This is no different than a government mandate. Especially when there are choice mantaining alternatives.

Right now we have ways for people who belive in green energy to support it without treading on the rights of other people who choose not to support green energy.

We should support green energy research via those methods.

[Chmee]

The United States has 5% of the world's population and imports 25% of the world's oil annually.

Just something to chew on.

Sounds roughly correct.

Lets look at the consumption per capita though, from http://www.nationmaster.com (sorry for the poor formating) looking at the top 20 in oil, coal, and natural gas consumption.

Oil consumption per capita

1. Singapore 156.66 barrels per day per 1000 people
2. United Arab Emirates 142.06 barrels per day per 1000 people
3. Qatar 74.65 barrels per day per 1000 people
4. United States 67.85 barrels per day per 1000 people
5. Canada 62.09 barrels per day per 1000 people
6. Saudi Arabia 55.98 barrels per day per 1000 people
7. Brunei 47.47 barrels per day per 1000 people
8. Israel 44.63 barrels per day per 1000 people
9. Australia 44.19 barrels per day per 1000 people
10. Norway 43.99 barrels per day per 1000 people
11. Taiwan 43.57 barrels per day per 1000 people
12. Japan 42.44 barrels per day per 1000 people
13. Bahrain 41.96 barrels per day per 1000 people
14. Greece 38.06 barrels per day per 1000 people
15. Spain 37.29 barrels per day per 1000 people
16. Portugal 33.55 barrels per day per 1000 people
17. Libya 33.09 barrels per day per 1000 people
18. Germany 32.88 barrels per day per 1000 people
19. France 32.56 barrels per day per 1000 people
20. Italy 32.24 barrels per day per 1000 people

Coal consumption (per capita)

1. Australia 7.30 per person
2. Greece 6.60 per person
3. Korea, North 4.61 per person
4. South Africa 3.98 per person
5. United States 3.65 per person
6. Germany 3.21 per person
7. Taiwan 2.34 per person
8. Canada 2.08 per person
9. Russia 2.06 per person
10. Ukraine 2.02 per person
11. Korea, South 1.48 per person
12. Turkey 1.19 per person
13. Japan 1.17 per person
14. Spain 1.12 per person
15. United Kingdom 1.09 per person
16. China 1.01 per person
17. Portugal 0.66 per person
18. Thailand 0.38 per person
19. Italy 0.38 per person
20. France 0.34 per perso

Natural gas consumption (per capita)

Country Description Amount
1. Qatar 651121.34 cubic feet per person
2. Bahrain 454110.82 cubic feet per person
3. United Arab Emirates 390370.64 cubic feet per person
4. Kuwait 153447.22 cubic feet per person
5. Brunei 100531.13 cubic feet per person
6. Canada 99356.93 cubic feet per person
7. Russia 95484.36 cubic feet per person
8. Oman 78728.23 cubic feet per person
9. United States 76805.82 cubic feet per person
10. Ukraine 57849.85 cubic feet per person
11. United Kingdom 56577.41 cubic feet per person
12. Italy 43104.67 cubic feet per person
13. Germany 40292.08 cubic feet per person
14. Australia 38262.75 cubic feet per person
15. Iran 33978.32 cubic feet per person
16. Libya 32732.78 cubic feet per person
17. Malaysia 31178.36 cubic feet per person
18. Argentina 30200.71 cubic feet per person
19. Kazakhstan 29283.34 cubic feet per person
20. Azerbaijan 25540.29 cubic feet per person


So yes, we are typically fairly high on the list, but not perhaps as far off as you might think compared to other developed countries.

Compared to Canada we use 9% more oil per capita, 75 percent more coal per capita, and 23% less natural gas per capita.

[Cartalas]

Stop using all the resources you Canucks!!!!

[Chmee]

Its not like 26000 square kilometers is a lot of land either compared to the area of the US. That article objecting to renewable power seemed to imply it was. But thats only about a 100 mile square, or 4 50 mile squares (less than an hours drive) spread across the country. Having driven across the country in 4 different directions I can say I've seen the miles and miles of bugger all that are out there that have gone on for literally hours in some cases. You could lose all 4 of those 50 mile squares in the california desert alone easily and never find them again, let alone the entire country. The land, even land close to the main population centers to deal with transmission practicalities, for such a project isnt the issue except for certain areas of the east coast, especially the New England area.

Its not the size of area that would have to be used as much as it being a vastly greater amount than we have produced (according to adex's article, 8,999 times the total that have been produced from 1982 - 1998). Also, since solar cells only gather power while the sun is shining on them, we would need a lot better ways of storing power than we currently possess in order to be able to meet demand at all times.

[Kluden]

Like I said, you look at being provided power by one company (the way it was for many years until recently) as a "freedom of choice" issue. I don't. So, in other words, neither of us can convince each other on the rights and wrongs of this issue.

As for the expense of it, the budget money is there for it. It is just being used for other means at the moment. Without the war on Iraq and defense budgets' (just for example, because they are enormous) being so high...there is a nice bunch of money to use. Taxes did not go up enough to pay for that entire increase in the countries budget...so where did that come from? Other programs got cut.

Secondly, I did not want a war on Iraq...so does that mean I can compare George bush puting a gun to my head? If I use your argument, he did...because I had no choice if we were going to war or not...and those are my tax dollars...and he wasn't my choice in the election...so he does not represent me...so he is forcing his will upon me (and my wallet by your account).

All in all, this discussion is more about where the government sees fit to spend the budget it already has. Not increase taxes. Do we spend less on this to pay for that. If the nationwide bill was passed to subsidize this type of energy source for homes, then the government would be making a choice for you...in essence, taking your right to choose away again. And I know, before you say it, you elected the person...so that was when you made the choice, but you didn't vote for the other 49 state's reps...so they made the choice for you.

Also, calling it "expensive green energy" is a biased opinion. I don't think it would be expensive....atleast not like the "expensive war on iraq". The cost to build a coal burning facility may be considered high too...especially when you factor in the cost for the fuel over time. I imagine it probably comes mighty close. It just takes up less land or something along that line.

And to conclude, if I had a choice like the Texans do, then yes, I would choose to pay more for the greener energy. I just don't have that choice...and never will, cause I sure as shit won't move to texas.

[Forthe]

Stop using all the resources you Canucks!!!!

wtf we are energy exporters don't be h8'in.

[Forthe]

Life is good. Here's a buck, buy a cup of coffee kid.

Not you personally. I thought I made that fairly specific but I guess asking you to follow a conversation is like telling a mongloid not to shit in his pants on the bus. I would bet you my house that my husband and I paid more federal tax in the US this year than you will pay from now until you retire.

I understood you perfectly well my dear. Perhaps you are the one that should be paying more attention? It seems you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let me be blunt. There's a reason we have all the money. We are better than you. Better from the standpoint that our society still allows a degree of personal freedom not seen in much of the world. Even in our current state of perpetual disarray... our... society... produces! Producers get paid. Hence we have all the money. Money talks. Money talks LOUDLY.

By the way, I could give a rat's ass how much tax you paid, your complaints seem to resolve themselves as nothing more than something akin to penis envy. We've got it, you want it, you're gonna cry about it.

Like I said... Life is Good!

2 points:

What do you think would be the US Federal Government's response if Texas chose to have a referendum on succession from the US? As much as I enjoy making fun of Quebec the fact that the Canadian Federal government actually allowed the referendum speaks volumns.

You have "all the money" for 1 reason. Foreign (direct) investment. FDI is the only reason the US dollar has been able to hold its strength, this is further aided by the US dollar's use as the international standard. The US had been the world's top FDI receipient for so long that you are dependent on it now. Scenario's where FDI dries up (China overtook US' FDI in 2001) or the international standard switches to say the euro are doomsday scenarios for the US economy.

[Adex_Xeda]

I never mentioned Iraq in this thread.

You want to force a mandate. That's same as you putting a gun to my head and demanding money from me without me having a say.

Sure the analogy is more graphic than a raise in my taxes but it purifies the point.

Government mandates and regulations cost tax dollars, we should not implement such things when better alternatives exist to deal with the issue.

[Niffoni]

Wait... The US uses more oil per capita than canada? I always thought it was the other way around because we heat our homes 8 months of the year, and tend to be more spread out so we drive further.

There must be something I'm just missing here in my sleep-deprived state, because i took some retarded Enviro Studies as an elective in college, and Canada topped the list of oil per capita in our text. I always knew that course was lame.

[Kluden]

No, I mentioned Iraq...but not because it is the hot topic...but because of the shear amount of money we are spending there. Taxes did not go up to cover that expense. So, my point was, renewable energy source subsidation would cost a portion of the Iraq budget, and since the war on Iraq didn't raise my income tax, how in the world can you sit there and act like this renewable thing would?

Like I said, you can't convince me, and I can't convince you, because you are selective on what is taking away your freedoms and what is not.

And also with your logic, you obviously agree with every cent the government spends...otherwise...they put a gun to your head too. It's a piss poor analogy. Why? Because paying taxes is the fucken law. What taxes are spent on, is beyond your control (beyond your vote in your own state). Hence, it is a piss poor analogy.

[Adex_Xeda]

As long as we have troops in danger in Iraq, I would not support redistribution of their funding to any other program.

[Adex_Xeda]

I pasted your comments Kluden over to my brother who's an expert in the field. This way you don't have to take my word for it. He is a research engineer for the "traffic control" center for the power grid that serves Texas. All of the big providers submit generation bids to my brother's group and they sort out how the power is going to be billed, who generates what, and how the electrical load is distributed over the grid. He's been in the power business doing different engineering jobs for 16 years.


*shrug* for what it's worth:______________________________________



Please excuse any typos or excessive sarcasm – I’ve been arguing with people all day.

You're speaking about the power company de-regulation...so consumers can choose their provider. Since this occured, the price per kw has gone up

(Wrong bucko! -- There are several types of consumers classes. In general, rates for Industrial accounts have decreased. Rates for commercial accounts have also gone down. Rates for some residential customers have gone up. However, the price of natural gas, which fuels 70% of the generation in ERCOT, has also increased dramatically. Fuel prices are passed through directly to the customer. In order to do a true comparison you would have to consider what the prices in the old regulated world would be with the gas prices of today. I suspect that in most cases you would see very little difference for most residential customers. That’s not to say that the average residential customer hasn’t benefited from deregulation. Rate decreases for Industrial and Commercial customers eventually benefit everyone.)

The freedom to choose a power company hurts your wallet, don't be fooled. The reason for this is, instead of everyone owning the power lines, single companies now own the powerlines, and can charge whatever "transportation" fee they want. There is no regulation on that number, hence why the price for a kw went way up

(So wrong it hurts – Before deregulation companies owned lines and generators. After deregulation these were split Generators are now deregulated, but companies owning power lines are still regulated by the Public Utility Commission. Companies selling are the other type. Wire Companies still must file with the PUC for to justify their expenditures. Their “transportation” fee is strictly regulated. The price/kw going way up has more to do with gas prices and congestion. Congestion is simply the fact that the new transmission is not being built at the same rate that load growth is occurring. The same system is forced to serve more load. As this happens more expensive generation is sometimes used to relieve the transmission congestion. This cost is passed through to the consumer. Price increases have had nothing to with the “transportation” fee.)

Also, that freedom does not allow you to always choose who you want.

(This sound like something out of Animal Farm – However he is partly right, everyone does not have the right to choose their provider. People in the Panhandle, some Co-ops, and municipal still have not opted into the deregulated market.)

There should not be a price tag increase to be environmentally conscious. This is something the government needs to subsidize to the maximum degree if it is ever to move forward.

(Matter of Opinion – The truth about wind generation is that it is unreliable and available only in places where the current transmission system does not exist. For every 100-MW of wind generation that is built about 70-MW traditionally fueled generation must also be built in order to have adequate reserves when the wind isn’t blowing. Wind typically peaks when the system load is at low load. Therefore new traditionally fueled generation must be built to meet peak demands. The second bad thing about wind is that it is only available in places where the current transmission system is very weak. Because the transmission construction is regulated everyone is paying for the new transmission needed to reach the wind farms. All consumers are forced to pay for transmission to reach the wind farms. In my opinion, people buying green energy to should to pay a surcharge in order to offset this cost.)

You and I both know it never will move forward fast if private companies are left to their own dollar for R&D...the government has to help out there.

(Only if you’re a Socialist -- Why should the government, which is representative of the people, promote an inefficient and costly way of providing energy? Liberals are always making the government out to sound like some sort of self-conscious being with a will of its own. )

Last, saying 20% of a states power, or whatever percentage, must be generated from renewable sources is not "forcing people to do what I want". If a percentage of the power provided to your neighborhood was generated through these means, you would never know, unless someone told you.

(Naïve and wrong – It’s hard to even begin explaining the complexities that this statement ignores. In simple terms, generation must equal load at all times. Sudden increases in load must be responded to by sudden increases in generation. How can wind-powered generation do that? You can’t make the wind blow more or even consistently. The only way is to have traditionally-fueled generation held in reserve. This costs money – negating some of the benefits of the cheap wind power. In truth, only a small percentage of the overall generation portfolio can be wind powered – somewhere around 12-17%. This percentage will vary with the diversity of the wind generator’s locations. The State of Texas is currently forcing all consumers to subsidize wind generators through a program of wind credits that all Service providers must buy and the regulated cost of building new transmission to the wind farms.)

That's the other reason it cannot, and should not, be left up to the people to choose the provider.

(Who is this guy – Karl Marx?)

If the power they receive is uninterrupted (as much as possible that is), then who are they to know or care where it comes from?

(Contradictory -- Obviously somebody cares or there wouldn’t be a market for green power and we wouldn’t be having this discussion)

Also, I don't think the average person knows anything about power generation. They just assume when someone says "technology is lacking", that the source must be crap. Which again, would be false.

(Then again, some people who think they understand everything are really quite ignorant. I’d rather deal with the uninformed)

I guess what I'm trying to say is, you should not have to pay more to be more responsible.

(I don’t understand how green power is more responsible than traditionally powered generation, especially if you have to build a bunch of gas powered back ups. Responsible generation could be defined in many ways. I would place a lot of emphasis on reliability. Another measure might be -- the more reliable the more responsible. Traditionally fueled plants win hands down. How about sight pollution. It takes around 1000 windmills to equal a medium size coal plant. Which is has more sight pollution. Liberals think that just because it is in West Texas it doesn’t matter. Liberals don’t live in West Texas)

Also, the government is forcing nothing on the people,

(wrong -- yes they are)

they are forcing it on the power companies as a whole

(Wake up -- Once again he needs to define power companies. In the deregulated world there are at least 3 varieties. Wire companies get a regulated rate of return. They don’t care. Power generators don’t care. Power Marketers just pass the cost on through their rates so I guess they kind of care.)

Believe me, the power company is NOT on your side. They are on the side of their own bottom line.

(Finally, after a litany of ignorant rambling this goof gets something right)

Just my 2cp.

(What the hell is a cp?)


BTW my brother is really a nice guy, I guess when he responded to that email he was having a bad day.

[Kluden]

No, I'm sure he is a nice guy, I get his sarcasm and I don't take offense.

I'm not a liberal, I'm not a marxist, and I'm not a hipee.

In truth, only a small percentage of the overall generation portfolio can be wind powered – somewhere around 12-17%.

He answered some of my items as if I'm asking for 100% replacement. I'm not doing that. He said 12 to 17% is in effect a reasonable goal, that's all I'm asking for...reasonable. Your brother makes my argument feasible, what is wrong with mandating 12 to 17% for each state?

The deregulation in Texas is far different from the deregulation in the New England states I am familiar with...so...comparing my arguments to Texas' laws is not really feasible...I'm arguing based on the deregulation that I know of, your brother is commenting on the deregulation he is familiar with. I can't really argue against that...but it doesn't just make me wrong or ignorant as he put it. Texas is the lucky state apparantly, since power did increase here in this area since deregulation. So no, tell him I'm not a moronic, ignorant fool.

He says the lines aren't owned by one company anymore, but in Pennsylvania, they were under the public utility board before deregulation, after, one company owns the power lines (the one that original installed and paid for them), in essence, creating a monopoly, and part of a reason for the kW increase of price. No biggy, just pointing out that deregulation has had very different effects to consumers in markets other than Texas.

Also, you can't look at it as "inefficient"...it is more of a "less efficient" thing...

Once again, would be all for the nuclear option too...so, not a hippie...just not a big fan of the focil fuel burning...

Lastly, I don't pretend to be an expert...so if some of my statements are misinformed...then so be it. I don't have a problem admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong. But, your brother's points, like I said, only make some of my arguments false if I were speaking directly on a Texas basis...which I'm not.

Ok. I'll chicken out now and say I'm done. I'll never convince you otherwise, and vice versa, so I'll stop trying.

[Adex_Xeda]

You're not alone, after reading this, some of my assumptions were incorrect as well, and I totally missed the impact that fluctuations of fuel prices would have on generation.

[Forthe]

As long as we have troops in danger in Iraq, I would not support redistribution of their funding to any other program.

Why not? Funds were redistributed when your troops were in danger in Afghanistan.

[Adex_Xeda]

If I was "Dictator of America" the last thing I would be doing is cutting funds to my troops during a war.

Is there something more specific that you wish to mention Forthe? Perhaps we can talk about it.

[kyoukan]

what war? didn't you see the mission accomplished banner on your president's 2 million dollar photo opportunity?

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

The US was built on the blood and sweat of people who you aren't even worthy of licking their boots.

what war? didn't you see the mission accomplished banner on your president's 2 million dollar photo opportunity?

The U.S. was built by people who have a history of going to war to gain what they wanted. There is nothing going on right now that was not going on for the last 200 years. The U.S. fought for freedom...then fought to take the land from the Native Americans...then Mexico. You can't find a 30 year period where we have not been engaged in a conflict of some variety.

The only big difference is that teh intarnet is allowing much more information....both true and false....to be spread rapidly and dissent to be heard along a much larger audience. Is liberating Iraq from a dictator a bigger sin than rounding up Native Americans and killing them...or paying bounties to have them killed...and taking every acre of their land in an act of aggression? I would think not.

The U.S. is far from perfect, but the people of this country have good intentions in their actions, even if there may be some ignorance in how it will truly affect the other parties. The government may or may not have hidden agendas. Without a complete retooling of our entire foundation of the government, there is not a damn thing we can do about it though. Every politician that runs for office is nothing more than a career politician. They do not represent anyone other than the fanatics of their party and themselves. I think if we could wipe the representatives away entirely and elected people who truly represented the citizens that things could be different....but it isn;t going to happen in our lifetime.