What systems? Solar systems? They aren't "that" expensive and you'll start saving instantly. There are a lot of factors to consider, and you'd really have to figure out your break even point.
[lolitics]Your thoughts on offshore drilling after this mess.
- Thread starter BillyBadAss
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
ah man, several thousands up front? do you know how many years it would take for that to even out.
I don't get incentives, I get broke immediately.
Maybe if we didn't spend billions on going to war there would be funds left for mandatory green energy in every city.
If that city fought back then they are the ****ing devil and should be wiped off the map, straight up.
I don't get incentives, I get broke immediately.
Maybe if we didn't spend billions on going to war there would be funds left for mandatory green energy in every city.
If that city fought back then they are the ****ing devil and should be wiped off the map, straight up.
Last edited:
I'm saying that people are wasting too much energy in their houses.
They need to unplug any thing not being used.
It's funny how people say that wind and solar cost too much to use it as a power source.
But you only have to purchase it once.
Coal, Oil, Gas, Nuke. you always have to resupply and deal with the waste matter.
don't forget all the very, very high capacity batteries for those overcast days with no wind (it could happen)
shut up. Stop the dictating bull****. No one new is going to buy it. We aren't using to much power. Using to much would imply some outside source not in our control is running out. That is hardly the case.
Since you seem like an expert, can I ask you question? What is the cost per kw for a wind turbine in comparison to nuclear power. Ok, I will give you the answer. A wind turbine costs about 21 cents per kw while nuclear power cost about 1.3 cents per kw. That is taking into accounts all variables. The average cost difference per kw using wind and solar in comparison to any of the power plants you mention is about 20 cents on average with every case being in favor of those sources.
how and why are we to take you as some expert?
I get really sick of you contradicting even the slightest bit of reason, all because you want to play the part.
It's way past fun time for that stuff.
Last edited:
That's what I was getting at with my earlier post.
Agree completely, but that's where the
comes in. If government incentives help introduce and further develop new technologies faster, in my book that's a good thing. What people seem to forget is that at least in the energy sector, a lot of the now outdated or let's say "unappealing" technologies have profited from subsidies in the past. I've already brought up the (black) coal industry in Germany (which was kept alive way beyond its regular time for political reasons), but another prime example is atomic energy (which, before anyone draws premature conclusions, I support in theory - though not the way it is done now). Once again, I'm mostly informed about the way things are run in Europe, and the problem here is, that the states handle the extremely costly final disposal mostly by themselves - thus indirectly financing nuclear power, which would be significantly more expensive otherwise.
As for the "need of something" - it's all very relative. Traditional energy industries don't necessarily see the need to innovate if their old plants are still making lots of money. They don't take into account the long-term costs that occur from waste and pollution (which are massive even if you're not convinced of climate change - and no, we don't need to debate that topic yet again). It's a form of market failure and it can only be resolved by taxing and giving out subsidies.
Agree completely, but that's where the
comes in. If government incentives help introduce and further develop new technologies faster, in my book that's a good thing. What people seem to forget is that at least in the energy sector, a lot of the now outdated or let's say "unappealing" technologies have profited from subsidies in the past. I've already brought up the (black) coal industry in Germany (which was kept alive way beyond its regular time for political reasons), but another prime example is atomic energy (which, before anyone draws premature conclusions, I support in theory - though not the way it is done now). Once again, I'm mostly informed about the way things are run in Europe, and the problem here is, that the states handle the extremely costly final disposal mostly by themselves - thus indirectly financing nuclear power, which would be significantly more expensive otherwise.
As for the "need of something" - it's all very relative. Traditional energy industries don't necessarily see the need to innovate if their old plants are still making lots of money. They don't take into account the long-term costs that occur from waste and pollution (which are massive even if you're not convinced of climate change - and no, we don't need to debate that topic yet again). It's a form of market failure and it can only be resolved by taxing and giving out subsidies.
Last edited:
If you consider me this or that is really up to you.
And wtf is that supposed to mean? We aren't running out of any of the sources of fuel that we use. period. They're all limited resources and that is clear, but the lie that you all of been feed that we are running out is simply not true.
If you were to say we should look for alternative energy for another reason I would be totally on-board with it, but I won't jump on-board if that reason is used.
And contradicting lies isn't a bad thing. People are taught lies these days as children. There is a need for people to break those lies to pieces. You can call the lies that you been raised to believe reason if you wish, but if you were wise you would look into everything that was ever taught to you.
I'm also not "playing" a part. I only act the way I am and say what I know and feel. I don't know what part you "play" on these forums and I really don't care.
das_ben said:
It should be mentioned that most of the "cost" of the process comes from the policy and the regulations which is ofcourse where the facilities come in to being in the first place. It should also be mentioned that most of the waste storage in America is done at the power facility and is handled by the companies themselves. That was actually part my 1.3 cent kw cost.
Still what I meant by subsidy is that the power source isn't able to be feasible without subsidy. Nuclear power is similar though.
Not really the same as this, but its close.
Last edited:
Festering Anus
Cheeto Hans
There are numerous problems with wind and solar power and they don't produce nearly enough energy to supply the population in the states. Not that they can't, but they aren't the solution only part of it. IMO it's going to take a number of these alternative energy sources working together to make a dent in our dependence on oil. The technology has made leaps and bounds, but the prices are higher than most Americans can afford and then we complain when they do try to install wind farms. Capewind is one such example. The funny thing about us Americans it that we are all for alternative energies until they are in our own back yard and "ruining" our landscapes...
The FAA has already approved the Nantucket Wind farm, but a lot of the locals and environmentalists are threatening court action... So that will push it back about 10 years.
yep, the point i was making earlier. aren't those environmentalists teh ironicals?
Until one becomes unstable, collapses, chops the power lines and electrocutes all of the fish!
Last edited:
It has to start somewhere. Why doesn't the government just use the "threat to national security" argument and build the wind farm anyway?
Well, the resistance argument is much more applicable to direct current. If the power lines fed direct current throughout the country, the range would be severely limited. Thus, alternating current was born. Due to the properties of alternating current, power can be transmitted within a farther range. Our current power grid deals with alternating current. (This was why Tesla trumped Edison in distance in which they are able to send power. (Tesla championed AC, Edison championed DC.))
But that doesn't justify the US's aging and decaying power grid. Now, if the US is 30 times the size of Germany, why not revamp the power grid infrastructure to be separated into 30 different semi-independent subsections. These subsections would have connections to the adjacent section in case a power surplus section could send power to a power deficit section. Thus, it is very hard to say that the United States cannot produce 30% or greater of needed power via wind and solar.
Last edited:
Yeah, but I'd rather see wind turbines, solar cells, etc than oil derricks, "grasshoppers", smoke stacks from coal power plants, oil rigs, etc.
Yeah they would be awesome, as they could (hopefully) harness the diurnal cycle of land and sea breezes.
------
Also I love how people say "oh we aren't 'running out' of fossil fuels, etc." These type of people will continue to say that until we indeed run out of fossil fuels, and a crisis forms. Then what, we won't have enough fossil fuels to produce enough energy to research/test/improve/create the devices to collect and capture the alternative energy that we would need right then!
Last edited:
My parents are going to retire this year and they considered renting some land in 2 locations far away from the village to install wind turbines. Around 2000€ p/year per turbine is a nice sum for unreachable land on the top of a steep hill
In this rainy winter, we managed to almost be self-sufficient on electric power just with wind turbines and dams, if it weren't for the extreme cold that forced people to use heating. In 10 years, except for vehicle fuel, we will become energy independent
For the ones that say it's not viable for the U.S because it's too big, start thinking at state level instead.
In this rainy winter, we managed to almost be self-sufficient on electric power just with wind turbines and dams, if it weren't for the extreme cold that forced people to use heating. In 10 years, except for vehicle fuel, we will become energy independent
For the ones that say it's not viable for the U.S because it's too big, start thinking at state level instead.
