Renewable Energy Commercialization

I tried using the avatar myself, for a day. It's been cold and dark here ever since.

I may need a shaman to ask for forgiveness from one of the more tolerant Northern gods for my insolence. Then again, it is Winter so maybe I'll wait 'till Spring...when I can ask forgiveness from that hot naked chick god that puts out.

Yeah, screw it, I'll wait 'till Spring.

 

Here's a little read:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/20...rgy-actually-replace-fossil-fuel-consumption/

Renewables are a complex thing. It is not just as simple as saying "I use a solar panel or a windmill so I am green". We are going to have to do something eventually or it will be done for us...but we are really not even close.

 

A good read Stu.

For sure renewable energy is not cheap especially on a larger scale.
For that matter it takes the use of fossil fuel to even build what one needs to produce green energy.

It will take time, research, effort and money. Worth it in the long run though in my opinion.

 

Setting up the gasoline distribution network and interstate highway system was considered too complex and expensive at the time also. For some reason, we take it for granted today. The point is that anything innovative can seem undoable until it is done. It just takes a national initiative to get behind the idea and if saving the planet isn't enough of a motivation, what is?

 

Actually, the point is when it is doable, it will be done. Why is it the government's job to tell us what we should be investing in. As foreign as it sounds to you, companies actually do try to produce new and better things.

 

I have read some very interesting stuff on Ethanol in that regard. All the energy it takes to plant, fertilize, irrigate, harvest, process, etc. It all has to come from somewhere. And has to be subtracted out of the yield you get from it.

The you sometimes have a side issue not even related to energy yield...like with ethanol you have the issue of taking food away from an underfed world. And like with batteries, the recycling of the (often hazardous) materials after the batteries are not good any more and so on.

It is just not as simple as some people make it out to be.

I agree.

 

Algae has potential.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

 

I would say the ideal almost has to end up being something like that - something that pretty much grows itself, does not use good land, doesn't have to use a battery as a delivery source and is not used for much else.

 

Smokestack heat and carbon emissions are ideal for the production of algae, meaning the government could actually loosen restrictions on those companies that supplied the algae farms. Win/win.

The downside is that, at the moment, the costs are too high compared to oil, being around five or six times higher.

Costs should come down over time as production is ramped up, and the benefits can't be ignored ...less reliance on foreign oil, perhaps even none as production increases (and it should), and with export possibilities to smaller nations needing fuel... and less pollution, as the pollution from smokestacks is suitable for production.

As a government, looking for alternative fuels to fuel our cars and homes, algae is where I'd put my investment dollars. It has win/win written all over it, IMO.

 

View attachment 1049

The promise of clean and cheap solar energy is getting a second look in California, where utilities are required to get a third of their power from renewable power by 2020. But after millions in tax breaks and handouts, the industry's honeymoon is over with some counties and ratepayers, as the expected jobs, savings and revenue have not materialized.​

​

California's Riverside County is producing more solar energy than anywhere in the U.S., with close to a dozen solar plants either online or proposed.​

​

"On the face of it, it looks like a good deal. They talk about all these huge jobs and long-term benefits to the county. The truth is, it's a very short term," Riverside County Supervisor John Benoit said. "We're going to be carrying the burden of having these types of facilities for decades to come, and because of the incentives that have been provided by federal and state government, there's virtually nothing left for the county government or the local people to get benefit back after the small number of construction jobs are gone."​

​

Unlike Riverside's 500 megawatt natural gas-fired facility, which pays $6 million a year in property taxes, a solar plant being built a few miles away will pay next to nothing, just $96,000. When Riverside balked at its own upfront infrastructure costs and tried to impose an impact fee, the industry sued.​

​

The industry stands by that response.​

​

"The Riverside County tax is so high that it makes the county anti-competitive for solar," Shannon Eddy of the Large Scale Solar Association said. "The reason that we decided to litigate the Riverside County tax is because it was an illegal tax and it was in direct violation of Proposition 26." That proposition says government cannot impose a fee that acts like a tax.​

​

Riverside said it deserves something, considering the hundreds of square miles of land it is giving up to be covered by mirrors and solar panels.​

​

"From the perspective of the company, it may be a billion-dollar investment. But for the most part, that's not money that's coming back to the county that's going to be the host," Benoit said. "So yeah, I appreciate the investment. But I think they kind of overstate the number of jobs and how long they'll be here for their own PR reasons.​

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/10/california-doubles-down-on-solar-power-as-critics-question-cost-job-results/#ixzz2EifObNxe​