Posted on 08/05/2010 6:43:24 PM PDT by Nachum
The U.S. Senate's proposed Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would force electric utilities to generate a large and increasing percentage of their power from wind and solar -- rising to 15% by 2021. These goals resemble those of the Waxman-Markey bill that barely passed the House in June 2009. It's disturbing that some Republicans on the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted for ACELA (the American Clean Energy Leadership Act). If the Senate were to take up an energy bill, it is likely that Sen. Brownback (R-KS) will introduce an amendment for RES.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If we really wanted clean, safe and reliable energy, we’d be deep into Nuclear. France and Soviet Russia had this figured out 50 years ago. One rogue plant doesn’t mean they had it wrong.
would force electric utilities to generate a large and increasing percentage of their power from wind and solar — rising to 15% by 2021
Can’t be done, no way no how with those two sources.
The Thinker usually runs better articles, this one mixes crap and opinion with little substantation of anything. All energy is solar, essentially, it’s a matter of what form we wish to harvest it in - dead dinosaurs that made coal and oil, the sun-driven water cycle that drives hydro plants and creates weather (wind), from nuclear elements created in the big bang, or directly from sunlight. We’re at the beginning of the S-curve when it comes to directly converting solar radiation into electricity or heat, with time the economics of this will improve as they all do. But I agree with you that nuclear is an important and necessary option that we need to exploit.
Common sense would say that you cannot have economic growth ie. increasing power production if you must have x% increase as well. It is another Utopian marxist idea.
Heard during a local newscast (on oil and BP):
One of the mysteries oil scientists can't explain is when a well is pumped dry (not economical to continue to pump) and then capped: if you come back 10-15 years later the well is full again.”
Add that to the 1.35 trillion barrel the US already has in the ground and it will be a very big number...
LMAO!
it’s a matter of what form we wish to harvest it in - dead dinosaurs that made coal and oil, <<<
Would you give me # of dinosaurs?...YIPOS!
The THINKER! huh?...Roll over and play dead!..unless you want to defend that position.......*G*
You pay the utility company to send electrons to your house. They are usually delivered by an overhead line. You use the electrons they send, and after being used, the electrons go to ground and return to the power plant.
Fair points, all our energy comes from elsewhere. No argument here.
Renewable energy standards are fraudulent to the core. The target is itself is a fraud, a deliberate piece of misinformation. The 15 percent standard does not mean that 15 percent of energy generation will come from renewable sources. The efficiency is so low that perhaps 5 percent can be generated. Even the 5 percent (or even lower) is misleading because renewable power generates little peak power and no dispatchable power. Obviously backup generation and perhaps battery storage must be part of the renewable standard.
This standard involves renewable plants spread across large areas. Expensive new transmission capacity will be needed to connect the remote renewable power to the grid. Even more transmission capacity will be needed to manage the highly variable loads from renewable power. Every renewable plant will need to be backed up with dispatchable power typically generating at low efficiency and higher pollution levels because of frequent cycling.
Denmark and Germany are great models of renewable energy. Danish electricity rates are 4 times typical rates here while German rates are 2 to 3 times our rates. Somehow, I do not think that Denmark and Germany will save the world from a global warming disaster.
We need to develop nuclear energy using Thorium technology:
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/page2/thorium-fuel-for-nuclear-energy
I agree, thorium seems to have a lot of potential (pun intended!)
Also take a look at how new companies like Hyperion are repackaging the nuclear power plant using modern technologies:
http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
I often point out that no US nuke plant has been designed or built since the development of the microprocessor. Think about that - the control system at Three Mile Island was a lot closer to that of a steam locomotive than to what’s inside an iPhone. OK, that’s hyperbole but you see my point - since that damned movie with Jane Fonda we’ve run not just walked away from nuclear power and it’s high time we revisited it, with 40 years of technology innovations in our toolbox.
Really?
I am glad I don't remember which state it was (it's got to be embarrassing,) but there was an attempt in the 19th century by the state legislature to force everybody in the state to use the value of pi as 3.1.
Because it would make computations easier for everybody!
It missed passage by a single vote.
I talked to Clint Didier, who is running for U.S. Senate, about buiding more power plants. He gave me both thumbs up. He had just met with Sarah Palin in the Tri-Cities area. This is the heart of Washington’s nuclear research. Sarah Palin is pushing for more nuclear energy too.
I told Clint about thorium, and he was aware of its potential. It would revolutionize power generation.
BTTT!
The economics of solar have been improving...for eons.
Petroleum, coal and nuclear make more sense for the next 100 years.
Solar is a rich libs boondoggle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.