Someone please correct me if you know more, but from what I'm seeing it doesn't really look like they affect wind speed down range of the farm. The increased turbulence on a normally non-turbulent day (or in a typically non-turbulent area) can increase ground temps at certain times of day and redirect winds to the surface, increasing evaporation.
With the data that seems to be available, yes. Whether they could have a larger impact in aggregate, say if you had wind farms covering a significant portion of a region... I don't know if they can even model that sort of thing accurately enough to say one way or another.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
I'm not pretending that it's a panacea.
You need a, dare I say it, all of the above approach.
Of course nuclear has its share of problems, it's also the only thing that's going to enable us to make the gap between current clean energy and tech that will hopefully be reachable (relatively) soon.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
Yeah, but no one is advocating replacing all fossil fuels with just wind power. The people who don't want nuclear generally advocate for a combination of wind, solar, and geothermal as far as I know.
Personally, I think a combination of solar and nuclear is the way to go, though.
Nuclear, solar, and wind/water. Water seems the the most risky of the bunch, assuming people start using land the now lower flow water beds (helllloooo colorado river).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
I'm not pretending that it's a panacea.
You need a, dare I say it, all of the above approach.
Of course nuclear has its share of problems, it's also the only thing that's going to enable us to make the gap between current clean energy and tech that will hopefully be reachable (relatively) soon.
Nuclear, solar, and wind could all potentially generate enough energy to power the planet with current technology. However with wind, that would mean basically harvesting the earth's entire atmosphere, which is problematic. I mean, sure, we don't have to do that, but using any significant fraction of wind power is going to run into problems like that.
Nuclear and solar have a lot more potential (potentially way more than we could use). But bear in mind in mind it takes something 20 years and a huge amount of startup capital to build a nuclear plant, not to mention it's very difficult to find a site where you can get approval to build one. For my money, it looks like solar or nothing right now.
For my money, it looks like solar or nothing right now.
Which, as a grad student studying semiconductor devices, is great news for me. The problem at the moment is cost, but there are tons of people working on that.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
I'm not pretending that it's a panacea.
You need a, dare I say it, all of the above approach.
Of course nuclear has its share of problems, it's also the only thing that's going to enable us to make the gap between current clean energy and tech that will hopefully be reachable (relatively) soon.
Nuclear, solar, and wind could all potentially generate enough energy to power the planet with current technology. However with wind, that would mean basically harvesting the earth's entire atmosphere, which is problematic. I mean, sure, we don't have to do that, but using any significant fraction of wind power is going to run into problems like that.
Nuclear and solar have a lot more potential (potentially way more than we could use). But bear in mind in mind it takes something 20 years and a huge amount of startup capital to build a nuclear plant, not to mention it's very difficult to find a site where you can get approval to build one. For my money, it looks like solar or nothing right now.
The saddest thing is that we could do a ton from the other end. If we weren't a "Free Market Paradise", we could use government money to massively improve insulation and overall efficiency in homes and businesses. There are some tax credits floating out there, but people without the spare cash can't take advantage of the credits.
We could also do a lot more to increase the efficiency of manufacturing, appliances and practically every feature of modern life. While it wouldn't solve the problem, it would help a lot to reduce power consumption enough to meet the alternative energy sources in the middle.
It's too bad that this didn't hit in the 1940s or 1950s, when people would have gladly supported massive federal efforts to improve American efficiency. We have absolutely the worst political climate in decades for handling this kind of slowly encroaching disaster.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
I'm not pretending that it's a panacea.
You need a, dare I say it, all of the above approach.
Of course nuclear has its share of problems, it's also the only thing that's going to enable us to make the gap between current clean energy and tech that will hopefully be reachable (relatively) soon.
Nuclear, solar, and wind could all potentially generate enough energy to power the planet with current technology. However with wind, that would mean basically harvesting the earth's entire atmosphere, which is problematic. I mean, sure, we don't have to do that, but using any significant fraction of wind power is going to run into problems like that.
Nuclear and solar have a lot more potential (potentially way more than we could use). But bear in mind in mind it takes something 20 years and a huge amount of startup capital to build a nuclear plant, not to mention it's very difficult to find a site where you can get approval to build one. For my money, it looks like solar or nothing right now.
The saddest thing is that we could do a ton from the other end. If we weren't a "Free Market Paradise", we could use government money to massively improve insulation and overall efficiency in homes and businesses. There are some tax credits floating out there, but people without the spare cash can't take advantage of the credits.
We could also do a lot more to increase the efficiency of manufacturing, appliances and practically every feature of modern life. While it wouldn't solve the problem, it would help a lot to reduce power consumption enough to meet the alternative energy sources in the middle.
It's too bad that this didn't hit in the 1940s or 1950s, when people would have gladly supported massive federal efforts to improve American efficiency. We have absolutely the worst political climate in decades for handling this kind of slowly encroaching disaster.
Sure, efficiency improvements can help as well. But there's only so far we can go with that, and a lot of it has been improved quite a lot already just to save money. At some point we need to actually find a new source of energy, which basically means sacrificing short-term growth for long-term sustainability. And I don't think we've ever had a political climate that would allow that.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
Because in 1950 we couldn't build the plants fast enough and they were more expensive than they are today while coal was cheaper?
Because that's the reason we didn't, nuclear IS the panacea. If we'd shifted to it in the 50s we would literally be A-OK today. Solar has taken some huge strides over the last few years and is now worth bringing into the discussion, but it's nuclear power or civilization ends.
Sure, efficiency improvements can help as well. But there's only so far we can go with that, and a lot of it has been improved quite a lot already just to save money. At some point we need to actually find a new source of energy, which basically means sacrificing short-term growth for long-term sustainability. And I don't think we've ever had a political climate that would allow that.
I've seen some numbers on what simple weatherproofing of existing housing stock would save in terms of fuel and power. The numbers are staggering.
The fallacy here is thinking that since doing something saves money, people have already done so. The truth is that the majority of Americans cannot afford even the relatively minor costs of improving insulation and sealing cracks and windows, or there landlords have no interest in spending this money.
And there are multiple instances in American history of the public cutting back because the government asked them to. The big ones are the World Wars, but you also have periods like the Depression where people voluntarily gave up frills in huge numbers to show solidarity with the less fortunate.
Americans didn't turn into human locusts until the mid-to-late 20th century. We really are very different from our forefathers.
Sure, efficiency improvements can help as well. But there's only so far we can go with that, and a lot of it has been improved quite a lot already just to save money. At some point we need to actually find a new source of energy, which basically means sacrificing short-term growth for long-term sustainability. And I don't think we've ever had a political climate that would allow that.
I've seen some numbers on what simple weatherproofing of existing housing stock would save in terms of fuel and power. The numbers are staggering.
The fallacy here is thinking that since doing something saves money, people have already done so. The truth is that the majority of Americans cannot afford even the relatively minor costs of improving insulation and sealing cracks and windows, or there landlords have no interest in spending this money.
And there are multiple instances in American history of the public cutting back because the government asked them to. The big ones are the World Wars, but you also have periods like the Depression where people voluntarily gave up frills in huge numbers to show solidarity with the less fortunate.
Americans didn't turn into human locusts until the mid-to-late 20th century. We really are very different from our forefathers.
What do you mean by "staggering"? Unless it's more more than, say, 80% of current energy use, it doesn't really change anything, because we'd still be emitting way too much carbon and we need a large new energy source to replace that.
I'm also assuming that people still want to maintain something like their current lifestyles. I mean, sure, if you can convince everyone to live in 1 square meter of living space and completely give up meat, driving, and flying that would drop our energy/carbon use almost to zero, but no one (no American anyway) would ever agree to that. Right now, people's idea of a meaningful sacrifice for the environment is something like buying a hybrid car instead of an SUV.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
Because in 1950 we couldn't build the plants fast enough and they were more expensive than they are today while coal was cheaper?
Because that's the reason we didn't, nuclear IS the panacea. If we'd shifted to it in the 50s we would literally be A-OK today. Solar has taken some huge strides over the last few years and is now worth bringing into the discussion, but it's nuclear power or civilization ends.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
Doesn't this apply to pretty much everything that gets suggested as a way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
Yes, and it infuriates me to no end when it does.
I mean, shit, of course it takes fucking money and time. So the fuck what? You realize that if we had started expanding nuclear power in the 80s or 90s, we'd have the plant built by now?
I mean, it's great to say "solar and wind!" but that tech just isn't there yet and it'll never be at the point where it'll power the US completely. Nuclear is safe, clean (comparatively), and efficient. We're going to need the plants in 20 years, so we might as well start building them now. Should have done a long time ago. And at the same time, we invest in wind and solar and hydro and geo.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
Because in 1950 we couldn't build the plants fast enough and they were more expensive than they are today while coal was cheaper?
Because that's the reason we didn't, nuclear IS the panacea. If we'd shifted to it in the 50s we would literally be A-OK today. Solar has taken some huge strides over the last few years and is now worth bringing into the discussion, but it's nuclear power or civilization ends.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
Err, no. It produces power safely and cheaply, using something we have plenty of and produces minimal amounts of waste which poses limited hazard and is easily contained. Nuclear waste if incredibly badly managed could be a threat to human long term health. The environment wouldn't care one bit. Since the ore was already radioactive before you dug it up.
The only problems nuclear power has are due to the fact we don't build enough of them so it's hard to get a big enough pressure vessel these days. Nowadays we certainly could build the plants fast enough and they would be more than cheap enough.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
That reminds me of Germany - quitting all nuclear power after fukushima. Pandering assholes. The ones who made that decision know that they are not sitting on a fault line, it's pure pandering towards imbecile voters.
So basically their impact is negligible after a certain distance.
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
goddang it nuclear isn't some magical panacea. It has it's share of problems just like wind and solar.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
Because in 1950 we couldn't build the plants fast enough and they were more expensive than they are today while coal was cheaper?
Because that's the reason we didn't, nuclear IS the panacea. If we'd shifted to it in the 50s we would literally be A-OK today. Solar has taken some huge strides over the last few years and is now worth bringing into the discussion, but it's nuclear power or civilization ends.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
Err, no. It produces power safely and cheaply, using something we have plenty of and produces minimal amounts of waste which poses limited hazard and is easily contained. Nuclear waste if incredibly badly managed could be a threat to human long term health. The environment wouldn't care one bit. Since the ore was already radioactive before you dug it up.
The only problems nuclear power has are due to the fact we don't build enough of them so it's hard to get a big enough pressure vessel these days. Nowadays we certainly could build the plants fast enough and they would be more than cheap enough.
Radioactive, but not concentrated or introduced into the environment. It's essentially the same as lead in that regard.
Nuclear, solar, and wind/water. Water seems the the most risky of the bunch, assuming people start using land the now lower flow water beds (helllloooo colorado river).
I think it's also (and I'm probably misremembering) the only clean energy source that is approaching peak capacity in many countries. As I understand it, nearly every river that it's possible to dam for hydroelectric power generation has been dammed already.
I think it's also (and I'm probably misremembering) the only clean energy source that is approaching peak capacity in many countries. As I understand it, nearly every river that it's possible to dam for hydroelectric power generation has been dammed already.
Well, there are other ways of using water to spin a turbine - tide generators, for example.
There are also interesting things being done with rainfall-based generators. You basically set-up a cistern, the cistern fills with rainwater, then when it's at capacity it dumps the water to spin a turbine. Pretty limited in terms of where it's practical to set-up, but interesting.
I've seen some numbers on what simple weatherproofing of existing housing stock would save in terms of fuel and power. The numbers are staggering.
it's insane. I'm a verifier for the NAHB Green program and can tell you that without proper insulation the amount of energy lost on simple heating/cooling is ridiculous.
I think it's also (and I'm probably misremembering) the only clean energy source that is approaching peak capacity in many countries. As I understand it, nearly every river that it's possible to dam for hydroelectric power generation has been dammed already.
Well, there are other ways of using water to spin a turbine - tide generators, for example.
There are also interesting things being done with rainfall-based generators. You basically set-up a cistern, the cistern fills with rainwater, then when it's at capacity it dumps the water to spin a turbine. Pretty limited in terms of where it's practical to set-up, but interesting.
Hmm, I knew that tide generation was a thing but I was under the impression that it's difficult as balls to get it set up and running, and then it's as fiddly as an orchestra to keep it going. Also expensive, but that's true for any and all methods of generating electricity.
Still, the fact that it isn't widespread means that there's room for expansion and improvement.
Hmm, I knew that tide generation was a thing but I was under the impression that it's difficult as balls to get it set up and running, and then it's as fiddly as an orchestra to keep it going. Also expensive, but that's true for any and all methods of generating electricity.
Well, not really. I mean, here are your basic tide generators:
Very similar to wind turbines, both in terms of appearance & functionality. The water currents push against the fins, which spins the machine's turbine and generates an electrical current.
The density of water means that the tide generator is actually more efficient than a wind generator, but of course it's placement options are much more limited.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
Doesn't this apply to pretty much everything that gets suggested as a way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
Yes, and it infuriates me to no end when it does.
I mean, shit, of course it takes fucking money and time. So the fuck what? You realize that if we had started expanding nuclear power in the 80s or 90s, we'd have the plant built by now?
I mean, it's great to say "solar and wind!" but that tech just isn't there yet and it'll never be at the point where it'll power the US completely. Nuclear is safe, clean (comparatively), and efficient. We're going to need the plants in 20 years, so we might as well start building them now. Should have done a long time ago. And at the same time, we invest in wind and solar and hydro and geo.
All. Of. The. Above.
I very much disagree that existing solar tech can't power the US completely. It woudn't be easy, but we could do it if we really wanted to (and accepted some lifestyle changes, like relying on electrified trains instead of private cars). Also, unlike nuclear, we could build it in a crazy go-nuts damn-all-the-regulations style, without suffering horrible accidents.
At any rate, the first step for any kind of post-carbon future is upgrading the electrical grid. Since, like everything else in this country it got built back in the 50's and then left to gather dust forever.
I very much disagree that existing solar tech can't power the US completely. It woudn't be easy, but we could do it if we really wanted to (and accepted some lifestyle changes, like relying on electrified trains instead of private cars). Also, unlike nuclear, we could build it in a crazy go-nuts damn-all-the-regulations style, without suffering horrible accidents.
At any rate, the first step for any kind of post-carbon future is upgrading the electrical grid. Since, like everything else in this country it got built back in the 50's and then left to gather dust forever.
...I actually think nuclear is a good option, especially given the current trend of recycling warheads for civilian fuel, but I really want to see a hard push for solar-based infrastructure. The limitation on current technology is basically just it's cost, and that to me is an unacceptable excuse for refusing to act.
With Love and Courage
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Solar based is good, because eventually the tech will be there, but I just don't think it's an end all.
And I'd like to develop energy infrastructure to sustain multiple kinds of energy generation instead of getting locked on to one (even though, yes, if solar stopped working we'd have much bigger problems).
Solar based is good, because eventually the tech will be there, but I just don't think it's an end all.
And I'd like to develop energy infrastructure to sustain multiple kinds of energy generation instead of getting locked on to one (even though, yes, if solar stopped working we'd have much bigger problems).
Yeah, for what it's worth I'm not anti-nuclear either. I would definitely support increased investment for nuclear plants. I just think solar is better overall for getting us off carbon as fast as possible.
...That being said I don't think there's any chance at all that it'll happen. We'll probably burn up every last drop of oil we can get our hands on.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Solar based is good, because eventually the tech will be there, but I just don't think it's an end all.
And I'd like to develop energy infrastructure to sustain multiple kinds of energy generation instead of getting locked on to one (even though, yes, if solar stopped working we'd have much bigger problems).
Yeah, for what it's worth I'm not anti-nuclear either. I would definitely support increased investment for nuclear plants. I just think solar is better overall for getting us off carbon as fast as possible.
...That being said I don't think there's any chance at all that it'll happen. We'll probably burn up every last drop of oil we can get our hands on.
Yeah, basically. : (
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Posts
For an individual windmill or windfarm, sure. But I'd have to assume that if we went crazy building windfarms and tried to completely run the world on wind power (or even, like, half of it) then we'd be taking so much energy out of the atmosphere that strange stuff would happen.
Clearly the weight of the city is pushing the island down into the sea.
Which will never happen, so no worries?
See for example this: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/
But we're not going to do it with just wind and solar. Like, that's not realistic.
Without nuclear we're not going anywhere.
I mean, there's a reason we didn't replace all the coal plants with nuclear plants back in the 50's when everyone was in love with nuclear power.
I'm not pretending that it's a panacea.
You need a, dare I say it, all of the above approach.
Of course nuclear has its share of problems, it's also the only thing that's going to enable us to make the gap between current clean energy and tech that will hopefully be reachable (relatively) soon.
Yeah, but no one is advocating replacing all fossil fuels with just wind power. The people who don't want nuclear generally advocate for a combination of wind, solar, and geothermal as far as I know.
Personally, I think a combination of solar and nuclear is the way to go, though.
Nuclear, solar, and wind could all potentially generate enough energy to power the planet with current technology. However with wind, that would mean basically harvesting the earth's entire atmosphere, which is problematic. I mean, sure, we don't have to do that, but using any significant fraction of wind power is going to run into problems like that.
Nuclear and solar have a lot more potential (potentially way more than we could use). But bear in mind in mind it takes something 20 years and a huge amount of startup capital to build a nuclear plant, not to mention it's very difficult to find a site where you can get approval to build one. For my money, it looks like solar or nothing right now.
Which, as a grad student studying semiconductor devices, is great news for me. The problem at the moment is cost, but there are tons of people working on that.
The saddest thing is that we could do a ton from the other end. If we weren't a "Free Market Paradise", we could use government money to massively improve insulation and overall efficiency in homes and businesses. There are some tax credits floating out there, but people without the spare cash can't take advantage of the credits.
We could also do a lot more to increase the efficiency of manufacturing, appliances and practically every feature of modern life. While it wouldn't solve the problem, it would help a lot to reduce power consumption enough to meet the alternative energy sources in the middle.
It's too bad that this didn't hit in the 1940s or 1950s, when people would have gladly supported massive federal efforts to improve American efficiency. We have absolutely the worst political climate in decades for handling this kind of slowly encroaching disaster.
Sure, efficiency improvements can help as well. But there's only so far we can go with that, and a lot of it has been improved quite a lot already just to save money. At some point we need to actually find a new source of energy, which basically means sacrificing short-term growth for long-term sustainability. And I don't think we've ever had a political climate that would allow that.
Because in 1950 we couldn't build the plants fast enough and they were more expensive than they are today while coal was cheaper?
Because that's the reason we didn't, nuclear IS the panacea. If we'd shifted to it in the 50s we would literally be A-OK today. Solar has taken some huge strides over the last few years and is now worth bringing into the discussion, but it's nuclear power or civilization ends.
I've seen some numbers on what simple weatherproofing of existing housing stock would save in terms of fuel and power. The numbers are staggering.
The fallacy here is thinking that since doing something saves money, people have already done so. The truth is that the majority of Americans cannot afford even the relatively minor costs of improving insulation and sealing cracks and windows, or there landlords have no interest in spending this money.
And there are multiple instances in American history of the public cutting back because the government asked them to. The big ones are the World Wars, but you also have periods like the Depression where people voluntarily gave up frills in huge numbers to show solidarity with the less fortunate.
Americans didn't turn into human locusts until the mid-to-late 20th century. We really are very different from our forefathers.
What I found interesting was the notion that urbanization is the biggest factor in reducing carbon footprint.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
What do you mean by "staggering"? Unless it's more more than, say, 80% of current energy use, it doesn't really change anything, because we'd still be emitting way too much carbon and we need a large new energy source to replace that.
I'm also assuming that people still want to maintain something like their current lifestyles. I mean, sure, if you can convince everyone to live in 1 square meter of living space and completely give up meat, driving, and flying that would drop our energy/carbon use almost to zero, but no one (no American anyway) would ever agree to that. Right now, people's idea of a meaningful sacrifice for the environment is something like buying a hybrid car instead of an SUV.
So if you totally ignore all the practical problems of building it, it's a panacea? Neat.
Doesn't this apply to pretty much everything that gets suggested as a way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Yes, and it infuriates me to no end when it does.
I mean, shit, of course it takes fucking money and time. So the fuck what? You realize that if we had started expanding nuclear power in the 80s or 90s, we'd have the plant built by now?
I mean, it's great to say "solar and wind!" but that tech just isn't there yet and it'll never be at the point where it'll power the US completely. Nuclear is safe, clean (comparatively), and efficient. We're going to need the plants in 20 years, so we might as well start building them now. Should have done a long time ago. And at the same time, we invest in wind and solar and hydro and geo.
All. Of. The. Above.
Err, no. It produces power safely and cheaply, using something we have plenty of and produces minimal amounts of waste which poses limited hazard and is easily contained. Nuclear waste if incredibly badly managed could be a threat to human long term health. The environment wouldn't care one bit. Since the ore was already radioactive before you dug it up.
The only problems nuclear power has are due to the fact we don't build enough of them so it's hard to get a big enough pressure vessel these days. Nowadays we certainly could build the plants fast enough and they would be more than cheap enough.
Radioactive, but not concentrated or introduced into the environment. It's essentially the same as lead in that regard.
I think it's also (and I'm probably misremembering) the only clean energy source that is approaching peak capacity in many countries. As I understand it, nearly every river that it's possible to dam for hydroelectric power generation has been dammed already.
Well, there are other ways of using water to spin a turbine - tide generators, for example.
There are also interesting things being done with rainfall-based generators. You basically set-up a cistern, the cistern fills with rainwater, then when it's at capacity it dumps the water to spin a turbine. Pretty limited in terms of where it's practical to set-up, but interesting.
it's insane. I'm a verifier for the NAHB Green program and can tell you that without proper insulation the amount of energy lost on simple heating/cooling is ridiculous.
Hmm, I knew that tide generation was a thing but I was under the impression that it's difficult as balls to get it set up and running, and then it's as fiddly as an orchestra to keep it going. Also expensive, but that's true for any and all methods of generating electricity.
Still, the fact that it isn't widespread means that there's room for expansion and improvement.
Well, not really. I mean, here are your basic tide generators:
Very similar to wind turbines, both in terms of appearance & functionality. The water currents push against the fins, which spins the machine's turbine and generates an electrical current.
The density of water means that the tide generator is actually more efficient than a wind generator, but of course it's placement options are much more limited.
At any rate, the first step for any kind of post-carbon future is upgrading the electrical grid. Since, like everything else in this country it got built back in the 50's and then left to gather dust forever.
...I actually think nuclear is a good option, especially given the current trend of recycling warheads for civilian fuel, but I really want to see a hard push for solar-based infrastructure. The limitation on current technology is basically just it's cost, and that to me is an unacceptable excuse for refusing to act.
And I'd like to develop energy infrastructure to sustain multiple kinds of energy generation instead of getting locked on to one (even though, yes, if solar stopped working we'd have much bigger problems).
Yeah, for what it's worth I'm not anti-nuclear either. I would definitely support increased investment for nuclear plants. I just think solar is better overall for getting us off carbon as fast as possible.
...That being said I don't think there's any chance at all that it'll happen. We'll probably burn up every last drop of oil we can get our hands on.
Yeah, basically. : (
Look into your state and locals to see who stands where. That's where any doable change is going to be.