DaMayor

In a recent interview with Al "call me anything but late for dinner" Gore on meet the press recently, Al dropped this gentleman's name.... T. Boone Pickens. I've never been a fan of Al Gore really, and don't know much about Mr. Pickens, but his plan (in general) doesn't sound too outrageous.

T. Boone Pickens: A man with an energy plan | Green Tech - CNET News

Which leads me to my original question. Why is everyone so defensive when the topic of alternative fuel sources is brought up?

Little Wing

because people are afraid of what they don't know. ignorance breeds contempt.

danzik17

That and alternative energy costs more, so people don't want to pay for it. The only way to get it cheaper is for more people to pay for it so that companies will actively make it better. Catch-22.

I'm all for it though.

Ron Paul 2008

Journal: Boom goes the dynamite

lnvanry

ditto.

being green is expensive...thats why most districts that encourage recycling (with those square plastic bins they give out) are middle or upper class.

Would you be willing to pay two times more for your car if it got better mileage? Triple your electric bill? Most people aren't.

bio-chem

there is a reason we are addicted to oil. even at 150 dollars a barrel it is still economically superior to other forms of energy. we do not have the infrastructure for other forms.

Solar, Wind, Hydroelectric all do not have the capability of supplanting oil as our main source of energy. all can be used as complementary sources to lessen the need for oil, but that is its limit.

Nuclear while capable producing energy in much higher quantities than the other 3 still has the problem of the nuclear stigma. As well as the fact that it takes 10 years to bring a plant online from the date fo ground breaking. we also haven't started construction on a plant in 20+ years.

clemson357

The main problem with alternate power is that it doesn't exist in any appreciable way. Find something that has the energy density of gasoline, until then it is all a pipe dream.

I agree that we need to be working toward other forms of energy. But it is ridiculous that we aren't drilling in ANWR because of a fictitious climate phenomenon perpetrated by a few people who earned a lot of money creating mass hysteria.

________________________

maniclion

I don't know solar water heating is going to reduce my electric bill 50-60% and then my solar electric system will help cover most of the rest if not all when I install our split AC systems. I'm paying $900 dollars a month on electricity. I took out a home equity loan got 2 BMW's, the solar systems, a nice vacation, paid for my GF's daughters college, paid all credit cards/loans off, making home improvements and our monthly payments will be $1200 we were paying more than double that in bills for electric, student loans, others loans and credit card bills now....so I guess it is expensive unless you spend wisely....

dg806

Well for one thing, Mr TBP has motives on both sides for this to happen. Funny huh? Just make his ass richer.

www.sbmuscle.com

squanto

I hear this a lot. I would be interested to see some numbers on this... any good sites that would give me a better idea? I'm especially curious about the limiting factors for all of these forms of energy.

bio-chem

Hydroelectric is tapped out. can you name a major river system that does not already have a dam on it? the columbia river in washington has a total of 7 dams on it already.

I used to work at an Energy company in the pacific northwest with nuclear, and wind generating stations. the nuclear plant produces 1150 MW while the wind power has 63 turbines producing less than 100MW. Wind is also not constant as nuclear energy is. Solar has the same limitations.

squanto

OK, so what you are saying is that wind or solar require a lot of infrastructure to generate the same amount of power as a nuclear power plant.

Do you know how much the 63 wind turbines cost to build and maintain, in comparison with the nuclear facility?

NeilPearson

I don't believe that solar does have the same limitations

bio-chem

kind of hard to compare the dollars. plants built in the 70's and 80's compared to wind turbines of today. like i've said before we havent built a plant in over 20 years. who knows how much a new one will cost? but 63 turbines built creates less than a 10th of the power. those 63 turbines also cover 47 acres of land.

bio-chem

any examples of solar plants creating over 1000MW? How many areas in america can support a solar plant? I'll admit I know less about solar power than i do any of the others

bio-chem

12 wind turbines cost 21 million and change

bio-chem

NeilPearson

Really any area can support a solar plant... I don't really think that is the long term future for solar though.

I see solar (and power) becoming more and more decentralized. I believe the world is going wireless not only for communications but eventually allowing us to get off the grid for power too...

Solar cells are undergoing a technological revolution. They are getting much more efficient. They have flexible solar cells now. They even have a spray on 'paint' that uses nanotechnology to convert solar energy into electricity. The paint on your car could end up generating enough electricity to keep batteries charged enough to power it.

Up until recently solar cells just used visible light. Now they are starting to be able to harness the infrared spectrum too. This means these cells will even generate some electricity when it is dark outside.

As these technologies get better and cheaper (and less ugly), I see more people taking their electric needs into their own hands. The days of the power plant could be numbered.

DaMayor

I think solar power is an interesting option, as are wind and nuclear (the latter being a little more scary for the average joe).

I think that there is nothng wrong with using several (alternative) fuel sources. Why do we have to rely on a single source? And why have we allowed things to get to this point before considering alternatives?

I don't think cost effectiveness is the real issue.....the technology for wind, solar and nuclear power has been around for quite a while now. Why have we, or why has our government procrastinated for so long? That's the question.

bio-chem

yes, but this is new technology that is still down the road. some not even invented yet, just thought of. Nuclear talks about even more effecient and safer plants. Or the ability to construct power plants in 5 years, but until that happens in reality we are still just talking about hypotheticals. the issue is what are we capable of replacing oil with today. right now solar plants produce electricity at about 4 cents per killowatt hour. that is some pretty expensive power.

NeilPearson

It's really not that far down the road though...

KelJu

Check out some information on a guy called the garbage warrior. He builds homes out of garbage that completely power themselves on solar energy. One of my best friends bought one called an earth ship in New Mexico for under $200,000. They call it responsible living.

New solar cell technologies are increasing the power absorption of solar cells. The only downsides are the initial investment, and the fact that you would have to sweep your roof once a month. The technology is viable in over half of the country.

Imagine how many coal plants we could retire if half of the houses in the country had solar cell roofs?

bio-chem

How long before you think it is ready for mass consumption?

NeilPearson

Some would argue it is ready now, if you want to put out the cost up front. It is getting quite popular in other countries.

It all depends on what you mean by mass consumption. I see it growing steadily (exponentially really) and overtaking fossil fuels but when...

Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25% per annum over the past 15 years (hydrocarbon energy demand typically grows between 0-2% per annum).

If you do the math at the conservative rate of 25%, solar overtakes all other energy sources combined in 2046. At 35% which is what we are seeing over the last 8 or so years, it overtakes it in 2034. That is just at todays rates though. Since other enabling technologies are making the rate quicker... I think 2028-2034 is probably a better prediction. This also doesn't take into account us pushing the technology faster due to high oil prices.

Of course that is talking worldwide use of solar energy and we are talking about it overtaking fossil fuels as a source of energy. Long before it overtakes fossil fuel, it will be significant. Germany and Spain are way ahead of the US in home installations. I think we will see solar grow a lot in home installations. For home electricity, we could see solar being cheaper than grid electricity in 5-10 years. As far as cars that are run fully on solar... I think that could be 20 years out.

I do think that within 5 years, you will have a cost effective way to start converting your home electricity needs to solar.

bio-chem

I would love to see this. We absolutely need our static electricity needs to be provided by a non-fossil fuel source

brogers

Nuclear/Hydro to generate electricity for homes. Wind and Solar are not constant enough for our needs.

I think a wiser idea would be using Wind / Solar farms to electrolyze hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles. The limitations are not much of a problem then. If you use those for electricity generation, they have to be backed-up by other stable sources (Coal, Nat. Gas, Nuke..) anyway, so it's kind of a waste. If it's being used to generate hydrogen, it doesn't matter if the wind ain't blowin or the sun ain't shinin, no one is going to lose power to their home/business.

Additionally, moving toward nuclear and away from coal would allow us to liquefy coal into gasoline (should we need it). But, it would cost massive amounts of money because the people who built the coal plants (and natural gas plants for TB Pickens' plan) are going to want a return on their investment, and will have to be bought out.

squanto