I don't know if I agree with this but saying the amount of money and carbon foot print to produce green energy makes it more viable then something like nuclear is complete horse shit and THAT everyone knows.
-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
Another ???Green??? Company Goes Belly Up in the Age of Obama
- Thread starter FUZO
- Start date
I don't know if I agree with this but saying the amount of money and carbon foot print to produce green energy makes it more viable then something like nuclear is complete horse shit and THAT everyone knows.
irish_2003
Board Rep
carbon footprint is the lie......it's a well documented and admitted lie
Have you ever looked into how heavily subsidized nuclear energy is? And given its potential dangers versus inert solar modules how is it more viable? I'd rather use the nuke generator 93 million miles away than have one 93 miles away, especially knowing how cheap people built shit these days.
Besides I'd rather see solar panels on every home knowing that everyone is in control of their own power than see another mega conglomeration hold the power in their hands. Power to the People man! That's why I don't support wind or solar farms. The further power has to travel the more it's wasted...
Last edited:
documented by whom?
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukashima meltdowns were all a result of old technology. Plants built in the 70's and 80's required constant power generation in order to cool Fuel rods. Fukashima failed because the idiots who designed the plants placed the deisel generators at sea level; had they been 100 feet above sea level, the disaster would have never happened. Old plants are very difficult to shut down because of the constant cooling requirements.
New plants can be shut down with the flick of a switch. 78% of France's power is generated by Nuclear, if it were unsafe, there would have been some major disasters in France.
I 100% agree on the personal use of solar and wind vs farms. You want to see the North American economy explode, provide serious tax incentives to buyers of alternative energy instead of subsidizing businesses that will mostly go out of business. The benefit will be 2 fold; a percentage of the population will reduce their carbon foot print and the most viable technologies will see major capital to further invest and grow. Businesses don't need government funding if they produce products that people will actually buy. Consumers will by if they are provided incentive. (it doesn't work the other way around)...
The idea that bureaucrats can invest in businesses and see better successes than entrepreneurs is ridiculous. The Government has no businesses investing in business, they should stick to law making and representing the people's interest (that includes businesses).
energy in general is one of the most subsided and all utilities naturally are a monopoly since there is no competition when it comes to local utilities. since here is no competition in reality they are monopoly capitalist industries. there is only one power grid, one water main, one nationwide backbone telecom network, etc. energy company's are one of the last that want to give the individual the ability to be more self-reliant in this aspect. in recent years (5b in 2010) all the venture capital in clean tech has come from small firms, start-ups and HSBC who is getting around these days. those that still believe the lie of "free markets" still believe in energy independence when still under the control of large firms.
The main reason why large utility firms run the show is because governments invested in the business (many were government owned), could not run it like a business and then deregulated. There would be competition if the government did not invest to begin with. It's not the case in all states and provinces, but most of the industry has gone this way...
The us fed gov did not invest in the pstn (public switched telephone network) in the US it was all private investment it started with Bell labs and then others others, AT&T did not join until the late 1800's. from that AT&T grew into a monopoly until it was broken up in the 80's into RBOCs. since then through various acquisitions and mergers it is back to about a good 60% market-share of the wired/fiber backbone network with Verizon controlling the rest. currently the US telecom infrastructure ranks 15th in the world, which doesn't seem possible considering we had the worlds first and the telephone was invented here. but in early 2000 (when all of our good jobs at Agilent in R&D were outsourced dam it to hell!) the us telecom company's stopped development of infrastructure and focused on wireless as that's where the profits where. the telecommunications act of 1996 which further deregulated the market before there was any meaningful competition has only allowed telecom company's to strangle the market by making connection to their backbone network extremely difficult for new company's, and with cable rates have rise at 2-3x the rate of inflation. in terms of bandwidth in the near future according to all international research OECD households in most large wealthy country's are going to need 100Mbps service in the very near future. current US options are at about 8Mbps for full rate DMT DSL service and cable service (docsis 2.0-3.0) at around 10Mbps-22Mbps (ready boost tech). there is no national broadband plan in the US like there is in many other OECD countries, where there is a combination of gov and private funding and development. it is totally up to the "markets" in the US, which in reality is the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon at the national level.
you can not say that private investment along with deregulation is always the best route, no such thing as only dealing with absolutes in terms of economics or advancing technology, it's a very narrow minded and inefficient method of "thinking"....
Last edited:
elliscrawl
Registered
Government should stick to making laws about businesses, not running them.
who's talking about gov running businesses?
I have known about this for a while and it is why you don't see things like Verizon Fios of AT&T Uverse all over the country, the companies just build systematically in the most lucrative markets and the rest of the populations waits. The fact that that the wireless carriers are also in charge of broadband is a problem, the firms should have to be broken up or at least be forced to operate independently of the other under the holding company. The sad thing is that all of this deregulation may have brought some prices down, I really can't say for sure, but it has allowed for a few companies to grow to mammoth size and control everything. I am all for the idea of free markets but the US continually shows they don't exist.
What about the several facilities that are on hydropowered utilities with solar modules installed on the roof and wind farms helping out down the road? I can't understand why people would choose the most harmful options over the cleanest highly renewable sources? Let's just keep blackening the skies and building more Fukushimas everybody, yay! Fuck the world for anybody in the future who gives a shit about them....
The largest single site electricity user in my state is now a polysilicon plant. Yeah, they have some solar panels at the plant for PR purposes but most of the power comes from coal and nuclear, then hydro and the amount contributed by solar and wind is negligible. Nothing burns coal like solar. I'm for nuclear and against solar because I give a shit and know how bad producing solar panels is for the environment.
What facilities are you talking about? Name a polysilicon plant that runs on only those three.
Which company is that, where do you live?
Solar companies with operations in Oregon include SolarWorld, Sanyo, PV Powered, Oregon Crystal, Grape Solar, Solaicx, and Peak Sun Silicon.
One reason they and others in the Silicon Forest moved there is hydropower...
Back 9 years ago a module made up for the power it took to produce it in about 2 years, I imagine now it's even sooner. I have old technology modules from the early 80's behind my desk that still work. Today's tech will still be producing 30 years plus... Then we have our solar thermal water heating panels, the most primitive way to heat your water for a hot shower or to do dishes. Just that alone makes more sense than any other renewable energy method I can think of given that 40-50% of most home energy use is to heat water. This tech can be taken a step further using Ammonia Absorption science to use solar thermal to air condition or even refrigerate....
One reason they and others in the Silicon Forest moved there is hydropower...
Back 9 years ago a module made up for the power it took to produce it in about 2 years, I imagine now it's even sooner. I have old technology modules from the early 80's behind my desk that still work. Today's tech will still be producing 30 years plus... Then we have our solar thermal water heating panels, the most primitive way to heat your water for a hot shower or to do dishes. Just that alone makes more sense than any other renewable energy method I can think of given that 40-50% of most home energy use is to heat water. This tech can be taken a step further using Ammonia Absorption science to use solar thermal to air condition or even refrigerate....
I shouldn't say, it's not like that's an accomplishment they go around touting.
That's better than coal. I don't know about panel manufactures but Peak Sun Silicon is really small compared to the big boys, some of who are approaching about 1,000 times what Peak Sun produces.
I agree with solar water heaters, they should be mandatory on all new builds in states where it is viable, have a small electric/natural gas unit as a backup. Heating water is about as energy intensive a thing as you can do so I am 100% in favor of this. I don't know where your distaste for nuclear comes from, you mentioned three mile island above which I find most comical. The coal plants in the Ohio river valley release more radiation into the atmosphere every year than three mile island released in total. That is one portion of the country, every year. Nuclear is a complex issue in that the US was asked to produce a next generation reactor in the 1980s, they did produce the design, in 15 years it never got approved by the NRC even though it was asked for by said agency, then the technology was sold to Japan and Korea. All of those reactors are in service now with no issues. Why do I know this, I work with one of the guys who worked on the design and who presented it to the NRC. Once you learn from the source about nuclear power and how safe it can be with simple designs and smart regulation, not what we have now, it is our best option until green tech becomes viable on a global scale.
maniclion....what's up with First Solar?
Thin-film(11% efficiency) just isn't competitive, this is why Uni-Solar had to shutdown production recently. Why install twice the number of panels when you can get more efficient 15-20% modules? Right now with prices as low as they are installers are trying to squeeze more watts out of less space to save on mounting and other BOS components.
