Curtis Josef: The huge quantum leap in THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR and THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SALES STRATEGY: NETWORK MARKETING!http://simpleleadcapture.com/PatrickCZ/One-Line-On...
Javier Holsonback: I would like to focus on the word "entirely." From that word it becomes clear that you favor fossil fuels and not renewable energy. Why? Because you want the picture to be black and white without shades of gray. You and many others would like a solution that is clear and simple. From this perspective "renewable energy" is messy. It is not black and white, it is shades of gray. It is not simple, coherent, and strong like a knife. It is complex, diffuse, and only gathers strength collectively. When we look at the charging of an electric car battery we may see that the most efficient method is to charge from 20 to 80% beyond this we can do but we loose efficiency. When we look at providing heat for our homes with solar energy we notice that a reasonably efficient system can ! be designed for 80% of our required capacity. In the case of our homes we have to plan on something else for the last 20% of our required heating capacity. It could be to burn firewood which would still make it a renewable energy source. But this is not as simple as getting heat from a tank of oil. The situation is similar with our electric grid. Some fossil fuels might be required for some time. The percentage of coal fired plants as a part of the energy grid has been declining due to the rise of renewables. I would expect this trend to continue. Could we get to the point where NO fossil fuels are being used in the near future? When you put it like this the answer is that existing trends suggest that this is very unlikely. But renewables may very well become increasingly the "fuel" of choice for a majority, maybe up to 80% of our energy usage in the forseeable future. It may be complex and messy, but it will probably be less costly by the time this future arrives....Show m! ore
Salvatore Walls: Define near future. in the next dec! ade nope.. In a century, possible we will be at least developing technology and surely consumption will decrease.
Adrian Sherlin: Renewable energy is not likely to replace fossil fuel for many years. And the answer depends on the type of energy we're talking about; grid energy or mobile energy?Our electricity grid can be powered by renewable energy much easier and faster than our transport sector. All we need to do is hook enough renewable energy into the grid and it's distributed to it's place of use. The transportation sector presents an entirely different problem. It all has to do with "energy density". Oil is an absolute powerhouse when it comes to energy density at around 46.4 MJ/kg while our best battery technology is Lithium-Ion at around 2.54 M/kg. So a tank of gas stores vast amounts of energy when compared to a battery pack. That's the first problem. Here's the second:Electric transportation seems to be a reasonable solution but we can't move over to electri! c because we simply don't have the electrical generation capacity to recharge all those electric vehicles. Not by a long shot... a mind-bogglingly-huge longshot. Fact is if we all rushed out and bought an electric vehicle we'd crash the grid!Let's look at the US alone in some back-of-the-envelope calculations: US daily oil consumption is 20,680,000 barrels of which around 64% is used for domestic and commercial transportation, giving us a daily consumption of 13,235,200 barrels for transportation alone.The energy contained in a barrel of oil is approximately 1.8 MWh so we multiply by 13,235,200 barrels to see that transportation requires 23,823,360 MWh daily. Now let's look at coal fired power plants to see how many extra plants would need to be built to provide the energy for transportation.In the US, there are currently 1,522 coal-fired generating units with a total production capacity of 335,831 MW (Megawatts). To see what the average coal-fired power plant produces we o! nly need to divide335831 MW by 1522 which gives us an average of 220 MW! output for each coal-fired plant. Now multiply by 24 to see how much power the average plant produces a day... 220 x 24= 5280 MWh (Megawatt hour).We know from above that oil provides 23823360 MWh of energy daily for transportation so how many power plants is that worth? Divide 23823360 MWh by 5280 MWh (average coal plant) and we see: 23823360/5280 = 4512 extra coal fired units required â€" a tripling of existing capacity. Now, all these huge numbers tend to become a blur but to put some perspective on it; the US would need to build 100 coal plants a year for the next 45 years to cope with today's transportation energy needs if we moved to battery electric propulsion!...Show more
Refugio Gastineau: I never imagined that it was possible to get Free Electricity. I have seen a lot of products offering ways to save on electricity or get free power and I have tried most of them. To my dismay, they are all useless and I just wasted my money trying them. When I saw Power ! Innovator, I remembered that if someone would have created a Free Energy Device, it would have been Prof Richard Goran the genius that invented the electricity. And tell you what: this system literally turns my electric meter backwards! Can you imagine how much money I am saving on my electric bill? I hope that many more people will use your product. Thank you so much!Wath here a free presentation: http://tinyurl.com/PowerInnovatore...Show more
Mitsuko Manne: Technically we could begin a crash program to move this country toward wind and solar technology tomorrow morning. What stands in the way are certain entrenched interests that have a tremendous amount of influence on what gets used to generate electrical energy in the United States. Coal mining interests, coal shipping interests, coal burning interests and coal investing interests ALL have powerful lobbies at the federal and state levels. The point of these lobbies and the cash money they hand out in 'campaign! contributions' is staggering both in the amount and in effect on our l! ack of a 21st century national energy policy. Basically we have an early 20th century energy policy based on a 19th century technology and the coal mafia wants to keep it that way. You can say exactly the same as the above about the oil mafia.....they don't want high mileage cars and they don't want this country to get out of the middle east no matter how much borrowed money gets spent to keep our troops there acting as mercenaries for the entrenched oil interests. Anyway you slice this it comes out baloney....the movers and shakers of this country don't want any changes that will disturb the flow of money from the coffers of coal and oil to the campaign money machine. In real life we could call all this money bribery, but who would want to report on that? So, alternate energy COULD replace large quantities of fossil fuels over a relatively short period of time, but you can bet the farm that isn't going to happen. We won't have fleets of electric cars, we won't have ! high speed rail, we won't see any end to our military involvement in the middle east and we won't be the world's leading country either. We will get a #$%^ load of propaganda from the right wing radio dummies and FOX who like many of our public officials pimp for these bums. The propaganda will call anyone who says we CAN move on to 21st century technology a 'far left liberal', a socialist or a commie tree hugger. Bummer, eh!...Show more
No comments:
Post a Comment