Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

22% of energy now from renewable sources

17 posts in this topic

Almost a quarter of the world's electricity supply is now being produced from renewable energy sources.

The proliferation of green energy production technologies has hit a significant milestone according to a new International Energy Agency report released on Thursday.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/271702/22-of-energy-now-from-renewable-sources

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not too bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the political hoopla and obstructionism from the rightwingnuts notwithstanding, a DC powerline is supposed to begin construction across Oklahoma in 2016. It is being funded by private money. Its purpose is to carry wind power from the Panhandle where it is generated to markets in the Southeast. Plans are to go online in 2017.

A bill to ban it has been introduced into the Oklahoma legislature. Seems that Big Coal/Koch doesn't REALLY like a competitive market place.

Doug

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind power, and Solar Power is not the solution for the UK... it is Tidal and Oceanic Current power that is perfect for the UK. The technology is in place, we just need the political will...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go green! :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind power, and Solar Power is not the solution for the UK... it is Tidal and Oceanic Current power that is perfect for the UK. The technology is in place, we just need the political will...

Wind and solar are part of it. Tidal can be introduced now but at significant environmental cost.

Wave and off shore tidal are still immature technologies which will form the essential basedload for the UK when they become mature. High voltage DC cables such as Doug mentioned will then allow us to export our surpluses to more landlocked European countries.

Making unpredictable wave's into steady AC or DC is still a big challenge, making generators capable of withstanding corrosive saltwater conditions are substantial issues still to be faced.

Br Cornelius

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't turn an entire world designed and built to run on coal/oil to renewable sources over night from both a structural and economical standpoint. 22% isn't bad at all, keep at it and in a few more decades we'll be nearing 50%. Unless a major advancement occurs to accelerate the process anyway.

I'm sure existing lobbyists have a pretty large hand in slowing it down as well.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we need to get energy from as many sources as possible however, I have to wonder at what cost? I have heard that the production of certain energy producing tech is very polluting, I don't remember if it was solar panels, carbon fiber wind turbine props or some other tech. So are we getting cheap energy on the one hand yet more pollution on the other? I would also be curious to see how much in energy savings a wind farm generates over the lifetime of one tower vs the energy and cost required to build and maintain the structure, because I can't imagine they are cheap to build or service. Such a tower would have to be in service long enough to cover the cost of production, assembly and maintenance before it starting generating any energy savings for the consumer. You also have a negative cost to wildlife, especially birds, which are hitting wind turbines and getting fried in solar arrays. Supposedly thousands die every year, sad collateral damage for our hunger for energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we need to get energy from as many sources as possible however, I have to wonder at what cost? I have heard that the production of certain energy producing tech is very polluting, I don't remember if it was solar panels, carbon fiber wind turbine props or some other tech. So are we getting cheap energy on the one hand yet more pollution on the other? I would also be curious to see how much in energy savings a wind farm generates over the lifetime of one tower vs the energy and cost required to build and maintain the structure, because I can't imagine they are cheap to build or service. Such a tower would have to be in service long enough to cover the cost of production, assembly and maintenance before it starting generating any energy savings for the consumer. You also have a negative cost to wildlife, especially birds, which are hitting wind turbines and getting fried in solar arrays. Supposedly thousands die every year, sad collateral damage for our hunger for energy.

The term is called life cycle analysis and when carried out for a wind turbine the payback is rather good in that its starts to produce net benefits after just 8months;

US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, they conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.

http://www.scienceda...40616093317.htm

There is a lot of Koch financed dodgy research showing massive downsides which are largely fictitious. As for Bird kills - the wind farm planning stage can eliminate most of these simply by studying where birds actually fly and avoiding them - most of the reported kills are a throw back to high speed turbines which have all but been phased out by now - slow turbines present little hazard for birds as they can fly faster then the blades move.

Running a coal power station will produce massively more environmental damage over its similar lifecycle than any windfarm will. The coal/gas industry is running scared as they can neither compete in terms of cost (wind is cheaper than coal based electricity) or environmental benefits and so they are fighting a rear guard propaganda campaign against the growing competition. They will fail as the smart money will ignore the propaganda and go for the best investment returns.

Imagine the situation where you get the same amount for your end product but don't have any ongoing fuel inputs - its a very attractive proposition. Its going to get to the stage soon where the premiums will be paid to gas/coal power stations to sit idle waiting for the wind to drop and the sun to stop shining.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of Koch financed dodgy research showing massive downsides which are largely fictitious. As for Bird kills - the wind farm planning stage can eliminate most of these simply by studying where birds actually fly and avoiding them - most of the reported kills are a throw back to high speed turbines which have all but been phased out by now - slow turbines present little hazard for birds as they can fly faster then the blades move.

On smaller, faster-turning rotors, bird kill can be eliminated by simply putting a cage around the fan - like on your house-hold fan. Well, Duh!

Running a coal power station will produce massively more environmental damage over its similar lifecycle than any windfarm will. The coal/gas industry is running scared as they can neither compete in terms of cost (wind is cheaper than coal based electricity) or environmental benefits and so they are fighting a rear guard propaganda campaign against the growing competition. They will fail as the smart money will ignore the propaganda and go for the best investment returns.

Somewhere I read that pollution from the average coal-fired plant drives four species to extinction FOR EACH PLANT!

Regarding my daughter, the oil and gas geologist: She says all you have to do to put her out of business is quit buying oil and gas. Petroleum geologists are used to boom-and-bust cycles. It's part of the business. She'll go into something else. The rig crews will start building foundations for windmills; the refinery workers will learn how to run windmills. There really isn't going to be much of a market disruption - unless you were dumb enough to invest everything you own in just one resource.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's pretty good but still not enough. Have to do something more with that big fireball in the sky.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We made the change from horses to automobiles in the early twentieth century using fossil fuels. The change can be made in the early twenty first century for renewables. There are just forces at work hindering that change.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We made the change from horses to automobiles in the early twentieth century using fossil fuels. The change can be made in the early twenty first century for renewables. There are just forces at work hindering that change.

Not the least of which being every person in the world who owns a car being able to afford a new, more expensive, renewable energy one. It will happen, but it will be a very slow transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the least of which being every person in the world who owns a car being able to afford a new, more expensive, renewable energy one. It will happen, but it will be a very slow transition.

Automobiles were expensive at first and only the rich could afford them but Henry Ford made it affordable

for the average person by coming up with the assembly line. I'm confident affordability will apply in some way today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will take humans several more generations to break our dependence on fossil fuels but at least we are making progress. Remember oil isn't just used as fuel. Just about everything you're looking at and touching right now has oil in it. It is the life blood of the modern world.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember oil isn't just used as fuel.

It doesn't mean it still can't be used to make plastics... it's just too valuable (imho) to be burning it as a fuel when it has so many other uses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't mean it still can't be used to make plastics... it's just too valuable (imho) to be burning it as a fuel when it has so many other uses...

Understand though that petrol, kerosene and diesel are the light components of the oil and play little part in the formation of plastics. You need to remove them in order to obtain the chemicals needed to make plastics. As such if we continue to use plastics we will continue to need to burn light petroleum products.

That presents an interesting problem in of itself since we can not afford to continue to burn fossil fuels for much longer so our dependence on plastics will also have to change.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.