The Green Dream... · Page 6 · CigarBid Forums

Free Fall
Auctions

Specials
Auctions

QuickBuy
Auctions

Newly Added
Auctions

Ending Soon
Auctions

Welcome Guest

Forum Terms & Conditions | My Topics

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#101

Spey,
Pretty sure everybody on these boards is OK with green energy if it works efficiently, effectively, and without significant drawbacks. You sound like you're trying to convince someone.

Whistlebritches
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#102

Spey,
Pretty sure everybody on these boards is OK with green energy if it works efficiently, effectively, and without significant drawbacks. You sound like you're trying to convince someone.

tailgater wrote:

DITTO!!!

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#103

Nah, I'm telling you what is reasonable and what is not IMHO. I think you have a misunderstanding about green based on a few things you wrote. Green is reliable when properly applied. In high sunshine states solar is economically viable, in many states it is not. And so on.
So I disagree when you state green is unreliable as a generality. Perhaps I am trying to convince that there are forms of green that are economically efficient enough that business will drive them. Legislating us green is not a reasonable solution. But sufficient economic incentive is. Also, wanted to point out some outside the box ideas on green. Also, to be clear, I am not talking about elimination of fossil fuel. Also, this is something I am passionate about. The amounts of energy that can be save using high efficiency lighting, high efficiency heating and cooling, high efficiency motors, VFD'S and so on is staggering.

frankj1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#104

the big windmills suck... I heard Obama made them put electronic eagle callers in them... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

nice!

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#105

https://www.scribd.com/document/399147612/Green-New-Deal

Original doc

Abrignac
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#106

Ask our European brethren about “cheap” renewable energy.

Mr. Jones
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#107

I say....

Put a WIND MILL IN FRONT OF

A.O.C.' s yak and that could power all of lower Manhattan...

Then,

Put a heat and L.O.A.D. EXCHANGE ON HER TIGHT SWEET DANCING AZZ...AND THAT CAN POWER
UPPER MANHATTAN.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#108

Speyside wrote:

It's not me who misunderstands renewable energy.

Solar is great. We both agree. It works best in areas like Arizona. We both agree.
But it still isn't, and can't be, considered reliable until we have a proper means for storage.
100 sunny days in a row means nothing if you get a 4 day storm with cloud cover.

Ditto for wind power.
Generate all you want, but with no long term storage capacity it means nothing.

Wind and solar power will not, can not, replace the need for more traditional power generation.
And it takes days for a coal or nuclear plant to reach operating efficiency, so you can't keep one nearby to fill the gaps. No. You have to keep it running for when (not if) the sun doesn't shine and the wind stops blowing.

That's not opinion.

Renewable energy is unreliable.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#109

Um, sorry, you are wrong. I am speaking about lowering energy usage. This can be done anywhere. I am speaking about using renewable energy sources where it is feasible. As far as your misconception about power plant usage, peaker power plants would be used when needed, they are up to speed almost immediately.

dstieger
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#110

I'm not sure 'traditional' batteries will ever get us large scale storage solutions, but I'm intrigued by water storage, hydro solutions. Imagine a lake dammed in the middle...water is pumped up to high side during excess power production, but flows back through generators when its cloudy or too calm for wind power. Not sure what cost is compared to other storage options, but sounds good as basic theory

Edited by user 7 years ago | Reason: Not specified

DrafterX
Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter

7 years ago

#111

We just gotta hire some dudes to spin the windmills when the wind is slow... 😟

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#112

Speyside wrote:

Dude.
Peakers are not used to compensate for an inconsistent base load power plant.
They are used to boost kwh's when load is at it's PEAK.
Hence the name.
I thought that was obvious.

Speyside
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#113

Expand your concept of peakers, they can and are used in this manner. Dave's example is a way of storing electric for future use. It has been done in a few of places, though at this point in time they are experiments. The eventual answer is super capacitors, but we aren't there yet. But let's get off of reliable energy. The real savings at this point in time is energy efficiency. LED lighting, daylighing, motion controls, high efficiency boilers, high efficiency motors, variable frequency drives, clean power systems for electric entering a building, capacitor systems for electric in a building, and energy control systems.

ZRX1200
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#114

We just gotta hire some dudes to spin the windmills when the wind is slow... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Maybe we should make the “Dreamers” and their POS parents do a 2 year residency spinning the windmills. They could even sell tamales out the back if they want to.

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#115

Speyside wrote:

My concept of peakers is based on their intended function.

Meanwhile, there is not any area of our country that would be OK without a traditional base load power plant.
I think we'll get there, but in the meantime it's short sighted to ignore the benefits of higher efficiency gains from ALL power sources. Hence my distaste for the Green New Deal.

Tell us again about high efficiency lighting.
Nobody has refuted you, but it's fun to hear anyhow.

🇨🇮

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#116

we're dammed if we do...and dammed if we don't...

at some point, even the most persistent doubters realized the Titanic was in trouble...we're not there yet, but continued reliance on fossil fuels will get us there sooner rather than later...

Edited by user 7 years ago | Reason: Not specified

tailgater
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#117

delta1 wrote:

For arguments sake, let's assume burning fossil fuels is warming our earth.

Why is that akin to the Titanic sinking?

It's called "Climate CHANGE".

It's not called "Climate DANGER"

Although our politicians and MSM have run with that assumption.

Our grand kids' grand kids aren't going to be drowning in a world full of weekly hurricanes.
But we'll still continue to be taxed to death to stop IT.
Whatever "it" may be, it's worth taxing.

Just don't "deny" it.

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#118

Tail is right... (Ugh I feel dirty)
It isn't necessarily a disaster. We don't know the full extent of what the changes might do.

But, to temper all that, change does mean change. So we may see things like loss of towns in Florida (not a disaster) a move of crop growing land from where it is, to some other latitude (possibly a whole new country)... Not a disaster, unless your livelihood is growing crops and you don't happen to own property all around the globe to grow on... Or if you're set on your particular country being able to grow all the crops...

Climate change will cause changes (duh). Some will adapt. Some will die. Some countries may become much more globally significant than others (one of the US's strengths is agriculture production... We may lose this advantage). But that's not necessarily a disaster, from a humanity as a whole's perspective.

delta1
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#119

for one thing, climate change has brought more severe and more frequent hurricanes spread over a wider area...death toll and monetary damages continue to rise...

another thing...here on the left coast, we've had more frequent, larger and more deadly wild fires...and there is now a year round "fire season"...attributed to climate change ...

which has been blamed for more frequent and longer lasting droughts, followed by wild-fires, followed by mud slides...

Edited by user 7 years ago | Reason: Not specified

victor809
Herf-A-Holic

7 years ago

#120

I wouldn't attribute all of that to climate change.
A large amount also has to do with human changes to the local environment (tree removal, or growing of different species which dont have the same ability to fight erosion, movement of water from one location to another for irrigation, building building and more building)...

It's still human caused... And can be solved by getting rid of people, but not specifically all related to global climate.

Users browsing this topic

Important Information: