Some day we’re going to have complete automated society, robotic manufacturing is going to require lots of energy.
What underpins this conclusion?
Thermodynamics does not prohibit it.
And if innovation is impossible (not sure why) an increase in the cost of fossil fuels could also change the economics.
So I am wondering what has you convinced that they can never be economically feasible… even as a partial contributor to the energy economy?
Agree. Use it where we can. Continue to support technology innovation (at reasonable level). encourage or mandate US made components.
I don’t care that you treat libs with disdain, but you really don’t need to turn this conversation with me into that activity.
Yes, thermodynamics does limit it.
To clarify… thermodynamics says that solar and wind cannot be economically viable?
When someone is insisting on Solar and wind alternatives tells me what I need to know.
They’re not economic viable…it’s not even temporary solution.
Coal and NG is cheapest form of energy…other then possibly nuclear.
Yes because of the cost of production which is tied to the laws of thermodynamics.
I don’t think thermodynamics prohibits economically feasible utilization of wind and solar.
They are disadvantaged in comparison to fossil fuels. Then again thermodynamics permitted solar to be transformed to these substances to begin with.
So my interpretation of your position is that:
- Innovation can not improve solar/wind extraction in relation to cost. (Enough to make it viable)
- The cost of fossil fuels has a ceiling that prevent it from reaching the cost of solar/wind.
I get that you are relating this to thermodynamics, but it’s a stretch to say it is prohibited.
A few posts ago we had a similar position.
But now
They’re not economic viable…it’s not even temporary solution.
I agree with your earlier sentiment. Use it where you can. But I don’t insist on it.
No…you haven’t from what I can see in this thread. But you cannot deny those on hard left wants all fossil fuels banned.
I really don’t trust nuclear. I keep waiting on fusion but it seems I’m still waiting. Maybe there are “some” don’t want it. I mean if electricity can be product cheap then what good does it do? No money.
Thermal is source but I still think tidal flows is way to go for clean energy. Until then NG is bridge IMO.
My position in this thread (non political discussion of the outcomes of GND $$$) has been that the $$$ will be stimulating and that it may produce innovations in alternative energy production that I also view as a benefit.
There has been a focused side conversation exploring if the current economic viability of solar wind is fundamental or if innovation or price changes could make them stand alone.
I don’t deny anything that the hard left wants, (or hard right for that matter). My personal thinking does not drive me to be combative to alternative energies. Nor does it drive me to mandate them. I see potential value in them and do not oppose research spending. I have not shut the door on the possibility that they can produce value to our economy.
Fukushima changed my mind on fission nuclear. Fusion seems unlikely to see a breakthrough anytime soon and the downside of fission nuclear makes me reluctant to embrace it. And that is a shame because it’s upside could be tremendous. I know that the design of Fukushima was poor, but history shows me that technology can not be applied perfectly so I have skepticism of modern fission designs as well. Also skepticism of the bureaucracy and businesses that implement them.
Tidal has always frustrated me… so much natural energy plain to see. Would love to see it harnessed.
I see solar the same way. The energy is there plain to see.
A prudent approach would be to not declare any of these sources as permanently non-viable and maintain an investment and exploration portfolio that blends development of them all.
I have lot more hope for solar…wind isn’t profitable.
I also have great concerns about lies that are being pushed by tech industry…specially googles.
Ask cheapest energy source…answer is solar.
Talk about coal and google will say it’s not cost efficient. Links will be posted that wind is cheaper.
If all that was true…why are developing nations building coal plants? China comes to mind.
I really don’t know much about how if or why google and others are manipulating this issue so I can’t comment there.
Coal will be used where it presents an advantage. In the US it seems to be be pushed out by natural gas more than anything else. Maybe our air standards play into that as well and could make coal more appealing to China.
There are angles to solar outside of photovoltaic that intrigue me… bioengineered algae, storage of molten substances. Somewhat futuristic at the moment but intriguing to me. After all, with the exception of nuclear and tidal all the other energy sources are derived from solar.
I have to give that some more thought as I am considering the types of changes to the labor market. For example I see a streamlined labor market going from combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles. Fewer mechanics and less parts from my perspective.
I think solar and wind are good sources of supplemental energy.
I’m for using every resource available to slowly move of us off of coal and fuel oil for power generation. Nuclear, natural gas, solar, wind, hydro, etc.
It will take a combination of energy sources to move us away from coal and fuel oil for electrical generation. None of them have the secret sauce alone. Well, nuclear fission does as of now, but there are reasonable concerns around relying solely on it.
That would also be for the components of H-Fuel Cell technology as well.
In the far future, asteroid mining will alleviate most of those concerns.
But that doesn’t solve the issue of rare earth metals right now.
That’s the spirit!
That’s the red herring here. Just because politicians are promising all the soon to laid off oil and gas workers good paying green jobs doesn’t mean that’s going to happen.
2 Likes
IMO If it weren’t for air standards I believe coal would be cheaper…now I’m not saying that isn’t a good thing. It is. My problem is the radicalize left wants to ban coal and yes even clean NG but then go ahead and buy Chinese made products that don’t comply with American clean air standards.
And Pacific NW bare brunt of that Air pollution.
So even with cheap manpower China decided to build coal plants instead of clean solar and wind. But yet the left wants us to believe Wind and Solar is cheaper?
That’s IMO is not logical.
For record in total manufacturing output…China and United states are in par…but yet China now produce twice the pollution.
