Energy

Good stuff, Mango. Bottom line is that energy manufacturers will not attempt to create alternate sources of energy unless it is profitable for them to do so or they are forced to.

Fossil fuels are a dying form of energy. Instead of putting all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket, it is time for us to look to other sources. Not only is it better, in most cases, for the environment, but it will very likely open up options to consumers and, eventually, lower the cost of energy because of new, renewable, more plentiful supplies. It's better for business too.

 

Actually, they won't even do so after it's profitable. Right now, the big oil companies maintain not only an economic advantage in accessing oil, but a political one as well. Renewables are more democratic by nature, as the start-up costs of production are somewhat less (at a small scale) and the political costs are virtually non-existent

Unfortunatley, the real problem is infrastructure, and storage. Solar PVCs should, ultimately, outstrip even coal as the cheapest form of energy (especially if SPS - solar power satellites become feasible). Right now, PVCs are somewhat cost competitive at a cost per kilowatt hour basis. If an economy of scale were created, it's possible they could compete right now.

The problem is, the investment in infrastructure required would be huge. You would have to A. construct expensive PVC equipment (initial start-up costs are huge, maintenance is low).. and then you'd have to create a B. storage network of hydrogen via fuel cells or simply liquid hydrogen. That would be very expensive, too.

A private company is not going to invest in all that infrastructure, which would cost in the tens of billions at least, probably more, when oil is still a viable option.

Actually, fossil fuels will remain available for hundreds of years, even at current consumption, and probably for longer. However, the cost of access is at issue. Most of the world's current known oil resources are just not worth drilling for right now. The biggest reasons for switching, right now, are political and environmental... not for scarcity reasons.

 

How about turning the entire state of new mexico into a solar power plant

Electric cars will be popular soon- they're just now catching on that Americans want performance first and everything else is second... the electric cars in 5 years will rock

 

Actually, there is an unused air force base in arizona (maybe New Mexico) that's large enough to create a PVC plant large enough to supply the entire US with energy. No need to use anything near a whole state. PVCs are huge leaps up from older solar technology.

Of course, such a plant would have a big X written on it as a terrorist target.

 

True. But why would a company pursue alternate energy sources if they aren't profitable? No doubt, many private/public institutions are spending R&D dollars on alternative energy source techologies. The real issue is that there is NO DEMAND for alternative energy sources at the moment. When this changes (i.e. when the cost, range, convenience, and accessiblity matches that of petroleum-based energy sources) you can bet that energy companies around the world will react swiftly.

Huh? I'm very confused by the first two sentances, here. Why exactly do you believe that energy companies wouldn't develop and promote new technologies if it were profitable?

What do you mean "renewables are more democratic by nature"? Again, huh?

The start-up costs of renewable energy sources (especially PV-based power) are NOT less by any means. As you state later in your post, the costs are prohibitly HIGHER both to start up and to maintain. The real-world lifespan of PV modules is poor, as compared to existing power infrastructures. In addition, there are many different types of PV modules: many producing less over their lifespan than the energy cost used to manufacture them, making these a bad investment in the first place. Kind of like owning an electric car in an area serviced by a coal-producing power plant....not only self-defeating, but less efficient than existing energy supplies alone.

What exactly is your source, here? PV technology has been around since the 50's, and although the technology has made strides, they are still notorious for their conversion inefficiencies. I have a hard time believing a PV plant located in the area of an air force base could come anywhere near to producing enough energy for an entire metropolitain city's requirements, let alone the entire country.

x34

 

Just for the record:

Russia has just recently overtaken Saudia Arabia as the largest producer of oil, and they aren't an opec nation. (Saudia Arabia is still the largest exporter of oil.

Russian production has been increased by 1/2 million barrels/day for each of the past two years. Russia is only second to Saudia Arabia in exports because of pressure from the Saudis on the Kremlin. But, while the Russian gov't controls pipeline export quotas, the system is set up so that private companies control exports by truck or boat.

Given this, as the Russian economy continues to be overwhelmed by suppy, it's almost ineviatable that price differentials will make it very attractive to export oil by land and sea, thus making the non-opec Russians the big force in oil.

 

Yeah big target, but that's why we have a military, to protect it, it would have to be far more secure than todays facilities... but it could be done. It's looking like our missile defense program will be successful.

An aircraft carrier here, a particle accelerator there, and the government could easily purchase enough solar panels (or furnaces, whatever is more efficient) to power the country. The US spends roughly 240 million dollars a DAY importing oil. (85 billion a year, give or take) those numbers are old fyi it's probably more now.

There is also that small problem of nighttime, and energy storage. Since power demand is mostly during the day it wouldn't be a problem for some time. Technology will catch up.

Solar Co-op anyone?

The catch is the government isn't about to put hundreds of thousands of oil workers out of business, even if it meant true independence. It also sounds a big socialist to me.

If it were built in sections, over say, a 10 year period, the economy would have time to adjust. Oil demand wouldn't disappear, the cars we drive today we'll be driving for decades. The demand for plastics (oil byproducts) is also not going anywhere.

Imagine the day opec no longer has us by the jimmy

We have solutions to our energy woes now, we just aren't willing to use them.

I think i'm biased, tho, because i had a BAD ASS electric go cart i build from a prestolite starter motor and an old curtis controler- all you hear are the tires hunting for traction! I know the wonders of electricity!!!!! end rant

 

1. Politics of oil access.

2. Infrastructure start-up costs.

To re-iterate .

Access to oil is largely political. And gaining access is expensive. Easier to create small-scale renewable production, and political.

Actually, some estimates were arguing 3 years ago that by 2k10 or so you could have PVC energy at 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour.

You don't know how large some US air force bases are .

Incidentally, I don't think you've done much recent reading on PVCs. My senior year of high school, renewable energy was the debate topic for CX debate in the US.

PVCs were my case. Until the early 90's, most people expected passive solar to be the most widely used variety. Advances in the mid-90's in PVCs made them the most likely candidate for a future economy.

As for sources... this may sound a bit odd, but if you're really interested, go down to a local high school, and ask to talk to their debate coach. Then tell her you once debated, and are trying to recollect some information about PVCs. The odds are, she's saved all that data, because debate coaches never throw things away... just in case they'll need it again. This would have been the 97-98 CX debate year.

PVC cases were generally among the best, on case at least.

 

You're a law major, right? Because your definitely not EE...