Al Gore's Mea Culpa

[TimG]

Since when has solar and wind produces emissions?

It is energy density. Solar and wind require too much capital and land to make the viable alternatives in the long run.

[dre]

The technology of creating ethanol from corn has improved dramatically over the last 15 years yet that does not change the fact that it is technology that is useless without subsidies. Also - the technology of cars has improved constantly over the last 100 years yet that is a mature industry.

The only measure that is reasonable is how long the subsidies have been in place and whether they can be removed anytime soon. When it comes to wind and solar the subsidies have been handed out for decades and there is no sign that situation will end anytime soone.

When it comes to nuclear those subsidies have been in place for 60 years. More for gas and oil.

When it comes to wind and solar the subsidies have been handed out for decades and there is no sign that situation will end anytime soon

That depends on how you define soon.

In any case... its foolish to suggest these technologies should go on the scrap heap. Especially based on the fallacious and specious logic you keep presenting. It just AINT GONNA HAPPEN, sorry.

[dre]

It is energy density. Solar and wind require too much capital and land to make the viable alternatives in the long run.

Thats nothing more than a wild guess thats just objectively false. Energy density is NOT the challenge for either of those technologies. More than enough sunlight hits a lowrise building roof to supply its energy. The problem is installation costs, and those are coming down, and theres still lots of breakthroughs happening.

Edited November 23, 2010 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

It is energy density. Solar and wind require too much capital and land to make the viable alternatives in the long run.

Try as you might...they just don't get it. Wind energy is actually solar in origin anyway.

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is energy density. Solar and wind require too much capital and land to make the viable alternatives in the long run.

You can keep saying that and you'll keep being wrong. The energy density of wind and solar is huge, the trick is capturing that energy while no matter the technique you use the energy density of ethanol will always be the same. Better production technique will make it cheaper to produce and it may find some use in certain areas but it will never achieve sufficient energy density for widespread use.

ETA the energy density of ethanol is about half that of gasoline.

Edited November 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

Try as you might...they just don't get it. Wind energy is actually solar in origin anyway.

Theres nothing to "get" his understanding of these technologies is not even at the introductory level, same goes for his understanding of how technologies emerge.

Wind energy is actually solar in origin anyway.

Yeah brilliant gem of wisdom there.

[bush_cheney2004]

Theres nothing to "get" his understanding of these technologies is not even at the introductory level, same goes for his understanding of how technologies emerge.

You are arguing with Thermodynamics, Carnot efficiencies, and economics....not technologies.

Yeah brilliant gem of wisdom there.

Hey Einstein, there is a reason why fossil fuels have a much higher energy density than your favorite green "technologies".

[TimG]

The problem is installation costs, and those are coming down, and theres still lots of breakthroughs happening.

We have been building houses for 100 years. Installation costs have not come down for those. Have you tried hiring a plumber or an electrician lately? Perhaps reshingled your roof? There is no reason to believe that the installation costs are going come down significantly. I would love to see some data on how much the cost of installing a roof has come down in the last 30 years.

[dre]

You are arguing with Thermodynamics, Carnot efficiencies, and economics....not technologies.

Hey Einstein, there is a reason why fossil fuels have a much higher energy density than your favorite green "technologies".

Sorry theres just nothing in that post worth replying to.

[Shady]

It really angers me that complete charlatans like Al Gore, waste everybody's time and money on useless feel-good nonsense for absolutely no result. When instead, he could've put the same type of effort into natural gas. Something that's more efficient, much cleaner, and abundant in North America. Doing that would have actually helped make the environment cleaner.

[TimG]

It is tiny compared to uranium fuel rod or a lump of coal. The issue here is how much physical equipment is required to meet our energy needs. Wind and solar require too much and will never be a practical replacement for fossil fuels. At best they will be a minor supplement that is viable in some places.

Edited November 23, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

--

Edited November 23, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

It is tiny compared to uranium fuel rod or a lump of coal. The issue here is how much physical equipment is required to meet our energy needs. Wind and solar require too much and will never be a practical replacement for fossil fuels. At best they will be a minor supplement that is viable in some places.

You can't figure out how to use the quote system properly why should I accept that you actually understand how a wind or solar generator works? Here's a hint, they're less complicated than a nuclear, coal, or gas generator.

Edited November 23, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

We have been building houses for 100 years. Installation costs have not come down for those. Have you tried hiring a plumber or an electrician lately? Perhaps reshingled your roof? There is no reason to believe that the installation costs are going come down significantly. I would love to see some data on how much the cost of installing a roof has come down in the last 30 years.

In the case of wind and solar installation costs ARE coming down as a result of investment. And the cost of other energy sources is going up at the same time. If the trend holds true then the cost of solar PV energy will dip below the price charged by utilities within the next 15 years. And despite your silly claim that the technology is mature there has been a steady parade of major breakthroughs. Over the last couple of decades efficiency of solar panels have gone from 5% to over 40% with new multicell panels. The cost of solar panels is a TINY FRACTION of what he was 20 years ago.

[dre]

It is tiny compared to uranium fuel rod or a lump of coal. The issue here is how much physical equipment is required to meet our energy needs. Wind and solar require too much and will never be a practical replacement for fossil fuels. At best they will be a minor supplement that is viable in some places.

Wind and solar require too much and will never be a practical replacement for fossil fuels. At best they will be a minor supplement that is viable in some places.

More wild guesses.

[Jack Weber]

I realize you have a history of being distracted by shiny objects. But this thread isn't about Glenn Beck. It's about Al Gore. And his pushing of false science for political and personal gain.

You have a long ,and inglorious,history of having no knowledge of history...

[TimG]

If the trend holds true then the cost of solar PV energy will dip below the price charged by utilities within the next 15 years.

If that is the case there is absolutely no justification for 20-year electrical supply contracts.

Over the last couple of decades efficiency of solar panels have gone from 5% to over 40% with new multicell panels. The cost of solar panels is a TINY FRACTION of what he was 20 years ago.

Exactly. Which is why I say the industry is a mature as it gets. There will in incremental improvements but the period of rapid improvement is over.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If that is the case there is absolutely no justification for 20-year electrical supply contracts.

Exactly. Which is why I say the industry is a mature as it gets. There will in incremental improvements but the period of rapid improvement is over.

BS the internal combustion engine is over a hundred years old an they are still making huge leaps in fuel efficiency.

[dre]

If that is the case there is absolutely no justification for 20-year electrical supply contracts.

Exactly. Which is why I say the industry is a mature as it gets. There will in incremental improvements but the period of rapid improvement is over.

No we are right in the middle of the period of rapid development and some of the biggest breakthroughs have not even reached the market yet. Multi Junction cells using a gallium indium phosphide substrate just recently shattered the 33% theoretical efficicence ceiling. Advances in nano-technology will facilitate a further drop in prices over next few years. This is very much a technology in a heavy R&D cycle with major breakthroughs coming pretty much constantly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Sorry theres just nothing in that post worth replying to.

Correct....you have no response in the face of existing energy densities and economic reality.

Oh, and we can call you 'dumb' too if that be your game.

[dre]

Correct....you have no response in the face of existing energy densities and economic reality.

Oh, and we can call you 'dumb' too if that be your game.

No i have no response because you didnt make a point. You regurgitated an obvious platitude (that different energy sources have different densities) then... nothing...

Youll have to make some sort of claim. If your claim is that the diference in energy density is proof of the non-viability of a given energy source then youll probably just ellicit more laughter.

[bush_cheney2004]

No i have no response because you didnt make a point. You regurgitated an obvious platitude (that different energy sources have different densities) then... nothing...

The point is obvious...BTUs and kilowatts don't lie.

Youll have to make some sort of claim. If your claim is that the diference in energy density is proof of the non-viability of a given energy source then youll probably just ellicit more laughter.

Yes, I will laugh all the way to the bank. Tell us again about how you are going to replace the hydrocarbon economy with nano technology. Now that's good for another laugh!

Edited November 24, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[dre]

The point is obvious...BTUs and kilowatts don't lie.

Yes, I will laugh all the way to the bank. Tell us again about how you are going to replace the hydrocarbon economy with nano technology. Now that's good for another laugh!

The point is obvious...BTUs and kilowatts don't lie.

Thats not a point... Why dont you tell us in your words what you think this means and how it relates to the viability of various forms of energy? Or something... "killowatts dont lie" is not any kind of salient point.

Tell us again about how you are going to replace the hydrocarbon economy with nano technology.

Youre always so quick to start lying through your teeth. You know for a fact I never said anything like that. I mentioned nano technology once in relation to solar PV. You know as well as I do that I never said nano technology was going to "replace the hydrocarbon economy". All you do with this kind of mumbo jumbo is derail threads. Stop lying.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats not a point... Why dont you tell us in your words what you think this means and how it relates to the viability of various forms of energy? Or something... "killowatts dont lie" is not any kind of salient point.

It means that the metrics of success are measured in finite units, not your promises of technology yet to be realized on a scale, distribution, and reliability to displace current (and already diverse) choices.

Youre always so quick to start lying through your teeth. You know for a fact I never said anything like that. I mentioned nano technology once in relation to solar PV. You know as well as I do that I never said nano technology was going to "replace the hydrocarbon economy". All you do with this kind of mumbo jumbo is derail threads. Stop lying.

You deserve your own rhetoric backatcha....too bad we can't burn it to heat water.

[dre]

It means that the metrics of success are measured in finite units, not your promises of technology yet to be realized on a scale, distribution, and reliability to displace current (and already diverse) choices.

You deserve your own rhetoric backatcha....too bad we can't burn it to heat water.

It means that the metrics of success are measured in finite units, not your promises of technology yet to be realized on a scale, distribution, and reliability to displace current (and already diverse) choices.

I made no such promise.

You deserve your own rhetoric backatcha....too bad we can't burn it to heat water.

That wasnt my rhetoric at all. You just have a hard time being honest. Youre a liar, as is demostrated above for all to see.

My only "rhetoric" is that research in wind energy and solar energy shows promise and should continue development. The problem comes when luddite hacks dismiss technologies they dont even have introductory knowledge of.

Just be honest! You dont have the faintest idea of where those technologies are at, and you dont know the first thing about them. Theres nothing wrong with that and you shouldnt be embarassed.

Edited November 24, 2010 by dre