- Time
- Post link
I understand that no method is perfect, but if you really want to get off oil, there has to be sacrifice somewhere else.
- Time
- Post link
Solar Power:
taken from here
Quote
The solar energy released by the sun may seem like the best source of energy for the world. It has many benefits: it is free, it does not pollute, is very reliable when the sun is shining, and it is very safe. With all of these benefits, it may seem odd that there are extremely few solar power plants on earth. The reasons that solar power plants do not power the world are summed up in two reasons: cost and reliability. Solar plants made of solar cells are extremely expensive to build. Thousands of square feet of solar cells are required to generate enough power for even a very small town. A large city simply doesn’t have enough room for a solar plant, or enough money. The second main reason is the unreliability of the plants. If the plant has a few cloudy days, there will be no electricity for the town. This is not an option for many towns or cities. In the modern age of today, we need to have power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, not only on sunny days, sometimes at night.
Although solar power has many downfalls, its future remains bright as we develop more efficient cells, and find better ways to use them. The world of the future may be powered by amazing hybrid solar cells, but we must continue to research this useful technology. Scientists are creating new ideas for this technology, but you must continue the search for others!
The statistic I recall hearing was that in order to power the US at its current demand (not accounting for future demand) would take a solar farm approximately the size of Nevada. Therefore, we must make solar panels smaller, more efficient, and less costly in order to see a net savings in energy cost.
That said, the startup cost of "solarizing" your home with roof panels is about $20,000.
My solution:
Houses should be solar equipped with traditional electrical supplies serving as a backup with uninterruptable switching that takes over when failure is reached. Solar panels should be standard equipment on all new construction and should be factored into the cost of the mortgage, amortizing the capital investment over the life of the traditional 30-year loan. The cost savings will be best returned to the consumer this way.
Wind:
taken from here.
Quote
Wind power is not used extensively for two main reasons. The first reason is that the power plants are not reliable enough for modern lives. If there are a few calm days, an entire city could be out of power. The second reason that wind generation is not popular is that the wind generation plants are extremely loud. The sounds of the turbines spinning and generators generating are too loud to be close to any city or town. Although this is an economical and safe means to generate electricity, there are many parts that need to be improved!
In short, this is a good supplemental source of energy, but it is only viable en masse in areas in the midwest where large tracts of open land are matched with regular windy conditions. Innovation is needed to make this a more reasonable source of energy.
Hydroelectric (Water):
Using our poster boy, the Hoover Dam as our best example, we must look at the generation compared to the cost, both economical and environmental:
Hoover generates about 4 billion kilowatt hours a year, enough to serve 1.3 million people (a fraction of one percent of the country). This took the damming of one of the country's biggest rivers, in a place where population was small enough to have minimal impact. Hoover cost $165 million in the 1930s. Adjusted for inflation, Hoover would cost $2,277,813,324, not including all the "new" expenses resulting from union wages and safety measures that would undoubtedly be required. This cost must be passed onto the consumers of the electricity. The initial capital cost of the energy is about $1,750 per customer before distribution begins or a single gross receipt is generated. It's doable, but it isn't cheap to get off the ground, and there are few rivers that offer the hydroelectric potential of the Colorado.
taken from here:
Quote
The second main downside of hydroelectric power plants is the fact that the dam, which is essential to the plant, destroys many habitats. A dam needs to hold a tremendous amount of water, and floods out surrounding forests, deserts, towns and anything else in its way. Lake Mead, supplying the Hoover Dam, has enough water to flood the entire state of Pennsylvania to a depth of 1 foot!
Note: Logisitcs aside, consider how many Hoovers could be built for the cost of the war in Iraq. Or Solar panels for that matter.
I'm tired of writing now.
