atomicradish -
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicradish
I appreciate you concern for the environment, but in all honesty, you're dramatizing something that isn't there. In case you were unaware, one of the primary objectives of the Tennessee Valley Authority was to prevent flooding which had previously been a huge problem. Alongside that, it provided needed jobs and helped to power a section of the country which was in the dark for the many years before its existence. It comes at a cost, as all things do, but the cost is minimal.
Solar and wind power are highly unfesible. Have you even taken geographics into account? How many places actually receive sufficient sunlight or wind to actually sustain a power grid? Not many. The fields required for such a power plant would be massive. Now certainly it has its promise, but it is simply promise. It is not a logical solution at the present time.
|
Here are some "bad" regions for solar :
Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association (OSEIA)
http://www.oregonseia.org/index.htm
Solar Washington
http://www.solarwashington.org/
Washington State "Solar Bills" are Signed Into Law!
http://www.solarwashington.org/actio...illsSigned.htm
Every South facing roof with an unobstructed view in the United States is a candidate for power generation. How about that asphalt parking lot near you that is basically a solar heat collector driving up your local microclimate temperatures? Why not put solar panels (that double as shading) there? If we "only" spent 100 billion per year on this (20% of the current defense budget), I think we could make a dent in our energy consumption. Don't you?
If you don't like taking money out of defense, how about transferring the current level of subsidies from oil to solar/wind?
Solar and wind systems don't have to work 24/7, they just have to reduce the load on our current infrastructure. Typical residential peak demand is driven by AC load, the time when solar works best.
Wind and Hydro are both location dependent. If the TVA took advantage of the hydro potential, why can't other regions like the Texas plains take advantage of their wind potential?
Quote:
|
It's all well and great that you're taking the initiative to cut your power bill. I would prefer not to suffer from heat stroke, so I intend to run the central air at a comfortable 73 degrees. People can chage their consumption habits, but why would they want to? We have been given so many things by technology and science that have made our lives easier. It would be foolish to ignore all of those advances and essentially "go back in time" so that we can conserve. Science has to account for its advances by also improving upon power and its collection. Until a better method of power distribution is found, it would be foolish to expect people to give up the modern comforts which have we have been afforded.
|
When you make the technology argument, I think Wind and Solar are technology solutions. Your argument is that there isn't enough energy in these solutions to satisfy our needs. If we continue to advance technologically and practice conservation simultaneously, shouldn't we be able to get by until we create more efficient solar cells or new technology "X"?
From my POV, technology has allowed us to live longer and given us lots of gadgets (I'm typing on one right now), but I don't think it has made our lives easier. It has given us the oppurtunity to use our minds to the fullest, but you have to do *alot* of work to realize that potential.
CarloSW2
Linear Mode
