Conventional energy vs Alternative

[ibeeberz]

With the growing issue regarding our environment, one of the biggest issues is our methods for attaining energy, whether or not we use conventional methods (nuclear, coal, oil) or altnerative methods? (Solar, wind, etc.)

Which is the way to go? why? why not?


Alternative methods definitely dont produce as much energy as conventional, but altnerative methods do tend to be cleaner, in some cases cheaper and more renewable.

What are your views? How does justify having cleaner, but less energy over a much higher energy production? or vice versa?

[improvident]

I think there should be a healthy mix of both.. too much conventional.. while producing more energy.. in an energy consuming monseter of a society... is unclean and potentially dangerous.. with globally rising temperatures due in part to green house gases.. caused by conventional energy methods... True it may not be something we have to worry about in our generation.. or the next.. it wouldnt hurt to cut down...

How to cut down? its pretty simple and self-explanitory.. Alternative energy... solar.. wind.. water.. use the elements around us.. harness the energy already abundant.. true it may not be as efficent.. but its generally safer for man.. and nature..

[Heather]

Obviously "alternative" energy is what we need to use if we plan on living as we have been for years, decades, centuries to come. Long term, natural energy is the only reasonable way to go. Understandable that today, yes, natural energy sources account for very little of the energy used, however, this does not need to remain the case. The higher the demand for a product, the more quickly the technology to improve and better that product comes forth. Historically, this is how the market has always been. I personally think that in the near future we will see an increase in the efficency of natural energy resources and well as battery storage due to consumer demand.

To not convert to natural energy sources really means that earth won't be here as a habitable planet as we know it in years to come.

[Osborn F Enready]

I think we should go to a mix of solar, wind and nuclear energy.

I also think we should be seeing the obvious sign of the future, which is energy problems. Due to this, individuals should be taking stock of that concern, and investing a percentage of their income to savings for solar or wind power systems for their own home, even if connected to the system, for backup or overload puposes.

As solar and wind energy drive battery technology, we could eventually phase out nuclear energy.

Solar and wind are not perfect, but they are the least polluting, most rewarding for impact per watt on the enviroment.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I think we should go to a mix of solar, wind and nuclear energy. I also think we should be seeing the obvious sign of the future, which is energy problems.

Unfortunately, some still have to think on that one. Although I don't support the nuclear energy industry.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would hope you don't gramps, since you don't support governments of any kind.

[WindWip]

Nuclear, definitely. No question in my mind at all. It is the most efficient source and definitely the cheapest.

[bishop]

germany's model for alternative energies is something that all other countries should follow, in spirit.. and, for those who don't know - germany used economic incentives for individuals to become energy producers.

[Heather]

Quote by: bishop germany's model for alternative energies is something that all other countries should follow, in spirit.. and, for those who don't know - germany used economic incentives for individuals to become energy producers.

Agreed. I think, if I remember correctly, Germany's goal is to have 20% of their energy consumption powered by natural resources by 2020. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

An awesome start I think.

[bishop]

it's something like that, if what i think i remember from the recent nova special on the subject is correct. germany's policy was so successful that they actually revised their goals upwards to be more aggressive..

there is much that our own government can do to spur investment in alternative energies here. the city where i currently live has a policy where converting your home to use alternative energy is tax deductible (and by no paltry amount either).

[Osborn F Enready]

I agree, Germanys model has worked well.

Imagine being able to write off your "debt" to government via the income tax, and being able to put that toward your home-power solutions using wind/solar kits, batteries, switches and wiring.

We would see change immediately, and it would increase rapidly.

[Heather]

Bishop and Os, I think we all watch PBS. ~*lol*~

Wisconsin offers "discounts" here for the taking advantage of solar energy, my problem thus far has been convincing my fiance that this is a good investment. Bless him, he sometimes doesn't see the bigger picture, in my opinion, until it hits his pocket book.

[bishop]

i don't have the energy right now (still unpacking the new apartment), but if WI's policies are structured similar to germany's, then there is a clear payback in investing in alternative energy.

DSIRE: Incentives by State: Incentives in Wisconsin

the state will grant loans from $2,500 to $20,000 (maturities from 3-10 years) with very low interest rates (1.99%).. plus, the state will pay you $0.225 per kilowatt hour supplied to the grid. AND, the expenses are tax deductible.. the payback here is clear as day. if i had a house, i'd take up this investment. (and if you consider your house an investment, having energy self-sufficiency would undoubtedly increase its value.)

[Heather]

Wisconsin has a mandate that at least 10% of its energy come from renewable resources by 2015. It's a good start.

Take a look at the grants Wisconsin offers. Now I have no idea if other states are comparable to this, but I think this is awesome.

Certainly, if it were entirely up to me, I would have had this done yesterday. But you know... boys.

[MachineCode0110]

If left entirely up to the market, we'll get whatever is cheapest.

IE, coal and oil until easily harvested sources run out.


Solar and wind seem like the easiest things that the government can provide incentives for.

Geothermal could eventually be a significant source as well.


And of course nuclear fusion if we can ever get the damned thing figured out.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: ibeeberz With the growing issue regarding our environment, one of the biggest issues is our methods for attaining energy, whether or not we use conventional methods (nuclear, coal, oil) or altnerative methods? (Solar, wind, etc.) Which is the way to go? why? why not? Alternative methods definitely dont produce as much energy as conventional, but altnerative methods do tend to be cleaner, in some cases cheaper and more renewable. What are your views? How does justify having cleaner, but less energy over a much higher energy production? or vice versa?

At one time, coal, oil and nuclear energy were all considered "alternative" fuel sources. It's about what we WANT to do, and how serious we are about making the energies work for us.

The Sun provides about a million times more energy than we coul;d ever hope to need. All we have to do is learn to use it.