Survey - Building Automation / IT security / Privacy / FDD state of the art / Energy Efficiency / Grid / Demand Response

Mole333, perhaps can provide a technical analysis of the megawatt generating capacity of the "renewables" you propose that will replace generating plants as they go off line due to old age and increased CO2 politics?

Perhaps break it down by catagory such as Windmill, Solar, FuelCell ( fossil fuel? ), Biomass, any others you propose?

Perhaps also outline the other logistics factors such as location of Windmill Farms, will they be located in what proximity to NYC? How many square feet / acres of solar panels will be located at what locations?

What other factors do we need to consider to keep NYC street lights on in order to keep civil order and violent crime under control, not to mention comfort AC, water pumping for sewer and potable water, communications systems, refrigeration to maintain food preservation and distribution, fuel depots to maintain various transport, etc etc

I'm truly curious what solutions to these challenges you can offer because I for one am continually baffled by the promises being made by politicains, and demanded by the Environmental Lobbys - yet seem to me to be a little beyond current technology.

Perhaps as you provide your anaysis also indicate time for roll out and implementation.

Feel free to provide any supplemental references that are available, as I try to keep a rather extensive library on this type of stuff.

Its a 20 year hobby for me so I'm just curious about the answers, and I suspect our readers would like to know what our options are so we can get to work and make things happen.

I'd be curious about much of this, too, though only parts of it are exactly relavent to my response.

I am advocating active efforts to IMPROVE the situation, not completely replace all in one shot. You are asking me to outline the ideal situation, which of course I hope will happen! But my advocacy is for us to stop sitting on our asses waiting for tropical diseases to continue their creep into temperate latitudes, more storm surges, more floods, more storms, chunks of our agriculture to move to Candada, our ski industry to become largely extinct, etc. I am advocating starting to shift to policies that stop "waiting and seeing" and start acting. We don't have to replace everything at once, we just have to start improving where we can. In the process we can create new technology (that's been something America sure USED to be good at), perhaps revive manufacturing by becoming a world producer of green energy technology, increase efficiency of consumer items (plenty of existing technology underused here), exploit geothermal where available, wind where available, biomass where appropriate...even, with some improvements, solar in some areas.

I have heard the "we don't have the technology" arguement for 25 yearas now. Too bad we didn't put more effort into DEVELOPING the technology back then...perhaps a fraction of the effort we put into new weapons technology. But even without sane effort back then, back in 1995 I was reading an article in Scientific American describing how wind energy projects using existing technology at that time could turn the Great Plains states into major energy exporters. Well, shit THAT would be a nice step. Even if it could, for whatever practical reasons, not be 100% put into effect, it would be PROGRESS...AND create jobs locally. I hear from Iowa farmers directly the progress being made in generating wind energy on farms, creating revenue for struggling farmers as well as energy for the grid. I mentioned Nevada which is being asked to build a polluting coal plant that requires transport of coal from West Virginia to Nevada rather than building an euqivalent (so the claims go!) amount of geothermal and wind generation. And that energy isn't destined for Nevada but for Southern California. Instead of makind progress, we continue to make the same old mistakes. Hell I am even open to some of the solutions most environmentalists won't even consider: garbage to energy plants if it can be done reasonably. Put Freshkills to work!

You outline in considerable detail the exact kinds of things that need to be worked out. But you are not outlining what I advocate...or more precisely you are outlining the IDEAL of what I advocate. I do hope we can do that. But a concerted effort to simply move in the right direction is what I advocate. The pay off is environmental AND economic, provides more local solutions in most cases, and hopefully would create a more flexible infrastructure for new technology to fit into.

I started looking up the megawattage of the geothermal company I invest in, the wind generating projects I have discussed in the past, the proposed green alternative in Nevada, the estimates of what better use of efficient lighting and recycling would save, etc. And I would continue to do so if I had more time because it is a good exercise. But it wasn't really my point. My point is that we have to stop saying we are helpless and start doing something. America has done it before and we can do it now if we stop convincing ourselves we are too weak and helpless to make changes. I agree the changes can't be draconian or too much of a burden. But things like shifting subsidies from oil to wind power, making compact fluorescents tax free to lower the price, etc. SHOULD BE DONE. But we haven't done them. I advocate starting to do them.

Now we're discussing the issues instead of arguing which side of the Global Warming discussion is hype vs reality, and who's opinion should be discounted if we don't agree.

Just as the reader linked to an external blog post the other day, it really doesn't matter because if the challenges we face separately are not addressed they will be the downfall of our societal infrastructure.

This is exactly the focus of why I explore the material - because if one believes the hype it appears we're all going to die tomorrow, or at least or children will in their time.

This hype as presented to the American Public is exactly the disservice I speak to, in that it not only distorts and misleads public opinion, but also "loosens up" hard working Americans to be exploited by false advertising and "rushed to market" unproven technology.

The reason the above "renewable" technologies haven't been brought forward at the wholesale level is because they were not cost effective. On a supplemental basis here and there some make sense, however the large generating capacity numbers needed to power our society are just not available by these renewable methods. We aren't socialist Europe, in a free market system if a product cant stand on its merits, it does not generally move forward and this includes power production.

I cant say why during the Clinton Presidency NOTHING was done to move forward new generating capacity with proven safe and environmentally friendly technology and modernizing the distribution grid. I also cant say why during the Clinton Presidency NOTHING was done to address gross deficiencies fuel refinery capacity and distribution systems. I can say it MIGHT be because the environmental lobby held more sway than rational thinking. I can also say its a JOKE that the same folks who stopped progress for 8 years, now point fingers at the current administration and blame BUSH II for in-action.

Perhaps going into Iraq is the best explanation why we haven't dealt with these domestic challenges. Mistake that that was for many separate reasons.

When it comes to power producing technology at the wholesale level, the cost of oil dictates the common sense. We have enough oil in US and Canadian shale deposits to last us for generations, the cost to extract being both the thing that held it back as well as the opportunity if OPEC continues to maintain high prices. The Saudis are smart, if we move forward with oil shale in an aggressive fashion, the price will miraculously come down and I wouldn't be surprise if any "suggested shortage" suddenly rectifies.

Of course OIL is evil. It's odd how some view our life blood as a bad thing.

The US will use less electric grid demand as manufacturing continues leaving the country in droves, but this just means Mexico and China and other foreign countries will increase electric production, perhaps by far less "environmentally friendly" means as we would.

It might also be worth looking at why we want to beat up domestic based oil companies (ExxonMobil) by way of tax structure penalties and propaganda, yet at what point are we making it easier for the foreign competitors such as UK's BP, the Netherlands Royal Dutch Shell, France's Total, Venezuela's Total, and Russia's Yukos?

As someone with over 20 years of actively watching this situation develop, I can't tell the difference between ExxonMobil's self serving tactics, and those of the environmental lobby (lawyers). This being the case, how can we expect Joe normal hard working American to separate the myth from he real facts? Both sides are guilty of doing we citizens a disservice and should be held accountable when laws or ethics are broken.

AT LEAST in the court of public opinion.

Why is it so easy to make life extraordinarily difficult for our own national assets, when we make it extra easy for those of foreign countries? This method is damaging to our national interests and it makes no sense whatsoever.

We have our work cut out for us, perhaps we can explore the challenges based on reason and objective analyses, instead of overdone hype and propaganda - our environmental lobby media is confusing and misleading the American public and unless we get busy talking about it we could easily go down the wrong path with no real benefit and HUGE opportunity cost.

How is the repayment of funds "borrowed" from the Social Security trust fund coming along lately anyway?

(typos corected, no change to content)