|
|
|
- Thread starter TOperson
- Start date
Marko
Active Member
Are you saying we don't frequently have to dump nuclear or hydro energy at a loss, because we're obligated to pay more for wind or solar?
Would you say it's untrue that wind energy needs backup in the form of a more on-demand generation type?
Would you say it's untrue that the entire wind+solar industry couldn't exist without massive subsidies and rate increases?
The whole industry exists to bleed money from governments and consumers by charging A LOT more to get less. If the billions going into wind farms were instead put into actually reducing consumption through more efficient energy using devices, it would be FAR greener than the wind industry could ever hope to be, and without causing financial hardship on consumers and industry in the process.
Last edited:
doug
Active Member
I thought you had a basic understanding of electricity.
We don't pay anyone to take away excess electricity, we may not get a premium price for it though.....the rest of your sentence is just you putting words in my mouth so you have something to argue, or, you've completely missed the point.
'Excess' energy generation won't destroy the grid....is that what you're implying?
No I would not say it's untrue, nor did I imply it anywhere in any of my posts....why would you bring it up. I would hope that anyone familiar with wind or solar energy knows that it needs backup or storage.
Agreed, or reducing or eliminating the frivolous use of energy such as in lighted billboards and signage.
RC8
Senior Member
Coal is a ridiculous alternative, and nuclear energy is only viable thanks to grotesque government subsidies. Gas power plants in the suburbs where most energy consumption is? Great idea! Except the conservative party and the NDP got in the way and turned that common sense solution into a poisonous issue.
I'm down for wind turbines near downtown Toronto, but the spit is a very important ecological sanctuary. Since sprawl has absorbed so much of the land that migratory birds used to rely on, the spit has become an essential stop for millions of such birds every year. Ask any biologist and they'll tell you that the area is probably one of the most important ecological features in Southern Ontario - much more than, say, High Park.
I don't buy the theory that if put these here people in the countryside would be more willing to put up with them too. They'd just say like they do with anything over 3 stories "this isn't trawnnaaa" and that'd be that.
I'm down for wind turbines near downtown Toronto, but the spit is a very important ecological sanctuary. Since sprawl has absorbed so much of the land that migratory birds used to rely on, the spit has become an essential stop for millions of such birds every year. Ask any biologist and they'll tell you that the area is probably one of the most important ecological features in Southern Ontario - much more than, say, High Park.
I don't buy the theory that if put these here people in the countryside would be more willing to put up with them too. They'd just say like they do with anything over 3 stories "this isn't trawnnaaa" and that'd be that.
Marko
Active Member
If we get less for it than it cost to generate and transmit, then it's the same as subsidizing it, which is very much like paying someone to take it.
True, you didn't say that explicitly, but it's a key part of why we have to sell off surplus energy.
Where did I say that?
I asked, only to find out if you knew this to be a key part of how wind or solar works. A surprising number of people don't.
Sure, if one comes to that conclusion, billboards or signage could be reduced or required to face certain efficiency standards - which is part of the point I was making. There are many, many ways that efficiencies or reductions could be implemented to actually reduce overall power consumption, making any investment into new 'green' power generation an entirely needless expense.
What is greener, reducing 1 mW of generation and transmission entirely, or generating that extra 1 mW using windmills and charging users 10-20 times the going rate for it?
W. K. Lis
Superstar
doug
Active Member
The person I quoted said it, which you then asked about.
Yes, I see that.
How often does Ontario sell off surplus energy?
I think that 1 milli-Watt of power is inconsequential.
Marko
Active Member
Hah. I'm so used to typing mA in my work, that I didn't realize I was making a typo. You got me.
I was thinking megawatt (MW), though even gigawatts (GW) is what we should be talking when discussing large scale power usage.
Also - I didn't mean to attack you specifically. I was using the opening to talk about saving energy vs green energy and shed light on the industry as a whole being more of a make work project than something that is truly being green. It's far more profitable to follow the path we're on, rather than take the path that leads to a true reduction in harmful pollutants.
E.B.
Active Member
The whole idea sounds ridiculous. They look awful.
In 30yrs, I think people will look at wind turbines that are in cities and say, who thought up this insane idea. their will be alternatives we just have to be patient.
In 30yrs, I think people will look at wind turbines that are in cities and say, who thought up this insane idea. their will be alternatives we just have to be patient.
Forgotten
Active Member
Exactly. The fighting over gas, wind, coal and nuclear is beyond stupid when fusion is just around the corner.
doug
Active Member
I agree. More time should be spent on making things efficient and reusing usage.
I'm all for 'green' energy, but not many people realize how ungreen things like solar power really are. The amount of energy and poison that goes into the manufacture of solar cells is huge.
RC8
Senior Member
Even if all green energy does is lead to higher energy prices, that will go a long a way towards creating a culture that understands the true value of electricity (and is thus more willing to conserve it).
Are there any examples where energy is cheap and it is used efficiently?
Are there any examples where energy is cheap and it is used efficiently?
E.B.
Active Member
Now why be a jack***. Alternatives such as cost improvements on solar, biomass etc. & yes, you may want to fuse something in one of your corners.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No. Fusion is hardly around the corner - they are building the ITER and it's only an experimental reactor for ironing out the fusion physics and engineering, and after that (20 years) they might be building DEMO, which is a prototype plant. There are no committment for the latter either.
Besides, even if the chose to go down that route, it will likely not be cheap - magnetic confinement tokamaks are some of the most advanced and complex pieces of machinery ever built, and the inertial confinement (e.g. laser) alternative is no better. The DoE NIF using the latter turned out to be a major disappointment as well.
If I am to bet - I would put it on significant material science advances enabling ubiquitous and cheap solar systems.
AoD
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
My home town is surrounded by literally hundreds of these and as much as I want Torontians (or really those in the GTA in general) to get a small taste of that reality, this is a bad idea. Pretty much the worst place to put them.
I don't even mind the the look of these things, but they do decrease property values and it's an annoying reminder of offloading problems onto more rural communities.
I think the best place for them is to line the Don from Gerard up to the 401. They would fit perfectly in the middle of on/off ramps.
I don't even mind the the look of these things, but they do decrease property values and it's an annoying reminder of offloading problems onto more rural communities.
I think the best place for them is to line the Don from Gerard up to the 401. They would fit perfectly in the middle of on/off ramps.