We have a LONG way to go before we can supply the world with affordable, efficient, green energy. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron. We're just not there yet. In the meantime, we need to drill, drill, drill.

Artful Dodger: Is that a reason to stop building more green energy supply systems... no.

At the moment we cannot supply the entire world. But some countries like Iceland have tapped into natural renewable energy.

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation's energy. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

Is that an isolated example, or just a country willing to use 'free' energy.

"In the meantime, we need to drill, drill, drill"

And when the price goes through the roof, what then? A Mad Max type scenerio!!

"I'll bet good money you use fossil fuels all the time."

..because we are still reliant on power plants built decades ago, and still in the process of building green systems. But there are (I've just read) some suppliers in the UK who invest the profits into more green energy. One supplier states that at the present over 50% of the energy they supply comes from green sources. That is a big difference compared to the big 6 energy companies in the UK, who's reputation at the moment is very bad.

After looking at the differences between them and the big 6.. it looks like a good deal. Even better then the non profit company we currently use.

(V):

"Artful Dodger: Is that a reason to stop building more green energy supply systems... no."

But WHO said anything about stopping?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT.

I'm sure everyone (except possibly the oil companies) would prefer that SOME day we ARE at that point. But we aren't yet.
There has to be a reasonable way to reach that point. But stopping using fossil fuels all at once certainly won't get us there either.

Bwild: Pumped power systems are essential for load balancing within our modern power systems.

rod03801:

But WHO said anything about stopping all at once?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT.

(V): Answering a question with a question? Fun!

rod03801: Yes.

(V): So, you don't know the answer to the question.

rod03801: Is there a point to the question?

(V): The answer is using more green technology that will ween us off the oil glut. Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits.

Jack: Like free solar powered electric car recharging points.

"Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits."

unlikely.. too many politicians rely on the extra cash to feed their greedy lifestyles.

Newt Gingrich wants child labour brought back!!

WTH

(V): lol, yes Newt is all for slave labor.
Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit.

(V): True but we are in the process of creating a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood as well as stop insider trading with congress and the supreme court.

These career politicians have all become pigs feeding at the troth.

The supreme court needs to be put under our conflict of interest laws.

(V):<b> Walmart is rebuilding their store roofs to put solar power on them to operate their stores and sell the excess back to the power companies.

Some people are buying Chevy Volts and putting solar panels on their roofs to recharge them and they can sell the excess to the power companies except in California. They have a law against selling excess energy to power companies.

Jack: Like California's version of the 3 strikes law.

"Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit."

Only if it encourages the placement of a base there to look for him... But with an undisclosed primary role of looking into Helium3 mining!!

(V): "Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and now magnetic power amplifiers that produce more energy than inputted."

Produce more energy than input?????
Which journal did you read that in? Thought they had stopped publishing the 'Sunday Sport' :)

(V): It's not that complicated. You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake. The quote explains the question. You made the statement as though someone else had used the statement as some sort of fact, yet no one had even said it. It's just the way you love going round and round and round.

(V): Wrong again Jules. We've wasted millions because the technology isn't there yet. We need to work on the technology and THEN build. Right now you are in favor of building an airplane that simply CAN'T fly.

(V): "Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010

Great, and the other 74%....they all are freezing to death.

rod03801: "But WHO said anything about stopping?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT"


This is how the radicals think. They don't listen to what you say and they always use a straw man in their arguments.

Where renewable energy technology is successful, fine. Build away. But how many BILLIONS must we waste? We've recently seen the waste. Enough. Get back to the drawing board and figure it out.

Chevy Volt. classic example of a waste. Like Obama: Lots of hype but no spark.

SL-Mark: Actually I caught glimpses of it through my science subscription choices on youtube. It's through using neodymium magnets. The same ones used in wind turbines.

Artful Dodger:

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce
approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation's energy. In addition,
geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of
approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal
energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power,
and 0.1% from fossil fuels."

... you seemed to miss that part, so I've made it clearer.

rod03801: Oh no I didn't. you just presumed I did.

"You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake."

Yes you do.

(V): Wrong again. I didn't miss anything. We have the same here in the US but it's only a very SMALL portion of the US energy needs. AND you are limited as to where you can build those plants. Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs. Just a small population. It's isolated.

(V): Guess you are talking about magnetic motors. Sorry, they don't work and certainly don't give free energy.

Neodymium magnets are very widely used, not just in wind turbines. Your computer hard drive probably uses them too! There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field.

Green energy will never work in the USA. The reason is simple: energy consumption is too great in the USA. The USA has approximately 5% of the population of the world, yet the USA consumes 30% of the energy produced in the world. That means that on average, an American consumes 6 times the world average. Since consumption is 6 times the average, the only way the USA could make green energy viable would be to reduce consumption, and that means reducing wasted energy and improving efficiency at every level. The USA has no political will to change its energy consumption habits. Politicians talk of green energy, but only as a whitewash to the reality of overconsumption and waste.

Artful Dodger: Yes, the position of 'hot spots' limits where geothermal can be used.

"Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs."

As part of the whole package of renewable energy, it in areas of good heat locality (eg Yellowstone park) you have a great potential.

"Just a small population. It's isolated."

Quite a bit of the population of the world lives near volcanoes and/or tectonic plates.

SL-Mark: Seem there is some disagreement over that. Plus more out than in is not free, just a reduction. If you get 300% more out then that is a good thing. Nuclear power is not 'free' energy, it consumes power, but creates more just as with all our present systems. Even green takes some power to create the collection devices.

"Your computer hard drive probably uses them too!"

Yes they do. Even might take my unused one apart to have a look at them.

"There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field."

I didn't say it was magic, just the application of science.

Übergeek 바둑이: I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however) because it's more available and we can afford it.

(V): Thank you for the link. Had a skim read, but will look at more carefully later, with an open mind :)

I did pick up two statements in the article "...you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it," and "more energy can’t be taken out of a system than is put into it or is already in it.”

The former statement is of course wrong as the author argues. Whether it be solar, wind, geothermal, hydrocarbon etc. these are all forms of potential energy, which we then convert (mostly) into kinetic energy to generate power.

The latter statement is true, imho, and refers to perpetual energy / motion machines which are not possible. I believe this is what you referred to as 'free' energy. But I'll read the article carefully first!

SL-Mark: Would the way some birds use thermals to gain height to be able to travel further be considered using 'free' energy?

.... They still have to fly.

(V): Well, its down to how you define 'free.'

Wind, solar, and even hydrocarbon are all 'free' energy, in the sense that you can produce more energy from them than what you put in to extract it.

This is the same with a bird (or even a glider). You need some energy to first reach that height, but then using the energy in the thermal (potential) convert it into motion (kinetic) to theoretically stay airborne indefinitely.

However, this is not the same 'free' as being able to extract more energy than that which is available, something only a perpetual energy machine can do, i.e. create energy out of nothing, something truely free and unencumbered! However, your bird is encumbered, its height and speed is limited by the energy available in the thermal.

SL-Mark: It's not creating energy out of nothing, just taking advantage of natural phenomena, such as some of the devices mentioned which can obtain charge from the potential difference between one end buried and the other at a certain distance above ground. Reminds me of the old crystal radio sets.

(V): "They still have to fly."
thats only because gravity is free also!

Bwild: Oil is free as is gas and coal. Oh wait, there's a cost to harvest it. But there's a cost associated with all energy sources. NO energy source is free. There's always a cost involved. Even once the source is tapped, there's a cost to maintain the equipment that captures the energy.

Unfortunately, we are years away from using renewable energy sources effectively and efficiently. In the meantime, I say drill and tap ALL sources of energy.

Artful Dodger:

> I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't
> travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however)
> because it's more available and we can afford it.

I think it is not realistic to ask people to cut their consumption by 80%. It is what the average American would have to do in order to bring consumption to the world average. It would be like asking people to stop using their lights, refrigerator, air conditioner, car, etc. It would not only be unrealistic, it would be economically destructive.

I think that our shcool should teach children to use energy responsibly. Teach children to waste less electricity by leaving lights on, leaving the TV on, keeping appliances plugged in when they don't need to be, etc. We should teach children to reduce wasted energy.

Then we should teach children different values. We value big vehicles. Everybody wants a huge pickup truck, a huge minivan, a huge SUV. We should teach children that cars are not toys, but working vehicles. The vehicles that we choose should be a reflection fo the work we do, not of our desire to have fun. Here people buy big pickup trucks just to show off, not because they need them for work. Those values have to change too.

I think we are decade away from getting rid of oil as a source of energy. However, that does not mean that we should not plan for the future. Oil will run out sooner or later, and when it does we better be ready to substitute it with something cleaner. There are alternatives, they are not perfect, but that is no reason to reject them outright.

One thing is true, the oil industry is trying to milk every cent of profit out of oil. Their economic interests lie with oil and not with "green" energy. Alternative energy companies have interests that lie away from oil. Our politicians are now caught between economically competing interest groups. As always, our politicians will side with whoever puts the most cash in their hands. It is the nature of the lobby system. Since the oil industry has the most cash for now, their political interests will be represented more than those of "green" energy. As green energy becomes a bigger and bigger business, the political wil will shift, but we are decades away from that.

Bwild: Yep... especially at terminal velocity!!

Artful Dodger: I can we gather all the PR folk from the Republican 'candidate' race, and place them in a big biomass plant?

(V): what does terminal velocity have to do with the fact that if birds dont flap..their gunna fall..no matter what their terminal velocity is. gravity WILL win by confrontation with the earth! lol

Übergeek 바둑이: I totally agree with your post. I believe everything you said is true. I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck. Mine's paid for but his not only guzzles gas, it chews up 400 buck a month. I paid 6 thousand while he around 40. Now he can no longer afford it.. Just not smart on so many levels.

Bwild: It was a joke!!

Birds though through soaring or ground effect (skimming) can delay greatly the energy they need to use.

Artful Dodger:

> I drive a small truck. a friend bought a huge truck.

It is just human nature. We always want things bigger. I see it here in our city. Old neighborhoods have homes that are much smaller than newer neighborhoods. Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s. With each passing decade homes became larger and larger. At the same time families became smaller. Now people expect huge homes, and have only 1 or 2 children.

This translates into a big waste of lumber, steel, concrete, plastics and other construction materials. It takes energy to make those things, and more energy to heat a bigger home.

We are a society out of control. We are spoiled and we think we are entitled to bigger and bigger things all the time.

Übergeek 바둑이: No. Not human.. partly yes. Yet philosophically just our animal instinct to build perverted into 'things' that really have no meaning...

"Houses built in the last 10 years are easily three times as big as homes built in the 1950s."

Not in the UK they aren't.

(V):

> Not in the UK they aren't.

Here in Edmonton they are. Alberta is under a long-term oil boom. People have built ne homes in big numbers in the last 6 years. The homes are huge. Builders have lost all sense of proportion because consumers demand those big houses. Considering winters here, heating those houses uses a lot of energy. I am sure some parts of the USA face the same problem. Seeing TV shows from the USA it is obvious that all of North America has similar thinking. Bigger is better.

Übergeek 바둑이: looking at stats UK homes are on average 800sf compared to Aus/Usa 2200sf. We like our open living and don't like to be locked in. We have double access (front and back) whereas from what I have seen in UK terraces you have to go in front door to get to back door.
Imagine...having your rubbish bin outside the back door and having to transport it THROUGH the house on rubbish day...but then from what I have seen they all live on the footpath anyway :(...not healthy living as far as I am concerned...gotta have that wide open spaces :)

Übergeek 바둑이: read this.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14916580

Bernice:  I like a home around 2500 to 3000 sq ft.. 4 bed rooms and 2 1/2 baths.. 2 car garage.. with a nice big yard to make into a garden and room for a greenhouse and a studio.. that is my dream..

ScarletRose: I already have a 1/4 acre (big enough) 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, carport LOL, a huge garden , greenhouse, and would LOOOOOOOOVE a studio.....for my cake decorating :) but what I have will have to do. ya cant be greedy...MUCH hahahaha