<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Coming soon: 100% renewable power ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T16:07:32-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hybrid tax]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-90211]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The Govenor of Virginia has just propsed an extra tax for those of us responsible enough to pay more for our vehicles to lower CARBON in the atmosphere and our dependence on fossile fuels. This is the most regressive tax ever proposed! Hopefully, he will come up with another way to pay for roads that is not going to charge HYBRID owners only.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-90211]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Donnamcg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:54:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[passive solar from 1987]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-90202]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We have been passive solar since 1987. We built a Deck House with passive solar features. We estimate that because of the design for both heating and cooling, we have saved approximately 40% of utility costs for electric for the same square footage. We orientated the home for solar gain with low E argon filled windows added eaves of 2 ft and it protects the heat from enetring those windows in the summer, air locks for entering  the home, placement of the garage on the north side of the house, also few indows on the north. We want to go active and be off the grid completely as our ultimate goal. Think of what we saved since 1987!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-90202]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Donnamcg]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:27:56 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[LET US DO THE INEVITABLE]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-89144]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Nothing can stop the march to renewables for energy security on our planet. Economic, commercial and availability indices all point towards this ultimate reality of energy security Any amount of vested interests on the part of political leaders, industrial cartels and powerful lobbies can only delay it maximum for another decade or so.http://veekay-indiandreamsvsreality.blogspot.in/2012/12/energy-security-through-renewables-only.html]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-89144]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[vkschd]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2012 23:37:29 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Right]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88841]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[this is the truth we don't want to see.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88841]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[imaginal110]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:47:30 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[ignoring infrastructure costs]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88833]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hi Dr. AlexC with his post entitled 100% Renewables gives the real dirt on this possibility. The infrastructure costs for the windmills and panels are likely to be prohibitive on the real planet we live on at this time. Do read it if you want a stark reality check. It's just above or below this one I think; so new I couldn't reply to it. TheAutomaticEarth site too contains essential imho &quot;smart&quot; stuff about energy and finance. The bottom line is that we should prepare for less energy use, personally and socially, rather than fantasize continuance of our mega-habit.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88833]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[imaginal110]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:40:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[100% renewables]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88240]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The article indeed seems to ignore realities, like assuming existence of... 13,600 5-MW offshore wind turbines38,000 3-MW wind turbinesNo more than 72 hours worth of distributed hydrogen storage Reading data sheets for windmills reveals they demand about 700 tons of resources per MW peak (333kW average).  Those materials must be processed via fossil fuels -- each 1000 cubic meter foundation for a 5MW Siemens windmill requires gas/oil fired kilning of limestone, mining &amp; crushing &amp; transporting of same; mining, crushing &amp; transport of aggregate to make concrete. Mining transporting &amp; forging iron, plus coal to make steel at the rate of about 100 tons per 333kW -- steel requires coal to make coke, etc. and at the rate of 1-4 tons of coal per ton of steel (reduced by scrap use).  A 5MW Siemens tower weighs 400 tons; Then the generator, convertor, transmission lines and roads must be made&amp; laid -- all requiring fossil fuels and expensive materials, like rare earths, now sourced from overseas; Finally, each windmill operates only within a certain windspeed range, so not only do wind 'farms' consume land at great rates, they waste power and miss power opportunities when winds are too slow or too fast -- this cost is usually ignored by promoters. Imagine Sandy's effect on the large offshore wind installs assumed in this piece.  Insurance cost?  Maintenance &amp; repair cost?  Cost of outage?  Cost of maritime collisions -- the Coast Guard estimates that just the planned wind farm off MA will experience 1.23 vessel collisions per year. The wind promoters follow subsidies, not environmental concerns, so this article is off the mark. As for solar 'farms' like Ivanpah, we in the Sierra Club opposed that, because it's also gas fired -- yes, to keep the salt warm and selling power, they must have a gas line out into the desert and so emit even more GHGs than their thermal inefficiency and transmission losses cause. All the while the windmills are becalmed or feathered, all the while the solar farms are burning gas, local solar delivers peak needs, while nuclear just keeps on delivering, 24/7, at &gt;90% capacity.  And they even do it with much less construction emissions than wind.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88240]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DrAlexC]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:56:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[jobs]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88072]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That is called a make work program, dig ditches and fill them back up. It would be far better to have a rational energy policy and start building nuclear power to offset the CO2 industry and worry about employment later.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88072]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:19:49 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[excelent post]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88062]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Dr David MacKay pretty much says the same thing in his book &quot;without the hot air&quot; where he analyses every imaginable power source with the help of hundreds of scientists. He lets people draw their own conclusion though for the UK perspective. Solar and wind, tidal, algae, all are hopeless for the energy demands of small densely populated countries. We only have to look at Germany and Denmark to see how bad these policies can get and see France for all the CO2 they didn't produce. Germany is replacing 17GW of nuclear with a similar amount of new coal and gas plants. German new CO2 emissions will now cancel out all the efforts of the UK and others to reduce theirs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88062]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:17:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[bankrupcies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88060]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[For solar, almost all the help Obama gave to solar has been for nothing because China has every advantage, cheaper coal power, cheaper labor, poor environment rules, supportive gov and use of automation and a few more things too boot.One of those solar companies was in my town, it didn't even want the money since they always planned on relocating to China. It was pushed in their face so they took it from the state, when they moved as they said they would it was lost.The non solar may have done better, but the battery money for another company near me A123 has also just gone. China again, same as above.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88060]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:10:30 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[not really]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88057]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The low tech stuff is good in some situations but it is mostly low energy value.Solar water heat, heat pumps are good too as those dramatically reduce electrical power use, perhaps 3 fold.Algae farming is going to be the next big thing right after corn ethanol, big net negative energy, it is just a form of solar power with too much high tech for too little power output. Liquid fuels can also be produced by nuclear power esp when you go to very high temps, split water directly and convert the hydrogen to Ammonia, Methanol, DME etc, far more efficient and not much land needed. But they would need some carbon feed stock.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88057]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:39:23 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[compare nuclear, wind, solar]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88030]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And so would nuclear by a large margin, about 10x for same MW produced. Add in 4 time life advantage and add in fossil fuel support to wind and you have 40x advantage and the land footprint is about 1000 times better.See  &quot;metal and concrete inputs Petroski&quot;Wind power is really indirect solar power, and wind and solar overall produce avg power close to only 2W/sq m, sometimes much more, but mostly zero.See &quot;without the hot air&quot;, this free book by Dr David MacKay compares all energy sources in depth with some sobering conclusions for the UK.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88030]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:33:45 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Fantastic response,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88028]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There is a report &quot;metal and concrete inputs Petroski&quot;  that compares steel and concrete use of wind vs nuclear. Wind uses about 10x the concrete and steel of nuclear. And those turbines face real wear and tear and have 15 year rated lives while nuclear plants may run up to 60 years. That would make the materials advantage 40 fold and they are base load. Add the fossil backup to wind and the advantage increases further.Just for the illustration see images &quot;toronto nuclear plant&quot; at Pickering.You can plainly see 1 isolated wind turbine that towers over the nuclear plant yet produces peak 1.8MW at 18% capacity factor while each of those 6 working reactors can produce 1GW,If you replaced those reactors, I think you would need well over 20,000 times more turbines and a vast area of land, and obviously far more steel and concrete.Question is the Sierra Club now fully on board with nuclear, or just some?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88028]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:27:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[extracting CO2]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88027]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Extracting  CO2 from the air is a very energy expensive idea, forget it. Only plants and trees can do that without any tech and only very slowly.If adding O2 to C releases energy (by splitting the CC or HC bonds), then splitting the CO2 back into C and O2 will need more power than was generated. That is an oxymoron, it leads to perpetual machines.Sequestering CO2 from coal or gas plants is also difficult, since combustion gives CO2 that is 3.5 times heavier and needs more volume, where to put it back, and why would it stay there. If it ever leaked out of a store, it would kill all life around, see &quot;Volcano CO2 kills in Africa&quot; Lake Nyos.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88027]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:02:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[conspiracies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88047]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I checked your link, 2nd para&quot;I've had a conspiracy theory&quot; and so it goes, you are part of the fringe that believes that all science that doesn't fit your world view is nonsense, there is no arguing with that.Sir Fred Hoyle was a great man in his time but he also didn't believe in the big bang even though he named that as an insult to the new idea. He was wrong though, the science is well done on that.Issac Newton was an alchemist too, but we set that issue aside because the rest of his work still stands today.You know if you cook animals in their own fat, you can render them into something, maybe oil.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88047]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:47:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[yes but]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88054]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Its not just the wait time, its the production rate, the earth doesn't produce fossil fuel fast enough to be of any consequence, it needs to be a million times faster, and that has to do with the inefficiency of solar to plant at 1%.Also since white fungus evolved, no new coal in 200M years either, trees rot and go back into the carbon cycle.Still we have plenty of fire ice or methane clathrates at the bottom of the oceans and tundra, shame we can't switch to nuclear instead.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88054]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:35:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[lala land math]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88053]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Coal and gas plants use fuel that is cheap right now but those don't cover their external costs to the environment as in CO2 plus the toxic content of coal fly ash and the known deaths from coal emissions.Nuclear fuel costs are inconsequential to nuclear power, uranium prices could go up 10 fold and would not have much effect and nuclear has no CO2 emissions (save construction).If we used thorium, a $100k ball of metal will produce about $B worth of energy and various valuable isotopes assuming 11c/kWh.Over time electricity will get more expensive, always has always will, and with out nuclear even more so, see Germany and Denmark.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88053]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:28:33 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[lets talk about prices]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88040]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Germany boasts about it renewables, but all that solar 25GW of capacity produces about the same no of kWh as just 3GW of base load power plants at a cost well past $130B for the first 17GW (2GW actual avg power output). That works out as $65/W for avg capacity.Meanwhile coal and gas plants are closer to $2/W and nuclear about $5W for base load power.Also German wind plus solar produces power all over the place, it could be anywhere between 2GW to 30GW hour by hour day to day, which of course is covered by gas plants or spare hydro.As Germany shuts down those 17 nuclear power plants it replaces them with new coal and gas plants thanks to their Greens.The German people pay the highest energy prices, but their manufacturers don't, they pay only at coal prices.Also since the world runs on 15000GW of thermal power equiv to about 5000GWe, and China only makes about 17GW of new nameplate solar capacity enough to replace 3GWe power plants each year, we have a problem Houston. And that doesn't even get us into rare materials like indium for the front wiring.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88040]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:17:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[space is silly]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88036]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The economics of space based solar is silly because it is so expensive to get anything into space, and it uses fossil fuels and the most expensive technology man has produced.It is actually far cheaper to microwave energy from the ground to space than the reverse by a very long shot even though the insolation up there is much better.Every solar panel has an embedded footprint of energy cost that gets paid back when the panel is used. If a panel lasts 25 years, the first few years are for payback, the rest is the bonus.Now add the rocket and fuel energy into the cost of getting the panels up there and the payback is long after the panel is dead, its a negative payback.Only in lala land where everything is free are these schemes interesting.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88036]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:58:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Please read a book or wikipedia]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88026]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[All fossil fuels are solar power converted to life, that died, got buried, got cooked etc all over hundreds of millions of years. Coal is dead trees from over 200M years. Then white fungus evolved to allow trees to rot, there is no new coal since then. We started using fossil fuels in anger 200 years ago about the same same as CO2 started rising, they have gone hand in hand.We will use up the easy fossil fuels in a total of 250 years that took many hundreds of millions of years to produce, no amount of wishful thinking can change that. We need energy sources that are more energy dense than fossil that can last for thousands of year, only nuclear can do that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88026]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:40:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[wrong]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88025]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Before 200 years ago most of our lifestyle was based on slavery, both people and animals plus hunting to near extinction of whales for their oils and many other species. Hard work was backbreaking, most people lived on subsistence levels. Fossil power has allowed the world population to increase 7 fold and for the richer countries to have about 15 to 30 times more energy. Overall world energy use is up 28 fold but it isn't evenly spread around at 4 times for everybody, so many are stuck at the same level as before.There simply isn't enough biomass to go back to 200 years ago with 7x the population unless we mostly die off.Once fossil fuels go and the AGW works its way along we get to live in a very different world.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-13016-88025]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[energy_guy]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:30:16 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

