|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
English Matt
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Sorry Kuros don't have any work. Just my speculation. Seems likely though since Russia sells petroleum and needs the German market, nuclear power would cost the Russian a share of the market. So they would oppose nuclear power in Germany. Shroeder made a big deal with the Russians and then cashed in with a job working for them . The free market at work. It's not pretty. |
So solar panels, wind farms and the like require petroleum? Amazing. |
It takes much energy and resources to create them. Did you think they grew on trees?
Wind farms are the biggest waste of money there is. Totally worthless investment, they don't even generate electricity half the time, they take up obscene amounts of space (looking very ugly to boot) and kill off millions of birds. |
And nuclear power stations grow on trees? |
Corporations appear to think they are economically viable. Can the same be said for your beloved wind and solar farms without the massive public subsidies. Also I think you find visitorq is not a supporter of nuclear. |
Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies....should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables.
Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12960655 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
English Matt
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
English Matt is having a bad Dave's week, but c'mon - we've all been there at one point, no?
(Maybe not, but still.) |
Respond to the topic and, along with the others, stop hounding me across threads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| English Matt wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
English Matt is having a bad Dave's week, but c'mon - we've all been there at one point, no?
(Maybe not, but still.) |
Respond to the topic and, along with the others, stop hounding me across threads. |
| Quote: |
| Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. |
Each country will exclusively use their own natural resources and manufacturing capacities to produce the necessary hardware?
| Quote: |
| There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms. |
I guess dead birds and spinning eyesores don't qualify as "pollution".
| Quote: |
| but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Really? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
|
I guess dead birds and spinning eyesores don't qualify as "pollution".
| Quote: |
| but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Really? |
I live within viewing range of some wind turbines up here in Korea. I cannot hear them, and I find them somewhat pretty to be honest. Gigantic power transmission lines are total eye sores, but energy windmills usually look pretty nice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| caniff wrote: |
|
I guess dead birds and spinning eyesores don't qualify as "pollution".
| Quote: |
| but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Really? |
I live within viewing range of some wind turbines up here in Korea. I cannot hear them, and I find them somewhat pretty to be honest. Gigantic power transmission lines are total eye sores, but energy windmills usually look pretty nice. |
Eye of the beholder, I guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| English Matt wrote: |
| Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies.... |
Apparently anyone who works for a living and has to pay taxes. But spending other peoples' money never seems to be a problem for the self-righteous.
| Quote: |
| should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? |
What do you mean "go back"? Coal is still king - by far the best and most effective way to generate energy. It is also cheap and very clean if the latest technology is built in.
| Quote: |
| Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables. |
You're right about nuclear, but not about "renewables". Solar and wind power are not cheap and they are incapable of replacing fossil fuel. Solar power is useful for individual use (I'd put some panels up on my house to cut down on grid reliance as much as possible), but will never be able to meet the needs of industry etc.
| Quote: |
| Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Wind turbines regularly break down (ex. getting struck by lighting), often generate hardly any electricity (they're idle most of the time unless it's a particularly windy location) and they cost a fortune. It's no better than pork barrel spending- the gov't shelling out literally millions of (our taxpayer) dollars for a couple of them, which could take a thousand years to pay back from the power they generate (most certainly breaking down and being scrapped long before then). It may be viable in certain locations in certain countries, but not in general. It should never be subsidized by taxpayer money. There will always be a demand for energy; if there's no market for a type of sustainable energy, then either the technology has to improve or it's not viable.
Ultimately it depends on the country. Japan should have a lot more geothermal energy given the amount of this kind of energy readily available (whole towns, like Beppu could be powered by geothermal steam).
But with few exceptions, coal power is still the best by far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will make it simple. By opposing nuclear power, petroleum companies want to make people more dependent on oil. Hyping wind and solar but actually increasing the consumption of oil.
But all this is just talk anyway. The Euro zone is broke! Mainly because they did not give a fig and spent all their money on grandiose social programs and 'cool" ideas. Portugal is under water, Spain is next. Less workers mean those workers will have to pay higher taxes to support the elderly and others means less disposable income. A cloudy day with no wind and what do you do?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
But with few exceptions, coal power is still the best by far. |
Coal is dirty, degrading, and deadly. It is not cheap if the latest technology is built in; the latest technology of carbon capture is expensive.
| Quote: |
| The World Coal Institute noted that in 2003 the high cost of carbon capture and storage (estimates of US$ 150-220 per tonne of carbon, $40-60/t CO2 - 3.5 to 5.5 c/kWh relative to coal burned at 35% thermal efficiency) made the option uneconomic. But a lot of work is being done to improve the economic viability of it, and the US Dept of Energy (DOE) was funding R&D with a view to reducing the cost of carbon sequestered to US$ 10/tC (equivalent to 0.25 c/kWh) or less by 2008, and by 2012 to reduce the cost of carbon capture and sequestration to a 10% increment on electricity generation costs. These targets now seem very unrealistic. |
Carbon capture is within precisely the same sphere as renewable energy sources; it is still expensive, dependent upon subsidy, but also a necessary aim. We will always have to burn coal, and oil will be with us, reserves willing, for decades. But the aim should be to reduce dependence. Nuclear power is a viable, and yes safe when properly managed, alternative to fossil fuels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies.... |
Apparently anyone who works for a living and has to pay taxes. But spending other peoples' money never seems to be a problem for the self-righteous.
| Quote: |
| should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? |
What do you mean "go back"? Coal is still king - by far the best and most effective way to generate energy. It is also cheap and very clean if the latest technology is built in.
| Quote: |
| Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables. |
You're right about nuclear, but not about "renewables". Solar and wind power are not cheap and they are incapable of replacing fossil fuel. Solar power is useful for individual use (I'd put some panels up on my house to cut down on grid reliance as much as possible), but will never be able to meet the needs of industry etc.
| Quote: |
| Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Wind turbines regularly break down (ex. getting struck by lighting), often generate hardly any electricity (they're idle most of the time unless it's a particularly windy location) and they cost a fortune. It's no better than pork barrel spending- the gov't shelling out literally millions of (our taxpayer) dollars for a couple of them, which could take a thousand years to pay back from the power they generate (most certainly breaking down and being scrapped long before then). It may be viable in certain locations in certain countries, but not in general. It should never be subsidized by taxpayer money. There will always be a demand for energy; if there's no market for a type of sustainable energy, then either the technology has to improve or it's not viable.
Ultimately it depends on the country. Japan should have a lot more geothermal energy given the amount of this kind of energy readily available (whole towns, like Beppu could be powered by geothermal steam).
But with few exceptions, coal power is still the best by far. |
Wind turbines depend greatly on the location. In NZ for example, we have a good wind resource, high capacity factors, plenty of suitable sites, and large amounts of hydroelectricity to use when the wind doesn't blow. Wind and hydro go well together, unlike wind and coal (hydro can change output quickly coal can not.)
I understand that economically wind power is quite competitive in NZ, though as I said this does depend on the location. If we could economically site wind turbines in the high altitude jetstream (and there are startups with the intention to try this) then we'd see wind quickly supplanting other forms of generation.
The CO2 issue aside, the method of coal extraction in the USA is hardly clean and green.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Wind turbines depend greatly on the location. In NZ for example, we have a good wind resource, high capacity factors, plenty of suitable sites, and large amounts of hydroelectricity to use when the wind doesn't blow. Wind and hydro go well together, unlike wind and coal (hydro can change output quickly coal can not.) |
Wind has a lot of potential in the central US; particularly the north-south stretch from North Dakota to Texas. America should also be able to benefit from hydro power, although I am unsure if hydro power interferes or becomes costly when placed on navigable waterways. If so, it may not be worth it for the US to compromise its Ohio-Mississippi valley (the most advantageous natural highway in the world). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies.... |
Apparently anyone who works for a living and has to pay taxes. But spending other peoples' money never seems to be a problem for the self-righteous.
| Quote: |
| should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? |
What do you mean "go back"? Coal is still king - by far the best and most effective way to generate energy. It is also cheap and very clean if the latest technology is built in.
| Quote: |
| Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables. |
You're right about nuclear, but not about "renewables". Solar and wind power are not cheap and they are incapable of replacing fossil fuel. Solar power is useful for individual use (I'd put some panels up on my house to cut down on grid reliance as much as possible), but will never be able to meet the needs of industry etc.
| Quote: |
| Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these. |
Wind turbines regularly break down (ex. getting struck by lighting), often generate hardly any electricity (they're idle most of the time unless it's a particularly windy location) and they cost a fortune. It's no better than pork barrel spending- the gov't shelling out literally millions of (our taxpayer) dollars for a couple of them, which could take a thousand years to pay back from the power they generate (most certainly breaking down and being scrapped long before then). It may be viable in certain locations in certain countries, but not in general. It should never be subsidized by taxpayer money. There will always be a demand for energy; if there's no market for a type of sustainable energy, then either the technology has to improve or it's not viable.
Ultimately it depends on the country. Japan should have a lot more geothermal energy given the amount of this kind of energy readily available (whole towns, like Beppu could be powered by geothermal steam).
But with few exceptions, coal power is still the best by far. |
Wind turbines depend greatly on the location. In NZ for example, we have a good wind resource, high capacity factors, plenty of suitable sites, and large amounts of hydroelectricity to use when the wind doesn't blow. Wind and hydro go well together, unlike wind and coal (hydro can change output quickly coal can not.)
I understand that economically wind power is quite competitive in NZ, though as I said this does depend on the location. If we could economically site wind turbines in the high altitude jetstream (and there are startups with the intention to try this) then we'd see wind quickly supplanting other forms of generation.
The CO2 issue aside, the method of coal extraction in the USA is hardly clean and green.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining |
I am curious to know where you got this info. It seems quite interesting. Is it mainly public (I would be opposed) or private (I would support) money that is developing this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| English Matt wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Sorry Kuros don't have any work. Just my speculation. Seems likely though since Russia sells petroleum and needs the German market, nuclear power would cost the Russian a share of the market. So they would oppose nuclear power in Germany. Shroeder made a big deal with the Russians and then cashed in with a job working for them . The free market at work. It's not pretty. |
So solar panels, wind farms and the like require petroleum? Amazing. |
It takes much energy and resources to create them. Did you think they grew on trees?
Wind farms are the biggest waste of money there is. Totally worthless investment, they don't even generate electricity half the time, they take up obscene amounts of space (looking very ugly to boot) and kill off millions of birds. |
And nuclear power stations grow on trees? |
Corporations appear to think they are economically viable. Can the same be said for your beloved wind and solar farms without the massive public subsidies. Also I think you find visitorq is not a supporter of nuclear. |
Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies....should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables.
Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12960655 |
Sorry, you just plain wrong.
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/in-china-the-true-cost-of-britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-pollution-on-a-disastrous-scale/
| Quote: |
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world�s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology. |
Big winds dirty secret. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
English Matt
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Axiom wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| English Matt wrote: |
| rollo wrote: |
| Sorry Kuros don't have any work. Just my speculation. Seems likely though since Russia sells petroleum and needs the German market, nuclear power would cost the Russian a share of the market. So they would oppose nuclear power in Germany. Shroeder made a big deal with the Russians and then cashed in with a job working for them . The free market at work. It's not pretty. |
So solar panels, wind farms and the like require petroleum? Amazing. |
It takes much energy and resources to create them. Did you think they grew on trees?
Wind farms are the biggest waste of money there is. Totally worthless investment, they don't even generate electricity half the time, they take up obscene amounts of space (looking very ugly to boot) and kill off millions of birds. |
And nuclear power stations grow on trees? |
Corporations appear to think they are economically viable. Can the same be said for your beloved wind and solar farms without the massive public subsidies. Also I think you find visitorq is not a supporter of nuclear. |
Who gives a fig if they are only economically viable without subsidies....should we go back to reliance on fossil fuels? Nuclear power wouldn't be economically viable if they actually spent the money to make them safe. Over the last few decades the cost of building and maintaining nuclear power stations has increased, whilst the inverse has happened with regards to solar and wind farms, and geothermal powerstations. Also, nuclear power has only been around for a few decades and yet there have already been 4 major disasters. The same cannot be said of renewables.
Renewable energy sources also free countries from dependance on the resources of other countries. There is also no pollution other than some noise pollution from wind farms....but it's not like anyone really lives next to these.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12960655 |
Sorry, you just plain wrong.
http://windconcernsontario.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/in-china-the-true-cost-of-britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-pollution-on-a-disastrous-scale/
| Quote: |
Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world�s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.
Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology. |
Big winds dirty secret. |
I thought it would be plain that I was talking about being independent of the energy resources of other countries. For instance, the reliance on Russian gas here in Germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am a big supporter of alternative energy. I also think that there is a possibility of nuclear being made safe so we should not abandon it all together but work to make it safer, and maybe coal cleaner. I also think natural gas can be a good alternative. I I also think that tidal generation could be an answer.
the U.s. has a massive hydro project called T.V.A. in the Southeast. Clean neat but they destroyed a river system to get the clean, neat energy. With anything there are going to be tradeoffs.
But I get wary when I read that politicians are going to save us. Even German politicians. Always look if there is a profit angle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
But with few exceptions, coal power is still the best by far. |
Coal is dirty, degrading, and deadly. It is not cheap if the latest technology is built in; the latest technology of carbon capture is expensive. |
This is simply not the case. Maybe it's still "deadly" in a few backwater parts of China where they use medieval methods of extraction and send people into makeshift mines. Otherwise there is modern technology capable of easy, safe, massive amounts of coal extraction. Maybe it's "dirty" in the sense that it is literally a kind of dirt, pulled from the ground (as if that's a bad thing). And yes, when burned it gives off black dirty smoke. But this can all be filtered out in modern coal power plants.
As for "degrading", well that's just nonsense. Unless you think making use of an extremely useful resource and providing many needed jobs to people is degrading... maybe you read Germinal recently and thought this was still the 1860's? (I dunno, maybe it seems that way in Chinese coal mines, but even there I'm skeptical).
Btw, your source mostly talked about the high cost of CO2 storage. I couldn't care less about that; just let it all go into the air; the more the better, it's good for plant life. As for filtering out the SO2 and particulate matter etc, there is no reason whatsoever why the latest technology can't and won't be copied and applied readily across the industry, esp. in China.
| Quote: |
| Carbon capture is within precisely the same sphere as renewable energy sources; it is still expensive, dependent upon subsidy, but also a necessary aim. |
Again, carbon capture is completely unnecessary. CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a natural gas that plants breath, and an essential part of the life cycle. It's like saying we need to trap the water vapor produced from a power plant, store it, and truck it off to a waste facility somewhere. Absurd.
| Quote: |
| We will always have to burn coal, and oil will be with us, reserves willing, for decades. But the aim should be to reduce dependence. Nuclear power is a viable, and yes safe when properly managed, alternative to fossil fuels. |
I don't really see the point here... you're either dependent or you're not. Maybe someday we'll find a holy grail of free and abundant sustainable alternative energy (though probably not as long as this current monetary system exists I would add). Until then coal is by far the best and most abundant energy source (as well as clean and safe). If the market can come up with better performing so-called "green" energy, then I'm all for it. But having governments around the world throw away billions in tax dollars on worthless projects in the name of their made-up AGW sham is the most obscene thing I can imagine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
