We've had a hybrid solar system at home for years now. It's fantastic. But then again, we are just looking after our family, not providing for a city of 2 million people or anything. The energy needs are vastly different. I don't like cities. They shouldn't be so big. It causes a lot of problems on a lot of fronts.
My first degree was Geology so I understand about non-renewable resources and I know that there are plenty of those products in the supposed 'green' energy. I'm also a fan of putting your eggs in many baskets, hence I don't want to rely on ONE source. Nuclear just has too many problems as far as I'm concerned. There's always a place for solar, wind, biomass & water energy, and people need to be more self-reliant, not govt-reliant, if they want to have a future. Relying only on fossil fuels is short-sighted.
I agree on most of what you said, especially the relying on government, and there is a place for solar. I don't think fossil fuels usage is nearly as short sighted as dumping trillions in public funding of "solutions" that cannot possibly come close to working but do hinder innovation. Nuclear has progressed a lot in the last 50 years and many fears of it come from threats relating to really old plants in terrible locations like coastlines prone to earthquakes.
Solar requires enormous energy to produce the equipment and recycle that equipment in 15-25 years. In regions with northern latitudes like NY and Germany, where actual energy output from solar panels is less than 5% of equipment "capacity," the equivalent of more than 1/3rd of the energy the panels will produce over their entire useful life is eaten up by the production and disposal of the solar equipment. It also takes farmland out of use or destroys wild habitat.
No modern society can function when 1/3rd of energy is used up trying to produce energy. In the Bahamas that equation is dramatically different. It's also a bad idea to put even modern nuclear plants on islands that are barely above sea level and prone to hurricanes. Solar panels make far more sense in the Caribbean and Florida/ Texas/etc. Ignoring the difference is how we end up with taxpayers' subsidizing electric cars that will ultimately be powered by coal plants with an added bonus of increasing stress on electrical grids already struggling to meet demand.
There is no full proof energy source. I support all of the above sources, and for me that includes nuclear. Reductions in burning of wood and coal help the environment and reduce emissions dramatically and immediately, so my all of the above is everything "better than wood and coal." Windmills are not much better; they are a really expensive, involve a lot of ecologically destructive mining, and are an unreliable source of energy. While they have a place, it's smaller than the one being pushed. Tide turbines are the same except with ecological destruction that is greater than hydroelectric dams without environmental mitigation. What we have today with the best balance is oil, natural gas, solar near the equator, and nuclear. There is real promise of nuclear that doesn't produce spent fuel rods. Why we are dumping hundreds of billions into fairly advanced solar technology, and fairly destructive wind technology, rather than at least seeing if we can get nuclear fusion to work is beyond me.
My initial major was environmental science, then I discovered I'd either be compromising my morals or my financial future. Instead, I picked a profession with a great income and choose to support organizations that actually protect and restore habitat. I'm all about improving things from an ecological standpoint, but after reading thousands of studies, books, and articles on climate, I think it's largely alarmism, infrastructure mitigation is being rejected for purely political reasons (don't let a crisis go to waste), and the actual public policy being promoted by alarmist groups is ecologically destructive and will spread poverty while not saving the climate.
I'm mostly frustrated that there are so many solutions that offer the opportunity real improvement immediately, and so many ways to improve the environment, yet these solutions that already exist are being rejected because of political corruption and power plays - and it's all being done with our tax money.
I agree that there ARE many solutions - but they're not happening because we rely on corrupt govts to 'lead' us. This is why we need to take back the power, so we can do a better job. The big Q, though, is WILL we do a better job - or will we end up in the same predicament, with those who want the future 'power' jobs being susceptible to the same problems that today's politicians suffer from....? How do we do it without repeating history...?
The good parts of history repeat as well......... and progress happens despite the failures. nearly all human failures begin and end with state power. The private sector can fix this if we get the government out of its way
We've had a hybrid solar system at home for years now. It's fantastic. But then again, we are just looking after our family, not providing for a city of 2 million people or anything. The energy needs are vastly different. I don't like cities. They shouldn't be so big. It causes a lot of problems on a lot of fronts.
My first degree was Geology so I understand about non-renewable resources and I know that there are plenty of those products in the supposed 'green' energy. I'm also a fan of putting your eggs in many baskets, hence I don't want to rely on ONE source. Nuclear just has too many problems as far as I'm concerned. There's always a place for solar, wind, biomass & water energy, and people need to be more self-reliant, not govt-reliant, if they want to have a future. Relying only on fossil fuels is short-sighted.
I agree on most of what you said, especially the relying on government, and there is a place for solar. I don't think fossil fuels usage is nearly as short sighted as dumping trillions in public funding of "solutions" that cannot possibly come close to working but do hinder innovation. Nuclear has progressed a lot in the last 50 years and many fears of it come from threats relating to really old plants in terrible locations like coastlines prone to earthquakes.
Solar requires enormous energy to produce the equipment and recycle that equipment in 15-25 years. In regions with northern latitudes like NY and Germany, where actual energy output from solar panels is less than 5% of equipment "capacity," the equivalent of more than 1/3rd of the energy the panels will produce over their entire useful life is eaten up by the production and disposal of the solar equipment. It also takes farmland out of use or destroys wild habitat.
No modern society can function when 1/3rd of energy is used up trying to produce energy. In the Bahamas that equation is dramatically different. It's also a bad idea to put even modern nuclear plants on islands that are barely above sea level and prone to hurricanes. Solar panels make far more sense in the Caribbean and Florida/ Texas/etc. Ignoring the difference is how we end up with taxpayers' subsidizing electric cars that will ultimately be powered by coal plants with an added bonus of increasing stress on electrical grids already struggling to meet demand.
There is no full proof energy source. I support all of the above sources, and for me that includes nuclear. Reductions in burning of wood and coal help the environment and reduce emissions dramatically and immediately, so my all of the above is everything "better than wood and coal." Windmills are not much better; they are a really expensive, involve a lot of ecologically destructive mining, and are an unreliable source of energy. While they have a place, it's smaller than the one being pushed. Tide turbines are the same except with ecological destruction that is greater than hydroelectric dams without environmental mitigation. What we have today with the best balance is oil, natural gas, solar near the equator, and nuclear. There is real promise of nuclear that doesn't produce spent fuel rods. Why we are dumping hundreds of billions into fairly advanced solar technology, and fairly destructive wind technology, rather than at least seeing if we can get nuclear fusion to work is beyond me.
My initial major was environmental science, then I discovered I'd either be compromising my morals or my financial future. Instead, I picked a profession with a great income and choose to support organizations that actually protect and restore habitat. I'm all about improving things from an ecological standpoint, but after reading thousands of studies, books, and articles on climate, I think it's largely alarmism, infrastructure mitigation is being rejected for purely political reasons (don't let a crisis go to waste), and the actual public policy being promoted by alarmist groups is ecologically destructive and will spread poverty while not saving the climate.
I'm mostly frustrated that there are so many solutions that offer the opportunity real improvement immediately, and so many ways to improve the environment, yet these solutions that already exist are being rejected because of political corruption and power plays - and it's all being done with our tax money.
You've thought about this a lot!!! :-)
I agree that there ARE many solutions - but they're not happening because we rely on corrupt govts to 'lead' us. This is why we need to take back the power, so we can do a better job. The big Q, though, is WILL we do a better job - or will we end up in the same predicament, with those who want the future 'power' jobs being susceptible to the same problems that today's politicians suffer from....? How do we do it without repeating history...?
The good parts of history repeat as well......... and progress happens despite the failures. nearly all human failures begin and end with state power. The private sector can fix this if we get the government out of its way