5 ms·

Well, solar boom has been going on for billions of years and predicted to last billions of years. And most of it is FREE or LOW MAINTENANCE. Oil guys should thi

by snambi 14y ago

Well, solar boom has been going on for billions of years and predicted to last billions of years. And most of it is FREE or LOW MAINTENANCE. Oil guys should think about it.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Energy is needed to produce those solar panels. You also need space and the grid to move the electricity around. Oh and store it at night (if you don't have a backup source of power). I'm partial to nuclear, there is enough Uranium in Australia to keep us going for at least 1000 years or so.
Danieru 14y ago
I would not be so enthusiastic. It has also been well established that this solar curse is the driving force behind global warming. To be more fair natural gas is our perfect bridge fuel to a renewable future. Coal powerplants can be replaced right now instead of waiting for unsubsidized competitive solar. Nuclear powerplants can be brought down for maintain and improvements. Cheaper energy will drive manufacturing and save families money on heating. Problems exist to be solved, fracking's problems are no exception and the reward is progress.
- crdoconnor 14y ago
  >I would not be so enthusiastic. Why not? Germany is ramping up renewable output pretty fast these days. It's not cheap, but it's sustainable and affordable, and you're protected from volatility in the hydrocarbons market.
- vannevar 14y ago
  Problems exist to be solved, fracking's problems are no exception and the reward is progress. Yes, we just need to get the drilling industry to recognize there is a problem. Necessity is the mother of invention, and regulation is good way to create necessity. Auto manufacturers fought clean air restrictions and fuel efficiency requirements, but those regulations spurred them to innovate. I'm sure the drillers would as well.
ars 14y ago
Solar is not even close to free. The systems and materials you need to collect it cost huge amount of both money, and environmental impact.
- yen223 14y ago
  Nuclear plants and coal-powered plants also require environmentally-unfriendly material to build and maintain, no?
  - waps 14y ago
    Coal-powered plants, sure (they even release radioactivity, moreso than nuclear plants). But while nuclear power plants are generally huge (no good reason for that, though, you can make them the size of car too), their environmental impact relative to their production is almost nil. Why ? http://xkcd.com/1162 http://xkcd.com/1162 Calculations suggest that nuclear power has less impact than solar power installations (panels need to be produced, contain lots of toxic chemicals, take yet more toxic chemicals to produce, and -eventually- end up in the garbage can. Add to that, that panels are only specced to produce about 20x their energy production cost over a period of roughly 20 years. Installing solar panels means that the first 3-4 years (more if you're not in Florida) you're actually making the co2 problem worse). The worst nuclear power plants produce 50000 times the energy needed to build them on a yearly basis (compare solar panels, perfectly placed, 1/4th to 1/3rd). For the best ones, that factor is tens of millions. If you actually need power, of course the only metric that matters is environmental impact relative to power production. Now we can argue about what is included in that and what isn't, like mining (coal, of course, has mining too, and much worse). And look at that graph, in reality uranium mining is less impactful than coal mining for thousands of time more energy. I also like the argument that when people say "but nuclear plants produce long-lived radioactive waste". Well, no, technically they massively reduce long-lived radioactive waste. If we don't use it, it's effectively in the ground, massively dispersed over large areas (generally not deep), and not dug up, constantly irradiating humans and animals. There's a city (in Iran, called Ramsar) where the natural background radiation level is more than in the reactor of a nuclear power plant. It's healthier to swim in the reactor pool of a nuclear reactor than to walk around in that city. Yet people just live there, unaware and unbothered.

by snambi 14y ago

Well, solar boom has been going on for billions of years and predicted to last billions of years. And most of it is FREE or LOW MAINTENANCE. Oil guys should think about it.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago

Energy is needed to produce those solar panels. You also need space and the grid to move the electricity around. Oh and store it at night (if you don't have a backup source of power). I'm partial to nuclear, there is enough Uranium in Australia to keep us going for at least 1000 years or so.

Danieru 14y ago

I would not be so enthusiastic. It has also been well established that this solar curse is the driving force behind global warming. To be more fair natural gas is our perfect bridge fuel to a renewable future. Coal powerplants can be replaced right now instead of waiting for unsubsidized competitive solar. Nuclear powerplants can be brought down for maintain and improvements. Cheaper energy will drive manufacturing and save families money on heating. Problems exist to be solved, fracking's problems are no exception and the reward is progress.

crdoconnor 14y ago
>I would not be so enthusiastic. Why not? Germany is ramping up renewable output pretty fast these days. It's not cheap, but it's sustainable and affordable, and you're protected from volatility in the hydrocarbons market.
vannevar 14y ago
Problems exist to be solved, fracking's problems are no exception and the reward is progress. Yes, we just need to get the drilling industry to recognize there is a problem. Necessity is the mother of invention, and regulation is good way to create necessity. Auto manufacturers fought clean air restrictions and fuel efficiency requirements, but those regulations spurred them to innovate. I'm sure the drillers would as well.

ars 14y ago

Solar is not even close to free. The systems and materials you need to collect it cost huge amount of both money, and environmental impact.

yen223 14y ago
Nuclear plants and coal-powered plants also require environmentally-unfriendly material to build and maintain, no?
- waps 14y ago
  Coal-powered plants, sure (they even release radioactivity, moreso than nuclear plants). But while nuclear power plants are generally huge (no good reason for that, though, you can make them the size of car too), their environmental impact relative to their production is almost nil. Why ? http://xkcd.com/1162 http://xkcd.com/1162 Calculations suggest that nuclear power has less impact than solar power installations (panels need to be produced, contain lots of toxic chemicals, take yet more toxic chemicals to produce, and -eventually- end up in the garbage can. Add to that, that panels are only specced to produce about 20x their energy production cost over a period of roughly 20 years. Installing solar panels means that the first 3-4 years (more if you're not in Florida) you're actually making the co2 problem worse). The worst nuclear power plants produce 50000 times the energy needed to build them on a yearly basis (compare solar panels, perfectly placed, 1/4th to 1/3rd). For the best ones, that factor is tens of millions. If you actually need power, of course the only metric that matters is environmental impact relative to power production. Now we can argue about what is included in that and what isn't, like mining (coal, of course, has mining too, and much worse). And look at that graph, in reality uranium mining is less impactful than coal mining for thousands of time more energy. I also like the argument that when people say "but nuclear plants produce long-lived radioactive waste". Well, no, technically they massively reduce long-lived radioactive waste. If we don't use it, it's effectively in the ground, massively dispersed over large areas (generally not deep), and not dug up, constantly irradiating humans and animals. There's a city (in Iran, called Ramsar) where the natural background radiation level is more than in the reactor of a nuclear power plant. It's healthier to swim in the reactor pool of a nuclear reactor than to walk around in that city. Yet people just live there, unaware and unbothered.