[peppercorn]

Sheesh Peppercorn. That's an easy one. Obviously, it's vacuum energy.
There's another one in Sweden called the Electrolux Dam.

[] Good grief!  It;s far too late (here) for that kind of humour []
On the same lines, I'd argue that building the Hoover Dam was an important part of the US domestic policy []

[Geezer]

Sheesh Peppercorn. That's an easy one. Obviously, it's vacuum energy.
There's another one in Sweden called the Electrolux Dam.

[] Good grief!  It;s far too late (here) for that kind of humour []
On the same lines, I'd argue that building the Hoover Dam was an important part of the US domestic policy []

Not a lot of people know that the Hoover Dam was actually financed by the vacuum cleaner company of the same name because they needed a lot of juice to power all the bleeding vacuum cleaners they were flogging.

[Don_1]

How many Hoover dams are there?

Hoover Junior

Hoover Senior

Hoover J Edgar

Hoover bloody noisy

[CliffordK]

The only reason a person buys renewable energy or builds a renewable energy maker, is because the gov't pays a very substantial amount of the cost, otherwise it would never make near the energy to make it plausible, let alone renewable.

You clearly have absolutely no idea what the term 'Renewable Energy' means.
I particularly like "renewable energy maker" []

Just out of interest what category of energy generation would you put the Hoover Dam in?
Would you say that it's energy contribution has not been substantial, plausible or renewed in the last 70 years?

Keep in mind that the US Government built the Hoover Dam, Bonneville Dam, The Dalles Dam, John Day Dam, and most of the other BIG dams in the USA.

I assume they are all "paid off"... and perhaps even turn a profit now.  Oops, Boneville was built in 1933, and we're still paying on it (although they do cite some capital improvements in 1982).  Anyway, unlike the national debt, built into the rate plan, they should eventually get paid off.  But, I suppose few business plans could include a century to pay back the capitalization cost.

[glenncz]

Glenncz:

Your information is faulty. There are subsidies for renewable energy, but there are even greater ones for oil, coal and nuclear. In any case the fossil fuels are running out and getting more expensive, while renewables are getting more efficient and less expensive.

Steve

"Belief" in renewable energy is always based on ignorance.  Per unit of production, wind/solar are subsidized per unit of production by MANY multitudes.
newbielink:http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf [nonactive]  page 16. 
We are not running out of coal and oil.  The facts are they are not getting more expensive, their price has just risen by inflation.  Coal and oil are very, very plentiful and cheap!
Now what is expensive and "rare" are the components of so-called renewable energy machines.  These gadget are  made out of Rare-Earth Mineral which are already rare and expensive, that is why they are called Rare-Earth Minerals.  It appears our society is choosing to use up these rare elements right now, because they are afraid of running out of plentiful oil, gas and coal later.  We have a 40 year supply of oil in the ground now, just like we had 20 years ago.
Already we are being held hostage by foreign Gov'ts (China) because we don't mine these rare earth minerals in the US. 
newbielink:http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/business/stories/2010/11/15/rare-earth-fight.html [nonactive]
How can we possibly be energy dependent with wind/solar when we are already being held hostage right now? Also, I forgot to add, one of the reasons electric cars are so expensive is also because of rare earth elements. 
Sorry, about including hydro while exposing renewable energy.  But understand, our new environmentally friendly society does not include hydro as friendly power anymore.  I would certainly assume that Hoover Dam has been paid off MANY MANY times over, and it is still working like it should 60 years later. While ALL the turbines and solar we build right now will be simply JUNK in 30 years.  They will be ghosts
newbielink:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html [nonactive]
 and a tribute to the foolishness of this era.  We will be leaving our children a terrible legacy to clean up.

[peppercorn]

The facts are they are not getting more expensive, their price has just risen by inflation.  Coal and oil are very, very plentiful and cheap!

I'm pretty sure the price of oil has risen a lot faster than inflation in recent years.
And if they are so plentiful then why are companies (BP for example) making taking greater risks than ever to extract it from challenging environments.

Also ignoring how supposedly "plentiful and cheap" they are, there is a further (little) concern over their climatic impacts to take into account.
I find a particular irony in the you saying "[Wind] will be leaving our children a terrible legacy to clean up".

Your rhetoric seem to point to a particularly North-American-centric view of resources and world politics, which I think is a detraction when attempting to answer the OP.

[bobbiesoxer]

Solar heating is one that's gained tremendous popularity in the Canadian consumer market recently. Because we have extremely cold winters, gas and heating costs are especially an issue. What companies are doing nowadays are creating energy efficient windows, doors, and window treatments. There's a variety of different products but the ones I got were [Spam], which uses natural light to conserve the heat in your home. I find it's most effective when cracks are filled with insulation tape, to prevent excess heat from escaping your home in the winter. Canada definitely needs to find more forms of renewable energy sources, especially in the winter when our energy usage is at its peak.

[dirkman]

  Perhaps the actual search should not be for "renewable" energy sources but rather for "sustainable" energy sources.  This would be more in line with how we use the resources we have rather than making new ones.  For instance solar energy (per unit) is not cost effective at the moment due to various factors primarily related to production costs and efficiency.  However, there are groups who are developing low cost "printable" PV cells that are "cheap" and easy to make. newbielink:http://www.csiro.au/news/Trials-for-printable-plastic-solar-cells.html [nonactive].  They are not as efficient as traditional PV cells (yet), but one can make large amounts of them and mount then almost anywhere since they are flexible.  In cases like this quantity is better than quality.

  I mention this as sustainable source since one could cover one's roof and use the power to maintain (not base load) but the transient energy requirements of our digital age (phones, cameras, "iPods", netbooks and the various other portable devices that seem to come out every year).  This is so we can conserve (or sustain longer) the large energy production sources for base load.

  And let us not forget, I can't remember if it was mentioned earlier or not, that there is no one solution.  Unless the fusion nut get's cracked we will have to depend on the various energy sources available using whatever is suitable in a region.

- Dirk

[glenncz]

The facts are they are not getting more expensive, their price has just risen by inflation.  Coal and oil are very, very plentiful and cheap!

I'm pretty sure the price of oil has risen a lot faster than inflation in recent years.
Also ignoring how supposedly "plentiful and cheap" they are, there is a further (little) concern over their climatic impacts to take into account.
I find a particular irony in the you saying "[Wind] will be leaving our children a terrible legacy to clean up".

Yes oil is incredibly cheap.  Consider that you could buy a vehicle that gets 30mpg and drive it 200 miles for a mere $21.00, that is incredible! 
Regarding Climate Change and Renewables.  This thread is not one to debate Global Warming, however, I can absolutely, positively assure you beyond and reasonable doubt whatsoever, that solar and wind gadgets will not play any major role in decreasing our output of CO2.  Considering world population growth and the constant pressure to increase the standard of living world-wide, which will only come about using traditional energy sources, (ie. ones that actually work), you can try try try as hard as you want, but our civilization will not appreciably decrease CO2 output using renewables.  Just simply consider that solar/wind play not role in heating, transportation fuel, industrial use etc, and only play a very minor role in creating electricity. 

Here is a recent article from our legislators.
newbielink:http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/131049-senate-dems-press-for-lame-duck-action-on-renewable-power-grants [nonactive]
It is quite simple.  No enormous subsidies, meaning - the gadgets don't make enough energy to pay for themselves, so there is a simple slight of hand, we just borrow the money from China and pay for this energy Forever! in the way of interest payments and decreased value in our dollar.  All the while, we have cut payments to vital functions of our society, like helping the poor, building infrastructure, providing health care > a thousand areas in which funding is being cut, and we have the money for "spinning machines".  Oh well, guess we have to save the world don't we!

Don't worry about it, the kids and grandchildren will clean up this mess.  And they will have the mess of many thousands of wind turbines literring our landscape like they do in California.  Junk Piles in Palm Spring and Altamont Pass.  Here, read about them, 5,000 of them, built because of "favorable tax policies". Just like now!
newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_Wind_Farm [nonactive]

[peppercorn]

The facts are they are not getting more expensive, their price has just risen by inflation.  Coal and oil are very, very plentiful and cheap!

I'm pretty sure the price of oil has risen a lot faster than inflation in recent years.

Again, I repeat the rebuttal.

I can absolutely, positively assure you beyond and reasonable doubt whatsoever, that solar and wind gadgets will not play any major role in decreasing our output of CO2.

Well, a statement as forthright as that will obviously be backed up by a numerical analysis of the worldwide situation. ... mmmm??

Considering world population growth and the constant pressure to increase the standard of living world-wide [nothing can/will be done.]

That strikes me as an unnecessarily defeatist attitude.
We, more than likely, don't have the luxury to allow our 'grandkids' to clear this mess up, so, if as you suggest, we all live full-throttle until (first the poorest countries) we are all well past the point of no return (at which point the population crashes) then there aren't going to be all that many 'kids to clean it up, are there?

[Renewables can't be used for] heating, transportation fuel, industrial use etc, and only play a very minor role in creating electricity.

They can be used sensibly in cooling, hydrogen-production, plus other non-electrical supply.  And who's to say how cheap ubiquitous multi-surface PV will change the domestic electricity landscape.


All your definite statements seem a little thin on real world numbers, as well as purposely pessimistic on technological improvements on the horizon.

If you have a problem with the use of public funds, etc in your particular small corner of the world, then fair enough. But I don't see how you can damn the whole undertaking so completely.

[SteveFish]

Glenncz:

Your ignorance is staggering. I would like to point out that China is not holding the rest of the world hostage on some of the rare earths, they wish to gain the value added by selling the products that contain the minerals, rather than selling the raw material. Rare earth minerals is a bit of a misnomer, they are actually not so rare and are pretty evenly distributed in the earth’s surface,  and mines in the US, for example, that were closed because of the abundant and cheap supply from China are in the process of being reopened. Good old supply and demand.

You say there is a 40 year supply of petroleum in the ground at this point when peak oil is passing. Don't you think that as the supply gets harder and more expensive to extract, and is diminishing in volume, and India and China, and other parts of Asia are revving up their economies and require much more oil, that the cost isn't going to go up radically in the not too distant future?

I have said this before on this forum but it is worth repeating. I have purchased a fair number of solar panels for my home. At the cost I paid, and not counting the subsidies, they will still have paid for themselves in about 10 years from the purchase (about 5 years from now) and then my electricity is free for the 20 to 30 or more years of the life of the panels. In doing so I am completely protected against increasing electricity costs, and if they go up much my savings are even greater.

Your selective citations of biased web sites is not very convincing. Steve

[CliffordK]

It is hard to know which petroleum estimates one should believe.  It is likely that we will find new and better reserves that have previously been untapped. 

But it is hard to believe that in the next century we will severely and permanently be depleting the world's petroleum reserves.   Barely a person's lifespan and we could wipe out resources for the next 4 billion years on this planet. 

The answer to global warming will be petroleum depletion.  But we need to invest now in other alternatives, or we will be stuck in a few decades with the same gas guzzling vehicles, the same consumptive behaviors, and $100/gallon fuel.

[Foolosophy]

I am preparing a presentation on various types of renewable energy resources. The content available on internet is all hocus pocus and I am quite unable to find detailed and systematic information.

Serious research on scientific matters is carried out in the peer reviewed literature data base.

The internet is not the place to conduct such research