When Will Renewables Work?

"Renewables" will become viable when people start using considerably less energy that they are accustomed to using these days.

With the Physical universe consisting of nothing more than Matter and Energy,(along with Space and Time), I cannot see why we are trying to conserve energy--There is so much energy out there, it is ridiculous--We just need to find better ways of absorbing , or converting it. To conserve works against the principles of creating. Where is Telsa when we need him??

Somebody has defined that "Engineering is the art of converting the natural resources for the benefit of man".

*Renewable energies are potential alternates, which can be harnessed as per localized exploitation like very high speed winds, high tides, sun shine etc.

* Renewable energies though being projected mathematically by vouchers, can not meet the mega hunger needs of present and future and are limited in scope towards meeting total demand.

* The struggle should continue towards making renewable energies viable for mass supply economically. A day may turn positive, why not?

*Human potential is unpredictable, the time span for salvation of energy problems, need not be so long, if there is will there is way

Renewables saves our natural resources like oil/coal/gas for our future generations to use in an emergency.We should develop very efficient energy storage devices like long lasting batteries as no-break power supply.More attention to be paid on energy savings by monitoring energy usage and punishing those who waste and over-use energy.

Science will come up with more advanced and efficient renewables, i.e. wind turbines, solar collectors, battery storage, etc. The Chinese will make these technologies affordable.

Your replays is straight to the point. How to make it more efficient and affordable is the key to closer the gap. Electricity (mostly generated by hydro)is still cheap in Malaysia so as fossil. For industrial usage is charged for USD0.1 per kw and for residential is USD0.068 per kw. Which renewable energy can beat this or by when it can?

For harnessing hydro-energy some times rivers are diverted making some areas dry and civilisations to lose ancestoral lands and move to unknown territory.Building dams deprives people living downstream of god given resource.For instance tension brews between India and Pakistan as well as Sudan and Egypt.If UN cannot solve wars might break out for water or for survival.In india tension exists between adjoining states due to dam-building Tapping coal,gas and oil might create ecological unbalance or disasters like earth slips,earth quakes.Renewables is the ideal source if we can store energy it will be the best.

Fossil fuels have an advantage that none of the current suite of "alternatives" can offer- that is, very highly concentrated energy in a form that is easily transported. The only energy source that can provide the same advantages enjoyed by the modern world would be solar. For those of you hoping for replacement of fossil fuels with, say, solar energy, I offer the following illustration of a solar farm being installed on 500 acres north of West Palm Beach, Florida:

This is a picture of a solar farm being installed in Florida. At bottom center is a gas-fired power plant which can produce about 3,800 megawatts of power. The solar farm, stretching nearly as far as you can see, will generate about 75 megawatts of power- about 2% of the capacity of the tiny little gas fired plant in the foreground. It is not about the efficiency of solar panels, or storage- it is about SCALE. Solar and wind energy have their place, but it is very, very doubtful that they will ever be sufficient to meet the demands of the modern world...

Hi cwarner, What I'm envisioning, is not giant solar or wind farms like this, but small scale affordable systems that can be retrofitted to existing homes. For instance, there are many places that have no shortage of sunlight, if every roof on every house and building were to be fitted with solar panels that were fairly lightweight and affordable, I think it would have an impact. These would be tied into converters and fed directly into the grid, eliminating the need for each building to worry about storage issues. The same concept could be used where it's windy. Rather than having huge wind turbines, have smaller units, just more of them. Each buildings contribution would be metered and reflected on their electric bill. While this wouldn't eliminate the need for conventional power generation, I think it could greatly reduce it, particularly during peak hours. Then again, I could just be naive.

CWarner--Great example--Now ..Let us put in scale the size of one of the Mini-Nuclear plants, being developed for scales of say 25000 homes, with rods lasting and being replaced every 10 to 15 years, with an initial cost of about $25 million. Refueling much less once the infrastructure is in place. No long transmission lines or extensive grid tie -ins. Power to the local community, on demand. These guys will fit into a small classroom, from what I hear. Alas, Nukes are really malaligned, I am afraid.

You are obviously referring to systems like the Toshiba 4S or the American Hyperion designs, which make a whole lot of sense to me. Inherently safe, local distribution, minimal environmental footprint. Hopefully, a wave of the future. It should be noted that even some of the original Greenie's that killed large-scale nuclear power are coming around to realize that it is among the most environmentally sound approaches...

when?? ....right around when I get to work on my project.. that's when.. imoho

simply ... there are advantages to operating off of many technologies who's financial advantage is lost the moment over regulation and greed is put into the equation.

The issue as to when renewables are cost competitive was answered long ago, when the first glob of oil washed-up on a beach...