Comments on: Common Renewable Energy Myths

By: Tom Lester

Tom Lester — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:41:00 +0000

Since people live on this planet, it’s also bad for human’s health as well.

By: Tom Lester

Tom Lester — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:40:00 +0000

Yup, very true. Many harmful effects from the desperate measures nat. gas is extracted with.See also, law suits related to fracking.

By: Tom Lester

Tom Lester — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:38:00 +0000

In any event, the subject is energy and not electricity specifically. Oil is still used for energy, in cars and trucks. Vested interests like to draw people off topic.

By: Solar Power Intro & 3 Key Solar Power Points (+ Top Solar Power News) | CleanTechnica

Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:21:30 +0000

[…] page we are still adding to). If you have something you want to add, shoot me a message on Google+!Solar power myths and anti-solar-power talking points are all over the place. I think these are the main […]

By: Gas Turbine to Help Grow Renewable Energy – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Sun, 29 May 2011 17:04:59 +0000

[…] Common Renewable Energy Myths […]

By: Why Big Solar is a Colossally Bad Idea (10 Reasons Decentralized Solar is Much Better) – CleanTechnica: Cleantech innovation news and views

Sat, 07 May 2011 18:00:12 +0000

[…] Common Renewable Energy Myths […]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:36:00 +0000

Natural gas isn’t the honest angel it’s picturing itself neither. Google shale gas, and in particular, Rosebud.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:33:00 +0000

If fossil fuels are so great why are they subsidized???

… Both are subsidized to encourage faster growth in the area than normally would happen, and to help bring down the cost by having more volume, closer manufacturing, and more money in researching ways to make it cheaper.

By: Rucio

Rucio — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:02:00 +0000

Neither of these options currently exist, however, and if they did they would simply add air and sea to land use concerns.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:04:00 +0000

IF THIS WERE ALL TRUE WHY CAN’T WIND OR SOLAR STAND ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT BEING SUBSIDIZED ???????

By: Scott Bartlett

Scott Bartlett — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:48:00 +0000

Other approaches that also disqualify myth #4 where wind power is concerned involve situating wind turbines on floating platforms offshore and using airborne wind turbines–kites, usually, which harness the wind at an altitude of hundreds of meters and transmit the energy to generators on the ground.

By: Joshua Nelson

Joshua Nelson — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:08:00 +0000

True, but I think the point still stands up to that fact. Oil is nasty stuff, bad for our health, bad for our planet’s health. It is still used to heat many homes (oil heat) and used to fuel all our vehicles (which is just as destructive as coal, I read recently). So, the alternative to gasoline vehicles would be a separate discussion, but replacing oil heat and gas generators is just as important as eliminating coal power.

Cheers,
Joshua

By: Rucio

Rucio — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:35:00 +0000

Agreed. But again, oil and electricity are two different issues. Natural gas has already long replaced oil’s share of electricity generation in most of the U.S.

By: Rucio

Rucio — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:00:00 +0000

1. The comparison of efficiency appears to be actually discussing wind’s capacity factor. Wind turbine efficiency is near 60%, which is a theoretical limit for extracting the kinetic energy of the wind. But since production is cubically proportional to wind speed, which is highly variable and intermittent, wind turbine production averages anywhere from 20% to 40% of its capacity, producing at or above that average rate about two-fifths of the time. In contrast, a thermal plant does indeed operate at an efficiency of about 33%, meaning that only one-third of the energy in the fuel is converted to electricity. But when asked to provide power, its reliability is near 100%. Combined heat and power plants in cities essentially double the efficiency, as does the use of combined-cycle natural gas turbines (rather than the open-cycle gas turbines required if wind is on the system because they are able to respond quickly enough to “balance” wind’s variable production).

4. There is more confusion about energy in the statement that wind and sun don’t dwindle as people use them. That is true to the extent that as long as the sun keeps burning, more wind and sunlight will be created. But to convert them to electricity necessarily takes that energy from nature’s use. A field full of solar collectors can no longer grow as much, and the wind behind a turbine is by definition diminished by almost 60% (which is why wind turbines have to be spaced so far apart).

By: Joshua Nelson

Joshua Nelson — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:59:00 +0000

Rucio,

I think you missed the point, but thanks for that fact, I was unaware. I’ll have to check out that report.

It’s the total amount of subsidies that is important – it shows a heavy interest in maintaining the status quo of fossil fuels. We should flip those subsidies (which could be eased into effect over the next few years) to give the financial incentive that a lot of people need to move to renewables, as well as reducing their cost substantially to insure it is possible. (we should also tax pollution and return that revenue to the people to help make it financially feasible to change our ways)

The truth is, since we’re heading over the crest of Peak Oil, oil prices are getting more and more volatile and maintaining the status quo is a bad idea of everyone – making the transition as soon as possible makes sense financially and environmentally. The latter is more important regarding climate change – not for the Earth, but for humanity’s survival.

Cheers,
Joshua

By: Rucio

Rucio — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:43:00 +0000

Per actual megawatt-hour of electricity produced, however, wind and solar are about 50 times more subsidized, according to a 2008 report by the DOE’s Energy Information Administration.

And oil is hardly used at all for electricity generation.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 08:59:00 +0000

thank you for this Joshua — totally agreed & critical point

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:18:00 +0000

You could also add that solar panels are installed on roofs which already occupy land so no new land is needed in that case. Also, solar is being installed in highway medians, parking lots and other locations needed no new land.

By: Anumakonda Jagadeesh

Anumakonda Jagadeesh — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:49:00 +0000

Well Explained. I like it.

Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India