Too bad you didn’t read what I wrote because you would have learned something. You pretty well exposed your closed mindedness and bias in our conversations here. It’s a shame that you are able to hide behind a computer and be so insulting because I am sure if we were in the same room you would be much less unreasonable. And it’s a shame that you hold a position as moderator for this site. I think Zachary could and should do better.

It doesn’t matter anyhow, you’re old and set in your ways, younger people that care enough can cut through the crud and advocate for smart policy regarding energy.

Geothermal power generation is not an immature technology. The first geothermal plant was built over 100 years ago and we were building plants back in the 1950s and 1960s.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-geothermal-energy-hasn-t-133117570.html

Geothermal is certainly less material intensive and by that I mean that the amount of material required to draw a large amount of power is very small in comparison to wind-turbines and solar panels. The structure of a MW size geothermal plant is tiny in comparison to PV or wind.

“I said I was watching enhanced geothermal and tidal. And, unlike clean coal and nuclear, they are showing promise”

and how exactly doesn’t next generation nuclear show promise? This is the part where you need to do some research and open your mind a little bit before being so negative. Does clean energy that is as cheap as natrual gas not sound promising? Heavy investment by governments and private parties in nuclear R&D has been made based on these projections but I guess they should have consulted with you before wasting their money because you obviously know something they don’t.

next generation nuclear plants have the potential to be extremely cheap if they can indeed operate reliably by breeding stockpiles of what is now considered nuclear waste. In such a reactor the overall waste products and need for enriched uranium is greatly reduced when compared to conventional reactors. Since non-fissile material could be used the supply is enough to last many many centuries. You may think to yourself “gee nuclear has had such a long history that we obviously must have tried this before and failed so it isn’t worth wasting money on” but the interesting thing is that nuclear is so heavily regulated that innovation has been very very slow, with the conventional reactor design barely changed since the 50s, and the potential of nuclear reactor efficiency is not even close to being realized. The Shockley-Quissier and Betz limits tell us the theoretical efficiencies of solar and wind respectively. The improvements that can be made in solar and wind energy efficiencies are miniscule compared to nuclear, and that is why it is indeed very very promising and the research is worth funding.

http://www.terrapower.com

I don’t know the numbers on nuclear investment over the years, if you have them and a link then please share. but one has to consider that we’ve been getting energy from plants around the US for decades for very low cost, the 1.2 GW Palo Verde plant in AZ has been producing baseload energy for decades at 2 cents per kWh or below including capital costs. The only relevant measurement for subsidy is cost/kWh. Of course current plants are expensive, Im not trying to argue otherwise. Im all about future implications.

I said I was watching enhanced geothermal and tidal. And, unlike clean coal and nuclear, they are showing promise. I did not call for large scale installation.

We did put some considerable amount of money into solar and it became affordable. Thing is, we’ve put far, far more into nuclear and it keeps on getting more expensive.

Now, I don’t know that geothermal is less material intensive than either wind or solar. I think it’s safe to say that geothermal is likely more material/energy intensive since its LCOE isn’t as low as the others.

We aren’t enemies, but I have developed a certain disdain for your overall honesty. You might want to clean up your act a bit.

I like nuclear because I think the world may need it, but to what you said I would absolutely 110% consider geothermal and tidal as well. We have wind and solar, they will take off and integrating them into the grid at larger penetrations is a hurdle that we probably have a the where-with-all to solve. But the next step is to realize that at the very least for reasons of land and raw-material preservation there is another piece to the energy puzzle that we will need to be 100% clean. If geothermal or tidal is it then great we don’t need to deal with nuclear enrichment or waste at all. Im fully open to discuss that possibility.

And the advantages of Geothermal is that it is much less material intensive (as far as fuels or infrastructure) than the other technologies we’ve mentioned. It can also be a form of stored or baseload power, making it a good candidate. The footprint for both tidal and geothermal is much less invasive, one is at sea and the other is underground. both seem like pretty good solutions.

I am not biased at all, I’ll give up my nuclear dream in a heartbeat if something else looks to fit the bill. But for now I think nuclear is as feasible as anything else… Im always open to and looking for energy new developments…..

Here we do agree. I’m closely watching emerging technologies which offer a promise of cheap and safe renewable energy. One thing that looks quite promising is enhanced geothermal with two new plants having come on line this year. Tidal seems to be working and since the technology is close to that of wind one can speculate tidal will be another cheap electricity source.

If either prove themselves out then you’ll see me advocating for installing more.

“So until you know the ins and outs of fast reactors and other next gen nuclear reactors, along with clean coal technologies, please please please reserve your judgement.

Judgement/fudgement. There are no fast reactors or whatever generation nuclear reactors that have made it past the drawing board. (I’m setting aside IFR because the world does not need more weapon grade nuclear stuff floating around.)

No one has figured out how to make nuclear or clean coal affordable or safe. Until/unless that happens both should be placed in the same category as unicorn farts. We cannot consider something which does not exist.

So until you know the ins and outs of fast reactors and other next gen nuclear reactors, along with clean coal technologies, please please please reserve your judgement. We don’t need public perception of the energy landscape to be any more clouded than it already is. Sites like this should be a place for people to come for unbiased facts, especially from the moderator.

I’m calling bullshit on this claim of yours.

I have no problems spending reasonable amounts of money on nuclear and clean coal. I’m somewhat skeptical that we will find a way to make either cheap enough or safe enough.

My consistent position is that we need to install generation which is the least expensive, fastest to come on line and brings the fewest problems with it. Coal and nuclear fail all three criteria.

If you want to question the Harvard study that is fine, but there is a difference between questioning/suggesting more research be done, and blatantly saying without any supporting facts that the research is completely erroneous. You lose all credibility if you do the latter and its pretty similar to how climate deniers operate.

“Then, I tried to get you to look at the relative size of less than a million wind turbines vs. the hundreds of millions/billions of structures we’ve already built and which block wind flow. You danced all around that issue trying to obscure the issue.”

Man-made structures below the boundary layer do impact climate to some extent. Cities effect climate. But as you move up above the boundary layer wind forces are stronger and the impact of structures is likely to be much more significant. First step for you is to learn what the boundary layer is.

Jacobson could very well be right but he hasn’t yet completed or published a study that rebuts what Keith said, so its just an unsubstantiated opinion at this point. You are cherry-picking unsubstantiated opinion, I used real research. Both sources are reputable so Im sure this whole thing will be investigated much more intensely in years to come.

Hundreds of thousands of wind-farms MAY be fine, Im not at all saying stop installing wind. I’m just saying we will need other energy solutions as well to completely avoid releasing GHGs in our energy production processes. Im saying stop talking negatively about research and funding of other clean energy technologies.I have caught you doing so on several occasions as moderator of this site and it is totally inappropriate for a person in your position.

Here’s where this all started…

“The study wasn’t solely about the fact that global wind resources are less than previously estimated. It more importantly stressed that high concentrations of wind turbines can have significant climatic impacts on regional and even global scales because of the extent to which they slow and alter wind.”

“Can” is clearly the wrong word, as I pointed out. There is no data to support “can”. Keith was speculating. Actually Keith is shoveling FUD.

Then, I tried to get you to look at the relative size of less than a million wind turbines vs. the hundreds of millions/billions of structures we’ve already built and which block wind flow. You danced all around that issue trying to obscure the issue.

Then you cherry-pick part of an article I gave you to read. You omit “(Jacobson) says it’s possible that a massive expansion of wind turbines over both land and sea could even cool the planet somewhat, by slowing the rate at which water evaporates from the soil and enters the atmosphere”.

And finally, you seem to be unwilling to grasp the larger picture. Wind farms allow us to decrease fossil fuel burning. Even if installing hundreds of thousands of wind farms somehow created small negative climatic changes that pales in what we will do if we continue to burn fossil fuels and add CO2 to our atmosphere and oceans.

“Now, to pull back a bit, there are real questions about what might happen if we massively scaled up wind farms to produce huge amounts of renewable electricity. After all, wind turbines generate
power by slowing down winds and capturing their kinetic energy. Build enough wind turbines and that might have an effect on the Earth’s temperature and rainfall patterns.To get a sense for what scientists know about this topic, I called Mark Jacobson, an
environmental engineer at Stanford who has done a fair bit of modeling work in this area. The key thing to note is that, for now, humanity doesn’t use anywhere near enough wind power to make a big difference to
global wind patterns.”

This is precisely what I’ve been saying all along. Of course wind at the current scale has been shown to have negligible effect on climate. It is wind at the TW scale we are talking about.

So in light of this are you going to deny that there may be something here or can you at least admit that it needs to be studied further as scientists plan on doing?

yikes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/no-wind-farms-are-not-causing-global-warming/2012/04/30/gIQAMl2GsT_blog.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/07/wind-farms-climate-change-weather

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/05/01/study-finds-wind-farms-circulate-hot-air/

You can either real in the attacks or take a vacation.

Several in the scientific community have asserted the same position that if wind capacity were on the scale of TerraWatts there could be negative climatic implications.

http://www.enn.com/energy/arti…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear…

http://www.livescience.com/762…

You deny this issue even exists and you are no better than a climate denier.

As I drive by a fairly small city later today I’ll observe all the buildings that stick up above ground level and I’ll think about how relatively puny wind towers are in comparison.

You’re grabbing for straws to support your love of nuclear and coal. And failing.

The biggest factor that makes wind turbines more obstructive though is the simple fact that they are intentionally placed in areas of higher prevailing wind and actually rotate to face the direction which it is coming from. They are built to slow the wind.

With your great enthusiasm for wind perhaps you know an aerodynamical engineer in the industry. Why don’t you seek the opinion of someone like that rather than take the word of myself and a phd physicist at Harvard.

Go out and measure the square footage that a typical four story building presents to the wind.

Contemplate the size of a wind tower footing and the footprint of a typical multistory building.

Or air-borne wind-turbines or vapor deposition of crystalline silicon in pv modules, or flywheels for residential use or space based solar power or 20 MW wind turbines or long range EVs or cellulosic biofuels or economical fuel cells…..

IFRs actually have been built, one was run for several decades in the US and showed a lot of promise. The Clinton administration killed the program before the reactor design could go through the necessary regulatory process and see the light of day. The reasons for canceling the program were entirely political and had nothing to do with the feasibility of the technology. It would have been similar to the situation in which Romney would have ended the wind PTC had he been elected. Please look it up for yourself.

Calling me a bad troll for constructive dialogue about clean energy technology on a clean energy website is entirely unfitting for a moderator. It is also a lame insult.