cliffyk

Here are a couple points to ponder, and I admit upfront I do not have the answers...

Fossil fuels represent solar energy (mostly) accumulated over millions of years, yet the doomsayers would proclaim we will have consumed all of it in a span of 250 to 300 years. So, is there enough energy available annually, from the sun, to support our current "habit"?

What happens to the local conditions/climate/ecology/etc., if we were to construct massive solar collectors/wind farms/wave generators.whatever--and take that energy that "naturally" went into maintaining that local climate, and pipe it off to Los Angeles/Boston-Washington/Miami/etc, to be turned into heat at some remote (as compared to where nature wanted the energy to be) location?

I guess my main point, and one that at age 62 I am finally coming to grips with, is that there is no "free lunch".

They told me a long time ago at school that "engineering is a series of compromises, which when chosen carefully and combined skillfully, will allow you to reach your goal."

It was also described more succinctly as "Making what you want from what you can get."

GodAmGT00

Fully agreed.. However, it seems that you're more than on to something, in the sense that Solar/Wind powered farms seem to the best most efficient compromise with our current benchmark of fossil fuels.. Essentially though, Fossil fuels are INDIRECTLY related to Solar, since they've undergone decay from sources independent of the sun, but of the heat source the sun produces...


Last free lunch I had, still cost me 6hrs of arduous labor.. It was the best tasting sandwich I ever had in my life; almost like going a few days without adequate food/water in Survival Training..



How do most areas make power in the NE though?? Is it Hydro-dynamic?? Infrastructure's in place already, so environmental impact is already felt, even in the long term.. What's the perceived compromise in that?? (just wondering, not trying to be a dick)




JT

cliffyk

The fossil fuels represent energy accumulated from the sun and stored in chemical complexes we called hydrocarbons, pressure and to some extent the earth's internal heat causeed them the change form but for all practical purposes the energy they contain represents millions of years of absorbed soloar energy.

As to the Northeast, I don't know--haven't lived there in almost 20 years. Here in NE Florida AFAIK most of our power is purchased from out of state, thought there are a few coal-fired plant. Last I knew coal accounted for 75%+ of the US' electrical power, with natural gass running a distant second...

GodAmGT00

I'm down on the Treasure Coast (Port St. Lucie/Ft. Pierce), so we use the Nuke Plant for most of our power needs, however, there are still coal burning plants along the coast..


AFAIK, most of the NE, uses power generated from Niagara, or other Hydro-dynamic means.. It's a shame though, since Nuke-Plants are the most efficient and cleanest (without regard to the minute amount of excess "hard" compounds leftover from the fission process... In fact, I'm trying to recall the big black-out they had a couple years ago, that they blamed on Ohio...


Not to get too O/T on this though, since it helps understand the background for replacement of fossil fuels.. What's wrong with powering cars with Natural gas?? Is it the refinement process?? From my experience, the oil wells in the Middle East, used to burn off thousands of pounds of natural gas, just to get at the crude.. I'm not sure if it's the correct NG, but I'm sure butane, methane, heptane, etc, could be refined enough to make it useable..



JT