There should be a law that electric cars can only be charged by wind or solar power.
If you are giving up fossil fuel, then give it up completely
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
DrSunnyTheSkeptic · 26-30, M
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DrSunnyTheSkeptic I agree with you about the size and indeed complexity of the matter, but I question your "alternative to energy"...
What does that mean? There is no alternative to energy, so with respect I am afraid you have repeated a commonly-held red herring there; one which tends to obfuscate not simplify the matter.
Electricity is a form of energy, but energy is neither fuel nor power; its many forms are all natural, and cannot be created or destroyed, only stored, transported or converted into a different form.
What we do is enforce conversion of one form of energy into another to drive any form of "machine" (in the Physics sense), from the simplest hand-tool to the most complicated engineering system. Indeed, just as our own bodies do naturally.
So the supposed "forces that be" cannot obstruct developing an "alternative" to energy because there are no alternatives to those we know. The most we can do - and engineers have been striving to do so for the last 200 years - is develop ways of using the various sources and forms of energy available, more efficiently; and most recently, also with least environmental harm.
Really, all we are doing is re-inventing the wheel, and trying to find better uses for it, or better ways of using it!
Solar energy (light) is a relatively new form of electricity generation; but prime-movers using gravity, wind or water (running or waves) have been around for centuries.
"Green energy" is a neat cliche beloved of politicians and journalists trying to grapple with a very serious problem that most of them seem not to really understand (I wonder how many of them even know the differences and relationships between energy, power and fuel).
Really though, it does not mean anything new because "energy" is a set of natural forces, using that term a bit loosely, that we can exploit but not make or change. It is only a shorthand term for new and improved applications for old methods of doing "work" in the scientific sense, but which might also be less damaging to the world around us than those to which we have become accustomed in the last 200 years or so.
We are not finding alternatives to energy. We cannot do that, but we are trying hard to find better ways of using the best sources of different forms of energy we can.
What does that mean? There is no alternative to energy, so with respect I am afraid you have repeated a commonly-held red herring there; one which tends to obfuscate not simplify the matter.
Electricity is a form of energy, but energy is neither fuel nor power; its many forms are all natural, and cannot be created or destroyed, only stored, transported or converted into a different form.
What we do is enforce conversion of one form of energy into another to drive any form of "machine" (in the Physics sense), from the simplest hand-tool to the most complicated engineering system. Indeed, just as our own bodies do naturally.
So the supposed "forces that be" cannot obstruct developing an "alternative" to energy because there are no alternatives to those we know. The most we can do - and engineers have been striving to do so for the last 200 years - is develop ways of using the various sources and forms of energy available, more efficiently; and most recently, also with least environmental harm.
Really, all we are doing is re-inventing the wheel, and trying to find better uses for it, or better ways of using it!
Solar energy (light) is a relatively new form of electricity generation; but prime-movers using gravity, wind or water (running or waves) have been around for centuries.
"Green energy" is a neat cliche beloved of politicians and journalists trying to grapple with a very serious problem that most of them seem not to really understand (I wonder how many of them even know the differences and relationships between energy, power and fuel).
Really though, it does not mean anything new because "energy" is a set of natural forces, using that term a bit loosely, that we can exploit but not make or change. It is only a shorthand term for new and improved applications for old methods of doing "work" in the scientific sense, but which might also be less damaging to the world around us than those to which we have become accustomed in the last 200 years or so.
We are not finding alternatives to energy. We cannot do that, but we are trying hard to find better ways of using the best sources of different forms of energy we can.
DrSunnyTheSkeptic · 26-30, M
@ArishMell Fair point, by alternative energy sources I mean sources that are sustainable, sources that can not be depleted like solar, wind, water based power generation. It would make me sound like a tin foil conspiracy nut but I really do think that there are influential and wealthy people who have an interest in keeping things the way they are because they are the most profitable for them.
We are not finding alternatives to energy. We cannot do that, but we are trying hard to find better ways of using the best sources of different forms of energy we can.
Also by this I obviously mean finding the means or source of power that has not been thought of until now, like nuclear energy, that wasn't an obvious source of energy for humanity for a long time until certain advancements in science were made.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DrSunnyTheSkeptic Thnak you. Yes, I realise that but the whole debate has been made harder by the cliches and vagueness that have developed around it.
I also explained it for other readers who might not have appreciated the basic physics - immutable Laws of Nature!
Nuclear power is a spectacular example though of not only possible until historically very recently, but also having very deep difficulties of its own as well as huge advantages. The difficulties are often exaggerated though, and not helped by political knee-jerk reactions based on technical ignorance rather than learning from experience. That was typified by Germany following the Fukushima incident, of a type hardly likely on the Baltic coast.
What seems missing from the public debating (and sniping) is much serious analysis of what problems any other energy source may present; and also what problems will accrue from abandoning those we use now.
For example, there are strident voices among those who think petroleum itself is a fuel, calling for stopping its extraction and refining - before it runs out anyway*. What though, would be the effects of that loss, beyond the loss of fuels derived from it? Would it still be possible to build, install and operate wind-turbines, especially those off-shore, and their electricity distribution networks? If so, how, with what materials?
'
*Several years ago BP, who as an oil-producer you might expect to be more optimistic, calculated the world's known oil reserves will be exhausted well within this century, at present rates of use. There are probably other oil-fields yet untapped, but becoming harder and ever more expensive to find and develop. BP also calculated coal similarly becoming depleted, perhaps 50 years further ahead. Even Saudi Arabia is already considering its industrial and economic options for when its own oil-fields run dry.
I also explained it for other readers who might not have appreciated the basic physics - immutable Laws of Nature!
Nuclear power is a spectacular example though of not only possible until historically very recently, but also having very deep difficulties of its own as well as huge advantages. The difficulties are often exaggerated though, and not helped by political knee-jerk reactions based on technical ignorance rather than learning from experience. That was typified by Germany following the Fukushima incident, of a type hardly likely on the Baltic coast.
What seems missing from the public debating (and sniping) is much serious analysis of what problems any other energy source may present; and also what problems will accrue from abandoning those we use now.
For example, there are strident voices among those who think petroleum itself is a fuel, calling for stopping its extraction and refining - before it runs out anyway*. What though, would be the effects of that loss, beyond the loss of fuels derived from it? Would it still be possible to build, install and operate wind-turbines, especially those off-shore, and their electricity distribution networks? If so, how, with what materials?
'
*Several years ago BP, who as an oil-producer you might expect to be more optimistic, calculated the world's known oil reserves will be exhausted well within this century, at present rates of use. There are probably other oil-fields yet untapped, but becoming harder and ever more expensive to find and develop. BP also calculated coal similarly becoming depleted, perhaps 50 years further ahead. Even Saudi Arabia is already considering its industrial and economic options for when its own oil-fields run dry.
DrSunnyTheSkeptic · 26-30, M
@ArishMell I guess that's why the emphasis is on finding renewable sources of energy and such that don't pollute the environment beyond belief, that's just planning ahead, naturally one should consider that humanity won't suddenly cease to exist after the century