(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Alternative energy sources

I

IndianaTom

Member
I know we are still dependent on fossil fuels for running most of our vehicles and electricity. But I was watching a TV program the other night. It stated a valid point that the more fossil fuels we use it generally leads to higher costs but the more we use renewable such as solar energy the more cost come down. While we will have to rely on gas and oil for decades there will be a time when it will be depleted. Remember modern man has been on this planet for thousands of years and will use most of the fossil fuels within a few hundred years.
 
True enough. Obviously I'm not the one doing the research,but I don't think we've stumbled on to the answer yet. I believe when we do,it will be revolutionary and will render the things we've tinkered with to date,useless and the switch to the new source will be rapid.
 
If this were true- that present technology on renewable energy sources cost less then-- it would be booming in free enterprise instead of needing government subsidies!
 
Contrary to popular belief, its been discovered years ago that oil is not a fossil fuel.
Its being produced from deep in the earths mantel.
The report goes on to say that a lot of oil wells that went dry years ago are filling back up today.
I have family that works in the oil,gas, coal industry today and they are finding new fields of oil and gas all over the country.
With the correct management in a few short years the USA can be the biggest oil supplier in the world. Even today we don't need the Arab oil.
 
Dear Indian Tom

Don't let those environmental Nazis run your life by scaring you with some false fear.
Are you aware of the size of petroleum deposits in Alberta, east coast of Labrador, east coast of South America, the Gulf of Mexico and the northern US plains states.
How about coal? Any idea how much there is in North America?
Natural gas, any idea? Frozen hydrates?
Are you aware that bacteria can be grown in city waste water and converted to diesel?
Solar panel?
Liquid sodium nuclear reactors ?

Go back to the know nothing that has you wound up and kick their stupid backside .
 
Solar power is a myth.

Wind power is another myth.

The technology behind them simply doesn't work. They're just being promoted because the socialist liberals want you to THINK you can get something for nothing [once you make the initial investment, of course].

Same for hydroelectric power; if it worked, every damn dam across America would be generating electricity.

Now I don't care if your grandpa had a windmill at the farm that pumped water; I don't care if your great-grandpa used a water powered mill to grind grain 100 to 150 years ago. THAT WAS THEN...nowadays, only socialist liberals believe in such things...'CAUSE THEY DON'T WORK TODAY.

[Flashing "SARCASM" light turned off now...]
 
What ALTERNATE ENERGY???? I THOUGHT Alllllllllllllll the energy used to heat "most" homes is from SOLAR ENERGY.

The sun solar energy let things grow that later under the earth turned to coal......

The sun solar energy let things grow that decayed under the earth and eventually turned in to petroleum

The sun solar energy let things grow that later under the earth turned into gas

The sun caused trees to grow that we cut down and burn for wood heat,,,,,,again Solar Energy

Gas, oil, coal, wood heat,,, ALL SOLAR ENERGY

In my RV I have rooftop Solar Panels, they produce electricity to charge my batteries so I have lights etc inside. That's pretty good alternative energy in my view.

Hydroelectric energy and dams use stored water to spin turbines to make electricity without burning gas or oil or coal right, that's gotta be cleaner then burning fuel to make it right??

Windmills use wind energy to produce electricity without burning gas or coal right, sounds cleaner to me..

HOWEVER there's economics and politics to consider and practicality and it looks like were gonna be using fossil fuels (Solar energy as noted above) for quite some time it appears.

REGARDLESS that's Solar Energy, it just might have taken millions of years to change its form to oil or coal or gas lol

John T Electrical but NOT Chemical or Thermodynamics Engineer, still curious however

FUN chat
 
Buzzman is right.
The only "real" alternative energy is Nuclear. Yep, The greenie weenies hate it but, all other sources other than fossil fuels are useless.
Really, think about it.
If the earth were covered in solar panels, it would not be enough to power everything.
Wind power is a joke, same problem as the solar.

Meanwhile, I will run my tractor on Diesel fuel.
 
".........but the more we use renewable such as solar energy the more cost come down." So, stop conserving! Use more! Eventually it will come down to FREE! Just gotta use enough! :wink:
 
Yep,just like what I showed you the other day. Using solar panels to heat water then storing the hot water. If that system was used more in this country instead of pushing them as a source of electricity I think they'd a lot more widely accepted.
 
Exactly, and what's worse the startup costs on alternative sources is very high. Check some time how much one of those windmills costs, then compare that with the energy created. Same with solar. If it weren't for the government subsidies... And where does the government get that money. Water power is now a no go, and they're falling all over themselves to destroy the dams that create hydropower. Lesse, fossil fuels are bad, nuclear even scarier, hydropower bad, wind and solar inefficient. Where we going now?
 
I just put some wood in the kitchen stove.I hope I can get enough gasoline to run my chain saw and tractor.My jug of bourbon is getting low and soon it will be empty.Same thing will happen to the energy we wasting.An airliner uses enough oil in one hour to run my oil furnace for 5 years.Find that map that shows how many planes are in the air over the US at one time.
 
At present time 3% of total electrical energy production in U. S. is generated from wind power and that figure is rising. Take a look at operating wind farms in IA, Ill, IN, MI, NY states. Someone somewhere is using that electric for heat or whatever.
 
3 dams that were producing electricity were taken out here.I bought lumber produced by a water powered mill 10 years ago_One old water mill was completley rebuilt last year.Its producing power now.
 
Oil will be so high priced that only a few can afford it.Kerosene is 4 bucks a gallon here.I used to buy it for 15 cents a gallon.
 
If you don't think solar power works try living here on Earth for awhile without the Sun.All other power sources are Miniscule compared to how much the Sun supplies every day.
 
How about 'hydro'? there are enough rivers,streams,even irrigation canals to build 1000s of hydroelectric plants.Lange ones and small ones.We dont need huge reervoirs.Just a small 'raceway' from a wingdam will turn a turbine.Doesnt use any 'fuel',doesnt pollute,its free.All it costs is the initial setup a small bit of maintanance.We have some here in the western mountains.there could be LOTS more.But as usual,the feds,greenies...fight them.
 
when it come to producing electricity size matters. that's why nuclear powered steam is desirable with most output above 1000 mw per unit. next in size is a coal fired steam with 250-500 mw per unit. from there; hydro, natural gas fired, solar, wind or flatulance, you simply cannot generate enough in needed amounts. you need to be concerned. no new nuclear, existing fossil being decommissioned. natural gas being touted as the future energy will drive up the price of natural gas for home use and I predict, in the not so distance future a scarcity of it.
pete black, non-engineer. I generated it, transformed it, transmitted it, dispatched it, taught it, distributed it, switched it and repaired it over a 43 year profession.
 
A couple dozen decades ago we traded whale blubber as a viable energy source.

Sounds odd doesn't it, today?

We tend to use the best cheapest fuel, and develop something new when we need to. It really doesn't pay to do so ahead of time.

Very good to explore and develop some options as we go tho.

Paul
 
I don't think we'll see any significant new hydro power. We get most of our juice from hydro in the Pacific Northwest, and despite the fact that its the cheapest power ever (we're still at about 5 cents a KW here), the greeners would like to tear out the dams, not build new ones. Land gets flooded (and usually the best ag land), and more importantly, fish can't get around them effectively.

They removed 2 dams on the Elwha River in Washington, and some on the Rogue in Oregon- already, they are pushing to remove more because the salmon runs came back and they're so excited they can hardly contain themselves.

Fish are far more important than people, these days. Don't get me wrong- I appreciate fish as much as the next guy- some are very tasty!
 
Seeing that we are on the subject of electrical power generation, I almost wrote a research paper for a college English course on this very subject.

So, here goes.

48% of electric in the US is from Coal.
28% is from Natural gas
15% is Nuclear.
10% is hydroelectric
This is real close from 2010 figures.
about 2 trillion Kilowatts were used in
2010.
Solar is basically none, wind power is just about none. I do not see wind power being much of a contribution even 20 years from now.
 
One hundred years ago, if J.P. Morgan hadn't sabatoged the work of Nicloe Tesla we would have free energy today.
 
Maybe the development of alternative energy sources has lagged because the governmint hasn't figured out how to tax the power of the wind and the sun (yet)?????
 
More than just a little ironic too that wind generators and battery technology was improving before REA electrified rural areas. Now the same government that funded REA is spending big bucks on wind power and battery technology. Just think how far we'd be with that technology today if Uncle Sam had left the free market alone back then.
 
rrlund, I do not follow your train of thought here. 100 years ago when the Gov. subsidized REA to provide electricity to farms, that was the state of the art of the time, now with 10X as many people and automobiles we are quickly depleting our oil & gas and must turn to the new "State of the art" resources for providing power. Who knows what forms of energy will be popular 100 years from now??
 
Mr. John Fulton,

Can you provide a study done in the last 5 years that says we are depleting our gas and oil supply?

The USA is sitting on the biggest natural gas and oil deposits that we will have enough to last past the next 200 years.
If you read reports that are put out by the goverment and their cohorts in the energy field they will want to scare one just for controll and hold up the price.
 
Tesla was not working on "free" energy, although he had the altruistic but misguided idea that if you could transmit energy wirelessly it would be so cheap as to be nearly free. (Of course, since there is no way to meter electromagnetic energy, you really don't have any choice but to give it away.) What Tesla apparently didn't understand was the nearly insatiable demand for cheap energy. He also didn't know what we know today about the dangers of high-power electromagnetic radiation. (Or maybe he did, if the "Tesla Death Ray" stories are to be believed, and just chose to ignore the danger.)

Tesla also gave some of his patents to George Westinghouse, a move that guaranteed the success of ac power and made Westinghouse even richer than he already was, but ultimately cost Tesla millions of dollars in royalties. This was back in the days when workers made a buck a day and a million bucks went a very long way. Had he kept just some of the royalties, he would have had plenty of money to fund his research.
 
REA didn't electrify rural areas 100 years ago. More like 70. My only point is that private companies were improving wind generators and battery technology was improving all the time. If the government hadn't subsidized REA,who knows how far that technology would be now,without the government pumping money in to the technology that they paid to replace back then. Higher voltage batteries,better batteries,lower voltage motors? Who knows. And I agree whole heartedly,who knows what we'll be using for an energy source in 100 years. Like I said in the very first response to this post,I don't think we've even discovered it yet.
 
Well, out by me they figured out how to tax rain. A year or so ago, the county board came up with a rain runoff tax. You know how when a new building or housing subdivision goes up, they always take a certain percentage of the property that is supposed to somehow equal the foot print of the man made alterations and dig pits to put the displaced rain water in that would otherwise soak into the ground that the new man made creations occupy? Started doing it...I don't know, maybe 10 or 15 years ago? Well a couple of years ago, some shysters on the county board came up with another angle to fleece taxpayers, home, farm, building owners pockets. Rain runoff from rooves, parking lots, driveways, and who knows what else, maybe hair dryers. I can only guess that it is based upon satellite photos of the square footage of property buildings. When I think of things like that, GPS's on vehicles to tax for mileage, what comes to mind is the Boston Tea Party, which I'm pretty sure quit getting mentioned in schools about the time that the Pilgrims, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson did...for a reason, so that generations from now, everyone will be mindless, dependent, low or no information drones that won’t be able to tie their shoe laces without help or permission from…

Mark
 
No need to go back 100 years. In the 1950"s it was widely predicted that electricity, generated by Nuclear energy would be so cheap by the year 2000, that the power companies would stop billing the customers.

But I got an electric bill last month 2013. Talk is cheap.

If Tesla's ideas had worked someone else would have made it happen by now. Physics is not the slave of business men.
 
They have spent more money removing dams here than it would have cost to build fishways.The greenies are the dumbest people on earth.
 
Here are 2012 figures for total electical power generation in the United States. Your figures are way out of date. Coal--37%, Nat Gas--30%, Nuclear--19%, Hydro--7%, Wind--3.4%. 39 states have installed utility scale wind powererd generators in the U.S. These figures are sourced from United States Energy Information Administration. Wikipedia has wind power pegged even higher than US_EIA figures. They say " For the 12 months until September 2013 the electricity produced from wind power was 4.02% of all generated electrical energy". I stand behind my original post on wind power based on these 2 sources of infomation.
 
Mark - Storm-water runoff ordinances are based on preventing damage and nuisances to all the downstream neighbors. The guy immediately upstream of you cannot just doze and build, and shed all the water off so it then becomes YOUR problem. The ordinances make sure the new developed runoff matches the original undeveloped runoff.
 
Alternative sources would be far more workable if people were more conservative with their usage. I don't care if it's the light left on in the closet or the 850 street lights in your town running dawn to dusk or the welfare mutt keeping the temp at a toasty 75F so he can sit on the couch drinking beer and watching porn all day in his shorts. It all adds up. People are wasteful, I'm no different than anyone else, I'm sure. Talk to someone living off the grid and see where they make the big cuts. No more TV or computer running all day, no more 45 minute showers, no more clothes driers warming your jammies. Alternatives, at this point, just don't produce enough to keep us at our present standard of living. How many wind gens would it take to power a single Walmart or a mall? How many to power a sports stadium or your local school?

The only way alternatives work is to completely change our way of living. Otherwise, we need to start building new generation nuke plants.
 
Those wind mills will kill everything in the air. Millions of birds dead each year. Billions of bugs will live to breed! Well were making jobs picking up and burning birds! I wonder how much btu's come from a bald eagle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Geo-TH,In
Solar Energy: property taxes and net metering
Replies
11
Views
373
Vito
Vito
P
Does anyone here have experience with solar panels
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
showcrop
showcrop
J
303 Hyd. Fluid
Replies
19
Views
1K
Traditional Farmer
T
1
Lesson on Solenoids
Replies
5
Views
1K
jimtrs
J
B
The trouble with solar and other off-grid sources of power
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
wisbaker
W
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top