J Sigmo
Known around here
- Feb 5, 2018
- 996
- 1,336
The same goes for batteries. If they're recycled, then the eco-damage is lessened substantially. There are no lead smelters left in the US because of environmental regulations here. So we outsource that pollution largely to Mexico and China as well. But recycling of the lead, plastic, and to some extent the acid from lead acids does help considerably.
Still, the main thing people need to keep in mind is that neither solar nor wind provide continuous "base-load" power. So either battery storage would need to be ramped up to impractical levels or coal, nuclear, hydro, and gas will need to provide the lion's share of electrical power for the foreseeable future.
But for individual small systems, batteries can allow solar and or wind to produce all you need. It just doesn't scale up well yet, especially when you see the mass destruction large wind and solar installations create in formerly "wild" areas. And also when you consider the economics of it.
What the so-called "green" movement is doing to energy prices hurts poor and middle class people greatly, but is easily shrugged off by the rich for whom energy costs are a much smaller percentage of their annual income.
All of this needs to be studied carefully and the ramifications for everyone considered when it comes to setting public policy. I feel like I benefit from cheaper solar panels and government subsides, etc., but my gain comes on the backs of those who cannot afford the overall higher utility rates that such subsidies always mean.
And there's the hard-to calculate losses in economic growth, jobs, etc., that higher utility prices must cause as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that solar, wind, and battery technology all needs to pull it's own weight and be economically viable on it's own, as well as be forced to conform to the same environmental standards that other energy sources and industries are subject to. If the economic and environmental playing field is kept level, then these "pet" technologies will be forced to be truly competitive both economically and environmentally. It's government meddling in the whole field, to divert money to someone's cronies or support their "religion" that bugs me.
Still, the main thing people need to keep in mind is that neither solar nor wind provide continuous "base-load" power. So either battery storage would need to be ramped up to impractical levels or coal, nuclear, hydro, and gas will need to provide the lion's share of electrical power for the foreseeable future.
But for individual small systems, batteries can allow solar and or wind to produce all you need. It just doesn't scale up well yet, especially when you see the mass destruction large wind and solar installations create in formerly "wild" areas. And also when you consider the economics of it.
What the so-called "green" movement is doing to energy prices hurts poor and middle class people greatly, but is easily shrugged off by the rich for whom energy costs are a much smaller percentage of their annual income.
All of this needs to be studied carefully and the ramifications for everyone considered when it comes to setting public policy. I feel like I benefit from cheaper solar panels and government subsides, etc., but my gain comes on the backs of those who cannot afford the overall higher utility rates that such subsidies always mean.
And there's the hard-to calculate losses in economic growth, jobs, etc., that higher utility prices must cause as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that solar, wind, and battery technology all needs to pull it's own weight and be economically viable on it's own, as well as be forced to conform to the same environmental standards that other energy sources and industries are subject to. If the economic and environmental playing field is kept level, then these "pet" technologies will be forced to be truly competitive both economically and environmentally. It's government meddling in the whole field, to divert money to someone's cronies or support their "religion" that bugs me.
