Comments by "TeeKay" (@teekay_1) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell" channel.

  1. What you need is to storing temperature differential. If you can store 1000 degrees C or -270 C; you can do work with a temperature differential. And there is always an emission to create a temperature differential. It's basic physics.
    1
  2.  @WSmith_1984  There is still no practical way to create the heat for an industrialized civilization without fossil fuels, unless you're willing to go 80% atomic energy.
    1
  3. When I looked at Solar, there was a 25 year ROI for a 100kw system. Which, coincidentally, was the stated lifespan of the system. And yes, I had a southern exposure. I'd love to do it, but as an investment, it didn't work for me. I'm re-insultating, the entire house which gets me to a break-even in 5 years. As to increasing home value, yes, but! Aesthetics matter on larger/more expensive homes. Personally, I wouldn't put solar on the front of a house.
    1
  4. Part of the "animosity" (your words) is that when these windmills break, they're made of materials that don't really compost, and they're not recyclable, so we're generating a lot of waste and it's not clear that without taxpayer handouts that they're economically viable (all this is true of solar, BTW). The real problem with taxpayer subsidies is that there is no vetting of the projects to see if they'll actually produce the output proposed. Like any business proposition, a business case should be made (i.e. these 100 windmills will generate an average of 1MW of power daily), and they have a year to prove that it does actually produce that power. If it does, they'd get a subsidy. If not, they wouldn't. It would force investors to only move forward with viable projects
    1