# Fossil Fuel Free In Ten Years



## wihosa

Could it be done?

Yes, and here's why. 

First, the needed technologies exist right now. No need to wait for some time way out in the future when we can all line up to buy hydrogen from multi national corporations who have cornered the market on hydrogen.

Second, we are Americans. We have historically risen to the challange to inovate. We spanned a continent with railroads, built the Panama Canal, electrified rural America, built the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. The challange is not too great.

One immediate question is how will we run our cars? The answer is electric cars. Again the technologies exist right now. You say "but electric cars can only go 75 to 100 miles with out a re-charge". True, but answer this question; What is the range of an electric car, if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchane station? Answer;Unlimited.

Where will we get the needed electricity? Existing hydro generation, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Temporary use of natural gas (a relatively clean buring fossil fuel) during the transitional period will help bridge the gap.

Wind generation is a proven producer right now. Science News reported a couple years ago that virtually all the power needs of the US could be met with wind power alone. Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power and competitve with fossil fuels. 

Solar panels (photovoltaic or PV  panels) could become ubiquitous with legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a portion of their useage, say 10%. This would immediately create a market for PV, competition and mass production would drive the price down to the point that it would make economic sense for indiviuals to install PV panels. Who wouldn't invest a few hundred dollars for PV if the payback period was just a couple years and thereafter the panels would actually make money. There would also have to be requirements for power providers to install two way metering upon request.

These are the basics. Just immagine what would happen to the price of oil if we announced to the world our intention to be fossil fuel free in ten years. And where would the terrorists get the money to carry on world wide jihad if their benefactors where suddenly without their sea of oil profits?


----------



## Chris

wihosa said:


> Could it be done?
> 
> Yes, and here's why.
> 
> First, the needed technologies exist right now. No need to wait for some time way out in the future when we can all line up to buy hydrogen from multi national corporations who have cornered the market on hydrogen.
> 
> Second, we are Americans. We have historically risen to the challange to inovate. We spanned a continent with railroads, built the Panama Canal, electrified rural America, built the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. The challange is not too great.
> 
> One immediate question is how will we run our cars? The answer is electric cars. Again the technologies exist right now. You say "but electric cars can only go 75 to 100 miles with out a re-charge". True, but answer this question; What is the range of an electric car, if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchane station? Answer;Unlimited.
> 
> Where will we get the needed electricity? Existing hydro generation, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Temporary use of natural gas (a relatively clean buring fossil fuel) during the transitional period will help bridge the gap.
> 
> Wind generation is a proven producer right now. Science News reported a couple years ago that virtually all the power needs of the US could be met with wind power alone. Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power and competitve with fossil fuels.
> 
> Solar panels (photovoltaic or PV  panels) could become ubiquitous with legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a portion of their useage, say 10%. This would immediately create a market for PV, competition and mass production would drive the price down to the point that it would make economic sense for indiviuals to install PV panels. Who wouldn't invest a few hundred dollars for PV if the payback period was just a couple years and thereafter the panels would actually make money. There would also have to be requirements for power providers to install two way metering upon request.
> 
> These are the basics. Just immagine what would happen to the price of oil if we announced to the world our intention to be fossil fuel free in ten years. And where would the terrorists get the money to carry on world wide jihad if their benefactors where suddenly without their sea of oil profits?



Great post.

Our dependence on oil is the greatest problem facing America today. Alternative energy is all around us. We just need to harness it.


----------



## wihosa

"Alternative energy is all around us. We just need to harness it."

Exactly, unfortunately multi national corporation propaganda is also all around us.

The answers are there, but not the leadership.


----------



## Sunni Man

Very naive OP

Factorys and industries need massive amounts of fossil fuels to operate.

So does our military


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> Very naive OP
> 
> Factorys and industries need massive amounts of fossil fuels to operate.
> 
> So does our military




Okay, so how does that  mean they can't be converted?

There are certainly challanges, but there are also answers. There may be some things that simply cannot be converted to electricity, for instance heavy constructon equipment  but such equipment can run just as efficiently on clean buring bio-diesel.

Don't be surprised when the oil corporations pull out all the stops to persuade us no to end their gravy train.


----------



## Sunni Man

I have worked in industrial environments all of my life.

Factory machinery needs and runs on lubricants.

Sure homes and businesses and cars can be converted to solar or bio fuels.

But it takes heavy fossil fuels to maintain an industrial base.

Also, think about everything that you have made from plastic. It is made from fossil fuels.


----------



## thrimironaxe

This is a classic example of why clean energy has failed.

People either do not support clean energy, or they do support clean energy but they overestimate their own wisdom and consequently micro manage the solution to death.

How to solve the problem: create incentives for clean energy, and remove incentives for dirty energy.  Then, let people innovate.  Sit back and watch a spectacular show.

Examples of current barriers to clean energy:

Example 1) Fossil fuel energy is not required to pay collateral costs, while clean energy is.  Coal plants are free of any responsibility for the pollution they produce the minute it leaves the exhaust stack, but a nuclear power producer is liable for the nuclear fuel indefinitely.  Petroleum production/imports pay no tax and suffer virtually zero regulation, but bio ethanol production/imports are required to pay crippling import taxes, are subject to draconian import quota, and are often regulated by multiple federal and state agencies.

Example 2) Infrastructure for fossil fuel use is partly tax payer funded, while infrastructure for more economically friendly alternatives enjoys no subsidies.  The gasoline tax (25 cents per gallon or so) pays for only a small fraction of upkeep costs for our roads, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill.  Alternatives such as light rail enjoy no such subsidies.

This is madness.  Ecologically friendly solutions will arise on their own accord if government takes its enormous heel off of them.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> I have worked in industrial environments all of my life.
> 
> Factory machinery needs and runs on lubricants.
> 
> Sure homes and businesses and cars can be converted to solar or bio fuels.
> 
> But it takes heavy fossil fuels to maintain an industrial base.
> 
> Also, think about everything that you have made from plastic. It is made from fossil fuels.



The need for petrolium products will not be eliminated, but that is not the objective. The objective is to stop burning fossil fuels for energy, but your comment points out another reason to stop burning oil; Will people of the future not need plastics? Fertilizers? Chemicals?

How foolish it would be to literally burn up such a valuable resource.

"But it takes heavy fossil fuels to maintain an industrial base" What does that mean specifically? What is a heavy fossil fuel? Deisel?


----------



## wihosa

thrimironaxe said:


> This is a classic example of why clean energy has failed.
> 
> People either do not support clean energy, or they do support clean energy but they overestimate their own wisdom and consequently micro manage the solution to death.
> 
> How to solve the problem: create incentives for clean energy, and remove incentives for dirty energy.  Then, let people innovate.  Sit back and watch a spectacular show.
> 
> Examples of current barriers to clean energy:
> 
> Example 1) Fossil fuel energy is not required to pay collateral costs, while clean energy is.  Coal plants are free of any responsibility for the pollution they produce the minute it leaves the exhaust stack, but a nuclear power producer is liable for the nuclear fuel indefinitely.  Petroleum production/imports pay no tax and suffer virtually zero regulation, but bio ethanol production/imports are required to pay crippling import taxes, are subject to draconian import quota, and are often regulated by multiple federal and state agencies.
> 
> Example 2) Infrastructure for fossil fuel use is partly tax payer funded, while infrastructure for more economically friendly alternatives enjoys no subsidies.  The gasoline tax (25 cents per gallon or so) pays for only a small fraction of upkeep costs for our roads, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill.  Alternatives such as light rail enjoy no such subsidies.
> 
> This is madness.  Ecologically friendly solutions will arise on their own accord if government takes its enormous heel off of them.



Well I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, but I do know that without the clear intent to reach a destination it is impossible to get there. 

To throw government "of by and for the People" out of the mix is deny ourselves the most powerful tool available to lead the way to that destination.


----------



## Sunni Man

wihosa said:


> "But it takes heavy fossil fuels to maintain an industrial base" What does that mean specifically? What is a heavy fossil fuel? Deisel?


Kerosine and vasoline are very light and clean lubricants made from fossil fuels.

Thick grease and tars would be examples of heavy lubricants need by machinery.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> Kerosine and vasoline are very light and clean lubricants made from fossil fuels.
> 
> Thick grease and tars would be examples of heavy lubricants need by machinery.



Lubricants are not fuels. Petrolium is not neccessarily fuel. I think you're getting you terms mixed up.


----------



## Sunni Man

Oil is a fossil fuel. 

Both gasoline and grease are made from oil.

The difference is in how you refine it.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> Oil is a fossil fuel.
> 
> Both gasoline and grease are made from oil.
> 
> The difference is in how you refine it.



Oil _*can*_be a fuel but regardless, how does the need for lubricants preclude converting to non-fossil fuels?


----------



## Sunni Man

wihosa said:


> Oil _*can*_be a fuel but regardless, how does the need for lubricants preclude converting to non-fossil fuels?


You would have to come up with a synthetic lubricants with the same fossil fuel lubricating properties to replace the oil based ones.

They have done that with cars. Mobile 1 is an example of a synthetic oil, but it costs twice as much as conventional motor oil.


----------



## Denny Crane

Even if it wasn't doable in 10 years at least we would be ontrack to accomplish it at some point, hopefully within 15-20 years. I've been reading a lot lately about geothermal energy sources and came across this site which uses it along with other fossil-free sources.

Colorado Creating USs First Fossil Fuel-Free Community 

EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> You would have to come up with a synthetic lubricants with the same fossil fuel lubricating properties to replace the oil based ones.
> 
> They have done that with cars. Mobile 1 is an example of a synthetic oil, but it costs twice as much as conventional motor oil.



? Why couldn't we continue to use petrolium based lubricants?


----------



## Sunni Man

The title of this thread was "Fossil Fuel free in 10 years".

I was just showing that it isn't possible.


----------



## wihosa

Denny Crane said:


> Even if it wasn't doable in 10 years at least we would be ontrack to accomplish it at some point, hopefully within 15-20 years. I've been reading a lot lately about geothermal energy sources and came across this site which uses it along with other fossil-free sources.
> 
> Colorado Creating USs First Fossil Fuel-Free Community
> 
> EcoGeek - Technology for the Environment



The potential of geo-thermal power generation is quite viable but I would lower it on the priority list because of the centralized, large investment nature of it. I'm not as interested in power production which lends itself to price manipulation. The de-centralized nature of wind and PV would allow typical citizens to get into the power production game.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> The title of this thread was "Fossil free in 10 years".
> 
> I was just showing that it isn't possible.



No, the title is Fossil *Fuel* Free in Ten Years

And you haven't shown that it is not possible.


----------



## Sunni Man

Yea, Ok, you win.

In ten years we can shut down oil drilling, production, and refineries.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> Yea, Ok, you win.
> 
> In ten years we can shut down oil drilling, production, and refineries.



We're not going to shut down production or refining. We're just going to stop burning oil.

One brainwashed righty down, millions to go!


----------



## Sunni Man

wihosa said:


> We're not going to shut down production or refining. We're just going to stop burning oil.
> 
> One brainwashed righty down, millions to go!


Where did you get the idea I am a righty??

You really are quite full of yourself Whosa.


----------



## wihosa

Sunni Man said:


> Where did you get the idea I am a righty??
> 
> You really are quite full of yourself Whosa.



My apology, you're not a righty, just brainwashed.

A little too uppity?


----------



## Sunni Man

wihosa said:


> My apology, you're not a righty, just brainwashed.


Brain washed about what?


----------



## wihosa

About how difficult it is to stop using fossil fuels.


----------



## dilloduck

wihosa said:


> About how difficult it is to stop using fossil fuels.



Apparently it ain't all that hard if we can do it in 10 years as you claim.


----------



## wihosa

dilloduck said:


> Apparently it ain't all that hard if we can do it in 10 years as you claim.



Not saying it'll be easy, only acheivable, and with huge payoffs in environmental, economic and geo-political terms.


----------



## dilloduck

Sunni Man said:


> Very naive OP
> 
> Factorys and industries need massive amounts of fossil fuels to operate.
> 
> So does our military



You ain't just a whistling Dixie. The logic on this one is sure to spin you head around.


----------



## wihosa

What logic?


----------



## dilloduck

wihosa said:


> what Logic?



bingo


----------



## wihosa

dilloduck said:


> bingo



Your favorite game?


----------



## midcan5

Thoughtful post. 

Two observations: if outsourcing continues we won't have to worry about an industrial base, and why not use synthetic lubricants, my wife's new car requires it.

It is curious to me the irony and outright silliness of the wingnuts in issues of energy and business (markets), they want to drill all over America to gain a minuscule amount of oil that will only enter the same market that has pushed prices too high. Their argument is the money will stay here. But then they argue for outsourcing and a global economy in which most everything is made over there. They worship walmart, China's biggest ally and buy stuff made everywhere but here because it cost too much to earn a decent living. Boggles my mind on a daily basis.


----------



## Charles_Main

wihosa said:


> Okay, so how does that  mean they can't be converted?



Yes, but not with out a massive amount of Money being spent, and NOT in 10 years. More like 30 or 40 years if you ask me.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> Yes, but not with out a massive amount of Money being spent, and NOT in 10 years. More like 30 or 40 years if you ask me.



30 or 40 years if we keep electing Republicans.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> 30 or 40 years if we keep electing Republicans.



You mean if Pelosi allows a vote it won't take us 30 or 40 years....

House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive energy reform bill we call the American Energy Act.  The American Energy Act calls for all of the above when it comes to the reforms needed to lower gas prices and liberate America from its dependence on foreign oil: more conservation, more alternative and renewable energy, and more production of American-made energy.  *It would accelerate the development and implementation of clean, renewable fuels; create new incentives for conservation and development of alternative energy sources*; and lift the government ban on drilling in the frozen North Slope of Alaska and deepwater ocean energy zones far off the U.S. coast.  We need to make use of these untapped American resources for affordable energy in the short-term as we work to develop and implement new, cleaner energy sources for the 21st Century.  

John Boehner - 8th District of Ohio


----------



## chapstic

wihosa said:


> About how difficult it is to stop using fossil fuels.



until you have stepped foot into any factory, refinery, power plant, you have no idea what you are talking about. all those machines require proper lubricant to operate.  

you think a wind turbine is oil free? dream on, that gear box has the be properly lubricated.  

do you enjoy the food you eat?  hate to break it to ya, most of the machines that process that food require proper lubrication.

ethanol plants burn more oil making the ethanol than what we actually get from the corn.

electric cars.  you do realize a power plant of some sort powers your house, which therefore recharges the batteries in your cars.


----------



## editec

thrimironaxe said:


> This is a classic example of why clean energy has failed.
> 
> People either do not support clean energy, or they do support clean energy but they overestimate their own wisdom and consequently micro manage the solution to death.
> 
> How to solve the problem: create incentives for clean energy, and remove incentives for dirty energy. Then, let people innovate. Sit back and watch a spectacular show.
> 
> Examples of current barriers to clean energy:
> 
> Example 1) Fossil fuel energy is not required to pay collateral costs, while clean energy is. Coal plants are free of any responsibility for the pollution they produce the minute it leaves the exhaust stack, but a nuclear power producer is liable for the nuclear fuel indefinitely. Petroleum production/imports pay no tax and suffer virtually zero regulation, but bio ethanol production/imports are required to pay crippling import taxes, are subject to draconian import quota, and are often regulated by multiple federal and state agencies.
> 
> Example 2) Infrastructure for fossil fuel use is partly tax payer funded, while infrastructure for more economically friendly alternatives enjoys no subsidies. The gasoline tax (25 cents per gallon or so) pays for only a small fraction of upkeep costs for our roads, with taxpayers footing the rest of the bill. Alternatives such as light rail enjoy no such subsidies.
> 
> This is madness. Ecologically friendly solutions will arise on their own accord if government takes its enormous heel off of them.


 

Perceptive.

The government distorts the market.

That _is_ true. So far, I can agree with our libertarian chums who bitch about this.

Now here's the rest of the story...*the special interests of the market itself are demanding that the government distort the market...to their benefit *

Not the tree huggers, not the environmentalists (like we constantly being told by our neo-cns, cums) but those enormous players which control the market control the government to control the market.

So the simplistic view that the existence of government is THE PROBLEM misses the point.

Governments aren't inherently bad, _BAD government is inherently bad._

Capitalists aren't inherently bad,_ BAD capitalist are inherently bad._

The sooner we end this revolving door game of lobbyists and Congressional players and government regulators   moving between being the the regulator and being the regulated, the sooner we can start really dealing with these problems rationally.

I think its unconsionable that former Congress members and their aids, people who'd been deciding issues effecting industry, then become lobbyists for those industies.

This is not a partisan slam since members of BOTH parties play this game.


----------



## Chris

The oil lobbyists and their Republican allies do not want fuel conservation or alternative energy. 

It is up to the American people to move in that direction and screw Big Oil.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> The oil lobbyists and their Republican allies do not want fuel conservation or alternative energy.
> 
> It is up to the American people to move in that direction and screw Big Oil.



Sure that's the reason the Democrats are blocking the vote on a Republican bill that pushes new drilling, alternative energy sources and a plan to make us oil independent altogether.....


----------



## AllieBaba

midcan5 said:


> Thoughtful post.
> 
> Two observations: if outsourcing continues we won't have to worry about an industrial base, and why not use synthetic lubricants, my wife's new car requires it.
> 
> It is curious to me the irony and outright silliness of the wingnuts in issues of energy and business (markets), they want to drill all over America to gain a minuscule amount of oil that will only enter the same market that has pushed prices too high. Their argument is the money will stay here. But then they argue for outsourcing and a global economy in which most everything is made over there. They worship walmart, China's biggest ally and buy stuff made everywhere but here because it cost too much to earn a decent living. Boggles my mind on a daily basis.



And what boggles my mind are the nuts who think we can tell how much oil is there, or how long it will last.

Since the TURN OF THE CENTURY the same tired argument has been out there. Oil is limited, we only have enough for 30 more years, there isn't enough to bother with, etc. and so on and so forth.

It's all just hysterical and hopeful theorizing on the part of negativity junkies who just can't bring themselves to believe that we are capable of doing anything for ourselves.


----------



## Chris

AllieBaba said:


> And what boggles my mind are the nuts who think we can tell how much oil is there, or how long it will last.
> 
> Since the TURN OF THE CENTURY the same tired argument has been out there. Oil is limited, we only have enough for 30 more years, there isn't enough to bother with, etc. and so on and so forth.
> 
> It's all just hysterical and hopeful theorizing on the part of negativity junkies who just can't bring themselves to believe that we are capable of doing anything for ourselves.



There is no limit to the Sun and the wind.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> Sure that's the reason the Democrats are blocking the vote on a Republican bill that pushes new drilling, alternative energy sources and a plan to make us oil independent altogether.....



Yes, the Republicans are well know for pushing alternative energy.

(snicker)


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh, you mean like nuclear energy? Seems to me the libs ruled that out when we wanted it 20 years ago. 

And yes, there are limits to the sun and wind, as anyone who has any understanding of solar and wind power will tell you. There are huge problems with availability, and the harnessing of such energy sources. Not to mention the vast tracts of land required to set up wind farms.


----------



## Chris

AllieBaba said:


> Oh, you mean like nuclear energy? Seems to me the libs ruled that out when we wanted it 20 years ago.
> 
> And yes, there are limits to the sun and wind, as anyone who has any understanding of solar and wind power will tell you. There are huge problems with availability, and the harnessing of such energy sources. Not to mention the vast tracts of land required to set up wind farms.



Bullsh*t. Every home in America should have solar shingles and a small wind turbine.

We should all pitch in just like the "victory gardens" in WWII.


----------



## AllieBaba

You fucking idiot. Talk to somebody who has tried to live off the energy grid and see what they have to say about the "efficiency" of solar energy.

And I live in the middle of wind farm country. The things are a joke. The over-generate power and blow out their computers, or they under-generate and don't get anything at all accomplished. All told, they provide a miniscule amount of energy. But hey, they provide a fairly steady stream of jobs for young guys at the rate of about 2 a year....that's about how many die a year here trying to make the stupid things work.


----------



## Chris

AllieBaba said:


> You fucking idiot. Talk to somebody who has tried to live off the energy grid and see what they have to say about the "efficiency" of solar energy.
> 
> And I live in the middle of wind farm country. The things are a joke. The over-generate power and blow out their computers, or they under-generate and don't get anything at all accomplished. All told, they provide a miniscule amount of energy. But hey, they provide a fairly steady stream of jobs for young guys at the rate of about 2 a year....that's about how many die a year here trying to make the stupid things work.



The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Israelis are building one solar energy plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. It can be done.


----------



## AllieBaba

The DANES for pete's sakes. How many are there? Not many. France is pretty much run on nuclear energy.

My point is, you guys claim you want alternative energy, and you snickered like an idiot as though it's the fault of the Republicans that we don't have it now...when you guys are the ones who put the brakes on the one source of energy that could really make a difference, and which is the cleanest energy option out there....NUCLEAR ENERGY. If libs hadn't shut that down, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.

Which is pretty much the story across the board where libs are concerned. Short sighted, stupid, and apparently ignorant of your own history where the energy crisis is concerned.


----------



## Chris

AllieBaba said:


> The DANES for pete's sakes. How many are there? Not many. France is pretty much run on nuclear energy.
> 
> My point is, you guys claim you want alternative energy, and you snickered like an idiot as though it's the fault of the Republicans that we don't have it now...when you guys are the ones who put the brakes on the one source of energy that could really make a difference, and which is the cleanest energy option out there....NUCLEAR ENERGY. If libs hadn't shut that down, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now.
> 
> Which is pretty much the story across the board where libs are concerned. Short sighted, stupid, and apparently ignorant of your own history where the energy crisis is concerned.



Nuclear energy is unnecessary. It creates too much radioactive waste. 

Clean energy is all around us. We just need to harvest it.

We waste an enormous amount of energy. Energy conservation is easy. It is the direction the people are going, and where the people go, the pols will follow.


----------



## wihosa

nuclear power if far more expensive than wind, creates extremely dangerous waste which will remain dangerous for a longer time than anything ever built by humans has lasted and will be controlled only by multi national corporations.

So exactly why do you think it would be a good idea?


----------



## wihosa

" If libs hadn't shut that down, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now."

You're right, we'd be in a bigger mess, a nulcear waste mess.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

wihosa said:


> nuclear power if far more expensive than wind, creates extremely dangerous waste which will remain dangerous for a longer time than anything ever built by humans has lasted and will be controlled only by multi national corporations.
> 
> So exactly why do you think it would be a good idea?



Because it can provide electricity 100% of the time. Not 50% or 70% or whatever.

Solar can and will be great for blunting the power used by air conditioners (which is considerable). Sun comes out, a/c kicks in, next-gen solar shingles deliver power, while easing the load on the electric grid. Cool. But not for providing the backbone of heavy industry. 

Nuke plants produce negligible amounts of waste and don't suffer from supply costs the way coal and natural gas plants do. Nuke plants can provide the vast majority of a modern economy's power, and France has proved it. 80% of their power is nuclear after all. Let me know when Denmark reaches 80% wind power, without having to buy power from France when the wind quits blowing.

Nuclear power is good enough for France and good enough for the founder of Greenpeace. If those aren't good enough liberal credentials, I don't know what is.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Yes, the Republicans are well know for pushing alternative energy.
> 
> (snicker)



Maybe you need to see this link again....
John Boehner - 8th District of Ohio

House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive energy reform bill we call the American Energy Act. * The American Energy Act calls for all of the above when it comes to the reforms needed to lower gas prices and liberate America from its dependence on foreign oil: more conservation, more alternative and renewable energy, and more production of American-made energy.  It would accelerate the development and implementation of clean, renewable fuels; create new incentives for conservation and development of alternative energy sources; and lift the government ban on drilling in the frozen North Slope of Alaska and deepwater ocean energy zones far off the U.S. coast.  We need to make use of these untapped American resources for affordable energy in the short-term as we work to develop and implement new, cleaner energy sources for the 21st Century.*


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Yes, the Republicans are well know for pushing alternative energy.
> 
> (snicker)



Yes actually they are, Obama voted for Bush's energy plan....But Mccain actually voted against it because it contained too many kickbacks for the oil companies.....Check the "Bush" Energy Policy of 2005....


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> Yes actually they are, Obama voted for Bush's energy plan....But Mccain actually voted against it because it contained too many kickbacks for the oil companies.....Check the "Bush" Energy Policy of 2005....



Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets


----------



## Chris

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Because it can provide electricity 100% of the time. Not 50% or 70% or whatever.
> 
> Solar can and will be great for blunting the power used by air conditioners (which is considerable). Sun comes out, a/c kicks in, next-gen solar shingles deliver power, while easing the load on the electric grid. Cool. But not for providing the backbone of heavy industry.
> 
> Nuke plants produce negligible amounts of waste and don't suffer from supply costs the way coal and natural gas plants do. Nuke plants can provide the vast majority of a modern economy's power, and France has proved it. 80% of their power is nuclear after all. Let me know when Denmark reaches 80% wind power, without having to buy power from France when the wind quits blowing.
> 
> Nuclear power is good enough for France and good enough for the founder of Greenpeace. If those aren't good enough liberal credentials, I don't know what is.



Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat

Whoops, I guess someone better notify Mr. Greenpeace and France and Japan.


----------



## chapstic

ill take nuke plants over wind power generation any day.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets



Obama voted for the Energy Policy that is now in effect...Which gave tax breaks to "Big OIL" while MCcain voted against the Policy...


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets



*House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive energy reform bill we call the American Energy Act.*  The American Energy Act calls for all of the above when it comes to the reforms needed to lower gas prices and liberate America from its dependence on foreign oil: more conservation, more alternative and renewable energy, and more production of American-made energy.  It would accelerate the development and implementation of clean, renewable fuels; create new incentives for conservation and development of alternative energy sources; and lift the government ban on drilling in the frozen North Slope of Alaska and deepwater ocean energy zones far off the U.S. coast.  We need to make use of these untapped American resources for affordable energy in the short-term as we work to develop and implement new, cleaner energy sources for the 21st Century.  

John Boehner - 8th District of Ohio


----------



## RetiredGySgt

What I love is the fact we can not produce enough electricity NOW for some areas, but we are magically going to be able to provide massive amounts of NEW electricity for 300 million cars and trucks.

Ohh and tel me when we get an 18 wheeler running on electric. Or Heavy Farm equipment, or hevay construction equipment , so and so on.

Top that off with the simple fact MOST of our Electrical power comes from Fossil fuels and we see we are just trading gasoline cars for gasoline power plants.


----------



## Chris

RetiredGySgt said:


> What I love is the fact we can not produce enough electricity NOW for some areas, but we are magically going to be able to provide massive amounts of NEW electricity for 300 million cars and trucks.
> 
> Ohh and tel me when we get an 18 wheeler running on electric. Or Heavy Farm equipment, or hevay construction equipment , so and so on.
> 
> Top that off with the simple fact MOST of our Electrical power comes from Fossil fuels and we see we are just trading gasoline cars for gasoline power plants.



Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Kirk said:


> Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.



Ethanol is not electric , you keep jumping all over the place, you are aware ethanol is very inefficient as a fuel source and in fact buts harmful burn off into the air, just like fossil fuels?


----------



## dilloduck

Kirk said:


> Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.



TEET  ----- Holy mackeral !


----------



## Orange_Juice

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ethanol is not electric , you keep jumping all over the place, you are aware ethanol is very inefficient as a fuel source and in fact buts harmful burn off into the air, just like fossil fuels?



Oh, we can seriously cut our use of oil if we tried. It would cause some discomfort would would give you right wing cry babies something to whine about, so we would all get something out of it, the country would be helped and you right wingers could bitch and moan all day, everyone would be hapopy!


----------



## Bern80

It doesn't have much to do with a political agenda.  We know oil works and it is actually relatively clean.  It's that simple.  The jury is still out as to the extent man has contributed to the warming trend (err, cooling trend now I guess).  As a percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere, man contributes very little to a gas that is only a trace gas in the atmosphere in the first place.  

So presumably not burning fossil *fuels*  would eliminate one portion of the CO2 that the *U.S.* (important to consider as well) puts into the air.  Ultimately we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of fraction of CO2 out of the air.  I'm not sure what kind of real impact that is going to have.  And thus I don't really see this need to get off fossil fuels now, or in ten years or whatever.  We have made fossil fuel use considerably cleaner since it's inception and I imagine we still can.  I don't see the need to entirely do away with a resource if we have the technology to improve it.

The other problem is America really isn't the problem as alluded to by bolding the U.S.  In terms of industrialization the U.S. has passed it's really dirty phase.  That was one interesting thing I learned in the critiqe video in the other thread.  If you really want to eliminate CO2 people like Wihosa and Kirk gotta start barking up the appropriate trees i.e. China and India.


----------



## wihosa

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Because it can provide electricity 100% of the time. Not 50% or 70% or whatever.
> 
> Solar can and will be great for blunting the power used by air conditioners (which is considerable). Sun comes out, a/c kicks in, next-gen solar shingles deliver power, while easing the load on the electric grid. Cool. But not for providing the backbone of heavy industry.
> 
> Nuke plants produce negligible amounts of waste and don't suffer from supply costs the way coal and natural gas plants do. Nuke plants can provide the vast majority of a modern economy's power, and France has proved it. 80% of their power is nuclear after all. Let me know when Denmark reaches 80% wind power, without having to buy power from France when the wind quits blowing.
> 
> Nuclear power is good enough for France and good enough for the founder of Greenpeace. If those aren't good enough liberal credentials, I don't know what is.



With a combination of wind, solar, existing hydro, geo thermal and other non-fossil fuels there would never be a shortage of supply, so the "sun goes down, the wind stops blowing" argument is without merit. The wind is always blowing somewhere.

Nuke plants produce tons, literally tons of highly radioactive waste every year. Negligable would only apply if comparing to a nuclear bomb blast.

Interesting how when it comes to nuclear power the rightys love the surrender monkeys, er, the French. Also interesting that France has a population which is less than 20% of the US's so their total usage of nuclear is really about the same as ours. They too are now becoming concerned about what to do with the ever growing collection of nuclear waste "storage" casks and likewise are facing the problem of de-comissioning aging nuke plants. Worst of all is that nuclear power is far more expensive than wind power, so why is it again that you think nuclear power is a good idea?


----------



## AllieBaba

Kirk said:


> Nuclear energy is unnecessary. It creates too much radioactive waste.
> 
> Clean energy is all around us. We just need to harvest it.
> 
> We waste an enormous amount of energy. Energy conservation is easy. It is the direction the people are going, and where the people go, the pols will follow.




Yes, yes, yes. give us the clean energy options that can eliminate the need for nuclear energy, since you don't want us to use oil?


----------



## wihosa

RetiredGySgt said:


> What I love is the fact we can not produce enough electricity NOW for some areas, but we are magically going to be able to provide massive amounts of NEW electricity for 300 million cars and trucks.
> 
> Ohh and tel me when we get an 18 wheeler running on electric. Or Heavy Farm equipment, or hevay construction equipment , so and so on.
> 
> Top that off with the simple fact MOST of our Electrical power comes from Fossil fuels and we see we are just trading gasoline cars for gasoline power plants.



Massive amounts of wind and solar power can produce massive amounts of electricity. Is that really so hard to understand?

Why exactly can't "18 wheelers" run on electricity? What supplies the power to the wheels of a train locomotive? Electric motors, that's why they are called deisel electric. Train locomotives have been "hybrids" for over fifty years. If trains ran simply on the power of deisel engines they would burn so much fuel that even in the "good old days" the cost of fuel would have made trains economically infeasible.

As for heavy construction or farm equipment, they run just as well on bio-deisel, a much cleaner alternative.

Time to wake up, the future is now!


----------



## wihosa

chapstic said:


> until you have stepped foot into any factory, refinery, power plant, you have no idea what you are talking about. all those machines require proper lubricant to operate.
> 
> you think a wind turbine is oil free? dream on, that gear box has the be properly lubricated.
> 
> do you enjoy the food you eat?  hate to break it to ya, most of the machines that process that food require proper lubrication.
> 
> ethanol plants burn more oil making the ethanol than what we actually get from the corn.
> 
> electric cars.  you do realize a power plant of some sort powers your house, which therefore recharges the batteries in your cars.



How does not burning fossil fuels mean we won't be using petrolium based lubricants? Lubricants and fuels are not the same thing. In fact this is one of the reasons we should stop burning oil, it is a far more vauable resource for lubricants, fertilizers, plastics and chemicals. How foolish it would be to burn it all up.

Well you got something right, ethanol is not practical for mass transportation needs.

As for where we will get the electricity, did you bother to read the original post?


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> Could it be done?
> 
> Yes, and here's why.
> 
> First, the needed technologies exist right now. No need to wait for some time way out in the future when we can all line up to buy hydrogen from multi national corporations who have cornered the market on hydrogen.
> 
> Second, we are Americans. We have historically risen to the challange to inovate. We spanned a continent with railroads, built the Panama Canal, electrified rural America, built the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. The challange is not too great.
> 
> One immediate question is how will we run our cars? The answer is electric cars. Again the technologies exist right now. You say "but electric cars can only go 75 to 100 miles with out a re-charge". True, but answer this question; What is the range of an electric car, if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchane station? Answer;Unlimited.
> 
> Where will we get the needed electricity? Existing hydro generation, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Temporary use of natural gas (a relatively clean buring fossil fuel) during the transitional period will help bridge the gap.
> 
> Wind generation is a proven producer right now. Science News reported a couple years ago that virtually all the power needs of the US could be met with wind power alone. Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power and competitve with fossil fuels.
> 
> Solar panels (photovoltaic or PV  panels) could become ubiquitous with legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a portion of their useage, say 10%. This would immediately create a market for PV, competition and mass production would drive the price down to the point that it would make economic sense for indiviuals to install PV panels. Who wouldn't invest a few hundred dollars for PV if the payback period was just a couple years and thereafter the panels would actually make money. There would also have to be requirements for power providers to install two way metering upon request.
> 
> These are the basics. Just immagine what would happen to the price of oil if we announced to the world our intention to be fossil fuel free in ten years. And where would the terrorists get the money to carry on world wide jihad if their benefactors where suddenly without their sea of oil profits?


If gas is free then why would I buy a stupid electric car?

What a dumb post.


----------



## wihosa

glockmail said:


> If gas is free then why would I buy a stupid electric car?
> 
> What a dumb post.



If gas is free? What in the hell does that mean? Who said gas is free? 

Talk about dumb posts.


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> If gas is free? What in the hell does that mean? Who said gas is free?
> 
> Talk about dumb posts.



You did, Einstein. Gas is a "fossil fuel".


----------



## wihosa

glockmail said:


> You did, Einstein. Gas is a "fossil fuel".



I mentioned 'gas' station and I mentioned natural 'gas'. 

Please quote where I said anything close to 'free gas'.

Can't be too hard to do since you consider yourself so smart.


----------



## Bern80

wihosa said:


> Massive amounts of wind and solar power can produce massive amounts of electricity. Is that really so hard to understand?
> 
> Why exactly can't "18 wheelers" run on electricity? What supplies the power to the wheels of a train locomotive? Electric motors, that's why they are called deisel electric. Train locomotives have been "hybrids" for over fifty years. If trains ran simply on the power of deisel engines they would burn so much fuel that even in the "good old days" the cost of fuel would have made trains economically infeasible.
> 
> As for heavy construction or farm equipment, they run just as well on bio-deisel, a much cleaner alternative.
> 
> Time to wake up, the future is now!



And what massive green areas are you planning on plowing over for the needed massive wind farms to make your dream even a remote possibilty?

It is truly amazing how void of perspective and detached from reality you are.  Do you think there isn't a person here who wouldn't get behind the world running of the energy you suggest?  Of course they wouldn't.  The big difference between people like you and Kirk and the rest of us is that the rest of us live in THE REAL FUCKING WORLD.

Show me evidence that the economies, industry, infrastructure of the world could run on only those energy sources you deem fit.

Show me some evidence that France, which is a fraction of our size, is haveing a nuclear waste crisis.

You're proposal would yield so much hypocrisy to your views that you would probably be caught with your pants pissed in a fetal ball.  What environment are we going to have left to enjoy, when all available open areas are covered in solar panels and wind turbines and corn (see FOOD) for ethanol.  What sea life will we have in the ocean when it's floors are covered with hydropumps. 
Look at the habitat of the very animals you seek protect that you would have to destroy in order to make your pipe dream a reality.


----------



## wihosa

Bern80 said:


> And what massive green areas are you planning on plowing over for the needed massive wind farms to make your dream even a remote possibilty?
> 
> It is truly amazing how void of perspective and detached from reality you are.  Do you think there isn't a person here who wouldn't get behind the world running of the energy you suggest?  Of course they wouldn't.  The big difference between people like you and Kirk and the rest of us is that the rest of us live in THE REAL FUCKING WORLD.
> 
> Show me evidence that the economies, industry, infrastructure of the world could run on only those energy sources you deem fit.
> 
> Show me some evidence that France, which is a fraction of our size, is haveing a nuclear waste crisis.
> 
> You're proposal would yield so much hypocrisy to your views that you would probably be caught with your pants pissed in a fetal ball.  What environment are we going to have left to enjoy, when all available open areas are covered in solar panels and wind turbines and corn (see FOOD) for ethanol.  What sea life will we have in the ocean when it's floors are covered with hydropumps.
> Look at the habitat of the very animals you seek protect that you would have to destroy in order to make your pipe dream a reality.



This is good, we're making progress, at least you admit it would be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.

Other than throwing out words like "industry,economy, infrastructure" why don't you demonstrate how it won't work.

My initial post explains exactly how it could work but I doubt if you even read it. You like most brainwashed righties just refuse to look at the ways it can work.

How many millions of square feet of roof space is there on all the buildings in this country? That's how many millions of square feet of PV panels we could have. How many rural land owners would love to put up wind generators  and make money off land which is econmically usless right now but gon't live close enough to electical transmission lines to get their electricity to market? 

There is no serious threat to wildlife from fossil fuel free energy, the only threat is to the oil companies gravy train.


----------



## Bern80

wihosa said:


> This is good, we're making progress, at least you admit it would be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.
> 
> Other than throwing out words like "industry,economy, infrastructure" why don't you demonstrate how it won't work
> 
> My initial post explains exactly how it could work but I doubt if you even read it. You like most brainwashed righties just refuse to look at the ways it can work.



No all you have said is that it'll work with no evidence to back it up.  Indsutry, infrastucture of and economy are pretty big parts of society.  Saying other than those major parts of our society is pretty silly and thus the question remains.



wihosa said:


> How many millions of square feet of roof space is there on all the buildings in this country? That's how many millions of square feet of PV panels we could have. How many rural land owners would love to put up wind generators  and make money off land which is econmically usless right now but gon't live close enough to electical transmission lines to get their electricity to market?
> 
> There is no serious threat to wildlife from fossil fuel free energy, the only threat is to the oil companies gravy train.



Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of a paragraph.  First you say people living in the contry with extra would love to use there unused land to put windmills up (LAND THAT ANIMALS LIVE ON DUMBASS).  You can't seriously rationalize this.  A square mile of land for a coal plant or a square mile of land for wind turbines is still a square mile of destroyed animal habitat.  Except for the fact that it would have to be 10 time bigger in windmills to equal the output of a coal plant.  

Lastly I grew up on 25 acres in northern Minnesota.  Less than an acre is used by our house.  I don't know a soul there that would rather have their land covered in wind turbines than be able to watch deer, ducks, beavers, bears, rabits etc. out their windows.  Are you some dumb city kid who claims to be all about the environment but doesn't know shit about it?


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> No all you have said is that it'll work with no evidence to back it up.  Indsutry, infrastucture of and economy are pretty big parts of society.  Saying other than those major parts of our society is pretty silly and thus the question remains.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of a paragraph.  First you say people living in the contry with extra would love to use there unused land to put windmills up (LAND THAT ANIMALS LIVE ON DUMBASS).  You can't seriously rationalize this.  A square mile of land for a coal plant or a square mile of land for wind turbines is still a square mile of destroyed animal habitat.  Except for the fact that it would have to be 10 time bigger in windmills to equal the output of a coal plant.
> 
> Lastly I grew up on 25 acres in northern Minnesota.  Less than an acre is used by our house.  I don't know a soul there that would rather have their land covered in wind turbines than be able to watch deer, ducks, beavers, bears, rabits etc. out their windows.  Are you some dumb city kid who claims to be all about the environment but doesn't know shit about it?



You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.



What on earth does you telling me how should get my energy have to do with me 'knowing shit'?  At least attempt to make sens dude. 

Those are all very serious questions.  How much land are willing to plow up for your wind turbines and solar panels?  100 acres for coal or 100 acres for wind turbines is still 100 acres of destroyed animals habitat.  So much very the environment you were hoping to save.


----------



## dilloduck

Kirk said:


> You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.



Cool--and we could all take sailboats to work !--


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> What on earth does you telling me how should get my energy have to do with me 'knowing shit'?  At least attempt to make sens dude.
> 
> Those are all very serious questions.  How much land are willing to plow up for your wind turbines and solar panels?  100 acres for coal or 100 acres for wind turbines is still 100 acres of destroyed animals habitat.  So much very the environment you were hoping to save.



T. Boone is locating his turbines on farms not National Parks. The farmers make money, the environment is cleaner, we use less foreign oil, everybody is better off. The enviroment complaint is just another BS argument. There are millions of acres of farmland in this country, and millions of farmers who will gladly make money from a windmill royalty.


----------



## Charles_Main

wihosa said:


> This is good, we're making progress, at least you admit it would be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.



I am all for stopping the use of Fossil fuels, just as soon as we have viable alternatives to it, and can do so with out ruining our economy, which today is based on Fossil fuels.


----------



## Chris

Charles_Main said:


> I am all for stopping the use of Fossil fuels, just as soon as we have viable alternatives to it, and can do so with out ruining our economy, which today is based on Fossil fuels.



The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> T. Boone is locating his turbines on farms not National Parks. The farmers make money, the environment is cleaner, we use less foreign oil, everybody is better off.



At least be honest.  Your problem isn't with foreign oil, it's with oil, period.



Kirk said:


> The enviroment complaint is just another BS argument.



No it's basic geometry.  It takes more space to create the same amount of power with wind than it does a coal fired power plant.  PResumabley we would need to at least meet current energy demands and so to get off fossil fuels as you propose we're going to need a hell of a lot of empty space.  Farmland alone ain't gonna cut, never mind one small detail....



Kirk said:


> There are millions of acres of farmland in this country, and millions of farmers who will gladly make money from a windmill royalty.



....WE GROW FOOD ON FARMLAND YOU DUMB SHIT.  Are we going to offshore that? Oh that's right, you're the big protectionist guy so that's out.  Where exactley will we be groiwing food now?


----------



## Charles_Main

Kirk said:


> The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.



Nice slogan, not true, but catchy. I suggest you actually visit McCain's web site. He supports alternative fuels Numb Nuts. 

He supports wind, solar, Bio Mass, Ethanol, battery, hydrogen fuel cells, and Nuclear power. All you have to do is read instead of just repeating the Democrat talking points.

he wants to fast track any alternative energy source that shows promise. You can either read what the man has to say, or keep repeating he same old tired lies.

up to you.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.




Dumbass statements like this that are so far removed from reality is why no one will ever take you seriously.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> Dumbass statements like this that are so far removed from reality is why no one will ever take you seriously.



Follow the money....

Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> At least be honest.  Your problem isn't with foreign oil, it's with oil, period.
> 
> 
> 
> No it's basic geometry.  It takes more space to create the same amount of power with wind than it does a coal fired power plant.  PResumabley we would need to at least meet current energy demands and so to get off fossil fuels as you propose we're going to need a hell of a lot of empty space.  Farmland alone ain't gonna cut, never mind one small detail....
> 
> 
> 
> ....WE GROW FOOD ON FARMLAND YOU DUMB SHIT.  Are we going to offshore that? Oh that's right, you're the big protectionist guy so that's out.  Where exactley will we be groiwing food now?



The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. How much open land do they have? 

No, all these excuses about not using wind power are just bullshit. T. Boone is already moving forward, and we should follow his lead. Losers like you are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. How much open land do they have?



I said be honest, you don't even have the ability to constructively address an argument.

They don't have nearly the people and thus don't have nearly the power needs.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

Follow if you can: 

1) You want to get rid of all fossil based fuels for energy so stop with the foreign oil bull shit and say what you mean.

2) Doing that will require an energy source that supplies the same amount of power as fossil fuels.

3)  FACT: nothing (except for nuclear which despite being clean is off the table I guess) yet comes close to the energy output per input achieved with fossil fuels, thus whatever energy source we choose is going to require far more space to provide the same amount of power. That is going to require land. More land than we currently use with today's power plants.   That land is occupied by wildlife, which suppossedly is what your whole speal is suppossed to be protecting.  So explain the paradox that is destroying more environment to save the environment.

The above is not even a little bit disputable. It's basic physics.

NEI Nuclear Notes: Nuclear vs. Wind, Part I

The above is to give you an idea of the space requirements to supply equivalent ouput with wind.  You will note that to replace the countries nuclear plants alone would require and area the size of Wisconsin in wind turbines.

Okay so where are we going to put 66,000 square miles of wind tubines?  And btw assuming you're for this also assumes that you don't really care about the wildlife habitat you would need to destroy to do it. 

Ah! farms you said, that's right.  I guess I missed all the farmers who are going to stop growing FOOD to cash in on wind.  




Kirk said:


> N0, all these excuses about not using wind power are just bullshit. T. Boone is already moving forward, and we should follow his lead. Losers like you are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.



I thought it was the left that was suppossed to have the open minds.  To believe there will be no negatives drawbacks, regardless of the option we choose is pretty naive.


----------



## chapstic

#1 nuclear is the way to go. #2 coal. #3 wind turbines.  gas turbines are a waste.


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> I mentioned 'gas' station and I mentioned natural 'gas'.
> 
> Please quote where I said anything close to 'free gas'.
> 
> Can't be too hard to do since you consider yourself so smart.


 Not very hard at all. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.


----------



## glockmail

chapstic said:


> #1 nuclear is the way to go. #2 coal. #3 wind turbines.  gas turbines are a waste.


 Gas turbines are incredibly efficient, quiet and clean burning, and since they combine the gas turbine, steam turbine, and thermal recovery into one compact system, a power plant can be installed in a small building footprint in a dense urban environment to deliver power right where its needed instead of thousands of miles away. GE Energy - Heavy Duty Gas Turbines & Combined Cycle


----------



## wihosa

Bern80 said:


> No all you have said is that it'll work with no evidence to back it up.  Indsutry, infrastucture of and economy are pretty big parts of society.  Saying other than those major parts of our society is pretty silly and thus the question remains.
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of a paragraph.  First you say people living in the contry with extra would love to use there unused land to put windmills up (LAND THAT ANIMALS LIVE ON DUMBASS).  You can't seriously rationalize this.  A square mile of land for a coal plant or a square mile of land for wind turbines is still a square mile of destroyed animal habitat.  Except for the fact that it would have to be 10 time bigger in windmills to equal the output of a coal plant.
> 
> Lastly I grew up on 25 acres in northern Minnesota.  Less than an acre is used by our house.  I don't know a soul there that would rather have their land covered in wind turbines than be able to watch deer, ducks, beavers, bears, rabits etc. out their windows.  Are you some dumb city kid who claims to be all about the environment but doesn't know shit about it?



"Dude"
This has got yo be the silliest objection yet.
Have you ever seen a windfarm? The actual footprint on the ground is negligable. Windmills typically have a single column varying in diameter from 6" to 18" depending on the size of the generator. They offer no more obstruction to wildlife than a tree. Animals are free to roam and the land is no more degraded that if a phone pole had been installed. Oh and by the way, don't forget they don't foul the air for the animals you are so suddenly worried about.

Ok, you're familiar with Minnesota, but as anyone familiar with the Great Plains will tell you, there are vast streches of land where there is insufficient water to grow crops and insufficient vegitation to ranch successfully, but the wind blows most every day. I'll bet people who own this land would be interested in investing in power generation, especially if the government invested in the transmission lines neccessary to get the electricity to market.

By the way I've been backpacking in the Sierra's since I was twelve, I'm very familiar with wildlife.


----------



## wihosa

glockmail said:


> Not very hard at all. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.



OK, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Now answer the question, where did I say anything about "free gas"?


----------



## Bern80

wihosa said:


> "Dude"
> This has got yo be the silliest objection yet.
> Have you ever seen a windfarm? The actual footprint on the ground is negligable. Windmills typically have a single column varying in diameter from 6" to 18" depending on the size of the generator. They offer no more obstruction to wildlife than a tree. Animals are free to roam and the land is no more degraded that if a phone pole had been installed. Oh and by the way, don't forget they don't foul the air for the animals you are so suddenly worried about.



I hope you meant feet(') and not inches(").  You aren't serioulsy suggesting that an area now covered in wind turbines would contain the same amount of wildlife as it would if they weren't there are you?  Are you seriosly suggesting a forest of wind turbines is the same to an animal as a forest of trees?



wihosa said:


> Ok, you're familiar with Minnesota, but as anyone familiar with the Great Plains will tell you, there are vast streches of land where there is insufficient water to grow crops and insufficient vegitation to ranch successfully, but the wind blows most every day. I'll bet people who own this land would be interested in investing in power generation, especially if the government invested in the transmission lines neccessary to get the electricity to market.



Haveing driven across 'vast stretches' of the great plains for several years says otherwise.  

All of your shit is based on assumptions, WILD assumptions.  Start taking some time to actually think your pipe dream out in terms of logistics before you go telling the rest of us how stupid we are because clearly you haven't put much thought into it.


----------



## wihosa

Bern80 said:


> I hope you meant feet(') and not inches(").  You aren't serioulsy suggesting that an area now covered in wind turbines would contain the same amount of wildlife as it would if they weren't there are you?  Are you seriosly suggesting a forest of wind turbines is the same to an animal as a forest of trees?
> 
> 
> 
> Haveing driven across 'vast stretches' of the great plains for several years says otherwise.
> 
> All of your shit is based on assumptions, WILD assumptions.  Start taking some time to actually think your pipe dream out in terms of logistics before you go telling the rest of us how stupid we are because clearly you haven't put much thought into it.




Look don't believe me, just type in windfarm at Wikipedia. There is a picture of a typical windfarm and yes wildlife becomes as accustomed to the sound of windmills as the sound of wind in the trees.

You are the one assuming. Science News reported a couple years back that the US could produce 100% of it's power needs with wind power alone. I've been paying close attention to this stuff for thirty years. You are the one making wild assumptions.


----------



## Bern80

wihosa said:


> You are the one assuming. Science News reported a couple years back that the US could produce 100% of it's power needs with wind power alone. I've been paying close attention to this stuff for thirty years. You are the one making wild assumptions.



Of course we could the question is how much land are we willing to plow under to do it?  How many eye sores should we put up for your grand scheme.  And if you don't think they are going to have significant impact on animal habitat, you are truly not see the the forest for the turbines.

Estimates indicate that it would take siginifcant land space (on the scale of whole states) to replace just the nuclear output of this country.  Is that seriously okay with you?  Aren't you suppossed to be the guys all for not touching the 'green spaces'?   How much more space would it take to replace all fossil fuel plants?


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> OK, natural gas is a fossil fuel.
> 
> Now answer the question, where did I say anything about "free gas"?




The title of your OP.


----------



## wihosa

Oh my goodness, you have got to be making a joke! You thought the title of this thread was intended to say that we would all be getting free fossil fuel in ten years?

Please tell me you're joking, that you're really not that dense!

Clearly to anyone who read the post, the intended meaning was that we, the US could be free of the need for fossil fuels in ten years.

I'm the screwball?


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> Oh my goodness, you have got to be making a joke! You thought the title of this thread was intended to say that we would all be getting free fossil fuel in ten years?
> 
> Please tell me you're joking, that you're really not that dense!
> 
> Clearly to anyone who read the post, the intended meaning was that we, the US could be free of the need for fossil fuels in ten years.
> 
> I'm the screwball?


All of the technologies that you cite are more expensive than fossil fuels. So in order for your utopia to come to fruition, youll have to subsidize it, which is exactly what youve proposed. That will drive down the demand for petroleum, hence drive down the price, so Ill essentially be getting free gas. So why would I buy a stupid electric car?


----------



## wihosa

glockmail said:


> All of the technologies that you cite are more expensive than fossil fuels. So in order for your utopia to come to fruition, youll have to subsidize it, which is exactly what youve proposed. That will drive down the demand for petroleum, hence drive down the price, so Ill essentially be getting free gas. So why would I buy a stupid electric car?



Nice house of cards resaoning.

Fossil fuel generation is more expensive than wind right now. It is true we will need investment in transmission lines, but once we have them we are free from having to buy oil or coal or whatever it is the multi national corps want to sell us.

What part of free energy don't you get?


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> Nice house of cards resaoning.
> 
> *Fossil fuel generation is more expensive than wind right now.* It is true we will need investment in transmission lines, but once we have them we are free from having to buy oil or coal or whatever it is the multi national corps want to sell us.
> 
> What part of free energy don't you get?



Prove it.


----------



## dilloduck

wihosa said:


> Nice house of cards resaoning.
> 
> Fossil fuel generation is more expensive than wind right now. It is true we will need investment in transmission lines, but once we have them we are free from having to buy oil or coal or whatever it is the multi national corps want to sell us.
> 
> What part of free energy don't you get?



free energy


----------



## wihosa

dilloduck said:


> free energy



Your point, er, besides the one on your head?


----------



## dilloduck

wihosa said:


> Your point, er, besides the one on your head?



Stop talking about my head like that---the pms are going to start coming in like I was Mani or something !


----------



## glockmail

dilloduck said:


> free energy



That's when you keep your foot on both the gas and the brake while tooling down the highway in your hybrid to charge up the batteries.   No shit I actually had a guy argue that once.


----------



## dilloduck

glockmail said:


> That's when you keep your foot on both the gas and the brake while tooling down the highway in your hybrid to charge up the batteries.   No shit I actually had a guy argue that once.



might check--could be the same dude !    Free energy


----------



## wihosa

glockmail said:


> That's when you keep your foot on both the gas and the brake while tooling down the highway in your hybrid to charge up the batteries.   No shit I actually had a guy argue that once.



There are in fact systems which capture the braking energy of the vehicle and convert it to electricity to re-charge the battery. The systems increase the range of the vehicle but they can't capture more energy than was originally expended and so the vehicle will still need to be plugged in.


----------



## chapstic

how are we all going to have our 10 bottles of water every day without oil?  guess where plastics come from?


----------



## wihosa

chapstic said:


> how are we all going to have our 10 bottles of water every day without oil?  guess where plastics come from?



Who said we weren't going to have oil?

We're just going to stop burning it for energy.

The fact that plastics as well as fertilizers and chemicals are made from oil is another important reason for moving away from fossil fuels, oil is too valuable a resource to burn it all up as fuel.


----------



## glockmail

wihosa said:


> There are in fact systems which capture the braking energy of the vehicle and convert it to electricity to re-charge the battery. The systems increase the range of the vehicle but they can't capture more energy than was originally expended and so the vehicle will still need to be plugged in.


Duh you read as poorly as you write.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.



Sure troll, that's the reason you keep ignoring the fact that Republicans have introduced legislation that would develop alternatives as well as drilling more.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> Sure troll, that's the reason you keep ignoring the fact that Republicans have introduced legislation that would develop alternatives as well as drilling more.



Yes, the Republicans are well known for promoting alternative energy legislation....

Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Yes, the Republicans are well known for promoting alternative energy legislation....
> 
> Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets



Braindead troll I have already showed you the piece of legislation they have proposed, that Pelosi is blocking....

Do you need to see it again?


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> Braindead troll I have already showed you the piece of legislation they have proposed, that Pelosi is blocking....
> 
> Do you need to see it again?



No, trolls are people who insult other people by calling them trolls.

Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil. That is why they are promoting drilling over conservation. Drilling makes money for their masters. Conservation costs their masters money. That is why when Bush was asked about conservation, he couldn't even bring himself to say the word.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> No, trolls are people who insult other people by calling them trolls.
> 
> Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil. That is why they are promoting drilling over conservation. Drilling makes money for their masters. Conservation costs their masters money. That is why when Bush was asked about conservation, he couldn't even bring himself to say the word.



No trolls are people who obviously ignore *facts* to insult basic thinking skills.  The facts are House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive, common sense energy plan that includes alternative energy and new drilling which Pelosi has blocked to "save her planet" and her special interests(environmentalist wackos).


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> No trolls are people who obviously ignore *facts* to insult basic thinking skills.  The facts are House Republicans have introduced a comprehensive, common sense energy plan that includes alternative energy and new drilling which Pelosi has blocked to "save her planet" and her special interests(environmentalist wackos).



Yes, everyone who if for alternative energy is an "enviromental wacko."


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Yes, everyone who if for alternative energy is an "enviromental wacko."



No everyone who blocks drilling that has, the safest track record in the world to the environment, is an environmental wacko. Drilling that would help reduce our dependacy on foreign oil. Drilling that would help reduce the over 700 billion dollars we send to hostile governments. Drilling that would bridge our transition to alternative energy sources.


----------



## Chris

jreeves said:


> No everyone who blocks drilling that has, the safest track record in the world to the environment, is an environmental wacko. Drilling that would help reduce our dependacy on foreign oil. Drilling that would help reduce the over 700 billion dollars we send to hostile governments. Drilling that would bridge our transition to alternative energy sources.



I'm all for drilling. 

But for the last eight years the Republicans have ignored energy conservation and alternative energy. A few years ago a reporter asked one of Bush's press secretarys about energy conservation. He MOCKED HIM. I never forgot that.

We waste an enormous amount of energy. We can solve this problem, but it won't be the Republicans, and their corporate masters that do it.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> *I'm all for drilling. *
> 
> But for the last eight years the Republicans have ignored energy conservation and alternative energy. A few years ago a reporter asked one of Bush's press secretarys about energy conservation. He MOCKED HIM. I never forgot that.
> 
> We waste an enormous amount of energy. We can solve this problem, but it won't be the Republicans, and their corporate masters that do it.



Lets not change the subject here Kirk, what is wrong with the comprehensive energy plan that House Republicans have proposed that Pelosi has blocked?


----------



## editec

> Okay so where are we going to put 66,000 square miles of wind tubines? And btw assuming you're for this also assumes that you don't really care about the wildlife habitat you would need to destroy to do it.


 
The USA lower 48 states have 3,000,000+ square miles of land.

Now I am NOT saying that wind turbines are the final solution, but suggesting that we don't have room enough for them is just nuts.


----------



## glockmail

editec said:


> The USA lower 48 states have 3,000,000+ square miles of land.
> 
> Now I am NOT saying that wind turbines are the final solution, but suggesting that we don't have room enough for them is just nuts.



How will that many wind turbines impact regional or global wind patterns?


----------



## Bern80

glockmail said:


> How will that many wind turbines impact regional or global wind patterns?



The available space is not so much my issue. It's the resulting hypoccrisy.  The exact same people that are telling us we must convert to wind and solar are the same people that say we must protect mother nature, protect the green spaces, etc.  The hypocrisy is that building the required wind turbines to meet demands AND get off fossil fuels would result in plowing under those very spaces.


----------



## glockmail

Bern80 said:


> The available space is not so much my issue. It's the resulting hypoccrisy.  The exact same people that are telling us we must convert to wind and solar are the same people that say we must protect mother nature, protect the green spaces, etc.  The hypocrisy is that building the required wind turbines to meet demands AND get off fossil fuels would result in plowing under those very spaces.


 Yeah that too, but no one's ever addressed what the impact of all those wind turbines would do to the wind. When you take energy out of the wind, then the wind downstream has less energy. What will that do to regional or global weather patterns?


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> The available space is not so much my issue. It's the resulting hypoccrisy.  The exact same people that are telling us we must convert to wind and solar are the same people that say we must protect mother nature, protect the green spaces, etc.  The hypocrisy is that building the required wind turbines to meet demands AND get off fossil fuels would result in plowing under those very spaces.



Why do you lie?

T. Boone is putting the wind turbines on farms in the West and the Midwest. Your level of deceit is amazing.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie?
> 
> T. Boone is putting the wind turbines on farms in the West and the Midwest. Your level of deceit is amazing.



You're one of those weirdos that doesn't really get the definition of the word 'lie', aren't you.

It would be a lie if you are contending that turbines would ONLY ever be put on farms.  Which isn't true, not to mention the lunacy of takeing up land used for food.


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk likes slogans... not the complete picture


----------



## glockmail

DiamondDave said:


> Kirk likes slogans... not the complete picture


He's blinded by partisan hate and can't see much, apparently.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> You're one of those weirdos that doesn't really get the definition of the word 'lie', aren't you?
> 
> It would be a lie if you are contending that turbines would ONLY ever be put on farms.  Which isn't true, not to mention the lunacy of takeing up land used for food.



Right...

There is plenty of open land in this country for wind farms. Every farmer in the Midwest could put one in, and it would not have any effect on the food supply.


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Right...
> 
> There is plenty of open land in this country for wind farms. Every farmer in the Midwest could put one in and it would not have any effect on the food supply.



1 per farm... stop the presses... hold the phones... stop the drilling... that amount solves EVERYTHING


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> 1 per farm... stop the presses... hold the phones... stop the drilling... that amount solves EVERYTHING



Pretty simple really. General Electric makes the turbines here in America, so it's good for the American economy.

PickensPlan[t.+boone+pickens]


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Pretty simple really. General Electric makes the turbines here in America, so it's good for the American economy.
> 
> PickensPlan[t.+boone+pickens]



Nice attempt at diversion, Kirk....

But

It does not make us fossil free in 10 years and it is not a total solution

NOBODY is saying that we should not research and get more into more sources... just that it is not viable to think we can get off oil in the near term or even completely in the 20-50 year term


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> Right...
> 
> There is plenty of open land in this country for wind farms. Every farmer in the Midwest could put one in, and it would not have any effect on the food supply.



So now it is your contention that farmers have extra land on top of what they use to farm to put up stands of turbines?  

At a certain point people cross a line in rationalizing something to the point that they start to look pretty stupid and you sir have crossed that line a long time ago.


----------



## jreeves

DiamondDave said:


> Nice attempt at diversion, Kirk....
> 
> But
> 
> It does not make us fossil free in 10 years and it is not a total solution
> 
> NOBODY is saying that we should not research and get more into more sources... just that it is not viable to think we can get off oil in the near term or even completely in the 20-50 year term



Kirk is funny as hell, he still has failed to point out what is wrong with the House Republican Energy plan? Still waiting Kirk....


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> Nice attempt at diversion, Kirk....
> 
> But
> 
> It does not make us fossil free in 10 years and it is not a total solution
> 
> NOBODY is saying that we should not research and get more into more sources... just that it is not viable to think we can get off oil in the near term or even completely in the 20-50 year term



Republicans are such pussies. Whaaa!!! Alternative energy is hard!!!

We have to start somewhere. T. Boone has the right idea, but he can't do it alone. We need a massive effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project. It can be done.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> So now it is your contention that farmers have extra land on top of what they use to farm to put up stands of turbines?
> 
> At a certain point people cross a line in rationalizing something to the point that they start to look pretty stupid and you sir have crossed that line a long time ago.



Do you read at all? T. Boone is putting up 667 turbines in Texas, and he is just scratching the surface.

There are millions of acres of land that can be used for wind power and solar power. All we need is the political will.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> Do you read at all? T. Boone is putting up 667 turbines in Texas, and he is just scratching the surface.
> 
> There are millions of acres of land that can be used for wind power and solar power. All we need is the political will.



Again missing the point,  why do you - a self professed environmentalist who is _suppossed_ to be for protecting habitat and saving the green places - WANT millions of acres of wind turbines covering the land?  

The point is Kirk, there is no win/win situation.  The trade off of going all solar and wind and getting totally off of fossil fuels is that a hell of a lot of land is going to be needed to do it.  This is a simple fact: habitat WILL need to be cleared to provide the same amount of power currently provided by fossil fuels, which WILL have an adverse effect on animal populations.  If you are all for that trade off, fine, just have the balls to admit it.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> Again missing the point,  why do you - a self professed environmentalist who is _suppossed_ to be for protecting habitat and saving the green places - WANT millions of acres of wind turbines covering the land?
> 
> The point is Kirk, there is no win/win situation.  The trade off of going all solar and wind and getting totally off of fossil fuels is that a hell of a lot of land is going to be needed to do it.  This is a simple fact: habitat WILL need to be cleared to provide the same amount of power currently provided by fossil fuels, which WILL have an adverse effect on animal populations.  If you are all for that trade off, fine, just have the balls to admit it.



Why do you lie? I never said I was an enviromentalist. I am for America first. I believe in drilling, wind power, solar power, algae based ethanol, and conservation.

No habitat will be lost. Have you ever been to the Midwest and the West. There are millions of acres of open land. Space will not be a problem.

You are offering the strangest argument against wind power I have ever seen. The Danes, who have a tiny percentage of the useable land that we do, already get 20% of their energy from wind power.


----------



## glockmail

Kirk said:


> Republicans are such pussies. Whaaa!!! Alternative energy is hard!!!
> 
> We have to start somewhere. T. Boone has the right idea, but he can't do it alone. We need a massive effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project. It can be done.



Democrats are pussies: Nuclear Power.


----------



## Chris

glockmail said:


> Democrats are pussies: Nuclear Power.



Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## glockmail

Kirk said:


> Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





> On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. ....President Carter's Executive Order .... [caused] three years of uncertainty about the future had wiped away further prospects for private investments in the nuclear fuel cycle. Today, twenty years later, all U.S. spent fuel remains in storage at each plant where it was used.


FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: policy on reprocessing

Again, a liberal reacts knee-jerk and causes major problems for future generations.


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> Republicans are such pussies. Whaaa!!! Alternative energy is hard!!!
> 
> We have to start somewhere. T. Boone has the right idea, but he can't do it alone. We need a massive effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project. It can be done.



And while the research is done we deal with the problem in the short term with drilling to become less dependent on foreign oil

Wind, Wave Energy, Geo-Thermal etc is not viable in the amount of energy we have to produce at the current time or in the near future... something YOU cannot get thru your head

Produce more on alternative energies that ARE viable now, INCLUDING NUKE... research technology MORE and gain the needed advances to make wind and other alternatives viable in the quantities that we need... research alternative motor fuels that are viable and do not require reducing the food supply... embrace synthetic lubricants, as many of us already do in things such as Mobil1 Synthetic as a motor oil.....

game, set, match


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> Why do you lie? I never said I was an enviromentalist. I am for America first. I believe in drilling, wind power, solar power, algae based ethanol, and conservation.
> 
> No habitat will be lost. Have you ever been to the Midwest and the West. There are millions of acres of open land. Space will not be a problem.



I live in the midwest.  I therefore have to assume you're an elitiest east or west coaster who really doesn't give two shits about what's in between.  I enjoy the midwest exactley because there is so much space, I enjoy it because there are huge chunks of uncut wilderness and I for one don't care to see it covered in windmills.  

You're no habitat will be lost argument is ridiculous unless you are unable to grasp the concept of time and space.  If you erect something where nothing accept plant and animal life once was you have taken up habitat, not a difficult concept.



Kirk said:


> You are offering the strangest argument against wind power I have ever seen. The Danes, who have a tiny percentage of the useable land that we do, already get 20% of their energy from wind power.



They don't have the people either and therefore don't need as much space to accomplish that.  Again, apples and oranges.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> I live in the midwest.  I therefore have to assume you're an elitiest east or west coaster who really doesn't give two shits about what's in between.  I enjoy the midwest exactley because there is so much space, I enjoy it because there are huge chunks of uncut wilderness and I for one don't care to see it covered in windmills.
> 
> You're no habitat will be lost argument is ridiculous unless you are unable to grasp the concept of time and space.  If you erect something where nothing accept plant and animal life once was you have taken up habitat, not a difficult concept.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the people either and therefore don't need as much space to accomplish that.  Again, apples and oranges.



T. Boone is already doing it. Let's give him some help.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> T. Boone is already doing it. Let's give him some help.



Help him by what?  Covering are open areas with wind turbines?  What a marvelous idea.

and You still haven't answered the question. Why would you want to plow over habitat, farmland, or just land for a bunch of monstroties that we would have to build vast quantities of to meet the same needs and are less reliabe?


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> Help him by what?  Covering are open areas with wind turbines?  What a marvelous idea.
> 
> and You still haven't answered the question. Why would you want to plow over habitat, farmland, or just land for a bunch of monstroties that we would have to build vast quantities of to meet the same needs and are less reliabe?



I think you are the enviromental wacko.

Wind turbines create clean AMERICAN energy. 

They are not "monstroties."


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> I think you are the enviromental wacko.
> 
> Wind turbines create clean AMERICAN energy.
> 
> They are not "monstroties."



That is a mater of opinion and again you refuse to ackknowledge the downside of your plan.

1) The amount of land it would require

and 

2) that it is less reliable and difficult to store efficientely.

No one is dening that it is clean.  It is a simple FACT.  Land needs to be used to build them and to meet our power needs an awful lot of them would need to be built which equate to an awful lot of land.  So again if you are okay with that type of inefficient land use, farmland use, habitat destruction, whatever, just say so.


----------



## editec

Bern80 said:


> That is a mater of opinion and again you refuse to ackknowledge the downside of your plan.
> 
> 1) The amount of land it would require


 
That is an absurd objection, I think. 

and 



> 2) that it is less reliable and difficult to store efficientely.


 
No. It is not less reliable. Of course it does not solve the entire problem, wind power is merely part of the overall solution. Combined with nuclear, and other sources it decreases the number of power plants needed overall.



> No one is dening that it is clean. It is a simple FACT. Land needs to be used to build them and to meet our power needs an awful lot of them would need to be built which equate to an awful lot of land. So again if you are okay with that type of inefficient land use, farmland use, habitat destruction, whatever, just say so.


 
Again with the _it will take too much land _objection?

The lower 48 states have over 3,000,000 square miles of land.

I think we can squeeze in at least one wind generator per square mile, don't you?  I could put five or six on them on my two acres and still farm that land, exactly as I do now.

At oen generator per square mile we would have over 3,000,000 wind generators, sport.

Each one would add some significant amount of energy to the grid.


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> Again with the _it will take too much land _objection?
> 
> The lower 48 states have over 3,000,000 square miles of land.
> 
> I think we can squeeze in at least one wind generator per square mile, don't you?  I could put five or six on them on my two acres and still farm that land, exactly as I do now.
> 
> At oen generator per square mile we would have over 3,000,000 wind generators, sport.
> 
> Each one would add some significant amount of energy to the grid.



I guess it's the outdoorsman, conservationist in me.  I just have absoluty no desire to see pristine vistas and habitat broken up by wind mills.


----------



## DiamondDave

editec said:


> That is an absurd objection, I think.
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> No. It is not less reliable. Of course it does not solve the entire problem, wind power is merely part of the overall solution. Combined with nuclear, and other sources it decreases the number of power plants needed overall.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the _it will take too much land _objection?
> 
> The lower 48 states have over 3,000,000 square miles of land.
> 
> I think we can squeeze in at least one wind generator per square mile, don't you?  I could put five or six on them on my two acres and still farm that land, exactly as I do now.
> 
> At oen generator per square mile we would have over 3,000,000 wind generators, sport.
> 
> Each one would add some significant amount of energy to the grid.



Uhhh... not all land is the proper area for efficient wind power... but nice try... we won't get anywhere close to 1 per square mile, it is simply not practical.... wind farms are the best use for wind power... and again, it is simply not viable as anything close to a complete solution and certainly not any way to get us off of ANY oil in the near term...

Am I against the creation of some new wind farms? Hell no... I would love to see some go in in remote areas where it is viable to do so... just as I would love to see new nuke plants constructed, just as I would love to see some solar farms, just as I would like to see additional hydro-electric dams put in where feasible.... as I would like to see increased American drilling while we research even more energy options to make them viable in the quantities we need....

As stated SO many times... we need to focus on all aspects.... alternatives for the long term and increased use of some existing alternatives AND increased drilling in the near term... and of course, encouragement of increased efficiency in energy technologies (not scolding people for leaving a light on or threatening them because they use a standard light bulb or having an energy gestapo there to bring you up on charges because you keep your thermostat at 73 for heat in the winter instead of 66)....


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> Uhhh... not all land is the proper area for efficient wind power... but nice try... we won't get anywhere close to 1 per square mile, it is simply not practical.... wind farms are the best use for wind power... and again, it is simply not viable as anything close to a complete solution and certainly not any way to get us off of ANY oil in the near term...
> 
> Am I against the creation of some new wind farms? Hell no... I would love to see some go in in remote areas where it is viable to do so... just as I would love to see new nuke plants constructed, just as I would love to see some solar farms, just as I would like to see additional hydro-electric dams put in where feasible.... as I would like to see increased American drilling while we research even more energy options to make them viable in the quantities we need....
> 
> As stated SO many times... we need to focus on all aspects.... alternatives for the long term and increased use of some existing alternatives AND increased drilling in the near term... and of course, encouragement of increased efficiency in energy technologies (not scolding people for leaving a light on or threatening them because they use a standard light bulb or having an energy gestapo there to bring you up on charges because you keep your thermostat at 73 for heat in the winter instead of 66)....



The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes smarter than us?

General Electric makes the turbines right here in America. Let's get to work and do what T. Boone says. The last three letters of American are "I can."


----------



## DiamondDave

Kirk said:


> The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes smarter than us?
> 
> General Electric makes the turbines right here in America. Let's get to work and do what T. Boone says. The last three letters of American are "I can."



Going off on another tangent...?

General Electric makes turbines... but it is not feasible for the amount of energy we need... our needs and our land are much different than the Danes...

but nice try


----------



## Chris

DiamondDave said:


> Going off on another tangent...?
> 
> General Electric makes turbines... but it is not feasible for the amount of energy we need... our needs and our land are much different than the Danes...
> 
> but nice try




It is not feasible? Bullshit. THE DANES HAVE ALREADY DONE IT, and T. Boone is doing it here. If we took the $700 billion dollars we wasted in Iraq, and spent it on wind power, solar power, and algae based ethanol, we would be well on our way to American energy independence.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> It is not feasible? Bullshit. THE DANES HAVE ALREADY DONE IT, and T. Boone is doing it here. If we took the $700 billion dollars we wasted in Iraq, and spent it on wind power, solar power, and algae based ethanol, we would be well on our way to American energy independence.



For the love of god would you stop comparing things that aren't comparable.  Is there no logic part of your brain at all that says maybe a country that is a 50th of our size and a fraction of the power needs might not be the best comparison in the world?


----------



## dilloduck

Bern80 said:


> For the love of god would you stop comparing things that aren't comparable.  Is there no logic part of your brain at all that says maybe a country that is a 50th of our size and a fraction of the power needs might not be the best comparison in the world?



No--science has proven him illogical.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> For the love of god would you stop comparing things that aren't comparable.  Is there no logic part of your brain at all that says maybe a country that is a 50th of our size and a fraction of the power needs might not be the best comparison in the world?



Is there no logic in your brain that says that the richest country in the world with the largest industrial production, and the greatest amount of usable land can't build enough wind turbines to help power America? 

Are you so dumb that you can't realize that the thing that is holding us back are the corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies? Are you really this clueless???


----------



## dilloduck

Kirk said:


> Is there no logic in your brain that says that the richest country in the world with the largest industrial production, and the greatest amount of usable land can't build enough wind turbines to help power America?
> 
> Are you so dumb that you can't realize that the thing that is holding us back are the corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies? Are you really this clueless???



Kirk--start building a big ass windmill in you're yard--free energy.


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> Is there no logic in your brain that says that the richest country in the world with the largest industrial production, and the greatest amount of usable land can't build enough wind turbines to help power America?
> 
> Are you so dumb that you can't realize that the thing that is holding us back are the corporate lobbyists for the coal and oil companies? Are you really this clueless???



It seems you also don't have the ability to directly answer a single criticism.  Your post was somehow trying to draw the analogy that if Denmark can do it, America can too, nevermind some major variable differences.  When called on it, instead of owning up to your BS, you change the subject.  

What we have the ability to do and what we should do are two different things.  Again I ask why do you want our countery side dotted with millions of eyesores?  For the sake of clean energy?  You STILL fail to address the negatives and logistics of such a major undertaking.  You have this dream that all we have to do is build a bunch of windmills, problem solved.  You fruitcakes are all talk.  But when it comes to figuring out how to actually DO something you're fucking clueless.


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> It seems you also don't have the ability to directly answer a single criticism.  Your post was somehow trying to draw the analogy that if Denmark can do it, America can too, nevermind some major variable differences.  When called on it, instead of owning up to your BS, you change the subject.
> 
> What we have the ability to do and what we should do are two different things.  Again I ask why do you want our countery side dotted with millions of eyesores?  For the sake of clean energy?  You STILL fail to address the negatives and logistics of such a major undertaking.  You have this dream that all we have to do is build a bunch of windmills, problem solved.  You fruitcakes are all talk.  But when it comes to figuring out how to actually DO something you're fucking clueless.



It is already being done by the Danes and T. Boone Pickens. 

Insulting me will not change that reality.


----------



## Chris

dilloduck said:


> Kirk--start building a big ass windmill in you're yard--free energy.



The $200 wind turbine. This is what I love about America.

The Green Toolman - DIY Expert of Green Solutions


----------



## Bern80

Kirk said:


> It is already being done by the Danes and T. Boone Pickens.
> 
> Insulting me will not change that reality.



Dudes you're not even listening are you.  Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over does not bolster or prove your point especially when the points you make are as poor as yours.  FOr the Nteenth time there is no logic in the notion that because it works for Denmark that it will work here. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL.  THAT DOES NOT WORK AS AN ARGUMENT.  How old are you?  Cause you have to be so young that you just don't get how to put an argument together or how to recognize it's holes. Your opinions are your opinions but for God's sake if you're gonna spend time around here learn how to be put together a logical, rationale argument.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> Republicans are such pussies. Whaaa!!! Alternative energy is hard!!!
> 
> We have to start somewhere. T. Boone has the right idea, but he can't do it alone. We need a massive effort along the lines of the Manhatten Project. It can be done.



Kirk is such a troll he still hasn't answered, *WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY PLAN?*


----------



## Chris

Bern80 said:


> Dudes you're not even listening are you.  Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over does not bolster or prove your point especially when the points you make are as poor as yours.  FOr the Nteenth time there is no logic in the notion that because it works for Denmark that it will work here. GET THIS THROUGH YOUR SKULL.  THAT DOES NOT WORK AS AN ARGUMENT.  How old are you?  Cause you have to be so young that you just don't get how to put an argument together or how to recognize it's holes. Your opinions are your opinions but for God's sake if you're gonna spend time around here learn how to be put together a logical, rationale argument.




Wind farm off Va. coast can be done, researchers say | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com


----------



## Chris

IBERDROLA RENEWABLES Announces Second Wind Farm in Brookings County - MarketWatch


----------



## Chris

China Power Investment to invest 2.8b yuan&#160;in wind power plant


----------



## Chris

Wind Inc. signs distribution deals for wind turbines - Dallas Business Journal:


----------



## Chris

Livingston Co. Wind Farm Plans Progress - Business - redOrbit


----------



## Chris

Foundation work underway on the Bear Mountain wind farm in British Columbia &ndash; Journal of Commerce


----------



## Chris

The Associated Press: Peru company to build $240 million wind farm


----------



## Chris

Romanian Windfarm Takes ?Europe?s Largest? Title Away From Scotland : TreeHugger


----------



## dilloduck

Are you resorting to spamming us now?


----------



## Chris

Maui wind farm wins award - Pacific Business News (Honolulu):


----------



## Chris

dilloduck said:


> Are you resorting to spamming us now?



Posting facts is not spamming.


----------



## Chris

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/nyregion/20windmill.htm


----------



## Chris

Gulf Wind Farm clears final legal hurdle - Houston Business Journal:


----------



## Chris

Huge wind farm gets green light | Herald Sun


----------



## Chris

Offshore wind farm near Norfolk approved | UK | Reuters


----------



## Chris

Opposition to wind farm appears to have blown over - Springfield, IL - The State Journal-Register


----------



## Chris

Delaware officials approve offshore wind farm - Forbes.com


----------



## Chris

How Wind Farms May Really Replace Coal Mining | Environment | AlterNet


----------



## sealybobo

wihosa said:


> Could it be done?
> ?



Not with the GOP in power it can't. 

We all know the GOP is in bed with the oil companies, right?  Just look at how the GOP fights for the oil companies.  They dont want to stop speculation or close loopholes.  They only want to give the oil companies more land.  So then it makes sense that the GOP is against alternative energy, just like the oil companies.  Why would they want alternatives to oil when they are in the business of selling oil?  

So if you are a consumer of oil, you should not vote GOP, because they dont want alternative energy.  They want you to be dependent on oil and pay $4 a gallon for gas, because thats good for the oil companies.  

Sure the Dems take money from the oil companies too, but they actually try to stop the gouging, close the loopholes, end excessive speculation and even impose a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. 

So basically the GOP killed the battery car.  

The EV1 was the first modern production electric vehicle from a major automaker and also the first purpose-built electric car produced by General Motors (GM) in the United States.

Introduced in 1996, The EV1 electric cars were available in California and Arizona as a lease only, as well as through a Southern Company employee lease program in Georgia, and could be serviced at designated Saturn retailers. They were discontinued after 1999 and subsequently removed from the roads in 2003 by General Motors (except for a few). The car's discontinuation was and remains a very controversial topic.



a lengthy waiting list.[4] In mid 2000, GM closed the EV1 plant.



In late 2003, GM officially canceled the EV1 program.[12][13] Despite waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees.

Instead of keeping the cars and allowing the currently built cars to be sold, the company elected to shred all of these cars after numerous promises to reuse them.


----------



## jreeves

Kirk said:


> How Wind Farms May Really Replace Coal Mining | Environment | AlterNet



Alternative energy is great, hence why Pelosi should stop blocking the comprehensive Gop plan in Congress which would provide a bridge to those alternatives.


----------



## I Missthe North

wihosa said:


> Could it be done?
> 
> Yes, and here's why.
> 
> First, the needed technologies exist right now. No need to wait for some time way out in the future when we can all line up to buy hydrogen from multi national corporations who have cornered the market on hydrogen.
> 
> Second, we are Americans. We have historically risen to the challange to inovate. We spanned a continent with railroads, built the Panama Canal, electrified rural America, built the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. The challange is not too great.
> 
> One immediate question is how will we run our cars? The answer is electric cars. Again the technologies exist right now. You say "but electric cars can only go 75 to 100 miles with out a re-charge". True, but answer this question; What is the range of an electric car, if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchane station? Answer;Unlimited.
> 
> Where will we get the needed electricity? Existing hydro generation, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Temporary use of natural gas (a relatively clean buring fossil fuel) during the transitional period will help bridge the gap.
> 
> Wind generation is a proven producer right now. Science News reported a couple years ago that virtually all the power needs of the US could be met with wind power alone. Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power and competitve with fossil fuels.
> 
> Solar panels (photovoltaic or PV  panels) could become ubiquitous with legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a portion of their useage, say 10%. This would immediately create a market for PV, competition and mass production would drive the price down to the point that it would make economic sense for indiviuals to install PV panels. Who wouldn't invest a few hundred dollars for PV if the payback period was just a couple years and thereafter the panels would actually make money. There would also have to be requirements for power providers to install two way metering upon request.
> 
> These are the basics. Just immagine what would happen to the price of oil if we announced to the world our intention to be fossil fuel free in ten years. And where would the terrorists get the money to carry on world wide jihad if their benefactors where suddenly without their sea of oil profits?



You are completely right, but until our government takes action to bring about this change, it will be a slow, slow process.  As of the right now, the oil companies are lining the pockets of our politicians and a large sector of economy relies on fossil fuels to survive (automobiles, oil companies, plastics companies, factories, energy providers, the highway system, etc.).  Unless drastic measures are taken in congress, I fear the process will be painfully slow.  Maybe once Bush and his oil cronies are out of office we will actually see something change.  I can dream can't I?


----------



## Skull Pilot

jreeves said:


> Alternative energy is great, hence why Pelosi should stop blocking the comprehensive Gop plan in Congress which would provide a bridge to those alternatives.



Pelosi is actively blocking everything but wind power because she recently invested 250K in wind.

Michelle Malkin  Nan and the Big Wind Boone-doggle

*Madame Speaker&#8217;s 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists &#8220;assets and &#8216;unearned income&#8217;&#8221; of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock.&#8221; Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens&#8211; former oilman-turned-wind power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos. *


----------



## Charles_Main

Skull Pilot said:


> Pelosi is actively blocking everything but wind power because she recently invested 250K in wind.
> 
> Michelle Malkin  Nan and the Big Wind Boone-doggle
> 
> *Madame Speakers 2007 financial disclosure form. Schedule III lists assets and unearned income of between $100,001-$250,000 from Clean Energy Fuels Corp. - Public Common Stock. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is a natural gas provider founded by T. Boone Pickens. Yep, that T. Boone Pickens former oilman-turned-wind power evangelist whose ads touting a national wind campaign are now as ubiquitous as Viagra promos. *



Figures.


----------

