# Sustainable engergy independence?



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

Does anyone have any real plans or ideas?


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 12, 2009)

Why would we want that? If it were possible would it be worth the financial and environmental costs?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

I certainly hope you're being facetious


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> I certainly hope you're being facetious



Not at all.

Oil, natural gas, and coal will be the dominant sources of U.S. energy consumption well into the 21st century.







Sustainable energy independence would require massive cuts in consumption, unprecidented drilling and development of hydrocarbon resources, and trillion dollar investments in technologies and processes that currently have no commercial merit. 

Why would we want that?


----------



## Setarcos (Oct 12, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Sustainable energy independence would require massive cuts in consumption



Not if you develop sources of energy to meet the need 


> unprecidented drilling and development of hydrocarbon resources,



Drilling for what?


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 12, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Sustainable energy independence would require massive cuts in consumption
> ...



Hydrocarbon resources. Is there an echo in here?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 12, 2009)

For the benefit of the nation, and our descentdents, the best plan would be the elimination of the burning of hydrocarbons over the next decade.


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 12, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> For the benefit of the nation, and our descentdents, the best plan would be the elimination of the burning of hydrocarbons over the next decade.



Couldn't we end world hunger and poverty while we're at it? I mean, as long as we're on a roll here.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 12, 2009)

*While this article quotes a 65% target for Qdot technology, our local firm that will produce the Qdots states a more modest 40% for initial solar cells. These would be produced by an ink jet printing process and the active ingrediant would cost about $10 a square meter. A roof on a small house, properly oreinted, say a 1200 square foot home, could produce as much as 300 Kw a day. Since a normal home uses about 24 Kw a day, that would put a couple of hundred Kw per day, at the very time of most use of electricity.*



Nanocrystal solar cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While previous methods of quantum dot creation relied on expensive molecular beam epitaxy processes, fabrication using colloidal synthesis allows for a more cost-effective manufacture. A thin film of nanocrystals is obtained by a process known as &#8220;spin-coating&#8221;. This involves placing an amount of the quantum dot solution onto a flat substrate, which is then rotated very quickly. The solution spreads out uniformly, and the substrate is spun until the required thickness is achieved.

Quantum dot based photovoltaic cells based around dye-sensitised colloidal TiO2 films were investigated in 1991[1] and were found to exhibit promising efficiency of converting incident light energy to electrical energy, and were found to be incredibly encouraging due to the low cost of materials in the search for more commercially viable/affordable renewable energy sources. A single-nanocrystal (channel) architecture in which an array of single particles between the electrodes, each separated by ~1 exciton diffusion length, was proposed to improve the device efficiency (figure below) [2]and research on this type of solar cell is being conducted by groups at Stanford, Berkeley and the University of Tokyo.

Although research is still in its infancy and is ongoing, in the future quantum dot based photovoltaics may offer advantages such as mechanical flexibility (quantum dot-polymer composite photovoltaics [3]) as well as low cost, clean power generation [4] and an efficiency of 65%.[5].


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 12, 2009)

If that technology comes to fruition it would be absolutely groundbreaking. Here's hoping.


----------



## Mister T (Oct 13, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Drilling for non-sustainable resources = sustainable energy how?


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 13, 2009)

Mister T said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Setarcos said:
> ...



My point is we're never going to have sustainable energy independence without a lot of different sources in the mix- including *gasp* non-sustainable fuels like oil, gas, coal. 

Take a look at the graph above. It's a pie-in-the-sky idea. 

Hydrocarbons are the original bio-fuel. Why are they relegated to non-status? 

That's the "real plan" for energy independence.


----------



## Mister T (Oct 13, 2009)

hydrocarbons and nuclear are merely bridge technologies- they're quick fixes, not lasting solutions


----------



## JD_2B (Oct 13, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Does anyone have any real plans or ideas?




*I plan on installing a rain cystine..* Here is what it is:

It is basically a 'round the perimeter of the house gutter system that catches rain, and then pipes it to a barrel. From the barrel, the water can then be pumped to the yard's sprinkler system, or even the toilets, as a way of "Reusing" water. You can get a considerable amount of extra water by using a rain cystine. 


*I also intend to get a wind turbine the next time I own a house. * Will explain this briefly to anyone who doesn't know much about turbines..

The wind spins the fins (situated on a pole), and the fins turn the generator, which then creates power that can be routed into your home. 

*Copper coil*

 I have considered doing the underground copper coil, if I ever decided to live in an area that was further from the ocean, where a copper coil could actually be buried. All that happens is a large copper coil is buried underground, and energy from the Earth is transferred through the coil and into your home. 

I think that if people just found ways of making long term investments (well a copper coil is not very long term, and neither is a rain cystine, but anyways) just making investments into creating their own energy, that is natural and sustainable- then we will eventually live in a world that does not emit nearly as much Carbon Dioxide as we do now, and will most likely have a way of life that is not in danger of going broke or anything, or out of gas, etc..  Sometimes even the simplest changes can make a HUGE difference, I think..

Setarcos- I didn't know you were an eco freak like me, lol!!  =)  I am glad to see we at least have something in common..


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Oct 13, 2009)

Energy independence is dumb and will solve nothing.

Apparently we want to stop giving money to people who hate us. But if Saudi Arabia were suddenly cut off from oil money for example, their pro-US government would collapse. Fundamentalists would take over. 

Some liberals (not all) would have us believe that terrorism is fueled by poverty, but then they want to impoverish oil-rich countries by not buying their products. What? Sort of like how conservatives think they hate us for our freedom and democracy...and then want to solve the problem by shoving freedom and democracy up their asses. Wait, what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 16, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have any real plans or ideas?
> ...



If you are handy with tools, a 1 kw windmill can be built for less than $200. 

Underground heat exchange systems are a proven technology. 

For all too many areas now, anything that can be done to use non-municipal water for such things as lawn, car washing, and gardens represents a real plus.


----------



## SmellyLemmings (Oct 18, 2009)

well...there are some ideas floating out there. not all of them are good though. i hear a lot of people are against nuclear energy and instead want to propose a safer alternative. sad thing is, nuclear energy is much more cost effective than any ideas floating out there.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 20, 2009)

sustainable energy, these are proven sustainable enegy sources

Nuclear
Oil
Coal
Natural gas


----------



## auditor0007 (Oct 20, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> sustainable energy, these are proven sustainable enegy sources
> 
> Nuclear
> Oil
> ...



I must not understand the definition of sustainability.


----------



## rdean (Oct 20, 2009)

BaronVonBigmeat said:


> Energy independence is dumb and will solve nothing.
> 
> Apparently we want to stop giving money to people who hate us. But if Saudi Arabia were suddenly cut off from oil money for example, their pro-US government would collapse. Fundamentalists would take over.
> 
> Some liberals (not all) would have us believe that terrorism is fueled by poverty, but then they want to impoverish oil-rich countries by not buying their products. What? Sort of like how conservatives think they hate us for our freedom and democracy...and then want to solve the problem by shoving freedom and democracy up their asses. Wait, what?



If we could stop buying their oil and "fundamentalists" took over, so what?  Who cares?  
If fundamentalist take over, they will have a hard enough time fighting their own people.   Look at Iran.  We wouldn't need to bother with them and they would certainly leave us alone.

The US has a lot of irons in the fire right now.  Miniture nuclear plants.  Wind. Solar. 
There is estimated to be 5 times the entire reserves of Saudi Arabia in the Rockies and Montana.  Only, it's in shale and not in discrete pools.  Seperating hydrogen and O2 from water.

Things just have to pan out.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 20, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope you're being facetious
> ...


America has enough known coal reserves to produce electricity for centuries.....If that's not "sustainable" what would be?


----------



## Ringel05 (Oct 20, 2009)

I still firmly believe if we install wind turbines in the halls and chambers of congress and heat traps on the roofs we will have all the sustainable energy needed for decades to come.
Install them in and on the UN building and supply energy for a millenium.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 20, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > sustainable energy, these are proven sustainable enegy sources
> ...



You must not understand a whole lot about energy. Name one form of energy that will not use one of the the above four for the production of said energy. 

Either way you understand sustainability and each of these four energies are proven sustainable into the future for thousands of years, stuff like windmills and solar panels need be replaced much more ofter than other type of power plant. Its the ignorant that believe in the sustainability of wind and solar, the ignorant never consider the tremendous amount of energy it takes to create the materials to build solar panels or windmills. its the ignorant who know nothing of how very limiting these Green energies are.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 20, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



Boy, talk about ignorance. Even though we have just stated to tap the potential of wind on the Columbia River, for one hour on a windy day last month, the mills on the Colombia produced enough power for both Seattle and Portland. That means that all the things that we normally produce using power from other sources was now being powered by the mills, clean energy. That includes the plants producing solar panels. 

Clean power producing clean power.


When the Internal Combustion engines were first being put into use, horse drawn wagons often delivered parts for them. Does that mean that we would always be dependent on horses? 

For that is the flawed logic you are using. And most solar panels are gaurenteed for 20 years, and many that were produced longer ago than that are still in use. Windmills are good for about 20 years. Then you replace the turbine, take the old one and rebuild it. The post and foundation are still there. So much of the original investment will not have to be repeated. 

Nuclear plants, coal plants, natural gas plants all have similiar times to either rebuilding or replacement.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Oct 20, 2009)

Setarcos said:


> Does anyone have any real plans or ideas?



Why don't we just drill our own oil in this country.  There's plenty.  Like Palin says, "Drill, Baby, Drill!"  Tell all of those jerks in the Middle East they can keep their oil.  We'll be using ours.  They can keep their oil and we can keep our money.  Seems fair to me.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Your a lousy liar, I saw the posts where another user ripped you apart for posting lies. Care to go down that route. Enough power for Seattle and Portland, pure lie, and considering you posted lies in the past, your lie here is just another lie. I will dig that post up if you care. 

Energy that is sustainable, ha, windmills in the Cabazon pass on average produce power 20% of any day, so in one twenty four hour period wind is not sustainable. 

Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable. 

Old Crock, call me ignorant again and I guarantee I will dig up the post where Krotchdog pointed out you are nothing more than a liar, I will then post that post that proves you knowingly lied everywhere I see you post. So go ahead, show your ignorance.

Clean power producing clean power yet no mention of the materials needed and the pollution, this has been pointed out to you old crock so why lie, why lie repeatedly. 

What was you did, you posted a fabricated data while you knew the data was fabricated because old crock thought all the users here are too stupid to figure out Old Crock is knowingly using false data.

This is why Liberal/Marxist will be defeated, sure some Liberals are actually intelligent but they all stick together, even when one is caught knowingly posting lies.

its sick that we have an entire political movement called environuts and liberals that are more than happy posting lies.

Enough power for portland and seattle is a pure lie. Even if you provide a source its still a lie, even if you show the experiement its a lie.

First off the windmills would have to be hooked up to a load, without a load all that tremendous power will have nowhere to go, without anywhere to go it literally will bounce back into the windmills and fry the generators. So where do you get a load as big as two cities when there exsits no such "dummy load". 

Idiot


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.


Lest we forget to mention the immense "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing and installing just one of those monstrosities.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Idiot, yourself. You said a lot of things, without a single referance to back them up.

Yappers and trolls like you infest this board, but fail to give any referances for their BS.

PGE, and other utilities have dropped their membership in the US Chamber of Commerce for that groups continueing opposition to clean energy and denial of the facts of climate change.

As for you other idiocy, it is irrelevant what you think. Here in Oregon we have more wind turbines going in every day, we have several plants that will be producing hundreds of megawatts of solar panels every year by the end of next year. And Geothermal is on it's way as soon as we have a grid that reachs into the geothermal basins in our state.

These represent investments being made by companies that have a proven track record.While you are scoffing, they are making money providing needed power without polluting our land and atmosphere.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Setarcos said:
> 
> 
> > I certainly hope you're being facetious
> ...






But it doesn't HAVE to be.....We CAN and eventually will NEED to get off fossil fuels. Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, Wind , and geo-thermal will ALL be parts of energy independence.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.
> ...



Ah yes, the terrible footprint of installing megawatts of solar on warehouse roofs. Compared to destroying sections of land to mine coal. Compared to spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere with a coal burning plant. 

Dooodeee, you are as much of an imbecile as ever.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr. H. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > For the benefit of the nation, and our descentdents, the best plan would be the elimination of the burning of hydrocarbons over the next decade.
> ...







Sure we could......Support commercial hemp. It is a MIRACLE crop and has virtually NONE of the intoxicating effects of marajuana.


WAKE UP!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - - OregonLive.com

Best of Business, Environment » 
BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Robbie DiMesio, The Oregonian 
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour. 

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour. 

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008. 

BPA operates three quarters of the region's transmission system and is responsible for balancing the region's energy supply and demand to keep the grid operating smoothly. As more of that energy comes from intermittent sources like wind, the agency has been forced to adapt its hydro system and build new transmission capability to keep pace. 

Six of the 22 wind farms on its system came on line this year, and the agency expects wind power to triple in the next five years.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...


Yeah...."As compared to" _*in your opinion*_.

The fact is that your "alternatives" aren't....Aside from that, I was talking about those stupid windmills not photovoltaic solar, idiot.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

*Jobs, clean energy, and profits. It doesn't get any better.*

Solar Cells Info

German Company Creates 1,000 New Jobs in Oregon

HILLSBORO, Oregon., Oct 17, 2008
Source: SolarWorld AG press release /DGAP
Welcome

SolarWorld AG is opening the largest solar cell production facility in the USA today. In Hillsboro, Oregon, the German company is investing 500 million US dollars in highly advanced technology. In an integrated manufacturing process wafer-thin silicon discs, the so-called solar wafers, as well as solar cells will be produced with an initial capacity of 100 Megawatt (MW) annually. At their final destination &#8211; on the roof or in a larger power plant &#8211; this equates to the electricity requirements of 100,000 people. The company announced that the capacity will be expanded to 500 Megawatt in the next three years. (more&#8230


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Big fat hairy deal.

Point out the metals smelting and fabrication plant that works on wind and/or solar.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Stupid as in Dooodeee......  Well, those stupid mills are making a profit for the fabricators, the installers, the utilities, the farmers that own the land, and providing power for we consumers.

Rather than destroying land, and polluting the water, as does coal mining by the square mile, the mills set in the middle of producing wheat fields. 

And when they are producing power, they are not creating greenhouse gases, and poisening our children with mercury and lead as do the coal burning plants.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



LOL. These folks are still back in the days of "Reefer Madness". Yes, the outlawing of hemp is a prime example of the idiocy of the Conservative mindset.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Big fat hairy deal.
> 
> Point out the metals smelting and fabrication plant that works on wind and/or solar.



Since the alternative energies are startup industries, the amount of power they are contributing is still a small fractional amount of the total power needed. However, since the power from the mills, geothermal, and solar is put on the same grid as the other power, it is fair to say that all of the above plants work on the power that they create. One might also note that in Oregon and Washington state, the majority of our power is non-polluting. For most of our power is generated by the dams on the mighty Columbia.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. *After the initial cost is done* it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind *though it would require some maitinance* it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.


Problem being that the break-even point, viz. installation and maintenance costs, cannot be reached in a decent time frame. Otherwise, entrepreneurs who smelled a fatter bottom line or a more competitive price structure already would have made the conversion on their own. Moreover, there'd be no need for massive subsidies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.



This bunch of trolls basically are echo boxes for the Rushpublican Talking Points. They have no knowledge of the real world, and I do believe that some of them only get out of their mothers basements when the need to make a trip to the local Seven-Eleven for another case of beer


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Big fat hairy deal.
> ...


If you had to build the Grand Coolee today, environmentalist whacko moonbats like you would shit yourselves over some minnow or mosquito.

Best quit while you're behind, you old foo.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.
> ...



And blathereing whacko idiots like you have no fucking idea how real world business accounting and cost-benefit analyses work.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.



Energy Futures &#8211; A quick guide to alternative energy | Paths to Global Markets

*There is a pretty good breakdown of costs at this site. One thing to remember, centralized power, nukes, coal plants, also mean centralized profits. Wind, solar, and geo-thermal are not centralized, so the profits get spread around in the general population. Much preferable to have many people having a good addition to their incomes, than just a few very wealthy people getting even more wealthy. 

Their take on solar is out of date, as the cost of solar has taken an order of magnititude drop in price, and will shortly take an even steeper drop. Also, since we have hundreds of square miles of commercial rooftops that can be used, and are already on the grid, that reduces the cost of bringing that source on grid.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> > Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. *After the initial cost is done* it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind *though it would require some maitinance* it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.
> ...



Really? Then why the hell have we been giving the coal and oil companies massive subsidies for generations?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



If we were to build the Grand Coolee today, we would put a very good fish ladder on it. There used to be a run of Kings that went all the way to Montana to spawn that was destroyed by the failure to put a fish ladder at the Grand Coolee dam. Many of them weighed in at 90 lbs+.

Environmentalist whacko moonbats.  Braindead Rsuhpublican wingnuts. Very easy to reduce the arguement to that level. 

By the way, come to Oregon and refer to our salmon as some irrelevant minnow. Do so in the presence of some of our more enthusiastic conservative outdoorsmen and women. The result will make a very interesting video.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Cold Fusion38 said:
> ...



We have 22 wind farms built or in the process of coming on line in Oregon. These are being built by businesses for profit. And they are turning enough profit that it is hard for the state to keep up with the permitting process. If we could get a large capicity grid from Klamath Falls east to the Idaho border, there would ten times that many just on that grid.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

So what?...None of those could've been built without massive subsidies and without the burning of huge amounts of coal, oil or natural gas in the manufacturing and installation processes.

Like I said, you have NFI about business accounting or cost/benefit analyses.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2009)

Dude said:


> So what?...None of those could've been built without massive subsidies and without the burning of huge amounts of coal, oil or natural gas in the manufacturing and installation processes.
> 
> Like I said, you have NFI about business accounting or cost/benefit analyses.



LOL. Exactly the same arguements were used against building the dams on the Columbia River during Roosevelts administration. No one argued those benefits when we were smelting aluminum for the B-17's a short time later.


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 21, 2009)

*sustainable:*... of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.

This is management of resources. It includes natural resources such as hydrocarbons. 
Any plan must include coal, oil, and natural gas.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Crock, I checked your link to the story and in the story there is no information indicating your lie is true, there is nothing in the story, did you not think I would look. You are a fool. 

Old Crock, why did you post false information in Climate Change, I just spent the last hour looking at all the threads once again and its right there, you knowingly posted a false story that was proven false that Old Crock knew was false, why does Old Crock lie?

Old Crock, you cannot even debate your idiotic assertions, you simply post a link to someone a little bit more intelligent than Old Crock and Old Crock beleives that to be reason and debate. 

So according to Old Crock the wind farms installed capacity can already meet Washington states entire electrical needs yet there are 26 more wind farms planned, how can that be, you already have more than enough capacity so more wind farms are going to be installed? That makes no sense.

Sure corporations will install more wind farms, its the law, they are simply following law passed by politicians that are as smart as Old Crock, Old Crock who lies in posts, remember the false data Old Crock has knowingly posted.

Further, Old Crock states they will do this simply for profit yet Old Crock does not tell us that this profit is in the form of taking more taxes from all the people of the United States and giving the money to huge corporations, this is the profit Old Crock is talking about, taking taxes to give to corporations. The other little detail Old Crock hides is that the states and federal government will tax Oil, Gas, Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear power to make this electrical power so expensive so that tax subsidized wind farms will be perceived to have value and be competive in price. 

Yes, Old Crock will happily have all our electrical bills go up 1000% 

Old Crock, your link that shows the wind farms capacity is a link to a lie, there was no information in the story at all to even give an indication that the energy claimed was produced. 

The story only showed that if it was true no more wind farms would be needed.

So tell us about the Hansen lie you posted in Climate Change.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > So what?...None of those could've been built without massive subsidies and without the burning of huge amounts of coal, oil or natural gas in the manufacturing and installation processes.
> ...


Thanks for confirming that you have NFI.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...






I hope we do get one here in Klameth Falls. Their is a landowner trying to fight it because it will destroy her view.....HER VIEW I couldn't really give a shit LESS about HER VIEW. We need to bring these wind farms on-line ASAP......Oh and by the way I hated the Kennedy's for the EXACT SAME reason because they did not want them off the coast of their land. I for one think they look beautiful.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 21, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...




The second sentence is quite ironic when places after the first


> Either way you understand sustainability and each of these four energies are proven sustainable into the future for thousands of years, stuff like windmills and solar panels need be replaced much more ofter than other type of power plant.



We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?

source?


> Its the ignorant that believe in the sustainability of wind and solar,


The sun's going to stop?

if it does, we have bigger problems that eletricity


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

Now I don't like Gov't mandates but if every house in high intensity areas with a lot sun because they would provide power when it is MOST needed(when people use the most power to cool their houses. Just think of how much it would save during PEAK hours. California would no longer face rolling brown and black outs.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

If we could get to the moon and get Hydrogen3 we could produce nuclear power with almost NONE of the nuke waste.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 21, 2009)

A long way away I will be the first to admit but just think about the possibilities.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 22, 2009)

> We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?
> 
> source?


Where is your source? The source for oil is the ground.



> The sun's going to stop?
> 
> if it does, we have bigger problems that eletricity


Yep, the sun is going to stop, every night the sun stops, not to mention rainy days.

Either way solar or windmills must be manufactored with fossil fuels.

Wind blows about 10% of the time in the areas wind farms are located.

Solar in the best location receives sun 10% -20% of the year. 

Not very sustainable.

Oregon is receiving grants for wind farms, that is a direct subsidy, not to mention massive tax breaks. 

No matter, you need OIL for solar and wind, without oil you cannot make a windmill nor a solar panel. 

Wind and Solar power besides being extremely expensive and ultra low power depend on oil. Run out of oil than you aint got wind or solar.

Why do the idiots simply post what they think without researching what they are told to think. 

Fools.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> > We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?
> >
> > source?
> 
> ...



Proposed renewable-energy bill is better than nothing | Grist

*Note what happens to the cost of coal in a "clean coal" plant. And that cost will only go up, whereas the costs of the alternatives continue downward, expecially wind and solar.*


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 22, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?
> ...




Your links are useless, my post stands as fact. Seriously, dont you get it, you are taking money out of my pocket, my tax money, my children's money, for lousy, weak, expensive energy.

Who are you to take my money, there is nothing proposed or made that is sustainable, everything is going to run out, if you continue to post links that you think dispute this fact than you must be nothing more than a political hack.

Tell me, are you a Marxist. Seriously, what is your purpose, I have told you the facts and not one person is able to dispute my fact, so given fact, whats your drive, marxism.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 23, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> > We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?
> >
> > source?
> 
> ...




So you don't have a source to back your claims.


Noted.



> The sun's going to stop?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 23, 2009)

xÞx;1644209 said:
			
		

> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > > We have fossil fuel resources that'll last thousands of years?
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 23, 2009)

Our use of fossil fuel has not been linear, it has been an ever steepening curve. And that use is changing the atmosphere and oceans in ways that are unfavorable to the planets ability to sustain the existance of large numbers of human beings.

The use of alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 23, 2009)

Hear we go.......We use EVERYTHING at our disposal.....Including drilling but ONLY if the oil co's increase in refining. Nuclear power(NOTHING LIKE TMI) and they produce HYDROGEN as a by-product. Coal liqifaction fuel for our cars. SOLAR which could ALSO give us plug in electric cars w/o stressing our infrastruction. Wind which once put into serious production could produce massive amounts of power. Once the infrasruction is in place it would be virtually free. Mandate(I know it is a bad word)that all new houses built in areas with a certain amount of high heat days must have Solar cells. Not only would it provide a great deal of energy but that energy would be produced during PEAK demand. No more rolling BROWN and BLACK outs it would even put more energy into the grid to reduce the cost of power produced by coal and natural gas. Tidal energy which I don't see much about. Geo thermal which could keep houses without huge heaters and air conditioners. Hydro poailable wer CLEAN and available. Why do we fight over WHAT power to use as we should band together for ALL of the available sourses of not only energy production but freedom from countries that can impact our independance from people who wish us harm?


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

The one best option is going to be a bit more difficult. We need to get back to the moon and bring back enough Helium3 to power nuclear plants. Although lunar sources would be at least three decades away it IS a power source that would be worth pursuing.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

But as I have said we need to exploit ALL of the options available to us.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Our use of fossil fuel has not been linear, it has been an ever steepening curve. And that use is changing the atmosphere and oceans in ways that are unfavorable to the planets ability to sustain the existance of large numbers of human beings.
> 
> The use of alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.





What is FAR worse is the fact that China and India are using FAR more fossil fuels than ever before. So even if we GREATly curtailed our use it would have little effect on world wide use.


----------



## Cold Fusion38 (Oct 24, 2009)

Yeah the Sun IS on the other side of Earth for half the day it's that the Sun revolves AROUND the Earth that causes all the problems.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 25, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Our use of fossil fuel has not been linear, it has been an ever steepening curve. And that use is changing the atmosphere and oceans in ways that are unfavorable to the planets ability to sustain the existance of large numbers of human beings.
> 
> The use of alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere.



Your nothing but a liar that does not know what your talking about. Hell you got busted posting lies, remember Hansen, Hansen used false data and got caught by co-workers, Hansen admitted what he did, Old Crock posted Hansens lie months after Hansen admitted what he did, Old Crock had the explanation ready and posted the explantion minutes after Krotchdog busted Old Crock, I found this out simply by searching Old Crocks posts. 

I even busted you posting a lie about a windmill farms electrical output and Old Crock could not post anything in response. 

It is nothing more than a lie, Old Crock is a Liberal/Marxist who believes its okay to lie, look how Old Crock will call others very nasty things, thats not rational. 

Old Crock is political hack here simply make sure not one conservative who knows the truth is not demonized. Old Crock has demonstrated this over, and over, and over.

This is Old Crocks politcal job, maybe on his own, maybe for tje Liberal/Marxist party, over the internet we will never know for sure but its naive to think otherwise.

Either way the Liberal/Marxist is searching the internet and will never ever let a conservative go unanswered. 

When confronted with indisputable fact the Liberal/Marxist will just ignore the thread with facts and open 50 more threads to bury the facts.

You think its an accident so many new threads are opened with the same topic or premise.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 26, 2009)

> alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs



Typical problem gasses include SO2 caused by high-sulfur fuel and batch material, HF when fluorine is used as a fluxing agent, boric acid when boric oxide is present in the batch, and formaldehyde caused by the heating of resins in wool glass in the forming and curing process.

Alternative energy, specirfically windmills are more polluting than burning oil. What Old Crock lies about is the production of fiberglass. How can Old Crock ignore the fact that over 250 tons of fiberglass is used in a single windmill. 

Explain how the production of fiberglass is sustainable and non-polluting.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> The sun stops shining every night and on cloudy days



No it doesn't.


----------



## Oddball (Oct 26, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> > alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He also fails to recognize that there isn't a metals smelter and processing plant anywhere in the world that isn't fired by coal, oil or gas. Also, coke (coal) is an essential ingredient in making the steel that the windmill towers are made of.....Oh, the carbon footprint!

After economics, enviro-wackaloons are terrible at elementary math.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 26, 2009)

xÞx;1651516 said:
			
		

> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > The sun stops shining every night and on cloudy days
> ...



Tell that to the solar panels in the california desert, at best six hours of effective solar radiation a day. Throw in the cloudy days of winter and as far as the solar panels are concerned the sun has quit shining.

I am hardly surprised that those who support solar energy are unaware of the limits of this power source. If solar was useful we would not need wind power, if wind power was good we would not need solar, if oil companies were not making a huge profit selling energy and the basic materials needed to produce these forms of power you would here the excutives of oil companies explaining how limited Green energy is. 

Oil companies are expanding to supply the manufacturers of fiberglass and solar panels. 
Curiously quiet they are do you not think.


----------



## xÞx (Oct 26, 2009)

If you can't tell shade from a star suddenly 'turning off', you're too stupid to waste any more time with.


----------



## mdn2000 (Oct 26, 2009)

xÞx;1651579 said:
			
		

> If you can't tell shade from a star suddenly 'turning off', you're too stupid to waste any more time with.



Yes, your posts were so incredibly rich with information I simply had to resort to stupidity. 

After all one does not debate with a fool in the same manner as one debates a scholar.


----------



## mdn2000 (Nov 10, 2009)

mdn2000 said:


> > alternatives will not make up for our proflagate use of energy, but it will not contribute to the increase of GHGs
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see the twins chrissy and old crock posting bullshit in other threads, claiming I add no facts, here are some facts on the pollution of "green energy", where are the twins, why do they ignore this than lie in other threads.


----------

