# 100% alternative energy worldwide by 2030



## Old Rocks

*A doable and needed plan.*

Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers


Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers



 IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...


Click here for more information. 



Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.

To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.

The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.

The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.

With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.




 IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...


Click here for more information. 



Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.

They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.


----------



## JD_2B

> The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.
> Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.



Awesome!! Maybe we should be fund-raising or lobbying..   =)  Great Article, OR!!


----------



## Article 15

Sweet.  Will I be able to buy a flying car then?


----------



## mdn2000

JD_2B said:


> The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.
> Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome!! Maybe we should be fund-raising or lobbying..   =)  Great Article, OR!!
Click to expand...


You read a article posted by old crock and shout awesome, you got to be a moron, I guess we got triplets now, old crock, chrissy and tobe.

Every article I have read of Old Crock's has only shown old crock to be a fool, are you a moron who only reads the last post of a thread and ingores everything else.

Whats wrong with you, old crock is proven to be a big moron, tied with chrissy, and now you want to make it a threesome.

You cant even tell us a basic fact of what you find gnarly and awesome dude!

100% alternative is an impossiblity. 

How much energy and what types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass.

*The link is not to an article, it is to a press release, literally an advertisment to donors for stanford univeristy*

The report written by jacobson and delucchi is not availble, we cannot read the report

post the report


----------



## JD_2B

mdn2000 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Scientific American article provides a quantification of global solar and wind resources based on new research by Jacobson and Delucchi.
> Analyzing only on-land locations with a high potential for producing power, they found that even if wind were the only method used to generate power, the potential for wind energy production is 5 to 15 times greater than what is needed to power the entire world. For solar energy, the comparable calculation found that solar could produce about 30 times the amount needed.
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome!! Maybe we should be fund-raising or lobbying..   =)  Great Article, OR!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You read a article posted by old crock and shout awesome, you got to be a moron, I guess we got triplets now, old crock, chrissy and tobe.
> 
> Every article I have read of Old Crock's has only shown old crock to be a fool, are you a moron who only reads the last post of a thread and ingores everything else.
> 
> Whats wrong with you, old crock is proven to be a big moron, tied with chrissy, and now you want to make it a threesome.
> 
> You cant even tell us a basic fact of what you find gnarly and awesome dude!
> 
> 100% alternative is an impossiblity.
> 
> How much energy and what types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass.
> 
> *The link is not to an article, it is to a press release, literally an advertisment to donors for stanford univeristy*
> 
> The report written by jacobson and delucchi is not availble, we cannot read the report
> 
> post the report
Click to expand...



Why are you stalking Old Rocks? Do you have a hard- on for the guy or something? You are so fucking weird...


----------



## mdn2000

JD_2B said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome!! Maybe we should be fund-raising or lobbying..   =)  Great Article, OR!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read a article posted by old crock and shout awesome, you got to be a moron, I guess we got triplets now, old crock, chrissy and tobe.
> 
> Every article I have read of Old Crock's has only shown old crock to be a fool, are you a moron who only reads the last post of a thread and ingores everything else.
> 
> Whats wrong with you, old crock is proven to be a big moron, tied with chrissy, and now you want to make it a threesome.
> 
> You cant even tell us a basic fact of what you find gnarly and awesome dude!
> 
> 100% alternative is an impossiblity.
> 
> How much energy and what types does it take to produce one ton of fiberglass.
> 
> *The link is not to an article, it is to a press release, literally an advertisment to donors for stanford univeristy*
> 
> The report written by jacobson and delucchi is not availble, we cannot read the report
> 
> post the report
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you stalking Old Rocks? Do you have a hard- on for the guy or something? You are so fucking weird...
Click to expand...


You should PM me if you want to talk like a dirty nasty vixen


----------



## Old Rocks

*Mdn, you are still an idiot.*


Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American

Special Interactive Feature Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive 
The Web-only article below is a special rich-media presentation of the feature, "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030", which appears in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American. It was created by FlypMedia.com. 

*The article is a rational and lucid presentation of one way to totally go alternative for the whole world. It is in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American for any interested in it.*


----------



## Old Rocks

Article 15 said:


> Sweet.  Will I be able to buy a flying car then?



Totally irrelevant, but really, with enough money, you can buy a flying car right now.


----------



## KittenKoder

Rocks, it's not possible ... the numbers in your article are completely based on fantasy.


----------



## Old Rocks

Show why.


----------



## KittenKoder

Old Rocks said:


> Show why.



In spite of all these "advances" people claim in "green" (which has yet to be proven) energy, the "wind farms" in Oregon only produce a very very small portion of their energy needs ... that's just one example of such ... every place that only produces "green" energy has to buy more from those who produce coal energy. If you want a real solution to energy needs, nuclear is the only way, all others are just toys in comparison.


----------



## Mr. H.

It's possible but not probable. It's not productive to think in such absolute terms with respect to energy supply or demand. Applications have advantages and disadvantages based on science and economics. 

We like to imagine "perfect world" situations- and we should strive for such. But within that quest there must also exist a desire to understand the status quo of existing technologies and their relevant place in today's world. 

Solutions aren't achieved unilaterally, but through a team approach. Acknowledge strengths, recognise weaknesses, and build a model that will in time drive you to the goal.

The end.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> *Mdn, you are still an idiot.*
> 
> 
> Science News, Articles and Information | Scientific American
> 
> Special Interactive Feature Powering a Green Planet: Sustainable Energy, Made Interactive
> The Web-only article below is a special rich-media presentation of the feature, "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030", which appears in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American. It was created by FlypMedia.com.
> 
> *The article is a rational and lucid presentation of one way to totally go alternative for the whole world. It is in the November 2009 issue of Scientific American for any interested in it.*




Old Crock as dumb as a rock going off half cocked, I alread stated that you would not post the report and now you post an article. All your sources are a Crock of shit, literally speaking. 

Old Crock why do you refuse to post the report you cite?


----------



## Old Rocks

As pointed out, the original article is in the November issue of the Scientific American. However, here is another article based on that article;

100% Renewables by 2030 for Less Than Fossil Power: A Case is Made | SolveClimate.com

Wind: 51% of power needs. This would require 3.8 million large new wind turbines worldwide. Currently, less than 1% of that amount is installed. 

Solar: 40% of power needs. This calls for 89,000 photovoltaic installations and concentrating solar power farms, all at 300 megawatts each. Like wind, the world is at less than 1% of that target. 

Water: 9% of power needs. This would require the deployment of numerous "mature water-related" technologies, including 490,000 tidal turbines, 5,350 geothermal plants and 900 hydroelectric plants. For hydroelectric, the world has 70 percent in place. For geothermal, there are less than 2% of the needed facilities installed, and turbines, less than 1%. 

The authors assume that most fossil fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. They also say that resource availability for the plan isn't a problem.


----------



## Old Rocks

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the feasibility of such a change, we took on an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the world&#8217;s energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.

Scientists have been building to this moment for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of the challenge. Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power&#8212;all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.

Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society.

Is it feasible to transform the world&#8217;s energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.


----------



## JD_2B

A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American

From the November 2009 Scientific American Magazine | 111 comments
*A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables ( Preview )*

*Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how*

 				 					 						By  Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi 
 			  			  		  		 		 			 			    div#OAS_RMF_x81_LAYER {          position:absolute;                              top:200px;          left:300px;          z-index:10000;          visibility:hidden;           }      #OAS_RMF_x81_LAYER DIV.windowBar { text-align: right; padding:2px; background-color:#404040; border: 1px solid black; } #OAS_RMF_x81_LAYER a.closer { font-size: 11px; font-family: arial; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; cursor : pointer; padding-right: 2px; padding-left: 2px; background-color: #404040; border: 1px solid darkgray; color: darkgray; } #OAS_RMF_x81_LAYER a.closer:hover { background-color: #A0A0A0; border: 1px solid gray; color: white; }        X












           Email:                                Name:                                 Address:                                Address 2:                                 City:                                State:                               AK            AL           AR           AZ           CA           CO           CT            DE           FL           GA           HI           IA           ID            IL           IN           KS           KY           LA           MA            MD           ME           MI           MN           MO           MS            MT           NC           ND           NE           NH           NJ            NM           NV           NY           OH           OK           OR            PA           RI           SC           SD           TN           TX            UT           VA           VT           WA           WI           WV            WY                           		
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	















*Key Concepts*



Supplies of wind and solar energy on accessible land dwarf the energy consumed by people around the globe.
The authors&#8217; plan calls for 3.8 million large wind turbines, 90,000 solar plants, and numerous geothermal, tidal and rooftop photovoltaic installations worldwide.
The cost of generating and transmitting power would be less than the projected cost per kilowatt-hour for fossil-fuel and nuclear power.
Shortages of a few specialty materials, along with lack of political will, loom as the greatest obstacles.
 

In December leaders from around the world will meet in Copenhagen to try to agree on cutting back greenhouse gas emissions for decades to come. The most effective step to implement that goal would be a massive shift away from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy sources. If leaders can have confidence that such a transformation is possible, they might commit to an historic agreement. We think they can.


----------



## mdn2000

Post the report, not the article. 

The source is the report, not a SA article.

Where is the report, why hide it, what are you hiding.


----------



## Oddball

> During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more.


What an absolutely asinine example.

Warfare produces not one dime's worth of added value to anything for anyone not using the tools of warfare. And it does so at great economic expense to the producers.

I have serious reservations about the intellectual prowess of a publication that could seriously peddle such a flimsy and easily refuted analogy.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.




So this is what qualifies as debate or an arguement by Old Crock, a press release. I have followed all the links in this thread, nothing, an offer to subscribe to Scientific America and a press release.

What gives Old Crock, this is the best green energy has, secret reports.

You know why we will never see the report, because the report is seriously flawed, I can tell you with a 100% accuracy the report does not address the transmission lines. I can also state with a 100% certainty that authors do not address the energy needed to produce fiberglass, steel, or copper.

What a waste of an electrical generator, to sit behind a big propeller not being used for 94% of the year. Funny thing is all those electrical generators sitting idle can be hooked up to a nuclear plant and produce 100,000% more power than if the wind were blowing. 

I invented the perfect green car, it runs on earthquakes, you just sit in it and when the big one comes you get a free ride to work.

So how about it Old Crock, you cant even substantiate the claims you make in your own threads, where are you on this one.


----------



## Douger

Fantastic !
 40 years late.
Unfortunately there is no 2030.
NO. I don't do Mayan calendars or Biblical fairy tales.
I'm a statistical sort of scientific asshole.
This movie is nearly over.........


----------



## Skull Pilot

possible and probable are 2 different things.

A 100% changeover from fossil fuels to so called renewable energy will cost quadrillions of dollars.

once again we see the abandonment of the good for the perfect.


----------



## mdn2000

Skull Pilot said:


> possible and probable are 2 different things.
> 
> A 100% changeover from fossil fuels to so called renewable energy will cost quadrillions of dollars.
> 
> once again we see the abandonment of the good for the perfect.




going green requires massive amounts of production to be increased, all in china. to go green we are making millions of tons of fiberglass, millions of tons of batteries, millions of tons of copper to make electrical generators, who makes that stuff, the chinese, who is profiting, the corporations, whats driving the stock market while leaving us cold and hungry, the rich getting rich in china on government mandated ideas.


----------



## uscitizen

Yes old ,mostly doable and needed, but isn't gonna happen.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Even if it were possible, why should we give a shit? Does it give you the jollies to know that a windmill or a solar panel has been put up?


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Old Rocks said:


> As pointed out, the original article is in the November issue of the Scientific American. However, here is another article based on that article;
> 
> 100% Renewables by 2030 for Less Than Fossil Power: A Case is Made | SolveClimate.com
> 
> Wind: 51% of power needs. This would require 3.8 million large new wind turbines worldwide. Currently, less than 1% of that amount is installed.
> 
> Solar: 40% of power needs. This calls for 89,000 photovoltaic installations and concentrating solar power farms, all at 300 megawatts each. Like wind, the world is at less than 1% of that target.
> 
> Water: 9% of power needs. This would require the deployment of numerous "mature water-related" technologies, including 490,000 tidal turbines, 5,350 geothermal plants and 900 hydroelectric plants. For hydroelectric, the world has 70 percent in place. For geothermal, there are less than 2% of the needed facilities installed, and turbines, less than 1%.
> 
> The authors assume that most fossil fuel transportation can be replaced by battery and fuel-cell vehicles. They also say that resource availability for the plan isn't a problem.



Here's a very important fact that someone forgot. If you need a peak supply of 100 units of electricity and supply that with coal, nuclear, or any other source that always puts out the same amount of power you need to produce 101 units of power. If you get it from solar and wind you need to have about 500 units available or you will have blackouts. So you don't get 51% of your power from wind, you have to build enough to get 255% of your power from wind.


----------



## Mr. H.

Screaming Eagle said:


> Even if it were possible, why should we give a shit? Does it give you the jollies to know that a windmill or a solar panel has been put up?



Eco-porn.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American
> 
> A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the feasibility of such a change, we took on an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the worlds energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.
> 
> Scientists have been building to this moment for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of the challenge. Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric powerall of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.
> 
> Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society.
> 
> Is it feasible to transform the worlds energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.




Old Crock, how come you post a link to nothing more than a headline, its not even a link to an article. 

Millions of windmills, that is the proper term, wind mills are old technology, not new, we are going backwards if we use windmills.

Millions, that means a billion tons of fiberglass, cant make fiberglass without making trillions of tons of C02, if windmills are suppose to save the earth why are we destroying the earth first to save it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Why does it strike FEAR into the hearts of conservatives? I mean I would think a CONSERVATIVE root word CONSERVE would want our Earth to be free from burning fossil fuel. Even the Bible thumpers.....Doesn't God say to care for the Earth?


----------



## Old Rocks

These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.

They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.


----------



## KittenKoder

Cold Fusion38 said:


> My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?



You are mistaking fear for caution, something that conservatives bring to our government but liberals do not. Take this scenario:

On one hand, you have a small chance (10%) of curing cancer by spending a fortune and risking going broke in the attempt but all the odds are stacked against you.

On the other you have a cure for heart disease (90%) that is almost there, just needs a little more of a push to finish. The odds for this are stacked for you.

You choose one, you have a slim chance of saving billions of lives but at a huge cost and risk, you choose the other which doesn't save as many but there's almost no risk or cost ... which would you pick?

Here we have an alternative energy source already, which has low risk and low cost .... nuclear ... or the high risk high cost of trying to advance basically fantasy fuels ... which do you choose?


----------



## Old Rocks

Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.



yet that is much less than the $200,000 per kwh it costs for windpower.

How come Old Crock never gives a source, only articles that vaguely reference a faulty report that Old Crock refuses to post.

The truth is Old Crock is a hack.


----------



## Oddball

Old Rocks said:


> Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.


Nonsense.

Enviro-wackaloons, like you, who've see "The China Syndrome" one time too many get in the way of building any more nukes.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0rFbSU0hP4[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks

Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.

The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.


----------



## Old Rocks

mdn2000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet that is much less than the $200,000 per kwh it costs for windpower.
> 
> How come Old Crock never gives a source, only articles that vaguely reference a faulty report that Old Crock refuses to post.
> 
> The truth is Old Crock is a hack.
Click to expand...


You know, if you keep pulling shit like this out of your asshole, you will lose even the idiots on this board.


----------



## elvis

Old Rocks said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kitten, were it low cost, we would be doing it. Thus far, even building the Gen 3 plants has turned into the same ol', same ol'. Sold as a way to build for $1000 per kwh, it is not finished, and the price is up to $3500 per kwh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yet that is much less than the $200,000 per kwh it costs for windpower.
> 
> How come Old Crock never gives a source, only articles that vaguely reference a faulty report that Old Crock refuses to post.
> 
> The truth is Old Crock is a hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, if you keep pulling shit like this out of your *asshole*, you will lose even the idiots on this board.
Click to expand...


Must be a fetish of yours, eh old ****?


----------



## Old Rocks

Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost &#8212; $10,800 per kilowatt! &#8212; killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress

Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only &#8220;compliant&#8221; one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

It means a single project would have wiped out the province&#8217;s nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.

*Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.*

&#8220;It&#8217;s shockingly high,&#8221; said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Old Rocks said:


> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> 
> They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.



I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit. 

Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.


----------



## Mr. H.

Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Mr. H. said:


> Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.



Didn't you mean 10 times the cost?


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?


----------



## Oddball

Screaming Eagle said:


> Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.


I'll take the drugs. They eventually wear off, but stupid doesn't.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.
> 
> The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.



But Old Crock, in this thread your source states geothermal is too expensive, are you ignoring your own source, you know, the MIT study

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1680144




> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes, Bloomquist is an excellant spokesman for the promotion and expansion of geothermal energy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet Old Criock attempted to discredit the Article and link I posted, Old Crock has yet to go my source and show us what Old Crock is refering to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This report is the result of a long research project that involved many geothermal stakeholders and industry experts. These persons helped explain how various and complex parameters affecting the cost of geothermal power development and production may be. I specially want to thank:
> Gordon Bloomquist for the collaboration, data sharing, advice and comments he provided throughout several research phases.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Old Crock, you must agree the cost of Geothermal is too high, will result in higher electrical rates, that tax payer money will be given to corporations to make a profit. That costs will have to be hidden to even make Geothermal look feasible. All Old Crocks sources say this.
> 
> Old Crock all your source say exactly what I say, I went to the MIT study, again you did not read it. Let me cut and paste from Old Crocks sources.
> 
> Read the report than read aritcles quoting the report, the media is cherry picking and OLD CROCK IS CHERRY PICKING THE CHERRY PICKERS.
> 
> http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These funds compensate for the higher capital and financing costs expected for early-generation EGS plants, which would be expected as a result of somewhat higher field development (drilling and stimulation) costs per unit of power initially produced. Higher generating costs, in turn, lead to higher perceived financial risk for investors with corresponding higher-debt interest rates and equity rates of return. In effect, the federal investment can be viewed as equivalent to an absorbed cost of deployment.
> In addition, investments in R&D will also be needed to reduce costs in future deployment of EGS plants. To a great extent, energy markets and government policies will influence the private sectors interest in developing EGS technology. In todays economic climate, there is reluctance for private industry to invest its funds without strong guarantees. Thus, initially, it is likely that government will have to fully support EGS fieldwork and supporting R&D. Later, as field sites are established and proven, the private sector will assume a greater role in cofunding projects  especially with government incentives
> accelerating the transition to independently financed EGS projects in the private sector. Our analysis indicates that, after a few EGS plants at several sites are built and operating, the technology will improve to a point where development costs and risks would diminish significantly, allowing the levelized cost of producing EGS electricity in the United States to be at or below market prices. Given these issues and growing concerns over long-term energy security, the federal government will need to provide funds directly or introduce other incentives in support of EGS as a long-term public good, similar to early federal investments in large hydropower dam projects and nuclear power reactors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All Old Crock is doing is proving that to sell Geothermal to the public the environuts must cherry pick source and count on people to be stupid, lazy, and ignorant. As long as people are stupid enough to believe Geothermal is good and as long as people are lazy enough not to read the studies the environuts source, than people will remain ingnorant.
> 
> So once again, for the third time, Old Crock has cherry picked a source.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Doodeee, you are the one that mentioned the 'China Sydrone', not I. I realize that you are not up to speed on the Gen 3 nukes. They are incapable of the 'China Syndrone'.
> 
> The problem is that we are seeing the huge cost overruns that we saw in the 70s and 80s. At $3500 per kw. you are well above the present prices for wind and geo-thermal.



The following is what I cut and pasted from Old Crock's source, old crock continues to hide his head in his ass when it comes to responding.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1677067



> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Old Crock, whats your deal, you forget this entire thread, too much pot smoke out there on the left coast or are fucking with me. I got to scratch my head and wonder if your an idiot are you just have to get the last word in. So this again proves Old Crock goes off half cocked and for fun I will respond once again by this time I will simply qoute the same article with no cherry picking of the article. Old Crock, boy are you dumb, next time you post something Old Crock you should not be so lazy and read the whole article, or maybe you should use the scroll bar, on the right of the window, its used to scroll to writing and words that dont fit on your computer screen.
> 
> So to help I will post the entire first page of Old Crocks article, first old crocks original cheery picked paragraph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It would seem, according to this article in the Scientific American, that Geothermal is shaping up to be our cheapest source of energy. Clean, cheap, and 24/7.*
> 
> 
> Can Geothermal Power Compete with Coal on Price?: Scientific American
> 
> Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy&#8212;such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind&#8212;are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.
> 
> That barrier may be opening, however&#8212;at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the whole 1st page of old crocks article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although the environmental benefits of burning less fossil fuel by using renewable sources of energy&#8212;such as geothermal, hydropower, solar and wind&#8212;are clear, there's been a serious roadblock in their adoption: cost per kilowatt-hour.
> 
> That barrier may be opening, however&#8212;at least for one of these sources. Two recent reports, among others, suggest that geothermal may actually be cheaper than every other source, including coal. Geothermal power plants work by pumping hot water from deep beneath Earth's surface, which can either be used to turn steam turbines directly or to heat a second, more volatile liquid such as isobutane (which then turns a steam turbine).
> 
> Combine a new U.S. president pushing a stimulus package that includes $28 billion in direct subsidies for renewable energy with another $13 billion for research and development, and the picture for renewable energy&#8212;geothermal power among the options&#8212;is brightening. The newest report, from international investment bank Credit Suisse, says geothermal power costs 3.6 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus 5.5 cents per kilowatt-hour for coal.
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean companies are rushing to build geothermal plants: There are a number of assumptions in the geothermal figure. First, there are the tax incentives, which save about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. Those won't necessarily last forever, however&#8212;although the stimulus bill extended them through 2013.
> 
> Second, the Credit Suisse analysis relied on what is called the "levelized [sic] cost of energy," or the total cost to produce a given unit of energy. Embedded within this figure is an assumption that the money to build a new geothermal plant is available at reasonable interest rates&#8212;on the order of 8 percent.
> 
> In today's economic climate, that just isn't the case. "In general, there is financing out there for geothermal, but it's difficult to get and it's expensive," Geothermal Energy Association director Karl Gawell told ScientificAmerican.com recently. "You have to have a really premium project to get even credit card interest rates."
> 
> That means very high up-front costs. As a result, companies are more likely to spend money on things with lower front-end costs, like natural gas&#8211;powered plants, which are cheap to build but relatively expensive to operate because of the cost of the fuel needed to run them.
> 
> "Natural gas is popular for this reason," says Kevin Kitz, an engineer at Boise, Idaho&#8211;based U.S. Geothermal, Inc, which owns and operates three geothermal sites. "It has a low capital cost, and even if you project cost of natural gas to be high in future, if you use a high [interest rate in your model] that doesn't matter very much."
> 
> Natural gas, which came in at 5.2 cents per kilowatt-hour in the analysis, is also popular because it can be deployed anywhere, whereas only 13 U.S. states have identified geothermal resources. Although this limits the scalability of geothermal power, a 2008 survey by the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the U.S. possesses 40,000 megawatts of geothermal energy that could be exploited using today's technology. (For comparison, the average coal-fired power plant in the U.S. has a capacity of more than 500 MW.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Crock's article explains that the Credit Suisse report is flawed, that geothermal is more expensive than stated, so thanks old crock.
> 
> OLD CROCK PROVES GEOTHERMAL IS TOO EXPENSIVE.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

Screaming Eagle said:


> Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?



*Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?*

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


BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Ted Sickinger, 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.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr. H. said:


> Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.



And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Old Rocks said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?*
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
> 
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
> By Ted Sickinger, 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.
Click to expand...


You realize that this is in no way a rebuttal to my point, don't you? A very large number of windmills are built by companies just to collect the government payoff for building one. Many are built where there is no need, no transmission capability, and no place in need of more electricity is within transmissible range. In other words, they are completely useless. If you ever drive through some of these wind farms you may notice that only around 1/4th are actually in operation even when there is sufficient wind, and some wind farms aren't even on the grid.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?*
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
> 
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
> By Ted Sickinger, 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.
Click to expand...


Old Crock, the article is a press release of BPA posing as an article. There is no technical information at all. Can you provide the actual BPA report and not the press release. The answer is no, Old Crcok never provides another source with technical information when requested for when challenged with fact a liar can only hide.

The biggest lie is Old Crock's claim that 2 gwh is enough power to supply two cities, it is not. Seattle alone requires over 3.5 gwh. 

Without seeing the actual report and only a press release by a corportation there is no way to no what they are speaking of. The only reasonable explanation is that Old Crock is stating that wind farms are able to provide enough power to supply seattle when everyone is sleeping in the middle of the night during the lowest peak usage season, summer.

Everyone knows that Seattle needs more power in the winter, not the summer, more power during the day and not the night. 

Further if we assume there are no other twisting of facts BPA was only able to produce 2 gwh for about 14 minutes in the last year. Given the windy season is now over and we are entering peak electrical usage the massive investment in the polluting wind farm is now sitting idle, huge waste of CO2.

How much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.

How many tons of fiberglass in one windmill.

How many millions of tons of CO2 was released into the environment producing millions of tons of fiberglass

How is it a better use of the dwindling earths precious resources to have massive giant copper electrical generators sit idle for 99% of the year while tax payers subsidize the wind farm sitting idle.

There are no answers from the liberal/marxist, this is all about controling people, stealing our money to give to rich which are the environuts.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Old Rocks said:


> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> 
> They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.






I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways. The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.
One thing you must do is check the WHOLE picture from a new technology to be sure it doesn't have unintended consequenses, lkie C02 sequestation, which could cause damage to down stream aquifers, BAD STUFF if you carbonate a massive aguifer or aquiclude that a major population center relys upon.


----------



## Oddball

Cold Fusion38 said:


> I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways.* The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.*


What is this...National Strawman Day?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

KittenKoder said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaking fear for caution, something that conservatives bring to our government but liberals do not. Take this scenario:
> 
> On one hand, you have a small chance (10%) of curing cancer by spending a fortune and risking going broke in the attempt but all the odds are stacked against you.
> 
> On the other you have a cure for heart disease (90%) that is almost there, just needs a little more of a push to finish. The odds for this are stacked for you.
> 
> You choose one, you have a slim chance of saving billions of lives but at a huge cost and risk, you choose the other which doesn't save as many but there's almost no risk or cost ... which would you pick?
> 
> Here we have an alternative energy source already, which has low risk and low cost .... nuclear ... or the high risk high cost of trying to advance basically fantasy fuels ... which do you choose?
Click to expand...




I would resove the problem that we are CLOSE to solving but I sure as hell wouldn't IGNORE the other problem......Cancer kills many and as I understand it cancer is NOT an easy way to go.


And by the way I have advocated nuclear power so many times I can't count them. I would like to see 10-20 new nuke power plants on line by 2020. I would let them put one in my back yard if it would help the US be energy independent.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> 
> They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read Popular Mechanics and Popular Science to see what we may have 5 or 10 years ago and I am STUNNED about some VERY promising inventions that could change our world in VERY significant ways. The "Conservatives" want the status quo because they can't conceive of ANY change, they are flat out get terrified of NEW ways of doing things.
> One thing you must do is check the WHOLE picture from a new technology to be sure it doesn't have unintended consequenses, lkie C02 sequestation, which could cause damage to down stream aquifers, BAD STUFF if you carbonate a massive aguifer or aquiclude that a major population center relys upon.
Click to expand...



So prove your post, you check the "whole picture", so tell us the whole picture, wind mills use tons of fiberglass, did you check, ever go to Vesta's site to see what is a wind mill, tell us how much fiberglass is used, you checked the whole picture right, tell us about fiberglass production, you checked the whole picture right, I cant wait.

Tell us how much energy and which types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass, you said you checked the whole picture.



So how much energy and which types does it take to make a ton of fiberglass?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Old Rocks said:


> Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost  $10,800 per kilowatt!  killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress
> 
> Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only compliant one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.
> 
> Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.
> 
> It means a single project would have wiped out the provinces nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.
> 
> *Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.*
> 
> Its shockingly high, said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.






Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour. 


I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> .



We are too dumb, you posted a link to a press release that refers to an article that references a report. Where is the report? Where is the article?

We are too dumb to the store and get the issue, gee, if we are that dumb and its that simple and your the one pointing this out why has OLD CROCK not done what is simple. Why is OLD CROCK too dumb to do what he expects others to do when its what OLD CROCK has based this thread on.

Basic logic states if you are going to site a report as conclusive and start a thread on said report you do not source the press release, you do not source an article, you source the report.

This is the green energy movements proof, secret reports, articles that reference only parts of the report.

Old Crock is completely full of shit, Old Crock is why green energy is a terrible idea, it was sold to fools with no proof and now all the USA is paying the price.

I have yet to see one Green Energy supporter offer one fact or even one idea of their own thinking of what it takes to manufactorer or build green energy.

So Old Crock is too dumb to do something as simple that basic logic dictates, post the source for the premise of Old Crock's thread.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost  $10,800 per kilowatt!  killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress
> 
> Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only compliant one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.
> 
> Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.
> 
> It means a single project would have wiped out the provinces nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.
> 
> *Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.*
> 
> Its shockingly high, said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour.
> 
> 
> I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.
Click to expand...


You seem smart, but at the same time to state over and over that conservatives are afraid is just wrong.

I have looked into green energy, as we know it today it is too expensive and too dirty. Its being shoved down our throats, maybe you dont pay an electric bill but I do and its too expensive and going up, is the price of water which is directly related to the cost of electricity.

Can you tell us how much electricity it takes, what the different types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass.

Old Crock cannot, Chris cannot, these too do not know what they speak of.

Can you tell us or at least admit you need to find out how much energy and which types.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Look guys if we, at the very least, would give a tax credit for new housing developments to have geothermal heat/cooling (like Bush's Craford rance which I respect a great deal) and solar panels which are to the point where they could be litterally PAINTED on the roof then we could lessen power draw from fossil fuel power plants by a significant degree. Here's the thing that "Conservatives" refuse to acknowledge. During PEAK demand solar will produce the MOST energy= no more rolling black/brown outs in CA. You could come home to a nice cool house w/o dreding your power bill each month. There are many LITTLE things like solar/wind/geo therm/ hydro that would EVENTUALLY add up to major power production which will NEVER run out EVER! So why NOT pursue those techs while we STILL rely on fossil fuels for the forseeable future. Let's be PROactive instead of REactive to our energy needs so we aren't held hostage by cos like ENRON who JOKED about screwing little old ladies during CA's power crisis.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Screaming Eagle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> 
> They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit.
> 
> Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.
Click to expand...





Maybe you should look into what Germany has done with Wind power. So would you rather get wind mills from SUZLON, G.E. or some other DOMESTIC producers?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.
Click to expand...





Neither cows nor food crops grow in canyons. The biggest bitch I have heard about Wind Farms is they ruin the view. And hey you guys who are going to try to trash me I was PISSED when the Kennedy's didn't want an off shore Wind farm because it would ruin THEIR view.......FUCK EM if they think their VIEW is more important then alternative domestic energy production.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear Bombshell: $26 Billion cost  $10,800 per kilowatt!  killed Ontario nuclear bid « Climate Progress
> 
> Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only compliant one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.
> 
> Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.
> 
> It means a single project would have wiped out the provinces nuclear-power expansion budget for the next 20 years, leaving no money for at least two more multibillion-dollar refurbishment projects.
> 
> *Nearly $11,000 per kw. So much for cheap nuclear.*
> 
> Its shockingly high, said Wesley Stevens, an energy analyst at Navigant Consulting in Toronto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somehow I doubt that the French are paying $10,000 per KW hour.
> 
> 
> I think we need to have the FED build them and then lease them to power cos. The BIGGEST problem with nuke is NOT waste it is NOT safety it is the "Not in my backyard" syndrome. The Fed is the ONLY entity that could get through the red tape and get them made. Normally I am opposed to emminent domain but cheap abundent power that does NOT rely on fossil fuels is FAR too important to let some outdated county ordinance stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem smart, but at the same time to state over and over that conservatives are afraid is just wrong.
> 
> I have looked into green energy, as we know it today it is too expensive and too dirty. Its being shoved down our throats, maybe you dont pay an electric bill but I do and its too expensive and going up, is the price of water which is directly related to the cost of electricity.
> 
> Can you tell us how much electricity it takes, what the different types of energy are used to make one ton of fiberglass.
> 
> Old Crock cannot, Chris cannot, these too do not know what they speak of.
> 
> Can you tell us or at least admit you need to find out how much energy and which types.
Click to expand...



Well maybe we can produce them from fibers from commercial hemp but that would TERRIFY the extreme right because they have NO IDEA what the diff is between MARAJUANA and HEMP. As for fiber glass why don't you tell ME how much it takes and costs since it is YOU who have brought it up as an argument against alternative energy. I have seen people claim that plug in electric cars would produce FAR more toxins than just using the same old IC technology, I have also seen the same claims about solar power even though the tech has been advancing so fast that even comparing it to two years ago is irrelevant to what is available today. Then all the CLAIMS about how BAD wind farms would be for the enviroment. YOUR CLAIM, YOU PROVE IT!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that you mention windmills I thought I would mention my favorite thing about windmills: that we pay for them with government money and they never get used. Why not just dump money into the street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really fucking stupid, aren't you, ol' Screamy?*
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - OregonLive.com
> 
> 
> BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
> By Ted Sickinger, 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Crock, the article is a press release of BPA posing as an article. There is no technical information at all. Can you provide the actual BPA report and not the press release. The answer is no, Old Crcok never provides another source with technical information when requested for when challenged with fact a liar can only hide.
> 
> The biggest lie is Old Crock's claim that 2 gwh is enough power to supply two cities, it is not. Seattle alone requires over 3.5 gwh.
> 
> Without seeing the actual report and only a press release by a corportation there is no way to no what they are speaking of. The only reasonable explanation is that Old Crock is stating that wind farms are able to provide enough power to supply seattle when everyone is sleeping in the middle of the night during the lowest peak usage season, summer.
> 
> Everyone knows that Seattle needs more power in the winter, not the summer, more power during the day and not the night.
> 
> Further if we assume there are no other twisting of facts BPA was only able to produce 2 gwh for about 14 minutes in the last year. Given the windy season is now over and we are entering peak electrical usage the massive investment in the polluting wind farm is now sitting idle, huge waste of CO2.
> 
> How much energy is used to produce one ton of fiberglass.
> 
> How many tons of fiberglass in one windmill.
> 
> How many millions of tons of CO2 was released into the environment producing millions of tons of fiberglass
> 
> How is it a better use of the dwindling earths precious resources to have massive giant copper electrical generators sit idle for 99% of the year while tax payers subsidize the wind farm sitting idle.
> 
> There are no answers from the liberal/marxist, this is all about controling people, stealing our money to give to rich which are the environuts.
Click to expand...





Talk about a Straw Man argument.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are not conservatives, they are Conservatives. And too damned dumb even to do something as simple as checking the November issue of the Scientific American in a store to see if the article exists. But that would require basis logic, which this bunch sorely lack.
> 
> They are the patriots that wish to give our economy to Saudi Arabia and China. They are the people that would prefer a point system of electrical generation so that all the wealth can flow to a small number of people. They are the people that wish to saddle the next generation with the illnesses from the dirty coal plants, and the ecological damage from the coal mining. They are the people that will saddle the coming generations with the damage that will result from the GHGs released into the atmosphere. And they routinely wrap themselves in the flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit.
> 
> Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look into what Germany has done with Wind power. So would you rather get wind mills from SUZLON, G.E. or some other DOMESTIC producers?
Click to expand...


Oh wow, 6% of their electricity. Whoopdeedoo. Let's wait until they hit 50% and see how great that works out.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who needs nuclear energy when 60,000 acres of windmills can deliver the same electricity at a fraction of the cost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither cows nor food crops grow in canyons. The biggest bitch I have heard about Wind Farms is they ruin the view. And hey you guys who are going to try to trash me I was PISSED when the Kennedy's didn't want an off shore Wind farm because it would ruin THEIR view.......FUCK EM if they think their VIEW is more important then alternative domestic energy production.
Click to expand...


You can't call windmills domestic energy, you can say they are alternative foreign, outsourced energy all you want. What we have now is domestic, windmills and solar panels are foreign. Please stick with the facts.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Screaming Eagle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe you people. How is it that you were ever convinced that solar panels here in the U.S. is somehow going to lead to energy independence or a lessened need for foreign oil? Our electricity is already produced domestically. Solar panels do not fit in gas cans. Electricity is not the same thing as oil. Shit.
> 
> Alternative energy does not exist in any sort of a viable format in the present time. It does not work. Now if I want to live in fantasy land or in what I think the future might be like then it could be a panacea, but so are drugs for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look into what Germany has done with Wind power. So would you rather get wind mills from SUZLON, G.E. or some other DOMESTIC producers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh wow, 6% of their electricity. Whoopdeedoo. Let's wait until they hit 50% and see how great that works out.
Click to expand...





They have not only MET but have exceeded benchmarks.......But if it just stayed at the pace now which one would get to 50% first Germany or America. I just don't understand why you "conservatives" are not willing to even CONSIDER renewable energy sources at PART of, and a growing replacement, for the status quo. I mean REALLY what is your problem with alt energy? ONCE AGAIN I WILL HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT I FAVOR NUCLEAR AS A MAJOR PART OF OUR "TRANSITION" to alternate power sources (and by the way if you can't get past electric cars then the 3rd Gen nuke plants produce HYDROGEN as a by-product and all we would have to do is increase refuling sites and you could STILL have a car you can drive as far as you would like to. It may take 10-20-30-40-or 50 YEARS to have alt energy as a significant source of energy but if we fall prey to ALL of you anti-renewables naysayers then NOTHING will change in 50-100-150-or 200 years we will STILL be held hostage by the petro cos who will be able to charge ANY PRICE they want. Do you beleive that our economy will survive the ever dwindling fossil fuel resources and the MASSIVE run up in price of those comodities? I don't, and I think more and more Americans are no longer living with a 20th century mindset.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Screaming Eagle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And grow wheat, cows, or anything else applicable on that acreage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither cows nor food crops grow in canyons. The biggest bitch I have heard about Wind Farms is they ruin the view. And hey you guys who are going to try to trash me I was PISSED when the Kennedy's didn't want an off shore Wind farm because it would ruin THEIR view.......FUCK EM if they think their VIEW is more important then alternative domestic energy production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't call windmills domestic energy, you can say they are alternative foreign, outsourced energy all you want. What we have now is domestic, windmills and solar panels are foreign. Please stick with the facts.
Click to expand...





WTF are you talking about? Solar panels on DONESTIC land is DOMESTIC power unless I missed the treaty that Russia has made a claim to SUNLIGHT!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

And by the way there is a major chip manufacturer that is converting to developing and building solar power cells.


----------



## AllieBaba

Old Rocks said:


> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.




Unfortunately, the tribes are pushing us towards removing dams and they despise the wind mills and are moving to stop that from going any further as well.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Yeah I know about the dams they interfere with the sockeye salmon that go to the ocean and then come back UPSTREAM to their breeding grounds. Dams make it very dificult but with the use of special trubines that don't kill as many and "ladders" built so they can get upstream we have helped to reduce the problem. It is always a bad think to let a species to die out because it can often have a cascade effect to many other species.


----------



## mdn2000

Straw man arguement, far from it ColdFusion, so you do not know the amount or the types of energy to make fiberglass, I thought you said it was the conservatives who dont know the whole picture. 

You provide no arguement at all, no debate, nothing, fiberglass production requires massive amounts of energy, more than a windmill ever produces.

Hell, how much electricity does an idle wind farm use. That is part of the whole picture.

Nothing is green and all the proposals offered so far are depleting the earths resources faster than if we just used the fossil fuel to produce power. '

Windmills are centuries old, they simply hook them up to a generator, nothing creative or new.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Straw man arguement, far from it ColdFusion, so you do not know the amount or the types of energy to make fiberglass, I thought you said it was the conservatives who dont know the whole picture.
> 
> You provide no arguement at all, no debate, nothing, fiberglass production requires massive amounts of energy, more than a windmill ever produces.
> 
> Hell, how much electricity does an idle wind farm use. That is part of the whole picture.
> 
> Nothing is green and all the proposals offered so far are depleting the earths resources faster than if we just used the fossil fuel to produce power. '
> 
> Windmills are centuries old, they simply hook them up to a generator, nothing creative or new.







Well then PROVE your claims about how much energy and waste fiberglass production produces........You should have that info INSTANTLY available since you are basing your CLAIM against wind power on fiberglass production. As far as depleteing Earths resources you DO realise that FOSSIL FUELS are a FINATE source RIGHT? You argument means NOTHING. What kind of energy and finate resources does it take to build an IC car?


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion, I got to bite my tongue. It just kills me that you call my arguement the strawman arguement but you have not addressed one point I have made. I have hundreds of posts with facts, with questions the green energy promoters do not have the answer to. Can you answer one, can you say you looked into the things I have asked, no you cannot. This is not to insult but its your side of the arguement that is lacking.

Held hostage to Middle East oil, not at all, we trade money for oil, for the best oil in  the world, that oil makes everything in your life and always will.

So am I only going to get the run around or are you interested in knowing the cons of wind power or solar. I got to go check my other thread with the exploding wind mill to see if you responded there, if you have not seen the you tube video I posted its really worth a look.

So once again it appears its only the conservatives with the answers and the green energy supporters demonizing what they may know nothing about.

I cant be nicer nor more encouraging, care to look at facts or is your mind made up.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Straw man arguement, far from it ColdFusion, so you do not know the amount or the types of energy to make fiberglass, I thought you said it was the conservatives who dont know the whole picture.
> 
> You provide no arguement at all, no debate, nothing, fiberglass production requires massive amounts of energy, more than a windmill ever produces.
> 
> Hell, how much electricity does an idle wind farm use. That is part of the whole picture.
> 
> Nothing is green and all the proposals offered so far are depleting the earths resources faster than if we just used the fossil fuel to produce power. '
> 
> Windmills are centuries old, they simply hook them up to a generator, nothing creative or new.






YOU made the CLAIM about fiberglass then YOU PROVE IT!!!


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Cold Fusion, I got to bite my tongue. It just kills me that you call my arguement the strawman arguement but you have not addressed one point I have made. I have hundreds of posts with facts, with questions the green energy promoters do not have the answer to. Can you answer one, can you say you looked into the things I have asked, no you cannot. This is not to insult but its your side of the arguement that is lacking.
> 
> Held hostage to Middle East oil, not at all, we trade money for oil, for the best oil in  the world, that oil makes everything in your life and always will.
> 
> So am I only going to get the run around or are you interested in knowing the cons of wind power or solar. I got to go check my other thread with the exploding wind mill to see if you responded there, if you have not seen the you tube video I posted its really worth a look.
> 
> So once again it appears its only the conservatives with the answers and the green energy supporters demonizing what they may know nothing about.
> 
> I cant be nicer nor more encouraging, care to look at facts or is your mind made up.







I've ASKED you to show me the FACTS HOW MANY TIMES. Show me your FACTS and your SOURCES and I will be MORE than happy, in fact, eager to look over your PROOF that the energy and reasources to BUILD a windmill will NEVER be recouped during the lifespan of a modern windmill.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion, I got to bite my tongue. It just kills me that you call my arguement the strawman arguement but you have not addressed one point I have made. I have hundreds of posts with facts, with questions the green energy promoters do not have the answer to. Can you answer one, can you say you looked into the things I have asked, no you cannot. This is not to insult but its your side of the arguement that is lacking.
> 
> Held hostage to Middle East oil, not at all, we trade money for oil, for the best oil in  the world, that oil makes everything in your life and always will.
> 
> So am I only going to get the run around or are you interested in knowing the cons of wind power or solar. I got to go check my other thread with the exploding wind mill to see if you responded there, if you have not seen the you tube video I posted its really worth a look.
> 
> So once again it appears its only the conservatives with the answers and the green energy supporters demonizing what they may know nothing about.
> 
> I cant be nicer nor more encouraging, care to look at facts or is your mind made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've ASKED you to show me the FACTS HOW MANY TIMES. Show me your FACTS and your SOURCES and I will be MORE than happy, in fact, eager to look over your PROOF that the energy and reasources to BUILD a windmill will NEVER be recouped during the lifespan of a modern windmill.
Click to expand...



You did not ask once, if you have I missed it, I will produce the facts, first I wanted to see if you could or anyone else, the fact that you cant and no one else can is proof that you know nothing of what you support.

Maybe while I get my post together which will take a bit as I go through my files you can answer why this thread is based on a source that we are not allowed to see and why you dont seem to give a shit about that.

One thing I will not be able to produce because the information is a hidden secret is the amount of energy an idle wind farm uses. 

You have not asked for a fact from me, if so where is the post, facts I have posted, I have destroyed geothermal, that is a complete waste of money and energy, 

Wind is just as easy to destroy.

Solar may be good in the future if your prepared to use millions of gallons of water in the desert, but than again solar does not have the output to pump water so what a waste of water and energy.

anyhow you cant answer one question, no green energy supporter can, my response will be here today. maybe quickly but I got a bit to do, like get a bite to eat here in Monterey Bay California, last night I ate in Carmel at Little Napoli, brushed elbows with the rich and famous. 

So maybe while I am away you can show the pro arguement in the con vs cons thread.

see ya there.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should look into what Germany has done with Wind power. So would you rather get wind mills from SUZLON, G.E. or some other DOMESTIC producers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow, 6% of their electricity. Whoopdeedoo. Let's wait until they hit 50% and see how great that works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have not only MET but have exceeded benchmarks.......But if it just stayed at the pace now which one would get to 50% first Germany or America. I just don't understand why you "conservatives" are not willing to even CONSIDER renewable energy sources at PART of, and a growing replacement, for the status quo. I mean REALLY what is your problem with alt energy? ONCE AGAIN I WILL HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT I FAVOR NUCLEAR AS A MAJOR PART OF OUR "TRANSITION" to alternate power sources (and by the way if you can't get past electric cars then the 3rd Gen nuke plants produce HYDROGEN as a by-product and all we would have to do is increase refuling sites and you could STILL have a car you can drive as far as you would like to. It may take 10-20-30-40-or 50 YEARS to have alt energy as a significant source of energy but if we fall prey to ALL of you anti-renewables naysayers then NOTHING will change in 50-100-150-or 200 years we will STILL be held hostage by the petro cos who will be able to charge ANY PRICE they want. Do you beleive that our economy will survive the ever dwindling fossil fuel resources and the MASSIVE run up in price of those comodities? I don't, and I think more and more Americans are no longer living with a 20th century mindset.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with private companies building power plants with any technology available, provided they use their money to do it and not government money. 

However, once you go over 10% alternative energy is when the real problems begin. Once you peak usage exceeds the amount made by 'always on' power plants it's just a waiting game until the blackouts start happening. Texas has more wind energy than Germany by about 1-2% and every summer they start doing rolling blackouts every day, of course they only black out the poor districts. Up to 10% I think it is great, over that mark I think any new plants built need to utilize storage technology to maintain a constant, regulated flow of energy from those plants, and I think that should be law.


----------



## mdn2000

one quick fact you find out real quick if you look at the materials to make fiberglass, Propene is needed and only comes from oil, Propene demand outstrips supply. Oil companies are selling the Propene


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither cows nor food crops grow in canyons. The biggest bitch I have heard about Wind Farms is they ruin the view. And hey you guys who are going to try to trash me I was PISSED when the Kennedy's didn't want an off shore Wind farm because it would ruin THEIR view.......FUCK EM if they think their VIEW is more important then alternative domestic energy production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call windmills domestic energy, you can say they are alternative foreign, outsourced energy all you want. What we have now is domestic, windmills and solar panels are foreign. Please stick with the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? Solar panels on DONESTIC land is DOMESTIC power unless I missed the treaty that Russia has made a claim to SUNLIGHT!!!
Click to expand...


A coal power plant is built in America and runs on American coal. A windmill might be on our land but it is built in China. Coal plants are better for our economy.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion, I got to bite my tongue. It just kills me that you call my arguement the strawman arguement but you have not addressed one point I have made. I have hundreds of posts with facts, with questions the green energy promoters do not have the answer to. Can you answer one, can you say you looked into the things I have asked, no you cannot. This is not to insult but its your side of the arguement that is lacking.
> 
> Held hostage to Middle East oil, not at all, we trade money for oil, for the best oil in  the world, that oil makes everything in your life and always will.
> 
> So am I only going to get the run around or are you interested in knowing the cons of wind power or solar. I got to go check my other thread with the exploding wind mill to see if you responded there, if you have not seen the you tube video I posted its really worth a look.
> 
> So once again it appears its only the conservatives with the answers and the green energy supporters demonizing what they may know nothing about.
> 
> I cant be nicer nor more encouraging, care to look at facts or is your mind made up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've ASKED you to show me the FACTS HOW MANY TIMES. Show me your FACTS and your SOURCES and I will be MORE than happy, in fact, eager to look over your PROOF that the energy and reasources to BUILD a windmill will NEVER be recouped during the lifespan of a modern windmill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You did not ask once, if you have I missed it, I will produce the facts, first I wanted to see if you could or anyone else, the fact that you cant and no one else can is proof that you know nothing of what you support.
> 
> Maybe while I get my post together which will take a bit as I go through my files you can answer why this thread is based on a source that we are not allowed to see and why you dont seem to give a shit about that.
> 
> One thing I will not be able to produce because the information is a hidden secret is the amount of energy an idle wind farm uses.
> 
> You have not asked for a fact from me, if so where is the post, facts I have posted, I have destroyed geothermal, that is a complete waste of money and energy,
> 
> Wind is just as easy to destroy.
> 
> Solar may be good in the future if your prepared to use millions of gallons of water in the desert, but than again solar does not have the output to pump water so what a waste of water and energy.
> 
> anyhow you cant answer one question, no green energy supporter can, my response will be here today. maybe quickly but I got a bit to do, like get a bite to eat here in Monterey Bay California, last night I ate in Carmel at Little Napoli, brushed elbows with the rich and famous.
> 
> So maybe while I am away you can show the pro arguement in the con vs cons thread.
> 
> see ya there.
Click to expand...





I don't think you commented on the type of geo thermal that Bush used on his Crawford ranch........Expensive at frist but it keeps your house at a very comfy temp winter and summer.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Screaming Eagle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't call windmills domestic energy, you can say they are alternative foreign, outsourced energy all you want. What we have now is domestic, windmills and solar panels are foreign. Please stick with the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? Solar panels on DONESTIC land is DOMESTIC power unless I missed the treaty that Russia has made a claim to SUNLIGHT!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A coal power plant is built in America and runs on American coal. A windmill might be on our land but it is built in China. Coal plants are better for our economy.
Click to expand...





G.E. windmills are built in China? Care to PROVE it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.



Fairy residence, tooth here!

Just wanted to make you feel at home.

. Our future is in green energy?  Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market. After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com

Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas,  22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear,  3.6% biomass,  2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal,  0.31% wind,  0.08% solar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Article 15 said:


> Sweet.  Will I be able to buy a flying car then?



Why don't you try out the one Rocks is using.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet.  Will I be able to buy a flying car then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally irrelevant, but really, with enough money, you can buy a flying car right now.
Click to expand...


See, I told you.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairy residence, tooth here!
> 
> Just wanted to make you feel at home.
> 
> . Our future is in green energy?  Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market. After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
> A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com
> 
> Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
> 39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas,  22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear,  3.6% biomass,  2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal,  0.31% wind,  0.08% solar.
Click to expand...




Yeah pretty cool when Reagan took down the solar panel that Carted put up on the WH. If we had followed through with his ideas we could be energy independent NOW. You do know Carter was a nuclear engineer right.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? Solar panels on DONESTIC land is DOMESTIC power unless I missed the treaty that Russia has made a claim to SUNLIGHT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A coal power plant is built in America and runs on American coal. A windmill might be on our land but it is built in China. Coal plants are better for our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.E. windmills are built in China? Care to PROVE it?
Click to expand...


More and more contracts for windmills and solar panels are being sent to China all the time. Texas windmills are now made in China, some might still be made here but it won't be long and we'll be getting them all from China.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables: Scientific American
> 
> A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within 10 years. As the two of us started to evaluate the feasibility of such a change, we took on an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the world&#8217;s energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. Our plan is presented here.
> 
> Scientists have been building to this moment for at least a decade, analyzing various pieces of the challenge. Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power&#8212;all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.
> 
> Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before. During World War II, the U.S. retooled automobile factories to produce 300,000 aircraft, and other countries produced 486,000 more. In 1956 the U.S. began building the Interstate Highway System, which after 35 years extended for 47,000 miles, changing commerce and society.
> 
> Is it feasible to transform the world&#8217;s energy systems? Could it be accomplished in two decades? The answers depend on the technologies chosen, the availability of critical materials, and economic and political factors.



"A year ago former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet..."

Close.

What he threw down was a whole pizza, two subs, and a milkshake.

After that he ate the gauntlet.


----------



## mdn2000

What about styrene waste, I will add some facts about the styrene toxic waste, one reason fiberglass production is in china

So if you cannot address or never heard of Propene and Boron usage in the manufacturer of fiberglass you pretty much are going to get an educaction. 

I am on a new computer so I have to get my files from my other drive as well as meet some freinds for food and eat but I will post before bed

Styrene waste, hundreds of tons

Boron, extremely limited supply

Propene only comes from oil and supply outstrips demand


----------



## PoliticalChic

Skull Pilot said:


> possible and probable are 2 different things.
> 
> A 100% changeover from fossil fuels to so called renewable energy will cost quadrillions of dollars.
> 
> once again we see the abandonment of the good for the perfect.



Celebrate reality!

Let's hear three cheers for Big Oil-

It lets us get to work!


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cold Fusion38 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairy residence, tooth here!
> 
> Just wanted to make you feel at home.
> 
> . Our future is in green energy?  Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market. After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
> A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com
> 
> Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
> 39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas,  22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear,  3.6% biomass,  2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal,  0.31% wind,  0.08% solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah pretty cool when Reagan took down the solar panel that Carted put up on the WH. If we had followed through with his ideas we could be energy independent NOW. You do know Carter was a nuclear engineer right.
Click to expand...


That's tongue in cheek, right? 

You believed that about the most incompetent President - up to now.

"He was discharged from active duty on 9 October, 1953. According to an old friend of mine who served as Rickover's personnel officer at Naval Reactors, LT Carter did not complete nuclear power school because of the need to take care of business at home."
When I think about the 1976 campaign and the importance of the energy issue at that time, I cannot help but wonder why Jimmy Carter's promoters made such a big deal about his nuclear expertise. My wonder turns to cynicism when I think about the policies that his administration imposed and the damage that they did to the growth of the industry just at a time when we most needed a vibrant new energy industry player."

Atomic Insights Blog: Picking on the Jimmy Carter myth


----------



## mdn2000

I will summarize later but just to show wht the facts are

To address the energy requirments to produce fiberglass used in windmills and to identify the companies who are getting rich each of the materials in the report must be researched, where are the mined, where do they come from, who manufacturers these materials, what is the energy requirement for each individual material, than we must add those numbers to the fiberglass production numbers.

I have a shitload of files but just aint put them together. If anyone thinks answering my simple question was simple they would of done it, green energy is not as simple as stating its a good idea. Folks beleive in green energy without an understanding of the industry it takes to make the basic materials.

I will try and avoid articles and post reports, this one from the EPA



> http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s13.pdf





> Raw Materials Handling -
> The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of
> feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The bulk supplies are
> received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
> These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
> and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
> screws, and bucket elevators. From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
> product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit. The weighing,
> mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
> Glass Melting And Refining -
> In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from
> 1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
> molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
> well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
> continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and dissolve. Mixing is effected
> by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
> into the bottom of the bed.
> Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method of heat application
> into 4 types: recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and
> unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-fired.
> Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
> with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste heat from
> exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber
> containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
> corresponding brickwork lattice. About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
> combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
> Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt. Electric furnaces are
> either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the electric
> current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of the
> electrical properties of the glass formulation. Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
> melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
> the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
> 9/85


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cold Fusion38 said:


> My question is WHY do so many people seem to be SO AFRAID of this idea?



No one is afraid of the idea.

When you sober up, you'll begin to see how absurd the idea is.

That's different from fear.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Why does it strike FEAR into the hearts of conservatives? I mean I would think a CONSERVATIVE root word CONSERVE would want our Earth to be free from burning fossil fuel. Even the Bible thumpers.....Doesn't God say to care for the Earth?



I am SO glad that you bring politics into this, because politics belongs squarely in the middle of this discussion.

     If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why havent market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture? 

Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply. 

Sometimes called the Watermelon Effect, it is made up of the green pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies  on the inside.

BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.

Don't you think it's time to untie the hands of Big Oil, and tie those of Sierra Club- Big Green?


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about? Solar panels on DONESTIC land is DOMESTIC power unless I missed the treaty that Russia has made a claim to SUNLIGHT!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A coal power plant is built in America and runs on American coal. A windmill might be on our land but it is built in China. Coal plants are better for our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.E. windmills are built in China? Care to PROVE it?
Click to expand...


Everyone has to prove to you but you dont have to prove one damn thing.

How about proving that windmills hit their benchmark, do i need to go back and quote you or will you step and do what you are demanding of others. 

Prove windmills hit the benchmark and do it without referencing a press release or an article absent of technical data. The benchmark must contain the electrical energy used by the windmills before they produce power, absent this fact your numbers and source will be extremely misleading.

So I have started to do what you demand, now do yourself what you demand of conservatives, after all I am meeting your demand.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairy residence, tooth here!
> 
> Just wanted to make you feel at home.
> 
> . Our future is in green energy?  Presidents all the way back to Richard Nixon -- whose "Project Independence" promised to make America independent from foreign oil by 1980 -- were thwarted by short attention spans, other urgent problems and gyrations in the energy market. After some 30 years and billions of dollars poured into alternative technologies, renewable energy now accounts for a mere 6.7% of our total.
> A Past President's Advice to Obama: Act With Haste - WSJ.com
> 
> Based on US Department of Energy, sources of energy used in the US:
> 39.2% petroleum, 23.3% natural gas,  22.4% coal, 8.3% nuclear,  3.6% biomass,  2.4% hydroelectric, 0.35% geothermal,  0.31% wind,  0.08% solar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah pretty cool when Reagan took down the solar panel that Carted put up on the WH. If we had followed through with his ideas we could be energy independent NOW. You do know Carter was a nuclear engineer right.
Click to expand...



Prove it, where is your source, carter never finished, he joined the navy as an officer and worked on a nuclear sub, that is why your confused, got your mind mixed up.


----------



## mdn2000

What happened to Cold Fusion, 

A ton of fiberglass takes millions of btu's, how do I convert that to watts? More searching, more research.

http://www.ms.ornl.gov/programs/energyeff/cfcc/iof/chap6.pdf



> In theory, about 2.2 million Btu
> of energy are required to melt a ton of glass. In
> reality, it takes twice as much energy because of
> inefficiencies and loses. The glass industry consists
> of four major segments: container glass (bottles,
> jars, etc.); flat glass (windows, windshields,
> mirrors, etc.); fiberglass (building insulation and
> textile fibers); and specialty glass (cookware, flat
> panel displays, light bulbs, fiber optics, medical



wow, who woud of though, 4 million btu to make a ton of fiberglass, figure the new Vesta windmills use 270 tons of fiberglass and that is rounded off 1 billion btu's of energy just to make one windmills worth of fiberglass. Did I get that right, 1,000,000,000 btu's. I admit I dont know how that converts to electricity, anyone out there able to help. I will look though. 

On top of over one billion btu's just for fiberglass production we now have to transport the fiberglass to the turbing and nacelle manufactorer such as Veste which is in Europe, than ship the turbine, the nacelle, and the tower to the USA, put it on custom built trailors and than transfer them to the location to be built.

Now I will have to look up the energy required to mine the silica

Now I will have to look up the energy to drill for the oil, and than to refine the Propene out of the oil.

I need to look at the energy needed to mine boron and transport it to the glass furnace.

Hell we need to know the energy and materials used to build the glass furnace.

I have yet to touch on the copper used in the generator.

chromoly used for bearings, steal in the tower, the computer the radio, the lights, the idle power consumption.

This is a project of great research

So lets wait for a response. 

How about how much C02 is created by generated a billion btu's

Not fair, that is only one windmill, Old Crock's state of Oregon have installed over 25,000 windmills so thats what, 27 trillion btu's worth of CO2, I am guessing at the numbers and estimating, Old Crock failed to provide any technical data for the wind farms of Oregon when asked but he did say 2 gwh and thats the number of windmills needed.

Hey Old Crock you said Seattle and Portland together only use 2 gwh, thats a flat out lie, maybe at night, in the lowest peak usage season, how come I aint seen you correct yourself or nothing on that fact I presented.


----------



## mdn2000

I am just posting a bunch of facts, as I find them, I will put it all together into a nice sumarized post later but just so the green energy folks can see the vast amount of information they know nothing of I am posting as I go. 

I have some stuff on my back up hard drive but this is some new stuff I am finding which is relevant.

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Hearings :.



> During this time, Ohio has lost about 200,000 manufacturing jobs. These jobs are not simply migrating to another region &#8211; they are going overseas and they aren&#8217;t coming back. This is because other countries do not have the high costs that we place on our industry, such as rising health care costs, litigation, regulatory burdens, taxes, unfair competition from China, and escalating natural gas costs.



Relevance is Ohio was one of the Cornings fiberglass manufacturering sites.



> &#8220;Almost all new production of chemicals and plastics will take place in the Middle East and Asia&#8230;Charles O. Holliday Jr., chairman and chief executive of DuPont Co., told investors in December that high energy costs will prompt the company to shift its &#8216;center of gravity&#8217; overseas


----------



## mdn2000

http://www.ms.ornl.gov/programs/energyeff/cfcc/iof/chap6.pdf



> Electrical heating is used exclusively in many
> smaller specialty and fiberglass melting furnaces
> because of its lower initial cost and low emissions,
> even though energy costs remain high. Key
> disadvantages of all electric furnaces are the high
> energy cost and short furnace life. Electric furnaces
> are rebuilt as often as every six months, but
> because of their small size, down time is limited
> to only about two days.



The below figure is from 1991, now I got to figure out how much fiberglass production has increased since 1991, consider windmills were pretty much non exsistent 20 years ago I think its safe to say its more than quadrupled.

Maybe significantly more than 250 trillion btu's currently being used solely for the fiberglass portion of a windmill.

How much CO2 is that?



> 6.6 FIBER GLASS
> The fiber glass industry is made up of two
> primary markets: wool insulation and textile
> fibers. Wool insulation is a short-fiber product used
> by the construction industry. Textile fibers are a
> continuous-fiber product principally used as a
> polymer matrix composite reinforcement.
> Together, the four major producers of wool and
> the six major producers of textile fibers employ
> about 16,000 workers. A typical producer can
> operate as many as 27 glass melt furnaces. In 1991,
> fiber glass made up 9% of all glass produced and
> accounted for 21% of the total market value. In
> 1981, 71% by weight of all glass fiber shipped was
> wool. Total energy consumption for the fiber glass
> industry in 1991 was 59.5 trillion Btu,


----------



## mdn2000

This reads poor. At least to me, but Owens Corning is who we speak of when speaking of a wind mill and the raw materials used to produce wind mills.





> COMPOSITES A composite is a reinforcing material like glass fiber that is combined with a polymer to produce structural or functional properties that enhance performance in a variety of end-use applications. INVESTING IN GLOBAL GROWTH Growth in Emerging Markets Owens Corning completed Russia, India, Mexico and Brazil, the most significant acquisition while profitably growing its Owens Corning expects in its history in 2007 with the revenue from international, composites growth in Asia purchase of Saint-Gobain&#8217;s commercial and industrial to continue to exceed reinforcements and composite sources. As a result, the global growth rates. The fabrics businesses. The acquisition positions the composites market in China acquisition further extends Owens Corning brand in and India alone are projected Owens Corning&#8217;s position as global markets where the to grow by double-digits in the market leader in an industry company does not have a 2008





> Owens Corning develops as infrastructure, construction, resistance and high strength. composite material for large automotive, wind energy and diameter pipe applications consumer goods. Advanced Glass Melting (AGM) is a technology &#8226; Saint-Gobain expands in Italy Owens Corning is where innovative furnace and Spain through acquisition accelerating its plan to design allows for more efficient


----------



## kyzr

Ever wonder what happened to T. Boone's plan to use prairie wind power to power the east coast?  <line losses>
Ever wonder what happened to the massive solar plant in the Mojave Desert?  <Pelosi, Boxer & Feinstein killed it>
Ever wonder why wind power isn't more plentiful?  <need constant wind >13m/s to be cost-effective>

So where does all this leave "alternative energy".  As a small percentage of the US power grid.  The "smart grid" will do more to conserve power than alternative energy.  

We had a lot of clean hydro-electric power, but dams are bad.  <stupid political-correctness, hydro-power is a good thing>

Nuclear power is clean, and reliable.  I think they are being built again.  Good thing the old plants need to be replaced as they wear out.


----------



## PoliticalChic

kyzr said:


> Ever wonder what happened to T. Boone's plan to use prairie wind power to power the east coast?  <line losses>
> Ever wonder what happened to the massive solar plant in the Mojave Desert?  <Pelosi, Boxer & Feinstein killed it>
> Ever wonder why wind power isn't more plentiful?  <need constant wind >13m/s to be cost-effective>
> 
> So where does all this leave "alternative energy".  As a small percentage of the US power grid.  The "smart grid" will do more to conserve power than alternative energy.
> 
> We had a lot of clean hydro-electric power, but dams are bad.  <stupid political-correctness, hydro-power is a good thing>
> 
> Nuclear power is clean, and reliable.  I think they are being built again.  Good thing the old plants need to be replaced as they wear out.



There are a lot of smart folks on the other side, who know that there is no alternative energy scenario that works. 

US? 40 years, no luck.

Spain: 
"Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's report concludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy. "
George F. Will - A Quixotic Pursuit: Green Energy Jobs - washingtonpost.com

So when can we expect the intelligent 'greenies' to catch on to how they are being used?


----------



## mdn2000

kyzr said:


> Ever wonder what happened to T. Boone's plan to use prairie wind power to power the east coast?  <line losses>
> Ever wonder what happened to the massive solar plant in the Mojave Desert?  <Pelosi, Boxer & Feinstein killed it>
> Ever wonder why wind power isn't more plentiful?  <need constant wind >13m/s to be cost-effective>
> 
> So where does all this leave "alternative energy".  As a small percentage of the US power grid.  The "smart grid" will do more to conserve power than alternative energy.
> 
> We had a lot of clean hydro-electric power, but dams are bad.  <stupid political-correctness, hydro-power is a good thing>
> 
> Nuclear power is clean, and reliable.  I think they are being built again.  Good thing the old plants need to be replaced as they wear out.



The "smart grid", what the hell is a smart grid. Another marketing ploy to make trillions for corporations, smart grid, what the hell is it, the ability to turn off power to homes to supply business? Smart Grid, explain the smart grid, no links, no source, your words.

The smart grid is to empower brokers of electricity. We dont need a smart grid, we dont need new power lines, we Nuclear power plants near the areas that use the power.

The only problem with the grid is the idiots on wall street cant sell power from new york in california when peak demand hits, and the only reason there is problem, brown outs, is because california is importing power, not making it.

Smart Grid, sounds great, sign me up, where do I pay the Wall Street power brokers.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

mdn2000 said:


> The "smart grid", what the hell is a smart grid.



It's a pattern of intersecting lines which have achieved sentience.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> I will summarize later but just to show wht the facts are
> 
> To address the energy requirments to produce fiberglass used in windmills and to identify the companies who are getting rich each of the materials in the report must be researched, where are the mined, where do they come from, who manufacturers these materials, what is the energy requirement for each individual material, than we must add those numbers to the fiberglass production numbers.
> 
> I have a shitload of files but just aint put them together. If anyone thinks answering my simple question was simple they would of done it, green energy is not as simple as stating its a good idea. Folks beleive in green energy without an understanding of the industry it takes to make the basic materials.
> 
> I will try and avoid articles and post reports, this one from the EPA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s13.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raw Materials Handling -
> The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of
> feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The bulk supplies are
> received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
> These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
> and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
> screws, and bucket elevators. From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
> product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit. The weighing,
> mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
> Glass Melting And Refining -
> In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from
> 1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
> molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
> well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
> continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and dissolve. Mixing is effected
> by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
> into the bottom of the bed.
> Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method of heat application
> into 4 types: recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and
> unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-fired.
> Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
> with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste heat from
> exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber
> containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
> corresponding brickwork lattice. About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
> combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
> Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt. Electric furnaces are
> either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the electric
> current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of the
> electrical properties of the glass formulation. Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
> melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
> the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
> 9/85
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years. 


I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> What about styrene waste, I will add some facts about the styrene toxic waste, one reason fiberglass production is in china
> 
> So if you cannot address or never heard of Propene and Boron usage in the manufacturer of fiberglass you pretty much are going to get an educaction.
> 
> I am on a new computer so I have to get my files from my other drive as well as meet some freinds for food and eat but I will post before bed
> 
> Styrene waste, hundreds of tons
> 
> Boron, extremely limited supply
> 
> Propene only comes from oil and supply outstrips demand






How much waste is produced to make your computer?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?

I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.


----------



## kyzr

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?
> 
> I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.



Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward.  We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel.  If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.  

You do understand simple economics, don't you?


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?
> 
> I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.



In the case of windmills why do I oppose, simple, they use more power than they create, facts are hidden from the public. How much power is used to create one, from a 100 tons of fiberglass to the 300 tons of steel we are talking of a structure that is created by using massive amounts of fossil fuel. Windmills are an older technology than oil, by maybe a thousand years. Sure you use some advanced materials but the same can be said of oil. 

How much energy does it take to make a computer, good question, I know california charged me a 15 dollar non refundable recycling fee on a 400 dollar laptop, on top of the ten percent tax. 

Windmills if you take into account the steel, fiberglass, all the materials, the energy they need to just sit idle, than they are a negative. That is why I oppose them. Windmill farms are now building fossil fuel plants on site, they have to because is lousy energy, do a bit of research or know anything about electricity and you know you cannot have an intermitten system connected to the grid other wise the voltage and current flucuations will destroy the grid. 

Ever here of Cap and Trade, the specific reason for Cap and Trade is to tax fossil fuel in order to make green energy competitive. This is fact as stated in reports made during the Clinton administration. I will get the report, my freind/co-worker who turned me onto this site gave me a copy but I cannot find it, I can get another copy and post the report.

It explicitly states they must tax fossil fuels to make green energy competitive.

That is not technology or progress, that is tyranny.

Show me how you can make green energy without fossil fuel, show me how when fossil fuel runs out we can build a windmill. Maybe we can with nuclear power but its an extreme waste of natural resources to build a windmill when the generator sits idle almost the entire year and when it does work the power is erratic. 

that same generator could be hooked to the primary coolant system of a nuclear reactor and provide literally ten thousand time the energy without the waste of fiberglass and steel. 

Its that simple, idle generators are a waste of the precious resource we all want to save.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

kyzr said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?
> 
> I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward.  We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel.  If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.
> 
> You do understand simple economics, don't you?
Click to expand...





So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.


----------



## Big Fitz

Currently all forms of "Green Energy" are incapable of satisfying the needs of the nation or the world.  The land use and resource issues of these three sources of energy (Pinwheels, Mirrors and Moonshine) would be so cost intensive, the modern society would collapse under it's sheer weight of inefficiency.  

One square mile of nuclear power plant produces more than 300 square miles of wind, plus works 100% of the time.  And with nuclear waste recycling and reconditioning (banned by Carter but the French still use it quite effectively), we could eliminate almost all danger from toxic nuclear waste.

And even if this succeeds for the electric grid, you still have portable energy technology issues with battery storage and portable energy.

Unfortunately, all this is in the realm of science fantasy.  Barely on the edge of science fiction even.

All this being said, with the exposure of the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming thanks to the Hadley CRU whistle blower, it's very safe to say, this movement is dead.

At least that's my opinion on it.


----------



## Cold Fusion38

mdn2000 said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?
> 
> I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of windmills why do I oppose, simple, they use more power than they create, facts are hidden from the public. How much power is used to create one, from a 100 tons of fiberglass to the 300 tons of steel we are talking of a structure that is created by using massive amounts of fossil fuel. Windmills are an older technology than oil, by maybe a thousand years. Sure you use some advanced materials but the same can be said of oil.
> 
> How much energy does it take to make a computer, good question, I know california charged me a 15 dollar non refundable recycling fee on a 400 dollar laptop, on top of the ten percent tax.
> 
> Windmills if you take into account the steel, fiberglass, all the materials, the energy they need to just sit idle, than they are a negative. That is why I oppose them. Windmill farms are now building fossil fuel plants on site, they have to because is lousy energy, do a bit of research or know anything about electricity and you know you cannot have an intermitten system connected to the grid other wise the voltage and current flucuations will destroy the grid.
> 
> Ever here of Cap and Trade, the specific reason for Cap and Trade is to tax fossil fuel in order to make green energy competitive. This is fact as stated in reports made during the Clinton administration. I will get the report, my freind/co-worker who turned me onto this site gave me a copy but I cannot find it, I can get another copy and post the report.
> 
> It explicitly states they must tax fossil fuels to make green energy competitive.
> 
> That is not technology or progress, that is tyranny.
> 
> Show me how you can make green energy without fossil fuel, show me how when fossil fuel runs out we can build a windmill. Maybe we can with nuclear power but its an extreme waste of natural resources to build a windmill when the generator sits idle almost the entire year and when it does work the power is erratic.
> 
> that same generator could be hooked to the primary coolant system of a nuclear reactor and provide literally ten thousand time the energy without the waste of fiberglass and steel.
> 
> Its that simple, idle generators are a waste of the precious resource we all want to save.
Click to expand...





I am pretty sure there are areas with nearly CONSTANT power. At the VERY least they could pick up some slack while Power Plants are IDLE do to preventitive or emergency repairs. Remind me does the wind go out towards the ocean at night of does it blow IN towards the shore?


----------



## Cold Fusion38

If you have noticed I am an advocate of Nuke power as well as alt energy.


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> Currently all forms of "Green Energy" are incapable of satisfying the needs of the nation or the world.  The land use and resource issues of these three sources of energy (Pinwheels, Mirrors and Moonshine) would be so cost intensive, the modern society would collapse under it's sheer weight of inefficiency.
> 
> One square mile of nuclear power plant produces more than 300 square miles of wind, plus works 100% of the time.  And with nuclear waste recycling and reconditioning (banned by Carter but the French still use it quite effectively), we could eliminate almost all danger from toxic nuclear waste.
> 
> And even if this succeeds for the electric grid, you still have portable energy technology issues with battery storage and portable energy.
> 
> Unfortunately, all this is in the realm of science fantasy.  Barely on the edge of science fiction even.
> 
> All this being said, with the exposure of the fraud of Anthropogenic Global Warming thanks to the Hadley CRU whistle blower, it's very safe to say, this movement is dead.
> 
> At least that's my opinion on it.



That opinion, and a buck, will get you a cup of coffee.

Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.

And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Cold Fusion38 said:


> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon nano tubes could be the next technology leap that could make wind power more viable. The real point here is WHY do so many conservatives want to cling to 100 year old technology rather than embrace NEW sources of energy that are only BEGINING to be developed and lead to NEW technologies......I wonder what kind of battery my lap top would have had 10 year ago?
> 
> I would guess that most of you here would have screamed bloody murder about the money spent to go to the moon and would suddenly go silent when the new techs for the moon landing started showing up in products you use every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward.  We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel.  If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.
> 
> You do understand simple economics, don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.
Click to expand...


Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.


----------



## Old Rocks

Screaming Eagle said:


> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kyzr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its always a good thing to keep moving the technology base forward.  We conservatives want to keep the lights on with the least cost fuel.  If you want to pay crazy costs to be "green" thats your decision.
> 
> You do understand simple economics, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.
Click to expand...


Wind works right now. Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post. Solar thermal, in any of several configurations, also works. Photovoltaic solar still waits for the $1 a watt panels. First Solar is within 7 cents of that figure right now.

There are some very interesting technologies out there, some that just need to be set up for manufacturing.


----------



## Andrew2382

2030 huh

good luck with that


----------



## Screaming Eagle

Old Rocks said:


> Screaming Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cold Fusion38 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's best to just IGNORE that there may be a MUCH BETTER way to power America and the world and just continue to use the SAME OLD OUTDATED sources for power rather than being PRO-active and be the WORLD LEADER (where we SHOULD be) in new technologies to make energy a TRUELY renewable source of energy? I guess for you the EASIER path it the best one to take, I guess making sacrifices for the generations to follow is too HARD, I guess we should just use ALL the fossil fuels and let OTHERS deal with the CRITICAL energy problems that a lack of fossil fuels MUST eventually cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you want to switch to something that doesn't work? I'm all for going 100% solar when it is a viable option. We should continue to use coal and nuclear until such time as other options are available, not use options that suck now because some time in the future a solar or wind system which is similar in appearance will be great.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wind works right now. Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post. Solar thermal, in any of several configurations, also works. Photovoltaic solar still waits for the $1 a watt panels. First Solar is within 7 cents of that figure right now.
> 
> There are some very interesting technologies out there, some that just need to be set up for manufacturing.
Click to expand...


No it doesn't work. If you go over 10% wind you start getting blackouts. We don't have storage technology that would result in steady reliable power whether or not the wind is blowing. Therefore it doesn't work. The wind does not always blow. Windmills do.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.



Nuclear is great for stationary sources of energy and outside of railroads going totally electric (not happening any time soon) it's worthless as a source of mobile power.  Spare me the electric car.  It ain't selling here.  I don't do Duracell brand put puts when you have freight to haul.

Wind is unable to create and sustain the energy demands currently required.  Spain's finding this out the hard way.  Coal has an energy density and efficiency that far exceeds that of your wimpy windmills.  I'd rather have function than trendy any day.

Geothermal.  Fine and dandy.  Too bad it's cost ineffective except in areas that are geologically active.  Give it 20-40 years and maybe it'll be more viable for heavy lifting.  Till then, Iceland's lucky to have it.  And do we really want to consider the amount of power generation facilities place at Yellowstone to get the power this nation would need?  Think of all the high tension power lines going all over the nation if you did that.  Gonna not complain about those?



> And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.



I see.  When it busts your narrative it's illegal hacking.  When it supports it, it's whistle blowing.  This data has been authenticated as being legitimate from multiple sources and we're only seeing the tip of the ice cube because there are forensic science experts culling through the data and discovering lovely little chunks that verify they've been knowingly perpetrating a fraud for over a decade.  Now you can be in denial all you want, but your belief does not make it fact.  

Anthropogenic Climate impact is now DEAD.  Deceased, Pushing up Daisies, Kicked the Bucket, Shuffled off the mortal coil, become wormfood, and is being buried ass up so we have a place to park our bikes.



> Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post.



And in 10 years will we be able to provide the other 93% of the state of oregon?  How's that going to work out for the heavy industries that require thermal based energies?  Gonna use big ole electric heaters?  Electricity is not an anodyne or replacement for good old fashioned coal or coke flame.

You're trusting on untested systems that no industry in their right mind trust now that have only been viable in lab conditions if even that.  This is not sound energy policy.  This is economic suicide.  Why can't you realize that you are not operating in some nice neat bubble and in the messy real world where every little decision has a repercussion?

I just can't get your simplistic idealism that doesn't even mirror reality.


----------



## mdn2000

Big Fitz, you should be more careful, you made points that scared all the environuts away from this thread. You may have noticed that the ignorant have continued their endless senseless rant in other threads.


----------



## Douger

There IS NO 2030


----------



## Old Rocks

Big Fitz said:


> Nuclear, third or fourth generation, is good. But damned expensive. Wind is now cheaper than dirty coal. Geothermal can be cheaper even than wind, and is 24-7. As are some forms of thermal solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear is great for stationary sources of energy and outside of railroads going totally electric (not happening any time soon) it's worthless as a source of mobile power.  Spare me the electric car.  It ain't selling here.  I don't do Duracell brand put puts when you have freight to haul.
> 
> Wind is unable to create and sustain the energy demands currently required.  Spain's finding this out the hard way.  Coal has an energy density and efficiency that far exceeds that of your wimpy windmills.  I'd rather have function than trendy any day.
> 
> Geothermal.  Fine and dandy.  Too bad it's cost ineffective except in areas that are geologically active.  Give it 20-40 years and maybe it'll be more viable for heavy lifting.  Till then, Iceland's lucky to have it.  And do we really want to consider the amount of power generation facilities place at Yellowstone to get the power this nation would need?  Think of all the high tension power lines going all over the nation if you did that.  Gonna not complain about those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the criminal hacking of the e-mails you refer to have changed nothing. In fact, any real research reveals that they are intemperate use of language and slang, not at all what you fruitcakes have been selling them as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.  When it busts your narrative it's illegal hacking.  When it supports it, it's whistle blowing.  This data has been authenticated as being legitimate from multiple sources and we're only seeing the tip of the ice cube because there are forensic science experts culling through the data and discovering lovely little chunks that verify they've been knowingly perpetrating a fraud for over a decade.  Now you can be in denial all you want, but your belief does not make it fact.
> 
> Anthropogenic Climate impact is now DEAD.  Deceased, Pushing up Daisies, Kicked the Bucket, Shuffled off the mortal coil, become wormfood, and is being buried ass up so we have a place to park our bikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Providing 7% of the power in Oregon as we post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And in 10 years will we be able to provide the other 93% of the state of oregon?  How's that going to work out for the heavy industries that require thermal based energies?  Gonna use big ole electric heaters?  Electricity is not an anodyne or replacement for good old fashioned coal or coke flame.
> 
> You're trusting on untested systems that no industry in their right mind trust now that have only been viable in lab conditions if even that.  This is not sound energy policy.  This is economic suicide.  Why can't you realize that you are not operating in some nice neat bubble and in the messy real world where every little decision has a repercussion?
> 
> I just can't get your simplistic idealism that doesn't even mirror reality.
Click to expand...


In Oregon, we have only one coal fired plant, and we will close that dirty monstrousity soon. The rest we get from hydro, and wind. 

I work in a steel mill. We no longer smelt, and when we did, we used only electric furnaces for the smelting. 100 tons per pour melted in 20 minutes. At present we use natural gas for heating the slabs for rolling, and heat treating.

Not only is AGW not dead, it is beginning to look as if the "Storms of our Grandchildren", are not going to wait for our grandchildren. 

And March, 2010, is shaping up to be, like January and February, a very warm month. If the year continues on this path, the records of 1998 may be eclipsed.

And solar is coming online;

First Solar reaches "dollar per watt milestone" - 25 Feb 2009 - BusinessGreen.com

Thin-film solar cell manufacturer First Solar yesterday announced it has broken the $1 (70p) per watt cost barrier that is widely accepted as the point at which solar panels become cost competitive with fossil fuels.

The company said that during the fourth quarter of last year, the manufacturing cost for its solar modules stood at 98 cents per watt, taking it below the $1 per watt mark for the first time.

Mike Ahearn, chief executive at the company, hailed the achievement as a " milestone in the solar industry's evolution towards providing truly sustainable energy solutions", adding that it provided evidence that solar manufacturers could prosper in the long term even as government subsidies are reduced.

First Solar said it was confident that plans to more than double its production capacity through 2009 to more than one gigawatt would allow it to reduce costs further to a point where energy from solar panels can undercut that from natural gas and coal.


----------



## mdn2000

Solar energy is great for calculators but will never power industry, even with great advances, what the idiots ignore is that the use of Nuclear power is advancing at a rate that Solar cannot keep pace with. Thats right, people are doing research making Nuclear power even better than it is today. So even if you make Solar cheap Nuclear power is still advancing hence Solar will never compete.

Solar will never be a vialble form of energy, the sun does not shine enough and the conversion to electricity is very tiny, insignificant is the energy from solar.

Solar energy uses more water than nuclear power, Solar depletes the worlds resources faster than Nuclear power.


----------



## mdn2000

Cold Fusion38 said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will summarize later but just to show wht the facts are
> 
> To address the energy requirments to produce fiberglass used in windmills and to identify the companies who are getting rich each of the materials in the report must be researched, where are the mined, where do they come from, who manufacturers these materials, what is the energy requirement for each individual material, than we must add those numbers to the fiberglass production numbers.
> 
> I have a shitload of files but just aint put them together. If anyone thinks answering my simple question was simple they would of done it, green energy is not as simple as stating its a good idea. Folks beleive in green energy without an understanding of the industry it takes to make the basic materials.
> 
> I will try and avoid articles and post reports, this one from the EPA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/final/c11s13.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raw Materials Handling -
> The primary component of glass fiber is sand, but it also includes varying quantities of
> feldspar, sodium sulfate, anhydrous borax, boric acid, and many other materials. The bulk supplies are
> received by rail car and truck, and the lesser-volume supplies are received in drums and packages.
> These raw materials are unloaded by a variety of methods, including drag shovels, vacuum systems,
> and vibrator/gravity systems. Conveying to and from storage piles and silos is accomplished by belts,
> screws, and bucket elevators. From storage, the materials are weighed according to the desired
> product recipe and then blended well before their introduction into the melting unit. The weighing,
> mixing, and charging operations may be conducted in either batch or continuous mode.
> Glass Melting And Refining -
> In the glass melting furnace, the raw materials are heated to temperatures ranging from
> 1500 to 1700°C (2700 to 3100°F) and are transformed through a sequence of chemical reactions to
> molten glass. Although there are many furnace designs, furnaces are generally large, shallow, and
> well-insulated vessels that are heated from above. In operation, raw materials are introduced
> continuously on top of a bed of molten glass, where they slowly mix and dissolve. Mixing is effected
> by natural convection, gases rising from chemical reactions, and, in some operations, by air injection
> into the bottom of the bed.
> Glass melting furnaces can be categorized by their fuel source and method of heat application
> into 4 types: recuperative, regenerative, unit, and electric melter. The recuperative, regenerative, and
> unit melter furnaces can be fueled by either gas or oil. The current trend is from gas-fired to oil-fired.
> Recuperative furnaces use a steel heat exchanger, recovering heat from the exhaust gases by exchange
> with the combustion air. Regenerative furnaces use a lattice of brickwork to recover waste heat from
> exhaust gases. In the initial mode of operation, hot exhaust gases are routed through a chamber
> containing a brickwork lattice, while combustion air is heated by passage through another
> corresponding brickwork lattice. About every 20 minutes, the airflow is reversed, so that the
> combustion air is always being passed through hot brickwork previously heated by exhaust gases.
> Electric furnaces melt glass by passing an electric current through the melt. Electric furnaces are
> either hot-top or cold-top. The former use gas for auxiliary heating, and the latter use only the electric
> current. Electric furnaces are currently used only for wool glass fiber production because of the
> electrical properties of the glass formulation. Unit melters are used only for the "indirect" marble
> melting process, getting raw materials from a continuous screw at the back of the furnace adjacent to
> the exhaust air discharge. There are no provisions for heat recovery with unit melters.
> 9/85
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years.
> 
> 
> I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us.
Click to expand...


Sorry I had to disappear from this thread so long ago but I have a very full life and when I have the oppurtunity to live it I make no time for the petty arguements I find myself in.



> I think we STILL pretty much BURN coal/natural gas and I doubt we have come up with many REVOLUTIONARY new ways of doing so. They may be a bit more efficient and produce less pollution than they did 20-30 years ago but they are 100 YEAR OLD technology I mean my Gawd man how long should we keep doing the SAME F'ING thing until the fossil fuel runs out? Now there are many different views on just WHEN fossil fuels will run out but whether it is 50 years or 200 years if we REFUSE to utilize NEW technology then we will be in a REAL BAD WAY when change is FORCED on us



So you think Wind power is a new alternative, I disagree, Holland has used windmills for 100's of years.



> So your argument would be that COAL POWER PLANTS grow from a MAGIC bean that we plant and water until a FULL FLEDGED power plant grows. If you want to be HONEST with your argument about windmills/solar panels then you have to DIRECTLY contrast the costs and the materials INCLUDING the mining of materials. Then you would have to CONSIDER the technology LEAPS that wind and even more so solar power have undergone in just the last ten years.



I have addressed Wind Power, it uses too much energy to create.

Solar, I guess that grows from the "MAGIC" bean, if only we pour more money into the technology it will work. Solar technology is old, I say at least 100 years old, we have spent billions of dollars on Solar technology since that time and it has come a long ways since the first Solar plants were use to heat water. 

For some they see Wind and Solar technology as a newly discovered plant growing from a MAGIC bean that just needs a bit of pruning then we can harvest its fruit. 

Not that this is a scholarly arguement but I just drove by California's largest solar plant and I paid paticular attention to the power lines that come from this solar plant of the I-395 highway, the power lines were nothing more you than what you would see in any city with a population of around 5,000 people. 

The power from Solar is tiny, miniscule, insignificant and this is after 100 years of technology, research, and billions of dollars spent.


----------



## Old Rocks

*wind*


Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the end of 2009, the installed capacity of wind power in the United States was just over 35,000 megawatts (35 GW),[2][3] making it the world leader ahead of Germany. Wind power accounts for about 1.9% of the electricity generated in the United States (1.3% at the end of 2008 [4][5]).

Over 9,900 MW of new wind power capacity was brought online in 2009, up from 8,800 in 2008. These new installations place the U.S. on a trajectory to generate 20% of the nation&#8217;s electricity by 2030 from wind energy.[2] Growth in 2008 channeled some $17 billion into the economy, positioning wind power as one of the leading sources of new power generation in the country, along with natural gas. New wind projects completed in 2008 account for about 42% of the entire new power-producing capacity added in the U.S. during the year.[5]

At the end of 2008, about 85,000 people were employed in the U.S. wind industry,[6] and GE Energy was the largest domestic wind turbine manufacturer.[1] Wind projects boosted local tax bases, and revitalized the economy of rural communities by providing a steady income stream to farmers with wind turbines on their land.[1] Wind power in the U.S. provides enough electricity to power the equivalent of nearly 9 million homes, avoiding the emissions of 57 million tons of carbon each year and reducing expected carbon emissions from the electricity sector by 2.5%.[5]

*Enough electricity to power 9,000,000 homes on line right now.

Providing rural farmers and ranchers with a steady income.

Reducing the electrical carbon footprint by 2.5%. A significant reduction.

85,000 good paying jobs in manufacture, construction, and maintenance of the mills.

Wind counted for 42% of the new generation created in 2009. A very significan figure.

And all these figures will grow every year. *


----------



## boedicca

Old Rocks said:


> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers




Completely ludicrous and naive.

We have uncountable $T invested in current infrastruture.  There is no way this Academic Mental Masturbation can be implemented in a manner with a positive cost benefit.


----------



## sparky

Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build


----------



## KissMy

Old Rocks said:


> they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power &#8211; making a massive commitment to them &#8211; and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.



Someone is making up facts. less than 33% of the energy source gets converted into motion on battery powered electric car. Also in the winter the excess heat from an Internal Combustion (IC) engine is used to heat the inside of the car.

That 80% energy waste from Gas IC engine sounds extremely bogus to me. Maybe city stop light driving would cause this with high manifold vacuum holding engine at idle. Wide open throttle (WOT) is far more efficient. Diesel IC engines have no vacuum & are more efficient at stop n go. This is where the IC engine / Battery Hybrid saves you gas. The engine runs only when all of the power is going to be converted to motion or charging power.

Energy storage is the problem with your Utopian dream. When the wind & sun are not available you are screwed. The Vehicle to Grid (V2G) concept car was supposed to solve this. The problem is the V2G auto runs on gas using an IC engine.

Maybe all you pot growing Utopian dreaming hippies up in California's 'Emerald Triangle' could build your concept city so us knuckle dragging Neanderthals could marvel at how well it works.


----------



## Old Rocks

*A very efficient modern engine may get 20% efficiency at the very peak.*

Internal combustion engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The thermodynamic limits assume that the engine is operating in ideal conditions: a frictionless world, ideal gases, perfect insulators, and operation at infinite time. The real world is substantially more complex and all the complexities reduce the efficiency. In addition, real engines run best at specific loads and rates as described by their power curve. For example, a car cruising on a highway is usually operating significantly below its ideal load, because the engine is designed for the higher loads desired for rapid acceleration. The applications of engines are used as contributed drag on the total system reducing overall efficiency, such as wind resistance designs for vehicles. These and many other losses result in an engines' real-world fuel economy that is usually measured in the units of miles per gallon (or fuel consumption in liters per 100 kilometers) for automobiles. The miles in miles per gallon represents a meaningful amount of work and the volume of hydrocarbon implies a standard energy content.

Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.[12][13] Rocket engine efficiencies are better still, up to 70%, because they combust at very high temperatures and pressures and are able to have very high expansion ratios.[14]

There are many inventions concerned with increasing the efficiency of IC engines. In general, practical engines are always compromised by trade-offs between different properties such as efficiency, weight, power, heat, response, exhaust emissions, or noise. Sometimes economy also plays a role in not only the cost of manufacturing the engine itself, but also manufacturing and distributing the fuel. Increasing the engines' efficiency brings better fuel economy but only if the fuel cost per energy content is the same.

*Your source has made some fundemental mistake in his calculations. Think in terms of the hot exhaust from his engine. That represents far more than 3% efficiency loss.*


----------



## Old Rocks

sparky said:


> Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build



This is a very good source for those that would be independent.


----------



## mdn2000

Old Rocks said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good source for those that would be independent.
Click to expand...


Old Crock expects everyone to read the links Old Crock does not read, in your own words Old Crock, summarize the article. I dont follow the links posted by Old Crock who suffers Dementia.

I have followed to many of Old Crock's links and its always the same, Old Crock does not read the link, only the headline, every link of Old Crock's I have followed has made my point, not Old Crock's. I thinks a bump of another thread may be in order to show Old Crock does not read Old Crock's links or articles.


----------



## KissMy

mdn2000 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sparky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Home Power Magazine: Solar | Wind | Water | Design | Build
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a very good source for those that would be independent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Old Crock expects everyone to read the links Old Crock does not read, in your own words Old Crock, summarize the article. I dont follow the links posted by Old Crock who suffers Dementia.
> 
> I have followed to many of Old Crock's links and its always the same, Old Crock does not read the link, only the headline, every link of Old Crock's I have followed has made my point, not Old Crock's. I thinks a bump of another thread may be in order to show Old Crock does not read Old Crock's links or articles.
Click to expand...


Yes mdn2000 is correct about the Old Crock of crap. He will believe anything his leader tells him.

I can assure you his Utopian plan is shit or people would be doing it. I have a 1000 acre farm in a remote rural area. The electricity rates are almost double what urban dwellers pay. The neighbors & I have an electric coop. We have looked at all sorts of hydro, wind & solar. They all cost more than our current rate. We found our home maid windmills to be the most cost effective but you need to have reversing power meters. You still have to have base load power or some massive storage. All the states dams & reservoirs can only store enough for peak load power. There is no place to draw power from when the wind is not blowing. Cheap storage is the key to green power. The V2G auto is the closest answer so far but we are not there yet. We are Dependant on base load power. We even looked into bio-fuel power plants to serve as base load power. Bio-fuel is best used as transportation fuel & batteries best used for grid power. We are just now looking into the bloom box. Do not have any real world figures on these yet.


----------



## thomas78

100% is a long shot. Especially when you take all the developing countries into consideration. Not likely that many of them will want to go green. There was a good article in a swedish newspaper I read the other day where they said that a leading US utility company is entering into a contract with a tech startup that promises to deliver solar powered electricity with the help of satelites from space transmitting the energy back to earth with radiowaves. I like the idea =)


----------



## mdn2000

thomas78 said:


> 100% is a long shot. Especially when you take all the developing countries into consideration. Not likely that many of them will want to go green. There was a good article in a swedish newspaper I read the other day where they said that a leading US utility company is entering into a contract with a tech startup that promises to deliver solar powered electricity with the help of satelites from space transmitting the energy back to earth with radiowaves. I like the idea =)



Did you read this thread, the premise of the first article was opposite of the title. Scientific America made the case its impossible.

1% is impossible, there is no way alternatives can be used in developing countries, not to develop the country simply because they do not provide the energy needed. One way to keep the developing countries from developing and competing in world markets.


----------



## Big Fitz

> In Oregon, we have only one coal fired plant, and we will close that dirty monstrousity soon. The rest we get from hydro, and wind.
> 
> I work in a steel mill. We no longer smelt, and when we did, we used only electric furnaces for the smelting. 100 tons per pour melted in 20 minutes. At present we use natural gas for heating the slabs for rolling, and heat treating.



well, I consider it to your detriment to have such an expensive backup to hydro.  And as it is, hydro plants are all but illegal anymore to make thanks to econazis complaining about flooded land and habitat lost.  Hydro's the best form of electricity production.  Nuclear's second, coal's third.  Natural gas is expensive and is good for only specific industrial purposes.  



> Not only is AGW not dead, it is beginning to look as if the "Storms of our Grandchildren", are not going to wait for our grandchildren.
> 
> And March, 2010, is shaping up to be, like January and February, a very warm month. If the year continues on this path, the records of 1998 may be eclipsed.



Dead dead deadski.  You keep playing in fantasy land about this, hopefully we'll be smart to never allow you influence or power in politics ever again.



> Thin-film solar cell manufacturer First Solar yesterday announced it has broken the $1 (70p) per watt cost barrier that is widely accepted as the point at which solar panels become cost competitive with fossil fuels.
> 
> The company said that during the fourth quarter of last year, the manufacturing cost for its solar modules stood at 98 cents per watt, taking it below the $1 per watt mark for the first time.
> 
> Mike Ahearn, chief executive at the company, hailed the achievement as a " milestone in the solar industry's evolution towards providing truly sustainable energy solutions", adding that it provided evidence that solar manufacturers could prosper in the long term even as government subsidies are reduced.
> 
> First Solar said it was confident that plans to more than double its production capacity through 2009 to more than one gigawatt would allow it to reduce costs further to a point where energy from solar panels can undercut that from natural gas and coal.



Oh good.  Increase production by 90,000% and then we can talk on it being useful.  You've got 10 years by your fantasies.  Or we'll all die in a freezy burny blizzard of locusts hail and steam.  

This is good, but it's not ready for prime time.  But that's okay, by the time it's ready, you may finally give up on the delusional belief man can control climate.


----------



## sealybobo

Old Rocks said:


> *A doable and needed plan.*
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> Shifting the world to 100 percent clean, renewable energy as early as 2030 -- here are the numbers
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the technology needed to shift the world from fossil fuel to clean, renewable energy already exists. Implementing that technology requires overcoming obstacles in planning and politics, but doing so could result in a 30 percent decrease in global power demand, say Stanford civil and environmental engineering Professor Mark Z. Jacobson and University of California-Davis researcher Mark Delucchi.
> 
> To make clear the extent of those hurdles  and how they could be overcome  they have written an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. In it, they present new research mapping out and evaluating a quantitative plan for powering the entire world on wind, water and solar energy, including an assessment of the materials needed and costs. And it will ultimately be cheaper than sticking with fossil fuel or going nuclear, they say.
> 
> The key is turning to wind, water and solar energy to generate electrical power  making a massive commitment to them  and eliminating combustion as a way to generate power for vehicles as well as for normal electricity use.
> 
> The problem lies in the use of fossil fuels and biomass combustion, which are notoriously inefficient at producing usable energy. For example, when gasoline is used to power a vehicle, at least 80 percent of the energy produced is wasted as heat.
> 
> With vehicles that run on electricity, it's the opposite. Roughly 80 percent of the energy supplied to the vehicle is converted into motion, with only 20 percent lost as heat. Other combustion devices can similarly be replaced with electricity or with hydrogen produced by electricity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMAGE: Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering, has coauthored an article that is the cover story in the November issue of Scientific American. The article presents new research mapping...
> 
> 
> Click here for more information.
> 
> 
> 
> Jacobson and Delucchi used data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration to project that if the world's current mix of energy sources is maintained, global energy demand at any given moment in 2030 would be 16.9 terawatts, or 16.9 million megawatts.
> 
> They then calculated that if no combustion of fossil fuel or biomass were used to generate energy, and virtually everything was powered by electricity  either for direct use or hydrogen production  the demand would be only 11.5 terawatts. That's only two-thirds of the energy that would be needed if fossil fuels were still in the mix.


I now hear 2030 is the end of humanity as we know it. We have passed the point of no return. 

And so what really? How many other species have gone extinct? More species than exist today have come and gone.

Then the planet will return to being a true garden of eden.

And what will be the purpose of the animals that exist after we’re gone? To breed. To live. 

There will be plenty of natural resources for the animals left behind after we’re gone. Then maybe some future evolved species will fuel its car on our oil. Isn’t that where oil comes from? Dinosaur remains? I find that hard to believe.


----------



## Skull Pilot

If any of you people think that in just 12 years the world will be 100% run on wind and solar you're all even dumber than I thought and that's saying something


----------



## Old Rocks

*No, we will not be able to do that, thanks to retards like you. However, things are progressing pretty fast in the solar field.*

Latin America's largest solar park turns Mexican desert green

Driving through the endless dunes and cacti of the Chihuahuan desert in northern Mexico, a shimmering blue field suddenly appears on the horizon—not a mirage, but the largest solar park in Latin America.

This silent stretch of sand in the state of Coahuila is the spot the Italian energy giant Enel picked to build the Villanueva power plant: 2.3 million solar panels that sprawl across a sun-soaked area the size of 2,200 football fields.

When the plant reaches full capacity later this year, it will supply enough electricity to power 1.3 million homes.

It is the biggest solar project in the world outside China and India.

The panels are designed to turn in tandem with the sun, like a field of metallic sunflowers.

They are part of Mexico's push to generate 35 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2024.

Mexico won plaudits from environmentalists in 2015 when it became the first emerging country to announce its emissions reduction targets for the United Nations climate accord, ambitiously vowing to halve them by 2050.



Read more at: Latin America's largest solar park turns Mexican desert green


----------



## Old Rocks

Just the beginning.


----------



## Old Rocks

And there will be more.


----------



## Old Rocks

China has ambitions.


----------



## Old Rocks

And here in the US, a co-op in Texas led the way. We are now seeing similar installations in many other states.


----------



## PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic said:


> I am SO glad that you bring politics into this, because politics belongs squarely in the middle of this discussion.
> 
> If green energy is as good, cheap, and clean as supporters say, why havent market forces should make it an increasing part of the energy picture?
> 
> Politics: rather than the promotion of new sources of energy, the movement has been hijacked by those whose main motivation is the devolution of America, or to accomplish government ownership and control of our energy supply.
> 
> Sometimes called the Watermelon Effect, it is made up of the green pro-environment policies on the outside, hiding the red Marxist redistributive policies  on the inside.
> 
> BTW, we imported just over a third of our oil in 1981, and now 70%.
> 
> Don't you think it's time to untie the hands of Big Oil, and tie those of Sierra Club- Big Green?


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> View attachment 731448



The *Kardashev scale* is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is able to use. 

A type I civilization is able to access all the energy available on its planet and store it for consumption. A type II civilization can directly consume the energy of a star. Finally, a type III civilization is able to capture all the energy emitted by its galaxy. 

We're at 1 dummy.  People like you are slowing us down.  Like that boat is slowing green energy down.  The picture is opposite.  The green energy is being slowed down by you.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> The *Kardashev scale* is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy it is able to use.
> 
> A type I civilization is able to access all the energy available on its planet and store it for consumption. A type II civilization can directly consume the energy of a star. Finally, a type III civilization is able to capture all the energy emitted by its galaxy.
> 
> We're at 1 dummy.  People like you are slowing us down.  Like that boat is slowing green energy down.  The picture is opposite.  The green energy is being slowed down by you.





How about perpetual motion? Buy that too, you dunce?



Where does the electricity for your EV come from.....?
Take your time.


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> How about perpetual motion? Buy that too, you dunce?
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the electricity for your EV come from.....?
> Take your time.


The rivers are constantly flowing.  Yes, put underwater windmills everywhere there is flowing water.  Perpetually.

The electricity comes from gas and oil but they did a full study on this and by far the EV is cleaner than the car with a tale pipe.  

It's why despite your fighting it by 2030 your ass will be driving a EV.  

And it will be you who fights us all moving to autonomous vehicles.  Because you insist on being the driver in your gas guzzler.  

I'm just sad I probably won't l live to see it because of people like you.  I drive 3.5 hours up north.  I believe these cars wouldn't cause bottlenecks that add another 2 hours to some trips.  If everyone drove these, even if you want 10 mph slower, you'd probably get there faster or just as fast.  And you could do work, take a nap, whatever you want.  Imagine how much better those 4 hour trips will be in this.  You can do some situps.  Crunches.


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> The rivers are constantly flowing.  Yes, put underwater windmills everywhere there is flowing water.  Perpetually.
> 
> The electricity comes from gas and oil but they did a full study on this and by far the EV is cleaner than the car with a tale pipe.
> 
> It's why despite your fighting it by 2030 your ass will be driving a EV.
> 
> And it will be you who fights us all moving to autonomous vehicles.  Because you insist on being the driver in your gas guzzler.
> 
> I'm just sad I probably won't l live to see it because of people like you.  I drive 3.5 hours up north.  I believe these cars wouldn't cause bottlenecks that add another 2 hours to some trips.  If everyone drove these, even if you want 10 mph slower, you'd probably get there faster or just as fast.  And you could do work, take a nap, whatever you want.  Imagine how much better those 4 hour trips will be in this.  You can do some situps.  Crunches.
> 
> View attachment 731457



You've already been revealed as a total dolt.......what more is there to say?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> And here in the US, a co-op in Texas led the way. We are now seeing similar installations in many other states.





Where does the energy for the electricity you need for EVs come from?


Put a cork in your pie hole, huh?


----------



## sealybobo

PoliticalChic said:


> You've already been revealed as a total dolt.......what more is there to say?


Have I?  Because you and the assholes here who like you agree?


----------



## PoliticalChic

sealybobo said:


> Have I?  Because you and the assholes here who like you agree?




I don't use language like that, I suppose you were brought up being spoken to in that way. I find that regularly in those with your sort of political outlook......



Under Trump gasoline was about $1.80 a gallon….but you voted against that
Under Trump we were energy independent….but you voted against that.
Under Trump 80% of illegal alien were kept in Mexico….but you voted against that.
Under Trump inflation was 1.4%….but you voted against that.
Under Trump crime was far lower, as were homicides….but you voted against that.
Under Trump Iran was kept in a box….but you voted against that.
Under Trump America had an airbase near both China and Iran….but you voted against that.
Under Trump our President wasn’t on China’s payroll….but you voted against that.
Under Trump cartels weren’t free to operate….but you voted against that.
Under Trump government didn’t favor racism, CRT, gender mutilation….but you voted against that.
Under Trump we didn’t have confiscatory tax policy….but you voted against that.


----------

