Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[flacaltenn]

Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.

We will never "run" on renewables. And PANIC or FORCE wont fix the problem.

You need to get Hairy Ass Reid to replace the Yucca Mtn facility he junked after great expense to the taxpayers.. MOSTLY to pick up the trash from the Nation's Nuclear Weapons Labs that is leaking into major waterways. But also as an assurance to the public that we are serious about PROPER storage and disposal..

We need to build out some 3rd generation nuclear NOW -- before we lose that technology biz to the rest of the world also.. And put your RENEWABLES to work OFF GRID.. Making hydrogen and biofuels for transportation...

 

[flacaltenn]

Non sequitur response!

Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..

Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??

You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators.

So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.

Not really.. You are just more naive than the average environmentalist..

1) Wind is completely unreliable and can be gone under a 500 mile wide high pressure dome for days. Electrical transport OUTSIDE of that area is extremely lossy and nobody wants to pay for heating transmission wires. Bad enough that it's on for 20 minutes and gone for an hour..

2) Hydro is not likely to be ADDING any generation capacity here in this country.. And NEW hydro installations are a LARGE source of CO2 and NOT enviro friendly.. Go ask the Sierra Club...

3) Tidal power destroys massive areas of coastal habitat and when the plans are on the table --- don't look that good as an enviro deal.. I can show you multiple examples of folks wanting to literally WALL OFF (dam) square MILES of coast to increase the efficiency of tidal turbines. It's a cuisinart barrier for those biomes.. Maintenance is an f'ing nightmare.

4) Geothermal is a dirty mining operation. Worse than fracking in that the effluent is so corrosive -- the drill location has to be redone after several years.. It IS FRACKING. And it's not even truly renewable as the local heat does peter out and the wells need to be periodically extended or redrilled. In the case of BLOWOUTS -- toxic fluids and vapors have the capacity to KILL every living thing in a 1/2 mile radius.. Also very geographically limited.

But lets get back to the NECCESSITY of adding battery or other storage to the grid when more than 10% flaky renewables are present.. Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT of this requirement? Or do you just think that grid stability is a right-wing myth?

 

[RGR]

Your stupid oil, natural gas and coal will be gone within the next 100 years. One way or another we will be running on renewables.

We've got more than a century of hydrates to burn that we aren't even USING any of yet, where did you get THIS stupid number?

 

[elektra]

boy what a idiot.

Do you know what renewable means moron? Unlike coal, oil and natural gas that are likely to run out, renewables won't.

That is all that matters at the end of the day.

I do support nuclear for the baseload so I am not a leftist. I voted for Bush, McCain and Romney. The problem with most of the right is how short sighted you're.

You never consider the long run when that day comes.

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.

Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.

So provide a link if you expect the same

 

[elektra]

Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.

Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.

I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.

Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.

Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.

And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.

Its not an allegation, its something you can physically see, Solar Power farms are bigger in size than a Fossil Power plant that produces equal power, bigger in size does mean it takes more energy to produce, more natural resources. If you can not grasp something that simple no amount of links in the world will convince you.

Should I also provide a link to show you that the Sky is blue.

Links will not teach common sense.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.

Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Did I say that we don't have to fucking worry about it running out? You short sighted idiots.

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.

Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.

Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing. They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it. In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro.. And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.

And again Matthew. Solar is not an alternative to nat gas.. It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows. Its merely a Daytime peaker tech. You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.

 

[Politico]

Arguing with Matt is like trying to reason with a crack addict. Nothing said even registers or is considered.

 

[elektra]

Solar Panels kill rats

Silicon tetrachloride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silicon tetrachloride is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of high purity silicon,[2] since it has a boiling point convenient for purification by repeated fractional distillation. It can be reduced to silicon by hydrogen gas. Very pure silicon derived from silicon tetrachloride is used in large amounts in the semiconductor industry, and also in the production of photovoltaic cells

MSDS Sheet Search from Scott Specialty Gases for SILICON TETRACHLORIDE

11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION

LETHAL CONCENTRATION (LC50): 750 ppm, rat 1 hour.

See that, Green Clean Energy is killing rats!!!

 

[westwall]

Arguing with Matt is like trying to reason with a crack addict. Nothing said even registers or is considered.

Yes, Matthew is descending into trolldom..

 

[elektra]

Sad, Green Energy is destroying the Earth, the soil, the rivers, how cold and callous must one be to be an advocate for Solar Panels when its known that the production of the panels results in millions of pounds of toxic waste each year. Waste that need not of been created.

Silicon tetrachloride - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pollution from the production of silicon tetrachloride has been reported in China associated with the increased demand for photovoltaic cells that has been stimulated by subsidy programs

Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China

GAOLONG, China -- The first time Li Gengxuan saw the dump trucks from the nearby factory pull into his village, he couldn't believe what happened. Stopping between the cornfields and the primary school playground, the workers dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the ground. Then they turned around and drove right back through the gates of their compound without a word.

This ritual has been going on almost every day for nine months, Li and other villagers said.

In China, a country buckling with the breakneck pace of its industrial growth, such stories of environmental pollution are not uncommon. But the Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology Co., here in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River, stands out for one reason: It's a green energy company, producing polysilicon destined for solar energy panels sold around the world. But the byproduct of polysilicon production -- silicon tetrachloride -- is a highly toxic substance that poses environmental hazards.

 

[ScienceRocks]

China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.

They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers. Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.

 

[ScienceRocks]

China's smog threatens health of global coal projects


China's smog threatens health of global coal projects | Reuters

(Reuters) - A choking smog across much of northern China threatens not just the health of local residents, but also of major coal projects globally that are still on the drawing board.

Beijing's plans to tackle pollution largely target coal-fired power, which will hit already slowing demand in the world's top importer of the fuel.

With China's coal demand the primary driver for a slew of mine investments over the past decade, this trend could derail a list of capital intensive coal projects from Australia to Indonesia and Mozambique.

Even without the environmental drive, new railways from mines to ports, falling investment in coal-fired generation and slowing power demand growth could see China's miners export some of their surplus output at competitive prices, hitting regional miners and the viability of new projects.

Coal is a million times worse then a little bit of shit from solar cells. The worse fucking thing imaginable.

http://www.reuters.com/article/slideshow?articleId=USBRE9AD19L20131114&slide=1#a=1

AT LEAST SOLAR ISN"T GOING TO SMOG OUT THE FUCKING SKY EVERY DAY!

 

[westwall]

China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.

They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers. Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.

Let me see....who was it that created the EPA???? Now who was that???? Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....

 

[ScienceRocks]

This is what coal does...Unregulated fucking coal.

 

[ScienceRocks]

China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.

They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers. Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.

Let me see....who was it that created the EPA???? Now who was that???? Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....

And it is your party that wants to remove it you fucking cowards. Piece of shit!

 

[flacaltenn]

If solar was NOT a mature technology -- we'd have a prayer of taking it back from the Chinese. But this is now OLD tech. And panels are a commodity item like tennis shoes.. Getting another 5% out of them is not enough reason to start a company.. Cutting cost IS..

We need to focus on disruptive innovation.. The stuff that isn't 40 years old. Like 3rd gen nuclear and hydrogen production, quick response toxic cleanup, and advanced recycling. . Plenty of opportunities to create entirely NEW industries for the energy field..

 

[ScienceRocks]

Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.

 

[ScienceRocks]