Why does the left demonize affordable energy?

[Silhouette]

Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few. Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.

Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.

And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)... Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation. No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't. Fukushima had four reactors melt down. Chernobyl, just one. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island. So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.

People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it. If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current. Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.

One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water. Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.

Why aren't we doing that? The politics of energy greed. Very simple. If a system creates power simply, efficiently and cleanly, and has a FREE energy source, it's very hard to corral and monopolize. Big, dangerous, dirty, hard to get at ways of boiling water take connections, difficult permits and the power coming from that, extraordinarily easy to monopolize....and therefore, profit insanely off of.

That's why I offered as a suggestion long ago, that Congress pass an Act that allows these greedy assholes the "right" to monopolize solar thermal as a hybrid to existing coal and oil water boilers. Nuclear is insane (the costs of mining, refining, production and waste management mean that no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, and instead relies on taxpayer's subsidies to stay running) and every nuclear water boiler on earth must be decommissioned. Then, the greedy assholes can rake in EVEN MORE cash with their continuing monopolies but at least we customers can breathe a sigh of relief that our power isn't killing the earth forever. I thought it was the perfect compromise.

solar towers. and the quest for tesla's wireless power. we have now, drones that can recharge in flight. the obvious problem with that is if you're not careful, you could put someone's eye out.

NOT SOLAR TOWERS!!!! THIS!:

 

[thereisnospoon]

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about 15 to 30 times as much energy as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

The bottom line is that liberals despise a free society. A mobile society is just that. The proof of this is in the left wing agenda. Liberals despise the concept of suburbs, single family homes, automobiles and private property. Left wingers believe we should all be crammed into urban centers and left to fend for ourselves while they the ruling elite class get to live in far flung gated communities complete with private armed security teams and attack dogs.
A reminder of this

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about 15 to 30 times as much energy as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

It is well documented that liberals despise a free or relatively free society. The have this idea because a free people are more difficult to control.
Inexpensive fuel allows mobility and more choices. The more choices available to a society the less dependency on government is required.

 

[Silhouette]

And the most inexpensive fuel of all? Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines. Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...

Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"? Geothermal steam to run turbines.

 

[Votto]

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about 15 to 30 times as much energy as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

The bottom line is that liberals despise a free society. A mobile society is just that. The proof of this is in the left wing agenda. Liberals despise the concept of suburbs, single family homes, automobiles and private property. Left wingers believe we should all be crammed into urban centers and left to fend for ourselves while they the ruling elite class get to live in far flung gated communities complete with private armed security teams and attack dogs.
A reminder of this

Air travel today is 70% more energy efficient than it was in the 60s. Not that the left is impressed. Coal and oil allow people to heat their homes and drive to work. Solar power has a long way to go before it can catch up with efficiency and cost. Despite that, the left wants to put coal workers out of work. And they support rising gas prices. They don't seem to care that it will be unaffordable for people to heat their homes and drive to work. The poor will be hit hardest. Technology improves things each year, but we don't yet have a reliable source of renewable energy. Until we do, we can't start banning coal and other sources. Does the left prefer that people freeze while waiting for a substitute for coal and oil?



"The Solar Impulse 2 is an airplane powered by solar panels and uses batteries at night. In promotion of weaning the world off natural resources like oil (a dubious goal), the designers and pilots want to fly around the world using no conventional fuel.

While the journey itself is an impressive accomplishment, one can’t help but appreciate the abundance, affordability and reliability of oil. Brad Plumer of Vox compares the solar-powered technology with a traditional plane:

The Solar Impulse 2 features 17,000 solar cells crammed onto its jumbo jet–size wings, along with four lithium-polymer batteries to store electricity for nighttime. Yet that’s still only enough power to carry 2 tons of weight, including a single passenger, at a top speed of just 43 miles per hour.

By contrast, a Boeing 747-400 running on jet fuel can transport some 400 people at a time, at top speeds of 570 miles per hour. Unless we see some truly shocking advances in module efficiency, it’ll be impossible to cram enough solar panels onto a 747’s wings to lift that much weight—some 370 tons in all.

Nor is it enough to load up on batteries charged by solar on the ground, since that would add even more weight to the plane, vastly increasing the energy needed for takeoff. A gallon of jet fuel packs about 15 to 30 times as much energy as a lithium-ion battery of similar weight."

http://dailysignal.com/2016/05/10/why-the-left-is-wrong-to-demonize-affordable-energy/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb

It is well documented that liberals despise a free or relatively free society. The have this idea because a free people are more difficult to control.
Inexpensive fuel allows mobility and more choices. The more choices available to a society the less dependency on government is required.

Free will is a problem. How do you prevent people from doing "bad" things?

It used to be that America was a moral country and a religious people. They helped each other when they needed help and were family oriented. However, today with the advent of secular humanism, all of that is gone. No longer do people try to control their moral impulses, instead, they look for the state to do it for them through the creation of limitless laws.

Today, the US government creates about 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. My only advice is, build more prisons.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You talking about solar photovoltaic? or the new type of linear solar thermal steam generators they're already using to get FREE energy in the form of the typical coal-fired steam turbine?

The BigOil and BigCoal advocates always forget to make the distinction what type of solar power they're talking about. No, I take that back, they always name the most inefficient and most expensive or failed type of solar applications as "the cutting edge in solar".

Have a look at the real cutting edge of solar. Every day of sunshine is a day the power company doesn't have to burn coal or oil to power the towns nearby. In heavily populated sunshine rich areas of the South and Southwest, the company can not be burning coal or oil during peak use times (day) for up to 300 days per year. Talk about improving your electric company's profit margin!

Just mirrors set up in a line, close to the oil tube they're heating to 300 degrees celsius..that's right...celsius..a couple of heat exchangers, some water and a turbine just like the ones in nuclear, coal and oil power plants.

And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
And how do you answer those who object then use the courts to keep these solar farms from being constructed in their communities?
Now, I am all in on the development and implementation of new energy sources. Under the following conditions
1. the fuel must be readily available.
2 it must be mass marketable
3. it can be no more costly than present sources.
4. The fuel must perform at a rate equal to or better than present forms of energy
5. it must require little or no expense on the part of users to convert their present equipment/vehicles, etc to use the energy.
Accomplish all of that and you may have your alternative 'green' energy.
Have at it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Solar-powered plane takes off on third leg of U.S. journey

Why are so many RWs stuck in the 19th century (even then most cars were electric)?

Come on, you can do better than that.
Question.....Do you use electricity? Petroleum products?
I bet you have no clue how that keyboard on which you bless us with your learned opinions is created, do you?
Talk the talk. Walk the walk.

 

[Silhouette]

And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
.
Have at it.

Biodiesel. Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board. You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum? The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.

Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag. Keep your damn profits. We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What they really care about is power.

I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.

As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.

Oh please. You have been on here spouting off your anti fossil fuel rhetoric. Cut the crap.
You support this cause due top your creepy worship of Obama. Another short sighted anti fossil fuel dolt.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Only a rube would believe that government actually cares if you get healthcare or not, or how fat you are, or if we have too much pollution, or if we can minimize our so-called carbon foot print. What they really care about is power.

Right, Raycist from Cleveland, the government does these things to mess with you personally, not because the majority has agreed these are things we ought to do.

The race card.....That's right. Lets allow another left wing troll hijack the discussion by interjecting a completely unrelated issue.
Joe, you're a race hypersensitive anti capitalist who has made it abundantly clear of your victim status.
Good night Gracie.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Fracking and the toxic stew that can never be cleaned up, leaching slowly over time into the last freshwater aquifers, artesians, springs, streams and rivers will be seen by what few survivors there are in the future gathered around the very last sources of fresh water to drink, as one of of the most insidious, predictable and foul environmental disasters ever brought on by the greed of just a few. Second only to crumbilng/melting down nuclear plants whose only "trick" at producing power is to use radiation instead of focused sunlight, oil or coal to boil water to run turbines.

Japan sits on the 1/3 largest natural geothermal steam reservoir in the world, and GE managed to convince them that boiling water with deadly radiation was "far superior" to simply using the boiling water just under the ground everywhere there.

And now Tokyo has escalating radiation and cases of child illnesses that "can't be explained" (Unkotare would say)... Had they used the free boiling water just under the ground, it would've cost them next to nothing to produce the same power, and they wouldn't have a disaster that destroyed their entire nation. No matter how much they're trying to pretend like it hasn't. Fukushima had four reactors melt down. Chernobyl, just one. The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is larger than the entire Japanese main island. So, there's the truth of what's really going on in Japan, thanks to bullshit water boiling.

People who opine on energy should first become acquainted with the simple, caveman like way in which we produce it. If you understand that most of our energy is produced either by running water through hydro dam turbines, or boiling it to spin steam turbines, you'd know that the key to energy is the motion of water, funneled or boiled where steam forces a pressure current. Once you understand that simple concept, you can look to any number of sources that aren't going to destroy the earth or humanity, just to boil water.

One source in the sunny Southwest, or even areas that are much further north that have moderate amounts of sun (you just change the angle of the parabolic mirrors to accommodate), is focused solar radiation to boil water. Rapidly these erector-set like simple systems boil a thermal oil in a tube placed not far away to 300 degrees celsius, off to heat exchangers, then boiling water and the turbine.

Why aren't we doing that? The politics of energy greed. Very simple. If a system creates power simply, efficiently and cleanly, and has a FREE energy source, it's very hard to corral and monopolize. Big, dangerous, dirty, hard to get at ways of boiling water take connections, difficult permits and the power coming from that, extraordinarily easy to monopolize....and therefore, profit insanely off of.

That's why I offered as a suggestion long ago, that Congress pass an Act that allows these greedy assholes the "right" to monopolize solar thermal as a hybrid to existing coal and oil water boilers. Nuclear is insane (the costs of mining, refining, production and waste management mean that no nuclear plant has ever turned a profit, and instead relies on taxpayer's subsidies to stay running) and every nuclear water boiler on earth must be decommissioned. Then, the greedy assholes can rake in EVEN MORE cash with their continuing monopolies but at least we customers can breathe a sigh of relief that our power isn't killing the earth forever. I thought it was the perfect compromise.

solar towers. and the quest for tesla's wireless power. we have now, drones that can recharge in flight. the obvious problem with that is if you're not careful, you could put someone's eye out.

NOT SOLAR TOWERS!!!! THIS!:

Blah blah blah....Stow it.
Do you have any idea how much filth the manufacturing process of your beloved solar panels and batteries create?

 

[thereisnospoon]

And the most inexpensive fuel of all? Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines. Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...

Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"? Geothermal steam to run turbines.

Boiling of water creates what? Water vapor. Water vapor goes into the atmosphere and breaks down into its components. Hydrogen and oxygen. Mixed with carbons which occur naturally by air breathing creatures, these create hydro carbons and carbon dioxide. So called greenhouse gases.
There is no 100% "clean" energy source.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There once was a federal tax credit for those who installed solar panels for power generation and heating of homes and or water for use in the home.
Obama used political fiat to take that away.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivanpah is a failure. If you don't think so then please realize that this is one of the sunniest places in the United States and it can't meet its contractual obligations.

The answer is not these big public money funded projects but smaller solar and wind for residential service.

The footprint of individual solar is already occupied by the existing rooftops of the homes that will benefit for the additional electric generation. Small commercial wind can generate energy day and night in areas that are already developed for commercial or industrial use with requiring land grants of land or destroying the view from our coastlines.

Our politicians are pushing these large project because there is a lot of money being passed around to secure future energy monopolies.

If you belief that solar that doesn't work at night or in bad weather will ever replace oil, coal, natural gas then you don't understand the inherent limitations of the technology. If you believe that setting up multi-billion dollar facilities that require more public money and land while needing further subsidies in the form of higher energy costs for users is the best solution then you are wrong again.

Give people a tax credit and change the rules to make the current energy provider work with these systems. Let the user mount a system on their home or business. Then they can make the investment calculation that is right for them. The technology will come down in cost and become more viable over time.

Then you have the best of all worlds. Free market solutions really make the most sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of our customers was a big lib. He had a big windmill running his operations. I always found windmills decorative in a way. Talking with one of the workers one day, he told me that the owner finally broke even on his windmill investment after seven years, and the rest is free energy.

About two months went by and I went to the stop again, I was surprised that the top half of the windmill was gone. The owner was in back of the shop and I asked him about the windmill. He just pushed his two hands in the air as if he were pushing away something and said Aaaaaa.

Nobody is against better ways to create energy, but it has to be cost effective at the same time. I live in one of the windiest places in the country, so the city was considering putting up a giant windmill on Lake Erie. After doing the calculations, it would end up costing more to maintain and repair such a windmill than it would to just produce energy the way we are now.

Yep...and the liberal response is "well the government should subsidize the windmill as well as its maintenance and repair."....
This with never considering from where the funding comes to pay the subsidy.

 

[Jarlaxle]

how close are we to building solar collector panels into the bodies of cars that sit in the sun all day? florida the west etc. it seems like a partial solution to me.

Anyone can do it now. You could charge a battery in the car. File papers, pay fees, work with UL CSA EPA LRB, hiere lawyers accountants taxman, rent buildings, test it out, try to sell it in AZ NV.........see what you can come up with. Got deep pockets?

it's like that movie tucker. but one thing i am doing is turning my old 528 into an electric vehicle. everything related to combustion comes out, so the weight of the motor trans exhaust etc is replaced by 12 v deep cycle batteries. it's a big golf cart. the design objective is to get to town ten miles away and home. doesn't have to go over forty.

electric motors will provide propulsion, there is plenty of torque and will have polarity reverse.

i'm in vermont not the sunniest, so if it works here, it can make it anywhere, ideally in a sunny state.

i'm after negative entropy... lol but i'll start with this.

i think it will work, a trunk and engine compartment will house the golf cart batteries.

as described, this concept would never make it past the dot or the big three or five.

Be careful...batteries are heavy, so watch your axle weights!

 

[thereisnospoon]

What they really care about is power.

I think you're projecting your own feelings on to everyone else. You need to understand that other people aren't like you.

As far as the OP goes ... somebody made an experimental solar plane, therefore he says liberals hate every other plane. That's ... dumb.

Liberals love planes, especially private, fuel-guzzling planes as long as they are on them. Pelosi used to whine because she wanted the biggest plane to use.

No, they love their planes and they love their limos. What they hate is the little people driving pickup trucks and SUVs.

And many liberals are bitching about having those solar windmills near their property. They work, but so many people don't want to see or hear them.

They want their big houses, limos, private jets and yachts but they preach to the rest of us to take public transportation or buy tiny cars to save gas.

My vision of a liberal elitist is a person who alone charters a 10 passenger private jet to fly to a conference on alternative energy.
Or we can look at the biggest energy hypocrite of all. Al Gore. He spouts off about global warming cursing use of fossil fuels. Meanwhile he resides in a home that consumes the equivalent of 20 conventional homes.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And in using your illustration, tell me how is this solar farm supposed to get me to work? How is supposed to power large vehicles such as trains, ships and trucks to get goods to market?
.
Have at it.

Biodiesel. Trains running on electric, generated by solar thermal hybrid power plants, or diesel generators on board. You're aware of the fact that they're growing an algae that can be cut into existing diesel gotten from petroleum? The more they progress with that technology, the less we're going to have to rely on petroleum for diesel.

Between solar thermal hybrid turbines, geothermal turbines and biodiesel, we've got it sewn up in the bag. Keep your damn profits. We just want a cleaner earth and less bullshit in the Middle East.

You do not even know that you do not know what you don't know. Off the top of my head, biodiesel fails utterly in cold weather. (It basically turns to wax a bit below freezing.) Powering freight trains with electricity would be a gargantuan undertaking, probably costing tens of trillions of dollars to electrify the rail network (about 150,000 miles of rail, much of it in very remote areas), build dozens of power plants to power it, and replace tens of thousands of (diesel) locomotives.

 

[thereisnospoon]

They might. They spend a hell of a lot of time and money trying to scare the hell out of people.

The real problem is that nobody gets a bill from the government for environmental costs. It's intrinsic in all the products we buy. You never see it, but it's there.

DumBama forced restaurants to post calorie count on all their items. I say we should do the same with our products. Have Trump and the Republicans write a law that all products have to contain their environmental costs on the package.

Perhaps if people knew what they were actually paying out of their pockets for these costs, there wouldn't be so much support for it.

Guy, you live in a city where the River used to catch on fire because it was so fucking polluted.

Maybe you should think about the cost of NOT doing the environmental things.

The operative being "used to".....That ship has sailed. Try again.
Lets see. What can I post in response to your tired vitriolic rhetoric that can again send you off in a rage?

 

[thereisnospoon]

In 100 years from now, nobody will be using fossil fuel; not because of government mandate (hopefully), but because of technology developed by the private sector.

Yes, Magic Pixie Dust from our great Capitalist Overlords...

They've resisted clean energy kicking and screaming the whole way.

Myth. Clean energy. It doesn't exist.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why does the right spend so much time trying to tell the left what the left thinks?

We no longer pay any attention to what your side says. That's useless.
We do however pay close attention to what you do..
And at that point your side is so busted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And the most inexpensive fuel of all? Concentrated solar thermal radiation, near-source, boiling water to run turbines. Just like all other power companies do using dirty and dangerous (and far more expensive) fuels to do...

Next least expensive "allowing more freedom"? Geothermal steam to run turbines.

Only one problem with that: water vapor is considered the most dangerous green house gas.

About ten years ago when I was watching the news, some local company invented an engine that ran on water. Two days later the news followed up. They said to stop e-mailing the company because it was purely experimental. They couldn't sell the engine because water creates water vapor which is considered the most dangerous gas. They would need EPA approval which they couldn't get in a million years.