Reply With Quote
Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.
Link?
This would sting so much more if you called Yonivore on his extremly obvious propaganda.
As it is,
Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.
Link?
Well, first of all, there is nothing -- in the immediate -- that replaces oil for fuel.
Second, the technologies that promise to, are inefficient, costly, and immature.
Third, in deference to these costly, inefficient, and immature -- future -- technologies, our government has re ed our exploration capability, or recovery capability, and our refining capability.
As our own capability to capture and produce our own fuel diminishes, we're forced to find it elsewhere while liberals play with "alternative fuels," that may or may not ever be able to fill the need.
I would be in total agreement with the environmentalists if, while they were playing with their green toys, they'd allow industry to explore, drill, capture, and refine oil, build nuclear power plants and continue to operate clean burning, coal fired power plants.
But, that's not good enough for them. They'd rather hobble the country, throw billions -- trillions if you let them -- at unproven and inadequate replacements.
I think your link is standing outside any coal burning power plant in the United States, right now.
This isn't China.
"immature and unproven"?
The LEC as near as I can calculate for the plant in the OP is actually fairly close to that of an advanced coal plant now.
The land-based wind is within 3% of the cost for the plants coming in line within the next 5 years.
Wind technology is not new, I hate to break it to you.
(from a neat company website that I would recommend visiting, Made in the USA):
http://www.pondaeration.com/
The only thing that is missing is the economy of scale, and that is coming along.
That kind of argument might have cut it 20 years ago.
I don't mind having coal plants, as long as they are reasonably clean. I don't mind the drilling.
Resource depletion will mean that both will continue, but get more expensive.
I don't see waiting until we have a screaming need for alternatives as really a wise decision, especially when the need is pretty clear to anybody who isn't getting all his news from coal industry websites.
Seems to be a pretty solid assertion.
Link?
I didn't say it was.
You also made a stupid blanket statement that alluded that the USA is "head and shoulders" above "the world", including the big bad socialists in Europe.
Are you trying to say that our air quality standards are stricter than Europes'?
Now, before you get your panties in a wad,I know what you meant here, the "world" probably referred to Asia (China/India). Right?
Are you ready to cede that step or two ahead in production and innovation in renewables to the Europeans? I am sure the Germans wouldn't mind at all.
Why do you hate America, but love the Europeans?
I never said to wait. I suggested we need to quit artificially re ing oil and gas production and refining capability in lieu of alternative sources.
I'm all for allowing private interest to continue exploring alternative energies. However, necessity being the mother of invention, I would suggest the alternatives would be available much sooner if government would stand out of the way and let free enterprise fill the need that would be created by any depleting in current fuel sources.
Thanks for not engaging in a pedantic rabbit chase.
I don't and, if Europe is lucky enough to survive their current economic crisis I would bet it will be at the sacrifice of their self-righteous, expensive, and economy-killing draconian environmental policies. Why are we so intent in following them down that black hole?
Solar and Wind Could Power the West Right Now, All of America in 2026
The Germans have installed over 10,000 megawatts of solar panels in the past two years, enough to power 2 million American homes (or most of Los Angeles, CA). If Americans installed local solar at the same torrid pace, we could already power most of the Mountain West, could have a 100 percent solar nation by 2026, while enriching thousands of local communities with new development and jobs.
The following map shows what could have happened had the U.S. kept pace with Germany on solar power in the past two years (installed the same megawatts on a per capita basis). Sunshine could power 10 states!
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...-west-america/
At the same, Feds should make DirtyBigCoal and PollutingFrackers pay for ALL of the cost externalities, rather than leaving the taxpayers with the costs of destroyed surface water, ground water, levelled mountains, defaced landscapes. Ain't gonna happen, the Repugs will block any such legislation to protect and enrich UCA.
lol wait, WHAT? The rest of the world does the best thing to avoid air pollution : They use less energy.
And even if you're talking about regulations and technology put in place to try to clean things up we're not above Europe or Japan.
Your assertion is flat out poor.
Well, goody for them.
And they both have the economies to prove it.
Well, at least RandomGuy understood what I meant. He was the one that suggested I'd be happy with China's atmosphere and put up the picture.
We've been head and shoulders above China since passage of the Clean Air Act in the 70's. We'd have to completely abandon the Clean Air Act and go to standards - pre-Nixon - to even come close to having a pollution problem like China.
Funny that you say that considering the country that best represents those draconian environmental policies and the country that has the strongest economy just happens to be one in the same.
How many people and how many square miles are they?
What does that have to do with the assertion that you made above that the environmental policies of Europe are killing their economies?
Well at least RandomGuy knows how to properly use English and doesn't say "the rest of the world" as some kind synonym for "China".
You're right, it was a bit simplistic. Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage.
But, to be sure, the costs to employ European-style environmental controls, in this country, would be exponential considering geography and the level of industrialization.
Look, this country is clean. If it weren't, environmentalists wouldn't be trying to eek out the last part per billion of NOx, CO, and HC out of vehicle tailpipes and they sure as wouldn't be calling our exhalation a toxin.
You can continue to quibble over my comments -- my faux paux, I already regret -- but, this country is clean enough. And, it certainly doesn't need to be burdened, during these economic times, with draconian environmental regulations which benefits are dubious, at best.
That's my opinion. It means about as much as yours.
You're right. My bad. And, he has a better grasp of what was being inferred than you.
I take reason over construct, every time.
"Their social programs are doing are doing their share of the damage."
Totla bull (after all, it's Yoni).
No citizen in the other industrialized countries would swap their national health systems for the US screw-you sick-care system.
I love how you being unable to prevent your stupidity from blocking communication to be MY issue.
It didn't prevent communication with RG; you seem to be the odd man out.
RG definitely has more patience and ability to deal with stupidity than I do. No debate about that from me. In the end, at least we agree you're a moron.
High praise, coming from you.RG definitely has more patience and ability to deal with stupidity than I do. No debate about that from me. In the end, at least we agree you're a moron.
I agree, RG should feel honored that I hold his patience so highly.
Collectively the EU has more people than the US, btw, and are moving towards their renewables goals at a much faster pace than the US.
Germany, since you asked, has about 80M people, and is roughly the size of wyoming + half of nebraska, if memory serves.
The US, given its sheer geographic size/position, has far more solar potential, as noted in the OP. The desert southwest has some good chances for the kinds of power plants that Solar One is building.
Europe has very good coastline wind capacity, and they are making full use of that.
No environmentalist is claiming CO2 is a "toxin".
The more you talk about these topics the more you sound like Cosmored repeating debunked statements over and over.
Doesn't that bother you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
