Liberals, read this. Then try and refute it. Renewable energy replacing current coal, gas, and nuclear plants is a pipe dream. And the astounding lies and obfuscation by the liberals is utterly remarkable.
lols ... whatever. if you want to lag behind thats your choice. you might want to look at what china is doing. http://www.renewable-energy-news.info/china-surpasses-united-states-renewable-energy-investments/ already in australia, rooftop solar power has reached grid parity http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/solar-pv-grid-parity-now-what and lets face it - if the amount of money that people have been pouring into gold in the last few months was being invested in new energy, things would be moving a lot faster. you want to remain dependent on the conflict ridden middle east? you want to poison your own land with trying to extract difficult to access fossil fuels? if so - don't complain when other countries leave you behind.
No I don't want to abandon alternative energy. I just don't want politicians lying to me, funneling hundreds of millions to their friends for nothing, and have my electric bill skyrocket because we relied on an energy source whose time has yet to come. I don't want to see this country ruined because you tree hugging phonies lie like there is no tomorrow. When the state of technology for solar and other technologies come to be, then you can close all the coal and gas fired plants you want. Until then, don't insult me with your lies. And by the way, your link about Australia: Funny how that is, huh.
Utilities Giving Away Electricity as Wind, Sun Overwhelm European Network The 15 mile-per-hour winds that buffeted northern Germany on July 24 caused the nations 21,600 windmills to generate so much power that utilities such as EON AG and RWE AG (RWE) had to pay consumers to take it off the grid. Rather than an anomaly, the event marked the 31st hour this year when power companies lost money on their electricity in the intraday market because of a torrent of supply from wind and solar parks. The phenomenon was unheard of five years ago. With Europes wind and solar farms set to triple by 2020, utilities investing in new coal and gas-fired power stations no longer face stable returns. As more renewables come on line, a gas plant owned by RWE or EON that may cost $1 billion to build will be stopped more often from running at full capacity. It may only pay for itself on days like Jan. 31, when clouds and still weather pushed an hour of power on the same-day market above 162 ($220) euros a megawatt-hour after dusk, in peak demand time. Youre looking at a future where on a sunny day in Germany, youll have negative prices, Bloomberg New Energy Finance chief solar analyst Jenny Chase said about power rates in wholesale trading. And a lot of the other markets are heading the same way.
Conservative mouthpiece Michelle Malkin has about as much credibility on liberal issues as a silent Monk would on public speaking. She quotes Brian McGraw's claims that..."solar energy is still largely incapable of producing reliable electricity at rates that are even in the ballpark of cost competitiveness compared to coal or natural gas", but yet does not provide us with any empirical evidence on how he came to this conclusion. Its just more conservative hysterics on her part.
the subsidies are considerably less than the net tax breaks and incentives industry has received over the years. what it proves is that government investment (through direct incentives to consumers) CAN be effective. and maybe before calling me a liar, you ought to look at what China is doing. you will be left behind, and you will end up being the poorer for it.
I guess thats the problem. conservatives rely on politically influenced sources for information on new technologies. personally, I never bother with that. I've not seen that either side is delivering anything but soundbites to influence their electorates.
Is it even worth refuting, if you won't read the reply, or won't believe it? Why should I try to change your mind when your mind is already closed? Why should I tell you that solar power is driving down electricity prices in Germany, if you don't care? Why should I tell you that the price of solar power is dropping like a rock, if you don't care? Why should I tell you that solar power is a net source of US exports, if you don't care?
it is given that they do lie. why do you have to believe in them? that is your fault, believing in them. politicians never tell the truth. polscie
Because the Chinese are so well known for their hippie liberal agenda. Surely they wouldn't base their energy policy on ruthless efficiency.
I'm talking about destroying the oil, coal and gas industries via regulation and taxation BEFORE these new technologies are mature enough to be useful replacements. As far as being left behind, how is that possible? Our government is FORCING immature technology on it's people. What you liberals never get, is that people are resistant to things that make their lives more expensive or complicated, and embrace things that make it less expensive or complicated. When something is on par with an existing technology, people will flock to it. All of us would prefer renewable energy, but not when it is less reliable or more expensive. Get it? Stop trying to FORCE people into conditions which are inferior to their current situation.
shrug. be like that. in the long run, you'll pay more, anyway. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/25/china-renewable-energy-pew-research http://martinot.info/china.htm
First of all, I'm not liberal. Second of all, you're flat wrong. Renewable energy has to be the future, because Coal, Gas and Nuke power are all finite. Eventually they WILL run out, whether it is next year or in the next thousand years. Its only a matter of time. Solar power is not science fiction, and it is only a matter of time before the technology matures to a level that eclipses what we can get from fossil fuels or even nuke energy. The sun, buy contrast, is going to keep running for the next couple billion years. THAT is reliable energy. I really don't get why some conservatives oppose renewable energy. Dont you people WANT energy independence? Do you LIKE being dependent on other nations for our energy? What the hell is the appeal of being dependent on someone else for all your energy? To me this is a defense issue. We cannot tolerate other nations having control over our energy resources. Renewable energy would completely free us from them....permanently.
There's enough thorium in the world to provide 10 billion people with power at 2003 levels for 5 billion years. Since the Sun will boil the oceans in half a billion years, nuclear is effectively infinite: it will last longer than the Earth will.
Oil may be 'renewable'... http://www.philipbrennan.net/2010/06/11/abiotic-oil-what-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ "Oil drilled from 30,000 plus feet down is Abiotic Oil you are being lied to. Most oil is not a fossil fuel. The text books on oil will have to be re-written."
LOL - A fringe source is the same thing as no source at all. So tell me, why should we pay attention to it now since it has failed in the past? What exactly has changed? Even assuming it is not total bull(*)(*)(*)(*), it obviously is not that reliable. By contrast, Solar is already a proven technology, is abundant, and has only been getting more efficient. The same is true of other renewable energy sources.
Solar is only reliable when the sun is out. Windmills only turn when the wind blows. There is no better overall energy source than these hydrocarbon based fuels (nat gas, oil). Except maybe nuclear but the nuclear program has been 'nuked' by the rich and powerful environmental movement. So-called 'renewable' energy is a scam anyway. Energy is not renewable.
Weinberg 1959: Citation, text Weinberg's calculation includes both uranium and thorium, but since thorium is 3 to 4 times more common, most of this is thorium. I also see, upon checking, that it's 7 billion people for 10 billion years. But the bottom line is the same: inexhaustible during the life of the planet.
Biotic or abiotic makes no difference: if it's fossil, it's bad, and we must find rapid ways to get along without it.
Abiotic means it is NOT fossil and is created by the Earth that's the whole point. The article I posted refers to many oil fields actually re-filling. That would mean that it is renewable. That was my point. The fact you think oil is 'bad' is just your opinion and not pertinent.
do you have something regarding oil NOT being a fossil fuel from a reliable, scientifically based source?
Refilled from where? From the atmosphere or the biosphere? No. Which means even if it is refilling, and even if it is refilling rapidly, the carbon is coming from geological sources. Which means burning that carbon will increase the CO2 content of the air. From now on, the only carbon we should burn is carbon that is extracted from the air, the sea, or directly from plants. NOT from the ground!
