Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   America is quietly killing it when it comes to renewable energy   (swampland.time.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, President Obama, solar farms, stimulus bill, renewable energy, energy consumption, Things Are Looking Up  
•       •       •

4499 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Aug 2012 at 11:55 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-08-10 11:20:17 AM  
I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.
 
2012-08-10 11:44:05 AM  
encrypted-tbn0.google.com
 
2012-08-10 11:57:19 AM  

mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.


The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.
 
2012-08-10 11:58:32 AM  
I'm killing it softly with my schlong.

/Killing it softly.
//With my schlong.
 
2012-08-10 12:00:34 PM  
Yeah, but Obama once invested in SOLYNDRA! That means Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obama has to breathe in deeply around coal plants and eat depleted uranium rods.
 
2012-08-10 12:01:12 PM  
The article touches on it, but more infrastructure investment for updating the grid should be a priority.
 
2012-08-10 12:01:28 PM  

Jubeebee: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.


Indeed. Doubling in a few years is a pretty good feat. It just takes a while.
 
2012-08-10 12:01:42 PM  
That's good news... For America.
 
2012-08-10 12:02:18 PM  
fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.
 
2012-08-10 12:02:52 PM  
We should be killing it a lot more, but yes Romney attacking Obama on solar energy is ridiculous.
 
2012-08-10 12:03:03 PM  
It's gonna take a lot of time.

You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.

That's what got my dad to throw in a large chunk of his land into the wind turbine land pool. GE or DTE (can't remember which) give him a small monthly rent just for having it in the pool, and if they choose to build a turbine there, he'll get a larger rent, plus (from what I have heard) a portion of the revenue earned from selling the electricity that particular turbine produces.
 
2012-08-10 12:04:00 PM  

Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.


Well, maybe a little binge drinking.

/When the going gets weird, etc.
 
2012-08-10 12:04:12 PM  
The new wind turbines going up along the Erie coast here in Cleveland are AWESOME. I really hope some of these wind farm proposals go through ... very cool stuff!

www.coolcleveland.com

tmi.dcimage.com
 
2012-08-10 12:05:21 PM  
I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.
 
2012-08-10 12:05:41 PM  

LasersHurt: Jubeebee: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.

Indeed. Doubling in a few years is a pretty good feat. It just takes a while.


It does need time to grow, but all nations really need to get on the ball sooner than later. More and more climate change is becoming a reality (man made climate change) we can't really ignore. Our weather patterns are getting more unstable, and who knows if we aren't already doomed because of it.
 
2012-08-10 12:05:59 PM  

Romney and his party support outrageous subsidies and tax breaks for the spectacularly wealthy oil industry.


Shocking. Totally shocking, I say.
 
2012-08-10 12:06:04 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Yeah, but Obama once invested in SOLYNDRA! That means Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obama has to breathe in deeply around coal plants and eat depleted uranium rods.


These kind of achievements puts the soylndra talkingpoint into perspective, republicans are trying to poison the well.
 
2012-08-10 12:07:24 PM  

Infernalist: I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


Because he knows his voting block and they are very self destructive. As long as they can stick it to the libs in any degree, they will proudly harm themselves.
 
2012-08-10 12:08:01 PM  
Obama: [a-mighty-wind.jpg]

Romney: [idiot-wind.mp3]
 
2012-08-10 12:09:59 PM  

Infernalist: Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


And yet here we are.
 
2012-08-10 12:11:16 PM  

Infernalist: I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


Have you not noticed the GOP's attempts to kill the EPA?
 
2012-08-10 12:11:28 PM  

Infernalist: I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


Clean air is socialism because Jesus
Link
 
2012-08-10 12:12:26 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.


Compared to which country?

Now compared to which country with anything even remotely resembling geographic size?

None of the current technologies can come close to the energy density of coal and gas. The more we do, the better we will do, but it is absurd to expect that solar and wind as they are now could come anywhere close to meeting our energy needs efficiently.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:21 PM  
After reading that article I feel better about throwing billions of tax dollars into an industry that will ultimately force me to pay more each month for inefficient, high-cost power.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:26 PM  
Wind and solar are long term solutions. Natural gas and, to a lesser extent, shale oil are mid term solutions that are both cleaner than the present fuels and provide a stop-gap until renewables can be utilized efficiently.

We should be converting to natural gas now, while pouring R&D funding into renewables.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:39 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That's good news... For America.


As gas prices are approaching $4 again...other dependable sources cannot come quick enough.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:41 PM  
cdn.theatlantic.com

/Roberta Flak.
//Also Betty, Ivy, June, and Prudence Flak.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:46 PM  
What separates man from the beasts of the field is that we have mastered the use of fire. Any piece of shiat tree can use solar power - but when's the last time you saw a tree bomb the shiat out of some terrorists?

If we're not burning the coal and gas that the good Lord gave us to use, we're just taking one giant step backwards.
 
2012-08-10 12:13:59 PM  

Jubeebee: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.


I blame the Government for you guys not moving faster. After the 2008 economic collapse, you guys should have sunk $2T-$3T in renewable energy infrastructure. You missed that opportunity to both recovery the economy and become global leaders on renewable energy. I'm not saying the US is doing badly, just that I am not impressed (my country, Canada is worse BTW).
 
2012-08-10 12:14:01 PM  
Mr. Romney, might I suggest that instead of calling these industries 'imaginary', you might consider saying this instead:

"I support clean energy industries. They're on the edge of technology and taking the United States in a great direction and anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is never a bad thing.

That said, I do not support whole-sale subsidization of these industries as others do."

There. You're supporting clean energy industries while throwing out a caveat against spending too much money on it.

Maybe I should have been a political operative. Do they pay good?
 
2012-08-10 12:14:33 PM  

NeverDrunk23: As long as they can stick it to the libs in any degree, they will proudly harm themselves.


Makes me wonder how we never set off a nuclear war with the USSR, what, these kinds of Cons are a new breed?

/Born during Reagan's second term
//Can't remember shiat
 
2012-08-10 12:16:28 PM  
Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.

www.bloggingbroker.com

alist:
I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-08-10 12:16:30 PM  

seadoo2006: The new wind turbines going up along the Erie coast here in Cleveland are AWESOME. I really hope some of these wind farm proposals go through ... very cool stuff!

Since you showed me your Erie coast Wind turbines, I'll show you mine.
Bonus: On a brownfield.
 
2012-08-10 12:16:40 PM  

monoski: As gas prices are approaching $4 again...other dependable sources cannot come quick enough.


Agreed. Alternatives CANNOT come quick enough.

Fossil fuels will be needed for the foreseeable future.

(But alternative energy won't come at all if we don't start)
 
2012-08-10 12:17:23 PM  

pants made out of guns: Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.

Well, maybe a little binge drinking.

/When the going gets weird, etc.


I've got news for everyone. Having worked in electrical distribution (analyst/developer) for the past 10 years, I can promise you that these "green jobs" aren't going to be going to effete, liberal academics or enviro-conscious hippies.

Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.
 
2012-08-10 12:17:44 PM  

LabGrrl: Since you showed me your Erie coast Wind turbines, I'll show you mine.
Bonus: On a brownfield.


That sounded dirtier than it should have.
 
2012-08-10 12:18:06 PM  

Infernalist: Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


Koch brothers are major investors in Romney's campaign. They mine coal.

What is hard to understand?
 
2012-08-10 12:19:13 PM  
Quit gettin' your renewable energy in my Medicare! My hover-round gets 40 rods to the hogshead and I like it that way!
 
2012-08-10 12:19:41 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Obama: [a-mighty-wind.jpg]

Romney: [idiot-wind.mp3]


Well, I wouldn't expect anything less from someone named Fartbama.
 
2012-08-10 12:19:52 PM  

Infernalist: Mr. Romney, might I suggest that instead of calling these industries 'imaginary', you might consider saying this instead:

"I support clean energy industries. They're on the edge of technology and taking the United States in a great direction and anything that reduces our reliance on foreign oil is never a bad thing.

That said, I do not support whole-sale subsidization of these industries as others do."

There. You're supporting clean energy industries while throwing out a caveat against spending too much money on it.

Maybe I should have been a political operative. Do they pay good?


The Freeper derp brigade would be burning effigies after hearing that statement. Everything the blah president does or says is evil incarnate and to suggest otherwise is heresy.
 
2012-08-10 12:21:40 PM  

meat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


They need to drive the 401 from Winsor to London in Ontario. That area is mostly farm land pin cushioned with wind mills. Everyone of those farmers are making more money than they'd make if they were only farming.

Romney proudly proclaimed this week his plan to end tax credits for wind energy while in Iowa. The people of Iowa understand the importance of renewable energy. Read:

Romney officially endorsed letting the wind energy production tax credit (PTC) expire a move that could kill over 37,000 jobs and disproportionately impact major wind energy states like Iowa.

It is a surprise that Romney would choose the Hawkeye state to highlight the issues of job creation and the middle class when his plans would roll back key investments in both. Iowa is the second largest producer of wind energy in the U.S., and first in overall wind energy jobs, which keep thousands of Iowans employed. Recent polling found that "more than half of voters (57%), including 41% of Republicans and 59% of Independents, would be less likely to vote for a candidate for President if that candidate did not support expanding American wind power generation."

Republican Gov. Terry Branstad agrees. Last Thursday, he came out against Romney's position on wind, criticizing the obvious "confusion" of the Romney team, and saying that he and his staff, "need to get out here in the real world to find out what's really going on." Branstad wasn't alone in his criticism. Several other prominent Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham, voiced their concern for Romney's lack of understanding on the issue. "It's the wrong decision," Latham said. And Iowa's largest paper, the Des Moines Register penned a recent editorial criticizing Congress' lack of action on extending the wind tax credit.


Boneheads like Romney are the ones slowing down the development of renewable energy in the US.
 
2012-08-10 12:22:41 PM  

dr.zaeus: Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.


Just look at the guys doing the turbine work now. These aren't hippies. It takes some brawn to haul tools and safety harness up 300 feet of ladder to replace a broken housing. These tend to be great jobs for able bodied who can;t get work otherwise (like if they have a criminal record and stuff).
 
2012-08-10 12:22:51 PM  
Should also add my republican in-laws live in the triangle between the Fenner, Munnsville and Madison Windfarms in Central New York. They love them, but then again, FIL is an engineer, so we get to hear about how they work...repeatedly. And the time a tower fell down...repeatedly.
 
2012-08-10 12:23:05 PM  

dr.zaeus: pants made out of guns: Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.

Well, maybe a little binge drinking.

/When the going gets weird, etc.

I've got news for everyone. Having worked in electrical distribution (analyst/developer) for the past 10 years, I can promise you that these "green jobs" aren't going to be going to effete, liberal academics or enviro-conscious hippies.

Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.


As long as they can walk through the door at Devry, I could care less. The world needs ditch-diggers too, who cares if they like Bob Marley or Nickleback?
 
2012-08-10 12:23:06 PM  
Wow, what an Obama puff piece.

"Wind and solar essentially were imaginary before Obama took office..."

bullshiat.

Link

Colorado voters approved a 30% standard for renewables, Obama and the federal government had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-08-10 12:23:14 PM  
Noone seems to mention that Obama seems to enjoy killing migratory birds, at the expense of a few batteries being charged to power those stupid mercury-laden light bulbs (good thing I bought a couple of thousand incadescents at Walmart when I ahd a chance). At least Romney has a heart for the flora and fauna that keeps our nation in a balanced bio-diversity. And yet, the "un-fair and un-balanced media" doesn't seem to talk about that.
 
2012-08-10 12:23:40 PM  

LabGrrl: seadoo2006: The new wind turbines going up along the Erie coast here in Cleveland are AWESOME. I really hope some of these wind farm proposals go through ... very cool stuff!

Since you showed me your Erie coast Wind turbines, I'll show you mine.
Bonus: On a brownfield.


Yep ... always amazed these haven't seen an explosion around Lake Erie. We don't have all the Nantucket/Cape Cod NIMBYs and our coasts aren't particularly beautiful. Why not just build a few hundred of these beasts in the lake off-shore and rake in the money?

/The Buffalo wind farm is awesome ... hats off to you guys!
 
2012-08-10 12:24:16 PM  

Infernalist: Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


You do know that he's a republican, right?
 
2012-08-10 12:24:37 PM  
Before President Obama took office, the U.S. had 25 gigawatts of wind power, and the government's "base case" energy forecast expected 40 GW by 2030. Well, it's not quite 2030 yet, but we've already got 50 GW of wind.

Now we know what's powering Obama's magic time machine.
 
2012-08-10 12:25:30 PM  
truly history's greatest monster.
 
2012-08-10 12:26:10 PM  
I wonder if Romney has considered that the rest of the industrialized world and trivial industrializing country's like China have been putting a lot of investment into renewable. The amount of energy and economy produced around the world is not imaginary. The US stands to loose the tech and economic race for these.
 
2012-08-10 12:26:42 PM  

snowshovel: Noone seems to mention that Obama seems to enjoy killing migratory birds


That i've heard this argument so much from renewable opponents, typically those that hate wind and support fossil fuel couldn't care less about the flora and the fauna

/I know you jus' joshin'
 
2012-08-10 12:26:52 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-08-10 12:27:06 PM  

Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.


Romney probably doesn't know about any of the things you just mentioned.... well atleast until he retroactively did them...
 
2012-08-10 12:27:24 PM  

PickledBoodah: Infernalist: Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.

You do know that he's a republican, right?


If Obama proposed the "don't stick your cock in an electrical socket while wearing a copper condom and standing in four inches of water" act what do you think these traitorous farktards would do next.
 
2012-08-10 12:27:31 PM  

Emracool the Aeons Hip: Funny that


ftfm
 
2012-08-10 12:27:50 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

Compared to which country?

Now compared to which country with anything even remotely resembling geographic size?

None of the current technologies can come close to the energy density of coal and gas. The more we do, the better we will do, but it is absurd to expect that solar and wind as they are now could come anywhere close to meeting our energy needs efficiently.


Compared to about a dozen European countries plus your geography is actually a huge advantage. Hydro/wind alone could generate 100% of your electricity requirements even taking into consideration transmission loss over distances.
 
2012-08-10 12:29:34 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.
 
2012-08-10 12:30:02 PM  

Tigger: If Obama proposed the "don't stick your cock in an electrical socket while wearing a copper condom and standing in four inches of water" act what do you think these traitorous farktards would do next.


Well I don't see whats so ba
 
2012-08-10 12:30:56 PM  

snowshovel: Noone seems to mention that Obama seems to enjoy killing migratory birds, at the expense of a few batteries being charged to power those stupid mercury-laden light bulbs (good thing I bought a couple of thousand incadescents at Walmart when I ahd a chance). At least Romney has a heart for the flora and fauna that keeps our nation in a balanced bio-diversity. And yet, the "un-fair and un-balanced media" doesn't seem to talk about that.


That bastard! But if you're concerned about the birds, maybe you should start a campaign to outlaw cats as well?

www.wingpowerenergy.com
 
2012-08-10 12:31:07 PM  
Let's not forget about end-use conservation, either.

It applies a multiplier to any benefit we get from low-carbon generation.

Every watt saved at the end use saves 1+ watts at generation, because of inefficiencies of generation and energy transport.
 
2012-08-10 12:31:24 PM  

Jubeebee: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.


It's really not going to take much more time to reach a tipping point in price performance. Solar isn't a typical computing technolgy that follow Moore's Law, but it does follow "Demi" Moore's Law, and we're pretty much at the tipping point right now.

You don't have to convince people that evil socialistic mumbo jumbo like renewable energy is good for anything other than taking 40% off the electric bill for them to "believe" in it.
 
2012-08-10 12:32:25 PM  

snowshovel: Noone seems to mention that Obama seems to enjoy killing migratory birds, at the expense of a few batteries being charged to power those stupid mercury-laden light bulbs (good thing I bought a couple of thousand incadescents at Walmart when I ahd a chance). At least Romney has a heart for the flora and fauna that keeps our nation in a balanced bio-diversity. And yet, the "un-fair and un-balanced media" doesn't seem to talk about that.


I live with my mom
 
2012-08-10 12:32:27 PM  

Cymbal: dr.zaeus: pants made out of guns: Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.

Well, maybe a little binge drinking.

/When the going gets weird, etc.

I've got news for everyone. Having worked in electrical distribution (analyst/developer) for the past 10 years, I can promise you that these "green jobs" aren't going to be going to effete, liberal academics or enviro-conscious hippies.

Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.

As long as they can walk through the door at Devry, I could care less. The world needs ditch-diggers too, who cares if they like Bob Marley or Nickleback?


Fine. I'm willing to take a chance on your wussy, green, liberal electricity. But I want to see some AFV-worth lift crashing, or poll toppling, or cable reel rolling now and then.
 
2012-08-10 12:33:03 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.


Wisconsin has basically stopped putting up wind turbines since some of those rural looney toons have decided that the turbines are causing them to not be able to sleep at night because of the light reflections and sound they make. Thanks Walker
 
2012-08-10 12:33:23 PM  

Tigger: copper condom


ok this steampunk business is getting out of hand
 
2012-08-10 12:34:10 PM  
For at least a few hours on April 15, Colorado's largest utility was producing 57% of the power on its grid with wind.
 
2012-08-10 12:34:15 PM  

the biggest redneck here: It's really not going to take much more time to reach a tipping point in price performance. Solar isn't a typical computing technolgy that follow Moore's Law, but it does follow "Demi" Moore's Law, and we're pretty much at the tipping point right now.

You don't have to convince people that evil socialistic mumbo jumbo like renewable energy is good for anything other than taking 40% off the electric bill for them to "believe" in it.


My father, a Republican, dropped tens of thousands on solar panels on his roof (he lives in the desert, so pretty much all he gets is direct sun all day). He hasn't paid an electric bill since he installed them and instead gets checks from the electric company.

While it will take something like 7-10 years to pay itself back, their lifetime is expected to exceed that.

Once it gets even more affordable? Yeah, I'd put solar panels on my house in a second.
 
2012-08-10 12:35:11 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado voters approved a 30% standard for renewables, Obama and the federal government had nothing to do with it.


From the article you linked: To help wind compete, the federal government has been providing a tax credit that amounts to roughly 30% of its costs.
 
2012-08-10 12:35:18 PM  
If Democrats are for it, Republicans are against it.

If it competes with the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, Republicans are against it.

If it sounds like anything other than, "America in 1950 was the very definition of perfection," Republicans are against it.

If it's anything other than tax-cuts-kill-brown-people-more-tax-cuts, Republicans are against it.

If we put Rmoney in office, expect to see renewable energy set back 20 years.
 
2012-08-10 12:36:51 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.


If rural Republicans cared more about money than Jesus hates gays and autonomous vaginas, I'd agree with you. But I just can't.
 
2012-08-10 12:37:36 PM  

Tigger:

If Obama proposed the "don't stick your cock in an electrical socket while wearing a copper condom and standing in four inches of water" act what do you think these traitorous farktards would do next.


Like this - the ultimate codpiece
 
2012-08-10 12:39:04 PM  
For Immediate Release August 07, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, as a part of his We Can't Wait initiative, President Obama announced that seven nationally and regionally significant solar and wind energy projects will be expedited, including projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. Together, these job-creating infrastructure projects would produce nearly 5,000 megawatts (MW) of clean energy - enough to power approximately 1.5 million homes, and support the President's all-of-the-above strategy to expand American made energy.

Thanks to a coordinated and focused review process, in the past three years, the Department of the Interior has approved more utility-scale renewable energy projects on public lands than in the past two decades combined - a total of 31 new projects. Link

Killing it.
 
2012-08-10 12:40:36 PM  

Infernalist: I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.

Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


Yeah this is one of many reasons I liked McCain back in 2008, and why I can't possibly support Romney this year. McCain believed in climate change and green energy, and the growing green manufacturing sector. Romney is content to rest on our carbon laurels and to ignore all the science which shows climate change is real and solar power is far from imaginary.

"You can't put a wind turbine on your car" is one of the most ignorant statements of the campaign, and I'm surprised Romney doesn't get hit harder for his anti-science stance on green energy.
 
2012-08-10 12:41:17 PM  

EighthDay: the biggest redneck here: It's really not going to take much more time to reach a tipping point in price performance. Solar isn't a typical computing technolgy that follow Moore's Law, but it does follow "Demi" Moore's Law, and we're pretty much at the tipping point right now.

You don't have to convince people that evil socialistic mumbo jumbo like renewable energy is good for anything other than taking 40% off the electric bill for them to "believe" in it.

My father, a Republican, dropped tens of thousands on solar panels on his roof (he lives in the desert, so pretty much all he gets is direct sun all day). He hasn't paid an electric bill since he installed them and instead gets checks from the electric company.

While it will take something like 7-10 years to pay itself back, their lifetime is expected to exceed that.

Once it gets even more affordable? Yeah, I'd put solar panels on my house in a second.


I live in an area that has occasional ice storms and hail. My neighbor installed $25K worth of panels that were damaged by the storms. His insurance covered the materials, but he had to pay for the labor out of pocket. That was more than half the cost of the repairs. We need some changes in how insurance covers it in areas that have weather other than sunshine.
 
2012-08-10 12:41:51 PM  
FTA:

Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy...

Please, for the love of God, tell me that he didn't actually say this!!
 
2012-08-10 12:42:39 PM  
This makes Solyndra OK.
 
2012-08-10 12:42:55 PM  

Krieghund: Ow! That was my feelings!: Colorado voters approved a 30% standard for renewables, Obama and the federal government had nothing to do with it.

From the article you linked: To help wind compete, the federal government has been providing a tax credit that amounts to roughly 30% of its costs.


Yeah, I didn't state my point very well. I was taking issue with the "nuthin' happened before Obama" slant to TFA. The feds obviously have been offering up subsidies, but CO voters demanding a 30% standard predated Obama and is the major driver of renewables in Colorado.
 
2012-08-10 12:44:33 PM  

beta_plus: This makes Solyndra OK.


That poor chicken must be down to a couple ruffled feathers and one talon...
 
2012-08-10 12:45:08 PM  

Notabunny: Cymbal: dr.zaeus: pants made out of guns: Notabunny: fta Mitt Romney has suggested that wind and solar are "imaginary" sources of energy, but they can now power 15 million homes, and their industries employ more than 300,000 Americans. That's real.

Those aren't real 'Merican jobs. Those are wussy, green, liberal jobs. Not one of them involves monster trucks, bull riding, guns or binge drinking.

Well, maybe a little binge drinking.

/When the going gets weird, etc.

I've got news for everyone. Having worked in electrical distribution (analyst/developer) for the past 10 years, I can promise you that these "green jobs" aren't going to be going to effete, liberal academics or enviro-conscious hippies.

Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.

As long as they can walk through the door at Devry, I could care less. The world needs ditch-diggers too, who cares if they like Bob Marley or Nickleback?

Fine. I'm willing to take a chance on your wussy, green, liberal electricity. But I want to see some AFV-worth lift crashing, or poll toppling, or cable reel rolling now and then.


Just bring back that Mythbusters ripoff marketed to your average blue collar truck-nuts enthusiast. What was it called, Tits and Ass and Explosions?
 
2012-08-10 12:45:27 PM  

mrshowrules: Compared to about a dozen European countries plus your geography is actually a huge advantage. Hydro/wind alone could generate 100% of your electricity requirements even taking into consideration transmission loss over distances.


Compared to which ones? Numbers please.

And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency. Texas has done more than anyone else in Wind power, and that's good. But there is no way that wind power as it stands now can supplant fossil fuels for efficient delivery of electicity.

It's easy to just say vaguely "It's not enough, you aren't trying hard enough." But how about some specifics?

Don't misunderstand. I favor renewable energy, and I am happy to see it finally starting to take root, but there are simply very real and very practical limitations that prevent it being a viable alternative today or tomorrow.
 
2012-08-10 12:46:05 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: I wonder if Romney has considered that the rest of the industrialized world and trivial industrializing country's like China have been putting a lot of investment into renewable. The amount of energy and economy produced around the world is not imaginary. The US stands to loose the tech and economic race for these.


If we want to emulate the Chinese we let them invest billions into developing the technology, then we steal it.
 
2012-08-10 12:49:08 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City


Seems NYC would be a better solar city with all the space on the roofs but they do have the option of building turbines on the water, like they tried to do on the cape in MA.
 
2012-08-10 12:49:24 PM  

beta_plus: This makes Solyndra OK.


BAWWWWWWWWWWWWW
 
2012-08-10 12:50:15 PM  

beta_plus: This makes Solyndra OK.


Why do you hate business, you goddamn Communist?
 
2012-08-10 12:50:45 PM  
I'm waiting for Romney to endorse the proposed coal export terminals that will more than likely soon dot the Oregon and Washington coasts. It'd really round out his "I want to make billions with 18th century technology" platform.

One of the proposed train routes passes less than a half mile from my home and passes through the nearby wetlands. It cuts off two of my routes to work, to groceries, and a large section of town.

He probably won't endorse it though, because Berkshire Hathaway is one of the companies that would reap billions by shipping coal to China and India.
 
2012-08-10 12:51:55 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: For Immediate Release August 07, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, as a part of his We Can't Wait initiative, President Obama announced that seven nationally and regionally significant solar and wind energy projects will be expedited, including projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. Together, these job-creating infrastructure projects would produce nearly 5,000 megawatts (MW) of clean energy - enough to power approximately 1.5 million homes, and support the President's all-of-the-above strategy to expand American made energy.

Thanks to a coordinated and focused review process, in the past three years, the Department of the Interior has approved more utility-scale renewable energy projects on public lands than in the past two decades combined - a total of 31 new projects. Link


Why isn't Texas on that list?
 
2012-08-10 12:53:15 PM  

Cymbal: The Jami Turman Fan Club: SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.

If rural Republicans cared more about money than Jesus hates gays and autonomous vaginas, I'd agree with you. But I just can't.


Trust me, if the choice is gay marriage or losing their farm, they suddenly stop caring about teh gays. Not all of them, mind you, but enough to turn those states blue.
 
2012-08-10 12:53:25 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Dusk-You-n-Me: For Immediate Release August 07, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, as a part of his We Can't Wait initiative, President Obama announced that seven nationally and regionally significant solar and wind energy projects will be expedited, including projects in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Wyoming. Together, these job-creating infrastructure projects would produce nearly 5,000 megawatts (MW) of clean energy - enough to power approximately 1.5 million homes, and support the President's all-of-the-above strategy to expand American made energy.

Thanks to a coordinated and focused review process, in the past three years, the Department of the Interior has approved more utility-scale renewable energy projects on public lands than in the past two decades combined - a total of 31 new projects. Link

Why isn't Texas on that list?


Perry said he didn't want any more Federal help, remember?
 
2012-08-10 12:53:43 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Why isn't Texas on that list?


Because none of the seven expedited projects are in Texas.
 
2012-08-10 12:53:58 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.


You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.
 
2012-08-10 12:55:15 PM  

Headso: Seems NYC would be a better solar city with all the space on the roofs but they do have the option of building turbines on the water, like they tried to do on the cape in MA


As I understanbd it, There's not enough square footage, and only the highest buildings would maintain regular sunlight, with th shorter ones in shadow often. The more important problem is that Solar is just not efficient enough to provide the huge amount of power needed. They would have to build a floating island of solar collectors the size of rhode island or soemthing.

However, there are some promising advances with solar aggregators and focusing that are reducing the square footage requirements.
 
2012-08-10 12:55:35 PM  
Sell Alaska to the Chinese for $10 trillion.
 
2012-08-10 12:55:45 PM  

Cletus C.: SquiggelyGrounders: I wonder if Romney has considered that the rest of the industrialized world and trivial industrializing country's like China have been putting a lot of investment into renewable. The amount of energy and economy produced around the world is not imaginary. The US stands to loose the tech and economic race for these.

If we want to emulate the Chinese we let them invest billions into developing the technology, then we steal it.


and make it with what factories? our great businesses moved them all to china...
 
2012-08-10 12:57:11 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Cymbal: The Jami Turman Fan Club: SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.

If rural Republicans cared more about money than Jesus hates gays and autonomous vaginas, I'd agree with you. But I just can't.

Trust me, if the choice is gay marriage or losing their farm, they suddenly stop caring about teh gays. Not all of them, mind you, but enough to turn those states blue.


But what about the autonomous vaginas?
 
2012-08-10 12:57:52 PM  

Skleenar: BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.

You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.


I'm surprised Nevada has none, given how much flat, open space they have. Is it due to solar availability?
 
2012-08-10 12:58:06 PM  
pkellmey:

I live in an area that has occasional ice storms and hail. My neighbor installed $25K worth of panels that were damaged by the storms. His insurance covered the materials, but he had to pay for the labor out of pocket. That was more than half the cost of the repairs. We need some changes in how insurance covers it in areas that have weather other than sunshine.

It's not difficult to get riders added to your homeowner's insurance for specific high-value items. I've had a $15,000 rider on my computers for years, and it only costs me a few bucks a month.

Your neighbor may want to have a little chat with his insurance company.
 
2012-08-10 12:58:21 PM  

MartinD-35: Sell Alaska to the Chinese for $10 trillion.


Then unleash Liberty Prime to take it back from those red devils.
 
2012-08-10 12:58:39 PM  

MartinD-35: Sell Alaska to the Chinese for $10 trillion.


Make it 9, and they have to take the Palins.
 
2012-08-10 12:59:39 PM  

EighthDay: Skleenar: BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.

You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.

I'm surprised Nevada has none, given how much flat, open space they have. Is it due to solar availability?


Nevada does not have much in the way of potential windpower and also you have a problem with installing and maintaining transmission lines so far away from any sort of populace.
 
2012-08-10 12:59:55 PM  

Skleenar: BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.

You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.


That is an excellent link. Thank you. I may not have been clear, but I was reffering to NYC, not the state as an example of the problem of population center density. But it's good to see turbines making progress.

But even with all those tens of thousands of turbines, Wind power is stil only about 3% of our national electrical production.
 
2012-08-10 01:04:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: But even with all those tens of thousands of turbines, Wind power is stil only about 3% of our national electrical production.


Which is why it's never been "all wind, only wind" but instead "wind/solar/hydro" with things like algae-based petroleum and nuclear as ways of filling in the gap to get us off fossil fuels.

Anyone expecting PURELY wind is obviously uninformed, but it's entirely possible to get off fossil fuels and to renewable resources with some technological improvements.
 
2012-08-10 01:08:26 PM  
When DOW is producing solar roof tiles, you know solar is probably here to stay.
 
2012-08-10 01:08:27 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Skleenar: BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.

You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.

That is an excellent link. Thank you. I may not have been clear, but I was reffering to NYC, not the state as an example of the problem of population center density. But it's good to see turbines making progress.

But even with all those tens of thousands of turbines, Wind power is stil only about 3% of our national electrical production.


Sure. But we're talking wedges here. We're not going to get it all from one source.

Conservation, solar, smard grid, wind, etc.

It's all needed.
 
2012-08-10 01:09:10 PM  

MartinD-35: Sell Alaska to the Chinese for $10 trillion.


With global warming, the Alaskan riviera along the southern coast would be the best and most impressive piece of resort land in 50 years.
 
2012-08-10 01:09:25 PM  

EighthDay: BojanglesPaladin: But even with all those tens of thousands of turbines, Wind power is stil only about 3% of our national electrical production.

Which is why it's never been "all wind, only wind" but instead "wind/solar/hydro" with things like algae-based petroleum and nuclear as ways of filling in the gap to get us off fossil fuels.

Anyone expecting PURELY wind is obviously uninformed, but it's entirely possible to get off fossil fuels and to renewable resources with some technological improvements.


Indeed. If we just subsidized green energy companies a tenth of what we currently subsidize the oil/coal companies, oh nevermind, that's just a pipe dream.
 
2012-08-10 01:12:46 PM  

Skleenar: Every watt saved at the end use saves 1+ watts at generation, because of inefficiencies of generation and energy transport.


You'd love my current energy saving scheme. From noon to 10pm or midnight I turn my AC off. The apartment rarely gets above 85F and I can handle that no sweat. Meanwhile it's up to 105 outside and my AC isn't trying to dump hot into hot, with the sun is beating down on the condensers as well.

This next sentence is a mess. I wish the water condensed off the evaporator could be economically directed to spray in the condenser and provide some evaporative cooling.
 
2012-08-10 01:15:54 PM  

beta_plus: This makes Solyndra OK.


Yes, actually. Yes it does.
 
2012-08-10 01:16:03 PM  

Tigger: If Obama proposed the "don't stick your cock in an electrical socket while wearing a copper condom and standing in four inches of water" act what do you think these traitorous farktards would do next.


They'd propose tax breaks for purchasing copper condoms?
 
2012-08-10 01:16:54 PM  

PickledBoodah: Tigger:

If Obama proposed the "don't stick your cock in an electrical socket while wearing a copper condom and standing in four inches of water" act what do you think these traitorous farktards would do next.

Like this - the ultimate codpiece


FTFL:

3 1/2 inches

But . . . morning wood . . . Ow. OW. OWWWWW
 
2012-08-10 01:21:15 PM  

Infernalist: I'm a bit impressed with those numbers. That, combined with the new focus on being a net exporter of refined petro products, should give the US a bit more economic leverage over the ME oil-producing nations.


What does exporting refined product have to do with importing oil? The US still net imports 8-9 million barrels of oil per day

Converting a significant portion of our transportation infrastructure to run on domestically produced natural gas would do more to reduce our dependence on foreign oil than anything else.
 
2012-08-10 01:22:58 PM  

EighthDay: Anyone expecting PURELY wind is obviously uninformed...


I don't know of anyone taking that position. I have not. But we were talking about wind power specifically. Not to the exclusion of anything else.

Skleenar: Sure. But we're talking wedges here. We're not going to get it all from one source.


Of course. But we must also face the straight-on truth that fossil fules continue to be the best bang for the buck. Alternative fuels (with the possible exception of some hydro systems) continue to be less efficient by a fair margin.

So while we should continue to implement alternatives, and I think we can be confident that the technologies will improve and may even one day achieve a closer energy density to fossil fuels, it is counter-productive to push for innefficient, costly, and less productive alternatives simply becasue 'we have to do something'. Waste is waste. I'm OK with some government subsidies to support a burgeoning system that CAN become self sustaining, but I do not want billions of dollars commited in perpetuity to prop up a failed 'alternative energy' that was never a viable alternative in the first place.

And I agree 200% about the conservation, and efficiency side. We need to dramatically reduce our rate of consumption through better energy use. From computers to washing machines, to ceiling fans, to air conditioning, to every electronic device. If we could manage something as small as a 5% reduction in the average consumer electrical consumption it might have almost as much effect as half of our existing wind turbines.
 
2012-08-10 01:23:11 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Yeah, but Obama once invested in SOLYNDRA! That means Sarah Palin is automatically president and Obama has to breathe in deeply around coal plants and eat depleted uranium rods.


YOU FOOL! HAS COMIC BOOKS TAUGHT YOU NOTHING!? THAT WILL JUST GIVE HIM SUPER BLACK MUSLIM POWERS TO COME AND SEDUCE ALL OUR WOMEN WITH HIS EBONY RHYTHM STICK!!
 
2012-08-10 01:27:44 PM  

beta_plus: This makes Solyndra OK.


The amount of waste caused by politics involved with DoD contracts makes the Solyndra loss look like peanuts.
 
2012-08-10 01:28:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: dr.zaeus: Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.

Just look at the guys doing the turbine work now. These aren't hippies. It takes some brawn to haul tools and safety harness up 300 feet of ladder to replace a broken housing. These tend to be great jobs for able bodied who can;t get work otherwise (like if they have a criminal record and stuff).


My neighbor is a hippie. Went to SF for the Summer of Love and everything. He farms several acres with hand tools. Limbs like tree trunks. I know a lot of guys like this, I live in an area that was a popular back-to-land destination in the 60s and 70s. You're right that you're not going to see these guys repairing wind turbines for a living (though I know a guy who has installed one for his own use, and maintains it himself). I'm not sure where the stereotype of hippies as wimps came from, though, it's the farthest thing from the truth.
 
2012-08-10 01:28:45 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: EighthDay: Anyone expecting PURELY wind is obviously uninformed...

I don't know of anyone taking that position. I have not. But we were talking about wind power specifically. Not to the exclusion of anything else.


It was in one of those posts - 100% wind for NYC. Just wanted to point out that most folks on the subject don't expect any one source to be the only source.
 
2012-08-10 01:29:03 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: Compared to about a dozen European countries plus your geography is actually a huge advantage. Hydro/wind alone could generate 100% of your electricity requirements even taking into consideration transmission loss over distances.

Compared to which ones? Numbers please.

And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency. Texas has done more than anyone else in Wind power, and that's good. But there is no way that wind power as it stands now can supplant fossil fuels for efficient delivery of electicity.

It's easy to just say vaguely "It's not enough, you aren't trying hard enough." But how about some specifics?

Don't misunderstand. I favor renewable energy, and I am happy to see it finally starting to take root, but there are simply very real and very practical limitations that prevent it being a viable alternative today or tomorrow.


there should be manhattan project style initiatives towards discovering a room temperature superconductor

of course, with murphy's law, it would probably utilize something like osmium, platinum , tellurium etc and hence be infeasible
 
2012-08-10 01:29:13 PM  

wildcardjack: I wish the water condensed off the evaporator could be economically directed to spray in the condenser and provide some evaporative cooling.


Well, a condensate pump is probably about $75 or so Grainger.

A little plastic tubing to the top of the condenser coil, or maybe to an evap pad in front of it and you would have a reasonable conservation measure. Just make sure you don't overly constrict airflow to the coil or you might lose the benefit of the evap cooling.
 
2012-08-10 01:30:25 PM  
wildcardjack:

Skleenar: Every watt saved at the end use saves 1+ watts at generation, because of inefficiencies of generation and energy transport.

You'd love my current energy saving scheme. From noon to 10pm or midnight I turn my AC off. The apartment rarely gets above 85F and I can handle that no sweat. Meanwhile it's up to 105 outside and my AC isn't trying to dump hot into hot, with the sun is beating down on the condensers as well.

This next sentence is a mess. I wish the water condensed off the evaporator could be economically directed to spray in the condenser and provide some evaporative cooling.


A little solar-powered "lab-puppy" pump to drizzle it on the condenser fan blades?
 
2012-08-10 01:32:18 PM  
While I am supportive of using wind, solar, etc we have not done the best job at integrating this power into the existing system. Mandates, tax credits and massive subsidies all hide the true cost of this power and that cost is going to paid by someone. While I am happy to see this type of power generation exploding, you need to be very careful to not get the cart before the horse.
 
2012-08-10 01:35:26 PM  

snowshovel: Noone seems to mention that Obama seems to enjoy killing migratory birds, at the expense of a few batteries being charged to power those stupid mercury-laden light bulbs (good thing I bought a couple of thousand incadescents at Walmart when I ahd a chance). At least Romney has a heart for the flora and fauna that keeps our nation in a balanced bio-diversity. And yet, the "un-fair and un-balanced media" doesn't seem to talk about that.


GOP: WE SUDDENLY GIVE A SH*T ABOUT WILDLIFE!
 
2012-08-10 01:37:26 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: EighthDay: Anyone expecting PURELY wind is obviously uninformed...

I don't know of anyone taking that position. I have not. But we were talking about wind power specifically. Not to the exclusion of anything else.

Skleenar: Sure. But we're talking wedges here. We're not going to get it all from one source.

Of course. But we must also face the straight-on truth that fossil fules continue to be the best bang for the buck. Alternative fuels (with the possible exception of some hydro systems) continue to be less efficient by a fair margin.

So while we should continue to implement alternatives, and I think we can be confident that the technologies will improve and may even one day achieve a closer energy density to fossil fuels, it is counter-productive to push for innefficient, costly, and less productive alternatives simply becasue 'we have to do something'. Waste is waste. I'm OK with some government subsidies to support a burgeoning system that CAN become self sustaining, but I do not want billions of dollars commited in perpetuity to prop up a failed 'alternative energy' that was never a viable alternative in the first place.

And I agree 200% about the conservation, and efficiency side. We need to dramatically reduce our rate of consumption through better energy use. From computers to washing machines, to ceiling fans, to air conditioning, to every electronic device. If we could manage something as small as a 5% reduction in the average consumer electrical consumption it might have almost as much effect as half of our existing wind turbines.


I completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Simply put, if green energy was subsidized at the same level of oil/coal IT WOULD BE AS EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!!!

We just don't want to make the switch because too many pensions and 401ks, and politicians' investments are tied up in oil/coal companies. That's the real reason.
 
2012-08-10 01:44:19 PM  
HeadLever:

While I am supportive of using wind, solar, etc we have not done the best job at integrating this power into the existing system. Mandates, tax credits and massive subsidies all hide the true cost of this power and that cost is going to paid by someone. While I am happy to see this type of power generation exploding, you need to be very careful to not get the cart before the horse.

Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many) seem to think that *only* renewables get them.

i47.tinypic.com

And that's before you factor things like entire carrier groups policing the Persian Gulf and elsewhere making sure that *everyone's* access to oil is uninterrupted. i.e. we're subsidizing China and India's appetites as well.
 
2012-08-10 01:44:49 PM  

Cymbal: I completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Simply put, if green energy was subsidized at the same level of oil/coal IT WOULD BE AS EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!!!.


Could you provide some specifics on that? I know we heavily subsidize renewable. I also know we also heavily subsidize fossil fuels (especially if you also calculate in tax loopholes and whatnot).

But I'm not sure your analysis that renewables are drastically under-subsidized compared to fossil fuels is correct. Can you provide your basis?

Also, no matter how much operating cost is paid by the Federal government, that does not improve energy efficiency at all.
 
2012-08-10 01:45:15 PM  

Jackson Herring: Tigger: copper condom

ok this steampunk business is getting out of hand


If it was still in hand, you wouldn't need the condom.
 
2012-08-10 01:47:54 PM  

maxheck: Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many)


Considering the vast difference in scale, comparison by total dollar amount seems unavoidably distortive. Do you have a comparable in percentages?
 
2012-08-10 01:48:02 PM  

Leader O'Cola: there should be manhattan project style initiatives towards discovering a room temperature superconductor


We had a pretty good idea that a nuclear bomb was achievable, with sufficient engineering, when the Manhattan Project was initiated. We have no idea whether room temperature superconductors are even physically possible. It could be an enormous money sink. Furthermore, it doesn't really solve the problem. Superconductors would mostly improve transmission efficiency, although they could also be used in things like generators (either wind or fossil driven). But without making the underlying generation source cheaper than fossil generation, fossil generation is still going to be net cheaper.
 
2012-08-10 01:48:26 PM  
Dead. Birds. Everywhere.
 
2012-08-10 01:49:38 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: maxheck: Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many)

Considering the vast difference in scale, comparison by total dollar amount seems unavoidably distortive. Do you have a comparable in percentages?


The question shouldn't be percentages. The question should be why are we subsidizing massively profitable operations when struggling clean energy (and the US economy as a whole) will benefit greatly from increased subsidies there?
 
2012-08-10 01:50:02 PM  
Why does no one care that through renewable resources, we get 55 gigawatts OR 45.4545 trips to the past/future per year?

media.giantbomb.com
 
2012-08-10 01:50:37 PM  

stewmadness: Dead. Birds. Everywhere.


The only way to prevent this is live underground, kill all the cats, dogs, foxes, snakes, and other birds, and not eat anything, ever.

I had a bird in my yard die from flying into a maple tree. So,cut the trees down, too.
 
2012-08-10 01:52:07 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Cymbal: I completely disagree with pretty much everything you just said. Simply put, if green energy was subsidized at the same level of oil/coal IT WOULD BE AS EFFICIENT AND CHEAP!!!.

Could you provide some specifics on that? I know we heavily subsidize renewable. I also know we also heavily subsidize fossil fuels (especially if you also calculate in tax loopholes and whatnot).

But I'm not sure your analysis that renewables are drastically under-subsidized compared to fossil fuels is correct. Can you provide your basis?

Also, no matter how much operating cost is paid by the Federal government, that does not improve energy efficiency at all.


See maxheck's post directly above your last one.

And it isn't efficient yet because it is still new. Think about how inefficient oil and coal were in the 1800s. With more investment in R&D, green energy will catch up and most likely far exceed fossil fuel efficiency very quickly. Mainly because we don't need two wars to protect wind turbines in Oregon.
 
2012-08-10 01:53:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The question shouldn't be percentages. The question should be why are we subsidizing massively profitable operations when struggling clean energy (and the US economy as a whole) will benefit greatly from increased subsidies there?


That's YOUR question. Mine is different.

Also, it's not an automatic that more heavily artificially subsidizing renewable energy projects will substanatively improve the economy compared to other ways to spend that money. For instance, would you favor revoking the oil subsidies in their entirety and giving them back directly as across the board tax cuts? What would happen if we gave just 75 Billion back to 320 million Americans?
 
2012-08-10 01:53:56 PM  
Funny, I've heard no mention of this news in the media. Liberal media, indeed!

maxheck
Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many) seem to think that *only* renewables get them.

that's farking pathetic that more money goes to corn ethanol subsidies than all other renewables combined. Corn ethanol is inefficient, consuming far too many resources to produce and driving up food prices. It is NOT the answer. Fark corn ethanol subsidies.
 
2012-08-10 01:54:07 PM  
OBama hates coal miners.
 
2012-08-10 01:54:37 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Wow, what an Obama puff piece.

"Wind and solar essentially were imaginary before Obama took office..."

bullshiat.

Link

Colorado voters approved a 30% standard for renewables, Obama and the federal government had nothing to do with it.



It wouldn't have been feasible without huge assistance from NREL. I used to work for them and have met all kinds of politicians and foreign dignitaries. In fact, I got to meet candidate Obama when he stopped by before the DNC in Denver.

Other countries Presidents would come just to listen to what our scientists would tell them about renewable energies in their home country. And there was always something stolen by the Chinese every few months. We'd get a random email that said, "Dr. So and So was actually a Chinese spy. Please do not speak with him or attempt to contact him in anyway."
 
2012-08-10 01:55:34 PM  

Cymbal: See maxheck's post directly above your last one.


I did. And as I said, "Considering the vast difference in scale, comparison by total dollar amount seems unavoidably distortive. Do you have a comparable in percentages?"
 
2012-08-10 01:56:31 PM  

This Is Bold Text: OBama hates coal miners.


Can you blame him? They're such attention whores, with their black lung, explosions, and impromptu underground endurance slumber parties.
 
2012-08-10 01:57:17 PM  

Cymbal: And it isn't efficient yet because it is still new. Think about how inefficient oil and coal were in the 1800s. With more investment in R&D, green energy will catch up and most likely far exceed fossil fuel efficiency very quickly. Mainly because we don't need two wars to protect wind turbines in Oregon.


It won't be energy but more likely water. Technology that will cheaply clean water or desalinate in very large quantites will be the next big energy tech innovation.
 
2012-08-10 01:57:36 PM  

patrick767: that's farking pathetic that more money goes to corn ethanol subsidies than all other renewables combined. Corn ethanol is inefficient, consuming far too many resources to produce and driving up food prices. It is NOT the answer. Fark corn ethanol subsidies.


Agreed. But note that direct ethanol subsidies went away this year; that chart is now out of date. However, the Renewable Fuel Standard still supports corn ethanol.
 
2012-08-10 01:57:41 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: . For instance, would you favor revoking the oil subsidies in their entirety and giving them back directly as across the board tax cuts? What would happen if we gave just 75 Billion back to 320 million Americans?


The same thing that happened when Bush tried it. A temporary bump in the economy. I guess you don't know about the effects of a long-term investment, do you.
 
2012-08-10 01:57:53 PM  

mrshowrules: BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

Compared to which country?


*cough*

I'm Still interested in any specifics you may have, if you are still interested in providing them.
 
2012-08-10 01:58:13 PM  

maxheck: Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many) seem to think that *only* renewables get them.


While I would agree in principal, that graph would look quite a bit different if you want on percentages instead of total spending. The fossil fuel sector is huge compared to renewables. However, I am completely in favor of it (and that side of your graph) shrinking considerably, so long as it can be implemented in some sort of reasonable way that does not kill either the taxpayer or rate payer.
 
2012-08-10 01:58:24 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

maxheck: Always a valid concern, but often the people complaining about tax credits and subsidies (not necessarily you, but many)

Considering the vast difference in scale, comparison by total dollar amount seems unavoidably distortive. Do you have a comparable in percentages?


Not offhand, but I'm sure one exists. Even that wouldn't give the whole picture given that the fossil fuel industry is so different from renewables.

Fossil fuels are based mostly on a resource rather than technology development, the industry has been around for over a century, and it is extremely profitable.

Wind / solar doesn't need much as far as resources, but *does* need lots of development, and is getting actively undercut by China throwing massive subsidies at their own programs.

Personally I find it hard to believe that the fossil fuel industry needs subsidies at *any* percentage. My XON stock has done nothing but go up for decades.
 
2012-08-10 01:59:19 PM  
Since renewables have zero fuel costs, they will always have a long-term economic advantage over consumable fossil fuels that are subject to steady inflation. Renewable energy systems can repay the initial capital investments and then generate income.
Capital costs for renewables like wind and photovoltaics are going down at the same time fossil fuels are going up.
Throw in conservation and energy efficiency improvements that lower the demand for energy and you begin to free up the money that we all need for other things in life.
The poor fossil fuel industries really have nothing left to invest in except disinformation campaigns and buying off politicians, like Romney.
 
2012-08-10 02:00:04 PM  

This Is Bold Text: OBama hates coal miners.


So do those guys who own coal mines
 
2012-08-10 02:00:50 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: I guess you don't know about the effects of a long-term investment, do you.


I do. For instance I know that for them to work, the things you invest in must be viable, productive and profitable under their own power and not reliant on ongoing federal funds in perpetuity.

Just throwing money at possibilities does not guarantee succes.

I'm pleased by the progress of renewable so far. But not all ideas are winners here, and it's not clear that ANY of them will ultimately out-produce fossil fuels in the foreseeable future.
 
2012-08-10 02:01:03 PM  

Skw33tis: BojanglesPaladin: dr.zaeus: Linemen will always be linemen and the same beer-swilling good ole boys will be maintaining the grid no matter what source we choose to energize the lines.

Just look at the guys doing the turbine work now. These aren't hippies. It takes some brawn to haul tools and safety harness up 300 feet of ladder to replace a broken housing. These tend to be great jobs for able bodied who can;t get work otherwise (like if they have a criminal record and stuff).

My neighbor is a hippie. Went to SF for the Summer of Love and everything. He farms several acres with hand tools. Limbs like tree trunks. I know a lot of guys like this, I live in an area that was a popular back-to-land destination in the 60s and 70s. You're right that you're not going to see these guys repairing wind turbines for a living (though I know a guy who has installed one for his own use, and maintains it himself). I'm not sure where the stereotype of hippies as wimps came from, though, it's the farthest thing from the truth.



My friend is super religious. So much so that he became a carpenter like Jesus Christ.

And he actually lives by the "love thy neighbor and everyone else" that Jesus talked about. He gives most of his money away to nonprofits and lives a very chill yet spartan lifestyle out in the country. We always have a unique relationship with the local Amish but they love him like he's one of them. In my opinion, he is the epitome of Christian.
 
2012-08-10 02:01:36 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: The question shouldn't be percentages. The question should be why are we subsidizing massively profitable operations when struggling clean energy (and the US economy as a whole) will benefit greatly from increased subsidies there?

That's YOUR question. Mine is different.

Also, it's not an automatic that more heavily artificially subsidizing renewable energy projects will substanatively improve the economy compared to other ways to spend that money. For instance, would you favor revoking the oil subsidies in their entirety and giving them back directly as across the board tax cuts? What would happen if we gave just 75 Billion back to 320 million Americans?


Oil and coal infrastructure is already built. One of the reasons it's so efficient. Don't you think subsidizing green energy infrastructure to be competitive with fossil, would create many new construction/engineering/maintenance jobs?
 
2012-08-10 02:02:12 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: I do. For instance I know that for them to work, the things you invest in must be viable, productive and profitable under their own power and not reliant on ongoing federal funds in perpetuity.

Just throwing money at possibilities does not guarantee succes.


Oh, I see. You think that developing proven technologies such as wind and solar to make them more efficient is "throwing money at possibilities".

Please educate yourself on the research and development of green energy the past ten years and then bring an intelligent argument against funding for wind and solar development.
 
2012-08-10 02:03:00 PM  

Cymbal: Don't you think subsidizing green energy infrastructure to be competitive with fossil, would create many new construction/engineering/maintenance jobs?


No, no don't you see! We're just "throwing money at possibilities" here! We don't even know if wind and solar can even produce electricity at this point!
 
2012-08-10 02:03:04 PM  

maxheck: Personally I find it hard to believe that the fossil fuel industry needs subsidies at *any* percentage. My XON stock has done nothing but go up for decades.


I really have no idea about this, but do the subsidies to the fossil fuel industries help keep the prices more stable? If so, that would be a pretty good excuse for them.

But other than that, yeah, it's farking stupid to subsidize fossil fuels. By keeping the price artificially low, it's just making it that much harder for the green energies we're trying to promote to become economically competitive.
 
2012-08-10 02:04:08 PM  
To clarify:

I am not arguing against investment in renewable energy. Quite the opposite.

I am just advocating for a reasoned effort to do so with the firm understanding that the bar to beat is fossl fuel energy efficiency and a viable profit model.

You don't quit trying because you don't already know how to beat it. But you must go about reaching your goal with a good understanding of the realities. And the reality is that fossil fuels are the only viable alternative large-scale right now. And federal money in and of itself isn't a magic wand.
 
2012-08-10 02:05:31 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: You don't quit trying because you don't already know how to beat it. But you must go about reaching your goal with a good understanding of the realities. And the reality is that fossil fuels are the only viable alternative large-scale right now. And federal money in and of itself isn't a magic wand.


Nobody's arguing that it is any kind of magic wand. The only reason you say that is because you can't argue that federal subsidies don't work.
 
2012-08-10 02:05:53 PM  

Skleenar: wildcardjack: I wish the water condensed off the evaporator could be economically directed to spray in the condenser and provide some evaporative cooling.

Well, a condensate pump is probably about $75 or so Grainger.

A little plastic tubing to the top of the condenser coil, or maybe to an evap pad in front of it and you would have a reasonable conservation measure. Just make sure you don't overly constrict airflow to the coil or you might lose the benefit of the evap cooling.


See, that's what I'd do if I lived in a house I owned. But this is an apartment. I have a BSME and could actually build an AC system from primary principles and a CNC mill and lathe.

For this installation I've been thinking about just suspending a 5 gallon bucket over the condenser with a 1/64 hole in the bottom. Aim the little trickle at the fan blades and let centripetal force spray the cooling fins. However I suspect the water wouldn't make it to the fan because it operates upwards. Hmmm....

I really should just get a house. Burrowed into a hillside.
 
2012-08-10 02:06:39 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I see. You think that developing proven technologies such as wind and solar to make them more efficient is "throwing money at possibilities".


Not even remotely close to what I have said. I'm quite a fan of wind actually.I think it is the most promising of the current options, excepting perhaps hydro-electric in certain applications.

cameroncrazy1984: Please educate yourself on the research and development of green energy the past ten years and then bring an intelligent argument against funding for wind and solar development.


Yeah... read agian more slowly. I am NOT arguing against that.
 
2012-08-10 02:07:20 PM  

wildcardjack:
I really should just get a house. Burrowed into a hillside.


Filthy stinking hobbitses..
 
2012-08-10 02:08:10 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: cameroncrazy1984: Oh, I see. You think that developing proven technologies such as wind and solar to make them more efficient is "throwing money at possibilities".

Not even remotely close to what I have said. I'm quite a fan of wind actually.I think it is the most promising of the current options, excepting perhaps hydro-electric in certain applications.

cameroncrazy1984: Please educate yourself on the research and development of green energy the past ten years and then bring an intelligent argument against funding for wind and solar development.

Yeah... read agian more slowly. I am NOT arguing against that.


Then you're arguing against a strawman, because nobody here is saying that we should invest in every technology ever regardless of merit.
 
2012-08-10 02:11:16 PM  

mrshowrules: Jubeebee: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

The US generates around 4500 TwH of electricity every year. We've been building large scale solar and wind generation for about 10 or 15 years, and for half that time our government has been actively trying to prevent solar/wind expansion. Give it some time.

I blame the Government for you guys not moving faster. After the 2008 economic collapse, you guys should have sunk $2T-$3T in renewable energy infrastructure. You missed that opportunity to both recovery the economy and become global leaders on renewable energy. I'm not saying the US is doing badly, just that I am not impressed (my country, Canada is worse BTW).


2008? How about September 12, 2001? Imagine where we'd be now if Bush has sunk $1 trillion in renewable energy instead of wasting it in Iraq? You Middle Eastern oil-producing companies want to mess with us? Fine. fark you. No more of our money for your oil. We've moved on, biatches!
 
2012-08-10 02:13:01 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: To clarify:

I am not arguing against investment in renewable energy. Quite the opposite.

I am just advocating for a reasoned effort to do so with the firm understanding that the bar to beat is fossl fuel energy efficiency and a viable profit model.

You don't quit trying because you don't already know how to beat it. But you must go about reaching your goal with a good understanding of the realities. And the reality is that fossil fuels are the only viable alternative large-scale right now. And federal money in and of itself isn't a magic wand.


All we are arguing for is green energy to get the same amount of subsidy that oil/coal get. And the only reason you give in opposition is, it's not efficient enough RIGHT NOW. Well of course it's not. But investment in green technology will surely change that. Fossil fuels have a time limit, there will come a day when it will all be used up. Green energy is the exact opposite, unless the sun stops shining, the wind stops blowing, and the oceans stop churning.
 
2012-08-10 02:18:18 PM  

Infernalist: Seems kinda silly for Romney to come out against it, though. I mean, come on, clean energy is a no-brainer. You support it. How can you not? It's like coming out against clean water/air.


The Republicans are anti-all of those.
 
2012-08-10 02:23:52 PM  
Another reason to support non-thermal sources of electrcity: water usage.

It could be a very big problem in the southwest and poses limitations on the growth of other economic factors (agriculture production, population growth, industry electric supply, etc.). More coal and gas power plants won't fix that problem, but wind and solar energy can. Plus, the cost of energy procution for those technologies is not tied to an extractive industry, providing a more stable cost of electrcity. Plus, investments in renewable technologies also has a positive impact on related technologies like battery storage and smart grid monitoring.
 
2012-08-10 02:26:06 PM  
BojanglesPaladin:

I do. For instance I know that for them to work, the things you invest in must be viable, productive and profitable under their own power and not reliant on ongoing federal funds in perpetuity.

Just throwing money at possibilities does not guarantee succes.


And if we were the only players in the game and knew in advance what works and what didn't, it'd be a wonderful thing. That's not the case.

Someone inevitably brought up Solyndra as an example of "just throwing money at a problem."

Funny thing, that... A US company developed a superior technology that China didn't have the expertise and plants to match.... China does not want us to have a solar industry, and they have very deep pockets. So China spent billions of dollars dumping cheaper, less efficient panels at below market cost on to the market in order to kill the competition, much the way Japan stomped US steel production.

A lot of people screamed "let the free market decide!" when Solyndra crashed, but completely ignored the fact that we're not the only players in the market, and other nations might have other ideas on how to play the game.

So do we take a completely hands-off approach to the fastest growing sector of the most important part of our economy? The "free market" may not give you the answers you like.
 
2012-08-10 02:27:28 PM  

stewmadness: Dead. Birds. Everywhere.


As noted upthread, the bird problem has been seriously overstated. It is true that in some places (such as eastern Washington) the wind turbines are correlated with significant decreases in bat populations, apparently because pressure gradients around the turbine blades cause their little bat lungs to overinflate and explode, but the scientists are working on it.
 
2012-08-10 02:34:53 PM  
Obama seems determined to play the long game when it comes to energy and the economy. I hope the US voters start to realize that.
 
2012-08-10 02:35:11 PM  

wildcardjack: Skleenar: wildcardjack: I wish the water condensed off the evaporator could be economically directed to spray in the condenser and provide some evaporative cooling.

Well, a condensate pump is probably about $75 or so Grainger.

A little plastic tubing to the top of the condenser coil, or maybe to an evap pad in front of it and you would have a reasonable conservation measure. Just make sure you don't overly constrict airflow to the coil or you might lose the benefit of the evap cooling.

See, that's what I'd do if I lived in a house I owned. But this is an apartment. I have a BSME and could actually build an AC system from primary principles and a CNC mill and lathe.

For this installation I've been thinking about just suspending a 5 gallon bucket over the condenser with a 1/64 hole in the bottom. Aim the little trickle at the fan blades and let centripetal force spray the cooling fins. However I suspect the water wouldn't make it to the fan because it operates upwards. Hmmm....

I really should just get a house. Burrowed into a hillside.


Well, I was half-way through writing a long dissertation on why the bucket approach wouldn't be terribly workable (1. on wrong side of condensing coil, 2. not much capacity, so little benefit, 3. Deposition of dissolved minerals unless using condensate [if condensate see 2 above even moreso], ), but it was getting messy. In your position it may simply be better just to reduce the load in the apartment (i.e block windows with reflective shades, seal cracks, fix weatherstripping) etc.
 
2012-08-10 02:35:14 PM  

mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources


No it shouldn't. Not this soon. Totally unreasonable.
 
2012-08-10 02:40:20 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: That sounded dirtier than it should have.


Well, to be fair, brownfields are pretty dirty...
 
2012-08-10 03:11:27 PM  

EighthDay: Skleenar: BojanglesPaladin: And geographic disbursement *IS* a significan challenge. For instance, you can't build enough windfarms anywhere remotely close to say New York City to provide the needed power, and the loss for long-distance transmission offsets the efficiency.

You might pay attention to the states in the upper right of the map.

I'm surprised Nevada has none, given how much flat, open space they have. Is it due to solar availability?


Hardly anyone lives there, and the ones that do are mostly ghouls, have you never played Fallout:New Vegas?
 
2012-08-10 03:15:03 PM  
Back at the farm we looked into putting up some turbines for a while. Couple of problems.

First:

i.ehow.com

We're in the white, southern Indiana. Just not sufficient reliable wind power.

Second:

That stuff ain't cheap. For 1000kwh/month turbine you're talking bottom line $40K, and that's the absolute bottom line. Quick and easy math, using nice round numbers. At $.08 a kwh, you're looking at 500,000 kwh to recoup that $40K, or using 1000kwh/month, 500 months. Almost 42 years to recoup that investment, not counting maintenance, not factoring in that there's no way that turbine is going to last that long.

/CSB
 
2012-08-10 03:38:59 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Back at the farm we looked into putting up some turbines for a while. Couple of problems.

First:

[i.ehow.com image 600x442]

We're in the white, southern Indiana. Just not sufficient reliable wind power.

Second:

That stuff ain't cheap. For 1000kwh/month turbine you're talking bottom line $40K, and that's the absolute bottom line. Quick and easy math, using nice round numbers. At $.08 a kwh, you're looking at 500,000 kwh to recoup that $40K, or using 1000kwh/month, 500 months. Almost 42 years to recoup that investment, not counting maintenance, not factoring in that there's no way that turbine is going to last that long.

/CSB


The average rate in the US is around $0.13/kwh, which brings the time down to around 26 years instead of 42. Still a long time just to break even, but it also doesn't have the currently "free" externalities of fossil fuel energy production. According to Wikipedia, it looks like wind is actually cheaper than everything except natural gas and hydro.
 
2012-08-10 03:40:22 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Back at the farm we looked into putting up some turbines for a while. Couple of problems.

First:

[i.ehow.com image 600x442]

We're in the white, southern Indiana. Just not sufficient reliable wind power.

Second:

That stuff ain't cheap. For 1000kwh/month turbine you're talking bottom line $40K, and that's the absolute bottom line. Quick and easy math, using nice round numbers. At $.08 a kwh, you're looking at 500,000 kwh to recoup that $40K, or using 1000kwh/month, 500 months. Almost 42 years to recoup that investment, not counting maintenance, not factoring in that there's no way that turbine is going to last that long.

/CSB


OMG! Wind turbines are not viable in 35% of the lower 48. That means we should abandon it completely and drill baby drill, and dig baby dig!
 
2012-08-10 04:14:57 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: BojanglesPaladin: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources. US (Canada also for that matter) is pathetic in terms of this metric both in terms of present day and plans for the future.

Compared to which country?

*cough*

I'm Still interested in any specifics you may have, if you are still interested in providing them.


I already responded to this. I said about a dozen European countries. It isn't rocket science. US gets about 14% of its electricity from renewable sources. Many European are higher than that, up to 45%. Google is your friend but if you want one solid example, how about Germany.
 
2012-08-10 04:16:40 PM  

Erix: The average rate in the US is around $0.13/kwh, which brings the time down to around 26 years instead of 42. Still a long time just to break even, but it also doesn't have the currently "free" externalities of fossil fuel energy production. According to Wikipedia, it looks like wind is actually cheaper than everything except natural gas and hydro.


I just based the $.08 on one of my previous bills. But the point was really just a CSB, something we seriously looked into. Not:

Cymbal: OMG! Wind turbines are not viable in 35% of the lower 48. That means we should abandon it completely and drill baby drill, and dig baby dig!


Because if I were to sound like that I'd be a total cockbag.
 
2012-08-10 04:25:34 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: mrshowrules: I'm not impressed with America's anemic shift to renewable energy. First of all, the metric should be the percentage of electricity produced form renewable sources

No it shouldn't. Not this soon. Totally unreasonable.


Not sure if serious? Assuming you are serious, why would a metric like this not be helpful in tracking against other industrial countries? If you think it is too soon, than project the rate (e.g., the US plans to have X% of renewable energy from renewable resources by 2025). At least you can do some benchmarking.
 
2012-08-10 04:38:47 PM  

funk_soul_bubby: Erix: The average rate in the US is around $0.13/kwh, which brings the time down to around 26 years instead of 42. Still a long time just to break even, but it also doesn't have the currently "free" externalities of fossil fuel energy production. According to Wikipedia, it looks like wind is actually cheaper than everything except natural gas and hydro.

I just based the $.08 on one of my previous bills. But the point was really just a CSB, something we seriously looked into. Not:

Cymbal: OMG! Wind turbines are not viable in 35% of the lower 48. That means we should abandon it completely and drill baby drill, and dig baby dig!

Because if I were to sound like that I'd be a total cockbag.


That's cool (story bro), it was an interesting enough point that it got me to look into it a bit more.
 
2012-08-10 05:12:02 PM  

Erix: funk_soul_bubby: Erix: The average rate in the US is around $0.13/kwh, which brings the time down to around 26 years instead of 42. Still a long time just to break even, but it also doesn't have the currently "free" externalities of fossil fuel energy production. According to Wikipedia, it looks like wind is actually cheaper than everything except natural gas and hydro.

I just based the $.08 on one of my previous bills. But the point was really just a CSB, something we seriously looked into. Not:

Cymbal: OMG! Wind turbines are not viable in 35% of the lower 48. That means we should abandon it completely and drill baby drill, and dig baby dig!

Because if I were to sound like that I'd be a total cockbag.

That's cool (story bro), it was an interesting enough point that it got me to look into it a bit more.


I did leave out the part about the electric company buying off your surplus, so if you are using less than you are producing on a monthly basis you will be compensated, if your electric company agrees to it. All in all it would be an awesome setup at the farm, just not very economically viable yet.

More to the actual point, no reason we shouldn't be pulling in wind power from all those spots in the pink, purple, and red.
 
2012-08-10 05:58:35 PM  
 
2012-08-10 06:25:56 PM  

pdee: Congress has been supporting wind production since at least 1978 on the premise that wind is an infant industry requiring a brief leg-up to become cost-competitive with coal, natural gas and other sources of reliable, affordable energy. But if wind is an infant industry, it has to be one of the oldest infant industries on the planet.


Do you know how long it took for oil to become the dominant source of energy?

Oh, who am I kidding, of course you don't.
 
2012-08-10 06:42:32 PM  
They've built about 3000MW of wind turbinage here in Illinois over just the last 4-5 years.
 
2012-08-10 07:08:25 PM  
It sure is funny how conservatives suddenly get all weepy about the environment as soon as it's wind power that's being discussed. If you're going to be concerned about the environment, at least be consistent about it, or else it's obvious it's just an affectation.
 
2012-08-10 07:14:27 PM  

BMulligan: stewmadness: Dead. Birds. Everywhere.

As noted upthread, the bird problem has been seriously overstated. It is true that in some places (such as eastern Washington) the wind turbines are correlated with significant decreases in bat populations, apparently because pressure gradients around the turbine blades cause their little bat lungs to overinflate and explode, but the scientists are working on it.


Right? B/c we can economically transfer wind farm elec along current power grids to anywhere it's needed. The whole idea is stupid, greenies just won't admit it.
 
2012-08-10 07:46:32 PM  

stewmadness: BMulligan: stewmadness: Dead. Birds. Everywhere.

As noted upthread, the bird problem has been seriously overstated. It is true that in some places (such as eastern Washington) the wind turbines are correlated with significant decreases in bat populations, apparently because pressure gradients around the turbine blades cause their little bat lungs to overinflate and explode, but the scientists are working on it.

Right? B/c we can economically transfer wind farm elec along current power grids to anywhere it's needed. The whole idea is stupid, greenies just won't admit it.


Um...no. That's not what I was saying at all.
 
2012-08-10 09:33:45 PM  

eagles95: The Jami Turman Fan Club: SquiggelyGrounders: Infernmeat0918: You have to convince a lot of rural Republicans it isn't a plot by Al Gore, but a good way to make them money or save them money.


Oh, rural Republicans are well aware it makes them money. Rural Republicans are renting out small portions of farmland and making money hand over fist on wind farms. Combined with the ethanol subsidies, that's kept rural America alive.

You want to make sure Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa go blue this year? Convince them that Romney will cut subsidies for wind power and ethanol. Heck, Obama would probably get Indiana and Missouri to boot.

Wisconsin has basically stopped putting up wind turbines since some of those rural looney toons have decided that the turbines are causing them to not be able to sleep at night because of the light reflections and sound they make. Thanks Walker


Oddly enough, Wisconsin is one of the top states in solar potential. Crazy but true.

Also, this is well worth the time-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BltRufe5kkI

/too lazy to link, copy/paste that shiat
 
2012-08-10 11:53:01 PM  
Parts of those things come through here a lot. There's a big farm being built in northern North Dakota, but there must be one to the west too. The parts are going both ways.

lh5.googleusercontent.com

lh3.googleusercontent.com

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-08-13 12:03:37 PM  

mrshowrules: I already responded to this. I said about a dozen European countries.


Yes. And I asked for specific countries and the numbers for their renewable energy usage. You haven't provided anything beyond "They do this better in Europe, and America sucks." I'm simply asking if you can quantify that in any way. Here's a hint: I vist one of the wind power pioneers of Europe regularly.

cameroncrazy1984: Then you're arguing against a strawman, because nobody here is saying that we should invest in every technology ever regardless of merit.


While it is true that there are quite afew people (including mrshowrules, for instance) who have suggested as much, I am not arguing against that strawman you constructed either. Since you don't quite 'get it', I'll try to re-state it:

While we should continue to expand out renewable energy efforts, no amount of money will change the limits of physics and technology in the short term to the dgree that wind or solar, or other systems can overcome the energy density of fossil fuels. We shoudl be spending out resources in areas where alternative fuels can be best used to supplement electricity production.

In addition to that, we should be really focusing on increasing effciiency and reducing comsumption in all electric powered devices.

It is not a choice between all alternative or no alternative energy. It is a matter of dealing with the practical limitations of the alternatives to maximize where they can be used most effectively. No amount of money is going to change the reality that fossil fuels are used because they are just the most effective energy source. (Other than nuclear).
 
Displayed 186 of 186 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report