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.

(TreeHugger)   To the left: A realistic & economically sound plan to get everything, in every state, fully powered with renewable energy by 2050. To the right: naysayers explaining why this is impossible   (treehugger.com) divider line 319
    More: Obvious, United States, renewable energy, offshore wind, fuel mix disclosure, tree huggers, single source  
•       •       •

7124 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



319 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-07 01:46:49 PM  
Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!
 
2014-03-07 01:50:38 PM  
I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.
 
2014-03-07 01:52:46 PM  
Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...
 
2014-03-07 01:58:26 PM  
And behind the keyboard, someone using a browser mandated by work that doesn't support the pages needed to look at the plan... :/
 
2014-03-07 01:59:21 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.


As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.
 
2014-03-07 02:21:47 PM  
It was posted on treehugger.
 
2014-03-07 02:23:47 PM  
But mah lightbulbs! I ain't usin' no Obama bulbs.
 
2014-03-07 02:23:50 PM  
US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.
 
2014-03-07 02:25:08 PM  
Nuclear power & Reprocessing.
 
2014-03-07 02:26:12 PM  
After three rounds of "temporarily allowing all scripts" in FF, I got a cross-script security warning. Sorry, I'll have to comment without RFTA (well, without using their interactive map). It's a sacrifice unheard of in Farkdom, I know. Forgive me.
 
2014-03-07 02:26:29 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Are you saying you're for or against?

/Everyone hates birds, right?
 
2014-03-07 02:26:34 PM  
The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:00 PM  

Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.


Too expensive.
 
2014-03-07 02:27:03 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.


And NIMBY's.  NIMBY's delay any infrastructure project for 2 decades after tripling the price.

At least the Republican Party is honest about wanting to fark the poor.
 
2014-03-07 02:28:34 PM  
Fark headline: "A realistic and economically sound plan"

Article: "Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same thing as having a strategic plan"
 
2014-03-07 02:28:46 PM  
As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:03 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Also "windows" kill birds, and don't even get me started on the "cats", so obviously those things can't be done either.
Coal and nuclear waste is good for birds.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:12 PM  

Molavian: It was posted on treehugger.


This.

Treehugger.  The RightWingNews.com of the left.
 
2014-03-07 02:29:50 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


We didn't "invest" a penny in Iraq or Afghanistan. An investment implies we could reasonably inspect a return. Iraq and Afghanistan are money pits and that money ain't ever coming back.

Education and infrastructure are actual investments.
 
2014-03-07 02:30:16 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


Yeah but what about Benghazi!
 
2014-03-07 02:30:29 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

As long as extractive energy companies are dropping mad cash on their favorite political candidates, the whole plan is an uphill battle.


Sadly, this. Too many people make too much money, and as a result have too much influence, with things the way they are for me to reasonably expect any signifiant change.
 
2014-03-07 02:31:07 PM  
To start with, we need to start plastering the tops of big box stores with utility intertie solar  They get great sunlight, what with no trees nearby.
 
2014-03-07 02:32:22 PM  
Too bad I can't see the actual plans on the infographic - the clicking, it does nothing.

Looking at the little icons, Michigan's plan is >25% solar (sun with little house, sun with bigger building, sun with parallelagram, sun with foldy-thing). I wouldn't want to climb up onto my (pretty steep) roof to shovel snow off solar panels, but maybe that's a viable plan for any sunny days during the non-snowy ~9 months out of the year.

I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?
 
2014-03-07 02:32:28 PM  

AngryDragon: This.Treehugger. The RightWingNews.com of the left.


Really? They're owned by Discovery Communications. Creators of such 'beloved' shows as: "Swamp People" "Moonshiners" "Alaska Gold Miners" "Deadliest Catch" etc.

Not exactly liberal ownership.
 
2014-03-07 02:33:43 PM  
The problem with this plan, even if we had the willpower to enact it, is that it just covers us.  It's not going to matter unless we do something about the other elephants in the room.  We sell dirty coal to China and import their goods, but most energy consumption charts show that as China's problem.  Consumption is going to continue to rise worldwide.  The fact that we are thinking about this as a state issue instead of a global one... yes, it's good to have a plan for each state, but unless we start really working with other countries it's not going to matter.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:02 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


I'm responding to this, but not to you, you're an aggressive troll who posts this in every thread remotely related to renewable energy. (Show me on the doll where ...)

I'm responding in case anyone doesn't know how shameless and wrong your argument is:

plainswindeis.anl.gov

This is a bird-safe wind turbine. Birds look for places to land, the only place is at the top, where the relative speed of the fan blades are slow.

switchboard.nrdc.org

You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:45 PM  

Ashyukun: And behind the keyboard, someone using a browser mandated by work that doesn't support the pages needed to look at the plan... :/


Their official page is shiat.  It is one of those pages designed for phones, where everything is huge and very little content fits on the screen so you constantly have to scroll.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:55 PM  
Stopped reading after this sentence:

"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Of course they did. Of  course they did.
 
2014-03-07 02:35:59 PM  
yeah, it's a great idea in THEORY, much like leftism in enough itself.  but such an idealist plan would surely encounter unforeseen obstacles of a difficult nature and is therefore a bad idea.  much like leftism.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:25 PM  
Didn't bother reading the article, but how do we fuel planes? Last I checked you can't really run a jumbo jet on batteries.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:27 PM  
I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicans.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:32 PM  
It will work fine if we also come up with a feasible way to store electricity or are happy with constant and unpredictable power outages.
 
2014-03-07 02:36:59 PM  

HoratioGates: The problem with this plan, even if we had the willpower to enact it, is that it just covers us.  It's not going to matter unless we do something about the other elephants in the room.  We sell dirty coal to China and import their goods, but most energy consumption charts show that as China's problem.  Consumption is going to continue to rise worldwide.  The fact that we are thinking about this as a state issue instead of a global one... yes, it's good to have a plan for each state, but unless we start really working with other countries it's not going to matter.


China already has regional cap and trade programs in five provinces and is transitioning to a national carbon tax.
 
2014-03-07 02:37:14 PM  

draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?


Geez you really twisted that data into a knot and wrapped yourself a present there didn't you?
 
2014-03-07 02:37:43 PM  
Until Alaska and Texas run out of economically viable oil or oil stops being profitable, there's simply no way you're going to be able to wean them off of that kind of money. Ditto for North Dakota and other fracking hotspots.

This is a lovely and even possibly sound idea for many states, but it does underestimate the most potent factor in the mix: human nature. And specifically, human greed. 'viable' != 'compelling'.
 
2014-03-07 02:37:56 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


i n v e s t e d ... that's a funny way to spell "burned."
 
2014-03-07 02:39:48 PM  

Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.


Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.
 
2014-03-07 02:42:26 PM  

MrSteve007: As I've said on fark many times before - almost everything directly in my life is powered by solar power: house, work, car. If I can do that in perpetually cloudy Seattle, anyone can.

My full return on investment will be July 2017 - a little over three years from now. After that, every watt I generate is money in my pocket. Considering most of the equipment is warrantied for another 22 years - I expect to save a load of cash.


How do you power things during non-daylight hours? What sort of energy storage do you have?
 
2014-03-07 02:42:49 PM  

draypresct: Too bad I can't see the actual plans on the infographic - the clicking, it does nothing.

Looking at the little icons, Michigan's plan is >25% solar (sun with little house, sun with bigger building, sun with parallelagram, sun with foldy-thing). I wouldn't want to climb up onto my (pretty steep) roof to shovel snow off solar panels, but maybe that's a viable plan for any sunny days during the non-snowy ~9 months out of the year.

I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?


From what I understand the panels end up melting the snow pretty rapidly.

The have quite a few land based wind farms in Michigan already.  One is going up on my dad's land in the Thumb.  He's quite happy about the extra cash, plus his psycho sister is moving because she thinks they cause health effects, and she used to work in nuclear power.

And I literally just got news my energy company approved the 0 interest loan for my ductless heat pump.

Good bye ceiling heat.  May the guy that thought that up spend eternity in hell paying massive electric bills and never having the heat be quite right!
 
2014-03-07 02:43:10 PM  

draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.


Presumably, they would all be on land, on the east coast of Lake Michigan. Which would admittedly be a prime spot for catching wind. Not sure how they would handle the winters though. I would  hate to be the poor SOB who had to climb up and fix ice damage on one of those things in, say, late January.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:16 PM  

emarche: Stopped reading after this sentence:

"In 2011, a scientist, a banker, an actor, and a filmmaker, came together to envision a pathway to 100% renewable energy in the US..."

Of course they did. Of  course they did.


I know! Exactly what would some fancy pants Stanford Professor doctor guy with degrees Atmospheric Science, Civil Engineering, Economics and Environmental Engineering and who serves on the advisory committee for the US Secretary of Energy, know about something like this? What a crock!
 
2014-03-07 02:44:22 PM  

vernonFL: Of course it CAN be done, the question is whether or not we have the political will to do so.

We invested well over $1 trillion over 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think about that every time a see a report about why something can't be done or we don't have the budget or it will take too long, etc...


What if we had invested that kind of money after the first Arab Oil Embargo towards energy independence?  We prolly wouldn't care much about Kuwait and Iraq because they didn't have anything we need.    We wouldn't have needed a military presence in the middle east.   Then we could'v said "Osama bin Who?'.
 
2014-03-07 02:44:33 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


Also a place that cooks birds.
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-03-07 02:44:35 PM  

Destructor: Hollie Maea: Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

Too expensive.

Looking at the levelized cost (most affected by taxes). But looking at the actual cost, transmission distances, land savings in term of power density, and reliability, it becomes hard to beat.

If you really want to leave a tiny ecological foot print, nuclear is the only way to go.


And enormous hand-waving about liability.
 
2014-03-07 02:45:06 PM  
Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.

HM: Too expensive.


WAT? Consult with France. They generate 80% of their power with nukes, and reprocess. And make money selling power to Germany, the land of many (wait for it)... windmills!

Nukes are conomically viable now. So called "renewables" WILL NOT be a viable replacement until we come up with an economically competitive way of storing electricity. That's the reality. No amount of wishful progressive thinking will change the reality of the underlying physics....
 
2014-03-07 02:45:54 PM  

Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!


Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.
 
2014-03-07 02:46:54 PM  

dj_bigbird: I assume by "onshore wind" they're referring to windmills that kill lots of birds and for solar PV and CSP plants, they're talking about places that cook birds.


I think in one report on the number of birds killed at one large solar plant in a one month period was 30, which basically amounts to the death toll from one decent sized colony of feral cats, so just a small program to trap, neuter, and release ferals would more than make up for the impact of the solar plants.
 
2014-03-07 02:47:03 PM  

brap: draypresct: I really don't understand 40% of Michigan's energy coming from land-based wind farms. Michigan is a terrible place for these.

If anyone can read the actual plan, can you see if they actually have a way to make land-based wind farms work in the majority of Michigan?

Geez you really twisted that data into a knot and wrapped yourself a present there didn't you?


Huh?
I live in Michigan.
 
2014-03-07 02:47:43 PM  

Random Anonymous Blackmail: The reason we can't?

Eco tree hugging granola eaters, saying we can't affect the migration pattern of the no so rare Arizona sand slug or stupid farking birds who run into wind mills.


In this instance, the tree huggers are correct. Ecosystems, how do they work?

/ besides, water availability is a more pressing concern
 
2014-03-07 02:47:48 PM  
America is a big country, sublibbo.


/stupid argument also used for lack of/slow broadband connectivy.
 
Displayed 50 of 319 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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