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  
•       •       •

7101 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (24 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 03:44:08 PM

Cybernetic: There's only so much mineable uranium out there. The known uranium reserves are more long-lasting than oil reserves, but it's not the sort of near-infinite fuel source that the sun is. Plus, we still haven't figured out what to do with the waste.

This is a better point, but it still doesn't make radioisotopes a fossil fuel.


Look into reprocessing. You take spent nuclear fuel from a reactor, extract 1% of the short term, nasty radioactive stuff from it, and use the remaining fuel over again. Rinse and repeat. That greatly expands the efficiency of useable fuel and also reduces the need to store long term nuclear waste (because you're using it productively instead of storing it).

If you're worried about nuclear proliferation (which doesn't seem to be a big a deal any more since the countries we're worried about acquiring nuclear weapons, have or are close to doing so), take a look at the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Thousands of years of clean, reliable, nuclear energy at mankind's disposal, within our grasp.
 
2014-03-07 03:44:22 PM

Felgraf: Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.

Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.


Umm, no. First of all, there are quite high fuel taxes. Is that a subsidy? Does the government pay you to buy oil? No, but it pays you a lot of use solar panels, and the government gives out hundreds of millions to solar companies, even when they fail.

Think the government can afford $50,000 for every person in the country to throw up solar panels, buy electric cars?
 
2014-03-07 03:45:27 PM

bunner: super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.

We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?


That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

I swear to god the green energy crowd is just as bad as the nuclear fusion people when it comes to feasibility.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:42 PM

Felgraf: Destructor: bigsteve3OOO: Not without massive subsidies it doesn't. It requires tax payer money. And lots of it.

They're all expensive.

Wind and Solar have the Blessings of the powers-that-be, so they're subsidized 9 different ways from Sunday. You have to look at all power generation modes in terms of power density over time. It also doesn't help that the regulatory risk (as in government dragging their feet) of building a nuclear plant drives off commercial investors.

Uh, so are Oil and Coal. They are HEAVILY subsidized.
Especially in the whole"Not really paying nearly as much for their external costs" bit.


No no so much.  They are way under taxed compared to other business.  They don't get a check every year like solar, wind and nukes do.  They also benefit from regulations that prevent competition to they have that.  Actual money paid to them though... no not so much.
 
2014-03-07 03:45:46 PM
So Texas, with it's booming population, is going to need 35% less power in 40 years?  That's what this proposes.  And 50% comes from wind, not solar?  And NC gets 50% from offshore wind?  The coastline isn't that long.

New view from the Kitty Hawk:

www.countryliving.com
 
2014-03-07 03:46:24 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.


no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.
 
2014-03-07 03:48:05 PM

FLMountainMan: fireclown: 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.

I think a lot of climate change policy is misguided, but this always seemed like a no-brainer to me.  Should also be done on shopping malls, and government office buildings.  

MrSteve007: 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.

So they can't be liberal because they have tv shows where everyone laughs at conservative backwoods stereotypes?  Sure.


This isn't really a climate change thing to me.  It's just that there's only so much coal and natural gas.  And uranium for that matter.
 
2014-03-07 03:48:09 PM
wind turbines would have saved new orleans from katrina!!!
 
2014-03-07 03:49:33 PM

Destructor: Look into reprocessing. You take spent nuclear fuel from a reactor, extract 1% of the short term, nasty radioactive stuff from it, and use the remaining fuel over again. Rinse and repeat. That greatly expands the efficiency of useable fuel and also reduces the need to store long term nuclear waste (because you're using it productively instead of storing it).

If you're worried about nuclear proliferation (which doesn't seem to be a big a deal any more since the countries we're worried about acquiring nuclear weapons, have or are close to doing so), take a look at the Thorium Fuel Cycle. Thousands of years of clean, reliable, nuclear energy at mankind's disposal, within our grasp.


Fuel costs for nuclear are already the lowest among contemporary energy sources. Waste removal/storage is nothing compared to the cost of building, maintaining and eventually decommissioning a plant. It's an expensive process that doesn't change the economics of the fuel, and doesn't have any impact on whether you can get investment for the plant to begin with.

The issue with nuclear is not it's safety or the waste, the issue is you can't get anyone excited to invest in something high risk that takes 20+ years to pay off. (High risk from an investment stand-point, not meltdown, just to be clear.)
 
2014-03-07 03:50:13 PM

fireclown: This isn't really a climate change thing to me.  It's just that there's only so much coal and natural gas


It should be. No one has internalized the fact that we're going to have to leave 80% of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
 
2014-03-07 03:50:54 PM

Cybernetic: CruJones: If by sound economic plan you mean "we think this may work but we aren't sure how" then sure.

FTA:   Obviously, having a roadmap is not the same as having a strategic plan for deploying more clean energy projects, or answers for who is going to pay for them, or details about which specific renewable energy project will go where

I have no idea how feasible (either technologically or politically) any of their ideas are (and they may not really have any idea about that themselves), but I have to give them some credit for actually proposing a solution, instead of just making more noise about the problem. At the very least, it provides a starting point for a discussion.


And I'm all for the discussion, but calling it feasible and economically sound simply loses any credibility immediately.
 
2014-03-07 03:51:17 PM

Sticky Hands: Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.

no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.


If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.  2050-2014= 36 years     100t/36years=2.8t per year  36t/2.8=12.8 year ROI.  Any business would laugh you out of the room.
 
2014-03-07 03:51:40 PM

Felgraf: justtray: Felgraf: 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?

Electricity is a grid. You pay based on net usage. You don't have to store anything.

Right, that's what I meant. So, for some people (like, say, large apartments where there are MANY people over a small surface area), thinks like grid-connectivity and base-line power loads will still be necessary: It'snot going to be *entirely* solar. His initial comment made it sound like "No one should need power utilities."


He weasel words a lot.  Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-d it ch-nukes-em-and-em-coal
 
2014-03-07 03:54:09 PM
Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals. Survival of the fittest right? If God cared, he'd protect them with magical force-fields.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:35 PM

bigsteve3OOO: If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.


+2C is going to suck worse. Anything above that is going to catastrophically suck. And cost more than $36T to deal with. They estimate every year we wait adds $500B to the tab.
 
2014-03-07 03:54:44 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.


Yeah,the scientist is there to tell how to do it, the banker is there to tell how to pay for it, the actor and filmmaker are there to tell us where to park our cars.  What's next, a performance artist and country music singer lay out a detailed  plan for future drug research.
 
2014-03-07 03:55:14 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Sticky Hands: Dusk-You-n-Me: The IEA estimates that the world needs to invest $36 trillion into the clean economy between now and 2050 in order to keep the planet below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2oC). So $1 trillion per year. Which sounds like a lot. But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings over the same time frame. That's a very good investment.

no, no no.

But this $36T investment would result in $100T in fuel savings lower revenues, and correspondingly lower campaign donations over the same time frame.

Aaaah, better.

If there was the slightest truth to those numbers the still suck.  2050-2014= 36 years     100t/36years=2.8t per year  36t/2.8=12.8 year ROI.  Any business would laugh you out of the room.


Long term that's an excellent return.  DJIA's is less than 10% long term.
 
2014-03-07 03:56:30 PM

meyerkev: 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.


The poor usually do a fine job of farking themselves.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:04 PM

super_grass: That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.


So harvest all that crap and WORK on it, science.  That's what science is for.  Making new things and then mopping up the mess.  Please spare me your "crowd" filing system.
 
2014-03-07 03:57:20 PM

super_grass: bunner: super_grass: Anayalator: How about a barrel of reconsideration?

[newsroom.aaa.com image 610x333]

People say that we can stop using fossil fuels and stop using oil altogether, but most don't realize that we still need oil for the asphalt, plastics, fertilizers, and advanced materials to build all that capital and infrastructure in the first place.

We got enough scrap plastic to pave Utah.  And that's just in the Pacific garbage patch.  Ceramics, anyone?

That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

I swear to god the green energy crowd is just as bad as the nuclear fusion people when it comes to feasibility.


What would you guess would be the impact of ceasing oil production for fuel? I guessing it would be quite dramatic. It's more about sustainability than elimination. I've read (don't remember where) that even with the current level of fossil fuel consumption, the earth could sustain clean air if there was substantial forested acreage.
 
2014-03-07 03:58:19 PM
If the plan calls for more hydroelectric dams, forget it.  They won't get built because they destroy huge valleys.
If the plan calls for wind turbines, forget it.  They are now know as "bird choppers" and are a serious threat to endangered birds in some areas.
If the plan calls for nuclear power, forget it.  ZOMG RADIATION!  NIMBY!

I'm not saying they don't have a good plan.  I'm just pointing out the first three stumbling blocks that came to mind.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:12 PM

GORDON: The poor usually do a fine job of farking themselves.


Mostly by supporting and utter make believe two party system that promises not to bend them over the kitchen counter this time.
 
2014-03-07 03:59:23 PM

ReverendJynxed: Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals.


Climate is changing too fast for evolution. About 10,000X too fast.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:17 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.


I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.
 
2014-03-07 04:00:27 PM

meat0918: I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicansality.



FTFY
 
2014-03-07 04:01:41 PM
I used the compact flourescent ones, partly because in the Winter, you've got to wait a few minutes for them to "warm up". Until then, they give off a faint, purple glow.
 
2014-03-07 04:01:44 PM
they forgot the natural gas from your mom.
 
2014-03-07 04:01:47 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: ReverendJynxed: Learn to evolve and adapt to the dangers faster, little animals.

Climate is changing too fast for evolution. About 10,000X too fast.


So, survival of the fittest is only the rule if we protect the species who can't deal?  Bonus, we're sending ourselves into extinction with our "superior" survival capabilities.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:02 PM

bunner: super_grass: That still leaves everything else. And you can't recycle all plastics, not have I seen any technology that can recycle the crap in that garbage patch.

So harvest all that crap and WORK on it, science.  That's what science is for.  Making new things and then mopping up the mess.  Please spare me your "crowd" filing system.


This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.
 
2014-03-07 04:02:19 PM
I'm all for alternative eco-friendly energy sources, but I'm not part of the group that believes they can provide 100% of the energy needed for everybody.  Wind and solar are too variable to provide a constant flow of power right now.  Hydroelectric is too dependent on precipitation as we can see by the droughts affecting reservoir levels that can barely provide water to the municipalities.  Offshore tidal power will run into the problems of shipping lanes, recreational areas, and then other environmental groups protesting about the harm it will do to some sort of fish, coral, plant species.

I'd really like to see them try and get some sort of new reservoir built these days and look at the cost of it.  Not just the physical cost of building the damn and other structures, but also the environmental cost of removing all of the trees and the habitats that will be destroyed by the new lake.  Oh, let's not forget the spawning patterns of fish that are affected by the now controlled outflow.

Where exactly are they going to build these windfarms?  I think it said 68% of the power would be from wind here in Iowa.  While there are already quite a few windfarms here I doubt the farmers are going to be willing to give up that much of their farmland, NIMBY again.

There's going to be a need for the reliable, steady current stream that can be provided by the conventional, scalable power plants we have today.  Or, are we going to have to have large scale battery backups at every house and business.  You know, those batteries that are made with all sorts of environmentally unfriendly things.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:04 PM

OgreMagi: If the plan calls for more hydroelectric dams, forget it.  They won't get built because they destroy huge valleys.
If the plan calls for wind turbines, forget it.  They are now know as "bird choppers" and are a serious threat to endangered birds in some areas.
If the plan calls for nuclear power, forget it.  ZOMG RADIATION!  NIMBY!

I'm not saying they don't have a good plan.  I'm just pointing out the first three stumbling blocks that came to mind.


almost all the exploitable hydroelectric sites in the developed world have been exploited. Wind turbines have issues beyond just being "bird choppers" and nuke plants....well they do have some PR problems.
 
2014-03-07 04:03:51 PM

Prank Call of Cthulhu: 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.


Admittedly, it's tough to think of a way to fly big jets without using good old-fashioned hydrocarbons. And it's not like jet fuel is a totally negligible part of our energy budget, now or in the foreseeable future. The more important point is that literally everything else  does have a workaround.

Regardless of whose plan we follow, if we can get to a point where all the energy I use until I step onto the plane itself is from renewable sources, I'd say that's good enough. Campfires are ridiculously bad for the environment on an efficiency and particulate basis, but I don't feel like I'm committing ecological genocide if I just make a few of them a year.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:02 PM

bunner: So, survival of the fittest is only the rule if we protect the species who can't deal?  Bonus, we're sending ourselves into extinction with our "superior" survival capabilities.


I don't know what this means, but it is true the climate is changing too fast for evolution to keep up. Adapting is another matter, though that has its own special set of problems, not the least of which is financial, since that's the tree everyone is seeing while ignoring the forest.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:09 PM

Random Anonymous Blackmail: veedeevadeevoodee

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


You don't see them slowing the expansion of sprawling suburbia because of ecosystems so how is this different. The animals will adapt to survive, they have been pretty good at that for a long time.


Actually, slowing down unnecessary urban growth would be kewl. Developers would throw a tantrum, probably ... too bad, so sad.

Also, most avian life that migrates does so at night. Paint the big pinwheels with UV paint and light em up.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:11 PM

GORDON: Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.

I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.


I dare you to find me three rednecks who aren't convinced that if the rich stop getting richer, we'll all be shoveling pigsh*t in a Siberian gulag.
 
2014-03-07 04:04:28 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.


The chinese have no morals, so good luck with getting them into any kind of plan.
 
2014-03-07 04:07:15 PM

super_grass: This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.


So far.  Science has mostly BEEN an appeal to probability.  But you have a valid point.  All of our technological advances have come from people saying "piss on it, that's just silly", nodding balefully and then heading out for a beer.
 
2014-03-07 04:08:26 PM
Gotta Nuke the next OPEC summit meeting for any of this to be implemented.
 
2014-03-07 04:09:40 PM
And, if for no other good reason, let's put in on barges and tow it to shore because IT'S A MESS!  THEN look at what can or can't be done with it.
 
2014-03-07 04:10:15 PM
No nuclear?
 
2014-03-07 04:10:36 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.



Uhm, you are misinterpreting that graph in your link. You seem to think that it presents  the amount of electricity  usedin each state which is generated from wind power.  However it presents the amount of electricity  generatedin each state which is generated by wind power.

So while from your perspective it looks like Iowa is generating a helluva lot of electricity from wind power.... But in actuality Iowa generates so little of its own electricity inside the statethat the small amount generated by wind is a big percentage.  To give you a visual image 3 ounces is 25% of a 12 ounce Coke. A large percentage of a small amount is still....a small amount.  Iowa just buys almost all their electricity from other states.

Sorry if I took the wind out of your sails.
 
2014-03-07 04:11:04 PM
Well, get rid of the NIMBY jackholes and the asshole corporations that just want to keep making money with fossil fules, and it can probably get done.

Luckily, one of the NIMBY jackholes who was a Senator passed away a few years ago:

img2u.info

It's not always concern over the seagulls that causes opposition to off-shore wind turbines, sometimes it's the privileged assholes who are too good for all the socialists policies they like to impose on everybody else - who are upset because their beachfront property's ocean view will have ugly things in it.
 
2014-03-07 04:14:43 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...


It actually can't be done.   They forgot to include the maintenance costs of all these facilities over a period of 40 years, damage repair and etc.   When you forget that shiat your sim-town goes sim-down.
 
2014-03-07 04:15:29 PM

Shazam999: He weasel words a lot. Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.


My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net

My energy bills over the past 3-years:
scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net

You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?
 
2014-03-07 04:15:43 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...


You're concerned about that $1 trillion over 10yrs but not the extra $1 trillion We've spent per year for the last 6 yrs?

When I start building in the next 18months I'm installing a couple windmills to feed back into the grid.
 
2014-03-07 04:16:25 PM

bunner: super_grass: This is just an appeal to probability, at least solar and wind have been making inroads with efficiency and cost. There's literally zero advancements in the ocean plastic particle harvesting sector.

So far.  Science has mostly BEEN an appeal to probability.  But you have a valid point.  All of our technological advances have come from people saying "piss on it, that's just silly", nodding balefully and then heading out for a beer.


You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you? Realistically there's very little incentive for anyone to go after your "wouldn't that be nice" pie in the sky fantasies unless there's some real intellectual or financial gains that can be gained from it.

So why don't you start then? That garbage patch isn't actually a patch, it's just an area several times the size of Texas with grain sized plastic particles suspend in water. Find a way to collect it and re-process it with economic feasibility, good luck!
 
2014-03-07 04:18:51 PM

MrSteve007: My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat


Not to be nosey (maybe just a little), but how many watts are in that array?  And have you considered a water heater?
 
2014-03-07 04:19:30 PM

bunner: GORDON: Pants full of macaroni!!: Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!

Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.

I DARE you to produce one web page as reference that, unironically, is written by an American who is against renewable energy because of communism.

I dare you to find me three rednecks who aren't convinced that if the rich stop getting richer, we'll all be shoveling pigsh*t in a Siberian gulag.


Why would you want the rich to stop getting richer? Do liberals really believe people get rich by taking from the poor? There is a finite amount of wealth in the world?

Why do you keep electing filthy rich liberal politicians then?
 
2014-03-07 04:19:42 PM

MrSteve007: Shazam999: He weasel words a lot. Unless you want a serious downgrade on your standard of living, going 100% renewable is impossible unless near 100% efficient solar panels are created and we cover the entire surface of the earth with them.

My house - 100% electrically powered, including heat and water heat. I keep the interior temperature at 76 in the winter and 70 in the summer. I have a home-server that runs most hours of the day, washer, dryer, dishwasher, 60 inch TV, LED lighting, and a air heat exchanger pumping fresh air throughout the day and pretty much every modern convenience - including an electric car plugged in at night. As I've pointed out previously, I'm currently tied into the grid to sell excess power but I have a decent sized battery bank to keep the place operational off-grid - if I so chose. The house is outside Seattle - one of the least sunny places in the lower 48 states.

[fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net image 850x466]

My energy bills over the past 3-years:
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x527]

You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?


Sigh.  Read the article.  It's not just about you.  It needs to scale. Currently it does not scale.  Yeah I too can plop some farking solar panels on my house and call it a day but YOUR LIFE is more than just the stuff in that picture.  For fark's sake I can't believe I have to explain it to you but you seem to be the naive sort.
 
2014-03-07 04:19:51 PM

super_grass: You have no idea how scientific progress advances, do you? Realistically there's very little incentive for anyone to go after your "wouldn't that be nice" pie in the sky fantasies unless there's some real intellectual or financial gains that can be gained from it.


That's how privately funded research works, yes.
 
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 »






Report