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.

(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
    More: Obvious, United States, renewable energy, offshore wind, fuel mix disclosure, tree huggers, single source  
•       •       •

7166 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2014 at 2:19 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-03-07 02:35:02 PM  
11 votes:

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 01:52:46 PM  
11 votes:
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 02:29:50 PM  
6 votes:

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 02:36:27 PM  
5 votes:
I want this but here is why it is impossible.

Republicans.
2014-03-07 02:28:46 PM  
5 votes:
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 02:27:03 PM  
5 votes:

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 02:29:03 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:25:08 PM  
4 votes:
Nuclear power & Reprocessing.
2014-03-07 01:59:21 PM  
4 votes:

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 02:33:43 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:31:07 PM  
3 votes:
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 02:23:47 PM  
3 votes:
But mah lightbulbs! I ain't usin' no Obama bulbs.
2014-03-07 03:17:59 PM  
2 votes:
Hemp can fuel astounding amounts of sh*t, you can make stuff out of it and the sort of rat nasty ditch weed you can grow to do it won't be attractive to stoners who've been huffing goat crippling bud for eons because the THC content has nothing to do with the energy you can extract from it.  So let's not grow that stuff, cause The Stalin Zombie and puppies.
2014-03-07 02:36:32 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:35:55 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:30:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 02:26:34 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:21:47 PM  
2 votes:
It was posted on treehugger.
2014-03-07 01:46:49 PM  
2 votes:
Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!
2014-03-07 09:00:38 PM  
1 vote:

lewismarktwo: Yeah, but decentralizing power means that people might not do what rich people say.


Somewhat more critically:

1) FWIH, most of the cost of bringing you power is infrastructure.  So requiring people to buy power back from you at the non-wholesale cost is really stupid.
2) There's also some serious problems with powering the grid off of 10's of thousands of uncontrolled, randomly going up and down power sources.  Like 2003 blackout problems*.  And "Electrical Engineers already drink too much/fark that math" problems.

*This is not to be read as saying that solar power causes blackouts, but that random uncontrolled power spikes and dips cause blackouts.
2014-03-07 08:29:27 PM  
1 vote:
OK, I looked at Virginia and can someone explain this statement on the page to me:

Using WWS electricity for everything, instead of burning fuel, and improving efficiency means you need much less energy

Then they inexplicably show a 40% drop in energy demand.  What demand are they referring to?  If you improve the efficiency of cars (via electric cars) while still using fossil fuels to generate electricity, then you're also using less energy.  If you're just increasing the efficiency of the power plant, then the actual demand hasn't gone down, you're just providing it in a more efficient manner.

So I guess I'm asking "you need much less energy" to do what?  Where are they getting that 40% drop from, and wouldn't it apply regardless of what's providing the power?  That seems to be a huge part of their calculation, I'm just wondering where it's coming from.
2014-03-07 08:20:00 PM  
1 vote:

Jimmysolson: 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.

Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.


Scarier than Natural Gas?   http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/AllPSI.html?nocache=7 7 26#_ngdistrib  ?  Just how many deaths attributed to `radiation events' from the inception of Nuclear Navy/U.S. Commercial nuclear power, until present?

The Integral Fast Reactor was developed and perfected at Argonne West (Idaho National Labs) at a cost to the taxpayer of 20 Billion (1984-1994) - cut short of completion by 2 yrs owing to Kerry in the Senate (appeasing greens) and Clinton (looking to be a `budget cutter' as the Contract with America rabble was on the way to the House). The reprocessing of spent fuel demonstration wasn't completed; all high level spent fuel/as well as depleted Uranium stocks can be reused - until nothing remains but an easily vitrified (`glass beads') product with a `dangerous half-life of only 300yrs.  The IFR was a passive safety design - via the physics of the process itself - no human intervention required to shut it down (too hot, too many thermal neutrons escape the core, fission can't be sustained). This was demonstrated a couple of months before Chernobyl.  The IFR had both the external cooling & electricity cut-off and the staff just sat and watched.  Then they went to lunch.
http://www.ne.anl.gov/About/hn/logos-winter02-psr.shtml   The IFR was no science project, GE still has reactor design (PRISM) based on IFR specs ready to go.

Breeders are renewables (just not passive in the process of renewal) and are zero emission.  Keep in mind, every time the Columbia River starts to dry up, the System has to buy additional electricity from coal fired plants.  Sun doesn't shine/wind don't blow?  Yeah, Nat. Gas is the ticket, right?  Keep developing all zero emission means - I just mean ALL zero emission generation.

Oh, just thought it would be interesting to point out, as you'll never see it in the MSM.  What happened at Tohoku's  Onagawa Nuclear facility (closest 3 reactors to the epicenter of quake)?  IAEA inspected in 2012.  Conclusion?  Not much (locals washed out of their homes took up residence the plant's staff gym for weeks afterwards):   http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/actionplan/reports/onagawa0413.p d f
2014-03-07 07:15:31 PM  
1 vote:
Not sure if they are taking this into account, but the major problem is how much you have to oversize the power sources. Minnesota has 60% onshore wind and 19% offshore wind (on a lake???). But the wind doesn't always blow. And when it doesn't blow you lost 79 percent of your power. And if this is at night, you lost another 20% of your power. Leaving you with essentially ZERO power production.
Obviously you cannot get solar power at night, so you have to have the ability to get at least 100% of your power needs from non-solar sources. The same for wind when it doesn't blow, etc. You cannot get rid of fossil fuel production because it is the ONLY 100% reliable source (not including maintenance.)
2014-03-07 07:12:49 PM  
1 vote:

Jimmysolson: Except for that little problem with accidents, natural disasters, spent fuel storage and whatnot.
Nuclear is some pretty scary shiat.


I would love for solar and wind to be the big solution. But, IMHO, it's just not practical, even with massive public financing.

There is no denying nuclear power is risky. Just don't compare a new plant using 4th generation tech to some old piece of junk poorly operated, managed, or placed.

There is risk with every other form of power generation out there, including wind.

This is (probably) not one of those risks...

imgs.xkcd.com
2014-03-07 05:32:12 PM  
1 vote:

gweilo8888: bunner: When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.

Close, but not quite. When that happens, their (at least somewhat) distant descendants are screwed -- and the umptillionaires don't care about them any more than they care about you or I.

As far as they're concerned, it's all about the now, and about accumulating as much wealth as possible, making sure to return the minimum possible to the system (and especially, to taxes).


Point.  *sigh*  :  \
2014-03-07 05:28:29 PM  
1 vote:

bunner: When that happens, they're just as screwed as we are.  Your move, umptillionaires.


Close, but not quite. When that happens, their (at least somewhat) distant descendants are screwed -- and the umptillionaires don't care about them any more than they care about you or I.

As far as they're concerned, it's all about the now, and about accumulating as much wealth as possible, making sure to return the minimum possible to the system (and especially, to taxes).
2014-03-07 05:18:47 PM  
1 vote:

PunGent: Destructor: MrSteve007: And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now

No, what's really cheesing them off is that they're subsidizing it.

As opposed to the oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies, which are much larger than those for solar?


It's larger in total, but smaller per watt.
2014-03-07 05:18:00 PM  
1 vote:

PunGent: kgf: 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.

I find your claim difficult to believe, unless electric costs in Seattle are astronomical.  I've looked into this more than once over the years, and it keeps coming back to a payback period of about 20 years, which is just about how long a solar panel lasts. As soon as it breaks even you have to replace the panels.

If the payback period was only 3 - 5 years, everybody with half a brain would be doing it, and if you can show me how to do it, I will begin the process of installing panels the next day.

You sure?  this seems to indicate the average manufacturer's warranty is 25 years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022091622.htm


It should also be noted that the panels tend to keep on going like Grandma's TV well after their warranty is up. Of course, simple payback ignores the time value of money (but folks usually neglect escalation of electrical costs, so call it a wash).
2014-03-07 05:11:47 PM  
1 vote:

Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.


This.


Anything else and you're just blowing smoke out your ...
2014-03-07 05:06:32 PM  
1 vote:

MrSteve007: My first check from my utility for my solar power:


This is the main reason you're making money out of it.  The utility is paying you more per kWh you produce than Joe Schmoe is paying to power his house.

I realize that these are incentives to get people to go green, and to encourage buying local, but as soon as those incentives go out the door, converting your house will stop being profitable.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a laudable endeavour, and something we should all try to do, but most of us won't be making money out of it.
2014-03-07 04:33:11 PM  
1 vote:

MrSteve007: Shazam999: 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.
You're right - I forgot my workplace (not quite net-zero yet):
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x680]

And my parent's vacation home (generated 3x's the power it consumes):
[scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 719x539]

And while I don't have a picture of it yet (just put the finishing touches on it this week) my sailboat now has a 125 watt thin-film panel that zips into the top of the cockpit cover that will power the electronics + inverter onboard. This will be my home & office over the summer, telecommuting to work.
[scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x405]

I currently have a space 200 watt panel for a future project. I think I'll make a completely off-grid workbench in my shop with a group 27 battery and 500 watt inverter. I'll use it to power the worklights + charge all of my cordless tools.
[fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net image 405x720]

Other than having to work with and purchase from companies that haven't gone to renewables, it's pretty safe to say that about 95% of everything in my life is directly powered by the sun. And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now - while they keep cutting checks for thousands of dollar a year to their local utilities.


I love your stuff, but how does the bulk of humanity afford that?
2014-03-07 04:32:21 PM  
1 vote:

MrSteve007: And what really cheeses naysayers off is that most all of it will pay itself off within a couple years from now


No, what's really cheesing them off is that they're subsidizing it.
2014-03-07 04:27:34 PM  
1 vote:

kasmel: 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.)


Those risks can be mitigated by politicians not jerking around. If you could get a firm commitment and a firm plan with some kind of protection against delaying-tactic lawsuits, investors would flock towards a sure money maker. Why wouldn't they? But this requires commitment and willpower from congress... And that's a resource that is in very short supply.

MrSteve007: You were saying how this doesn't work? Or how you have to lower your living standards?


Rooftop solar or backyard wind turbines are awesome. What geek technophile wouldn't love this? How cool. But most of humanity lives in dense urban areas. And the solution you have just doesn't scale.
2014-03-07 04:20:25 PM  
1 vote:

MrSteve007: 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.


What aren't you telling us? You aren't running all that off those two little banks of panels. Although I MIGHT be convinced that you're running at a net profit assuming that the local electric utility is forced to pay more to buy back your power than you buy it from them in the first place. I still have a hard time believing that you're saving money in the long run if you factor in your capital costs.
2014-03-07 04:19:42 PM  
1 vote:

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 04:14:43 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:51:40 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:51:17 PM  
1 vote:

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 03:45:46 PM  
1 vote:
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 03:43:52 PM  
1 vote:
It's all just wishful thinking. I can only talk about my own state West Virginia. They have 2/3 of our energy coming from solar. We have 200 cloudy days a year and incredibly mountainous terrain making most ground unsuitable for solar. I'm looking out my window right  now on a bright sunny day at 3:30 local time and easily 2/3 of the landscape is in shadow. Unless they are proposing some serious mountain top leveling, the terrain just doesn't allow it. I've actually looked up solar panels and gotten estimates on what I would produce and it's essentially negligible. I am even one of those fortunate few with a south facing home and due to the mountains on either side I lose sun by about 3 oclock in the summer, though I usually do get partially shaded sun fairly early around 830 or so, but it is filtered through trees. For direct non-filtered sun, my house gets about 5 hours a day in the summer and as I said, I'm a south facing home. My old house was on the north side of a mountain and literally never got direct sunlight.
2014-03-07 03:31:47 PM  
1 vote:
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
2014-03-07 03:24:38 PM  
1 vote:
I like hemp.
2014-03-07 03:23:14 PM  
1 vote:

super_grass: They're just percentages and "it would be great if this were the case" 13 page articles.


Really? This Washington State plan is 49 pages long, includes geographic siting locations, links to previous studies backing up location specific capacity factors of the renewables, data on load-balancing, etc. It's pretty much a roadmap of exactly how to power everything with renewable energy. What else do you want?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WashStateWWS. pd f
2014-03-07 03:20:10 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Agreed. The hippy/anti-nuke movement needs to go out of style (maybe it did?) Nuclear power offers a clean, feasible and pragmatic alternative to fossil fuel energy sources.
2014-03-07 03:13:48 PM  
1 vote:

Destructor: Closed_Minded_Bastage: StopLurkListen: You really care about birds? Then direct your attention to something that will have a bigger effect.

{Cats at top of list}

You want it even HARDER to get a Caturday thread greenlit? Jeez

Cats do kill birds... But most of those birds are uninteresting. Wind turbines seemingly go out of their way to kill the really cool birds that like to ride thermals, like condors and eagles... (And bats.)

If an eagle drowns in a waste recovery pool by an oil rig, its a federal offense. If it get decapitated by a wind turbine; they get a pass.


They really need to revise the laws on Bald Eagles. They are a species of least concern now, and in Alaska those things are like pigeons in some towns, and yet just picking a feather up off the ground a federal offense. It doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the current recovery of the species.
2014-03-07 03:09:43 PM  
1 vote:
It's not possible because it wont make pigf*cking wealthy people any wealthier, and is therefore communism and that means Stalin will rise from the grave and shoot helpless puppies on the white house lawn.  Study it out.
2014-03-07 03:08:41 PM  
1 vote:
I see infographics and grandiose promises (like every proposed project to solve america's ills), but I don't see any specifics or data to back it up.
2014-03-07 02:57:34 PM  
1 vote:

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...


A trillion dollars wouldn't even cover the cost of paperwork. This project would cost hundreds of trillions of dollars, even if it wasn't completely infeasable.
2014-03-07 02:50:28 PM  
1 vote:

HotWingConspiracy: But mah lightbulbs! I ain't usin' no Obama bulbs.


Oh yeah:  They cost a ton of money right now ($25 - $30), but LED flourescent tubes are fantastic.  They draw next to no amperage, last forever, and generate almost no heat.  And none of the mercury dust that the flourescent tubes are rocking.  When the cost comes down, get some of them.

www.yazzoopa.com
2014-03-07 02:45:54 PM  
1 vote:

Ennuipoet: Uh, dude, this is AMERICA!


Done in one.  'Murcans have no truck with "renewable energy" cuz it's Communism.
2014-03-07 02:45:06 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:44:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:37:43 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:36:25 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:35:59 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:32:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:32:22 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:29:12 PM  
1 vote:

Molavian: It was posted on treehugger.


This.

Treehugger.  The RightWingNews.com of the left.
2014-03-07 02:28:34 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:27:00 PM  
1 vote:

Destructor: Nuclear power & Reprocessing.


Too expensive.
2014-03-07 02:26:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 02:26:12 PM  
1 vote:
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 02:23:50 PM  
1 vote:
US Wind Power 2013

A number of states are already getting more than 25% of their total electricity just from wind.
2014-03-07 01:50:38 PM  
1 vote:
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.
 
Displayed 64 of 64 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