Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Reply to thread

Message

You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?

U.S. Energy Sources
Oil 40%
Natural gas 22%
Coal 23%
Nuclear 8%
Renewable Engery 7%

It should be noted that 2.47% of "Renewable" energy comes from burning wood and waste (not exactly clean or green). Wind is 0.56%, Solar comes in at 0.09%, Hydro is 2.5% and falling (Thanks to anti-dam Environmentalists), Geothermal has pretty well maxed out at 0.36%, Biomass comes in at 3.8% but 2.47% of that is wood and waste...

So please explain how these sources can "put a substantial dent" in our reliance on traditional energy sources. Also explain how you propose to get around the NIMBY crowd.

I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil. The solution to our energy problems, and just about all other problems, resides in the free market, not government.

How does eliminating domestic oil sources reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Or do you also not care about our "dependence" on foreign oil?

CO2 is a pollutant only when emitted by human sources... Nature's production of CO2 is not a pollutant, but human production of CO2 is. Again, just wan to be perfectly clear exactly what you believe concerning CO2.

Bottom line is, wind and solar are not cost effective. If I were at home I could go through this with more detail but in the meantime, you still haven't answered the problem of reliability.

When the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine, in sufficient quantities to maintain the power grid, a back up power plant must take up the slack. These back up systems use reliable energy technology, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Too much or too little power causes damage to the grid. Point being, even if you build a massive wind/solar farm, you still require a traditional power plant to supplement, or entirely supply, the power necessary to maintain the grid. This greatly adds to the cost of supplying "green" energy because you have to build and maintain both the "green" source and a traditional power plant.

<blockquote data-quote="GenSeneca" data-source="post: 145102" data-attributes="member: 1169">You complained there weren&#039;t enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching?<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0920633.html#axzz0zuGMcelP" target="_blank">U.S. Energy Sources</a>Oil 40% Natural gas 22% Coal 23% Nuclear 8% Renewable Engery 7% It should be noted that 2.47% of &quot;Renewable&quot; energy comes from burning wood and waste (not exactly clean or green). Wind is 0.56%, Solar comes in at 0.09%, Hydro is 2.5% and falling (Thanks to anti-dam Environmentalists), Geothermal has pretty well maxed out at 0.36%, Biomass comes in at 3.8% but 2.47% of that is wood and waste... So please explain how these sources can &quot;put a substantial dent&quot; in our reliance on traditional energy sources. Also explain how you propose to get around the NIMBY crowd.I don&#039;t care about our &quot;dependence&quot; on foreign oil. The solution to our energy problems, and just about all other problems, resides in the free market, not government.How does eliminating domestic oil sources reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Or do you also not care about our &quot;dependence&quot; on foreign oil? CO2 is a pollutant only when emitted by human sources... Nature&#039;s production of CO2 is not a pollutant, but human production of CO2 is. Again, just wan to be perfectly clear exactly what you believe concerning CO2.Bottom line is, wind and solar are not cost effective. If I were at home I could go through this with more detail but in the meantime, you still haven&#039;t answered the problem of reliability. When the wind doesn&#039;t blow, and the sun doesn&#039;t shine, in sufficient quantities to maintain the power grid, a back up power plant must take up the slack. These back up systems use reliable energy technology, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Too much or too little power causes damage to the grid. Point being, even if&nbsp; you build a massive wind/solar farm, you still require a traditional power plant to supplement, or entirely supply, the power necessary to maintain the grid. This greatly adds to the cost of supplying &quot;green&quot; energy because you have to build and maintain both the &quot;green&quot; source and a traditional power plant.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GenSeneca, post: 145102, member: 1169"] You complained there weren't enough people driving hybrids... Exactly how many people need to drive hybrids before you stop b*tching? [URL="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0920633.html#axzz0zuGMcelP"]U.S. Energy Sources[/URL] Oil 40% Natural gas 22% Coal 23% Nuclear 8% Renewable Engery 7% It should be noted that 2.47% of "Renewable" energy comes from burning wood and waste (not exactly clean or green). Wind is 0.56%, Solar comes in at 0.09%, Hydro is 2.5% and falling (Thanks to anti-dam Environmentalists), Geothermal has pretty well maxed out at 0.36%, Biomass comes in at 3.8% but 2.47% of that is wood and waste... So please explain how these sources can "put a substantial dent" in our reliance on traditional energy sources. Also explain how you propose to get around the NIMBY crowd. I don't care about our "dependence" on foreign oil. The solution to our energy problems, and just about all other problems, resides in the free market, not government. How does eliminating domestic oil sources reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Or do you also not care about our "dependence" on foreign oil? CO2 is a pollutant only when emitted by human sources... Nature's production of CO2 is [B]not[/B] a pollutant, but human production of CO2 [I]is[/I]. Again, just wan to be perfectly clear exactly what you believe concerning CO2. Bottom line is, wind and solar are not cost effective. If I were at home I could go through this with more detail but in the meantime, you still haven't answered the problem of reliability. When the wind doesn't blow, and the sun doesn't shine, in sufficient quantities to maintain the power grid, a back up power plant must take up the slack. These back up systems use reliable energy technology, such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Too much or too little power causes damage to the grid. Point being, even if you build a massive wind/solar farm, you still require a traditional power plant to supplement, or entirely supply, the power necessary to maintain the grid. This greatly adds to the cost of supplying "green" energy because you have to build and maintain [B]both[/B] the "green" source and a traditional power plant. [/QUOTE]

Verification