Three Way Discussion on Coal-Nuclear-Alternative Energy

124

Comments

  • Gtilley8Gtilley8 Posts: 985
    unsung said:

    rgambs said:

    rgambs said:

    Jill Stein just said she wanted to zero out fossil fuels by 2030. No thanks.

    Why not?
    There are millions of jobs to be created and it's what we NEED to do for the future.
    How will we make plastics and metals for modern life when we are out of oil because we burned it all up for energy?

    Do you know how much oil is used to make an MRI machine? AMBU bags, IV tubes, syringes...the list of things we need petrochemicals to make is astounding, burning it all up is not a good idea.
    Because regardless of what the "green" people tell you, there is no other cost effective way to produce energy than burning coal. Other than nuclear facilities. I don't see nuclear power plants popping up every where. Wind and solar are not cost effective and they can't produce the megawatts needed efficiently. Plus, that would put me out of a job. There are not enough jobs to be created that wold be lost if the coal industry was shut down. There are not millions of jobs available in the "green" market.
    You are buying the company line a little too eagerly. Coal isn't nearly as efficient or cheap as the industry would have you believe. Without the taxpayers subsidizing the fossil fuel industries they would have gone belly-up a generation ago. If those subsidies were redirected to green industries the costs would be competitive in the short run, and would absolutely shred fossil fuels in the long run.
    And yes, there are millions of jobs available.
    Windows and solar would never have existed without subsidies.
    Yes. Correct, to an extent. But, then again, we subsidize nearly every emerging technology in the form of research grants to universities. Kind of like saying computers wouldn't exist without them.
    2000 - 8/21 - Columbus, OH
    2003 - 6/18 - Chicago, IL
    2006 - 5/22 - Auburn Hills, MI
    2007 - 8/5 - Chicago, IL
    2015 - 9/26 - New York, NY
    2016 - 4/16 - Greenville, SC; 8/20 - Chicago, IL; 8/22 - Chicago, IL
    2018 - 8/18 - Chicago, IL; 8/20 - Chicago, IL

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3045
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,034
    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    Almost everything on the train has been off topic today. Must be that kind of day! This thread went so far out of whack I had to change it's the thread title.

    So what is the energy solution?
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • FreeFree Posts: 3,562
    brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    Almost everything on the train has been off topic today. Must be that kind of day! This thread went so far out of whack I had to change it's the thread title.

    So what is the energy solution?
    Does the Trump thread ever veer off topic? I bet it doesn't.
  • hedonisthedonist Posts: 24,524
    Most threads veer off topic.

    Part of the beauty of this place.
  • brianluxbrianlux Posts: 42,034
    Free said:

    brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    Almost everything on the train has been off topic today. Must be that kind of day! This thread went so far out of whack I had to change it's the thread title.

    So what is the energy solution?
    Does the Trump thread ever veer off topic? I bet it doesn't.
    Never... except when it does. image
    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    brianlux said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    Almost everything on the train has been off topic today. Must be that kind of day! This thread went so far out of whack I had to change it's the thread title.

    So what is the energy solution?
    I know what we are facing, touch on it later, in class right now.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    edited August 2016
    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    edited August 2016
    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.
    Post edited by Degeneratefk on
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.
    sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.
    sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?
    Did you read the advantages and challenges on the link? The advantages directly contradict with the challehnges. For example: Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.

    And then it says:
    Wind power must still compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

    So which one is it? Is it cost effective or not? If it's not competitive, it's not cost efficient.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.
    sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?
    Did you read the advantages and challenges on the link? The advantages directly contradict with the challehnges. For example: Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.

    And then it says:
    Wind power must still compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

    So which one is it? Is it cost effective or not? If it's not competitive, it's not cost efficient.
    I'd love to see how they calculate the investment for fossil-fueled ... i'm guessing they aren't factoring the cost to actually mine coal ... for sure ... if I stuck a wind farm in some remote place - it's not as efficient ... but the same would hold true if I stuck a coal plant in a remote place ...

    did you check out the link I sent? ... it levels the cost and shows wind and other renewables far more cost effective vs. coal and nuclear ...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Posts: 49,951

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    unsung said:

    Kind of off topic.

    Back on...wind wouldn't exist without taxpayer bailouts that not only began with the industry but continue to this day. In fact, by law, wind power goes on the grid first. There are no parking lots, therefore there are little jobs.

    Nuclear power is having a hard time competing because the playing field is rigged to make unprofitable wind and solar put in front. They are considered green based on no carbon emissions, nuclear doesn't have carbon emissions either but doesn't get the label.

    so ... your criteria is what energy source creates the most jobs!?

    if you objectively look at all new power generation ... renewables are by far the most cost effective ... and that doesn't even factor the impacts to health and environment of fossil fuels ...
    Wind farms are not cost effective. The technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators. Plus, distribution prices are sky high since most wind farms are in remote locations.

    This site gives the pros and cons of wind energy. The pros are contradicting. For example, it's cheap per kw hour, but getting the turbine to that point costs a lot. Also, farms can be built on existing reaches and farms, but those farms are typically far away from the big cities that need the power.

    http://energy.gov/eere/wind/advantages-and-challenges-wind-energy
    so ... you linked a source that explicitly says wind farms are cost effective and then say they aren't!? ... the basic engineering for wind turbines is the same as any power generation except we don't need to rape our planet to get it ... not sure, how you are doing the math ... when you consider what you have to do to get a coal fired station up and running ...

    check out this link ... http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_8.2.pdf

    I referred the link because the pros are condratdictive. And I didn't specifically say coal fired plants.
    sorry ... you lost me ... you believe wind farms aren't cost effective but you send me a link that says they are ... only to tell me you sent me the link to show a contrarian view to yours!? ... what did I miss?
    Did you read the advantages and challenges on the link? The advantages directly contradict with the challehnges. For example: Wind power is cost-effective. It is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy technologies available today, costing between four and six cents per kilowatt-hour, depending upon the wind resource and the particular project’s financing.

    And then it says:
    Wind power must still compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm might not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.

    So which one is it? Is it cost effective or not? If it's not competitive, it's not cost efficient.
    The article clearly says that wind power is very cost-effective, while transmission lines do have to be built initially because they are often in remote locations. So that means there is an initial cost to handle indefinite delivery. The cost-effectiveness after that, along with the fact that wind power doesn't create any pollution control measures, makes the technology ultimately cost effective despite initial investments in infrastructure.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.
  • Gtilley8Gtilley8 Posts: 985
    Y
    unsung said:

    They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.

    Fossil fuel companies are subsidized to the nines. 6 and one-half dozen to the other. Keystone pipeline, if I'm remembering correctly, already spent 2 million in in tax payer money in one state just for research. The Koch's stand to make 100 billion off of it.
    2000 - 8/21 - Columbus, OH
    2003 - 6/18 - Chicago, IL
    2006 - 5/22 - Auburn Hills, MI
    2007 - 8/5 - Chicago, IL
    2015 - 9/26 - New York, NY
    2016 - 4/16 - Greenville, SC; 8/20 - Chicago, IL; 8/22 - Chicago, IL
    2018 - 8/18 - Chicago, IL; 8/20 - Chicago, IL

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3045
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    Gtilley8 said:

    Y

    unsung said:

    They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.

    Fossil fuel companies are subsidized to the nines. 6 and one-half dozen to the other. Keystone pipeline, if I'm remembering correctly, already spent 2 million in in tax payer money in one state just for research. The Koch's stand to make 100 billion off of it.
    Why? Because the costs are astronomical. Many "green" companies were formed from Obamas bailouts and subsequently went bankrupt
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Gtilley8 said:

    Y

    unsung said:

    They actually wouldn't exist if they weren't subsidized. Their capacity factor takes a very long time to recoup costs and due to a need for wind when it isn't always windy they often sit still making no power.

    Fossil fuel companies are subsidized to the nines. 6 and one-half dozen to the other. Keystone pipeline, if I'm remembering correctly, already spent 2 million in in tax payer money in one state just for research. The Koch's stand to make 100 billion off of it.
    Nuclear is unable to compete due to an artificially rigged playing field.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    anyone look at the link I sent!? ... guessing no because it doesn't say what you want it to say!?

    it's sad that we are only discussing these options in terms of cost effectiveness and none of you guys wanna discuss the environmental impacts ...
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559

    No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

    what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

    as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

    just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    polaris_x said:

    No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

    what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

    as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

    just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...
    Lol. You think "green" companies don't spread information that may not be accurate or helpful. Coal and oil aren't the only power lobbies.
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559

    polaris_x said:

    No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

    what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

    as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

    just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...
    Lol. You think "green" companies don't spread information that may not be accurate or helpful. Coal and oil aren't the only power lobbies.
    #whyweareinamess
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    polaris_x said:

    polaris_x said:

    No, I did read it. I really don't know what to make of it. I'm well aware of the environmental impacts. Bottom line is, we need power. As i,said in the other thread, theres really no way to reverse the overshoot date. And nobody wants a $600/month power bill. And that's what will happen if coal is eliminated from the power grid.

    what you should have made of it is that coal is very expensive and not remotely close to being cost-effective ...

    as for reversing the overshoot date ... the problem is that we are led to believe that we need all this power and that the cause is hopeless when the reality is that the solutions are already in place ... it's laughable someone would begrudge the subsides for renewables when we've been subsidizing dirty and harmful fuel for years ...

    just like everything else in this world - the information has been corrupted by powerful lobbies ... and it's sad that we can't see the fire from the smoke ...
    Lol. You think "green" companies don't spread information that may not be accurate or helpful. Coal and oil aren't the only power lobbies.
    #whyweareinamess
    Ohhhh, so there are no green power lobbies?

    The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

    Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
    SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
    Solyndra ($535 million)*
    Beacon Power ($43 million)*
    Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
    SunPower ($1.2 billion)
    First Solar ($1.46 billion)
    Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
    EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
    Amonix ($5.9 million)
    Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
    Abound Solar ($400 million)*
    A123 Systems ($279 million)*
    Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
    Johnson Controls ($299 million)
    Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
    ECOtality ($126.2 million)
    Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
    Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
    Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
    Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
    Range Fuels ($80 million)*
    Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
    Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
    Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
    GreenVolts ($500,000)
    Vestas ($50 million)
    LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
    Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
    Navistar ($39 million)
    Satcon ($3 million)*
    Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
    Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
    *Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

    Then there's this:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/29/the-worlds-largest-green-energy-company-is-facing-bankruptcy/

    And this:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/30/obama-backed-green-energy-company-goes-bankrupt-after-getting-billions-from-taxpayers/

    With that much tax dollars being handed out, whyou hasn't green technology thrived?
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • DegeneratefkDegeneratefk Posts: 3,123
    will myself to find a home, a home within myself
    we will find a way, we will find our place
  • unsungunsung Posts: 9,487
    Don't forget how Tesla, Sun City, SpaceX probably wouldn't exist without subsidies either.
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    companies fail all the time ... how is that related to misinformation and influencing domestic and foreign policy ... is the US bombing innocent people around the world to secure space for solar panels and wind farms!?? ...

    enough with the subsidies ... if we took everyone's subsidies and tax breaks away - do you know which energy source would make the most sense!? ... it ain't coal, nuclear or oil ...

  • Gtilley8Gtilley8 Posts: 985
    polaris_x said:

    companies fail all the time ... how is that related to misinformation and influencing domestic and foreign policy ... is the US bombing innocent people around the world to secure space for solar panels and wind farms!?? ...

    enough with the subsidies ... if we took everyone's subsidies and tax breaks away - do you know which energy source would make the most sense!? ... it ain't coal, nuclear or oil ...

    Exactly. Look at how many auto manufacturers there were going back only 50 years. Then look at how many failed starting in 1900 - 1966. The list is a mile long. New industry always has a bunch of people that start out making a product, and the ones that do it the best are left standing........(or bailed out).
    2000 - 8/21 - Columbus, OH
    2003 - 6/18 - Chicago, IL
    2006 - 5/22 - Auburn Hills, MI
    2007 - 8/5 - Chicago, IL
    2015 - 9/26 - New York, NY
    2016 - 4/16 - Greenville, SC; 8/20 - Chicago, IL; 8/22 - Chicago, IL
    2018 - 8/18 - Chicago, IL; 8/20 - Chicago, IL

    livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3045
Sign In or Register to comment.