I am not sure what you mean "fit into the grid" the grid is not some magical battery that can hold electricity until you need it. You need to generate the amount of electricity that you need at any given time. If you didn’t need to do that energy trading wouldn’t exist and there would be no problem keeping up with demand since “the grid” could just build up to the required demand overnight when demand is low.
well ... wind is just one form of energy source ... i don't necessarily envision a world where wind is our only source ... you would supplement with whatever else ...
of course wind has its limitations but so does every other energy source - it just happens to be the cheapest form of new energy and its free and completely renewable and sustainable ...
Best estimates is that you need a sustained 40 mph winds in order to generate 10 kilowatts an hour. There is no where in the United States where a sustained 40 mph wind speeds exist so it would require many more than just 75 wind turbines to generate what one nuclear plants does. It is simply impossible. The most obviouse reason is the amount of land needed to build those turbines. In more populated areas of the country the land is simply not available. NYC gets average wind speeds of about 4-6 mph. You would probably need in excess of 150 turbines operating at 100% capacity 24/7 in order to generate enough power for Manhattan alone. Where would those 150 turbines go. How about the other 300 plus turbines needed to provide power to the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. You are probably looking at about 500 turbines just for NYC alone never mind the outlying areas like Jersey City, Newark, Elizabeth. You may be looking at over 1,000 turbines just to provide power to an areas about 15 miles in diameter where land is scarce. Of course should we happen to have a few days without wind as is usual here in the humid days of summer you would need another source. Maybe a few hundred thousand meters worth of solar panels. Again don't really know where the hell to put them. We will also need a third supplier for those hot windless humid nights but I guess we can sap all the juice from Niagra Falls on those nights.
Face it my friend as great as it sounds in theory it is just that theory. Alternative energy will never work as the sole provider. You still need another constistant source like coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. It is a fact and the longer people continue to live in a world based on theory instead of the real one the more we are fucking ourselves in the long run. Nuclear power is our best option for a constant energy source.
ok ... first, if our benchmark is one of the largest cities in the world where parking spots go for $10,000 a month - it maybe a bit difficult to power totally on renewables ... but no energy plan from the greenest of treehuggers calls for 100% renewables in the next 50 years ...
this is not about whether wind can power NYC completely - it's about an energy plan for the future ... again - given a conservation program and the implementation and advancement of renewables - energy demands can be met up until a point where renewables can make up a large proportion of energy sources ... nuclear energy without the subsidies it currently receives is not a practical solution ...
ok ... first, if our benchmark is one of the largest cities in the world where parking spots go for $10,000 a month - it maybe a bit difficult to power totally on renewables ... but no energy plan from the greenest of treehuggers calls for 100% renewables in the next 50 years ...
this is not about whether wind can power NYC completely - it's about an energy plan for the future ... again - given a conservation program and the implementation and advancement of renewables - energy demands can be met up until a point where renewables can make up a large proportion of energy sources ... nuclear energy without the subsidies it currently receives is not a practical solution ...
Then what would pick up the slack that renewables cannot generate. Eventually oil fired powers stations will need to be phased out. Coal powered produces way to many greenhouse gases so they should be phased out. That leaves gas power and nuclear and nuclear is the cleanest of the two. I think we have to stop looking at cost effective and start looking at which one is a. sustainable in the long run and b. better for our environment. Since renewables cannot carry the burden alone, specially in large urban areas where land for wind and solar farms is an issue, we need to focus on a single option and nuclear is far better that oil, gas, and/or coal fire power stations.
Hopefully with new designs in building and conservation we will not need to construct hundreds of nuclear power plants and renewables will be able to carry a large minority or even a slight majority of the burden, but we will still need that source that is constistant and does not depend so heavily on weather.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
well ... wind is just one form of energy source ... i don't necessarily envision a world where wind is our only source ... you would supplement with whatever else ...
of course wind has its limitations but so does every other energy source - it just happens to be the cheapest form of new energy and its free and completely renewable and sustainable ...
I don't know, personally I would rather pay more for something that is reliable and works all the time and is good (and to me doesn't really have any major drawbacks) then pay less money for something that is just kind of ok. I mean there is a reason the saying "you get what you pay for" has been around for so long.
not really ... there are thousands of wind mills all throughout california and no one is talking about bird deaths ...
office buildings will kill more birds by far
Yes, there is still debate concerning this matter. The scientific/conservation community is still debating the question of bird kills related to windmill farms.
As to the Chinas and Indias of the world....their rate is also not sustainable, but some argue that they should be allowed to continue in order to catch up their development with North America/Europe etc. They are going to be a much greater problem down the road due to the acceleration of their consumption.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Then what would pick up the slack that renewables cannot generate. Eventually oil fired powers stations will need to be phased out. Coal powered produces way to many greenhouse gases so they should be phased out. That leaves gas power and nuclear and nuclear is the cleanest of the two. I think we have to stop looking at cost effective and start looking at which one is a. sustainable in the long run and b. better for our environment. Since renewables cannot carry the burden alone, specially in large urban areas where land for wind and solar farms is an issue, we need to focus on a single option and nuclear is far better that oil, gas, and/or coal fire power stations.
Hopefully with new designs in building and conservation we will not need to construct hundreds of nuclear power plants and renewables will be able to carry a large minority or even a slight majority of the burden, but we will still need that source that is constistant and does not depend so heavily on weather.
there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...
maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...
the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...
I don't know, personally I would rather pay more for something that is reliable and works all the time and is good (and to me doesn't really have any major drawbacks) then pay less money for something that is just kind of ok. I mean there is a reason the saying "you get what you pay for" has been around for so long.
one of the drawbacks of nuclear has been its unreliability ... they are often shutdown (for safety reasons) because of various issues ... right now, we have guys that literally walk around looking for cracks in a reactor and patching it with a gum like substance ...
i compare it to some cars ... your "best" car isn't always the one you spend the most on ...
Yes, there is still debate concerning this matter. The scientific/conservation community is still debating the question of bird kills related to windmill farms.
As to the Chinas and Indias of the world....their rate is also not sustainable, but some argue that they should be allowed to continue in order to catch up their development with North America/Europe etc. They are going to be a much greater problem down the road due to the acceleration of their consumption.
can you point me to any link that still shows this being debated? ... everything i've ever read says otherwise ...
no one is saying they are sustainable ... i mean they got a boatload of socio-economic issues over there ... but it still doesn't belittle the fact the largest polluters are still over here ...
how many times does this have to be proven wrong before you finally get it?
how many times can you post in a thread without actually contributing anything??
prove me wrong ... just once ... you come on here and just post stuff but you back up absolutely nothing ... i see you still haven't backed up your accusation that i make up stuff ... either rescind it or back it up ... until then - you are contibuting zero ...
how many times can you post in a thread without actually contributing anything??
prove me wrong ... just once ... you come on here and just post stuff but you back up absolutely nothing ... i see you still haven't backed up your accusation that i make up stuff ... either rescind it or back it up ... until then - you are contibuting zero ...
to everyone else - happy to discuss tomorrow ...
why should I repeat everything mamma is saying? he has owned you this whole time. what makes it even funnier is that everything mamma posts is pure common sense. something you are severely lacking.
like he said. step out of the theoretical world and join our side.
there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...
maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...
the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...
The problem is if you just say, we are good for 25 years and don't start doing planning things well in advance, 25 years will come and people will be like "what are we supposed to do now?". Besides the longer you wait the more things cost (especially the labour required to build a power plant).
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
ok ... i got thru the first few and they all reference the same study and say the same thing ...
as with any development - site selection is critical - obviously, if you are building in a nesting ground - it will be impactful however, i think we are discussing mortality rates with birds ... they are relatively low ...
plus, some of those studies were conducted a while ago - in many instances now - during peak migratory periods - turbines are shut down for those periods to further reduce the risk ...
The problem is if you just say, we are good for 25 years and don't start doing planning things well in advance, 25 years will come and people will be like "what are we supposed to do now?". Besides the longer you wait the more things cost (especially the labour required to build a power plant).
well ... 25 years is easily reached assuming we implement a comprehensive plan ... put the money you would save in building one nuclear reactor and let ingenuity take place ... look at what the oil embargo of 73 did for fuel efficiency in cars ...
why should I repeat everything mamma is saying? he has owned you this whole time. what makes it even funnier is that everything mamma posts is pure common sense. something you are severely lacking.
like he said. step out of the theoretical world and join our side.
obviously, i would expect you to say something like this ... absolve yourself from actually having to say anything of relevance ... if what you say is true - why post at all other then to antagonize and be a prick? ... to give you perspective - i can jump into a conversation you are having with someone and type essentially the same words - what does it accomplish? ... think about it ...
in any case - we all live in our own worlds - i take some comfort in knowing it isn't the same as yours ...
ok ... i got thru the first few and they all reference the same study and say the same thing ...
as with any development - site selection is critical - obviously, if you are building in a nesting ground - it will be impactful however, i think we are discussing mortality rates with birds ... they are relatively low ...
plus, some of those studies were conducted a while ago - in many instances now - during peak migratory periods - turbines are shut down for those periods to further reduce the risk ...
A mouthpiece for the wind industry, nice touch. :rolleyes:
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
obviously, i would expect you to say something like this ... absolve yourself from actually having to say anything of relevance ... if what you say is true - why post at all other then to antagonize and be a prick? ... to give you perspective - i can jump into a conversation you are having with someone and type essentially the same words - what does it accomplish? ... think about it ...
in any case - we all live in our own worlds - i take some comfort in knowing it isn't the same as yours ...
I try to debate with people who at least can recognize common sense.
in the decades to come, we will not be able to survive on conserving and wind power alone. oil will be gone. coal and gas are also limited resources but more importantly destroy the ozone layer. so those are out. that leaves us with renewables and nuclear power. we are going to need both.
you keep falling back to the fact that everyone on this earth is going to conserve 10%. lets just assume thats not going to happen. for some odd reason you do. try and deal with facts or "worst case scenarios". otherwise its like debating with someone who is trying to convince me we will live on mars in the next 50 years. its not going to happen.
there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...
maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...
the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...
I believe there is a need to build next generation nuclear plants. We need to start weening ourselves off of oil like yesterday. We already know that renewable energy sources will not be enough to satisfy our energy needs even with conservation. Why wait till the oil supply starts dwindling or till oil reached $150 a barrel. Next generation nuclear plants will take about 10 years to construct so we are already behind the ball. The more we wait the worse our energy situation will become. To state that we should just wait and conserve and then see what happens 10 years down the road is simply irresponsible in my mind. There is no way in heaven or hell that renewable alternative energy will be capable of carrying the entire energy burden for this country, specially in large urban centers and industrial centers. The kilowatt output is just not suffiecient enough. Next generation reactors are safer, more effecient, and cleaner than current day reactors and they are ready to start being built now. Time for idealism is over. It's time to face reality that nuclear power is a necessity and we need to get moving before we really fuck ourselves. We need to start replacing coal, gas, and oil fire power stations with renewable energy and nuclear power plants. Conservation and renwables alone are not the answer.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I try to debate with people who at least can recognize common sense.
in the decades to come, we will not be able to survive on conserving and wind power alone. oil will be gone. coal and gas are also limited resources but more importantly destroy the ozone layer. so those are out. that leaves us with renewables and nuclear power. we are going to need both.
you keep falling back to the fact that everyone on this earth is going to conserve 10%. lets just assume thats not going to happen. for some odd reason you do. try and deal with facts or "worst case scenarios". otherwise its like debating with someone who is trying to convince me we will live on mars in the next 50 years. its not going to happen.
They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.
They already have that, they are called black outs (or to a lesser extent rolling blackouts). From a purely annoyance factor shutting off power would lead to things like traffic lights going out, spoiled food in refrigerators, cooking being ruined as electric ovens and stoves shut off and every clock in your house needing to be reset. The thing about power is a majority of the time we have enough capacity to meet demand (right now at least, the future is a whole different story), but it is that couple of hours of the day on the hottest day of the year where demand goes to an all time high. Those would be the only times you would need to worry about it and you can’t really cut out people’s power when they need it the most. Switching it off when demand is low really wouldn't do anything but annoy people.
They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.
so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?
so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?
Didn't you know it's the corporations fault they we have a need for energy at all. I love how people blame corporations at every single turn. Maybe people should realize that the greatest demand on our energy grid comes from home heating and air conditioning not the big bad corporations.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?
No the corps need the power.
But then Kel made the point of fridges and cooking which was not somthing i gave thought to. We could have other means to power traffic lights, like generators or wind turbines.
I'm not really for or against nuclear power, it's not something i have really read up on, so haven't formed an opinion.
But i think we expect things to just be there and thats not good.
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I believe there is a need to build next generation nuclear plants. We need to start weening ourselves off of oil like yesterday. We already know that renewable energy sources will not be enough to satisfy our energy needs even with conservation. Why wait till the oil supply starts dwindling or till oil reached $150 a barrel. Next generation nuclear plants will take about 10 years to construct so we are already behind the ball. The more we wait the worse our energy situation will become. To state that we should just wait and conserve and then see what happens 10 years down the road is simply irresponsible in my mind. There is no way in heaven or hell that renewable alternative energy will be capable of carrying the entire energy burden for this country, specially in large urban centers and industrial centers. The kilowatt output is just not suffiecient enough. Next generation reactors are safer, more effecient, and cleaner than current day reactors and they are ready to start being built now. Time for idealism is over. It's time to face reality that nuclear power is a necessity and we need to get moving before we really fuck ourselves. We need to start replacing coal, gas, and oil fire power stations with renewable energy and nuclear power plants. Conservation and renwables alone are not the answer.
if i'm not mistaken - you are voting for ron paul are you not? ... if so, is that your realism at work or your idealism?
the difference is - is that your concept of inevitability is much different then miine ... we cannot continue to live the way we are ... it's as simple as that - if you think the fix is pouring tons of money into something that is unsustainable - i respectfully disagree ...
and my attitude isn't a wait and see ... it's in conjunction with energy plans developed by numerous organizations ... that secure energy needs into the future while weening ourselves from greenhouse gas/polluting sources ...
if i'm not mistaken - you are voting for ron paul are you not? ... if so, is that your realism at work or your idealism?
the difference is - is that your concept of inevitability is much different then miine ... we cannot continue to live the way we are ... it's as simple as that - if you think the fix is pouring tons of money into something that is unsustainable - i respectfully disagree ...
and my attitude isn't a wait and see ... it's in conjunction with energy plans developed by numerous organizations ... that secure energy needs into the future while weening ourselves from greenhouse gas/polluting sources ...
My support of Ron Paul is my realism. The reality that the US can longer operate as it has and that Ron Paul is the only candidate who openly admits to this and is the only one willing to address the problem.
The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.
Agreed. You can legislate energy conservation. The problem is unless you want to take a super hard line (like where you limit the amount of kids people can have which would be political suicide if anyone tried it), there is no way you can use legislation to limit population growth. So even if you were able to use laws to get a 10% drop in energy use per household, if your population goes up by 10% you are still in a situation where you need more power.
Agreed. You can legislate energy conservation. The problem is unless you want to take a super hard line (like where you limit the amount of kids people can have which would be political suicide if anyone tried it), there is no way you can use legislation to limit population growth. So even if you were able to use laws to get a 10% drop in energy use per household, if your population goes up by 10% you are still in a situation where you need more power.
True that and I don't believe that the government has any business in legislating the energy consumption of it's people.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
Comments
well ... wind is just one form of energy source ... i don't necessarily envision a world where wind is our only source ... you would supplement with whatever else ...
of course wind has its limitations but so does every other energy source - it just happens to be the cheapest form of new energy and its free and completely renewable and sustainable ...
ok ... first, if our benchmark is one of the largest cities in the world where parking spots go for $10,000 a month - it maybe a bit difficult to power totally on renewables ... but no energy plan from the greenest of treehuggers calls for 100% renewables in the next 50 years ...
this is not about whether wind can power NYC completely - it's about an energy plan for the future ... again - given a conservation program and the implementation and advancement of renewables - energy demands can be met up until a point where renewables can make up a large proportion of energy sources ... nuclear energy without the subsidies it currently receives is not a practical solution ...
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets.html
http://www.sustainableenergycoalition.org/
Then what would pick up the slack that renewables cannot generate. Eventually oil fired powers stations will need to be phased out. Coal powered produces way to many greenhouse gases so they should be phased out. That leaves gas power and nuclear and nuclear is the cleanest of the two. I think we have to stop looking at cost effective and start looking at which one is a. sustainable in the long run and b. better for our environment. Since renewables cannot carry the burden alone, specially in large urban areas where land for wind and solar farms is an issue, we need to focus on a single option and nuclear is far better that oil, gas, and/or coal fire power stations.
Hopefully with new designs in building and conservation we will not need to construct hundreds of nuclear power plants and renewables will be able to carry a large minority or even a slight majority of the burden, but we will still need that source that is constistant and does not depend so heavily on weather.
I don't know, personally I would rather pay more for something that is reliable and works all the time and is good (and to me doesn't really have any major drawbacks) then pay less money for something that is just kind of ok. I mean there is a reason the saying "you get what you pay for" has been around for so long.
As to the Chinas and Indias of the world....their rate is also not sustainable, but some argue that they should be allowed to continue in order to catch up their development with North America/Europe etc. They are going to be a much greater problem down the road due to the acceleration of their consumption.
there is no need to build a nuclear power plant in the next 25 years if you employ conservation techniques and incorporate renewables ...
maybe we can see where we are at during this time ... for too long, because of gov't subsidies - we've been using energy like it's infinite in suppy ... ingenuity has been stifled for that reason alone ...
the light bulb is a great example ... let's move forward with a comprehensive plan and see where that takes us ... in the immediate future - there is no need for nuclear plants to be built ...
one of the drawbacks of nuclear has been its unreliability ... they are often shutdown (for safety reasons) because of various issues ... right now, we have guys that literally walk around looking for cracks in a reactor and patching it with a gum like substance ...
i compare it to some cars ... your "best" car isn't always the one you spend the most on ...
can you point me to any link that still shows this being debated? ... everything i've ever read says otherwise ...
no one is saying they are sustainable ... i mean they got a boatload of socio-economic issues over there ... but it still doesn't belittle the fact the largest polluters are still over here ...
how many times does this have to be proven wrong before you finally get it?
how many times can you post in a thread without actually contributing anything??
prove me wrong ... just once ... you come on here and just post stuff but you back up absolutely nothing ... i see you still haven't backed up your accusation that i make up stuff ... either rescind it or back it up ... until then - you are contibuting zero ...
to everyone else - happy to discuss tomorrow ...
why should I repeat everything mamma is saying? he has owned you this whole time. what makes it even funnier is that everything mamma posts is pure common sense. something you are severely lacking.
like he said. step out of the theoretical world and join our side.
The problem is if you just say, we are good for 25 years and don't start doing planning things well in advance, 25 years will come and people will be like "what are we supposed to do now?". Besides the longer you wait the more things cost (especially the labour required to build a power plant).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7350.html
http://www.birdlife.org/action/change/europe/habitat_directive/windfarm_position_12_05.doc
http://www.nhbs.com/birds_and_wind_farms_tefno_138759.html
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/bdes/altamont/altamont.html
http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2007/10/wind_farms_generate_bird_worri.html
http://birds.suite101.com/article.cfm/bird_unfriendly_wind_farms
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windenergy.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy_wind_testimony.htm
ok ... i got thru the first few and they all reference the same study and say the same thing ...
as with any development - site selection is critical - obviously, if you are building in a nesting ground - it will be impactful however, i think we are discussing mortality rates with birds ... they are relatively low ...
plus, some of those studies were conducted a while ago - in many instances now - during peak migratory periods - turbines are shut down for those periods to further reduce the risk ...
http://www.currykerlinger.com/windpower.htm
well ... 25 years is easily reached assuming we implement a comprehensive plan ... put the money you would save in building one nuclear reactor and let ingenuity take place ... look at what the oil embargo of 73 did for fuel efficiency in cars ...
obviously, i would expect you to say something like this ... absolve yourself from actually having to say anything of relevance ... if what you say is true - why post at all other then to antagonize and be a prick? ... to give you perspective - i can jump into a conversation you are having with someone and type essentially the same words - what does it accomplish? ... think about it ...
in any case - we all live in our own worlds - i take some comfort in knowing it isn't the same as yours ...
I try to debate with people who at least can recognize common sense.
in the decades to come, we will not be able to survive on conserving and wind power alone. oil will be gone. coal and gas are also limited resources but more importantly destroy the ozone layer. so those are out. that leaves us with renewables and nuclear power. we are going to need both.
you keep falling back to the fact that everyone on this earth is going to conserve 10%. lets just assume thats not going to happen. for some odd reason you do. try and deal with facts or "worst case scenarios". otherwise its like debating with someone who is trying to convince me we will live on mars in the next 50 years. its not going to happen.
bummer
I believe there is a need to build next generation nuclear plants. We need to start weening ourselves off of oil like yesterday. We already know that renewable energy sources will not be enough to satisfy our energy needs even with conservation. Why wait till the oil supply starts dwindling or till oil reached $150 a barrel. Next generation nuclear plants will take about 10 years to construct so we are already behind the ball. The more we wait the worse our energy situation will become. To state that we should just wait and conserve and then see what happens 10 years down the road is simply irresponsible in my mind. There is no way in heaven or hell that renewable alternative energy will be capable of carrying the entire energy burden for this country, specially in large urban centers and industrial centers. The kilowatt output is just not suffiecient enough. Next generation reactors are safer, more effecient, and cleaner than current day reactors and they are ready to start being built now. Time for idealism is over. It's time to face reality that nuclear power is a necessity and we need to get moving before we really fuck ourselves. We need to start replacing coal, gas, and oil fire power stations with renewable energy and nuclear power plants. Conservation and renwables alone are not the answer.
They could always make us use less power by switcing it off at certain times of the day. That would be what i would do, but i guess that won't happen while the corps run the show.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
They already have that, they are called black outs (or to a lesser extent rolling blackouts). From a purely annoyance factor shutting off power would lead to things like traffic lights going out, spoiled food in refrigerators, cooking being ruined as electric ovens and stoves shut off and every clock in your house needing to be reset. The thing about power is a majority of the time we have enough capacity to meet demand (right now at least, the future is a whole different story), but it is that couple of hours of the day on the hottest day of the year where demand goes to an all time high. Those would be the only times you would need to worry about it and you can’t really cut out people’s power when they need it the most. Switching it off when demand is low really wouldn't do anything but annoy people.
so the big bad corps should turn off our power more often?
Didn't you know it's the corporations fault they we have a need for energy at all. I love how people blame corporations at every single turn. Maybe people should realize that the greatest demand on our energy grid comes from home heating and air conditioning not the big bad corporations.
No the corps need the power.
But then Kel made the point of fridges and cooking which was not somthing i gave thought to. We could have other means to power traffic lights, like generators or wind turbines.
I'm not really for or against nuclear power, it's not something i have really read up on, so haven't formed an opinion.
But i think we expect things to just be there and thats not good.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
uhh ... did you read these consultants credentials? ... also, they highlight the same problematic site as the papers you mentioned ...
if i'm not mistaken - you are voting for ron paul are you not? ... if so, is that your realism at work or your idealism?
the difference is - is that your concept of inevitability is much different then miine ... we cannot continue to live the way we are ... it's as simple as that - if you think the fix is pouring tons of money into something that is unsustainable - i respectfully disagree ...
and my attitude isn't a wait and see ... it's in conjunction with energy plans developed by numerous organizations ... that secure energy needs into the future while weening ourselves from greenhouse gas/polluting sources ...
My support of Ron Paul is my realism. The reality that the US can longer operate as it has and that Ron Paul is the only candidate who openly admits to this and is the only one willing to address the problem.
The problem with these energy policies is that they are unrealistic. They are based off the theory that people will reduce consumption by 10%. You cannot base an energy policy off of that because you cannot control people's consumption. You need to creat a policy that has the ability to grow as consumption will and can provide energy, free of interruption, to meet the demand. A policy based on conservation and renewable energy sources cannot meet that. That is where the need for a consistant source comes in to pick up the slack for renewables. That source is nuclear. It may not be as clean as solar, wind, etc... but it is far more reliable and can be the back up to periods when renewables fall short of demand because of weather, ie windless days, nighttime, and/or cloudy/rainy days or fall short because they simply lack the ability to generate enough kilowatts to meet demand.
Agreed. You can legislate energy conservation. The problem is unless you want to take a super hard line (like where you limit the amount of kids people can have which would be political suicide if anyone tried it), there is no way you can use legislation to limit population growth. So even if you were able to use laws to get a 10% drop in energy use per household, if your population goes up by 10% you are still in a situation where you need more power.
True that and I don't believe that the government has any business in legislating the energy consumption of it's people.