- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 83,700
- Reaction score
- 58,404
- Location
- New Mexico
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I disagree with each side for different reasons. It's damned difficult to get 24/7, 365 days a year energy from wind and solar. The intermittency problem comes in. So they need to be augmented by power sources that are "clean-er" that will not go down due to the vagaries of weather. So that leaves us with nuclear and natural gas (NG). I would prefer to phase out NG too, but in this time of transition it can help us maintain "normalcy" until fusion is finally worked out. Additionally, wave power is often overlooked. I don't know why. It's an AE that will work 24/7. Hydropower via turbines in rivers is another way to get power 24/7. Again, I don't know why this is always forgotten.I'm a simple person. Even the "experts" have differing opinions.
Alternative Energy - ProCon.org
Pro
"Arjun Makhijani, PhD, President of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, stated the following in his Aug. 2007 article "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free," in Science for Democratic Action:
“[A] zero-CO2 U.S. economy can be achieved within the next thirty to fifty years without the use of nuclear power...
The U.S. renewable energy resource base is vast and practically untapped. Available wind energy resources in 12 Midwestern and Rocky Mountain states equal about 2.5 times the entire electricity production of the United States... Solar energy resources on just one percent of the area of the United States are about three times as large as wind energy, if production is focused in the high insolation areas [strong sunlight] in the Southwest and West…
With the right combination of technologies, it is likely that even the use of coal can be phased out, along with nuclear electricity.
Complete elimination of CO2 could occur as early as 2040. Elimination of nuclear power could also occur in that time frame.”
Con
Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated the following in their Mar. 14, 2005 article “Thermodynamics of Energy Production from Biomass,” published in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences:
"We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible...
We live in a hydrocarbon-limited world, generate too much CO2, and major hydropower opportunities have been exhausted worldwide..."
I disagree with each side for different reasons. It's damned difficult to get 24/7, 365 days a year energy from wind and solar. The intermittency problem comes in. So they need to be augmented by power sources that are "clean-er" that will not go down due to the vagaries of weather. So that leaves us with nuclear and natural gas (NG). I would prefer to phase out NG too, but in this time of transition it can help us maintain "normalcy" until fusion is finally worked out. Additionally, wave power is often overlooked. I don't know why. It's an AE that will work 24/7. Hydropower via turbines in rivers is another way to get power 24/7. Again, I don't know why this is always forgotten.
I have no idea why anyone would want to eliminate Hydro-electric systems. They are a fabulous power source that works 24/7. There's no reason at all to shut them down. I disagree with using crops for energy. That amounts to 1 unit of effort to get 2 units of power, leaving you with only 1 energy unit profit. This is hideously inefficient. It's not worth burning up our food. If energy from algae can be made profitable, then that looks promising, but we need to get going on a test plant to see if it can be made profitable before we put too much into it.
I don't know why anyone
The great thing about solar in a hot climate is that it works best exactly when the demand for electricity is highest, when the AC units are pumping.
Hydroelectric works when there is plenty of hydro to run the electric. Rivers tend to run pretty full in the spring, particularly after a heavy snow year, but not so much in the fall. Like solar and wind, it is a power source that doesn't require fuel, but also like wind and solar, it doesn't work all of the time.
The other thing about hydro is that systems are already in place on most of the rivers in the US. Unless mother nature gives us a few more rivers, which seems sort of unlikely, we have about exhausted that source of power.
We're, Um, currently getting 45% of our oil from foreign sources. And that's after "drill baby drill" that's brought us the highest domestic oil production of the decade
Ask an environmentalist to pick between oil/coal and nuclear/solar/wind, and they will pick the latter 100% of the time.
Putting solar panels on the roofs of buildings takes not one acre of farm land. Putting arrays in desert areas where there isn't enough water to grow crops doesn't either. Solar energy is about the only form of energy that doesn't degrade the environment in one way or another. Why would environmentalists fight that?
I'm so blown away with conservatives' nonstop rants about how they hate Hugo Chavez and Muslim's then in the next sentence tell us how we should always be for massive tax-breaks to big oil and not funnel any money towards what could truly give us energy independence from the very people they say they hate.
What a totally broken and baffling ideology.
Because, as you've already been told in this thread, that conservative "free market" that we are tied into with the WTO and NAFTA and all that garbage... for some reason means we abide by free market while China subsidizes the crap out of their products to illegally dump their subsidized products into our market to destroy competition all while they tariff our goods coming into their country.
That is why.
Drilling on private lands has brought us the highest domestic oil production. How much would we need from outside if we could tap into all the rest that the government is preventing?
Would it not be better to get 99% of the oil from our own lands while we let technology advance for wind and solar?
Yeah, that's why they are protesting that relatively small solar plan in California. :roll: All this doesn't even mention hydro electric and the blocking of building new dams while they take down old ones.
Oil companys get the exact same tax breaks I do with my sawmill and small loigging operation, no more no less.
The fact is, we need oil for a lot more than just burning it. Plastics comes to mind immediately. I'm typing on plastics and reading on plastics and later will call and receive calls on devices made with plastics. We'll need oil for a lot of very good reasons in the century to come. So let's not waste it by burning up to 85% of it up in cars when we can make cars that don't need oil at all. Then we can rely on strictly domestic oil for the plastics and other uses for many many years to come.
Don't confuse me with environmentalists. I'm interested primarily in the energy security of the USA. If we don't have the power to save ourselves, we'll never have the power to save our animals either. So we make sure WE aren't ****ed up and then we'll have the time to be sure our wildlife isn't ****ed up either. Environmentalists will have to wait until we get our energy squared away and then we can work on their concerns too. One thing at a time.
What alternative to oil is there for cars, that is not overly subsidized to make it affordable (ethanol), that will give you the same power, and running duration in a car?
A valid concern. Oil companies are posting record profits yet still receive $4 Billion in subsidies every year. We cannot make this mistake again.But do subsidies really ever go away?
I agree EV's are not practical or affordable for most people. I drive a lot to make a living, an EV would not work, not enough duration, not even 1/10 of what I'd need. And the stuff like the Volt is a novelty car for the wealthy at it's price point.
I see no reason to not open up more drilling, get more of our own oil to cover our own needs, while we await the miracle breakthrough that would make EV's 'better'. If we sit around waiting, we are still purchasing a load of oil that funds 'enemies'. And if and when EV's hit the point they need get to, then we will have all the drilling in place ever needed to get the oil for all the other stuff we use it for.
Nice. Good find. I actually worked in a call center that was connecting people who wanted solar to connect with SolarCity.
Gads, you drive 400 miles per day? Sorry dude. My neighbor in Odessa had to drive about that much too. Such requirements do exist, but are not the rule. Most people commute below 25 miles per day. A $40K car is not only in the realm of the wealthy, but even the upper-middle class. So this places EVs in the price range of a lot of people. You can even find EVs for $17,500, but I don't think I would take one out on the highway. Besides, EVs at that price look like golf carts and that doesn't interest me.
That would be in-correct. There are many tax breaks that support the petroleum inductry and only the petroleum industry. On top of that, there are other tax breaks where there is an overlap with your industry.
I am the last person to defend Obama, but Solyndra had a legitimate good concept
The cost of goods sold price point at the time of the loan was about $600 for a 200 watt panel.
The Solyndra panels have a much lower installation cost, so an $800 sales price would
still be very competitive.
The list price now for a 200 watt panel ( in pallet orders) is as low as $300.
Solyndra had no way to know China would subsidies solar enough, to push the price that low.
Most of the cost of Nuclear is in regulation. Someone who worked on the South Texas
Project told me," When the weight of the paper equals the weight of the plant, they can turn it on."
I have to disagree with you on this one,
The FBI is investigating what happened with Solyndra, a solar panel company that got a $535 million government-backed loan with the help of the Obama White House over the objections of federal budget analysts.
Obama and Vice President Joe Biden got a nice photo op. They got to make speeches about being "green." But then Solyndra went bankrupt. Americans lost jobs. Taxpayers got stuck with the bill. And members of Congress are now in high dudgeon and making speeches.
Federal investigators want to know what role political fundraising played in the guarantee of the questionable loan. Washington bureaucrats warned the deal was lousy. And White House spokesmen flail desperately, like weakened victims in a cheesy vampire movie.
So forget optics. What about smell? It smells bad, and it's going to smell worse.
Or, did you really believe it when the White House mouthpieces — who are also Chicago City Hall mouthpieces — promised they were bringing a new kind of politics to Washington?
This is not a new kind of politics. It's the old kind. The Chicago kind.
And now the Tribune Washington Bureau has reported that the U.S. Department of Energy employee who helped monitor the Solyndra loan guarantee was one of Obama's top fundraisers.
Barack Obama's Solyndra scandal smells like it came from Chicago's City Hall - Chicago Tribune
Tell me what tax breaks ONLY the oil industry gets. All I hear about is their massive write offs for investments, that is the same break I get.
Energy subsidies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)
Budget hawks: Does US need to give gas and oil companies $41 billion a year? - CSMonitor.comFinding and tallying federal energy subsidies, however, can be fiendishly difficult. Doug Koplow of the energy-consulting firm Earth Track in Cambridge, Mass., is considered one of the nation’s leading experts on the topic.
He estimates that the US spent between $49 billion and $100 billion on energy subsidies in 2007 – numbers Mr. Koplow says are still accurate if adjusted for inflation. The handouts cover a broad range of activities, from federal loan guarantees and funding for energy research and development to special tax exemptions.
Here is how the subsidies break down by category, adjusted for inflation, according to Koplow.
Oil and gas: $41 billion
President Obama wants Congress to chop $3.6 billion in 2012 oil and gas tax breaks for a total of $46.2 billion over the next decade. Among Mr. Obama’s targets: a nearly century-old oil and gas industry tax deduction for the costs of preparing drill sites and a manufacturer's tax break granted the oil industry in 2004.
The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government.
That would be in-correct. There are many tax breaks that support the petroleum inductry and only the petroleum industry. On top of that, there are other tax breaks where there is an overlap with your industry.
You know, I've been pretty nice thus far. I've been asking questions and researching material. I don't need attitude, nor being told "That is why", since I've been really interested in this discussion. And I do want to know both sides, since it seems no one has the "right" answers. Even the experts, as I posted pros and cons, don't agree.
So back off.
But do subsidies really ever go away?
I agree EV's are not practical or affordable for most people. I drive a lot to make a living, an EV would not work, not enough duration, not even 1/10 of what I'd need. And the stuff like the Volt is a novelty car for the wealthy at it's price point.
I see no reason to not open up more drilling, get more of our own oil to cover our own needs, while we await the miracle breakthrough that would make EV's 'better'. If we sit around waiting, we are still purchasing a load of oil that funds 'enemies'. And if and when EV's hit the point they need get to, then we will have all the drilling in place ever needed to get the oil for all the other stuff we use it for.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?