temujin987
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,351
holy crap, you're pretty dumb as evident from these few lines.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Americans Want America to Run On Solar and Wind
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
holy crap, you're pretty dumb as evident from these few lines.
And most Americans would prefer to eat ice cream over spinach, but reality sets in and you put priorities in place.
Solar power is great, as long as you don't mind the lack of seasonal efficiency the further from the equator you live, the fact that no power is generated at night and you have to store it somehow further reducing efficiency (and in many cases the batteries themselves now require strip mining and they can contaminate ground water and create their own pollution), and don't forget that you require vast amounts of realestate if you were to actually get most of your power from solar energy... no problem, just cut down a few forests. And even with around a 220% subsidy for solar power in the United States right now, its still not even close to cost effective.
So yeah, Americans may say they like solar power, but remove the subsidies so their electrical bill will go from $150 a month on clean-coal to $600 a month on solar, and ooh look at that now they don't want solar power after all.
Solar power is great, as long as you don't mind the lack of seasonal efficiency the further from the equator you live, the fact that no power is generated at night and you have to store it somehow further reducing efficiency (and in many cases the batteries themselves now require strip mining and they can contaminate ground water and create their own pollution), and don't forget that you require vast amounts of realestate if you were to actually get most of your power from solar energy... no problem, just cut down a few forests. And even with around a 220% subsidy for solar power in the United States right now, its still not even close to cost effective.
So yeah, Americans may say they like solar power, but remove the subsidies so their electrical bill will go from $150 a month on clean-coal to $600 a month on solar, and ooh look at that now they don't want solar power after all.
Given that solar panel production produces hundreds of times as much toxic waste that stays toxic forever and the waste from the additional fossil fuels needed to cover up their shortcomings, I would say the solarists are the shortsighted ones.
Ultimately most people won't accept the energy austerity so called renewables impose on the people. This is but a front of the War on Progress. Here's what the renewables people REALLY think about abundant clean energy:
Renewable Energy Supporters said:
Source: page 3 (of the PDF)
Is The Energy Debate Really About Energy?
Is it really an accident those guys support renewable energy and have been waging a holy war to push us into accepting it? I would argue in the 60's and 70's the Malthusians were at least honest about what the goals of their agenda was, now we have the psuedoscience of "sustainability" to hide what they're doing.
D
Deleted member 88227
Guest
I think the answer to solar power isn't in farms, but each house utilizing small arrays for daytime power. Most homes don't use much power during the day anyway, so a solar array to handle that power load shouldn't be as substantial.
Wind energy should be built off shore and/or in no habitable (deserts) places.
Nuclear energy is what we should be relying on most. More nuclear power = more research towards nuclear energy which could lead to a big break through with nuclear power for not only the home, but for everything.
Wind energy should be built off shore and/or in no habitable (deserts) places.
Nuclear energy is what we should be relying on most. More nuclear power = more research towards nuclear energy which could lead to a big break through with nuclear power for not only the home, but for everything.
Thank god that article was written in 1989...
Dead Parrot
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,831
I bet if you changed the question to something like: "Would you be willing to live next to a wind farm, solar farm or have the high voltage lines from such a farm in your back yard?" that the support would mostly disappear. Especially after you took pictures that properly showed the size of modern wind turbines. That small dot is a 6' human.
I live in Oklahoma where wind turbines are being built all over the northwest part of the state. I bet most of the supporters in the survey are not aware that wind farms are often granted what amounts to an Eagle kill license to avoid Federal fines for the many eagles and other birds killed by the turbines. Had a chance to talk to one of the maintenance workers who admitted that many bird carcasses are not reported.
Wind power isn't as environmentally friendly as some folks want to pretend it is. And has someone developed a plan to recycle thousands of tons of dead solar panels when they start reaching end of life?
I live in Oklahoma where wind turbines are being built all over the northwest part of the state. I bet most of the supporters in the survey are not aware that wind farms are often granted what amounts to an Eagle kill license to avoid Federal fines for the many eagles and other birds killed by the turbines. Had a chance to talk to one of the maintenance workers who admitted that many bird carcasses are not reported.
Wind power isn't as environmentally friendly as some folks want to pretend it is. And has someone developed a plan to recycle thousands of tons of dead solar panels when they start reaching end of life?
Oh mah lawd, another piece from the leftist greatest hits album. Really what kind of elitist garbage is this? "As a society we are far too behind to exercise that responsibility, not with these hayseed hicks running around in the country with their "Free market solutions" Hmpf I just put that in quotation marks and I cannot even explain why hahahaha! If only the world thought like I did, I'm such an intellectual."
Look at how you created demons out of thin air and rallied against it in order to put together a phony pseudo-intellectual thought. Corruption, deregulation, AND FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS! (Oh my gawd not the free enterprise system!) and you instantly attached those things to bringing about a radioactive wasteland chunk of the United States. Listen, that may pass for a brilliant word of wisdom in the marxist academic faculty lounge, but in reality, its a joke.
The only honest thing you said was pointing out that corruption is bad, which is obvious. Then you attach deregulation and the free market to it, lol please. Check it out, we already have nuclear plants, I do not see any smoking craters. Places all over the world are building nuclear plants, I do not see any smoking craters. And when issues do arise, oddly enough we as a "collective" (I bet that word tickles you in all the right places) learn from the mistakes and better the process so that it doesn't happen again. See Flight safety boards in aviation or the nuclear plant malfunctions in japan to see how we as "collective society" come together to learn and "progress forward."
And look at how seductive the words of a leftist are, you even had somebody quote you and agree with you. You're a regular Lennin
Oh give it to me baby yeah! This time put in some explanation to your point, break down your case for me slowly since I'm pretty dumb. Make it simple so even I can understand. Be sure to sprinkle some wit in there, but dont be snarky. I know leftist love the snark, but its more annoying than entertaining. Kinda like a rash.
@Dead Parrot,
Exactly, I did a road trip last year back through Minnesota and South Dakota where I use to live 20+ years ago. I know a lot of the area was just farm land, but I was really shocked to see the the landscape littered with massive wind turbines everywhere. The first words out of my mouth was WTF where they thinking to let that happen. Anytime I hear someone bring up wind turbines I ask them if they have ever been to the areas where these things are at and the answer is always no.
Exactly, I did a road trip last year back through Minnesota and South Dakota where I use to live 20+ years ago. I know a lot of the area was just farm land, but I was really shocked to see the the landscape littered with massive wind turbines everywhere. The first words out of my mouth was WTF where they thinking to let that happen. Anytime I hear someone bring up wind turbines I ask them if they have ever been to the areas where these things are at and the answer is always no.
Anyone know if the energy produced by a solar or a wind power generator is actually more than the energy used to build the thing?
I remember reading something many years ago that the wind turbines then couldn't produce more energy in its lifetime than the energy used to make it...
I remember reading something many years ago that the wind turbines then couldn't produce more energy in its lifetime than the energy used to make it...
Oh mah lawd, another piece from the leftist greatest hits album. Really what kind of elitist garbage is this? "As a society we are far too behind to exercise that responsibility, not with these hayseed hicks running around in the country with their "Free market solutions" Hmpf I just put that in quotation marks and I cannot even explain why hahahaha! If only the world thought like I did, I'm such an intellectual."
Look at how you created demons out of thin air and rallied against it in order to put together a phony pseudo-intellectual thought. Corruption, deregulation, AND FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS! (Oh my gawd not the free enterprise system!) and you instantly attached those things to bringing about a radioactive wasteland chunk of the United States. Listen, that may pass for a brilliant word of wisdom in the marxist academic faculty lounge, but in reality, its a joke.
The only honest thing you said was pointing out that corruption is bad, which is obvious. Then you attach deregulation and the free market to it, lol please. Check it out, we already have nuclear plants, I do not see any smoking craters. Places all over the world are building nuclear plants, I do not see any smoking craters. And when issues do arise, oddly enough we as a "collective" (I bet that word tickles you in all the right places) learn from the mistakes and better the process so that it doesn't happen again. See Flight safety boards in aviation or the nuclear plant malfunctions in japan to see how we as "collective society" come together to learn and "progress forward."
And look at how seductive the words of a leftist are, you even had somebody quote you and agree with you. You're a regular Lennin
I hope your ignorance is at the least being paid for.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
Most idiots don't understand it would triple their electric bill to increase wind and solar power, or that it would be nearly impossible to do on large scale due to the materials involved.
Wolf_Tech
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2010
- Messages
- 231
Hydrogen power plants are the future. It's the most abundant source of energy on the planet. Or anywhere else in the universe. Only reason why no one uses it because it does not make money.
All comes down to Greed.
All comes down to Greed.
Solar is there, cost wise, in most areas and wind makes sense where it's windy, so offshore and good chunks of the west/midwest. It's the storage component that's holding it back now, but honestly it's getting a lot closer. Large format batteries and the electronics to go with them have gotten much better, longer lasting, and cheaper. There's a reason utilities are scared to death of solar.
Europe is still laughing at us, Germania specially.
We are too greedy, whiny, opinionated and stupid as a nation to move beyond coal fired power to supply most of our energy needs despite it making hippies mad
Why? Because it's the cheapest. Expensive and clean power will never happen as long as the USA exists on this continent.
We are too greedy, whiny, opinionated and stupid as a nation to move beyond coal fired power to supply most of our energy needs despite it making hippies mad
Why? Because it's the cheapest. Expensive and clean power will never happen as long as the USA exists on this continent.
The farmers saw the paychecks from the power company and said "sure, why not?" besides, WTF is that else to look at in Minnesota and the Dakotas beyond flat land? Would you rather have them freaking the ground to death or have white turbines quietly spinning away?
Keep in mind, it's a 70% chance that you typing on keyboard right now to troll back a response came from coal fired power, meaning your very words pollute the air.
In other words: shut the fuck up.
But, humans are overlooking one of the biggest factors of clean energy: They are not entirely clean, especially not to mother nature.
What we do amongst ourselves does not concern nature, it does not affect it in the slightest how much money it costs us, but if the so called 'clean' energy is going to do more damage to the environment than it actually solves, it makes more sense to not adopt it.
Which goes down to a very simple question: do the 'clean' methods of wind and solar actually generate enough energy in its lifetime than is used during its production (from raw material extraction to disposal/recycling of the waste it generates during and at the end of its lifetime)?
I am not against clean power, but I am against basing the entirety of an energy source being clean or not purely based on its source, and nothing about the way it is extracted.
What we do amongst ourselves does not concern nature, it does not affect it in the slightest how much money it costs us, but if the so called 'clean' energy is going to do more damage to the environment than it actually solves, it makes more sense to not adopt it.
Which goes down to a very simple question: do the 'clean' methods of wind and solar actually generate enough energy in its lifetime than is used during its production (from raw material extraction to disposal/recycling of the waste it generates during and at the end of its lifetime)?
I am not against clean power, but I am against basing the entirety of an energy source being clean or not purely based on its source, and nothing about the way it is extracted.
The end has had already begun, we're just in the last chapter of the more "comfortable" beginning of the end. If you have kids, I suggest you hold them closely in the peace, because it will end for them after we are gone, real soon
Coal fired plants are dropping out of favor in the states with cheaper natural gas. With dropping fuel prices, such as diesel, the coal option might become a little cheaper in the short term. The game will change long term with transportation costs, and new environmental policies.
Solar voltaic and wind turbines are small-scale solutions, trying to fulfill the role of larger ones. They cant solve our long-term energy needs alone, but we will use them because they exist.
I support all viable options, but long term, the first world will need to look and invest with technology development. Without it, future nuclear or energy technologies will never be a thought with our short sighted officials and business leaders.
Solar voltaic and wind turbines are small-scale solutions, trying to fulfill the role of larger ones. They cant solve our long-term energy needs alone, but we will use them because they exist.
I support all viable options, but long term, the first world will need to look and invest with technology development. Without it, future nuclear or energy technologies will never be a thought with our short sighted officials and business leaders.
crusty_juggler
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,241
*backs away slowly*
Oh yeah!!! That's what I'm talking about! Hit me with your best snark, FIRE AWAAAAAY! But oh Sir, do tell me why mine ignorance is but a blight upon your benevolent self. I a lesser being humble myself before you and beg of an explanation! O benevolent all knowing leftist, grace me with your Utopian vision so that I may purge mineself of mine ignorance!
Amazing how you can get the answer you want if you phrase the question right.
1. Would you like most your electricity to come from wind and solar, and a lower electric bill?
2. Would you pay 4 times as much for your electricity if it came from wind and electric?
Truth is Solar doesn't work all the time (rainy day, night, etc.) and neither does wind. This requires the utility to not only old spend more per KW for solar or wind generators, but they also have to build extra power plants (usually natural gas) to provide power at night and when the wind isn't blowing which results in even higher costs.
Have fun selling your home with leased solar panels on it.
Yes the contract is assumable, but to most people it's a liability, and in most cases actually lowers the value of the home.
Either your state has an unusually high rebate, unusually high rates, or you are just repeating the numbers the sales person gave you.
I also looked into solar panels, and my house is almost perfect, with the unobstructed roof facing south. I also have some of the highest electric rates the country here in Southern California.
My real ROI would have been closer to 15 years.
Part of the reason is that I have already made my house as efficient as possible, so my normal usage is low. My electric company uses a tier rate structure, with the cost per kwh ranging from 12 cent to 28 cent, and most my power is in the lower range.
Now to be fare, I have a relative that did install solar panels. He has a large house with a pool, and probably uses 2-3 times as much power as I do. His utility also has even higher rates. His ROI was going to be at least 7 years.
Are you for real? Think about what you're saying... Whenever you bring "government" into it, just substitute the words "my fellow citizens, forced into slavery." That about sums it up. Because any rebate is going to be paid by the population at large (since that's where the government gets its money). So if anyone benefits from solar, it's really going to be a limited number of people, and they are gaining at the forced expense of everyone else through taxation or whatever. And those "jobs" are also at the expense of everyone else, because they are being funded by money that was taken through taxation to benefit someone who wants solar.
Any industry that killed as many migrating and endangered birds as the wind farms in California does would be sued out of business by the environmentalist.
We also have a couple solar farms (large arrays of mirrors) that are killing thousands of birds by frying them in mid air.
There's also the low frequency sounds from the windmills that disturb people miles away, and the strobeing effect from the sun behind the blades that have even cause people to have seizures.
It's even worse than that.
When their solar panel generates more electricity that they are using during the day, their meter runs backwards, in effect selling the power back to the electric company at retail.
However any company selling power to the utility is only paid the wholesale rate. This jacks up the cost to utility, costing the ratepayers even more.
However, the electric companies have been lobbying to change this, so all those people installing solar panels might end up with higher bills than they are expecting.
OlIv0rIolI
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 634
+1
Its ironic that some people are always bitching about profit and rich people and then turn around and advocate policy that mostly benefit those same rich people.
Well, enjoy your nuclear waste or co2 emissions from coal plants then.
Just because we built all of our nuclear power plants based on light water reactor designs originally meant to breed fissile material for weaponization doesn't mean that all nuclear power is that bad.
We should be building more advanced nuclear designs simply to burn the waste from all the LWR plants, reducing the size of the dangerous stockpiles, and the yearly waste to a couple tons a year with a half life under a century. Which is an entirely manageable waste solution.
We've had better nuclear power plant designs since the 60's.
Oh, and yeah. Even factoring in melt downs and other nuclear accidents. Nuclear power is still safer than solar. Solar panels don't just magically appear. Far more death and pollution comes from solar panel production, distribution, and installation than nuclear power. Google rare earth metals and pollution. They are also used for wind power as well.
ill take my useful transuranics from thorium based nuclear
since you can burn all the other waste we already have in a LFTR
and the it produces very little waste most of that can be used for medical or RTGs
edit video link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
Well, Germany's #1 source of electricity is brown coal. #2 is black coal, #3 is nuclear, #4 is burning wood.
http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/dow...ction-from-solar-and-wind-in-germany-2014.pdf
Compared to neighboring France, Germany has an extremely high CO2 emitting electrical grid.
crusty_juggler
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2014
- Messages
- 1,241
Maybe we can burn the carcasses of migrating birds killed via wind turbine for energy?