U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2014, 08:11 AM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,944,137 times
Reputation: 2153

Advertisements

I'll second that motion for OpenD.

--

Werone - Some areas are just suited for other type of alternate energy. The sun doesn't shine, but the water moves or the wind blows. Expensive to run electrical lines for hundred of miles.

And you are talking about a solar array the size of West Virginia - which when you think about the entire WORLD, isn't all that bad. And you could still use the Ocean or remote lakes/swamps or other not normally used land. Land where no one lives or farms for part of the 21,875 sq. miles you need. But of course you will have people complain about that as well.

I don't disagree that for the immediate future, nuclear is an answer too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2014, 09:41 AM
 
Location: DC
6,510 posts, read 6,430,643 times
Reputation: 3112
Nuclear after 50 years of subsidies remains too expensive and risky for companies to build without holding the utility ratepayers hostage to cost overruns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 04:05 PM
 
868 posts, read 868,127 times
Reputation: 1320
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
Nuclear after 50 years of subsidies remains too expensive and risky for companies to build without holding the utility ratepayers hostage to cost overruns.
Oil and gas have received more subsidies from the American government than all other energy sources combined. Of course to be fair, O&G has been around longer than Nuclear, Biofuel, and Renewables, but the point remains that when O&G was an emerging energy source, it received ridiculously more in subsidies than any other energy source.

According to a study by Yale University, if we adjust figures for inflation O&G has received an average of 4.86 billion dollars a year since 1918. Nuclear has received an average of 3.5 billion a year since 1947, and renewables have received an average of .37 billion since 1994. Obviously, if anything, we should be investing BILLIONS more a year in renewable energy subsidies.

The only reason why O&G is is comparatively affordably today is because of the subsidies it received when it was an emerging energy source, and all the subsides in continues to receive today. Just because we mastered O&G first, doesn't mean it should be the only energy we should ever support, especially if it's finite and detrimental to the environment.

Last edited by Astorian31; 01-10-2014 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 04:23 PM
 
72 posts, read 83,400 times
Reputation: 146
There are always 2 sides to every coin. Consequences regardless of what we choose. You create a new evil attempting to fix another. There is no simple answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2014, 04:35 PM
 
868 posts, read 868,127 times
Reputation: 1320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somewhereinthemiddle View Post
There are always 2 sides to every coin. Consequences regardless of what we choose. You create a new evil attempting to fix another. There is no simple answer.
That's such a cop-out because you can apply that rhetoric to practically anything. Will new energy sources come with unexpected consequences? Probably. But there is nothing that suggest those consequences would be be worse, or even remotely as bad, than the consequences we face if we don't explore alternative energies. Even the tinfoil hat wearers that don't believe in climate change have to admit oil is finite. We don't have much of it left. If we stop evolving scientifically and culturally just because we're afraid of what the future brings, we're doomed as a species.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2014, 08:05 PM
 
1,278 posts, read 1,058,593 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakster View Post
I'll second that motion for OpenD.

--

Werone - Some areas are just suited for other type of alternate energy. The sun doesn't shine, but the water moves or the wind blows. Expensive to run electrical lines for hundred of miles.

And you are talking about a solar array the size of West Virginia - which when you think about the entire WORLD, isn't all that bad. And you could still use the Ocean or remote lakes/swamps or other not normally used land. Land where no one lives or farms for part of the 21,875 sq. miles you need. But of course you will have people complain about that as well.

I don't disagree that for the immediate future, nuclear is an answer too.
The whole country of Germany has less sunshine than about 98% of the US. It had the most installed solar in the entire world last I checked last year. Eye opening is it not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 06:55 AM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,944,137 times
Reputation: 2153
Obviously the sun must shine enough in Germany or else it wouldn't have been installed. And for whatever reason that was the direction they wanted to take.

I am kinda of interested in the Fresnel lens that Ford is using with the C-MAX Hybrid CONCEPT. Couldn't that also be used for generating regular power that goes into the house or grid? (Rhetorical Question)

I'd like to see the cost difference over the lifetime of a coal plant and a nuclear plant on what it actually cost per MW. I have no idea. Nuclear might have been a raw deal or it could have been great. I also don't see large piles of black smoke emanating from the Nuclear plant by me. I did see that near the fuel and coal fired plants. When coal is burned I would think that those ashes are less toxic than nuclear waste -- so there is a trade off. How many coal plants does it take to equal the power generation of a nuclear plant or vice versa. Since the coal plants here were inefficient compared to newer coal plants, it might not be as big a spread today as it was 50-60 years ago. I am not advocating that nuclear is the answer either - just going through the process of IDing issues that each technology has. Obviously I would rather the coal plant get knocked out by a tsunami than a nuclear plant, assuming I had to choose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 08:57 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,387,041 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by tariqblaze View Post
Americans are living longer lives, but we are living out these longer lives with chronic illnesses in large part due to our lifestyle choices, including eating unhealthy diets, failing to exercise, smoking, and using alcohol and drugs, according to research led by researchers at the University of Washington.
In the analysis, the researchers looked the causes of death and disability in 187 countries around the world. The study was led by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Americans living longer, but enjoying less healthy lives | Seattle/LocalHealthGuide


Care to explain this?

And prescription drug death rates?
so we're living longer lives, giving us more time for cells to mutate (cancer), for organs to deterioriate (heart disease, liver disease, etc.), joints to become warn out, etc.? And this is shocking? Smoking rates have plummeted, but still cause a lot of health problems, and hopefully will fall further. We have better healthcare, which helps people live longer, which brings on new challenges that were simply never faced 100+ years ago because people didn't live long enough for those challenges to ever surface. Can we be healthier? Sure we can. But this doesn't mean we're worse off than 100 years ago. C'mon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2014, 08:47 PM
 
1,278 posts, read 1,058,593 times
Reputation: 836
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
so we're living longer lives, giving us more time for cells to mutate (cancer), for organs to deterioriate (heart disease, liver disease, etc.), joints to become warn out, etc.? And this is shocking? Smoking rates have plummeted, but still cause a lot of health problems, and hopefully will fall further. We have better healthcare, which helps people live longer, which brings on new challenges that were simply never faced 100+ years ago because people didn't live long enough for those challenges to ever surface. Can we be healthier? Sure we can. But this doesn't mean we're worse off than 100 years ago. C'mon.
We are better of than ever before. In every category.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2014, 07:16 PM
 
4,718 posts, read 8,944,137 times
Reputation: 2153
Interesting article on oil subsidies in Alaska. Note the disparity between how much the citizens were able to raise vs. the oil and gas companies. Obviously it is worth a LOT to O&G to keep them coming. Remember, this isn't Federal rebates, this is just the State of Alaska incentives.

Oil tax repeal and APOC

(AP)The group behind an effort to repeal Alaska's oil tax law raised about $34,000 during the last three months of 2013.

Vote Yes-Repeal the Giveaway ended the year with nearly $23,000 on hand. Contributions during the fourth quarter included $200 from Democratic state Rep. Max Gruenberg. Senate Democratic Leader Hollis French contributed $150 in refreshments for a fundraiser.

For the campaign so far, the group reported raising more than $100,000, according to its latest filing with the Alaska Public Offices Commission, which was submitted Friday.

Meanwhile, an opposition group, Vote No on One, showed cumulative contributions of more than $1.6 million in a report filed Dec. 31. The vast majority of that came from the oil and gas industry.

The referendum - centered on the oil tax cut the Legislature passed last year - is scheduled to appear on the August primary ballot.

Source: http://www.valdezstar.net/story/2014...riefs/465.html

Last edited by Dakster; 01-25-2014 at 07:17 PM.. Reason: Add Source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:59 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top