Alternative energy alone won't meet US needs (solar, oil, costs)

[tonyandclaire89]

Democrats will increase energy costs and make the U.S. more dependent on foreign oil if they focus solely on alternative energy.

GOP: Alternative energy alone won't meet US needs - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GOP-Alternative-energy-alone-apf-15335306.html?sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode = - broken link)

[T-310]

Problem is, that kind of common sense will escape most liberals.

They would rather you pay more to get less.

[rlchurch]

A good thing that the renewable energy standard is only going to be 20-25 %. How naive can one get?

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

A good thing that the renewable energy standard is only going to be 20-25 %. How naive can one get?

Fail

No part of the Democrats plan focuses on anything but renewables. For that matter as it's written right now Hydro or Nuclear won't even fall within the mandates.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Fail

No part of the Democrats plan focuses on anything but renewables. For that matter as it's written right now Hydro or Nuclear won't even fall within the mandates.

Good. Hydro is about maxed for locations.

Nukes are about the most expensive boondoggle option there could be.


The article even looks like The Onion type comedy. Starts with . . . .

"A GOP senator from the nation's leading coal-producing state contends . . . "

Right up front, you know nothing but BS will follow.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Fail

No part of the Democrats plan focuses on anything but renewables. For that matter as it's written right now Hydro or Nuclear won't even fall within the mandates.

Conservation is a major focus for the Administration and Chu even says he's going to fund some coal research. There's billions in subsidies already queued up for nuclear from the 2005 Act. Nobody wants to build one.

But the OP implied that the democrats were going to try to achieve 100% renewables. That either stupidly naive of just a typical RW lie. 20-25% renewable electrical power is what people are discussing.

What fails are the pitiful attempts to spin the argument.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by rlchurch

What fails are the pitiful attempts to spin the argument.

Correct. And again the Democrats plan focuses almost solely on renewable energy. The only one spinning anything would be you.

Good. Hydro is about maxed for locations.

Nukes are about the most expensive boondoggle option there could be.

The 20 or 25% that rlchurch is referring too will be mandated, existing hydro or nuclear plants which produce no CO2 will not count towards the percentage as the bill is written right now. So if your electric percentage is heavily reliant on hydro or nuclear power you're still in the same boat as someone who's power is 100% fossil fuel.

Currently about 3% of the generation falls under the bill, the 20-25% will have have to be made up entirely by new generation through wind, solar or geo-thermal. If you're electric company fiails to meet the mandate it will get fined ultimately costing you the consumer.

[T-310]

Currently about 3% of the generation falls under the bill, the 20-25% will have have to be made up entirely by new generation through wind, solar or geo-thermal. If you're electric company fiails to meet the mandate it will get fined ultimately costing you the consumer.

Which is why my electrical coop's officers are throughly against cap-and-tax.

[rlchurch]

Originally Posted by T-310

Which is why my electrical coop's officers are throughly against cap-and-tax.

Too bad. But you don't care; you're paying 25¢/kWh to generate your own electricity.

[vec101]

Thread closed - duplicate thread was posted in another forum. See TOS.