Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [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 08-16-2009, 05:45 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,023,289 times
Reputation: 17864

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The low cost alternative is not sequestration, it's renewable energy.
If it existed but it doesn't. There's reason the renewable energy is receiving 1/3 the retail cost now in subsidization. There's a reason the electricity available in the green energy program in Austin cost 3X the standard rate and there is also a reason the power companies in Spain another model often cited as a success have accrued a massive deficit in a few short years. Because it's expensive.

They recently announced a solar plant they are going to install nearby where I live:

Solar Cells Info » Massive solar plant proposed in Carbon County, Pennsylvania


For arguments sake lets say the average household uses $1000 of electricity in today's dollars. This plant is expected to serve up to 1500 households at a cost of $65 million dollars. Each household would need to contribute $43,000 to pay for it. It would take 43 years at current rates to pay back just the cost to build it. They only have a 30 year lease with options for 2 additional 10 year extensions. I believe the expected lifespan is 40 years. To that we need to add the maintenance costs and upkeep, the lease as they will not own the land AND we still haven't added in any profit for the investors. The only reason this plant is being built is because of subsidization, without no one in their right mind would touch it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2009, 06:06 PM
 
822 posts, read 2,046,124 times
Reputation: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The low cost alternative is not sequestration, it's renewable energy.
No, it isn't. If it was, we'd be doing it already.

Do you think that everybody in the energy business is a complete idiot and can't see what you see, despite the fact that they've got real money invested in the energy business?

How soon are you going to invest your money in 'renewable' energy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 02:12 AM
 
Location: Sonoita
227 posts, read 535,392 times
Reputation: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungeon View Post
Liberal big green energy farce or real issue? Go. I believe global warming is afarce because the climate has gottent cooler in the last 10 years. We have had a summer here in toronto for the first time since 1974 where we have no days above 30 degrees celsius or about 86 degrees farenheit. GE owns NBC and promotes green week, as it bought billions of dollars in worthless carbon credits. Imagine if exxon mobile owned a tv station like cnn and promoted dirty oil week. Global warming is propoganda used to control people and keep them in fear. Its like 9/11-war on terror except that there really are terrorist and there is no global warming.
As usual, the opening statement with it's rightwing tin-foil hat conspiracy blather says it all. Notice that the Right-Wing side really does care about the environment after all. Here they are bulldozing their way in to many state parks to remove all that evil oil so that it does'nt hurt nature anymore. Ah yes, the level of dumbass is still alive and kickin. The Associated Press: States weigh benefits, risks of drilling in parks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 04:30 AM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,377,473 times
Reputation: 8672
Nuclear energy is some of the most cost effective energy we can use. However, because people have a stigma about three mile island, they don't want Nuclear energy.

Lets look at the pros.

1. Its clean, no CO2 emissions at all

2. Its local, we have plenty of Uranium sources in the United States.

3. Its cheap, somewhere on par with coal now.

Now, I understand its a dangerous technology, but do you realize, WE HAVEN'T BUILT A NEW NUCLEAR PLANT IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1977!!!!

How much better can we build a plant today, using todays advanced construction methods, with todays computer controls? My bet is that it would considerably cheaper and safer than the old plants still running today. However, Green people are scared of Nuclear power. I'm all for solar and wind, but those technologies aren't very cost productive as of yet. (Wind is getting better, but no one wants those big windmills everywhere)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 06:00 AM
 
2,255 posts, read 5,396,072 times
Reputation: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
Nuclear energy is some of the most cost effective energy we can use. However, because people have a stigma about three mile island, they don't want Nuclear energy.

Lets look at the pros.

1. Its clean, no CO2 emissions at all

2. Its local, we have plenty of Uranium sources in the United States.

3. Its cheap, somewhere on par with coal now.

Now, I understand its a dangerous technology, but do you realize, WE HAVEN'T BUILT A NEW NUCLEAR PLANT IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1977!!!!

How much better can we build a plant today, using todays advanced construction methods, with todays computer controls? My bet is that it would considerably cheaper and safer than the old plants still running today. However, Green people are scared of Nuclear power. I'm all for solar and wind, but those technologies aren't very cost productive as of yet. (Wind is getting better, but no one wants those big windmills everywhere)
While at this late date there have certainly been advances in the Nuclear Technology towards safety concerns and procedures, there are still the issues of what to do with the nuclear waste.

There are also the damaging effects, not just from nuclear, but any coal, oil, whatever burning plant that requires huge volumes of water from natural sources for coolling processes. Dumping this damage water back into any of the aquatic ecosystems has created what's called "Thermo-Pollution". This has contributed greatly to what are called "Dead Zones" for several square miles in various areas. No doubt it could also be a contributor to a warming trend of a type. There are numerous factors to consider when dealing with the O.P.'s subject.

Here's one read:
http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~kotl...lant_fish.html

And here is another:
http://www.clf.org/state/RI/additional/mounthopebay/factsheet.html (broken link)

Last edited by bluepacific; 08-17-2009 at 06:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 06:27 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,292 posts, read 26,664,764 times
Reputation: 3925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona1 View Post
As usual, the opening statement with it's rightwing tin-foil hat conspiracy blather says it all. Notice that the Right-Wing side really does care about the environment after all. Here they are bulldozing their way in to many state parks to remove all that evil oil so that it does'nt hurt nature anymore. Ah yes, the level of dumbass is still alive and kickin. The Associated Press: States weigh benefits, risks of drilling in parks
Well I guess that if Julie Carr Smyth wrote it, it's factually accurate and settles the debate forever.


How 'bout posting something intelligent and informative, rather than just angry and spiteful?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 06:35 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,292 posts, read 26,664,764 times
Reputation: 3925
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungeon View Post
Liberal big green energy farce or real issue? Go. I believe global warming is afarce because the climate has gottent cooler in the last 10 years. We have had a summer here in toronto for the first time since 1974 where we have no days above 30 degrees celsius or about 86 degrees farenheit. GE owns NBC and promotes green week, as it bought billions of dollars in worthless carbon credits. Imagine if exxon mobile owned a tv station like cnn and promoted dirty oil week. Global warming is propoganda used to control people and keep them in fear. Its like 9/11-war on terror except that there really are terrorist and there is no global warming.
The question isn't whether or not Global Warming is real. Proving or disproving it is irrelevant, because - as we have already seen - the alarmists are going to change the name to fit the current available data. That's why it's now Global Climate Change.

You have to remember that there are people making hundreds of millions of dollars on this latest craze. Al Gore is raking in money by the tens of millions of dollars, while at the same time consuming 10x the amount of natural gas and 20x the amount of electricity as the average American home owner. He also flies all over the world - in his own private jet - telling everybody else to live green. The guy is a liar, a charlatan and a hypocrite! Always follow the money, because that will tell you why people are doing what they're doing.


That said, on a personal level, we should all live as green as possible! There's no reason not to. There's no reason not to drive less and walk more. There's no reason not to insulate and seal our homes. There's no reason not recycle and cut down on waste. There's no reason not to live as though Global Warming were true!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 07:24 AM
 
Location: NW Arkansas
3,978 posts, read 8,546,566 times
Reputation: 3779
I still have not have anyone explain to me what happened to the great forests that once were in Arizona? Why is the Petrified Forest there now? And wasn't Death Valley once much differant? Even Northwest Arkansas was one said to be a prairie...and is now all wooded. Who/what caused that?
As for the receding of the glaciers....wasn't a lot of the northern States in the U.S.A. once covered with ice? So...what is new?
I think some common sense research needs to be done...and the results accepted.

Some scientific results are very good, others are proved wrong over and over! Those that are proved wrong are theories, not truth.

Many of us will probably not live to see the day when this present theory is disproved, or at least swept under the rug. Just because it is the 21st century it does not mean people are all that much more intellegent than they were in the past.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 07:37 AM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
12,350 posts, read 9,711,220 times
Reputation: 13892
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlchurch View Post
The highlighted portion is totally false. There is no scientific evidence that refutes the existence of anthropogenic climate change.
These 700 scientists challenge theory of manmade global warming « A War of Illusions

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

The Global Warming Scam

I could keep this up all day if you like.

I liken this debate to the parallel one regarding separation of church and state. Because global warming fanaticism is much like religious fanaticism. No one is challenging your right to your beliefs and to practice your environmental religion, but I and many others challenge your quest to impose it on others. It needs to be kept as far from public policy decisions as we keep other forms of fanaticism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2009, 10:09 AM
 
261 posts, read 668,317 times
Reputation: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona1 View Post
As usual, the opening statement with it's rightwing tin-foil hat conspiracy blather says it all. Notice that the Right-Wing side really does care about the environment after all. Here they are bulldozing their way in to many state parks to remove all that evil oil so that it does'nt hurt nature anymore. Ah yes, the level of dumbass is still alive and kickin. The Associated Press: States weigh benefits, risks of drilling in parks
As opposed to liberals plans to put every american out of a job but the owl
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 > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top