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.
Being "green" is nothing more than getting you to do without what those with extreme wealth do with. The less resources you use, the longer they have access to them.
As an alternative explanation, being "green" means seeing the interconnectedness of everything and everyone, being conscious of the effect you have on the environment, and taking personal responsibility for your own impact.
Quote:
People are being shepherded into a single energy source system. All the electric car nonsense revolving around using alternative energy to charge your car. How long did it take the utility companies to get approval to charge people with roof top solar a fee to transmit electric back into the gird? California is now doing it.
I see the exact opposite happening. It's not all that long ago that a single source supplied all the electrical energy for the county I live in, but now there are more than 20 companies producing and supplying energy, and probably thousands of individual net-metering hookups feeding additional power into the grid. And the $20.50 a month minimum charge for those individual accounts is the charge to provide the grid and maintain it, and to provide baseline generation capacity to stabilize the grid. It's not an additional charge, it was there all the time, but just buried in a one-lump-sum bill.
Quote:
At least with gasoline, you can decide not to drive today and if you cut way back on driving if you can, the price of gas has little effect on your daily life. Speed ahead to where the "green" movement wants you to go. The utility company is now also what charges your car. When they raise the rates, it isn't just for the car charger, it is for your: Refrigerator Microwave TV Computer Heater Hot water Lights
and everything else running on electric even if you don't drive that electric car one mile a week.
It's working quite differently here. Car charger hookups are being charged at half the residential rate, as long as the charging is done late at night when overall demand drops and there's lots of extra generating capacity.
Quote:
Solar energy? They are building out panel farms. Anyone think of the life span of those panels and what happens in 20 short years? They are NOT up-gradable, they have to be replaced and if some new technology to improve the efficiency rate comes along, what happens to billions of solar panels, recycle them? No one has thought this through.
First, panel farms are not the only form of solar energy, but they are the most modular, so they are quicker to deploy and easier to fit into odd spaces than anything else, so it's no surprise we're seeing a burst of activity in that segment. And solar water heaters are mandated here for all new construction, unless it's located in an area that does not receive enough sun to be viable, and while that's not a huge part of the overall picture, it's still a valuable wedge. But solar concentrators, where possible, have a much higher energy efficiency, and a longer projected life than the panels. We've got the first of those online in our region now. But they have longer planning cycles and larger capital investment requirements, so the "lego block" approach of solar panels is getting the widest attention. As far as recycling the panels when their useful life is exhausted, I don't see that as an issue when we've already reached efficiency at recycle old cars and household rubbish like bottles and cans.
Quote:
Then we hear big news stories about sewer problems. Use gray water! So, after much of the population starts using gray water and sends very little back through the sewers, how do they stay usable and not clogged up? You need a large amount of water going through those return systems to keep them clear and sending only black waste through them isn't going to work. Who will end up paying for that? You.
There's no question that water will become a much bigger issue for everyone in the near term. Only 3% of the world's water is fresh water, and there is more and more competition for it. Various American cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Austin are all approaching the point where they could run out of (enough) water soon and are on managed water conservation plans. Attendant to that, reduction of black water waste reduces the need for black water waste treatment, another resource saver.
The biggest single thing we could do immediately to relieve our ever more present water crises would be to ban green lawns, and insist on xeriscaping with natural, drought resistant vegetation. Lawns currently use 1/3 of our entire water supply. And solar distillation of salt water is an obvious way to meld two different green resource streams into a single solution.
Quote:
Recycle. Uh huh. A great idea until the government and waste management teams get together. Now you have to sort your trash so they can sell it. There is a name for that: unpaid employee.
Oh, that's just a silly argument. It only takes moments to separate rubbish into the appropriate bins.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, the conservation of resources is a good thing. Alternative energy systems are a good thing right until you are mandated to use it and pay for it because you, the individual will never have a say in what those costs become.
Sure you do, because you can participate in the democratic process and speak up at public hearings and write to your elected officials. All of that does have impact on the process.
Quote:
Once you become dependent upon a single entity provider (where have we heard that before?) you are screwed, all in the name of being "green"
Most American communities have been dependent on a single electricity provider for over 100 years. That's why Public Utility Commissions were created, to keep the public from getting screwed.
Quote:
The term "green" is a joke anyway. Ever look at pictures of the earth which were taken from high altitudes or space? It is mostly blue, not green. "Green" is what those getting you to step in line see when they drop off the recycle bin and then attach a note saying it is against the ______ ordinance not to recycle and doing it yourself for you own benefit doesn't qualify.
The simple fact is that people are lazy about routine matters, and it's hard to get them to change their patterns, so you need some forms of motivation and regulation to get them to do what is in the common interest. "Green" is just a concept, symbolized by a green, growing leaf, to keep people thinking about doing the best things they can to move towards a more sustainable future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mack Knife
It isn't that alternative energy sources aren't needed, they are, just as solutions to power cars and all the other conveniences we've come to depend upon. The problem with alternative energy is that like the current dependencies we've created, there is no foresight into what happens when we get there. Trading one dependency for another, controlled by the relatively few is like trading one drug for another so long as they are made by the same company. "Green" is no different than "Security". In the name of either, people will give up their independence, rights, liberties and money.
To me that's a totally overblown conclusion, driven more by political position than by pragmatic assessment of reality.
As an alternative explanation, being "green" means seeing the interconnectedness of everything and everyone, being conscious of the effect you have on the environment, and taking personal responsibility for your own impact.
That isn't in question. If everyone saw things that way, things would be much different. That however, is lala land. The companies controlling your use of energy could care less about the environment, they care about money. There is no such thing as corporate consciousness apart from marketing and the sooner you realize that, the clearer you'll see things. You think alternative sources of energy haven't been around for a long long time? It was a big question 40 years ago. This didn't become a big deal today. The means to avoid the current situation existed long ago, what didn't exist was the financial incentives for those controlling energy to embrace it. They do so now not because it is better for the environment but because it is better for their bank accounts. You might say that so long as the environment benefits in the end that is a good thing. Aren't you forgetting something?
Those same companies are the ones that came up with clean diesel, clean coal, cleaner burning gasoline and all that nonsense. Now we are all to believe they figured this out with solar and other green alternatives? What changed other than a corporate name once in a while?
I see the exact opposite happening. It's not all that long ago that a single source supplied all the electrical energy for the county I live in, but now there are more than 20 companies producing and supplying energy, and probably thousands of individual net-metering hookups feeding additional power into the grid. And the $20.50 a month minimum charge for those individual accounts is the charge to provide the grid and maintain it, and to provide baseline generation capacity to stabilize the grid. It's not an additional charge, it was there all the time, but just buried in a one-lump-sum bill.
Once more, look again. Those thousands of net metering hookups feeding power into the grid are going to be charged to do so. In other words, you will pay for the back to grid hookup and not just the individual hook up location but everyone. Read the news, it is fact and in the nations most progressive state for alternative energy use. You think it isn't coming to a location near you?
It's working quite differently here. Car charger hookups are being charged at half the residential rate, as long as the charging is done late at night when overall demand drops and there's lots of extra generating capacity.
"Here". Not everywhere and not for very long. The only reason you are charging cars at half residential rates is because there is no significant draw on the grid to do so. Now, expand the use out to a significant portion of the US society and see what happens. Like I said (in the news) California is now going to allow the utility companies to charge roof top solar users a fee to have roof top solar. You really believe that your half rate charging for cars will last if most people use an electric car? Most people have to use an electric car for that to have a significant effect on the environment. What they do "here" doesn't mean diddly anywhere else. Think it through past "here".
First, panel farms are not the only form of solar energy, but they are the most modular, so they are quicker to deploy and easier to fit into odd spaces than anything else, so it's no surprise we're seeing a burst of activity in that segment. And solar water heaters are mandated here for all new construction, unless it's located in an area that does not receive enough sun to be viable, and while that's not a huge part of the overall picture, it's still a valuable wedge. But solar concentrators, where possible, have a much higher energy efficiency, and a longer projected life than the panels. We've got the first of those online in our region now. But they have longer planning cycles and larger capital investment requirements, so the "lego block" approach of solar panels is getting the widest attention. As far as recycling the panels when their useful life is exhausted, I don't see that as an issue when we've already reached efficiency at recycle old cars and household rubbish like bottles and cans.
You're missing the point. It takes a lot of energy to produce solar panels. Maybe, one day there will be better ways but not now and not on a large scale. Solar concentrators work but their components wear out. What you aren't getting is what happens when at some point in the future, you have then 20 years worth of year to year global solar panels to recycle? Using what energy?
Cars get recycled because their components for the most part are reusable as is. The remainder of the materials are repurposed or can be directly sent into the manufacturing chains to make new vehicles. Furthermore, a large part of the US society takes part in that recycling and reap a direct benefit from it. With large scale solar farms, it becomes a cost only, not a reduction in costs no matter how much the company providing the power saves.
20 years from now, the solar panels produced today, aside from being obsolete (ah, stick that in there too) will need to be replaced. 21 years from now, same thing. See where this is going? Unlike something like natural gas or some other fuel not in use now, solar panels are a throw away solution. Yes, there will be improvements but you see, the improvements themselves make the previous generation of panels obsolete. If, say 5 years from now there is a breakthrough in solar panel technology where the efficiency of harvest goes to 70%, what happens to all those panels produced between now and then that can't break into the 20% threshold? They get replaced. Who pays for that? We do, not the companies using them to sell you power. The part you're missing is that the panel is expendable just like a fuel but doesn't have the benefits of a fuel. The solution is an environmentally acceptable fuel, not a solar panel which becomes obsolete. Right now panels stay in production for a long time. When resources to locate them become a consideration (and they will) keeping two year old panels in production when another 10% of efficiency can be obtained with new panels will insure the old ones get ripped out.
There's no question that water will become a much bigger issue for everyone in the near term. Only 3% of the world's water is fresh water, and there is more and more competition for it. Various American cities like Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Austin are all approaching the point where they could run out of (enough) water soon and are on managed water conservation plans. Attendant to that, reduction of black water waste reduces the need for black water waste treatment, another resource saver.
Umm, you can manage gray water and recycle or re-purpose it but try reducing black waste water in a household. There is some miracle of eliminating the toilet we don't know about? Stop eating maybe or turn everyone into vegetarians? Come on.
The biggest single thing we could do immediately to relieve our ever more present water crises would be to ban green lawns, and insist on xeriscaping with natural, drought resistant vegetation. Lawns currently use 1/3 of our entire water supply. And solar distillation of salt water is an obvious way to meld two different green resource streams into a single solution.
Oh, that's just a silly argument. It only takes moments to separate rubbish into the appropriate bins.
Sure you do, because you can participate in the democratic process and speak up at public hearings and write to your elected officials. All of that does have impact on the process.
Business has nothing to do with the democratic process. If it did, we wouldn't even be discussing alternative energy solutions, they'd have been put in place decades ago. Money controls the democratic process.
Most American communities have been dependent on a single electricity provider for over 100 years. That's why Public Utility Commissions were created, to keep the public from getting screwed.
Really? People aren't being screwed by utility companies now? In what part of the world? A single electricity provider is different that a single provider for energy. Lets get that straight. Right now you have some choice of how you buy energy, beit it gasoline for cars, natural gas for heat and cooking and so on. Eliminate the lions share of the costs, gasoline in favor of electricity and the costs for that electricity go up really fast, not just for the car but every other use as well because they are then tied together.
The simple fact is that people are lazy about routine matters, and it's hard to get them to change their patterns, so you need some forms of motivation and regulation to get them to do what is in the common interest. "Green" is just a concept, symbolized by a green, growing leaf, to keep people thinking about doing the best things they can to move towards a more sustainable future.
Yes, people are lazy but lazy people respond to costs much faster than doing something because it is good to do. Make energy more expensive because of alternative solutions not thought through and watch what happens. When rates for electricity start running up to support alternatives see what happens. You see costs to the user going down and not up? Let me know when that happens. The costs to the providers could go down 75% but the price to users will increase.
To me that's a totally overblown conclusion, driven more by political position than by pragmatic assessment of reality.
Money controls politics and money is what flows from you to energy companies. Who do you think controls what?
As PV panels hit the end of serviceable life the recycling industry will rise to the need, I'm sure. And lets not forget that the technology is evolving rapidly. In the near future PV panels could be based on a totally different set of materials, possibly organic in nature.
Also don't forget, PV panels are only one form of solar energy use. Here on the Big Island we also have a commercial solar concentrater feeding electricity to the grid. Also, all new construction on the island is required to install solar water heaters. That's another fractional gain.
This is the post where you rebutted on the issue of solar panel toxic waste if you dont remember. I stated solar panels emit waste. You said,
Quote:
"As PV panels hit the end of serviceable life the recycling industry will rise to the need, I'm sure."
Yes recycling solar panels is what should be done. But there is no fall out option in case recycling is not enacted. Look here. What do you think the people of past generations said about plastic? They surely said and had the same excuse. If plastic is recycled properly then we should have no toxic plastic waste in our landfills. Look how that turned out. Plastic largely doesn't get recycled. It is only recently that more government sanctions are being put on recycling. For years there were none and our environment has to pay the price. Tell me what makes you think this would be any different for solar panels?
Not only is careless non-recycling of panels a real and major issue, your second fall out option isnt any better. Because it isnt even real. Your second option in case panels arent recycled goes a little something like this.
Quote:
In the near future PV panels could be based on a totally different set of materials, possibly organic in nature.
"Could be", "possibly". Sir these are all possibilities as I said and not actualities. Of course in our lifetime, anything is possible. We could all become billionaires by tomorrow. We all could learn to fly and travel through time. But what could possibly be and what actuality is is all the difference that separates fantasy from reality.
The reality is we dont have that technology and no one knows how long it will take for this technology to be manufactured. So until then solar panels are no more safe than many other energy options for all we know, or maybe even less.
As I said again, when concrete proof that this can be done, but more importantly when it all is said and done, then you can actually make those claims and a real conversation can be had. Until that day comes, you are only basing your views on possibilities yet you fail to face the simple reality of it all.
But wait...you say theres more???
Quote:
Also don't forget, PV panels are only one form of solar energy use. Here on the Big Island we also have a commercial solar concentrater feeding electricity to the grid. Also, all new construction on the island is required to install solar water heaters. That's another fractional gain.
Show me the entire schematics of the design for these solar concentrators to prove these too are 100% harmless from toxic materials, costly expenses, reliability (which also affects cost and environmental issues from fossil fuels), and resource consumption and then I will let you know how plausible a csc device really is. I highly doubt CSC's are are free from the same issues PV panels have as well.
Last edited by tariqblaze; 10-15-2013 at 09:30 PM..
This is the post where you rebutted on the issue of solar panel toxic waste if you dont remember. I stated solar panels emit waste.
Emit means to discharge or release something. Gasoline cars emit polluting gases, so they have to have emission control systems. Solar panels do not emit anything. That's part of the confusion understanding what you mean.
Quote:
You said, Yes recycling solar panels is what should be done. But there is no fall out option in case recycling is not enacted.
Recycling is already "enacted" in the US. I'm not sure what you think is a problem.
Quote:
Show me the entire schematics of the design for these solar concentrators to prove these too are 100% harmless from toxic materials, costly expenses, reliability (which also affects cost and environmental issues from fossil fuels), and resource consumption and then I will let you know how plausible a csc device really is. I highly doubt CSC's are are free from the same issues PV panels have as well.
Sorry, you'll have to do the research on that for yourself. I'll just say that there is nothing in a typical solar concentrater except for the control system that could not have been built 50 years ago. A common configuration consists of a matrix of mirrors which focus solar energy to boil water to drive a steam turbine. And they've been deployed for decades. The first one went online in Italy in 1968.
Emit means to discharge or release something. Gasoline cars emit polluting gases, so they have to have emission control systems. Solar panels do not emit anything. That's part of the confusion understanding what you mean.
Emit waste? Are you serious? When PV panels are discarded in the waste basket, they emit waste, meaning they discharge, leak poisons in the ground, air, or wherever they leak. Point is they emit waste. Doesnt matter how they do, and I already posted the link as to the study showing how they emit waste. Your selective amnesia doesnt really befit you. You should work on that.
Quote:
Recycling is already "enacted" in the US. I'm not sure what you think is a problem.
More selective amnesia here huh? Recycling is not mandated here in the US. At least not everywhere. You dont have to recycle PV panels you can trash heap them as they are being done today. Unless PV panels were mandated to be recycled, only then can you make a claim that recycling will curb panel waste. But there is no mandates for that. Yes people can recycle, but they dont and probably many still wont do it, especially if pv panels just become the "hot new trend". Not only that but recycling is costly and unless recycling programs are full proof and 100% harmless, as currently there are no recycling program that I know of that is completely harmless, your recycling theory still doesnt hold up. You could try again.
Quote:
Sorry, you'll have to do the research on that for yourself. I'll just say that there is nothing in a typical solar concentrater except for the control system that could not have been built 50 years ago. A common configuration consists of a matrix of mirrors which focus solar energy to boil water to drive a steam turbine. And they've been deployed for decades. The first one went online in Italy in 1968.
It seems you turned this discussion into a pastime for mere children, being that every other reply you have is a statement of misinterpretation. Im sorry if you cant understand common English or logic that is on display in this thread. I do not have the time to play childish games with you. If you will not reply with sensible rebuttals that show some effort on your part, this conversation will serve no purpose.
It was your idea to mention CSC's. It is then on you to prove their reliability. If not then do not mention them. No one on this forum owes you nor your beliefs a second thought. And for the record, I was being facetious when I asked you for the schematics of your design. It is well known that these CSC's are produced with very same materials that many of the panels are produced with which all result in toxic hazardous waste.
Please if you would like to reply, then do so. Wasting your words is a horrible thing to do, it is no less harmful than wasting electricity or water. Dont waste the space of this forum with ignorance. Thank you.
What is clear is not new theories of technology but old ways that have already been established. Walking, horses, old fashioned ways of living. Our ancestors did it for years and no problem. Us? We messed it all up. Instead of trying to find new ways out, why cant we just go back to the old ones?
IMO the lifestyles of those living even just a couple of hundred years ago were different due to less human population. 200 years ago agriculture on large expanses of land was still one of the main means of sustaining a persons family. That is not possible today because there is simply not enough land to go around.
The other factor IMO is laziness. People would rather work in an office and go to the gym to exercise rather than work the land and walk everywhere.
You must also keep in mind that we are in the early stages of sustainable technology. When cars first came out they were weak, slow and inefficient. Now there are vehicles on the market capable of speeds over 200mph or over 80mpg. Sustainable technology is a burgeoning young field that will continue to gain efficiency and usefulness.
Eventually, once the singularity has been achieved, sustainability will no longer be an issue. I predict that our lives and the way energy is consumed and transferred will be vastly different then today.
Emit waste? Are you serious?.... Your selective amnesia doesnt really befit you. You should work on that...... More selective amnesia here huh?..... You could try again...... It seems you turned this discussion into a pastime for mere children, being that every other reply you have is a statement of misinterpretation..... Im sorry if you cant understand common English or logic that is on display in this thread. I do not have the time to play childish games with you...... If you will not reply with sensible rebuttals that show some effort on your part, this conversation will serve no purpose..... No one on this forum owes you nor your beliefs a second thought..... And for the record, I was being facetious when I asked you for the schematics of your design...... Dont waste the space of this forum with ignorance.
Despite my interest in alternative energy I choose not to partake in this thread since it was so obviously started by a troll with no knowledge to add to the subject. Brand new member with his (or her) very first post starts a thread, and quickly claims rail cars are alternative energy and then rants about returning to walking and horses. Several posts later he changes rant to the health of the American public and then several posts after that he tells us we should "write, not type". Not one single documented fact and every post is dripping with sarcasm, anger and ignorance. I suggest you follow your own advice (above in red).
Emit waste? Are you serious? When PV panels are discarded in the waste basket, they emit waste, meaning they discharge, leak poisons in the ground, air, or wherever they leak
No they don't. Have you ever actually seen a PV solar panel in person? It does not seem like it. There's nothing to leak, even if you break them in half, or smash them to pieces, or just pile them in a heap.
Quote:
Point is they emit waste. Doesnt matter how they do, and I already posted the link as to the study showing how they emit waste. Your selective amnesia doesnt really befit you. You should work on that.
Really? What link? I've checked every post you've made here and I see no such link. Selective amnesia kicking up for you there, fella? Oh, and please find someone to explain to you what "emit" actually means, because you're obviously still confused about it.
Quote:
It seems you turned this discussion into a pastime for mere children, being that every other reply you have is a statement of misinterpretation. Im sorry if you cant understand common English or logic that is on display in this thread. I do not have the time to play childish games with you.
Really, the key issue I see here is that your English is neither common, nor good enough to hold up your end of a complex debate. You misunderstand or misstate what others say, you have no evidence to support your assertions, and you don't express yourself clearly due to defects in your command of the language. You may have something valid to say, but so far it is not evident, and it's exhausting to try to extricate clear meaning from the morass of your inchoate rhetoric.
And to correct you further, it is, in point of fact, your habitual use of insulting comments here that is a childish game, and it's very poor form to resort to in a debate. Stick to the points of discussion, leave the sarcasm and phony air of superiority out, and I won't have to whack you for lame behavior any more.
Quote:
If you will not reply with sensible rebuttals that show some effort on your part, this conversation will serve no purpose.
Show some effort on your part and find a native speaker who can explain what is being said to you, and who can help you to more clearly express whatever it is you're trying to say.
Quote:
It was your idea to mention CSC's. It is then on you to prove their reliability.
No, I brought them up because it is quite well proven over many decades that they do not produce toxic waste, nor do they use toxic materials. It's not even a debatable issue.
Quote:
And for the record, I was being facetious when I asked you for the schematics of your design.
And for the record, if your English was better it might have appeared to be funny, rather than just daft.
Quote:
It is well known that these CSC's are produced with very same materials that many of the panels are produced with which all result in toxic hazardous waste.
It is not. To the contrary. That's just another empty claim on your part. They're much like any other steam turbine except they have no chimney and no toxic emissions.
Quote:
Please if you would like to reply, then do so. Wasting your words is a horrible thing to do, it is no less harmful than wasting electricity or water. Dont waste the space of this forum with ignorance. Thank you.
I started out taking you seriously, and I've worked pretty hard to understand whatever you've been trying to say, but unfortunately such clarity, to a large measure, is just not to be found in your writing. And now you're being rude on top of everything else. It's not a winning combination.
And in the face of considerable evidence that the alternative energy technologies, utilizing renewable resources like sun and wind and water power are considerably friendlier to the environment than the fossil fuels they are intended to replace, you have yet to produce a suggestion for a better alternative.
Dont waste the space of this forum with ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddyline
Despite my interest in alternative energy I choose not to partake in this thread since it was so obviously started by a troll with no knowledge to add to the subject. Brand new member with his (or her) very first post starts a thread, and quickly claims rail cars are alternative energy and then rants about returning to walking and horses. Several posts later he changes rant to the health of the American public and then several posts after that he tells us we should "write, not type". Not one single documented fact and every post is dripping with sarcasm, anger and ignorance. I suggest you follow your own advice (above in red).
No they don't. Have you ever actually seen a PV solar panel in person? It does not seem like it. There's nothing to leak, even if you break them in half, or smash them to pieces, or just pile them in a heap.
Really? What link? I've checked every post you've made here and I see no such link. Selective amnesia kicking up for you there, fella? Oh, and please find someone to explain to you what "emit" actually means, because you're obviously still confused about it.
Really, the key issue I see here is that your English is neither common, nor good enough to hold up your end of a complex debate. You misunderstand or misstate what others say, you have no evidence to support your assertions, and you don't express yourself clearly due to defects in your command of the language. You may have something valid to say, but so far it is not evident, and it's exhausting to try to extricate clear meaning from the morass of your inchoate rhetoric.
And to correct you further, it is, in point of fact, your habitual use of insulting comments here that is a childish game, and it's very poor form to resort to in a debate. Stick to the points of discussion, leave the sarcasm and phony air of superiority out, and I won't have to whack you for lame behavior any more.
Show some effort on your part and find a native speaker who can explain what is being said to you, and who can help you to more clearly express whatever it is you're trying to say.
No, I brought them up because it is quite well proven over many decades that they do not produce toxic waste, nor do they use toxic materials. It's not even a debatable issue.
And for the record, if your English was better it might have appeared to be funny, rather than just daft.
It is not. To the contrary. That's just another empty claim on your part. They're much like any other steam turbine except they have no chimney and no toxic emissions.
I started out taking you seriously, and I've worked pretty hard to understand whatever you've been trying to say, but unfortunately such clarity, to a large measure, is just not to be found in your writing. And now you're being rude on top of everything else. It's not a winning combination.
And in the face of considerable evidence that the alternative energy technologies, utilizing renewable resources like sun and wind and water power are considerably friendlier to the environment than the fossil fuels they are intended to replace, you have yet to produce a suggestion for a better alternative.
Smh
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.
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.
