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.
Also do you honestly believe that over time, at the rate we are using oil and coal, even if oil regenerates do you really believe we are using it sustainably? Meaning do you believe we are using it at a respectable enough rate to where somewhere down the line we won't run into problems because we used it all faster than it could recreate itself? Also coal doesn't regenerate does it? Even though there may still be a lot left, we are greedy if we are just thinking of ourselves and not future generations when it may not be so readily available. We cannot wait until we have a crisis on our hands before we act.
The US has about 2 centuries worth of recoverable coal at current needs, almost 5 centuries if you want to include all of it. This is more than 25% of the worlds known reserves, the US is not wanting for coal. Within that time frame I'm sure someone can figure out a way to make renewable energy competitive, you don't drive the bus off the cliff in the meantime.
A) Never trust an unbiased post about energy options from someone named coalman.
Firstly I've never hidden who I am and what I do. "Thecoalman" name comes from running a small family business delivering coal and I've been using it on forums since about 2003 which have mostly to do with web,video etc. I've since "retired" and my only financial interest in coal is my forum where consumers can get information about using it for heat. If anything I stand to gain cash as people seek information on other sources, since coal is the cheapest they will inevitably find there way to my forum. Address my points please instead of dismissing them because of my name.
Quote:
So shall we all yelp and howl about how expensive Solar and Wind is while our tax money goes to making sure we never see the true cost of Oil and Coal?
Research it. I went over this before and you might have seen it if you were following along but here's a repost for the lazy that just want to post links to Google searches.
In 2007 federal subsidies for coal were $0.44 per megawatt-hour. Wind and solar were getting $24 +/- per megawatt-hour. That's only the federal subsidies, renewables also get significant state and local subsidization.
That also list subsidies for oil and ethanol, I forget the exact numbers but it works out to fractions of a penny per gallon for gas while ethanol gets something 50 cents per gallon.... While every energy sector gets some subsidization it's really irrelevant where the fossil fuel industry is concerned. The renewable sector depends on it, they could not survive without it.
I say do both. Texas is doing both. Why not more places? Texas has oil, but it has more too.
This might be one reason why, note this is from last year:
Quote:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/07/12/0712greenchoice.html (broken link)
Austin's clean energy program costing more, selling less
Electric utility chief says separate charge for renewable power may need to be rolled into all users' bills.
By Marty Toohey
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, July 12, 2009
For the past decade, Austin's ambition to become the world's clean-energy capital has been best exemplified by one effort: GreenChoice, a program that sells electricity generated entirely from renewable sources such as wind.
Now the nationally renowned program is struggling to find buyers — the latest allotment is 99 percent unsold after seven months on the market — and Austin Energy is looking for ways to bring down the rising costs.
But those are short-term talks.
Austin Energy officials say that times have changed and that the nation's most successful (by volume of sales) green-energy program, which offers the renewable energy only to those who select it, might no longer be the best way to carry out the city's goals. It now costs almost three times more than the standard electricity rate.
Why do we have to look at it without subsidization? We have subsidization and thats that. Stop bringing hypothetical aspects into this conversation.
Our federal government has racked up over $13 trillion in debt and you think subsidization of un-economical energy sources will go on forever? Don't forget, "subsidy" of your un-economical green power simply means the government took money from other taxpayers who earned it, and after taking their cut, gave you part of that money for doing something politicians like.
If an energy source is not economical, it won't work in this Country. We face some very lean years ahead, and the clowns in Washington won't be able to continue borrowing from China and printing dollars that deflate the dollars you earn in your paycheck.
I work in the power industry and solar and wind make up a fraction of the power, they are both a good idea but more on a personalized system, example being solar panels on homes and buisness and wind turbines where it is possible. The problem with it as a reliable source is you cannot depend on the wind or the sun for steady generation and thats what the utility needs, your home or buisness is not affected because you are tied into the grid.
i believe all new housing should be required to have solar panels and solar should be made affordable for the general public.
Power companies also try to predict when the power demands will be, and ramp power up/down as appropriate to meet the power demands. You cannot do this with any reliable degree with wind and solar.
This might be one reason why, note this is from last year:
Quote:
Austin Energy officials say that times have changed and that the nation's most successful (by volume of sales) green-energy program, which offers the renewable energy only to those who select it, might no longer be the best way to carry out the city's goals. It now costs almost three times more than the standard electricity rate.
Well then, the Henry Waxman approach to solving their problem would be to tax, or punish cheaper electricity until it costs just as much as wind - problem solved. Oh, and to hell with the economy or industry and jobs.
Firstly I've never hidden who I am and what I do. "Thecoalman" name comes from {snip. blah bah blah tmi}If anything I stand to gain cash as people seek information on other sources, since coal is the cheapest they will inevitably find there way to my forum. Address my points please instead of dismissing them because of my name.
Yeah, your pointy headed posts are needlessly convoluted and shady as well.
Quote:
Research it. I went over this before and you might have seen it if you were following along but here's a repost for the lazy that just want to post links to Google searches.
Sorry I haven't looked up and memorized your every utterance.
'Lazy' is not looking into the results that came up on the search I posted.
Quote:
In 2007 federal subsidies for coal were $0.44 per megawatt-hour. Wind and solar were getting $24 +/- per megawatt-hour. That's only the federal subsidies, renewables also get significant state and local subsidization.
That also list subsidies for oil and ethanol, I forget the exact numbers but it works out to fractions of a penny per gallon for gas while ethanol gets something 50 cents per gallon.... While every energy sector gets some subsidization it's really irrelevant where the fossil fuel industry is concerned. The renewable sector depends on it, they could not survive without it.
Wooooooow! A document, I'm so impressed!
Basically, it's like this. Why are multi BILLION dollar industries getting subsidized AT ALL? Of course doing the right thing may mean getting some tax dollars to get it started with some R&D until it can stand against Big Oil & Big Coal. Renewable energy does not have anything that can stand against them as of yet. And never will until LOTS of money is put in for research. PERIOD.
But the price of not putting money into alternatives is a possible GLOBAL DISASTER.
Seems like your bottomless pockets may take second place to the lives of everyone on the planet. Jeeeez.
And why are the big players still getting tax dollars anyways when they obviously A) can stand on their own and B) are killing people with their pollution, global warming causing discharges and unsafe, greedy a$$ed workplaces?
This is what most of us depend on to make our own judgments. The smarter ones like myself read many, many documents and try and get as many points of view as possible. A google search is just that and can return many results, just because a result says something doesn't mean it's the truth. Do you believe everything you read? This is one of the reasons I can discuss this subject so well and can reference so much reliable and unbiased material, it's because I've gone over it. I'd suggest you do the same instead of just parroting what you've heard on some environmentalist site or in the media.
I've presented numerous examples and cited references to back up my opinions as I always do, if you wish to carry on this conversation with me I'd ask you do the same. I don't need you to give me links to a search, I can do that myself. Show examples and explain yourself about your position on this topic.
I believe that every little bit helps. I don't believe that either or both combined are the solution.
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.
