Going green logic............ (statistics, premium, deaths, military)
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.
Yes, a PR stunt, for the simple reason that huge solar arrays are expensive. They are not a wise financial decision if you are expecting to save money on electricity, because they already have access to cheaper forms of electricity.
Honda disagrees with you. As I said earlier (and you probably missed it), Honda isn't just talking, it is walking.
Are you saying that you know something Honda doesn't? (having invested in a subsidiary towards development of solar cells, and invested in utilizing solar power for many of its own factories and offices)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
Where did i say we go to war, so we can use oil for a diesel fuel powered electrical power plants?
The cheapest would be coal, the cleanest would be nuclear.
Common sense says installing huge solar arrays is not being done because its a frugal business decision to obtain cheaper electricity.
Where would you get the diesel from? For how long? Again, do you know something Honda doesn't? What about that common sense that you have, posting on a message board, but a company spending hundreds of millions seeing future in a technology doesn't?
No, but they have done that in the past. Namely with the aerospace and air freight systems.
Without government tax dollars flowing into development of radar, jet engines, and pressurized aircraft, we wouldn't be flying at the rate we are today.
You are comparing apples and oranges. We did not have automobiles and airplanes before they were invented, we already have electricity.
The invention of automobiles, trucks and trains to haul cargo and transport people quickly, was a vast improvement over the horse and buggy, and the pressurized passenger jet was a vast improvement over the slower, smaller propeller plane.
We already have electricity from nuclear power plants. Solar cells are less reliable, less dependable, produce less electricity, and it's DC which needs to be further converted to AC to be used.... and solar power is vastly more costly. bottom line is that solar power is vastly inferior in all respects to nuclear power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
The automobile took forever, in part because of the mechanics of building the car, but also because it was all free market based. Sometimes when the government steps in to encourage a product, it pays great dividends in the private sector later.
Another example of this is the internet. All government funded, but look at it now.
The private auto companies invented the car, not the government. The internet is where it is now because of private enterprise, and we surf the internet on computers and operating systems developed by the private sector, not the government.
I'm not arguing that government can be helpful in promoting technology that has a use for military applications. but what we are seeing today is hundreds of billions being spent by government on expensive green energy, which is inferior to the already existing forms of energy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Green energy is no different. We send 700 billion dollars a year to other countries for foreign oil. Imagine what we could do at home with half of that, not to mention that we could start selling the increased efficiency green energy products to other countries, bringing life back to our manufacturing sector.
Look, I'm not saying that solar is everything, we've got to look at a wide range of products. But keeping to rely on oil from people who in large parts want to kill us, is stupid.
People are throwing a fit of a mosque because Muslims are bad, but its ok to pay them hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
And save the "drill at home" crap. Everyone knows the United States doesn't have the oil reserves needed to meet our demand, even with all restrictions removed from drilling.
Now we are back to oil again. Green energy, i.e. wind and solar, are not touted as a replacement for oil. Green energy tries to be, a very expensive and unreliable, replacement for coal, natural gas and nuclear, not oil.
You are comparing apples and oranges. We did not have automobiles and airplanes before they were invented, we already have electricity.
The invention of automobiles, trucks and trains to haul cargo and transport people quickly, was a vast improvement over the horse and buggy, and the pressurized passenger jet was a vast improvement over the slower, smaller propeller plane.
We already have electricity from nuclear power plants, solar cells are less reliable, less dependable, produce less electricity, and it's DC which needs to be further converted to AC to be used.... and solar power is vastly more costly. bottom line is that solar power is vastly inferior in all respects to nuclear power.
The private auto companies invented the car, not the government. The internet is where it is now because of private enterprise, and we surf the internet on computers and operating systems developed by the private sector, not the government.
I'm not arguing that government can be helpful in promoting technology that has a use for military applications. but what we are seeing today is hundreds of billions being spent by government on expensive green energy, which is inferior to the already existing forms of energy.
Now we are back to oil again. Green energy, i.e. wind and solar, are not touted as a replacement for oil. Green energy tries to be, a very expensive and unreliable, replacement for coal, natural gas and nuclear, not oil.
Actually the automobile had been around for many decades before Henry Ford built his first model T. It was just a toy for the rich, because they couldn't go very far, they cost to much, and were to hard to maintain.
Speaking of trains, there was another government funded effort. The transcontinental rail was financed, in large part, by federal land grants to the owners.
And I'm all for more Nuclear Energy, but that seems to be the one thing Republicans and Democrats disapprove of together. I'm also in favor of coal and natural gas.
All I hear conservatives and Republicans talk about is oil though. Bring me the alternative electricity stuff, as long as its from home, instead of elsewhere.
Wow...is it any wonder that this planet is suffering the consequences of human lack of stewardship when people such as yourself post crap like this. My gripe is that the ecologically aware and responsible are stuck on planet Earth with people with this mentality. It's like bring stuck with a roommate that's a slobbish, dirty pig when you are clean and neat.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about, you have no idea how efficient my home is, how many gallons of rain water my cistern catches a year, or what minute amount of energy it takes to heat my home........do you? See the difference between liberals and conservatives is we don't need to force things on other people, if it makes sense do it. If you read the op you would understand the topic of this thread in which the first response had no relation to what so ever. This thread is about the complete farce that is throwing precious tax dollars after some ridiculous feel good notion, as has been stated when the technology,supply and demand and economics all come together it will be feasable.
If the green business is such good business and had practical applications a private business would have already picked it up and ran with it. They are just not practical.
Funny, works in Europe.
They do a lot of green things to help the environment and they work well.
My water is heated by solar panels.
I live in a dark and cold part of Europe and have never had a problem.
I believe the military is using solar panels on a lot of buildings to cut down the cost of power.
It's a cheap outlay for reasonable returns.
We did not have automobiles and airplanes before they were invented, we already have electricity.
Poor analogy. To say we already have electricity would be similar to saying, then, we already have modes of transportation. BTW, automobiles existed before the dip into oil... they were steam powered.
Quote:
The invention of automobiles, trucks and trains to haul cargo and transport people quickly, was a vast improvement over the horse and buggy, and the pressurized passenger jet was a vast improvement over the slower, smaller propeller plane.
What you're talking about here is advancement of technologies, not the mode/purpose itself (which is transportation). Solar technology is improving, forward looking businesses are investing in its development. They know something you, clearly, don't.
Quote:
We already have electricity from nuclear power plants. Solar cells are less reliable, less dependable, produce less electricity, and it's DC which needs to be further converted to AC to be used.... and solar power is vastly more costly. bottom line is that solar power is vastly inferior in all respects to nuclear power.
But it doesn't have nuclear waste, and is essentially free past the investment costs (which, clearly, many businesses and home owners don't mind). Nuclear fuel isn't. Besides, I would like to have solar panels mounted on my home someday (virtually all landscape lighting already is)... not sure if I would like to have nuclear power plant instead.
Quote:
The private auto companies invented the car, not the government. The internet is where it is now because of private enterprise, and we surf the internet on computers and operating systems developed by the private sector, not the government.
Actually, internet is directly tied to government investment (see DARPA). As for automobiles, cheap oil not only killed mass transportation system (railways in America), but the government has had a huge role in ensuring its cheap availability (also see, Iran coup of 1953). And it is unsustainable promotion.
Quote:
I'm not arguing that government can be helpful in promoting technology that has a use for military applications. but what we are seeing today is hundreds of billions being spent by government on expensive green energy, which is inferior to the already existing forms of energy.
Horses at one point were better at transporting people than automobiles. That changed. And government has to worry, not just of billions invested in green energy but trillions in costs from wars (nevermind the lives lost), and the immense trade deficits that are driven by oil imports. At 20-22 million bbl/day, our consumption is no joke. If we can cut down even 15% of it, we just might save as much as the second most populous country in the world (India) consumes per day. But then, fiscal conservative isn't really about conservation of resources and implications of trade deficits, or is it?
Quote:
Now we are back to oil again. Green energy, i.e. wind and solar, are not touted as a replacement for oil. Green energy tries to be, a very expensive and unreliable, replacement for coal, natural gas and nuclear, not oil.
In many developed countries, green energy is not only being touted as something for the future, but the drive to move away from oil is in vogue, even if it only implies reduced oil consumption.
Let me ask you a few questions:
1- How long is the oil supposed to last? Or, is it forever? (Please explain in detail, including the reserves and how the demand will be met)
2- Is it harder getting to oil reserves now than it was, say, 2-3 decades ago?
3- Do you think oil prices will increase? Or, will they exhibit a trend that we have seen over last decade? Here in Dallas area, gas prices have more than doubled during the period (not counting the peak in 2008 when it tripled). Why?
4- Should we make an attempt to reduce trade deficits? Provide solutions, and whether or not government should be concerned about trade deficits.
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.