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.
I'am not against solar power but how reliable will solar power be in helping a poor country to develop it's needed industries? Isn't solar also very expensive for these countries like was pointed out? Would relying on solar power hurt business investment(and jobs) for these countries if something as expensive and unreliable as solar is required?
Modern environmentalism is probably more anti-human than it is pro-environment. It raises the cost and speed of human development anywhere it is encountered and in many cases disregards human needs. Oddly though, environmentalism is self-defeating where it hinders a third-world nation's growth. If a nation is prevented from building wealth, it is also prevented from protecting its environment.
I'am not against solar power but how reliable will solar power be in helping a poor country to develop it's needed industries? Isn't solar also very expensive for these countries like was pointed out? Would relying on solar power hurt business investment(and jobs) for these countries if something as expensive and unreliable as solar is required?
Well despite the added up front cost, there are many places that flat out lack any real infrastructure like a reliable power grid. There is a need and a place where I would say it is suitable, but like anywhere else, its a case by case basis.
The alternative is what, have them develop typical fossil fuel generation, which in the case of coal might be fine but if they adopt natural gas or oil then they end up adding to the already growing pressure and demand on global supplies.
The other unintended consequence of environmentalists is NIBY. Environmentalists in the USA have helped institute regulations that make production of solar PV cells in the US too expensive so the production is sent overseas to China where there are fewer environmental regulations. These factories in turn put out some very toxic waste in the form of heavy metals and poison the land and waterways. So while we can be afford to be snobs about keeping our country relatively clean we are inadvertantly contributing to the environmental ruin of other nations' ecosystems.
The other unintended consequence of environmentalists is NIBY. Environmentalists in the USA have helped institute regulations that make production of solar PV cells in the US too expensive so the production is sent overseas to China where there are fewer environmental regulations. These factories in turn put out some very toxic waste in the form of heavy metals and poison the land and waterways. So while we can be afford to be snobs about keeping our country relatively clean we are inadvertantly contributing to the environmental ruin of other nations' ecosystems.
Excellent point and this is where I tend to agree with Ron Paul's views on property rights. Those nations that are downstream should have the right to clean water and if they don't due to poor practices upstream, then they should be compensated. Those upstream have the right to pollute all they wish until it effects others, not unlike the right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. Tough part about China, they seem to toss around their economic might like a sumo wrestler when it comes to environmental issues.
I'am not against solar power but how reliable will solar power be in helping a poor country to develop it's needed industries? Isn't solar also very expensive for these countries like was pointed out? Would relying on solar power hurt business investment(and jobs) for these countries if something as expensive and unreliable as solar is required?
Part of this scam is a massive transfer of tech and wealth to developing countries. China is also on the list demanding coal tech.
someting better than low pressure, stoker fired plants....High pressure, Pulverized or liquidified bed, scrubbers,baghouse's, gasifacation etc.etc We spend billions on R&D for the rest of the world.....Than get crapped on by the same people we help out for free...........
someting better than low pressure, stoker fired plants....High pressure, Pulverized or liquidified bed, scrubbers,baghouse's, gasifacation etc.etc We spend billions on R&D for the rest of the world.....Than get crapped on by the same people we help out for free...........
We also spend billions in R&D for ourselves, hence those new innovations, and shouldn't we also do it because it is simply the right thing to do?
Folks are free to pick their gripes but aren't those same people crapping on us the same people where US companies are taking many US jobs? I mean no one really gets a grudge when they buy a pair of tennis shoes at Walmart that was assembled by some underage girl in Guatemala chained to a desk 12 hours a day while the plant dumps thousands of gallons of benzine in the river as long as their less than 8 bucks off the shelf.
Teddy Roosevelt, one of the finer Republican Presidents in my opinion, recognized that our environment was also a national treasure that should be preserved for future generations, not just for the benefit of those living in the here and now or those just out to make a buck. There are things important enough to conserve, and I believe the closed loop environment is one of them.
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.
