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.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,451,396 times
Reputation: 6670
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
I just can't wait for a solar energy system to continue to get cheaper. The ones I've seen go for 30 grand are now about 15. I live in the country and my water's free. My entire house runs off electricity now, so if I could go solar I wouldn't have any utility bills. I plan on staying connected to the grid and selling energy back to the power company. That's my long-term goal.
Part of the problem with "cheap" solar is that as soon as a new, more cost-effective manufacturing technology comes out, countries like Germany suck up most of the available production. Which will continue to happen as long as we have cheaper, more competitive fossil fuels than Europe does.
In the meantime, this is also enabling the "deniers", who are mostly freaked out over paranoid fantasies that a coordinated response to climate change will undercut American "specialness", and lead to some sort of "one world guvmint" (horrors)!!
Part of the problem with "cheap" solar is that as soon as a new, more cost-effective manufacturing technology comes out, countries like Germany suck up most of the available production. Which will continue to happen as long as we have cheaper, more competitive fossil fuels than Europe does.
In the meantime, this is also enabling the "deniers", who are mostly freaked out over paranoid fantasies that a coordinated response to climate change will undercut American "specialness", and lead to some sort of "one world guvmint" (horrors)!!
They receive an immeasurable amount of dihydrogen monoxide from run off onto the continental shelf, and from there much of it is released into the atmosphere.
This is the number one cause of global warming, though seldom given in mention by scientists or the mainstream media.
Dihydrogen monoxide has been detected on mountain peaks in Montana, and even in the deepest layers of some of the oldest glaciers.
A tsunami can release this deadly substance onto island inhabitants and kill them within minutes of exposure.
I wasn't suggesting anything either. I was making fun of AGW morons. If "global warming" or "climate change" existed, there certainly wouldn't be anything we could do about it.
Our "contribution" is a drop of pizz in the ocean compared to the things I mentioned on that list.
Get a clue. If you buy AGW you've been hoodwinked horribly.
Yea I was really put in my place with "kay". What a profound refutation of everything I said. He really stole the debate with that zinger. I guess I have no choice but to accept AGW and go buy a Leaf. Anyone know where I can find a polar bear to hug?
Whenever you are ready to debate let me know, otherwise you'll keep getting smilies and "kay" responses. A debate requires a higher level of thinking than "Typical impotent leftist retort" or "I guess I have no choice but to accept AGW and go buy a Leaf. Anyone know where I can find a polar bear to hug?" and "I wasn't suggesting anything either. I was making fun of AGW morons. If "global warming" or "climate change" existed, there certainly wouldn't be anything we could do about it."
Whenever you are ready to debate let me know, otherwise you'll keep getting smilies and "kay" responses. A debate requires a higher level of thinking than "Typical impotent leftist retort" or "I guess I have no choice but to accept AGW and go buy a Leaf. Anyone know where I can find a polar bear to hug?" and "I wasn't suggesting anything either. I was making fun of AGW morons. If "global warming" or "climate change" existed, there certainly wouldn't be anything we could do about it."
Who said anything about ditching fossil fuels? I didn't say that.
You said "why should we spend on research for a limited source?" The source is not as limited as you might think, it is just that some of those sources are more difficult to get to (not cost effective), but... this can change if the price goes up enough (making it worth it) OR newer technology comes out (makes it cheap to recover it).
So if we are going to research, we should do both for the sake of existing use and that of finding an alternative. That is the practical approach.
There isn't a problem with subsidies, it's how those subsidies are used. Green-energy right now is expensive to develop and deploy. We owe it to ourselves to advance out of the Fossil Fuel age, and move into the Renewable Age, and we can't do it, as you say, out of the whims of our heart. We need to provide an incentive to to do so. Once Green-Tech is rolling and powering our nation, we can stop subsidies (especially since it'll be cheap.
We owe it to ourselves to do what is best for ourselves, this includes economic stability. Subsidies are heavy in the green industry, they are not viable outside of that handout. My point to the other poster was that if we dump them all, the result will be that fossil fuel will still be far more practical and economical than the green products. We have a LONG way to go in alternative fuels to make them practical and competitive with existing technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
The problem with the recent Solyndra incident isn't that a green-company received a half-million dollar subsidy, but rather, it appears the company received the sum as a result of lobbying the president.
And the fact that the industry isn't the "innovative" breakthrough right now that it is claimed to be. The tech has been around for years and while there has been "some" improvements, it hasn't been enough to make it a competitive practical alternative. Technology here needs to improve greatly before it will be.
They know this, which is why it was a scam for cash and why the company wasn't using it to expand in the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
I want special attention drawn to your comment, Nomander. "The market" is a euphemism for human greed. The health of our planet isn't a something to be left to such destructive forces.
And I want special attention drawn to your comment here. Your response is that of a Marxist/Socialist/Communist that despises free systems and promotes collectivist ideology in order to push its power of control over the people to dictate its utopian world.
The "FREE" market establishes what is practical, what is viable, and what is desired. You say greed, I call it frugality in many respects. The reason most "ism" idealist hate it is because it punches a hole in their proclaimed solutions. Green tech would not survive without all of the government subsidies, handouts, schemes and propaganda spin on it. It isn't ready, it has too many draw backs, too many concessions and can not compete practically with existing technology.
Can it someday? Who knows, I would hope so, which is why I don't think it should be forgotten, but that is the interesting thing... It never was forgotten as all these car manufactures and energy companies have been investing in it and looking for alternatives for the last 70 years. The problem was that the tech was not practical economically or feasible within our societal structure. So, they were shelved and continued to be developed until they were. Do you honestly think all of these green-techs were simply "innovated" when the government money started to roll in? Do you think that in a year or two, they came up with an idea and rolled out a product to market? No, they had them the whole time, but as I said... they were not ready. Though, if they can now make the money off the government to which they could never have made in the market, well... why not? Its the governments loss, not the companies... and that seems to be the growing trend between the relationship of government and business these days.
we all understand that climate change happens NATURALLY...except liberals......the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
science shows that humans use oxygen and expele (exhale) co2
science shows that greenery (plantlife) uses co2 and expeles o2
science shows that co2 levels have been 3 times HIGHER than they are today, in the past (ie the co2 325 of today is is much lower than the 750-10000 that co2 levels were 100,000 years ago
science shows us that the earth has warmed AND cooled many times
science shows us that ANTARTICA was once a lush furtile land, not covered in ice
science shows us that greenland was once a green lush furtile land, not covered with ice
science shows us that GLACIERS created many of the geographical features that we look at today (ie Long Island was made by the lower reaching of graciers, the great lakes were created by glaciers, the grand canyon was created by glacial melting)
science shows us that plants would grow much better, and use less water if the co2 was HIGHER...around 700-1500ppm compared to the current 320ppm
Research (SCIENCE) demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.Plants under effective CO2 enrichment and management display thicker, lush green leaves, an abundance of fragrant fruit and flowers, and stronger, more vigorous roots. CO2 enriched plants grow rapidly and must also be supplied with the other five "essential elements" to ensure proper development and a plentiful harvest.
science shows As CO2 is a critical component of growth, plants in environments with inadequate CO2 levels - below 225 ppm - will cease to grow or produce.
SCIENCE shows that plants exposed to elevated CO2 concentrations are likely to lose less water via transpiration
common sense states that as the earths polulation expands, so does the need for more plantlife...to keep our oxygen levels up.............yet the global warming liberals only want to talk about car/industry exaust; man created co2,.... and how to tax it
And I want special attention drawn to your comment here. Your response is that of a Marxist/Socialist/Communist that despises free systems and promotes collectivist ideology in order to push its power of control over the people to dictate its utopian world.
Why is it that folks like you have to resort to calling someone marxist/communist/socialist when their views are different from yours. It's really makes one look ignorant throwing around terms incorrectly.
I think the fact that this is becoming a global world that requires global decisions scares people. They then evoke an emotional response that results in terms like marxist and communist incorrectly applied.
Quote:
The "FREE" market establishes what is practical, what is viable, and what is desired. You say greed, I call it frugality in many respects. The reason most "ism" idealist hate it is because it punches a hole in their proclaimed solutions. Green tech would not survive without all of the government subsidies, handouts, schemes and propaganda spin on it. It isn't ready, it has too many draw backs, too many concessions and can not compete practically with existing technology.
Can it someday? Who knows, I would hope so, which is why I don't think it should be forgotten, but that is the interesting thing... It never was forgotten as all these car manufactures and energy companies have been investing in it and looking for alternatives for the last 70 years. The problem was that the tech was not practical economically or feasible within our societal structure. So, they were shelved and continued to be developed until they were. Do you honestly think all of these green-techs were simply "innovated" when the government money started to roll in? Do you think that in a year or two, they came up with an idea and rolled out a product to market? No, they had them the whole time, but as I said... they were not ready. Though, if they can now make the money off the government to which they could never have made in the market, well... why not? Its the governments loss, not the companies... and that seems to be the growing trend between the relationship of government and business these days.
The free market isn't so free. We have subsidized our energy use so that is cheap. Coal isn't so cheap when you don't take the environmental accounts, oil is really cheap when you don't consider the environmental cost and subsidies that go to automobile related infrastructure.
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.
