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.
If and when it becomes viable to rely primarily (or to near-exclusion) upon quality, cost-effective, renewable resources, it will happen -- and it will be the right thing to do. It's certainly fine to work towards that goal. For the time being, however, attempting to prematurely foist such an immediate mandate upon the global population would result in the sort of human catastrophe that is unmatched by anything less than apocalyptic disaster. That's just the reality of the situation.
And I don’t know of any conservatives stopping people from using solar panels or other renewables. I’m quite sure many conservatives use those things too. They’re just more realistic about our ability to make a total switch right now. We aren’t quite there yet.
Here is one example. There are many more if you need them....
With the amount of domestic fossil fuel we have in the U.S. it should be considered "sustainable" because it is for centuries. I am all for exploring other energy like solar, hydrogen, NUCLEAR, etc, but fossil fuels run the world, and nothing else comes close.
That's the problem, fossil fuels not only "run the world", theyre also "ruining the world" and the future prospects for generations to come.
It's long past the time to seriously put a halt to the utilization of all forms of fossil fuel. We've just got to act unilaterally across the planet in the most synergistically manner possible.
Our children will most assuredly thank us for giving this most significant environmental issue our immediate attention.
I don't agree with some of FPL's positions but there are some technically and financial reasons to control the willy nilly connection of generation units the the grid.
They're investing in those now. I can absolutely guarantee that the more Renewable plugged into the grid the more fossil fueled power plants will be built to support the system including Baseload plants...
Any new baseload plants built will be natural gas, coal can't compete on price, emissions are too high, and no one wants it in their backyard. It will basically be: 1) Natural Gas, 2) Wind, 3) Nuclear 4) Solar. Energy efficiency and technology will lead to baseload demand growth continually flat-lining and declining with time. For example, LED lighting alone for all commercial structures and cities is 80% more efficient than High Pressure Sodium, Metal Halide, and Mercury Vapor bulbs that they will be replaced with shortly.
Renewables are a great idea provided they are what the marketplace demands.
Eventually the day will come when, as a practical matter, renewables replace all fossil fuels, but between now and then there is no rational reason to tax or regulate today's better alternatives out of competition.
Personally, my plan is to retire off the grid, but I'm not on a self-serving moral crusade.
I just want to be independent, even if it's a bit of a hassle.
That's a decision I made for myself.
Others may not want to **** around with solar panels (especially in the northern latitudes) and windmills.
That should be a choice they make for themselves.
The problem with the "market" argument is one of timing and the amount of time you need during that transition to develop new and mature technologies.
Markets are, generally, very shortsighted. Because the people pouring money into them are shortsighted. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that (it is what it is) - but it does tell me that it's likely not the best way to handle this transition problem, which realistically will need many decades to solve (if one is interested in a smooth transition).
It's why I think we need other incentives to move people off of the non-sustainable energy sources. It should be done in a way that the shift is gradual. And ideally happens fully before full depletion of finite resources.
You don't want to see the world when we're coming up to running out of energy sources... At least, I don't. Your "market" will mean very little in that world.
The abundance of oil, and natural gas, just in the U.S. will provide centuries of reliable, economical fuel. When batteries can be disposed of with no environmental impact, or using finite resources, get back to me.
So kicking the can down the road where later generations get stuck cleaning up our mess sounds good to you? I'm glad our ancestors didn't listen to people like you or we'd still be stuck in the Stone Age. Innovation WILL happen whether you're on board with it or not. That's just the way of things. You can't stop it.
And I don’t know of any conservatives stopping people from using solar panels or other renewables. I’m quite sure many conservatives use those things too. They’re just more realistic about our ability to make a total switch right now. We aren’t quite there yet.
No one advocates making a "total switch" right now. That's absurd.
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.
