Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Green Energy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by flywise View Post
    35% of renewable energy says nothing about the enormous cost to the consumer, which is why i posted the link. Fact is that 35% comes with a hugh withdrawal from the citizens wallets. Now liberals may not mind that huge cost because its done in the name of climate change. But the rest of us folks who understand that man made climate change is a scam this burden of higher electricity cost is hard to accept.
    Your last statement has become such an unsubstantiated, minority opinion that it's not worth addressing except to say that the majority of scientists, American Meteorological Society members, American citizens and basically every group not named "social conservatives" disagrees with. I wouldn't say it's as absurd a suggestion as the earth being less than 10,000 years old, dinosaurs riding around on a giant boat for a year, and homo sapiens having no evolutionary ancestors, but it's getting petty close.

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by stickerpatch59 View Post
      yep, it's nothing more than a boondoggle to enrich a few at the taxpayers expense. it is very inefficient for what it cost vs what it produces.

      oil, natural gas and coal can't be beat when it comes to efficiency.
      Wind power enriches GE shareholders. Those turbines ain't cheap.

      And just a minor quibble: geothermal is actually the most cost-efficient, but only in certain limited areas.

      Comment


        #78
        Green Energy

        Originally posted by Vermin93 View Post
        You doubted the 25% and asked for a link to the data. I provided a link to the data. Nice pivot.



        I previously posted that Germany has achieved 35% renewable generation while maintaining strong economic growth. I have not suggested the US is capable of achieving similar renewable generation. Nevertheless, every short and long term forecast I've seen shows continued renewable growth at the expense of coal, which I view as a major positive.



        Again, when coal and natural gas are made to absorb the cost of greenhouse gas and other emissions, I'll reconsider my opinion on renewable subsidies. I am hopeful that the ideas put forth earlier this year by a group of Republican statesmen who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations will eventually gain traction.



        The Republican Carbon Tax Is Republican, Say Republicans

        There’s just one problem: other Republicans.




        https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...x-okay/516048/


        I did doubt it. I doubt it now. I've found estimates that wind is 25% of oklahomas electricity. I also found reports claiming that's the total for solar, wind and biofuels. But I imagine solar is minimal. But you provided a proof, so good for you! Now, show me how wind power is supposed to justify the billions of our money for 5 % of our electricity. BILLIONS spent already for less than 5%. That's over 20+ years. And all of us pay for it, regardless of now few of us benefit.
        And your confidence in that great German economy is not shared by German economists that do that watching for a living.
        Last edited by Lostacresranch; 08-02-2017, 05:50 PM.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by Vermin93 View Post
          Despite the absence of supporting and comparative data, this statement is amazingly hypocritical. To suggest we won't be paying heavily down the road for continued, excessive fossil-fuel generation is an extreme case of denial. In fact, capital markets are already beginning to take the associated risks into account.



          There could be some karma here, though. A recent study showed that in the US, the south will get hit the hardest economically. It would only be fair for the home base of ideologically-fueled denial to bear the brunt of the cost.


          Post that study up. We will talk about it.

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by Vermin93 View Post
            Your last statement has become such an unsubstantiated, minority opinion that it's not worth addressing except to say that the majority of scientists, American Meteorological Society members, American citizens and basically every group not named "social conservatives" disagrees with. I wouldn't say it's as absurd a suggestion as the earth being less than 10,000 years old, dinosaurs riding around on a giant boat for a year, and homo sapiens having no evolutionary ancestors, but it's getting petty close.





            That's a nice dodge and dig, but I haven't seen anyone here talking about the 10,000 year old earth theory. Maybe you can start another thread about it.

            Comment


              #81
              Here's a few facts about those subsidies you are so fond of. Oil, gas, nuclear supply 95% of our electricity. They also have to "back up" wind/solar powered grids when they fail to keep up. These energy sources get less all together than wind and solar. Wind and solar subsidies are 50% HIGHER that all the rest combined. This is a article uses the study done by the University of Texas, so it should be easy to check.

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by Lostacresranch View Post
                I did doubt it. I doubt it now. I've found estimates that wind is 25% of oklahomas electricity. I also found reports claiming that's the total for solar, wind and biofuels. But I imagine solar is minimal. But you provided a proof, so good for you! Now, show me how wind power is supposed to justify the billions of our money for 5 % of our electricity. BILLIONS spent already for less than 5%. That's over 20+ years. And all of us pay for it, regardless of now few of us benefit.
                And your confidence in that great German economy is not shared by German economists that do that watching for a living.
                You doubt the national repository of industry data. This is the same repository that contains the data indicating wind accounts for 5.5% of national power generation. So, you like the national number but not the state numbers from which the national number is derived.

                Generic references to "billions" are not substantial and are useless without comparative analysis.

                All of us pay for the greenhouse gases and pollutants emitted by fossil fuel generation one way or another.

                The Deutsche Bank economists in the article you referenced are concerned about the German economy overheating from a period of strong economic growth and the associated potential for rising inflation. Surely you realize this is not the same problem as a weak economy. The point is that the sustained period of economic growth in Germany has occurred in harmony with a large expansion of renewable energy, much to the chagrin of the anti-green energy crowd.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by Vermin93 View Post
                  You doubt the national repository of industry data. This is the same repository that contains the data indicating wind accounts for 5.5% of national power generation. So, you like the national number but not the state numbers from which the national number is derived.



                  Generic references to "billions" are not substantial and are useless without comparative analysis.



                  All of us pay for the greenhouse gases and pollutants emitted by fossil fuel generation one way or another.



                  The Deutsche Bank economists in the article you referenced are concerned about the German economy overheating from a period of strong economic growth and the associated potential for rising inflation. Surely you realize this is not the same problem as a weak economy. The point is that the sustained period of economic growth in Germany has occurred in harmony with a large expansion of renewable energy, much to the chagrin of the anti-green energy crowd.


                  Did you bother to read ANY of the post I just put up, or do you want to lecture me about the German economy? You say it's great, the German banking system economists say it's crashing. Believe what you want.
                  Those "generic references to billions" are documented NUMBERS. I just posted a study done regarding comparative analysis. If you would bother to READ it, it proves my point. Which is this...wind power as a generator of affordable electricity is a FAILURE. Without "billions" (there's that pesky number again) of our tax dollars to get 5% of our needs, it wouldn't exist. People like you saying it's working doesn't make it true.

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Lostacresranch View Post
                    Did you bother to read ANY of the post I just put up, or do you want to lecture me about the German economy? You say it's great, the German banking system economists say it's crashing. Believe what you want.
                    Those "generic references to billions" are documented NUMBERS. I just posted a study done regarding comparative analysis. If you would bother to READ it, it proves my point. Which is this...wind power as a generator of affordable electricity is a FAILURE. Without "billions" (there's that pesky number again) of our tax dollars to get 5% of our needs, it wouldn't exist. People like you saying it's working doesn't make it true.



                    Lol, but thats what they believe.....if i keep saying it, it is true.

                    There will never be a time (at least in our lifetimes) when we stop using fossil fuels for energy production. Despite the green agenda and the climate nonsense. Fossil fuels will be the most economic way to produce energy by and large. Its like talking to a wall and expecting to convince it to be a curtain.

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by flywise View Post
                      [/B]



                      Lol, but thats what they believe.....if i keep saying it, it is true.



                      There will never be a time (at least in our lifetimes) when we stop using fossil fuels for energy production. Despite the green agenda and the climate nonsense. Fossil fuels will be the most economic way to produce energy by and large. Its like talking to a wall and expecting to convince it to be a curtain.


                      If we invested those billions ( there's that word again) we dump into wind for almost no benifit into infrastructure of our energy grid, we could have all we need at much cheaper costs to ALL of us, not just a few riding on the government dole.

                      Comment


                        #86
                        It should also be pointed out, Again, that the very creation of a wind turbine is an environmental disaster in itself. The rare earth minerals needed are so toxic, our government won't allow them to be mined here. The Chinese, however, are not hampered by restrictions. The production of wind turbine components is an environmental disaster beyond anything we would ever allow in the US. But hey, the environment in china don't count, right? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwi-1MzGg7rVAhUCXhQKHVAMB5AQFggLMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fi nstituteforenergyresearch.org%2Fanalysis%2Fbig-winds-dirty-little-secret-rare-earth-minerals%2F&usg=AFQjCNEjnF347ZRd1vGiG3NzwdVY5eQXlA

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by Lostacresranch View Post
                          If we invested those billions ( there's that word again) we dump into wind for almost no benifit into infrastructure of our energy grid, we could have all we need at much cheaper costs to ALL of us, not just a few riding on the government dole.
                          Yes sir.....but then we would have to listen to the whining 24/7 that alge fuel has not had a fair shot at success.

                          Why dont these libs just go out and buy their own personal little windmill for their house? Why do we have to buy a whole freakin farm load for them?
                          They need to start putting their money where their mouth is.
                          Buy your own wind,solar devices and sell the surplus back to me....i'll hold my breath

                          Comment


                            #88
                            The Manhattan Institute is proud to present the first in a series of animated videos created by Andrew Klavan, City Journal contributing editor and creator o...

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by flywise View Post
                              Yes sir.....but then we would have to listen to the whining 24/7 that alge fuel has not had a fair shot at success.



                              Why dont these libs just go out and buy their own personal little windmill for their house? Why do we have to buy a whole freakin farm load for them?

                              They need to start putting their money where their mouth is.

                              Buy your own wind,solar devices and sell the surplus back to me....i'll hold my breath


                              I already know that answer. Because it costs too **** much! I had estimates done for wind power and solar. They get you with the "only 5000 dollar investment". Then when they finish, it's 15,000 min. To power half a house. 20,000 is more realistic. My light bill is 150. A month. Why would I invest 15,000 into a system with a life span of 10 years when I can get dependable electricity cheaper now? It's a no brainer.

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by Lostacresranch View Post
                                I already know that answer. Because it costs too **** much! I had estimates done for wind power and solar. They get you with the "only 5000 dollar investment". Then when they finish, it's 15,000 min. To power half a house. 20,000 is more realistic. My light bill is 150. A month. Why would I invest 15,000 into a system with a life span of 10 years when I can get dependable electricity cheaper now? It's a no brainer.
                                Yep

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X