TakeYouToTasker Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) They are already being implemented and have proved viable you idiot. And it sure will take decades if we drag our feet, time to move on and middle and lower class will not only have cleaner air, but a cheaper source of energy. Again, nations that have done exactly as you suggested, and fully implemented "green energy", have seen their energy costs skyrocket. High energy costs means a worsening manufacturing market, as you're seeing now, with those countries manufacturers pulling up stakes and moving their production for the US. It has not created cheaper energy, or more jobs. So you have to choose: Do you want the US to be competitive in global manufacturing markets, or do you want energy policy centered around "green energy"? You can't have both. Edited May 10, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 (edited) They are already being implemented and have proved viable you idiot. And it sure will take decades if we drag our feet, time to move on and middle and lower class will not only have cleaner air, but a cheaper source of energy. Where will their cheaper energy come from? Wind and solar require huge capital and land area investments and the electricity they produce is 3-4 times as expensive as the traditional methods. Modern coal/natural gas/waste burning plants are very efficient and emit much lower emissions than older plants. We'll never meet the growing and future needs for energy with renewables. If as consumers we want plentiful affordable energy and lower emissions, it's going to come more from nuclear, modern fossil fuel plants or some newly developed technology than it will from wind and solar. The math simply doesn't favor wind and solar methods. Nuclear is the lowest cost per KW, requires a huge investment but also generates the best economic return. The return is in the form of more high paying jobs and the recreation activity on and near cooling lakes. Edited May 10, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Again, nations that have done exactly as you suggested, and fully implemented "green energy", have seen their energy costs skyrocket. High energy costs means a worsening manufacturing market, as you're seeing now, with those countries manufacturers pulling up stakes and moving their production for the US. It has not created cheaper energy, or more jobs. So you have to choose: Do you want the US to be competitive in global manufacturing markets, or do you want energy policy centered around "green energy"? You can't have both. And of the course the biggest issue is that it punishes the poorest in higher energy costs which they can ill afford. Once again, left wing policies benefit the people that need it the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomato can Posted May 11, 2014 Author Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) Again, nations that have done exactly as you suggested, and fully implemented "green energy", have seen their energy costs skyrocket. High energy costs means a worsening manufacturing market, as you're seeing now, with those countries manufacturers pulling up stakes and moving their production for the US. It has not created cheaper energy, or more jobs. So you have to choose: Do you want the US to be competitive in global manufacturing markets, or do you want energy policy centered around "green energy"? You can't have both. Problem is most of these "environmental radicals" convince an awful lot of people that this type of energy is cheap.....and the selling points are that this type of energy is so friendly to the environment and that others forms of energy (coal, natural has, oil, ect) pollute their drinking water, pollute the air they breathe, and has saddled them with all the health problems they have. Oh and they still believe that we are going to get 10 million green jobs..... Edited May 11, 2014 by tomato can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) You know what would make us even more competitive than Solar Power? Bypassing the sun all together and going straight for ... cold fusion. http://www.economist.com/node/13361472 http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-01/15/cold-fusion-moves-into-mainstream Edited May 12, 2014 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Again, nations that have done exactly as you suggested, and fully implemented "green energy", have seen their energy costs skyrocket. High energy costs means a worsening manufacturing market, as you're seeing now, with those countries manufacturers pulling up stakes and moving their production for the US. It has not created cheaper energy, or more jobs. So you have to choose: Do you want the US to be competitive in global manufacturing markets, or do you want energy policy centered around "green energy"? You can't have both. Examples? Name the countries. I think you are a victim of all the anti-green propaganda Where will their cheaper energy come from? Wind and solar require huge capital and land area investments and the electricity they produce is 3-4 times as expensive as the traditional methods. Modern coal/natural gas/waste burning plants are very efficient and emit much lower emissions than older plants. We'll never meet the growing and future needs for energy with renewables. If as consumers we want plentiful affordable energy and lower emissions, it's going to come more from nuclear, modern fossil fuel plants or some newly developed technology than it will from wind and solar. The math simply doesn't favor wind and solar methods. Nuclear is the lowest cost per KW, requires a huge investment but also generates the best economic return. The return is in the form of more high paying jobs and the recreation activity on and near cooling lakes. nuclear is dangerous and expensive. Solar is getting better every year and once in place will be cheap and abundant. And of the course the biggest issue is that it punishes the poorest in higher energy costs which they can ill afford. Once again, left wing policies benefit the people that need it the least. You are a complete idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Examples? Name the countries. I think you are a victim of all the anti-green propaganda nuclear is dangerous and expensive. Solar is getting better every year and once in place will be cheap and abundant. You are a complete idiot Why did Solyndra fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Why did Solyndra fail? Obstructionist Republicans, you racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Why did Solyndra fail? Because businesses fail sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Because businesses fail sometimes Why specifically did Solyndra fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Examples? Name the countries. I think you are a victim of all the anti-green propaganda I'll start with Germany, which has the strongest economy in Europe. In 2012 Germany reported that their usage of renewable energy had caused increasing electricity prices and grid instability, and massive heavy industry job losses. Germany spends, on average, 37 cents per kWh; while America spends 8-17 cents per kWh (reported regionally). In the US, reported regionally, energy costs, per kWh, by conversion method are as follows: Coal: 1-4 cents Gas: 2.3-5 cents Oil: 6-8 cents Wind: 5-7 cents Nuclear: 6-7 cents Solar: 25-50 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I'll start with Germany, which has the strongest economy in Europe. In 2012 Germany reported that their usage of renewable energy had caused increasing electricity prices and grid instability, and massive heavy industry job losses. Germany spends, on average, 37 cents per kWh; while America spends 8-17 cents per kWh (reported regionally). In the US, reported regionally, energy costs, per kWh, by conversion method are as follows: Coal: 1-4 cents Gas: 2.3-5 cents Oil: 6-8 cents Wind: 5-7 cents Nuclear: 6-7 cents Solar: 25-50 cents You are right, it has caused problems there. But solar is moving forward and needs to be encouraged. Technological innovations in the field are increasing and increasing at a faster pace. The fact that utilities are terrified of solar power is a testiment to their strength NOW. The future will only be more so. Germany may have moved to fast, but that doesn't mean we should go slower than we are now and increased costs are an investment in the future Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 We can always burn the fetuses of aborted babies like the Europeans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 You are right, it has caused problems there. But solar is moving forward and needs to be encouraged. Technological innovations in the field are increasing and increasing at a faster pace. The fact that utilities are terrified of solar power is a testiment to their strength NOW. The future will only be more so. Germany may have moved to fast, but that doesn't mean we should go slower than we are now and increased costs are an investment in the future Are you seriously arguing that Utilities are afraid of solar? And you're arguing for rooftop solar? Good grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 You are right, it has caused problems there. But solar is moving forward and needs to be encouraged. Technological innovations in the field are increasing and increasing at a faster pace. The fact that utilities are terrified of solar power is a testiment to their strength NOW. The future will only be more so. Germany may have moved to fast, but that doesn't mean we should go slower than we are now and increased costs are an investment in the future What does the embolded mean? Also, specifically why did Solyndra fail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 You are right, it has caused problems there. But solar is moving forward and needs to be encouraged. Technological innovations in the field are increasing and increasing at a faster pace. The fact that utilities are terrified of solar power is a testiment to their strength NOW. The future will only be more so. Germany may have moved to fast, but that doesn't mean we should go slower than we are now and increased costs are an investment in the future Utilities are afraid of solar? Who the !@#$ do you think constructs solar plants? What does the embolded mean? Also, specifically why did Solyndra fail? It means it's an ROI! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 We can always burn the fetuses of aborted babies like the Europeans... I was debating whether or not to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Utilities are afraid of solar? Who the !@#$ do you think constructs solar plants? I take it to mean that he's arguing for rooftop solar; which makes it even more hilarious. You know, ROIs: Rooftop Oomph Inventions Edited May 12, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I take it to mean that he's arguing for rooftop solar; which makes it even more hilarious. You know, ROIs: Rooftop Oomph Inventions Oh, rooftop solar. Yeah. That'll smelt aluminum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Oh, rooftop solar. Yeah. That'll smelt aluminum. it's also an excellent substitute for jet fuel. just cover the wings with solar panels and you're good to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts