4.7: co.pol/energy/the dirt on solar doesn't include wind:
Robert Llewellyn 4:37 PM today:
[!] (a cartoon about solar failing because big energy co's
don't own anything that could let it corner the market )
Nathan Buth:
- Solar energy being clean is a lie at the moment.
To make solar cells more toxic chemicals are released than even coal.
Plus the size of the area and the amount of cells
to even be equivalent to other energy sources is ridiculous.
Nuclear is the cleanest and most efficient way at the moment.
By the way the comic should say for the solar part
we own the silicon... XD
me:
@Nathan Buth, so who needs solar cells:
wind power alone could supply all our needs;
got some dirt on wind mills?
Mike Rees:
- It's worth noting that wind turbines are currently 60% subsidised,
and have 75% fossil fuel backup generation.
They're not clean and they're not cost effective.
me:
@Mike Rees
. it may be true that wind turbines are currently
60% subsidised, and have 75% fossil fuel backup generation;
but that's not wind's problem:
instead of subsidising green energy
we could sin-tax fossil fuels
to make them pay for all the cancer they cause;
and then we could use ethanol or other biofuels
for a less toxic backup generation .
. therefore, clean and price-competitive .
Sheila Nagig 8:18 PM
I think micro-hydro is being overlooked. Wind and sun are great,
but water actually makes a lot of sense in terms of facilitating
a relatively easy transition to sustainable energy.
We already have hundreds if not thousands of defunct water mills
rotting away out there. Rig them to generate power
and decentralize the grid a little bit
by having river communities power themselves.
me:
+1 [@] (show approval)
[5.17:
. later, I would realize
we weren't thinking of the same thing at all, really;
I had in mind some coastal tidal turbine plans
which could stay of of sight, unlike windmills;
and they would be so powerful and remote
they don't really help without being part of a grid .
. the hate directed at solar is really about
seeing environmentalists are trying to
control population by
making it more expensive to live .]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
5.28: me:
https://plus.google.com/114018232303831249060/posts/ZyGuhawbMPS
William Mrozinski@g'+ has the good sense
to block Philip Torrance@g'+
but I got the message he directed at me anyway;
from scoping myself at plus.topsy.com .
. I had said this:
"( instead of subsidising green energy
we could sin-tax fossil fuels
to make them pay for all the cancer they cause;
and then we could use ethanol or other biofuels
for a less toxic backup generation .
. therefore, clean and price-competitive .
)
and he had responded (Apr 7):
"(
... you have the right to
modify people's behavior with tax policy?
The basic economic reality is that
if we used alternative fuel for everything
then ... people would be out of work, etc, etc.
People don't have the economic training to understand
what they suggest would colapse[sic] the economy.
)
my response is predictably blockable:
. where did you get the idea that "(economic training)
would save our jobs and the economy??!
. the usa is looking more and more like mexico
because we breed like mexico, and not china .
. you will see that joblessness is not the banks, or obama,
joblessness is from
automation, globalized capitalism,
and grossly free breeding .
. as for sin taxes,
I think your best argument would have been to
refute the premise that oil and coal
are a significant source of cancer;
after all, our sugary estrogen-soaked environs
must be by far the greatest source of big C .
. you could say that as a percentage of medical costs,
the coal and oil industry really doesn't owe us much .
. if you had given us this argument,
I doubt you would have blocked me;
because, you'd have been proud of your position .
Post a Comment