Fossil Fuel Free In Ten Years

[Chris]

What I love is the fact we can not produce enough electricity NOW for some areas, but we are magically going to be able to provide massive amounts of NEW electricity for 300 million cars and trucks.

Ohh and tel me when we get an 18 wheeler running on electric. Or Heavy Farm equipment, or hevay construction equipment , so and so on.

Top that off with the simple fact MOST of our Electrical power comes from Fossil fuels and we see we are just trading gasoline cars for gasoline power plants.

Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.

Ethanol is not electric , you keep jumping all over the place, you are aware ethanol is very inefficient as a fuel source and in fact buts harmful burn off into the air, just like fossil fuels?

 

[dilloduck]

Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre. Hydroelectric, solar, wind, power is all around us. We can do it. Republicans are pussies. They would rather suckle the teet of Big Oil.

TEET ----- Holy mackeral !

 

[Orange_Juice]

Ethanol is not electric , you keep jumping all over the place, you are aware ethanol is very inefficient as a fuel source and in fact buts harmful burn off into the air, just like fossil fuels?

Oh, we can seriously cut our use of oil if we tried. It would cause some discomfort would would give you right wing cry babies something to whine about, so we would all get something out of it, the country would be helped and you right wingers could bitch and moan all day, everyone would be hapopy!

 

[Bern80]

It doesn't have much to do with a political agenda. We know oil works and it is actually relatively clean. It's that simple. The jury is still out as to the extent man has contributed to the warming trend (err, cooling trend now I guess). As a percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere, man contributes very little to a gas that is only a trace gas in the atmosphere in the first place.

So presumably not burning fossil fuels would eliminate one portion of the CO2 that the U.S. (important to consider as well) puts into the air. Ultimately we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of fraction of CO2 out of the air. I'm not sure what kind of real impact that is going to have. And thus I don't really see this need to get off fossil fuels now, or in ten years or whatever. We have made fossil fuel use considerably cleaner since it's inception and I imagine we still can. I don't see the need to entirely do away with a resource if we have the technology to improve it.

The other problem is America really isn't the problem as alluded to by bolding the U.S. In terms of industrialization the U.S. has passed it's really dirty phase. That was one interesting thing I learned in the critiqe video in the other thread. If you really want to eliminate CO2 people like Wihosa and Kirk gotta start barking up the appropriate trees i.e. China and India.

 

[wihosa]

Because it can provide electricity 100% of the time. Not 50% or 70% or whatever.

Solar can and will be great for blunting the power used by air conditioners (which is considerable). Sun comes out, a/c kicks in, next-gen solar shingles deliver power, while easing the load on the electric grid. Cool. But not for providing the backbone of heavy industry.

Nuke plants produce negligible amounts of waste and don't suffer from supply costs the way coal and natural gas plants do. Nuke plants can provide the vast majority of a modern economy's power, and France has proved it. 80% of their power is nuclear after all. Let me know when Denmark reaches 80% wind power, without having to buy power from France when the wind quits blowing.

Nuclear power is good enough for France and good enough for the founder of Greenpeace. If those aren't good enough liberal credentials, I don't know what is.

With a combination of wind, solar, existing hydro, geo thermal and other non-fossil fuels there would never be a shortage of supply, so the "sun goes down, the wind stops blowing" argument is without merit. The wind is always blowing somewhere.

Nuke plants produce tons, literally tons of highly radioactive waste every year. Negligable would only apply if comparing to a nuclear bomb blast.

Interesting how when it comes to nuclear power the rightys love the surrender monkeys, er, the French. Also interesting that France has a population which is less than 20% of the US's so their total usage of nuclear is really about the same as ours. They too are now becoming concerned about what to do with the ever growing collection of nuclear waste "storage" casks and likewise are facing the problem of de-comissioning aging nuke plants. Worst of all is that nuclear power is far more expensive than wind power, so why is it again that you think nuclear power is a good idea?

 

[AllieBaba]

Nuclear energy is unnecessary. It creates too much radioactive waste.

Clean energy is all around us. We just need to harvest it.

We waste an enormous amount of energy. Energy conservation is easy. It is the direction the people are going, and where the people go, the pols will follow.

Yes, yes, yes. give us the clean energy options that can eliminate the need for nuclear energy, since you don't want us to use oil?

 

[wihosa]

What I love is the fact we can not produce enough electricity NOW for some areas, but we are magically going to be able to provide massive amounts of NEW electricity for 300 million cars and trucks.

Ohh and tel me when we get an 18 wheeler running on electric. Or Heavy Farm equipment, or hevay construction equipment , so and so on.

Top that off with the simple fact MOST of our Electrical power comes from Fossil fuels and we see we are just trading gasoline cars for gasoline power plants.

Massive amounts of wind and solar power can produce massive amounts of electricity. Is that really so hard to understand?

Why exactly can't "18 wheelers" run on electricity? What supplies the power to the wheels of a train locomotive? Electric motors, that's why they are called deisel electric. Train locomotives have been "hybrids" for over fifty years. If trains ran simply on the power of deisel engines they would burn so much fuel that even in the "good old days" the cost of fuel would have made trains economically infeasible.

As for heavy construction or farm equipment, they run just as well on bio-deisel, a much cleaner alternative.

Time to wake up, the future is now!

 

[wihosa]

until you have stepped foot into any factory, refinery, power plant, you have no idea what you are talking about. all those machines require proper lubricant to operate.

you think a wind turbine is oil free? dream on, that gear box has the be properly lubricated.

do you enjoy the food you eat? hate to break it to ya, most of the machines that process that food require proper lubrication.

ethanol plants burn more oil making the ethanol than what we actually get from the corn.

electric cars. you do realize a power plant of some sort powers your house, which therefore recharges the batteries in your cars.

How does not burning fossil fuels mean we won't be using petrolium based lubricants? Lubricants and fuels are not the same thing. In fact this is one of the reasons we should stop burning oil, it is a far more vauable resource for lubricants, fertilizers, plastics and chemicals. How foolish it would be to burn it all up.

Well you got something right, ethanol is not practical for mass transportation needs.

As for where we will get the electricity, did you bother to read the original post?

 

[glockmail]

Could it be done?

Yes, and here's why.

First, the needed technologies exist right now. No need to wait for some time way out in the future when we can all line up to buy hydrogen from multi national corporations who have cornered the market on hydrogen.

Second, we are Americans. We have historically risen to the challange to inovate. We spanned a continent with railroads, built the Panama Canal, electrified rural America, built the interstate highway system, and put a man on the moon. The challange is not too great.

One immediate question is how will we run our cars? The answer is electric cars. Again the technologies exist right now. You say "but electric cars can only go 75 to 100 miles with out a re-charge". True, but answer this question; What is the range of an electric car, if instead of pulling into a gas station you pulled into a battery exchane station? Answer;Unlimited.

Where will we get the needed electricity? Existing hydro generation, wind, solar and geo-thermal. Temporary use of natural gas (a relatively clean buring fossil fuel) during the transitional period will help bridge the gap.

Wind generation is a proven producer right now. Science News reported a couple years ago that virtually all the power needs of the US could be met with wind power alone. Wind is far cheaper than nuclear power and competitve with fossil fuels.

Solar panels (photovoltaic or PV panels) could become ubiquitous with legislation requiring all new buildings to produce a portion of their useage, say 10%. This would immediately create a market for PV, competition and mass production would drive the price down to the point that it would make economic sense for indiviuals to install PV panels. Who wouldn't invest a few hundred dollars for PV if the payback period was just a couple years and thereafter the panels would actually make money. There would also have to be requirements for power providers to install two way metering upon request.

These are the basics. Just immagine what would happen to the price of oil if we announced to the world our intention to be fossil fuel free in ten years. And where would the terrorists get the money to carry on world wide jihad if their benefactors where suddenly without their sea of oil profits?

If gas is free then why would I buy a stupid electric car?

What a dumb post.

 

[wihosa]

If gas is free then why would I buy a stupid electric car?

What a dumb post.

If gas is free? What in the hell does that mean? Who said gas is free?

Talk about dumb posts.

 

[glockmail]

If gas is free? What in the hell does that mean? Who said gas is free?

Talk about dumb posts.

You did, Einstein. Gas is a "fossil fuel".

 

[wihosa]

You did, Einstein. Gas is a "fossil fuel".

I mentioned 'gas' station and I mentioned natural 'gas'.

Please quote where I said anything close to 'free gas'.

Can't be too hard to do since you consider yourself so smart.

 

[Bern80]

Massive amounts of wind and solar power can produce massive amounts of electricity. Is that really so hard to understand?

Why exactly can't "18 wheelers" run on electricity? What supplies the power to the wheels of a train locomotive? Electric motors, that's why they are called deisel electric. Train locomotives have been "hybrids" for over fifty years. If trains ran simply on the power of deisel engines they would burn so much fuel that even in the "good old days" the cost of fuel would have made trains economically infeasible.

As for heavy construction or farm equipment, they run just as well on bio-deisel, a much cleaner alternative.

Time to wake up, the future is now!

And what massive green areas are you planning on plowing over for the needed massive wind farms to make your dream even a remote possibilty?

It is truly amazing how void of perspective and detached from reality you are. Do you think there isn't a person here who wouldn't get behind the world running of the energy you suggest? Of course they wouldn't. The big difference between people like you and Kirk and the rest of us is that the rest of us live in THE REAL FUCKING WORLD.

Show me evidence that the economies, industry, infrastructure of the world could run on only those energy sources you deem fit.

Show me some evidence that France, which is a fraction of our size, is haveing a nuclear waste crisis.

You're proposal would yield so much hypocrisy to your views that you would probably be caught with your pants pissed in a fetal ball. What environment are we going to have left to enjoy, when all available open areas are covered in solar panels and wind turbines and corn (see FOOD) for ethanol. What sea life will we have in the ocean when it's floors are covered with hydropumps.
Look at the habitat of the very animals you seek protect that you would have to destroy in order to make your pipe dream a reality.

 

[wihosa]

And what massive green areas are you planning on plowing over for the needed massive wind farms to make your dream even a remote possibilty?

It is truly amazing how void of perspective and detached from reality you are. Do you think there isn't a person here who wouldn't get behind the world running of the energy you suggest? Of course they wouldn't. The big difference between people like you and Kirk and the rest of us is that the rest of us live in THE REAL FUCKING WORLD.

Show me evidence that the economies, industry, infrastructure of the world could run on only those energy sources you deem fit.

Show me some evidence that France, which is a fraction of our size, is haveing a nuclear waste crisis.

You're proposal would yield so much hypocrisy to your views that you would probably be caught with your pants pissed in a fetal ball. What environment are we going to have left to enjoy, when all available open areas are covered in solar panels and wind turbines and corn (see FOOD) for ethanol. What sea life will we have in the ocean when it's floors are covered with hydropumps.
Look at the habitat of the very animals you seek protect that you would have to destroy in order to make your pipe dream a reality.

This is good, we're making progress, at least you admit it would be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.

Other than throwing out words like "industry,economy, infrastructure" why don't you demonstrate how it won't work.

My initial post explains exactly how it could work but I doubt if you even read it. You like most brainwashed righties just refuse to look at the ways it can work.

How many millions of square feet of roof space is there on all the buildings in this country? That's how many millions of square feet of PV panels we could have. How many rural land owners would love to put up wind generators and make money off land which is econmically usless right now but gon't live close enough to electical transmission lines to get their electricity to market?

There is no serious threat to wildlife from fossil fuel free energy, the only threat is to the oil companies gravy train.

 

[Bern80]

This is good, we're making progress, at least you admit it would be a good thing to stop burning fossil fuels.

Other than throwing out words like "industry,economy, infrastructure" why don't you demonstrate how it won't work

My initial post explains exactly how it could work but I doubt if you even read it. You like most brainwashed righties just refuse to look at the ways it can work.

No all you have said is that it'll work with no evidence to back it up. Indsutry, infrastucture of and economy are pretty big parts of society. Saying other than those major parts of our society is pretty silly and thus the question remains.

How many millions of square feet of roof space is there on all the buildings in this country? That's how many millions of square feet of PV panels we could have. How many rural land owners would love to put up wind generators and make money off land which is econmically usless right now but gon't live close enough to electical transmission lines to get their electricity to market?

There is no serious threat to wildlife from fossil fuel free energy, the only threat is to the oil companies gravy train.

Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of a paragraph. First you say people living in the contry with extra would love to use there unused land to put windmills up (LAND THAT ANIMALS LIVE ON DUMBASS). You can't seriously rationalize this. A square mile of land for a coal plant or a square mile of land for wind turbines is still a square mile of destroyed animal habitat. Except for the fact that it would have to be 10 time bigger in windmills to equal the output of a coal plant.

Lastly I grew up on 25 acres in northern Minnesota. Less than an acre is used by our house. I don't know a soul there that would rather have their land covered in wind turbines than be able to watch deer, ducks, beavers, bears, rabits etc. out their windows. Are you some dumb city kid who claims to be all about the environment but doesn't know shit about it?

 

[Chris]

No all you have said is that it'll work with no evidence to back it up. Indsutry, infrastucture of and economy are pretty big parts of society. Saying other than those major parts of our society is pretty silly and thus the question remains.



Dude you just contradicted yourself in the span of a paragraph. First you say people living in the contry with extra would love to use there unused land to put windmills up (LAND THAT ANIMALS LIVE ON DUMBASS). You can't seriously rationalize this. A square mile of land for a coal plant or a square mile of land for wind turbines is still a square mile of destroyed animal habitat. Except for the fact that it would have to be 10 time bigger in windmills to equal the output of a coal plant.

Lastly I grew up on 25 acres in northern Minnesota. Less than an acre is used by our house. I don't know a soul there that would rather have their land covered in wind turbines than be able to watch deer, ducks, beavers, bears, rabits etc. out their windows. Are you some dumb city kid who claims to be all about the environment but doesn't know shit about it?

You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.

 

[Bern80]

You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.

What on earth does you telling me how should get my energy have to do with me 'knowing shit'? At least attempt to make sens dude.

Those are all very serious questions. How much land are willing to plow up for your wind turbines and solar panels? 100 acres for coal or 100 acres for wind turbines is still 100 acres of destroyed animals habitat. So much very the environment you were hoping to save.

 

[dilloduck]

You are the one that doesn't know shit. Every house in America should have solar shingles and a wind turbine. A very easy way to move toward clean energy.

Cool--and we could all take sailboats to work !--

 

[Chris]

What on earth does you telling me how should get my energy have to do with me 'knowing shit'? At least attempt to make sens dude.

Those are all very serious questions. How much land are willing to plow up for your wind turbines and solar panels? 100 acres for coal or 100 acres for wind turbines is still 100 acres of destroyed animals habitat. So much very the environment you were hoping to save.

T. Boone is locating his turbines on farms not National Parks. The farmers make money, the environment is cleaner, we use less foreign oil, everybody is better off. The enviroment complaint is just another BS argument. There are millions of acres of farmland in this country, and millions of farmers who will gladly make money from a windmill royalty.