Sustainable engergy independence?

[Oddball]

I certainly hope you're being facetious

Not at all.

Oil, natural gas, and coal will be the dominant sources of U.S. energy consumption well into the 21st century.

Sustainable energy independence would require massive cuts in consumption, unprecidented drilling and development of hydrocarbon resources, and trillion dollar investments in technologies and processes that currently have no commercial merit.

Why would we want that?

America has enough known coal reserves to produce electricity for centuries.....If that's not "sustainable" what would be?

 

[Ringel05]

I still firmly believe if we install wind turbines in the halls and chambers of congress and heat traps on the roofs we will have all the sustainable energy needed for decades to come.
Install them in and on the UN building and supply energy for a millenium.

 

[mdn2000]

sustainable energy, these are proven sustainable enegy sources

Nuclear
Oil
Coal
Natural gas

I must not understand the definition of sustainability.

You must not understand a whole lot about energy. Name one form of energy that will not use one of the the above four for the production of said energy.

Either way you understand sustainability and each of these four energies are proven sustainable into the future for thousands of years, stuff like windmills and solar panels need be replaced much more ofter than other type of power plant. Its the ignorant that believe in the sustainability of wind and solar, the ignorant never consider the tremendous amount of energy it takes to create the materials to build solar panels or windmills. its the ignorant who know nothing of how very limiting these Green energies are.

 

[Old Rocks]

sustainable energy, these are proven sustainable enegy sources

Nuclear
Oil
Coal
Natural gas

I must not understand the definition of sustainability.

You must not understand a whole lot about energy. Name one form of energy that will not use one of the the above four for the production of said energy.

Either way you understand sustainability and each of these four energies are proven sustainable into the future for thousands of years, stuff like windmills and solar panels need be replaced much more ofter than other type of power plant. Its the ignorant that believe in the sustainability of wind and solar, the ignorant never consider the tremendous amount of energy it takes to create the materials to build solar panels or windmills. its the ignorant who know nothing of how very limiting these Green energies are.

Boy, talk about ignorance. Even though we have just stated to tap the potential of wind on the Columbia River, for one hour on a windy day last month, the mills on the Colombia produced enough power for both Seattle and Portland. That means that all the things that we normally produce using power from other sources was now being powered by the mills, clean energy. That includes the plants producing solar panels.

Clean power producing clean power.


When the Internal Combustion engines were first being put into use, horse drawn wagons often delivered parts for them. Does that mean that we would always be dependent on horses?

For that is the flawed logic you are using. And most solar panels are gaurenteed for 20 years, and many that were produced longer ago than that are still in use. Windmills are good for about 20 years. Then you replace the turbine, take the old one and rebuild it. The post and foundation are still there. So much of the original investment will not have to be repeated.

Nuclear plants, coal plants, natural gas plants all have similiar times to either rebuilding or replacement.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Does anyone have any real plans or ideas?

Why don't we just drill our own oil in this country. There's plenty. Like Palin says, "Drill, Baby, Drill!" Tell all of those jerks in the Middle East they can keep their oil. We'll be using ours. They can keep their oil and we can keep our money. Seems fair to me.

 

[mdn2000]

I must not understand the definition of sustainability.

You must not understand a whole lot about energy. Name one form of energy that will not use one of the the above four for the production of said energy.

Either way you understand sustainability and each of these four energies are proven sustainable into the future for thousands of years, stuff like windmills and solar panels need be replaced much more ofter than other type of power plant. Its the ignorant that believe in the sustainability of wind and solar, the ignorant never consider the tremendous amount of energy it takes to create the materials to build solar panels or windmills. its the ignorant who know nothing of how very limiting these Green energies are.

Boy, talk about ignorance. Even though we have just stated to tap the potential of wind on the Columbia River, for one hour on a windy day last month, the mills on the Colombia produced enough power for both Seattle and Portland. That means that all the things that we normally produce using power from other sources was now being powered by the mills, clean energy. That includes the plants producing solar panels.

Clean power producing clean power.


When the Internal Combustion engines were first being put into use, horse drawn wagons often delivered parts for them. Does that mean that we would always be dependent on horses?

For that is the flawed logic you are using. And most solar panels are gaurenteed for 20 years, and many that were produced longer ago than that are still in use. Windmills are good for about 20 years. Then you replace the turbine, take the old one and rebuild it. The post and foundation are still there. So much of the original investment will not have to be repeated.

Nuclear plants, coal plants, natural gas plants all have similiar times to either rebuilding or replacement.

Your a lousy liar, I saw the posts where another user ripped you apart for posting lies. Care to go down that route. Enough power for Seattle and Portland, pure lie, and considering you posted lies in the past, your lie here is just another lie. I will dig that post up if you care.

Energy that is sustainable, ha, windmills in the Cabazon pass on average produce power 20% of any day, so in one twenty four hour period wind is not sustainable.

Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.

Old Crock, call me ignorant again and I guarantee I will dig up the post where Krotchdog pointed out you are nothing more than a liar, I will then post that post that proves you knowingly lied everywhere I see you post. So go ahead, show your ignorance.

Clean power producing clean power yet no mention of the materials needed and the pollution, this has been pointed out to you old crock so why lie, why lie repeatedly.

What was you did, you posted a fabricated data while you knew the data was fabricated because old crock thought all the users here are too stupid to figure out Old Crock is knowingly using false data.

This is why Liberal/Marxist will be defeated, sure some Liberals are actually intelligent but they all stick together, even when one is caught knowingly posting lies.

its sick that we have an entire political movement called environuts and liberals that are more than happy posting lies.

Enough power for portland and seattle is a pure lie. Even if you provide a source its still a lie, even if you show the experiement its a lie.

First off the windmills would have to be hooked up to a load, without a load all that tremendous power will have nowhere to go, without anywhere to go it literally will bounce back into the windmills and fry the generators. So where do you get a load as big as two cities when there exsits no such "dummy load".

Idiot

 

[Oddball]

Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.

Lest we forget to mention the immense "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing and installing just one of those monstrosities.

 

[Old Rocks]

Idiot, yourself. You said a lot of things, without a single referance to back them up.

Yappers and trolls like you infest this board, but fail to give any referances for their BS.

PGE, and other utilities have dropped their membership in the US Chamber of Commerce for that groups continueing opposition to clean energy and denial of the facts of climate change.

As for you other idiocy, it is irrelevant what you think. Here in Oregon we have more wind turbines going in every day, we have several plants that will be producing hundreds of megawatts of solar panels every year by the end of next year. And Geothermal is on it's way as soon as we have a grid that reachs into the geothermal basins in our state.

These represent investments being made by companies that have a proven track record.While you are scoffing, they are making money providing needed power without polluting our land and atmosphere.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I certainly hope you're being facetious

Not at all.

Oil, natural gas, and coal will be the dominant sources of U.S. energy consumption well into the 21st century.

Sustainable energy independence would require massive cuts in consumption, unprecidented drilling and development of hydrocarbon resources, and trillion dollar investments in technologies and processes that currently have no commercial merit.

Why would we want that?

But it doesn't HAVE to be.....We CAN and eventually will NEED to get off fossil fuels. Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, Wind , and geo-thermal will ALL be parts of energy independence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.

Lest we forget to mention the immense "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing and installing just one of those monstrosities.

Ah yes, the terrible footprint of installing megawatts of solar on warehouse roofs. Compared to destroying sections of land to mine coal. Compared to spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere with a coal burning plant.

Dooodeee, you are as much of an imbecile as ever.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

For the benefit of the nation, and our descentdents, the best plan would be the elimination of the burning of hydrocarbons over the next decade.

Couldn't we end world hunger and poverty while we're at it? I mean, as long as we're on a roll here.

Sure we could......Support commercial hemp. It is a MIRACLE crop and has virtually NONE of the intoxicating effects of marajuana.


WAKE UP!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone | Oregon Business News - - OregonLive.com

Best of Business, Environment »
BPA: Wind farm system sets output milestone
By Robbie DiMesio, The Oregonian
August 12, 2009, 4:55PM
The Bonneville Power Administration says the wind farms plugged into its transmission system blew past a notable milestone earlier this month, sending out 2,000 megawatts of electricity for more than an hour.

That's enough to power all of Seattle and Portland for that hour.

The 22 wind farms in eastern Oregon and Washington hit a new peak of 2,089 megawatts on the evening of Aug. 6., doubling the previous peak of 1,000 megawatts recorded in January 2008.

BPA operates three quarters of the region's transmission system and is responsible for balancing the region's energy supply and demand to keep the grid operating smoothly. As more of that energy comes from intermittent sources like wind, the agency has been forced to adapt its hydro system and build new transmission capability to keep pace.

Six of the 22 wind farms on its system came on line this year, and the agency expects wind power to triple in the next five years.

 

[Oddball]

Energy that is sustainable, solar cannot produce electricity more than six hour to eight hours a day, in a twenty four hour period solar is not sustainable. Further the tremendous amount of energy needed to produce solar panels can only come from fossil fuel, hence again, solar is not sustainable.

Lest we forget to mention the immense "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing and installing just one of those monstrosities.

Ah yes, the terrible footprint of installing megawatts of solar on warehouse roofs. Compared to destroying sections of land to mine coal. Compared to spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere with a coal burning plant.

Dooodeee, you are as much of an imbecile as ever.

Yeah...."As compared to" in your opinion.

The fact is that your "alternatives" aren't....Aside from that, I was talking about those stupid windmills not photovoltaic solar, idiot.

 

[Old Rocks]

Jobs, clean energy, and profits. It doesn't get any better.

Solar Cells Info

German Company Creates 1,000 New Jobs in Oregon

HILLSBORO, Oregon., Oct 17, 2008
Source: SolarWorld AG press release /DGAP
Welcome

SolarWorld AG is opening the largest solar cell production facility in the USA today. In Hillsboro, Oregon, the German company is investing 500 million US dollars in highly advanced technology. In an integrated manufacturing process wafer-thin silicon discs, the so-called solar wafers, as well as solar cells will be produced with an initial capacity of 100 Megawatt (MW) annually. At their final destination – on the roof or in a larger power plant – this equates to the electricity requirements of 100,000 people. The company announced that the capacity will be expanded to 500 Megawatt in the next three years. (more&#8230

 

[Oddball]

Big fat hairy deal.

Point out the metals smelting and fabrication plant that works on wind and/or solar.

 

[Old Rocks]

Lest we forget to mention the immense "carbon footprint" involved in manufacturing and installing just one of those monstrosities.

Ah yes, the terrible footprint of installing megawatts of solar on warehouse roofs. Compared to destroying sections of land to mine coal. Compared to spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere with a coal burning plant.

Dooodeee, you are as much of an imbecile as ever.

Yeah...."As compared to" in your opinion.

The fact is that your "alternatives" aren't....Aside from that, I was talking about those stupid windmills not photovoltaic solar, idiot.

Stupid as in Dooodeee...... Well, those stupid mills are making a profit for the fabricators, the installers, the utilities, the farmers that own the land, and providing power for we consumers.

Rather than destroying land, and polluting the water, as does coal mining by the square mile, the mills set in the middle of producing wheat fields.

And when they are producing power, they are not creating greenhouse gases, and poisening our children with mercury and lead as do the coal burning plants.

 

[Old Rocks]

For the benefit of the nation, and our descentdents, the best plan would be the elimination of the burning of hydrocarbons over the next decade.

Couldn't we end world hunger and poverty while we're at it? I mean, as long as we're on a roll here.

Sure we could......Support commercial hemp. It is a MIRACLE crop and has virtually NONE of the intoxicating effects of marajuana.


WAKE UP!!!!

LOL. These folks are still back in the days of "Reefer Madness". Yes, the outlawing of hemp is a prime example of the idiocy of the Conservative mindset.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.

 

[Old Rocks]

Big fat hairy deal.

Point out the metals smelting and fabrication plant that works on wind and/or solar.

Since the alternative energies are startup industries, the amount of power they are contributing is still a small fractional amount of the total power needed. However, since the power from the mills, geothermal, and solar is put on the same grid as the other power, it is fair to say that all of the above plants work on the power that they create. One might also note that in Oregon and Washington state, the majority of our power is non-polluting. For most of our power is generated by the dams on the mighty Columbia.

 

[Oddball]

Mr H........I would like to see a graph that compars COST per Kilowatt on that chart. Nuclear costs a lot to build but provides good "clean" energy. I think the Gov't should build the Nuke plants and lease them to the energy COs. Solar power has a GREAT potential for CLEAN CHEAP POWER. After the initial cost is done it is ALL FREE POWER....Same thing with Wind though it would require some maitinance it would be basically FREE power. How you poeple can express disgust with FREE CLEAN power stuns me.

Problem being that the break-even point, viz. installation and maintenance costs, cannot be reached in a decent time frame. Otherwise, entrepreneurs who smelled a fatter bottom line or a more competitive price structure already would have made the conversion on their own. Moreover, there'd be no need for massive subsidies.