Fossil Fuel Free In Ten Years

[Charles_Main]

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

I am all for stopping the use of Fossil fuels, just as soon as we have viable alternatives to it, and can do so with out ruining our economy, which today is based on Fossil fuels.

 

[Chris]

I am all for stopping the use of Fossil fuels, just as soon as we have viable alternatives to it, and can do so with out ruining our economy, which today is based on Fossil fuels.

The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.

 

[Bern80]

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.

At least be honest. Your problem isn't with foreign oil, it's with oil, period.

The enviroment complaint is just another BS argument.

No it's basic geometry. It takes more space to create the same amount of power with wind than it does a coal fired power plant. PResumabley we would need to at least meet current energy demands and so to get off fossil fuels as you propose we're going to need a hell of a lot of empty space. Farmland alone ain't gonna cut, never mind one small detail....

There are millions of acres of farmland in this country, and millions of farmers who will gladly make money from a windmill royalty.

....WE GROW FOOD ON FARMLAND YOU DUMB SHIT. Are we going to offshore that? Oh that's right, you're the big protectionist guy so that's out. Where exactley will we be groiwing food now?

 

[Charles_Main]

The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.

Nice slogan, not true, but catchy. I suggest you actually visit McCain's web site. He supports alternative fuels Numb Nuts.

He supports wind, solar, Bio Mass, Ethanol, battery, hydrogen fuel cells, and Nuclear power. All you have to do is read instead of just repeating the Democrat talking points.

he wants to fast track any alternative energy source that shows promise. You can either read what the man has to say, or keep repeating he same old tired lies.

up to you.

 

[Bern80]

The most important industry of the 21st century will be alternative energy. We can be a leader in that industy if we elect a Democrat. If we elect a Republican, we will hooked on oil forever.

Dumbass statements like this that are so far removed from reality is why no one will ever take you seriously.

 

[Chris]

Dumbass statements like this that are so far removed from reality is why no one will ever take you seriously.

Follow the money....

Oil & Gas: Long-Term Contribution Trends | OpenSecrets

 

[Chris]

At least be honest. Your problem isn't with foreign oil, it's with oil, period.



No it's basic geometry. It takes more space to create the same amount of power with wind than it does a coal fired power plant. PResumabley we would need to at least meet current energy demands and so to get off fossil fuels as you propose we're going to need a hell of a lot of empty space. Farmland alone ain't gonna cut, never mind one small detail....



....WE GROW FOOD ON FARMLAND YOU DUMB SHIT. Are we going to offshore that? Oh that's right, you're the big protectionist guy so that's out. Where exactley will we be groiwing food now?

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. How much open land do they have?

No, all these excuses about not using wind power are just bullshit. T. Boone is already moving forward, and we should follow his lead. Losers like you are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.

 

[Bern80]

The Danes get 20% of their energy from wind power. How much open land do they have?

I said be honest, you don't even have the ability to constructively address an argument.

They don't have nearly the people and thus don't have nearly the power needs. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Follow if you can:

1) You want to get rid of all fossil based fuels for energy so stop with the foreign oil bull shit and say what you mean.

2) Doing that will require an energy source that supplies the same amount of power as fossil fuels.

3) FACT: nothing (except for nuclear which despite being clean is off the table I guess) yet comes close to the energy output per input achieved with fossil fuels, thus whatever energy source we choose is going to require far more space to provide the same amount of power. That is going to require land. More land than we currently use with today's power plants. That land is occupied by wildlife, which suppossedly is what your whole speal is suppossed to be protecting. So explain the paradox that is destroying more environment to save the environment.

The above is not even a little bit disputable. It's basic physics.

NEI Nuclear Notes: Nuclear vs. Wind, Part I

The above is to give you an idea of the space requirements to supply equivalent ouput with wind. You will note that to replace the countries nuclear plants alone would require and area the size of Wisconsin in wind turbines.

Okay so where are we going to put 66,000 square miles of wind tubines? And btw assuming you're for this also assumes that you don't really care about the wildlife habitat you would need to destroy to do it.

Ah! farms you said, that's right. I guess I missed all the farmers who are going to stop growing FOOD to cash in on wind.

N0, all these excuses about not using wind power are just bullshit. T. Boone is already moving forward, and we should follow his lead. Losers like you are the reason America is falling behind the rest of the world.

I thought it was the left that was suppossed to have the open minds. To believe there will be no negatives drawbacks, regardless of the option we choose is pretty naive.

 

[chapstic]

#1 nuclear is the way to go. #2 coal. #3 wind turbines. gas turbines are a waste.

 

[glockmail]

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.

Not very hard at all. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

 

[glockmail]

#1 nuclear is the way to go. #2 coal. #3 wind turbines. gas turbines are a waste.

Gas turbines are incredibly efficient, quiet and clean burning, and since they combine the gas turbine, steam turbine, and thermal recovery into one compact system, a power plant can be installed in a small building footprint in a dense urban environment to deliver power right where its needed instead of thousands of miles away. GE Energy - Heavy Duty Gas Turbines & Combined Cycle

 

[wihosa]

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?

"Dude"
This has got yo be the silliest objection yet.
Have you ever seen a windfarm? The actual footprint on the ground is negligable. Windmills typically have a single column varying in diameter from 6" to 18" depending on the size of the generator. They offer no more obstruction to wildlife than a tree. Animals are free to roam and the land is no more degraded that if a phone pole had been installed. Oh and by the way, don't forget they don't foul the air for the animals you are so suddenly worried about.

Ok, you're familiar with Minnesota, but as anyone familiar with the Great Plains will tell you, there are vast streches of land where there is insufficient water to grow crops and insufficient vegitation to ranch successfully, but the wind blows most every day. I'll bet people who own this land would be interested in investing in power generation, especially if the government invested in the transmission lines neccessary to get the electricity to market.

By the way I've been backpacking in the Sierra's since I was twelve, I'm very familiar with wildlife.

 

[wihosa]

Not very hard at all. Natural gas is also a fossil fuel.

OK, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Now answer the question, where did I say anything about "free gas"?

 

[Bern80]

"Dude"
This has got yo be the silliest objection yet.
Have you ever seen a windfarm? The actual footprint on the ground is negligable. Windmills typically have a single column varying in diameter from 6" to 18" depending on the size of the generator. They offer no more obstruction to wildlife than a tree. Animals are free to roam and the land is no more degraded that if a phone pole had been installed. Oh and by the way, don't forget they don't foul the air for the animals you are so suddenly worried about.

I hope you meant feet(') and not inches("). You aren't serioulsy suggesting that an area now covered in wind turbines would contain the same amount of wildlife as it would if they weren't there are you? Are you seriosly suggesting a forest of wind turbines is the same to an animal as a forest of trees?

Ok, you're familiar with Minnesota, but as anyone familiar with the Great Plains will tell you, there are vast streches of land where there is insufficient water to grow crops and insufficient vegitation to ranch successfully, but the wind blows most every day. I'll bet people who own this land would be interested in investing in power generation, especially if the government invested in the transmission lines neccessary to get the electricity to market.

Haveing driven across 'vast stretches' of the great plains for several years says otherwise.

All of your shit is based on assumptions, WILD assumptions. Start taking some time to actually think your pipe dream out in terms of logistics before you go telling the rest of us how stupid we are because clearly you haven't put much thought into it.

 

[wihosa]

I hope you meant feet(') and not inches("). You aren't serioulsy suggesting that an area now covered in wind turbines would contain the same amount of wildlife as it would if they weren't there are you? Are you seriosly suggesting a forest of wind turbines is the same to an animal as a forest of trees?



Haveing driven across 'vast stretches' of the great plains for several years says otherwise.

All of your shit is based on assumptions, WILD assumptions. Start taking some time to actually think your pipe dream out in terms of logistics before you go telling the rest of us how stupid we are because clearly you haven't put much thought into it.

Look don't believe me, just type in windfarm at Wikipedia. There is a picture of a typical windfarm and yes wildlife becomes as accustomed to the sound of windmills as the sound of wind in the trees.

You are the one assuming. Science News reported a couple years back that the US could produce 100% of it's power needs with wind power alone. I've been paying close attention to this stuff for thirty years. You are the one making wild assumptions.

 

[Bern80]

You are the one assuming. Science News reported a couple years back that the US could produce 100% of it's power needs with wind power alone. I've been paying close attention to this stuff for thirty years. You are the one making wild assumptions.

Of course we could the question is how much land are we willing to plow under to do it? How many eye sores should we put up for your grand scheme. And if you don't think they are going to have significant impact on animal habitat, you are truly not see the the forest for the turbines.

Estimates indicate that it would take siginifcant land space (on the scale of whole states) to replace just the nuclear output of this country. Is that seriously okay with you? Aren't you suppossed to be the guys all for not touching the 'green spaces'? How much more space would it take to replace all fossil fuel plants?

 

[glockmail]

OK, natural gas is a fossil fuel.

Now answer the question, where did I say anything about "free gas"?

The title of your OP.

 

[wihosa]

Oh my goodness, you have got to be making a joke! You thought the title of this thread was intended to say that we would all be getting free fossil fuel in ten years?

Please tell me you're joking, that you're really not that dense!

Clearly to anyone who read the post, the intended meaning was that we, the US could be free of the need for fossil fuels in ten years.

I'm the screwball?

 

[glockmail]

Oh my goodness, you have got to be making a joke! You thought the title of this thread was intended to say that we would all be getting free fossil fuel in ten years?

Please tell me you're joking, that you're really not that dense!

Clearly to anyone who read the post, the intended meaning was that we, the US could be free of the need for fossil fuels in ten years.

I'm the screwball?

All of the technologies that you cite are more expensive than fossil fuels. So in order for your utopia to come to fruition, you’ll have to subsidize it, which is exactly what you’ve proposed. That will drive down the demand for petroleum, hence drive down the price, so I’ll essentially be getting free gas. So why would I buy a stupid electric car?

 

[wihosa]

All of the technologies that you cite are more expensive than fossil fuels. So in order for your utopia to come to fruition, you’ll have to subsidize it, which is exactly what you’ve proposed. That will drive down the demand for petroleum, hence drive down the price, so I’ll essentially be getting free gas. So why would I buy a stupid electric car?

Nice house of cards resaoning.

Fossil fuel generation is more expensive than wind right now. It is true we will need investment in transmission lines, but once we have them we are free from having to buy oil or coal or whatever it is the multi national corps want to sell us.

What part of free energy don't you get?