There's no reason we can't have both. Let's let the technology mature and the market decide when and how to implement renewable energy sources. Until then, let's continue researching and developing ways to use less fossil fuels more effectively and safely.
Renewable Energy sources are built only using Fossil Fuels. Increasing the use of Fossil Fuels to build huge monstrosities that produce very little energy is an extreme waste of Fossil Fuels.
If you are going to offer commentary you should think it through, that which you propose.
Nobody who supports Renewables every considers how they are manufactured.
You fail to consider the long view. Obviously, getting started requires a tremendous investment to put in place the means of generating power, which is why it's foolhardy for governments to attempt legislating it until it becomes economically feasible. Your attitude would have us still riding in horse drawn wagons because manual labor had to be used to build the first auto assembly plants.
The point is, we should use what we have available to use, and continually look for more and better ways to do it.
No, you dont get it, we quit using wind when we quit using horse drawn carriages. They failed then, your solution is to nuild them bigger and a lot more. It is now a full time, heavy industry, polluting the world to build the weakest source of electricity on the planet. At that, when you run out of oil and coal, you can not maintain them or replace them.
You're not understanding. There are places where it makes sense to utilize wind power, for one example, and places where it doesn't. The last thing you do is refuse to develop solar power in the desert because it's dark in Alaska 6 months out of the year. Nor would you refuse to develop wind power on a mountain pass where there's an average wind speed of 30 mph 300 days out of the year because down in the valley it's calm most of the time. The point is, if an area has abundant energy resources, you use them.
We should continue finding cleaner and safer ways to utilize coal because we have lots of it. You don't want to be a short-sighted idiot and bury your head in the sand because you can only imagine one way of doing things.
Short sighted, would be your response. You are responding out of feelings, a belief. What do you actually know about wind and solar.
Solar in the desert? Far from where it is used? 50% loss of electricity for every 50 miles of power line.
Solar in the desert, how many millions of gallons of water to clean the solar panels of desert dust?
And then, how many 100's of square miles of wildlife habitat do you want destroyrd.
Wind Power? I have seen 3-4 companies by the same wind farms and go bankrupt. I have seen 3 generations of wind turbines in 25 years. They do not last long at all. They use 300 gallons of oil a year, millions of gallons of oil. They are garbage. What do you know about any of this? Nothing.
$44 trillion dollars is your price tag to give us 5% of our energy. After it is all built it will be trillions more, right away to replace the thousands that fail. After 10 yesrs of operation it is all garbage thst gets replaced
$44 trillion dollars spent on nuclear power would give us 200% of the power we need, for the next 75 years.
Yea, lets actually discuss the facts, like how much coal and oil is needed by the renewable energy industry.
I have had the same debate on this message board so it will be easy.
I can dig up an old thread withh all the links and information.
From coke/coal to smelt the steel. To propene that comes from oil to make fiberglass.
Or, carbon supplied from natural gas to make carbon fiber blades for wind turbines.
None of this have you researched nor any on your side of the debate.
Yes, to use your words, dont be a short sighted idiot when you advocate for something you know nothing of.
