Renewable energy

[elektra]

Oregon is 70% renewables
Hydro
Wind
Solar
Geothermal

We only have one coal plant left.

Wind is back up to 5gw per year!!!
Solar is kicking ass!

Liar! I say liar because you have seen all the threads, because you post from many links, so you would have to be a complete idiot to not realize that Oregon imports Electricity from Wyoming, which is produced from COAL. About 50% of the power Oregon uses comes from Coal, another 14% is Natural Gas. Add the HydroPower,

Why Oregon imports power from fossil fuels and exports renewable energy News OPB

Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of Oregon’s electricity consumption comes from coal-fired power plants – many of which are in Wyoming and Montana. About 15 percent of the state’s power comes from natural gas.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why Oregon imports power from fossil fuels and exports renewable energy News OPB

But there’s a big difference between renewable energy production in Oregon and consumption. Rachel Shimshak, executive director of Renewable Northwest Project says renewable energy incentives have positioned Oregon well to attract new developments – especially wind projects. But less than a quarter of the 5,000 megawatts of wind power generated in Oregon is actually used here.

Where is all that wind energy going? And what are we using instead?

According to Ken Dragoon, senior resource analyst with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 30 to 40 percent of that wind energy goes to California to meet renewable energy mandates down there. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of Oregon’s electricity consumption comes from coal-fired power plants – many of which are in Wyoming and Montana. About 15 percent of the state’s power comes from natural gas

Now if all the renewable energy produced in Oregon stayed in Oregon, we would not need other sources. However, the present arrangement is a good thing. After we throw a big powerline across Southeastern Oregon, there will be solar, wind, and geothermal all to be had in that desolate area. California gets power, and Oregon and the BLM make money on generation.

And, in the meantime, we may see them shut down the coal plants in Wyoming, and supply us with power from geothermal that not only provides electricity, but also lithium. And wind, Wyoming has huge wind potential.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey dumb fuck Pattycake, there have been at least a dozen differant studies, by differant scientists, using differant methods, in differant nations, all have verified the basics of the hockey stick graph.

Ummmm. No. They used the same corrupted data sets. Those that used different data sets, came up with a graph that had no hockey stick.

Link?

 

[westwall]

Hey dumb fuck Pattycake, there have been at least a dozen differant studies, by differant scientists, using differant methods, in differant nations, all have verified the basics of the hockey stick graph.

Ummmm. No. They used the same corrupted data sets. Those that used different data sets, came up with a graph that had no hockey stick.

Link?

You and your sock oreo man can go get them yourselves. I no longer do your work for you. You can thank him.

 

[elektra]

Why Oregon imports power from fossil fuels and exports renewable energy News OPB

But there’s a big difference between renewable energy production in Oregon and consumption. Rachel Shimshak, executive director of Renewable Northwest Project says renewable energy incentives have positioned Oregon well to attract new developments – especially wind projects. But less than a quarter of the 5,000 megawatts of wind power generated in Oregon is actually used here.

Where is all that wind energy going? And what are we using instead?

According to Ken Dragoon, senior resource analyst with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 30 to 40 percent of that wind energy goes to California to meet renewable energy mandates down there. Meanwhile, nearly 40 percent of Oregon’s electricity consumption comes from coal-fired power plants – many of which are in Wyoming and Montana. About 15 percent of the state’s power comes from natural gas

Now if all the renewable energy produced in Oregon stayed in Oregon, we would not need other sources. However, the present arrangement is a good thing. After we throw a big powerline across Southeastern Oregon, there will be solar, wind, and geothermal all to be had in that desolate area. California gets power, and Oregon and the BLM make money on generation.

And, in the meantime, we may see them shut down the coal plants in Wyoming, and supply us with power from geothermal that not only provides electricity, but also lithium. And wind, Wyoming has huge wind potential.

Another Crock of s#!* from Old Crock.

Oregon increase the use of Coal, by buying electricity from Wyoming. A simple fact, Oregon shits in the neighbors yard.

 

[elektra]

Renewable energy, the biggest crock of shit, literally (no flame intended Old Crock).

Hydro, works pretty good, kind of seems out of place in the Renewable category, uses tons of concrete, which requires fossil fuel to make, further its not like you can actually expand Hydro to SUSTAIN future growth. And lets not forget destroying the spawning runs of Salmon aint very SUSTAINABLE as well.

Hydro is not Renewable or Sustainable, go ahead, dam all the rivers and then try to eat, there is something called the FOOD CHAIN.

Solar is Renewable, in the true sense of renewable, meaning you constantly need to replace and renew all those components getting burnt out by that all powerful sun, I hear Solar Plants actually cover more of the earth's surface than any other man made structures, a true sign of Sustainability, as you build more the earth actually generates more land and space. A miracle that 100$ billion dollar solar blanket spread across the globe is, really. When will finish building them to meet our needs? Never?

Wind, certainly a windfall to mines that supply rare elements, increasing consumption of elements at a rate never before seen in history, is by definition, Renewable and Sustainable.

Geothermal, gets drilled for just like oil, daily, because the wells always dry out, literally, like at the Geysers in California, where they actually frack, to continue to produce. They frack with water, millions of acre feet, and as everyone who read the threads here know, California is rich in water, hence its okay to pump water into the ground using fossil fuel in order to make dried up Geothermal wells produce

Geothermal, did you hear the one about the Salton Sea where the Zinc recovery project went bankrupt? It only cost us something like 250 million dollars, now they claim they can do the same thing with lithium, I believe them, except this time it is going to cost us over 2 billion dollars, to go bankrupt on lithium recovery. Last I checked, Salton Sea brine is mostly Arsenic, cesium-137, strontium, cobalt-60, in total 2 pounds of toxins per gallon of brine. You know what they do with the toxins? They frack them back into the earth with zero EPA regulations, the EPA rules and regulations literally do not apply to Geothermal, Geothermal is Green Energy, in that green energy is a canard.

Yes, a great renewable solution, they tell us by the end of our century which just began, we will have all the Green Power we need.

A bankrupt nation needs no power.

 

[greyviper]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

 

[westwall]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

At our current rate we have over 100 years worth of oil alone. I would imagine that within the next 100 years we will finally crack the technology barrier and develop EV's, or something related, that are actually cleaner environmentally than the fossil fueled vehicles they wish to replace. Currently ALL "green" vehicles are more damaging to the environment than the internal combustion powered vehicles they wish to replace.

Why do you hate Mother Earth? Why do you want to hurt her so?

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey dumb fuck Pattycake, there have been at least a dozen differant studies, by differant scientists, using differant methods, in differant nations, all have verified the basics of the hockey stick graph.

Ummmm. No. They used the same corrupted data sets. Those that used different data sets, came up with a graph that had no hockey stick.

Link?

You and your sock oreo man can go get them yourselves. I no longer do your work for you. You can thank him.

LOL. In other words, nothing to back up the lie with. Just what we expect from you, Walleyes.

 

[westwall]

Hey dumb fuck Pattycake, there have been at least a dozen differant studies, by differant scientists, using differant methods, in differant nations, all have verified the basics of the hockey stick graph.

Ummmm. No. They used the same corrupted data sets. Those that used different data sets, came up with a graph that had no hockey stick.

Link?

You and your sock oreo man can go get them yourselves. I no longer do your work for you. You can thank him.

LOL. In other words, nothing to back up the lie with. Just what we expect from you, Walleyes.

Show us where I lied doofus. You're long on insults and very short on facts. If I lied, show us where I lied.

 

[elektra]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

We will reach that point quicker, by using more oil to produce more solar and wind plants. When we run out of oil, we run out of Solar and Wind, which will have reached the end of their life cycle.

How will we replace Wind and Solar Plants with no Oil?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

We will reach that point quicker, by using more oil to produce more solar and wind plants. When we run out of oil, we run out of Solar and Wind, which will have reached the end of their life cycle.

How will replace Wind and Solar Plants with no Oil?

that could be a problem

--LOL

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wind power impacts the environment far less than coal, oil or natural gas.
Solar is mostly off the ground or on peoples roofs.

Renewables are better.

 

[greyviper]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

At our current rate we have over 100 years worth of oil alone. I would imagine that within the next 100 years we will finally crack the technology barrier and develop EV's, or something related, that are actually cleaner environmentally than the fossil fueled vehicles they wish to replace. Currently ALL "green" vehicles are more damaging to the environment than the internal combustion powered vehicles they wish to replace.

Why do you hate Mother Earth? Why do you want to hurt her so?

Now I see, you are implying that we start developing the technology after we reach almost 100 years from the present time. That is I believe, counterproductive. The sooner we start, the better. Why wait for a 100 years? Also, we should not only consider vehicles that use fossil fuels but everything from power generation to the cooking stove you have at home.

I think you are considering the 'green/hybrid/electric vehicles' to be damaging to environment because of the batteries they use. Of course, this current battery technology needs to be modified and improved. There should be multiple R&D right now to develop highly efficient super-batteries and super capacitors. Nanotechnology could play a crucial role in this area. There are multiple possibilities if we don't become narrow minded. Thinking out of the box may not even be enough, we need to destroy that box in order to be free from the limitations that we ourselves impose.

 

[greyviper]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

We will reach that point quicker, by using more oil to produce more solar and wind plants. When we run out of oil, we run out of Solar and Wind, which will have reached the end of their life cycle.

How will we replace Wind and Solar Plants with no Oil?

Really? How is that so? Do you think fabrication plants that assemble components used for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and the like cannot be designed to utilize renewable energy source? It all comes back to a point where and how the power is generated. We are not gonna reach a point of running out of oil if we as a human civilization decide to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for our power generation needs.

How are we going to evolve into a Type 1 Civilization if we are just fighting to preserve the status quo for short term benefit of earning more for our pockets?

 

[mamooth]

If you have the energy, you can manufacture anything from basic raw materials. Starting with oil as a base for plastics uses less energy, but it's certainly not the only way to make plastic.

Hence, if you have enough solar panels, you can keep manufacturing more solar panels, out to infinity.

 

[elektra]

I have this notion that you really are a good pointer of downsides to renewable and alternative sources of energy. So we can just continue sucking the earth dry of fossil fuels if that's the case? I wonder what would happen when we reach a point that no more oil can be extracted, no more natural gas can be squeezed out of fracking and no more coal to bulldoze in order to provide that much needed heat on a cold winter.

We will reach that point quicker, by using more oil to produce more solar and wind plants. When we run out of oil, we run out of Solar and Wind, which will have reached the end of their life cycle.

How will we replace Wind and Solar Plants with no Oil?

Really? How is that so? Do you think fabrication plants that assemble components used for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and the like cannot be designed to utilize renewable energy source? It all comes back to a point where and how the power is generated. We are not gonna reach a point of running out of oil if we as a human civilization decide to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels for our power generation needs.

How are we going to evolve into a Type 1 Civilization if we are just fighting to preserve the status quo for short term benefit of earning more for our pockets?

I guess you know nothing of making steel or fiberglass. We must increase oil production to build renewable or green energy plants. At that we always must build more hence a new dependence on oil. Increasing consumption over 100,000 times to fix Wind or Solar is pure madness.

Either way your assumptions are all false, wrong.

There is no short term or long term benefit to building what is called Green and Renewable. It is a canard, nothing more.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals believe they can make fiberglass on spinning wheels using only sand.

They'll even sell graduate level courses in that to the innocent.

Sly buggers even go for government grants to build huge swimming pools for the pupils to sit in and kick their environmentally sensitive spinning wheels under water. Because flying glass fibers can be inhaled and cause lung damage.

Problem they're working to overcome is the sand dispersing in the water before it can be spun. But to do that they need another trillion or two in grants.

Won't you contact your Congressperson to plead for their righteous cause?

 

[elektra]

If you have the energy, you can manufacture anything from basic raw materials. Starting with oil as a base for plastics uses less energy, but it's certainly not the only way to make plastic.

Hence, if you have enough solar panels, you can keep manufacturing more solar panels, out to infinity.

liar, even the "scientists" who support and develop Solar never make that claim..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wind power impacts the environment far less than coal, oil or natural gas.
Solar is mostly off the ground or on peoples roofs.

Renewables are better.

Wrong again... as usual.

You keep making this inaccurate and untrue statement over and over. Tell me again how the battery banks that must be built will have less impact than coal fired or NG fired plants will? The manufacturing process is massively worse than running our current generators or nuclear plants.

Or the steel and other parts like neodymium magnets for the wind generators do not require massive mines and use of coal or NG fired generation to create these massive piles of soon to be rusting junk which can not survive in real life without massive subsidies from the government teet to remain operational?

Or the micro climate changes where large wind farms or solar farms are put up, which render the ground a desert in mountainous regions and uninhabitable OR the natural wildlife that is killed or driven mad by the vibrations and noise or chopped to death and our national endangered bald eagle is given up as sacrifice to the green god..

These things are highly destructive to our environment but the green movement refuse to have them regulated to the same specifications that oil and gas are held to. The government picking where money will be made and lost (picking winners and losers) which always results in the middle class and poor being bludgeoned and what little profit they make stolen from them leaving them in abject poverty with no hope and wards of their government masters. (THE FOUNDING FATHERS TOOK UP ARMS TO BE FREED FROM THIS TYPE OF TYRANNY)