Renewables are the future

[sealybobo]

10% green energy? Try less than 1%.

You can only increase green energy by increasing the use of coal, you csn never close that gap. They are proportionare.

What happens when we run out of coal and oil?

Does nuclear require coal?

We die? We cant build more Wind Turbines.

Nuclear Power plant construction requires coal.

But Wind Powet requires millions of new Wind Turbines, endless production, a huge increase in the use of coal.

That's what I mean about flipping how much oil and coal we use and how much green energy we use. Sure we need coal and oil to build the Tesla cars but once they are build all those cars aren't using gas.

Sure we need coal and oil to build the solar panels but those things pay for themselves.

No they dont! If they did we would not need to spend trillions of dollars on them. It is endless, we must build them forever, and at that tbey can only provide a fraction of our need.

Tesla cars? Where will you find the electricity for these? Who will pay for the 10's of millions of charging stations?

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

 

[elektra]

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

You sure?

I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.

That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....

I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.

I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.

Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.

Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.

So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.

36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.

What a shame.

And the capacity factor?

 

[elektra]

What happens when we run out of coal and oil?

Does nuclear require coal?

We die? We cant build more Wind Turbines.

Nuclear Power plant construction requires coal.

But Wind Powet requires millions of new Wind Turbines, endless production, a huge increase in the use of coal.

That's what I mean about flipping how much oil and coal we use and how much green energy we use. Sure we need coal and oil to build the Tesla cars but once they are build all those cars aren't using gas.

Sure we need coal and oil to build the solar panels but those things pay for themselves.

No they dont! If they did we would not need to spend trillions of dollars on them. It is endless, we must build them forever, and at that tbey can only provide a fraction of our need.

Tesla cars? Where will you find the electricity for these? Who will pay for the 10's of millions of charging stations?

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

 

[9aces]

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

You sure?

I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.

That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....

I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.

I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.

Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.

Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.

So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.

36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.

What a shame.

And the capacity factor?

It's sad. Your mind is so closed you won't even consider the problem. You're stuck in the argument they've framed and apparently can't escape the loop.

I'm not projecting 36 trillion dollars. You've fabricated this number from someone and attributed it to me.

I don't know what the capacity factor might be. Because I'm looking at using materials in ways they've never been done before, that currently can't do it. BUT...if they can increase the structural capability, it might be. A LOT of engineering would need to be done to look at proper size to get the return you'd get the best cost efficiency at. I can't even begin to solve that problem yet, but I can see the possibility that a material may be on the horizon that will at least give me something to look at.

But you cannot tell me that you won't get a better transfer ratio by using a material that reduces your blade weight by a substantial percentage, that will have it usable for longer periods. Generates less friction, less vibration, has better storage potential.

Can it be made actually energy profitable? I don't know. I know the path they're on now won't. Time to look at walking a different one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Renewable's are very prone to EMP or Carrington event destruction..

IF you think our grid would go belly up.. just think about those homeowners who loose their homes to fire when one of these events happen by chance or deliberately. And those wind mills will be huge piles of glowing metal.. they will all be worthless rusting scrap piles...

 

[elektra]

36 trillion comes fro

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

You sure?

I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.

That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....

I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.

I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.

Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.

Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.

So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.

36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.

What a shame.

And the capacity factor?

It's sad. Your mind is so closed you won't even consider the problem. You're stuck in the argument they've framed and apparently can't escape the loop.

I'm not projecting 36 trillion dollars. You've fabricated this number from someone and attributed it to me.

I don't know what the capacity factor might be. Because I'm looking at using materials in ways they've never been done before, that currently can't do it. BUT...if they can increase the structural capability, it might be. A LOT of engineering would need to be done to look at proper size to get the return you'd get the best cost efficiency at. I can't even begin to solve that problem yet, but I can see the possibility that a material may be on the horizon that will at least give me something to look at.

But you cannot tell me that you won't get a better transfer ratio by using a material that reduces your blade weight by a substantial percentage, that will have it usable for longer periods. Generates less friction, less vibration, has better storage potential.

Can it be made actually energy profitable? I don't know. I know the path they're on now won't. Time to look at walking a different one.

So, other than a press release, an idea, and a dream you have nothing.

I think I cant get you to answer because the materials required to manufacture the millions of wind turbines you propose will increase our energy demand and use of hydrocarbons.

The simple fact is it will never be econmical to replace our current piwer plants with millions and millions and millions of your dream.

Even if what you think were to work, you still must construct and build 100's of millions of wind turbines.

Trillions of dollars will be loaned by banks, your udea is a mandate, ony feasable by the confiscation of my private property.

You have closed your mind to what has already failed, building millions more will never change the facts.

 

[jc456]

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

Huh?

 

[9aces]

36 trillion comes fro

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

You sure?

I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.

That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....

I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.

I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.

Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.

Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.

So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.

36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.

What a shame.

And the capacity factor?

It's sad. Your mind is so closed you won't even consider the problem. You're stuck in the argument they've framed and apparently can't escape the loop.

I'm not projecting 36 trillion dollars. You've fabricated this number from someone and attributed it to me.

I don't know what the capacity factor might be. Because I'm looking at using materials in ways they've never been done before, that currently can't do it. BUT...if they can increase the structural capability, it might be. A LOT of engineering would need to be done to look at proper size to get the return you'd get the best cost efficiency at. I can't even begin to solve that problem yet, but I can see the possibility that a material may be on the horizon that will at least give me something to look at.

But you cannot tell me that you won't get a better transfer ratio by using a material that reduces your blade weight by a substantial percentage, that will have it usable for longer periods. Generates less friction, less vibration, has better storage potential.

Can it be made actually energy profitable? I don't know. I know the path they're on now won't. Time to look at walking a different one.

So, other than a press release, an idea, and a dream you have nothing.

I think I cant get you to answer because the materials required to manufacture the millions of wind turbines you propose will increase our energy demand and use of hydrocarbons.

The simple fact is it will never be econmical to replace our current piwer plants with millions and millions and millions of your dream.

Even if what you think were to work, you still must construct and build 100's of millions of wind turbines.

Trillions of dollars will be loaned by banks, your udea is a mandate, ony feasable by the confiscation of my private property.

You have closed your mind to what has already failed, building millions more will never change the facts.

Where on earth did you get that idiocy from? You are STUCK in thinking this is trying to do it "the old way" that the morons today think if they just throw enough money at or say it often enough it'll work.

For the last goddamn time.....THINK.

You're not thinking. You're simply preaching the dogma of "it'll never work". Hell son, I'm AGREEING WITH YOU that how they're doing it now will never work. I have no doubt I'm older than you, and I'm NOT stuck with the argument they've framed.

Yes, I have an idea, and a dream. A whole lot of inventions started with nothing more. Many failed....but every one starts the same way. And the same old "it'll never work" crowd proclaims it'll never work. Remember what Edison said when asked about the incandescent light? I think this has possibilities that wind energy will probably be one of the LEAST useful applications it may unlock.

Yes, if it works, millions of them will be built. But ask yourself a question, if it works...why wouldn't they be built? If they can become actual energy producers instead of drains.

THAT is the problem I'm looking to find a way to solve. And it doesn't require any of your property, won't need trillions of dollars of government funding...and last but not fisking least. I'm NOT FISKING TRYING TO REPLACE CURRENT SOURCES!!! I'm looking to try and supplement them, with something that actually works. Not something that's just a fisking drain on current resources.

 

[9aces]

I don't really have a problem with renewable energy having a higher cost to output currently. As I've said, you learn lessons in practical applications you don't find in theory that are invaluable.

Just be honest about it. Yes it's increasing in the percentage of overall production.....no it's not profitable yet, and won't be for the near future. But it will one day if progress continues on course.

Huh?

He apparently didn't understand it either. Hell I was agreeing with him, but pointing out you learn things by applying theory in the field and noting the increase in efficiency in the current applications based on those lessons. So he picked part of what I said out to make it seem to fit what he wanted it to. He's stuck and can't get past that mode of thinking.

 

[elektra]

36 trillion comes fro

You sure?

I'm a problem solver. Pretty good one through the years, and I see lots of problems with this as it is currently being used/approached.

That's not to say there may not be a way, I think I see one. If you'll stop, take a breath and think. I know you're a decent engineer, how CAN it work? What would it take? Yes you have an energy cost to produce it, so will you need to generate power under lighter wind conditions? Use less energy to produce them, have better storage capability....lots of problems. But...maybe some solutions. Solve one problem, then another, then another....

I'm not blindly following the path the warmers and the greeners are following bleating like sheep, and hurling themselves from the cliffs like lemmings because someone told them to click the link and how to think. I'm looking at the problem and not just throwing money and propaganda at it.

I think there's a way to make it work. Look at the problem, look at the flaws, not based off materials you know. Look at one you might not and see if you think there's possibilities there, based off what it currently does, and what very well might be possible.

Is that a certainty? No of course not. It's just a possibility. Might not work, and I'll be wrong. I've been wrong before, just doesn't happen much.

Better storage, for what, wind can never supply a fraction of what we need, and at that you are proposng millions to be built? It dont matter what material you use, you still need coal and oil to produce what you have proposed.

So you have proposed increasing the use of coal, endlessly.

36 trillion dollars, or more is what is being proposed.

What a shame.

And the capacity factor?

It's sad. Your mind is so closed you won't even consider the problem. You're stuck in the argument they've framed and apparently can't escape the loop.

I'm not projecting 36 trillion dollars. You've fabricated this number from someone and attributed it to me.

I don't know what the capacity factor might be. Because I'm looking at using materials in ways they've never been done before, that currently can't do it. BUT...if they can increase the structural capability, it might be. A LOT of engineering would need to be done to look at proper size to get the return you'd get the best cost efficiency at. I can't even begin to solve that problem yet, but I can see the possibility that a material may be on the horizon that will at least give me something to look at.

But you cannot tell me that you won't get a better transfer ratio by using a material that reduces your blade weight by a substantial percentage, that will have it usable for longer periods. Generates less friction, less vibration, has better storage potential.

Can it be made actually energy profitable? I don't know. I know the path they're on now won't. Time to look at walking a different one.

So, other than a press release, an idea, and a dream you have nothing.

I think I cant get you to answer because the materials required to manufacture the millions of wind turbines you propose will increase our energy demand and use of hydrocarbons.

The simple fact is it will never be econmical to replace our current piwer plants with millions and millions and millions of your dream.

Even if what you think were to work, you still must construct and build 100's of millions of wind turbines.

Trillions of dollars will be loaned by banks, your udea is a mandate, ony feasable by the confiscation of my private property.

You have closed your mind to what has already failed, building millions more will never change the facts.

Where on earth did you get that idiocy from? You are STUCK in thinking this is trying to do it "the old way" that the morons today think if they just throw enough money at or say it often enough it'll work.

For the last goddamn time.....THINK.

You're not thinking. You're simply preaching the dogma of "it'll never work". Hell son, I'm AGREEING WITH YOU that how they're doing it now will never work. I have no doubt I'm older than you, and I'm NOT stuck with the argument they've framed.

Yes, I have an idea, and a dream. A whole lot of inventions started with nothing more. Many failed....but every one starts the same way. And the same old "it'll never work" crowd proclaims it'll never work. Remember what Edison said when asked about the incandescent light? I think this has possibilities that wind energy will probably be one of the LEAST useful applications it may unlock.

Yes, if it works, millions of them will be built. But ask yourself a question, if it works...why wouldn't they be built? If they can become actual energy producers instead of drains.

THAT is the problem I'm looking to find a way to solve. And it doesn't require any of your property, won't need trillions of dollars of government funding...and last but not fisking least. I'm NOT FISKING TRYING TO REPLACE CURRENT SOURCES!!! I'm looking to try and supplement them, with something that actually works. Not something that's just a fisking drain on current resources.

Edison proposed and built DC Power plants, Tesla created AC, Edison lost on what counted most.

You just stated polymide aerogel? The one being developed by NASA, that is my money.

100's of millions of wind turbines. Billions of tons, billions! To replace what? They will never supply industry with the energy needed to produce the billions of tons of materials you propose.

So you claim it will not be done with our money but link to polymide aerogels which are being developed by NASA.

You propose 100's of millions of wind turbine which are subsidized and mandated by government.

The World you imagine does not exsist, it is that simple.

Preaching dogma? Like you preaching that it will work? The idea only works by multiplication, 1 wind turbine times every house on earth simply to supply all the homes, that is a conservative count of 3 billion wind turbines?

Are you insane!

 

[sealybobo]

We die? We cant build more Wind Turbines.

Nuclear Power plant construction requires coal.

But Wind Powet requires millions of new Wind Turbines, endless production, a huge increase in the use of coal.

That's what I mean about flipping how much oil and coal we use and how much green energy we use. Sure we need coal and oil to build the Tesla cars but once they are build all those cars aren't using gas.

Sure we need coal and oil to build the solar panels but those things pay for themselves.

No they dont! If they did we would not need to spend trillions of dollars on them. It is endless, we must build them forever, and at that tbey can only provide a fraction of our need.

Tesla cars? Where will you find the electricity for these? Who will pay for the 10's of millions of charging stations?

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

 

[skookerasbil]

Renewables are the future

Baffles me some people still don't accept this.

Renewables are the future only to the misinformed s0n!!!

Fossil fuels are going to dominate the energy landscape for many decades. Would you like me to post up about 1,000 different projection graphs that say so, including by the Obama EIA??

Some of the population......those who are deep matrix dwellers...........fail to recognize how fringe renewable energy is in 2016. Solar still well less than 1% and wind maybe 3% or so.........laughable.

Meanwhile.........China.........the amount of coal they will be burning in 2040 dwarfs what they are using now. Same with India.

f'ing duh

 

[elektra]

That's what I mean about flipping how much oil and coal we use and how much green energy we use. Sure we need coal and oil to build the Tesla cars but once they are build all those cars aren't using gas.

Sure we need coal and oil to build the solar panels but those things pay for themselves.

No they dont! If they did we would not need to spend trillions of dollars on them. It is endless, we must build them forever, and at that tbey can only provide a fraction of our need.

Tesla cars? Where will you find the electricity for these? Who will pay for the 10's of millions of charging stations?

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

You heard wrong. There is not one city.

 

[sealybobo]

No they dont! If they did we would not need to spend trillions of dollars on them. It is endless, we must build them forever, and at that tbey can only provide a fraction of our need.

Tesla cars? Where will you find the electricity for these? Who will pay for the 10's of millions of charging stations?

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

You heard wrong. There is not one city.

Don't you have google? 4 cities in America

4 U.S. Cities That Have Gone 100% Renewable

and 5 countries
5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

 

[Billy_Bob]

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

You heard wrong. There is not one city.

Don't you have google? 4 cities in America

4 U.S. Cities That Have Gone 100% Renewable

and 5 countries
5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

And every single one has coal fired power generation for the 18 hours their systems do not work..

You are so dam gullible! Use your head for something more than a hat rack..

 

[elektra]

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

You heard wrong. There is not one city.

Don't you have google? 4 cities in America

4 U.S. Cities That Have Gone 100% Renewable

and 5 countries
5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

Hydro Electric does not count as green, it destroys the land and kills fish and the cement alone releases millions of tons of CO2.

And of course you don't count all the portable back up diesal generators do you?

Anyways this is one down, the first in your list. I know you simply took the first google search you found.

Want me to do the rest?

KMXT 100.1 FM - Public Radio for Kodiak Island, Alaska. - Line Fault Causes Power Outage in Kodiak

[
Kodiak’s electricity.

KEA operators turned to backup diesel generators, and areas of power returned spottily starting around 3 a.m. All other areas followed after 4 a.m. KEA writes that Terror Lake, as well as the Pillar Mountain wind farm, are both back online.

 

[elektra]

The electricity fairy dust will take care of it.. Just like the battery fairy will make evironeutral batteries to store that fairy wind fairy's magic electricity to build all those new turbines and steel (I wonder where they will get the coal/coke needed to make steel?)

When we need to use coal and oil, knock yourself out, but where you don't, don't.

Pbs shows us solar panels powering small cities around the world. Someone will figure it out despite your pessimism.

It aint about pessimism, which city do you refer to?

Arizona? I don't remember but I've even heard there are entire countries that are running entirely on renewable energy

You heard wrong. There is not one city.

Don't you have google? 4 cities in America

4 U.S. Cities That Have Gone 100% Renewable

and 5 countries
5 Countries Leading the Way Toward 100% Renewable Energy

Burlington Vermont, seems that is in another thread here, we pointed out already that it burns WOOD! 45 % wood and 23 % hydro, plus 10 % purchased from the grid. Nice try though.

 

[elektra]

Green Energy is all lies, next the government will classify nuclear as green and claim 20% nationwide.

 

[elektra]

It takes a long time to sort threw the politically placex stories on google but it can be done.

Most residents burn wood and coal in the third green energy city.

I bet the water company does not count thier power purchases.

More lies, hell the tell us Ivanpah works

How much does a furnace and installation cost in Greensburg, KS?

Shelter 200,000 BTU Indoor Wood Coal Burning Forced Air Furnace

 

[elektra]

Aspen? Ha! But you win, the lie is out there and knowing you are wrong, you dont care, it is all about power and money and the idiots who believe.


Aspen Skiing Co. partners with coal mine for methane power Aspen Skiing Co. partners with coal mine for methane power