@undetermined you can't have 100% green energy tomorrow. On the other hand that doesn't justify keeping burning coal/oil and not even trying to change things. That's my take on things.
@Elessar thats untrue because there will never be green energy. wind isnt green, kills birds, blades are dumped in landfills, the machines gears need 60 gallons of oil to operate which they tend to leak. solar you have panels that need minerals that are mined. which the colbalt that is used in them is harmful and pollutes the soil and waters in the areas that they are mined in and then when the solar panels get old its dumped in landfills. lithium batteries the same thing. nothing that is out is clean. its a fairy tale and dont produce much energy to boot.
@undetermined As I told you, it's a matter of compromises. If for you 60 gallons of lubricant is just as pollutant as reiterated leaks of tonnes of oil in the oceans (which kill more specimens than all the wind turbines combined and running for >100 years) you're either in bad faith or just ignorant on the matter.
@Elessar think about it. you had 1 million birds dying from that incident which was the worst incident ever. compared to about 500000 dying a given year for windmills. would take 2-3 years to compare to that event. and if more windmills goes up would maybe equate to that event. need to start thinking outside of the box.
@undetermined Think about it, killing birds was *one* of the many negative effects caused by that extraordinary incident, on top of all the damage to the ecosystem caused by both those "extraordinary" events and the ordinary combustion of fuel.
But for you old dinosaurs any reason is good for blaming progress. Wasn't it for the birds, you'd be complaining because turbines look bad
@Elessar and look at what windmills do every year compared to that one event. plus all the other so called green energy. might want to look up the pollution from colbalt and lithium mining.
@undetermined I told you, compromises. Fuel cannot be improved towards eliminating the issues it causes, renewables can eventually be made independent from lithium (there are already experimental non-Li based accumulators) or cobalt. You're comparing dying technology with bleeding edge experiental one, but I don't expect you to know the difference.
Were you born 100 years ago you'd be here complaining about cars killing the economy, and people working with horses losing their jobs. And yet, here we are, I doubt you move around primarily with a horse do you?
@Elessar you cant eliminate gas and oil. and say green energy is the way of the future, when its not green and will never be green. there are trials of sodium batteries to replace lithium but are less powerful and cant hold as much electrical charge and is heavier batteries. and have to look at how many charges the battery can take before it cant hold a charge. which are all negative compared to using gas.
@undetermined The fact you can't eliminate energy from fuels tomorrow doesn't justify halting the (slow) transition to other sources.
Compare how many cycles could withstand a li accumulator 10 years ago and how many can withstand now. Compare how long it took to charge one 10 years ago, and how long it takes now. Technology moves forward, no matter what.
@Elessar technology moves forward but you cant eliminate gas and oil. there is no cheap alternative nor a green alternative. nor an alternative that can match its energy output.
@undetermined Put the damage they cause to the environment (in terms of compensation costs) in the denominator and you'll see how low petrol and coal will go on the list.
As if today's wind and solar output was the same and will be the same of, respectively, 5-10 years ago and 5-10 years ahead wind and solar. You can't see past the present day, whereas when reasoning and even more so investments are made in this field it's a critical skill.
@Elessar still wont reach out put, look at whats happening in CA with power outages. and if you ever drive through the middle west there are windmills all over the place most of them dont even move. pretty pricey to make them and dont produce constant energy and take up large lots of land.
@undetermined To make current green technology work requires the ability to store the energy it produces, and until that tech is invented we will have petroleum fuels. And consider this, plastics and other products are made with petroleum.
@SomeMichGuy Coal has only been an existing back-up to newly implemented green technology. Fracking produces natural gas, which is clean, and being used to replace coal fired plants. Remember that natural gas heats homes, dries clothes, and cooks your food... indoors. If you do a little research you will find that the rolling blackouts in CA are caused by old plants being shut-down before new green tech has been fully implemented to meet energy demands.
Do you realize that • the fracking companies don't like to share the chemicals they use? • fracking has worsened pollution by linking heretofore separate aquifers, so that water-soluble pollutants are no longer isolated? An acquaintance at the EPA in California said that this is why one can no longer have a well in the LA basin. • some residents in TX were able to light their water after fracking?
[quote]Remember that natural gas heats homes, dries clothes, and cooks your food... indoors.[/quote]
LMAO One would have to be pretty stupid to not know this.
The power grid in CA is old and there have not been good decisions regarding upgrading it or adding capacity whrn required.
But all the power companies go in on pushing electrical appliances in the 1970s to boost electricity consumption...and then had to support more-efficient appliances 20 yrs later...lmao.
That's how accountants running engineering companies like PG&E works out...
