|
Post by Jarhead620 on Aug 22, 2015 9:06:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Aug 22, 2015 20:47:02 GMT -6
Like it or not follow the money. 1.5 trillion is a lot of revenue to lose if you are heavily invested in the future of alternative energy. I am not a hysteric on this issue, but we are experiencing significant changes in weather patterns that impact many aspects of our lives. I am not going to get into the left, right of who to blame or not to blame but change is with us. Changes will show up on the terrestrial portion of the earth first and with the most volatility and flex. Why? It is 25% of the Earth and soil has far, less ability to modify temperature changes than does water. Also with being involved in agriculture, agriculture research and yes genetics of crops we have seen big changes in how and where crops can and are being grown, not only in the USA but worldwide. Just take a look at the garden catalogs that are sent out every year and have been for decades. The areas that used to be say region 5 or 4 have changed a lot as to winter hardiness for plants. Just in WI alone we have increased the moderate winter hardiness area considerably in the last 30 years. Another real issue is not the actual temperature change but the temperature range that makes the average. One can have say an average temperature for say Eastern WI of 59 degrees for the year. If that is made up of a more narrow range to make the 59 degrees then things work well. If one gets say too warm in January and we ice out our alfalfa that is bad. If we get too cold in April the fruit trees are done. If we get too high of temps in late July or early August corn pollination is poor to nil.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 26, 2015 6:04:09 GMT -6
a conservative site, trying to push the values they think are correct- is denying climate change?
wow- that's a shocker indeed.
if you want to look at the money side- why does it seem that those putting millions into promoting the candidates that deny climate change, are the ones benefiting the most from traditional energy sources?
and that the author of this piece, Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which is sponsoring the All Pain No Gain petition against global-warming.
hmmmn.........
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Aug 26, 2015 15:50:09 GMT -6
Affordable Health Care is the GOP mantra to rally the citizens that prefer less government. The huge backers of the anti Obama crowd are all heavily invested in fossil fuel based energy and changing this would cost them a lot of money, a lot of money. We currently don't have mega billionaires in the alternative energy camp, and there is a strong push not to have any either. Alternative energy is a way of decentralizing energy and that does not bode well for the few that own the most of what we currently have. Also they have considerable control over the government at most levels.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 3, 2015 20:12:00 GMT -6
Climate change LOL. It has been happing every day for millions of years and if anyone thinks the U.S. by itself can make a real difference or for that matter the world as a whole make a difference that could even be documented well I have some swamp land to sell.
Anyone think China and Mexico and other countries care about climate change or making more money and exporting more product?
Alternative energy would cost us trillions and trillions and increas rates just facts, look at what has happened with the technology we have in Place with the combustion engine burned on diesel and gasoline! The added cost to be compliant has been billions and has added cost from start to finish. Yet many other countries burn hi sulfur diesel each and every day and many auto makers make diesel pickups and cars in those markets that would never pass US standards. Where is the mandate on them?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 5, 2015 8:30:01 GMT -6
facts? alternative energy will cost trillions and trillions? that's not a fact- that's blue sky
yes, I think pretty much the whole world cares, based on the countries participating in trying to change the status quo. Except the Tea party, of course
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 5, 2015 11:07:14 GMT -6
Tell me how China cares?
Here are the facts.
The federal government is touting a new power plant in Mississippi as an historic advance in the fight against climate change. The facility, built in Kemper County by Southern Co. (SO), is the first large-scale coal-fired U.S. power plant built to capture carbon. To do that, it will convert coal into gas, then use the gas to power turbines, creating electricity. Instead of venting the resulting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the plant will turn it into a liquid, which will then be used to extract hard-to-access oil from nearby fields. U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz calls Kemper the plant of the future and says the country could use 100 more of them. Perhaps. But there are good reasons to be skeptical.
The first question is whether the new technology will work as promised. Southern recently delayed to next year the date it expects the plant to become operational, citing among other things “unanticipated installation inefficiencies.”
Second is cost: The project’s initial 2006 price tag of $1.8 billion has risen to $5.2 billion. The energy it produces will cost more than $6,800 per kilowatt, compared with $5,500 for nuclear energy and $1,000 for a modern natural gas plant. Kemper’s ratepayers will thus see a 22 percent increase in their utility bills. Should local residents bear so much of the cost of developing a new technology, when it’s the country and the world that benefits?
Before Kemper becomes a model for future plants, the federal government will need to address those concerns. Successful operation will go a long way toward quelling legitimate worries about the technology. It will also counter critics in industry and Congress who say the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed emissions caps on future power plants are unrealistic.
Costs matter, too: Moniz argues that future Kemper-style plants will be less expensive, as the technology is perfected. Yet that doesn’t address who will pay for what will continue to be more expensive than traditional coal-fired power production. Measured against the risks of global climate change, and the scale of action needed to ensure against those risks, Kemper is a reasonable bet. Before government and industry place any more of them, however, they have some questions to answer.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 5, 2015 11:09:46 GMT -6
Who is going to have to pay the 22.2 percent increase and who will not?
5.2 Billion for 1 of these plants 1 only! We could use 100 more?
Couple that 22.2 percent with rising cost for water,sewer,food and taxes and wages in the tank across the board and housing having a redirect on the market doesn't sound real rosary to me, Add in the added cost for many companies making construction equipment to be tier 4 compliant and many other countries who dominate the manufacturing of goods sector that could care less and have little EPA type oversight how does that empower the U.S. or north America for that matter? We become more dependent on cheap goods made overseas. People do not have the buying power with the increases for energy and other things to buy american .
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 6, 2015 0:43:48 GMT -6
China cares more than many think about energy use and pollution. They shut down hundreds if not thousands of factories for up to two months to clean up the air for the Olympics. They know what the deal is they just don't have alternatives they can afford as of yet if they want to continue to grow in our current fossil fuel based world. As to trillions and trillions, yes I believe there is a quite a bit of truth in those figures, just as there are trillions and trillions of dollars in cost currently for world energy use. We always talk about lost jobs if and when we change and never talk about job creation with other sources. I also agree that the global climate has been changing since the earth was created. In fact there has been unbelievable change during and after creation as we would not have the fossils to prove that or the diversification that comes with change. Why are most if not all the oldest living creatures from an historic perspective found in the water? Probably because water modifies the impacts. As our earth becomes more populated by humans change has more noticeable impact on humans. I am not going to argue with anyone over who causes this or who is accelerating the change but when you have 7 plus billion with massive infrastructure, small changes impact many more and more dramatically then when we had fewer with less development. Changing our energy sources and usage for most developed nations is more about being willing to change course and live with those choices than it is about the in ability to do so. Lets just look at hybrid autos as one example. As millions and millions of more vehicles use electricity as well as gas the real issue will be not where the oil comes from but what are we using to create electricity. Electricity is an unbelievably more flexible form of energy and by today's standards already not cheap but it can be created by many means and can be quite decentralized as well.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 6, 2015 6:09:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 8, 2015 18:19:38 GMT -6
Tman it has been proven that people at some stations where data has been gathered has been changed to show a higher temp change than what has truly taken place.
Again if YOU or anyone thinks that North America can make a change to the the earths changes then so be it, I and many of others feel not the case. Now do I think we should do what we can without an adverse effect on business and costing american far more money from their pocketbook? Yet this entire global warming thing has been blown way over the top scare tatics used by many. Who thinks the earth will continue on for ever? Who thinks we can change it to last another 100,000 years? No one can make such a claim, the sun could burnout tomorrow and where all dead.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 9, 2015 21:32:52 GMT -6
Global Warming is probably a lot more about political aspects than science. The businesses heavily invested in fossil fuel energy have rallied for the very conservative approach of using those fuels and they spend billions per year worldwide buying political capital to maintain those dollars into as few hands or firms as possible. The Dems in the USA and other moderate or non energy backed parties worldwide support alternative energies to create less dependence on the few wealthy firms and also do decentralize the energy distribution firms and encourage more creativity etc. The scare tactic high volume screams come from the conservative energy suppliers when in real actuality the Global Warming aspect right or wrong is being heavily funded as well by different backers and they are gaining real economic power by those investments. The pendulum is swinging and it is not really for the betterment of the current providers. With low cost current energy prices many will say why change it is cheap. Those promoting alternative energy may well watch nations and firms financially become desperate and also say look at all the money we are saving on energy right now, we have money to invest in alternative options. All the Global warming shouting in the World will not decimate fossil fuel energy more than $46 oil will. Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 10, 2015 6:00:30 GMT -6
TC- people used to believe there was nothing we could do to improve our water- and many, like you now, say why bother, why even try?
and yet...today our rivers and lakes are the cleanest they have been in centuries.
so isn't it better to be a leader? than someone that does nothing?
insofar as your questioning whether its happening, that ship has long sailed and any discourse on such will be on your own
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 10, 2015 15:42:44 GMT -6
To lead what and at what cost?
Funny your bring up water, ask those out west how we are doing with water LOL. Water will be the next gold before long out west and that is no joke.
Again our atmosphere doesn't hang around North Amercia either so the particals in the air, we can limit pollution and that is great but their has to be a cost to benefit ratio thought of,versus a line drawn in the sand and mandates applied to something we surely do not have ALL the answers to.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 16, 2015 8:44:13 GMT -6
the problem out west- is people are living and farming in deserts.
I want to shout...hey people-its a DESERT
no we don't have all the answers, and there will be mistakes along the way- but the choices aren't all or nothing- A journey begins with a single step and all that.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 16, 2015 21:48:57 GMT -6
Americans want the US to be a world leader. So why shouldn't we lead the way for alternative energy sources? If we do the research and lead the way, countries that are starting to develop can start off using alternative energy and not have to begin at the beginning with polluting energy sources. Whether or not humans have anything to do with climate change, we certainly do have everything to do with air pollution. Clean air for people to breathe is a worthy goal for every country in the world. Change comes slowly but even some big oil companies are starting to invest in clean energy sources: oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-Greenest-Oil-Companies-In-The-World.htmlCheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 17, 2015 16:55:53 GMT -6
Than we are talking California the state with the highest population in the US! LOL. Everyone come live in California but wait we have a ton of smog and no water LOL. Oh that is ok we will tax you to death for the benefit of living in out grrat state and tell you no weed eaters or BBQ grills.
Pam your source is India and I see a - sign behind them? Also 75 million is a drop in the bucket for a company like shell.
We have wind energy here in the U.S. look at Storm lake, Iowa, Wyoming and North Dakota then the problem that comes up are all those that want to save birds, wait you mean the wind turbines kill millions of birds annually? OH NO we can't use that either LOL.
Then we have nuclear energy yes let's use it with the technology and safe guards far better than it use to be, but wait I don't want any nuclear reactor in my neighborhood. Move it to the middle of now where they say yes that will work, Nope the cost to move the power down the line way too much for those looking to invest in such LOL.
Funny how we always want better yet we have run off coal and other energy resources for many,many years and most people can live with the options, except for the vocal minority just like we have with wind and nuclear LOL?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 17, 2015 17:07:10 GMT -6
Also look at the power output of the largest solar bank in the world as your link stated it creates 250 MW of energy and what is the cost of such?
Now compair that to the 4 unit coal fired power plant in council bluffs, Iowa that creates 1,600 MW of energy! Major difference in amount and cost! I am betting they could clean it up as well, also don't forget that mid american energy uses a lot of wind energy some of the biggest in the US by years end 39 percent will be generated by wind and they will be able to,produce 3,335 MW of energy from wind they own over 1,700 wind turbines in Iowa and the expansion is at a cost of 1.9 BILLION!
See the difference? They also know that using a multitude of energy Resources mixed old and new creates a stable energy system and at a cost people can afford. We all know energy cost are up big time and forcing out ALL COAL will only add to the burden of the U.S. not help it.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 19, 2015 8:28:04 GMT -6
transistor radios came out in the 50s- and were terribly expensive. ditto for calculators- simple ones first sold for hundreds of $$$
and computers are light years better than 30 years ago, and cost a fraction of what they did then.
technology isn't free, nor cheap when its in the developing stages
but it GETS cheaper, and more efficient as time goes on.
why all the hype to stop forward thinking and progress?
you sound like the whale oil people when oil lamps first appeared.......
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 19, 2015 8:28:21 GMT -6
I got a nuclear reactor in my back yard- and another a less than 200 miles away-
so?
|
|