Greenies? When should we expect this “breakthrough” in Wind and Solar Power you been saying for 40 YEARS?
by admin on Saturday, October 22nd, 2011 | 23 Comments
No matter what the topic or discussion, Liberals are without a doubt “Adults with the Minds of Children”…
Only a Child could think that such Primitive, Silly, Ridiculous Methods could EVER be Reliable Energy Sources…
What are you people smoking?
.
Oh – any day now
just give us another $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or so and we’ll get it right
If you had your way we would still be communicating with tin cans on a string. Innovation and advances start with imagination. There are worse things than being child-like. Crusty and backward come to mind. Soon.
over 50% of france’s power come from renewable resources such as wind and solar, it is not ridiculous, it’s just thinking outside the box. Oil and coal are running out, and we need something to fuel america when it does.
Also, america was built on innovation. We cannot stick with the old technologies while other countries move to more advanced ones less we fall behind.
Pay better attention.
There are dozens of wind farms across America supplying many states..
There are wind farms out in the ocean supplying the USA and Canada with electricity.
Who Will Build the First Offshore Wind Farm in North America?
This month the Ontario Power Authority announced that it had, in just a few months after introducing the increased incentives, awarded contracts worth $8 billion for development of some 2,500 megawatts of new renewable energy projects — or roughly the capacity of two midsized nuclear power plants.
Among the beneficiaries is Windstream Energy, which plans to build a 300-megawatt wind facility on about 48,000 acres of shallow water near Wolfe Island, Ontario.
The Wall Street Journal noted last week that both sides of the Great Lakes are ripe for wind power development — but whether Windstream, Cape Wind or some other developer will prove to be the first to get an offshore project up and running on this continent remains anybody’s guess.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/who-will-build-the-first-offshore-wind-farm-in-north-america/
well if we would of been funding the Solar and wind power Research it could of already happened
instead we just threw money at the ceo’s in the petroleum fields
so give it time
Well they will never make it with you holding them down in favor of dirty energy whose supply can be owned and controlled. I know you hate that no one owns the sun or wind and theirs less money to be made.
conservatives are the ones who are thinking like children, building a society on an energy source that is finite and irreplaceable. what happens when we reach peak oil?
With improvements in battery life. It has improved in 20 years–there is also a question of economies of scale.
But, you’re right, we should just give up and resign ourselves to petrol. It’s the only solution.
Maybe when America actually creates an energy plan.
Yes, I also hate all new things, change and attempts at innovation.
Everything should stay exactly the same forever, as this is the way of God, who has blessed us with an infinite supply of oil, conveniently located in those boring wildlife preserves. He also gifted us with trees that eat all of the pollution made from the generosity of the corporations that mass produce our Freedom Products. GOD BLESS AMEN
The internal combustion engine had a lot of weaknesses in 1903, too.
People said it would never replace the horse. Maybe all automobile development should have stopped then and there.
It’s not that they are not reliable, it’s that they are clearly not cost effective.
How much do they pay for energy in France, geniuses?!?
Surprise! It’s been going on for years. We are actually about five years ahead of predicted increases in efficiency and cost-reduction in solar power.
Wow, you couldn’t have been schooled more on this “question”.
Its not a bad idea. Any breakthroughs for energy would be beneficial to the planet.
12% of California’s electricity comes from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric facilities. Large hydro plants generated another 11.7% of our electricity.
Already happened.
It is possible to totally power your home with solar, and it isn’t all that expensive IF you do all the work yourself. (labor is typically 2/3rds of the cost) Not to mention the prices have dropped so much.
You can even stay connected to the grid and MAKE a profit in some states.
Just as soon as we all have ‘green-garden-rooftops.’ I’m not kidding (or knocking). The University of Arizona is currently studying the impact having organic garden rooftops have on home temps.
Too bad it only requires totally revamping our current building techniques to support the additional/significant weight.
Actually wind power has been used for centuries.
There’s a Solar Energy Generating Systems in USA and there are others in Europe.
Maybe if you eat guacamole, you’ll know about Mexican politics.
Actually, I’ve never heard any liberal project a “breakthrough” in such technologies at any given point in time. Breakthroughs have occurred, and will continue to, as the technologies receive more research focus.
“Primitive” in reference to technologies that are far more advanced (and complex) than exploding gas engines (yes, that’s actually what internal combustion engines do) is a severe misuse of the word.
In all likelihood, what we see today as common wind/solar/etc. will eventually grow to be able to provide a significant portion of the world’s power needs, as we learn to use the sources more efficiently (more volts per square inch of panels, etc.). Couple this with newer technologies that could reduce demand (like LEDs), and you have a formula for making some headway. Newer technologies will have to fill the remaining gap.
What do you propose as an alternative to these? We know we have a limited supply of fossil fuels. In its current state, nuclear technology is not long-term supportable (expensive, plus the storage problems). Hopefully advances will make nuclear power more viable as a primary source in the next 50 years.
Yes. I said 50 years. Technological advances are moving more rapidly, but large changes don’t happen in the timeframes you’re supposing. Large changes take longer times: look how long it took for internal combustion to completely eliminate horses and steam engines.
To answer your question – NEVER
Here comes the 2 points truck – giving me two points (Twooot Twoot)
……..|¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨…
……..|……….2 points ………|||”|”"\__
……..|__________________|||_|___|)
……..!(@)’(@)”"”"**!(@)(@)****!(@)
Your argument hasn’t been valid in 20 years. While Reagan was ripping the solar powered water heater off the white house, Denmark decided to invest in green energy. Today, they get over 95% of their energy from renewable resources, and we’re still slaves to the middle east.
We could have been energy independent by now, but people like you stopped that. Now you want to destroy the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve instead of doing what we should have done 20 years ago.
Isn’t it time you just dropped the crap, and admit that we should find a better source of energy?
Windmills were replaced with the expansion of the electrical grid. They were once used on farms before electricity expanded to rural areas. I don’t think anybody objected at the time. I love solar for my little glass humminbird lights in the flower bed but even they don’t light if it wasn’t sunny that day. I even have a solar powered water pump for a tiny water fountain but relying on these two methods of producing energy is not only very expensive, it is very unreliable. I realize this power is stored in batteries but I’m far from convinced this is a realistic replacement without the accompanying changes in life style.
On the second tuesday in Dec 2154