Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

The answer is money. If renewables and c*****e c****e reversal provides an easy path for wealth then the debate will be over. As long as I have petroleum for my old inefficient pickup which I love I will be happy

Rose42

Let's hope renewables gain the traction they need. If more could afford them there would be more people on board. Which is pretty much what you just said.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I feel the same about them. It's a love/h**e thing. I h**e them because they ruin the landscape, but love them because my son has an excellent career in maintaining them. And, trust me, they are very high maintenance.
We have thousands of them around here, and my electric bill hasn't gone down one red cent.

Ironically, the "save the planet" windfarm where he works is positioned right next to a nuclear weapons plant. All of the doors on the towers face the plant so security can keep an eye on who goes in, and out of them.

bahmer

Amen and Amen there will be cloudy days and the solar energy isn't efficient when it is night time. The wind farms of birds and they haven't solved those problems perhaps a guard around the fan would help some but add to the overall costs also the wind doesn't blow all of the time there are days when the wind hardly blows. The hydrogen one seems to be the most sensible but we haven't studied the over all bad effects that it may have on humanity that will have to be assessed later I am afraid. So far we have not been able to power a city on either solar or wind alone and we haven't powered a city with a combination either. Until that is achieved it is apparently a pipe dream.

Gatsby

If all that you claim is true, then we need no further regulation by the U.S. government, or the UN!

archie bunker Loc: Texas

In Oklahoma, a site for a proposed wind farm was knocked out because the shadows from the spinning blades would desensitize the Prairie chickens, and make them more susceptible to predation by raptors.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Maybe, maybe not.

How exactly is energy renewed? The idea that energy is renewable defies the 1st law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of conservation of energy). In a nutshell, in a closed system, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms.

Common_Sense_Matters

Every day the wind blows, wind energy is "renewed", every day the sun shines, solar energy is "renewed", every day the water flows, hydro energy is "renewed", that is why they are called renewable energy. Plant and animal life die daily but it takes a really long time for their decay to turn into oil so even though it is "renewing" all the time, it isn't entirely "renewable".

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Geothermal is the way to go...

Can't be affected by lack of wind (wind power) or flooding/draught (hydro) or sunspots/clouds/night (solar)....

Just pure uninterupted energy...

Until the Earth's core starts to cool... And the lizard people migrate to the surface... That is going to suck for you southerners....

Don't worry Arch... I'll get you and yours through the Canuckistanian Wall...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Ah... Not my claim... I stole the post from another member....

Government regulation is good in small doses...

UN needs to back off...

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

The Earth is not a closed system

joanie

We must do something, but, it is always the case of who will suffer from our choices. Here is an excellent article written a few years ago but speaks of some relevant points.

By: Beth Buczynski
September 26, 2012

About Beth
Follow Beth at @bethbuczynski

F****l f**ls are so last century. They’re dangerous to produce and filthy to burn. More importantly, they’re disappearing, and in order to get at the very last drops lingering deep in the earth, we’ve had to invent even more dangerous and filthy methods of extraction.

With that list of cons stacked up against Big Oil, Coal, and Gas, renewable energy looks like the tooth fairy. What could be more opposite than benign equipment that harvests energy that naturally occurs all around us? Although there’s no denying that solar, wind, geothermal, and other forms of alternative energy are better for our planet and the future of global power production, it’s important not to give them the rubber stamp treatment.

In June, the Obama administration finalized a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for solar energy development on federally-controlled land. Approximately 285,000 acres of public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah were made available to solar companies looking to build commercial-grade arrays. Even as it opened up 17 “solar energy zones” for fast-track development, the administration also put 78 million acres off-limits. Still, the PEIS for this development proposal acknowledged that solar projects not sited in the approved zones would still be considered — these are called “variance lands”. (Note: the PEIS, which also lays out alternative management plans, has not yet been adopted by Bureau of Land Management)

At first glance, this decision seemed to be cause for celebration. Finally, public land would be put to use for the public good — creating clean energy that could benefit the entire nation. After all, oil, gas, coal, and logging companies have had permission to pillage these public lands for decades, why shouldn’t solar companies be allowed to use them too?
Be an informed activist.

Get fact-based insights about newsworthy causes delivered daily to your inbox.

That type of reasoning could be dangerous for the very wildlife, resources and ecosystems we’re trying protect, however. Recently the National Parks Conservation Association criticized the Interior Departments decision, saying that lands adjacent to our national parks are not appropriate for any kind of development, solar or otherwise. Here’s more from an article by the NPCA’s Dr. Guy DiDonato, David Lamfrom and Elizabeth Myers:

The National Park Service has identified areas of land around 53 national parks and six national historic trails where, if industrial solar development were permitted to occur, significant conflicts with park resources and values would result. Some of the lands potentially available for solar development flank Death Valley National Park to the east and nearly abut Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. In Nevada, B*M variance lands encircle Great Basin National Park and border Lake Mead National Recreation Area. Solar developments, under the second alternative above, could creep up to the border of Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and crowd up against Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

Although it supports the general idea of solar development, the NPCA thinks protected lands should be just that: protected from any and all human intrusion. “Other excellent alternatives exist: using brownfields and other disturbed public lands, continuing to develop rooftop solar resources on the existing built environment, and supporting projects of all sizes on suitable private lands,” writes DiDonato et. al.

Of course, one could also argue that without rapid renewable energy development, it’s impossible to reduce our f****l f**l consumption fast enough to mitigate the damage it’s doing. C*****e c****e is also a threat to these national treasures and the wildlife that calls them home. What’s worse, polluting pristine lands with smog, fracking wastewater, and oil drilling rigs, or ruining an iconic view with a couple hundred solar panels? Is the fast-tracking of significant amounts of cheap, clean solar energy so noble a cause that it’s worth interrupting migratory patterns or fragmenting habitats?