Global Warming Bill passes House [Archive]

Don Corleone

06-28-2009, 14:38

The Destroy America's Competitiveness Act (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html) narrowly passes House, with 42 Democrats voting against the bill.... The act actually dovetails with the Forced Collectivization of Health Care that the White House is engaging in (taxing employer issued healt care benefits)... elderly cost the most to keep alive in a Health care system, and this bill will freeze elderly to death across northern states.

Unbelievable. Despite the fact that America already struggles to meet its energy needs, the Obama White House, in an obvious pandering to Chinese and Indian Lobbyists, "rahm-rodded" the so-called climate change bill through the house, its future in the senate remains murky.

Despite the fact that China & India will be free to continue to burn oil & coal till the skies are blacked out across the globe, Obama, on the orders of his "Chief of Handlers", Rahm Emmanuel, has decided to unilaterally tax energy produced by oil, coal, natural gas and .... wait for it... nuclear energy, even though nuclear energy produces little to no CO2 emissions, and greenie-weenie France gets close to 85% of their power from nuclear energy. Japan llikewise gets a large portion of their energy from nuclear energy.

But not us... nope. From now own, burning wood to heat your home will bankrupt you. God forbid you try to get heating oil or natural gas to heat your home. Emmanuel's answer to freezing families in Norhtern States? Maybe a windwill or a solar panel will heat your house. Doesn't matter, he doesn't care. Just shut up and turn off your heaters.

There... the old Don Corleone back for one quick Sunday morning grenade lobbed. I'm actually on a vacation weekend, so any responses aren't me shying away... I'll respond when I get home this evening.

CountArach

06-28-2009, 14:49

We in the rest of the world thank you.

Fragony

06-28-2009, 14:55

Oh ffs

idiots

rory_20_uk

06-28-2009, 14:55

If the word "energy efficiency" was not viewed as some sort of Lefty-Euro-Pinko nonsense you'd have easily enough energy.

The USA remains a world leader in waste in pretty much every aspect of people's lives, whether it is calories per head or litres of water used per head or energy per head.

Stop throwing the toys out of the pram, find some big boy pants and act like the world leader than you seem to like being viewed as when you feel it makes you look good.

In scandanavia they seem to manage to live through the winter OK. Insulation? Big work I know but it helps conserve energy

Wow! That's what, 3 new concepts for a Sunday? Best have a lie down and polish your firearm :clown:

~:smoking:

Hooahguy

06-28-2009, 14:56

I smell a rat.

Louis VI the Fat

06-28-2009, 17:41

Big Hummers = energy inefficiency = high oil prices = lots of money for Iranian despots = dead Neda.

So there. :smug:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-28-2009, 17:48

Sorry, you're getting no sympathy here, it's about time America had a civilised healthcare system and a responsible energy policy. I expect Obama has not gone far enough.

KukriKhan

06-28-2009, 17:59

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

Sheogorath

06-28-2009, 18:03

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

I thought we liked France now. :no:

Louis VI the Fat

06-28-2009, 18:31

Sorry, you're getting no sympathy here, it's about time America had a civilised healthcare system and a responsible energy policy. Indeed. 'Me, me, me and after me the deluge' capitalism is dead.

Healthcare, energy, acceptance of governance in the financial sector, immigration - all these issues are being tackled as we speak. No more sweeping problems under the rug in a bid to placate the (short-term) interests of minority pressure groups.

Pretty much the same energy bill was proposed waayyy back in 1993. It didn't make it. The result: thousands of Americans dead protecting America's energy supply. A truly staggering transfer of wealth to Chavez, Iran, Saudis, Russia. Climate and environmental problems. A bankrupt Detroit, oblivious to the sign of the times.

The days are over of bumper stickers on SUV's saying 'I support the troops' (dying in a godforsaken desert for my gasguzzling ways)

Hummer is bankrupt. It was sold off for a pittance to the Chinese. To then add insult to America's injury, the Chinese government blocked the bid - they wouldn't even have that rubbish for free.

Get with the times. America is showing its divine capability to always reinvent itself faster than anybody can say 'America is history'. The kool kids know this bill is where its at. Rearguard skirmishes are a waste of time.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

06-28-2009, 19:16

Hehe, it's exactly what the screaming heads on talk radio say: "He's gonna turn us into England (sic) or worse yet... FRANCE!!!". :laugh4:

You should be so lucky.:beam:

KukriKhan

06-28-2009, 22:23

Kicking and screaming, me and my countrymen will hurtle ourselves over the cliff of change into the abyss of the unknown...

only to find new valleys and forests of opportunity spread before us.

I'm actually proud that this Bill saw an extremely tight vote in the House. Why? Because people picked up the phone, or got on the 'net, and told their Rep's what they think. We keep thinking D.C. is a closed community that we cannot effect. That idea is fostered by the pundits on TV and Radio. But it isn't true. What we, the people, say DOES matter - every bit as much as the kids in Tehran.

Empowerment. It's not just for breakfast anymore. Peaceful empowerment = even better.

Samurai Waki

06-28-2009, 22:25

Whats wrong with acting a little eurocentric? And it may not kill our competitiveness; after all we are China's largest exporter, and if we buy less, they make less.

Papewaio

06-29-2009, 01:24

If the tax was proportional to the amount of carbon then it would be fair to level it at Nuclear. If it is on joule produced then it is not.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-29-2009, 01:53

We in the rest of the world thank you.

You say that, but when we finally go broke and take the rest of you :daisy: with us... :2thumbsup:

CountArach

06-29-2009, 01:59

You say that, but when we finally go broke and take the rest of you :daisy: with us... :2thumbsup:
Australia relies on China anyway :laugh4:

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-29-2009, 02:21

And whom does China rely on, sir?

Hooahguy

06-29-2009, 02:30

Xiahou

06-29-2009, 02:34

We in the rest of the world thank you.Don't get too excited, it'll probably die in the Senate.

This bill is a jaw-droppingly stupid idea on pretty much every level. Proposing what amounts to one of the highest tax increases ever in the midst of a recession is just dumb. You can expect the Republicans to use this vote as hammer to pound Democrat reps from moderate districts- and they deserve any flack they get from it.

CountArach

06-29-2009, 04:54

And whom does China rely on, sir?
They can call in the US debt before the US goes down. Not that I think it will.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-29-2009, 05:03

What would we pay them with?

LittleGrizzly

06-29-2009, 06:44

a side question: i dont get why all the environmentalists are so against nuclear power plants.
is it the 3-mile island or Chernobyl incidents that get them scared? i think that building more plants will help in the short term, while we work for a better solution in the long term.

I agree completely, France has the right idea (as per usual ~;)).

I think for the viro's its a mix of the disasters we've had and what to to with the radioactive waste. If global warmings as serious as the experts make it out to be then surely storing a little nuclear waste and paying a bit extra to ensure its safe is a wrothy price to pay...

CountArach

06-29-2009, 07:22

What would we pay them with?
Higher taxes, I presume.

Alexander the Pretty Good

06-29-2009, 07:30

You don't really appreciate how deep in a whole we are. :D

Crazed Rabbit

06-29-2009, 07:35

I'm having a hearty laugh at all the non-Americans acting self-righteous.

Now tell me - how many other countries signed the Kyoto agreement? And more importantly, how many are actually keeping to the agreement? IIRC, not many at all.

We in the rest of the world thank you.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?

As for this - it's complete bull****.

It will raise energy costs, which will hurt the poor. It will benefit certain industries favored by powerful congressmen over others, in an economically inefficient way (wind and solar are called renewable, water power isn't. Nuke power isn't).

Everything, and I mean everything, because everything requires energy, will increase in cost. So more people will have their purchasing power reduced as they find themselves paying a larger percentage of their income for what they regard as essentials.

That means, simply, less money spent on other things. And so all those industries will suffer, and workers will be fired.

Obama's claimed that a "million" :rolleyes: new jobs will be created. I'll admit I haven't read the bill - one reason being the democrats unveiling 300 new pages on Friday morning (That's another thing - no one has read the whole thing - they are blindly making laws). So maybe the bill includes a bunch of subsidies for inefficient job creation. But that money isn't free - it will come from taxes. And those taxes mean people purchase less of the things they really want. And those industries suffer and lose jobs.

It will take some time, of course. Time before the energy caps become really onerous, before the taxes to pay for all of Obama's policies are really jacked up. But it will come if this bill becomes law.

Get with the times. America is showing its divine capability to always reinvent itself faster than anybody can say 'America is history'. The kool kids know this bill is where its at. Rearguard skirmishes are a waste of time.

One thing France has going for it is a sensible view on Nuke plants. But knee-capping one's economy is not reinvention.

And, of course, there's the fact that this hysteria about "global warming" is overblown. Man doesn't have a significant effect on the climate. So this bill will only hurt us. Why has the temp not increased for around a decade as CO2 increase?

Though if you are a devout follower of High Priest Gore, than you still have to acknowledge that even the UN report that came out recently said that even a massive, world wide fight against "climate change" would only affect the world temperature by a degree or two.

CR

CountArach

06-29-2009, 08:51

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?
You clearly don't understand the reasons why. Our Senate is multi-party. Only the party currently in government supported the implementation of their climate change package. The (even more) Conservative opposition decided to sit on their hands because they:
1) Wanted to delay implementation of the bill.
2) Are a party where climate change denialists make up a large proportion
3) They are utterly irrelevant in our political landscape at the moment and as such take every opportunity to be obstructionist.
Further, one other conservative Independent Senator has recently come out and stated he is a sceptic. Together the opposition conservatives plus him make up a majority in the Senate.

The left-wing party and Independent in the Senate did not want to support the bill because it was absolute :daisy: . The targets were weak, the cap-and-trade system used was appauling, there was too much corporate welfare, etc, etc. It is likely the government will change their proposed bill to make it more in line with what these Senators want and will try to woo over one of the Conservatives. If this fails they are allowed to call an election for the Senate which is likely to see a Labor-Greens coalition that can pass the bill.

The bill did not pass because it is unpopular, far from it. The bill did not pass because it was a bad bill from whichever angle you looked at it. We are likely to see a new bill passed some time early next year, if not late this year and it is likely to be more left-wing.

Furunculus

06-29-2009, 08:58

I'm having a hearty laugh at all the non-Americans acting self-righteous.

Now tell me - how many other countries signed the Kyoto agreement? And more importantly, how many are actually keeping to the agreement? IIRC, not many at all.

CR

in full agreement there, must be a legacy of roman-law that countries can spend so much energy pontificating on the need for new legislation, and so much energy enacting it into law, and then so much energy not implementing it.*

No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout ain’t anthopogenic, or; is anthopogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides.

In ten years time 2008/09 may well be remembered as the year when the tide turned against catastrophic anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change.
How much longer might it take to come to realise that the best way to let the most vulnerable escape the effects of climate change is to allow them free-trade so that they can become wealthy enough to mitigate the effects of extreme weather, just like the developed world has been doing for centuries.

* However Common Law loses some of its lustre here as the UK has been quite enthusiastic about ever greater measures to 'save' the world.

rory_20_uk

06-29-2009, 09:32

If the tax was proportional to the amount of carbon then it would be fair to level it at Nuclear. If it is on joule produced then it is not.

If it was based upon the whole life of the plans and procurement of fuel I'd agree. Nuclear then gets a penalty for building, refining the ore and decomissioning - although the newer plants are easier to build, safer, can recycle other plant's waste and produce less of their own.

a side question: i dont get why all the environmentalists are so against nuclear power plants.
is it the 3-mile island or Chernobyl incidents that get them scared? i think that building more plants will help in the short term, while we work for a better solution in the long term.

Enviromentalists as a group complain about everything:

Overproduction of crops
Failing to feed the population
Culling of some species
Failure to cull other species
Gas power
Nuclear Power
Coal Power
Tidal power (flood plains and loss of habitat)
Wind power (hurts birds, the landscape and bats)
[Probably] solar power
Loss of diversity of species
Movement of species
Technology
Enterprise
Baically developments in the last 1,000 years

It's easy to complain, but far more difficult to have a problem and counter with a coherant solution.

~:smoking:

miotas

06-29-2009, 09:51

Australia just pushed back any possible implementation of their global warming bill, didn't they?

Fair cop, but our energy usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita), while still rather high, is less than you lot.

I don't think that our CO2 emissions are making a significant impact on global warming. Then again there's no way to know. Regardless, I think it's a good idea to start building up renewable energy sources because fossil fuels will run out eventually. It won't be for a good long while, and chances are I'll be dead before then, but they will run out one day. On that day, wouldn't it be better to have 90% of usage coming from renewable, rather than 90% coming from fossil fuels? This should be a gradual process though, bankrupting people over this is foolish. USA still needs to use less energy though. :grin:

A bit off topic, but what I find more shocking than energy squandering is your water squandering. Australia's litre/capita/day(l/c/d) was 282l/c/d in 2004-5. A value that I consider altogether far too excessive, we can't afford such a high water usage, people need to get it into their thick heads that we are living on the driest continent. In comparison to the USA however we're hardly using any water. The number in the USA was 608l/c/d in 1996-1998. If anyone can find more recent figures I'd be much obliged. For comparison, numbers in Australia back then were a little over 300l/c/d.

miotas

06-29-2009, 09:59

[Probably] solar power

I realise you stuck a probably there, but what bad effects can solar possibly have? In Australia, home energy use could be easily covered, with plenty to spare, by sticking a solar panel on every roof.

rory_20_uk

06-29-2009, 10:22

The thing is I can't see a problem with wave, wind or tidal - but Enviromentalists can.

Guesses would be:

Destruction of habitat (those deserts are precious you know, and almost everything does...)
Wasteful manufacturing process

There's probably some bug or whatever who'se numbers will be threatened if you try to build one.

Solar sounds for both micro and macro uses to be fantastic, making electricity and also reducing the amount that is required in many cases (solar cells prevent IR and UV rays getting through special glass, so less air con to cool the office down).

I think that a mixed approach is best; one thing I thought would be a dead cert would be building masses of geothermal plants on Iceland. But no, tehy're an eyesore... The whole country is a desolate rock. Who the hell cares? :wall:

~:smoking:

CountArach

06-29-2009, 10:45

The thing is I can't see a problem with wave, wind or tidal - but Enviromentalists can.
Can you please not lump us all together and accept that there are, as with all things, competely different grades of Environmentalist? I consider myself one (And indeed I am a member of the Green Party in Australia, as well as having attended climate-based protests/rallies) yet I support Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, etc.

rory_20_uk

06-29-2009, 10:50

Can you please not lump us all together and accept that there are, as with all things, competely different grades of Environmentalist? I consider myself one (And indeed I am a member of the Green Party in Australia, as well as having attended climate-based protests/rallies) yet I support Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, etc.

I took the average IQ of the Backroom to work that out for themselves... Yes, along with everything else in the known Universe with the possible exception of Pure Maths (and even then probably there's some doubt) there are no absolute groupings and everything is a shade of grey... :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Louis VI the Fat

06-29-2009, 13:36

climate change denialistsAre you suggesting Americans are climate septics?

* Hah! I've out-ozzied the Aussi!! *

Moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi! Oui! Oui! Oui! :jumping:

Never mind. One for the franco and ozzophones. Carry on. Call me the monster of Francozstein.

KukriKhan

06-29-2009, 13:40

I'll admit I haven't read the bill - one reason being the democrats unveiling 300 new pages on Friday morning (That's another thing - no one has read the whole thing - they are blindly making laws).

This is my primary objection to the proposed law. Fortunately, as Xiahou points out, it needs a nod from the Senate too, where it faces another stiff battle over provisions. Maybe they'll find time to read it. :)

This program is heralded as "ground-breaking", and it is for us. But "ground-breaking" = experimental, in my opinion. Predictions (both dire and glorious) have been made about the likely consequences of the program - the fact is: no body knows for certain. Therefore, in its final form it desperately needs a sunset-provision, an automatic cutoff that'll take effect in say 2012, when it can either be ignored and binned as bad law, or renewed as something workable that we like and support.

Don Corleone

06-29-2009, 17:40

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest... Nobody is arguing for waste for waste's sake. I'm not opposed to rational environmental policies. I'm actually quite opposed to any energy policy that relies on fossil fuels, from a geopolitical strategic point of view. It might surprise you to know that I drive a car (in a carpool!) that gets better than 30mpg. Your assumption that all Americans that are opposed to cap & trade must be some cigar-smoking, Hummer driving, wahoo, while a cute characterization... bears little correlation to reality. But hey, if potraying me as a wasteful, eco-enemy makes your argument a little bit easier... go ahead, it's on me. I wouldn't want to be arguing your positions either.

Solar power is harnessed by allowing photons from sunlight to strike & energize photovoltaic cells. This causes an electron to be accelerated into a higher band energy gap. The energized electron forms a current with some voltage (energy potential) stored within it. As the electron discharges its stored energy by flowing through a circuit that absorbs the power, the electron returns to its valence state.

Solar panels are temporary structures. The polysilicon contained in the photovoltaic cells can only make those transitions so many times before the cell loses efficiency, typically at an exponential rate. Once the cell's effiicency is depleted, there is little use for it and no hopes for recycling, given current technology.

The polysilicon and some of the heavy metals such as cadmium used to create the cells are highly toxic. So is the silicon-tetrachloride, an extremely volatile liquid compound that is a byproduct of the poly-silicon manufacturing process. Apparently, in China, India and other places where solar cells are manufactured in volume, they just dump it on the ground in watersheds. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html)

Wat for watt, by far, the cleanest energy technology that exists is nuclear power, which is why the wise French & Japanese have come to rely so heavily upon it. The "boogeymen" you hear about half-life's only tell half the story... college physics will tell you the longer a half-life, BY DEFINITION, the less reactive the material in question. Granted, I don't want spent plutonium dropped in my local landfill either, but there are easy solutions to the problems of waste disposal that the scare mongers don't want you to know about.

There's also a question of scale. Cedars Hospital's cancer unit produces more nuclear waste in a given year from nuclear medicine than most full-blown reactors (granted, its much lower reactivity waste). But nobody is talking about taxing oncologists out of existence. Why is that?Hopsitals doing more than their part in filling everyone else's backyards with radioactive waste. (http://www.organichealthwellness.com/?p=188)

And how anthrogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about. Utterly amazing, I had no idea Republican oilmen were buring fossil fuels over 135 million years ago. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011120045859.htm)

As long as people inject so much emotion into what should be a scientific debate, I have little to no tolerance for those making the arguments to "do something". The whole carbon cap & trade swindle is designed to 1) steer money to lobbying constituencies 2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors 3) as always, make us "feel good", because we "did something", even if that something was utterly impotent in its effectivness.

rory_20_uk

06-29-2009, 17:43

LittleGrizzly

06-29-2009, 18:24

And how anthrogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about.

Heres a crazy idea.... there could have been other factors involved...

*hears response of maybe those factors are in play now*

Well i though you might say that ~;)

The way i see it (assuming the scientists are right) is there are plenty of factors involved inb global warming. Plenty of which are out of our control, as we can see by the earth changing temperature throughout its lifetime...

But the clincher is (again assuming the scientists are right) that whilst factors outside our control may be influencing the climate a factor inside our control is influencing the enviroment, and if we are doing so negatively and we think by reducting our negative contribution we can reduce the negative effect on our climate. Then theres every reason to do it...

Personally i see Nuclear, wind and water power as the way to go at the moment, with research needed to maximise the effeciency of the renewable sources...

2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors

I think the idea behind this is fairly sound, how well its actually put into practice i don't know, but from what i heard the idea is that these country's need to develop along the same lines as we did. Its unfair for us now were devolped to turn round to the un/under developed country's and tell them they can't naturally grow like we did but must work differently.

Thier industrial revolutions aren't going to be clean as ours weren't, its after thier industrialised that they can work better towards enviromental standards

Vladimir

06-29-2009, 18:34

Xiahou

06-29-2009, 19:38

Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.

~:smoking:You can only setup large solar facilities like that in relatively few places. Much like wind power, there are very few places where it can be harnassed reliably. Wind, solar, ect, will never be more than boutique energy sources. They can be used effectively in few places and in the rest of the country they can only be used as a part-time supplement, not as a replacement for traditional energy generation sources. The only non-fossil fuel energy source that can be used virtually anywhere is nuclear energy. Any plan to replace fossil fuels that doesn't rely heavily on nuclear, isn't being serious.

Good post, Don. Next, you'll be telling me that energy-saving florescent bulbs destroy the environment as well. :wink:

Vladimir

06-29-2009, 19:48

Good post, Don. Next, you'll be telling me that energy-saving florescent bulbs destroy the environment as well. :wink:

Mercury.

Don Corleone

06-29-2009, 19:51

[QUOTE=rory_20_uk;2274365]Don, I think you're slightly wrong.

Solar power is utilising energy from the sun. One method is that you've described, but there are several others which utilise mirrors to focus the sun's rays on one point and utilise the energy by heating water to drive a turbine. I believe that there are also others.

Actually, you're somewhat right. I didn't have time to go back and edit my post before leaving. A lot of it is also done with parabolic mirror arrays to heat tubes filled with heat-transfer fluid, like Therminol.

Before you get too excited about this technology, which does look promising, by the way, there's a lot more to be done. Assuming ideal solar conditions (the 2 plants I could find were in Nevada), they get about 52MW/year from a 400 acre array. The tubes themselves are filled with Therminol, which is a corrosive terphenyl which needs to be replaced periodically (still researchng how much is required and how often it has to be replaced).

Now, we all know how wasteful Americans can be, so let's take nice frugal Germany as an example. Germany consumed 579 trillion kilowatt hours in 2004. So, to power Germany on solar, even using these nifty new heat exchanger parabolic mirror arrays, you'd need 508 thousand acres.

Or, you could expend about 1 metric ton of enriched uranium. I know which choice I'd make.

By the way... the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?

Louis VI the Fat

06-29-2009, 20:26

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest... Look Don, I'm going to have to be frank with you:

I naturally haven't the faintest clue about the specific content of this energy bill so I made some broad, sweeping statements trying to bluff my way into this debate, eloquently worded in the hope you'd fall for it and

wait, hang on, that was not what I was going to write. I meant:

America really does have serious challenges to face: environmental, and about energy independence. Luckily, the solutions to both go hand in hand. So too does the concept of investing during a recession. This bill goes a long way into being a good brew of the three.
Is the bill perfect? No. It is product of uneasy compromise, of heavily politicised science, of incompatible interests. But the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This bill is a good step forwards towards rethinking an unsustainable energy and environmental policy.

As a general remark, environmental concerns are not leftist. It eludes a left-right scheme. For example, two high-profile and distinctly right wing politicians who adopted the environmental and climate cause, are Thatcher and Sarkozy.

The specifics about nuclear energy in this bill I do not know much about. Of course, I think nuclear energy is a great medium term solution. I shall happily accept your verdict that this bill does not aid the nuclear cause.

Louis VI the Fat

06-29-2009, 20:34

the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I once read a report that said that with today's technology, a solar plant of 10.000km2 (About New Jersey?) could provide all the energy needs of Europe. If build, unfortunately, in the Sahara.

Luckily, America has the space and the sunshine in the Southwest.

rory_20_uk

06-29-2009, 20:46

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I once read a report that said that with today's technology, a solar plant of 10.000km2 (About New Jersey?) could provide all the energy needs of Europe. If build, unfortunately, in the Sahara.

Considering where we get our oil and gas from it's really not that bad. Spread it over several countries and it'd be a nice revenue stream for the governments involved.

~:smoking:

Crazed Rabbit

06-29-2009, 21:01

The bill did not pass because it is unpopular, far from it. The bill did not pass because it was a bad bill from whichever angle you looked at it. We are likely to see a new bill passed some time early next year, if not late this year and it is likely to be more left-wing.

I never gave reasons for it not passing - I simply wanted to show that the 'rest of the world', smugly thanking us, isn't doing anything themselves.

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?

Build a few miles of cable to connect the solar plants to America's power grid?

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type.

As a general remark, environmental concerns are not leftist.

Well the greens and the socialists always seem to be cozying up with one another.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

06-29-2009, 21:12

I'm assuming from that statement you're not an engineering type. I am too!! :furious3:

For example, I once managed to correctly connect all the cables on my new computer!

Papewaio

06-29-2009, 22:41

If it was based upon the whole life of the plans and procurement of fuel I'd agree. Nuclear then gets a penalty for building, refining the ore and decomissioning - although the newer plants are easier to build, safer, can recycle other plant's waste and produce less of their own.

Yes, just like comparing the cost of creating polystyrene cups vs clay and then repeated hot water and detergent (with phosphates or other chemicals) makes some interesting analysis. True total cost should be compared. Much like the not so well thought out first phase of CFC replacements had some worse chemicals substituted as replacements.

One thing that should be looked at is not just carbon released but all the greenhouse gases. And yes from go to woe including transportation costs of the coal to the stations would be useful.

=][=

Mind you do we want a cooler or hotter planet? Surely hotter means the ability to feed more people.

Papewaio

06-29-2009, 22:55

If you are green and believe that mother nature knows best then the number one energy source would have to be Fusion. But since we can't make our own suns, the next best natural made thing would be Fission. As I haven't seen a nature made coal plant, or windfarm, or solar farm (mind you an organic solar panel that uses plant properties would be cool)... but nature does make its own nuclear reactors.

So for the natural energy source, made by mother nature and found here on earth. GO NUKE!

miotas

06-30-2009, 00:17

Surely just collecting the energy produced by nature's power plant is more natural than trying to mimic it :wink:

Also, while nuclear is far better than burning fossil fuels, it still relies on the use of non-renewable resources. Our ultimate goal should be to rely entirely on renewable energy sources. And while it may be easier said than done. Surely once everything was in place, feeding power from huge solar power plants in the desert to less sunny places would be ideal?

And that 30mpg car, I've just done the math, it works out to 12.75km/L which is ok but nothing amazing. I drive a car that's 15 years old and it gets 16.5km/L on the highway and about 11km/L around town. I could very easily get better around town efficiency, but I'm a 21year old Aussie bloke. I like putting my foot down. :laugh4:

Are you suggesting Americans are climate septics?

* Hah! I've out-ozzied the Aussi!! *

Moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi! Oui! Oui! Oui!

Well you've certainly out aussied this aussie. What are you going on about you crazy frenchie? :thinking:

Papewaio

06-30-2009, 00:39

Solar power on top of houses make sense. The real estate isn't being chewed up.

I don't think there is enough desert to make up for voltage drops in long distances. Not to mention that so much land needs to be used. So what do we choose feed humans, biodiesel or massive solar farms.

Also strictly speaking just like fission, solar energy isn't a renewable resource. The sun will die out sometime... just a lot longer then other power sources.

Louis VI the Fat

06-30-2009, 01:34

Well you've certainly out aussied this aussie. What are you going on about you crazy frenchie? :thinking:Wordplays that only work when you understand both English and French, and which I enjoy and which the experienced posters here have learned to happily ignore and wait for the day I'll either give it up or finally learn proper English. I myself, however, think of myself as a refined artist and consequently live under the false impression that I can not fully express myself unless I share all my wildest associations with the world at large. It's very annoying.

A 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'an American'. Yank - septic tank - septic. An Australian once learned this to me, so I assumed it was Australian. Alas, it's Cockney, Ozzies use 'seppo'.
An American climate change sceptic then, is a 'Climate septic'.
Moi Aussi - Me too. Oui - yes. It's a French pun on Ozzi and oi. When Australians shout Ozzi Ozzi Ozzi, oi oi oi! one replies with moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, oui, oui, oui!. Meaning 'me too, yes yes yes! It even rhymes in French too. This is genuinly funny and is a great tactic to confuse Australians.

CountArach

06-30-2009, 03:38

Also, as a green party member- are you a supporter of water (ie dams on rivers) and nuclear power, or just the environmental ones that are unproven for supplying any significant fraction of a nation's energy?
No problem with dams, because I think that there are no other practical ways to collect the water Australia needs, but I would prefer that local environmental concerns are kept in mind at the same time. As for Nuclear, if someone can come up with a cost-effective and environmentally sound way to dispose of the excess then I have no problem with it. I just don't believe that those exist yet.

Also I would take Nuclear over fossil fuels any day, it's just that I think we have far safer technology at our hands now. Geothermal and tidal, for instance, could power a lot of Australia.

Devastatin Dave

06-30-2009, 05:09

The only thing about this that I'm going to enjoy is watching the great wailing and gnashing of teeth of all the parasites that feed off the government teet having to fork out their less than hard earned money for higher gas prices, utlities, and other affected items that they thought their messiah was going to give them, or shall i say, take from someone else and give them. They get to feel the pain of Obamanation like the other people living in reality an not in the world of Hope and Change.
Just wait till he breaks his promis about not raising taxes on the folks making less that 250,000. I'm going to sit back and drink a bud. :laugh4:

BTW, Green is the new Red. Most of the greenies' leaders are nothing more closet marxist trying to "spread the wealth" as the Kenyan/American President would say. If your part of the movement, your just a useful, well, individual. :2thumbsup:

Beskar

06-30-2009, 05:17

Everyone always misses ITER out when talking about energy solutions.

Papewaio

06-30-2009, 06:34

Wordplays that only work when you understand both English and French, and which I enjoy and which the experienced posters here have learned to happily ignore and wait for the day I'll either give it up or finally learn proper English. I myself, however, think of myself as a refined artist and consequently live under the false impression that I can not fully express myself unless I share all my wildest associations with the world at large. It's very annoying.

A 'septic' is Cockney rhyming slang for 'an American'. Yank - septic tank - septic. An Australian once learned this to me, so I assumed it was Australian. Alas, it's Cockney, Ozzies use 'seppo'.
An American climate change sceptic then, is a 'Climate septic'.
Moi Aussi - Me too. Oui - yes. It's a French pun on Ozzi and oi. When Australians shout Ozzi Ozzi Ozzi, oi oi oi! one replies with moi Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, Aussi, oui, oui, oui!. Meaning 'me too, yes yes yes! It even rhymes in French too. This is genuinly funny and is a great tactic to confuse Australians.

Actually I have heard olded Aussies call them Septic Tanks for Yanks. I got the joke.

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 09:05

First, Louis, Rory, and the rest... Nobody is arguing for waste for waste's sake. I'm not opposed to rational environmental policies. I'm actually quite opposed to any energy policy that relies on fossil fuels, from a geopolitical strategic point of view. It might surprise you to know that I drive a car (in a carpool!) that gets better than 30mpg. Your assumption that all Americans that are opposed to cap & trade must be some cigar-smoking, Hummer driving, wahoo, while a cute characterization... bears little correlation to reality. But hey, if potraying me as a wasteful, eco-enemy makes your argument a little bit easier... go ahead, it's on me. I wouldn't want to be arguing your positions either.

Wat for watt, by far, the cleanest energy technology that exists is nuclear power, which is why the wise French & Japanese have come to rely so heavily upon it. The "boogeymen" you hear about half-life's only tell half the story... college physics will tell you the longer a half-life, BY DEFINITION, the less reactive the material in question. Granted, I don't want spent plutonium dropped in my local landfill either, but there are easy solutions to the problems of waste disposal that the scare mongers don't want you to know about.

And how anthropogenic is the current rise in global temperatures? We've had warmer periods, and we've had more dramaticly sharp heating up periods (the Middle Ages rings a bell). Where was all the CO2 we evil men were releasing coming from back then? Oh, that's right, we're not supposed to use climate data prior to 1600AD, because Uncle Albert has some Inconvenient Lies he'd rather we not ask him about. Utterly amazing, I had no idea Republican oilmen were buring fossil fuels over 135 million years ago. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/11/011120045859.htm)

As long as people inject so much emotion into what should be a scientific debate, I have little to no tolerance for those making the arguments to "do something". The whole carbon cap & trade swindle is designed to 1) steer money to lobbying constituencies 2) hamstring the US economy by punishing it while rewarding countries that are far worse pollutors 3) as always, make us "feel good", because we "did something", even if that something was utterly impotent in its effectivness.

+1 for an awesome post Don, I am in full agreement. the climate-skeptic charge lacks all nuance, and presupposes that we we are all conscienceless industrialists, or their lackeys, who happily pile toxic waste on top of their CO2 belching power stations at the same time as we contaminate and then landfill the worlds non-renewable resources.

the french do indeed deserve praise for their sensible energy policy, quite how the UK has ended up being so backward on the issue of nuclear power should be a point of national shame.

the 'consensus' that we are all fed daily is in my opinion anything but, although my opinion should perhaps be less of a surprise to me given that i am a geologist by training if not by profession, so i only later found out that as a group geologists are among the most skeptical of climate/earth science related disciplines.

and then there are the true useful idiots, the millions of people who gratefully trough at the output of the BBC and their ilk, people who scream "science" at the top of their voice without the self awareness to appreciate the irony of their elevation of the principle of reasoned argument into raw faith.................... i would despise them, but they know no better.

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 09:14

By the way... the heat exchanger solar plants I referenced are in Nevada & Arizona. What are northern areas or overcast areas supposed to do?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,630948,00.html

rory_20_uk

06-30-2009, 10:57

I don't think there is enough desert to make up for voltage drops in long distances. Not to mention that so much land needs to be used. So what do we choose feed humans, biodiesel or massive solar farms.

Also strictly speaking just like fission, solar energy isn't a renewable resource. The sun will die out sometime... just a lot longer then other power sources.

I think that the voltages they're able to use are quite efficient. Sabotage or natural disasters would be the true problems.

Well before the sun dies it will become a Red Giant, and either swallow the Earth or blast off the atmosphere and boil off the water. So, from the Earth-centric bias we currently have, it's infinite.

I am sure that periods in the past the earth has been hotter. I am also pretty sure that for part of this the UK was submerged beneath the seas.

Be it a natural phenomenon or not, the flooding of a large portion of the landmass is either something to try to at the very least delay, or we need to think about new ways of living in this environment.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 11:44

I am sure that periods in the past the earth has been hotter. I am also pretty sure that for part of this the UK was submerged beneath the seas.
~:smoking:

historically the sea is at as high a level as it has ever been in the last million years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level

during that time sea level has spent ~95% of time at a lower level than present.

and that lower level has a amplitude ~20 times greater that maximum of the brief higher level periods of recent geological history (circa 1,000,000 years).

miotas

06-30-2009, 12:09

The earth was almost certainly far hotter millions of years ago, and the sea levels were much higher than they are today. Technically we are still in an ice-age, the earth is "normally" much hotter than it is now.

Millions of years ago, Australia was almost completely submerged with only today's coastal areas forming a huge archipeligo. That is why there are oil deposits in the outback. The same is true for all inland oil deposits all over the world. Oil is formed from old sealife that has been compressed underground for millions of years, in much the same way coal is formed from old trees. So all the oil in the middle-east is because it was submerged in the past.

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 12:16

rory_20_uk

06-30-2009, 12:26

i have a bsc in geology, so i am aware of these processes. :)

I wish I'd done Geology...

~:smoking:

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 12:49

I wish I'd done Geology...

~:smoking:

i should have done International Politics.

CountArach

06-30-2009, 15:08

No one ever wishes they did history :sad:

Louis VI the Fat

06-30-2009, 15:53

i should have done International Politics.That's exactly what I keep thinking when I read one of your EU posts...

:creep:

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 16:39

No one ever wishes they did history :sad:
we are almost all of us here interested in history, its just a matter of whether we would be further interested in studying it academically.

That's exactly what I keep thinking when I read one of your EU posts...

:creep:
if you were a more astute historian you would come to the opposite opinion.
besides which, i never figured out why my views on the UK's place within the EU seem so barbaric to you, after all; i have nothing against the EEC/EU, i like free trade, i like some level of harmonisation, i like cooperation where a common viewpoint is available. i simply see no need for federation, and find distasteful the dishonest drift towards federation, is that so bad?

Louis VI the Fat

06-30-2009, 18:23

It's just a wee little tease. :wink:

Once Brahms was send a symphony by a good friend. A budding composer. To his dismay, Brahms never spoke about it to him, not for months. Then, one day, both were walking the streets of Vienna together. There was a poor gypsy sitting on the streetcorner, playing a tune on his accordéon. 'Listen!', said Brahms, 'He's gotten hold of your symphony!'

On another occasion, Brahms was invited to the première of an exciting new work by Liszt. The entire concert hall was most excited, both by the prospect of the new work and the presence of the great Brahms. Halfway through the performance, however, the musicians and audience were greatly disturbed by a loud noise: it was Brahms, soundly asleep, snoring loudly.
Despite Brahms' claim that he was simply exhausted, many never spoke to him ever again after this affront.

By which I mean to say..erm...dunno exactly what the point is. Maybe that some people simply are the way they are. Don't take it all too personally.

Strike For The South

06-30-2009, 20:15

This whole conversation makes me want to waste energy. Im going to turn all the lights on in my house.

Furunculus

06-30-2009, 21:17

Alexander the Pretty Good

07-01-2009, 00:09

No one ever wishes they did history :sad:

That'd be me.

/I wish I did your mom.

Papewaio

07-01-2009, 04:58

Biogenic synthesis is certainly the main if probably only commercial source of oil.

What is interesting is the potential of bacteria deep down in the mantle being another part of the story of some of the oil. Still more of a hypothesis then a downright certainty.

I think if we could divert more oil to other industrial uses then an energy source. And more efficiently tap other sources of energy and use them more efficiently we can at least eke out enough time to get fusion working... just need about 200 years or so. :laugh4:

rory_20_uk

07-01-2009, 10:42

Animal and plant fats and esters are very close to hydrocarbons, and efficient processing can be converted into similar raw stocks for industrial use.

A better alternative is to devise different plastics that utilise properties of biological esters, phenols etc etc rather than shoe-horning them into the synthetic process.

~:smoking:

miotas

07-01-2009, 11:19

KukriKhan

07-01-2009, 14:35

Papewaio

07-01-2009, 22:52

Nah, Chemists have to many moles to be attractive. :drummer:

Banquo's Ghost

07-02-2009, 07:34

Nah, Chemists have to many moles to be attractive. :drummer:

Groan.

That produced a reaction.

Furunculus

07-02-2009, 13:50

CERN takes another look at Galactic Cosmic Rays:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/01/message-in-the-cloud-for-warmists-the-end-is-near/

Ice

07-02-2009, 16:52

I want to point something out about wind power. There is a common misconception that you can simply hook up a wind mill to a power grid and be done with it. This is very far from the truth. There are a few a factors you have to take into consideration using wind power:

1) Where is there Wind?
2) How can I transfer this power to other areas?
3) How can excess power be stored?

I'll use Michigan as an example.

One of the best places for wind power in Michigan is a small city (more like a town) called Bad Axe which sits on the upper portion of the thumb of Michigan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Axe,_Michigan (map included)

Bad Axe is a fairly rural place, but great for wind. So, let's say you decide to invest heavily in wind power in Bad Axe. Alright you have the energy. Now how do you transfer it? Good Question... Unforunately wind power can not be transfered using conventional power grids, so you would have to build an entirely new grid system throughout the state of Michigan to transfer power to the population centers of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing...etc. Have fun with that. Not only is it extremely difficult due to the isolated nature of Bad Axe, it isn't cheap. Finally, we get to the third point: What do you do with all the excess power that wind energy produces when not being used? Unfrounately, the our current batteries do not have the level of technolgy needed to effectively store energy for a long period of the time so the energy is effectively wasted.

I just figured I throw in my two cents. I am advocate of such clean energy, but technology at this time limits our options. I'd say go nuclear.

rory_20_uk

07-02-2009, 22:43

There are ways to store the energy - counter weights, turbines to pump water or increase the pressure of a gas, hydrolysis of water.

~:smoking:

Whacker

07-03-2009, 00:33

Beskar had a good point. If it could make it past all the stupid political BS, ITER has a huge potential to revolutionize energy production for the world. Too bad it might actually prove to be far too safe and efficient, and would put all those poor coal and oil barons right out of business.

Failing that, there are plenty of good ol' fission nuke plant concepts that are ridiculously safe and generate roughly the same amount of waste as current plants. Pebble bed reactors for example. The reason you won't see many pebble bed types at all is because they're very poor at acting as breeder reactors for weapons grade material. We gotz to have our nukuler bombz.

Beskar

07-03-2009, 00:49

Beskar had a good point. If it could make it past all the stupid political BS, ITER has a huge potential to revolutionize energy production for the world. Too bad it might actually prove to be far too safe and efficient, and would put all those poor coal and oil barons right out of business.

It's pretty much that holding it up, also it is the "Green Agenda" as they are being forced to funnel money into things such as solar panels and windfarms which are far cheaper to setup, but far far less efficient. If they get ITER up and running, it would decimate oil based economy as oil would only be used for things like making plastic.

Viking

07-03-2009, 18:43

Unforunately wind power can not be transfered using conventional power grids, so you would have to build an entirely new grid system throughout the state of Michigan to transfer power to the population centers of Detroit, Grand Rapids, Lansing...etc.

That sounds wrong to me. Never hear of similar before.

Edit:

There are ways to store the energy - counter weights, turbines to pump water or increase the pressure of a gas, hydrolysis of water.

~:smoking:

Such a system has indeed been implemented on a Norwegian island as a pilot project (http://www.hydro.com/en/Press-room/News/Archive/2005/November/16889/).

Ice

07-09-2009, 05:23

That sounds wrong to me. Never hear of similar before.

Why does that sound wrong? Any engineers on this board who can verify this claim?

Melvish

07-09-2009, 05:54

I think that all that jazz about cars CO2 pollution is a bunch of of nonsense. Have big enough forests and CO2 will never be a problem. Global warming is just a gimmick used by government to get our attention off more pressing matter and give us the illusion they care while they can go on with their 'shady' business.

Basically we could all drive electric cars, yet if there is no trees left we're still done for because of cows farts. What we should realy worry about is NOx and SO2 (those do not come from properly equip cars) pollution that translate to acid rain that decimate forests. Water and soil pollution should be our main concern. What will we do with all the trash we are dumping in the water and burring in the soil? What to do about companies that clear entire forest and do not replant? Is our current trees replanting technique effective? What about genetically modified seeds that get sterile once grown? Is ruining (as in nothing will ever grow there for the next 100-300 years) high producing wheat fields and contaminate water on a 3:1 ratio to produce oil worth it?

Always laying everything on the shoulder of common citizens while big corporations have free reign.

Viking

07-09-2009, 10:45

Why does that sound wrong? Any engineers on this board who can verify this claim?

Well, I've had wind power on my curriculum; only as small portion; but the drawbacks you mention seem so huge and well worthy of inclusion in any text concerning wind power.

The only drawbacks of wind power my curriculum mentioned, IIRC, are:

* enviromental
* aesthetical

..and of course you need enough wind.

If I've understood you correctly, you said that we basically have to build things like this

https://img132.imageshack.us/img132/2439/power20linec.jpg

all over the state again?

This NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) article talks about the grid system being to old to keep up with modern energy demands; but none the less, wind mills are already connected to it. Is this what you meant?

rory_20_uk

07-09-2009, 11:35

Overground is probably cheaper, but there's no technical reason why the cables can't be buried.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

07-09-2009, 12:51

Why does that sound wrong? Any engineers on this board who can verify this claim?

therev was a der-spiegel article some time back talking about the perils faced by national grids around germany from the 'backwash' or suprlus wind-power, but i cannot find the article.

of interest:
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20498WP%20Wind%20Power%20Systems/Safety%20of%20Wind%20Systems.pdf

Ice

07-09-2009, 15:44

This NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1) article talks about the grid system being to old to keep up with modern energy demands; but none the less, wind mills are already connected to it. Is this what you meant?

Yeah that's what I meant. Like I said, carrying windpower from the few places that are have a lot of wind, to places around the country which don't have a lot of wind is a challenge. Apparently you can use conventional grids to transfer such power, but not very well.

Melvish

07-09-2009, 18:34

Yeah that's what I meant. Like I said, carrying windpower from the few places that are have a lot of wind, to places around the country which don't have a lot of wind is a challenge. Apparently you can use conventional grids to transfer such power, but not very well.

Well we do it without problem here in Quebec and we have large number of wind turbines. We even sell the electricity to the USA.

Louis VI the Fat

07-13-2009, 22:06

I once read a report that said that with today's technology, a solar plant of 10.000km2 (About New Jersey?) could provide all the energy needs of Europe. If build, unfortunately, in the Sahara.

Luckily, America has the space and the sunshine in the Southwest.

Ah. Things are at last moving forward.
On Monday, a group of companies including some very big industrial concerns - Siemens, RWE, E.On - met with representatives of the German government and other political players to sign a memorandum of understanding that could eventually see the flowering of desert power - the Desertec Industrial Initiative.

Partners will now spend three years putting together viable financial packages that could plant solar facilities across large swathes of the Sahara by 2020.

There is talk of 400bn euros being invested. For comparison, that would dwarf the cost of the Iter fusion power project.

Remember those startling high-tech photos of mirrors gleaming in a Californian dawn that filled the covers of glossy magazines back in the 1980s? That's a concentrated solar thermal power station.
So is the space-age tower rising from Spanish soil, just outside Seville, which may soon provide enough electricity to meet that city's needs.

The Desertec project's initial goal is "to produce sufficient power to meet around 15% of Europe's electricity requirements and a substantial portion of the power needs of the producer countries".

These will be in North Africa and the Middle East, probably stretching round as far as Jordan, whose Prince Hassan bin Talal declared that "partnerships that will be formed across the regions as a result of the Desertec project will open a new chapter in relations between the people of the EU, West Asia and North Africa".

But the dreams are even bigger. Why not power much more of Europe from the region? Why not electrify much of South America from the Atacama desert and the mountain tops of Patagonia? Sydney and Melbourne from the Simpson desert, and western China from the expanding Gobi?

One reason why not may turn out to be security security of supply. Why trade dependence on Middle Eastern gas for dependence on Middle Eastern solar electricity, some would ask.

Politically, the project will build better bridges between the EU and countries that would like to be closer to it; other benefits could flow over those bridges. For EU nations, one of the attractions is that it provides a partial route to the target of providing 20% of the bloc's energy by 2020 - a target that, in many observers' eyes, is considerably more ambitious than the 20% greenhouse gas reductions that the EU has also pledged.1) Why oh why is this mostly a German project, instead of an EU one. :bangshead:

2) We should never have given up on Algeria. We're swapping dependence on oil states for dependence on solar states. :bangsheadsomemore:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/

Xiahou

07-13-2009, 23:41

2) We should never have given up on Algeria. We're swapping dependence on oil states for dependence on solar states. :bangsheadsomemore:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/At least you can stockpile oil in the event of a disruption.... :sweatdrop:

Crazed Rabbit

07-14-2009, 03:31

For those pondering 'Why not build a bunch of solar farms in desert states of the USA?''

A huge wind power plant, with already hundreds of millions USD invested, was canceled; (http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=10659090)

HOUSTON (AP) - T. Boone Pickens disclosed today that his plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped.

The Dallas energy baron says he's now looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines that he's already ordered. Those turbines stand on pylons

Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which stand on 400-foot-tall pylons - taller than most 30-story buildings.

In Pickens' words, "My garage won't hold them. They've got to go someplace."

Pickens' company Mesa Power ordered the turbines from General Electric in a $2 billion investment a little more than a year ago. Pickens says he has leases on about 200,000 acres in Texas that were planned for the project, and he might place some of the turbines there. But he says there's a problem in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system.

The problem is the distribution of power (http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/gigaom/green/2009_07_07_whoa_t_boone_ditches_worlds_largest_wind_farm_plan.html); it's clear you can't simply build lines from the desert to the cities.

CR