Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[10ebbor10]

We are in the peculiar position of not having had a government this dysfunctional....since before the Civil War.

There's only one solution.

The south will rise again.

I think those risks can be minimized through more effective engineering.

The one in thousand is already quite spectacular. And do note that not every turbine failure ends with a disastrous projectile scattering. However, failures stack. Nuclear plants are engineered to sustain core damage only once in a million year per plant. (New plants are even better, IIRC). Incidents still happen.

But still, it's not that smart to put it next to people's home, and certainly not a good idea to put them in the middle of a Chemical industry zone, next to a nuclear power plant, and close to a densely populated area.

[Owlbread]

Farmers up here often have their own wind turbine for electricity, sometimes right next to their house. I think the risk is negligible.

Damnit, now I've been coronated as page king. I'll quote the other post so we stay on topic:

We are in the peculiar position of not having had a government this dysfunctional....since before the Civil War.

There's only one solution.

The south will rise again.

No Susannah, don't you sit and spin...

[Mrhappyface]

Well the US is building more LNG terminals, so it seems like the next big thing will be natural gas before large scaled green energy.

[Sheb]

It's already the case in the US. Sadly, at the moment it's coal that's climbing in the EU, because the switch to shale gas in the US caused US coal miner to dump their coal on us.

Owlbread: farmers may have wind turbines, but they're usually small stuff, not 140 m high tower with rotor 80m in radius.

[Lord Shonus]

Well the US is building more LNG terminals, so it seems like the next big thing will be natural gas before large scaled green energy.

Isn't natural gas something like 40-60 percent less polluting than oil or coal? I seem to remember reading that it was a lot better from an ecological viewpoint, just more expensive and less efficient. Seems like an ideal transitional source.

[Descan]

Even if natural gas burns cleaner, I think the extraction process adds a whole bunch of pollution (both global, like CO2, and local, as in the local water reserves) that the other fuels don't produce, or at least not as much.

Edit: I might be thinking of fracking. I'm not entirely sure what fracking produces? Shale oil, right? >_>

I'M NOT VERY WELL INFORMED. ;_;

[10ebbor10]

Well the US is building more LNG terminals, so it seems like the next big thing will be natural gas before large scaled green energy.

Isn't natural gas something like 40-60 percent less polluting than oil or coal? I seem to remember reading that it was a lot better from an ecological viewpoint, just more expensive and less efficient. Seems like an ideal transitional source.

Natural gas used to be more expensive, and produces only neglible less energy. Fracking ended the cost argument. (To the point that natural gas started to push renewables out of the market).

Storage and transport is the main problem.

[Mrhappyface]

Well the US is building more LNG terminals, so it seems like the next big thing will be natural gas before large scaled green energy.

Isn't natural gas something like 40-60 percent less polluting than oil or coal? I seem to remember reading that it was a lot better from an ecological viewpoint, just more expensive and less efficient. Seems like an ideal transitional source.

Horizontal fracking, if unchecked can cause large damage ecologically. You are right though about shale oil, but fracking produces both. Gas is not necessarily hard to extract, just harder to store and move. There's many unchecked shales throghout the US, so we won't be running out any time soon too. The creation of terminals (essentially giant freezers) takes quite a while though.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

LNG is probably going to end up one of those fast-rise, fast-fall situations. As the poll I posted earlier demonstrated, fracking is losing support at a critical pace.

Wind and Solar are where it is at, and once we've gone full renewable, mostly where it will stay.

[10ebbor10]

I dunno. Deap Sea Calthrate exploitation is advancing pretty quickly, and might be able to take over in time. Because we all know energy compagnies don't care about PR as long as there's money in it.

And I'm not so sure about the permanence of Solar and Wind. It's still a pretty impractical energy source, requires network reworks, and isn't that stable.

[Mrhappyface]

Well maybe not domestically, but India and China are the largest importers of natural gas. They could really care less about the environmental concerns when they put the growth of their economies first.

[Darvi]

They could really care less

Off topic, but...

*cringe*

[10ebbor10]

Relevant

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Well maybe not domestically, but India and China are the largest importers of natural gas. They could really care less about the environmental concerns when they put the growth of their economies first.

Economic wellbeing and environmental concerns are not unrelated subjects. This is the kind of thing I cannot stand about "but the economy" arguments. The economy is going to suffer a lot worse than what any environmental regulations impose if we suffer ecological collapse.

[10ebbor10]

Even before that. Most of China and India isn't exactly liveable anymore. Hence why they're also majority investors in all sorts of renewables, nuclear and whatever technologies.