There was a statement over at Left in the West that I was curious about. Since the public is not allowed to openly comment on the site I will pose my question here.
Jay made the comment that "Now's the the time to start talking about cheaper, sustainable sources of energy that are locally owned. The technology is there, why aren't we using it?" My question is, what are these technologies that are cheaper, sustainable and locally owned? Links would be really nice to study them.
In the long run, if we want to get away from power technologies that don't add CO2 to the environment, they are not going to be cheaper than the carbon based alternatives. That's why we use the carbon based fuels, they are cheaper than the non-carbon based. I would be interested in these "cheaper, sustainable sources of energy that are locally owned." They might be sustainable and you might be able to do them locally but cheaper, I really doubt it. Information is the key. If these solutions are out there let me know. Don't just make blanket statements that they are widely available and leave it like that. Some of us may have questions.
Who questions much, shall learn much, and retain much. Francis Bacon
Random Photo from The Gallery
movecows
Photo Gallery
Cafe Press Shop
Error
serendipity error: could not include serendipity_plugin_linklist:5c6a20478dcdb997411b323cfa7d7a52 - exiting.
Billings Weather
Monday, September 24. 2018
Blog Administration
All Rights Reserved
Copyright Information
All Sarpy Sam and Sam's Darling Wife photos copyright 2004,2005,2006 ,2007
May not be reproduced or used without permission.
May not be reproduced or used without permission.
Calendar
|
September '18 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su |
| Tuesday, September 25. 2018 | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Quicksearch
Awards
Archives
Powered by
Show tagged entries
corn farmers noose pictures rant dry government waste democrats yellowstone natio bums clouds neighbor organic branding responsibility disaster aid moon education news farming haying rancher heifers congress disaster idiot china bison green grass Hardin horse business wildlife friends dog Republicans food safety Jon Tester shipping taxes usca bulls chickens ncba question cool wyoming humour water children cattle markets cbm australia child abuse hay wolves lucky r-calf horses agriculture beef politics cold Conrad Burns government rain yearlings Canada fire meat packers My Darling Wife cat calving South Korea stupidity ethanol food security japan drought montana legislatu hired hand crime sunrise brucellosis BSE cow nais usda calf landscape Gov. Brian Schwei weather snow ranch markets cows calves cattle montana picture
Syndicate This Blog
I have a problem with the let's destroy BIG energy attitude. Back here in Ohio we started looking at our electrical infrastructure (think lines & substations) and the costs of upgrading are huge but remember that blackout in NYC a few years ago. Nuke energy needs to be safe, safer and highly re-engineered but it holds the promise of CO2 free energy, but locally owned nuke reactors are not coming to a home near us anytime in the future. (think big boom)
First, the public is not only allowed to comment, but to post on the site. You just have to <a href= http://www.leftinthewest.com/join.do>sign up for an account</a>. Your personal information used in the sign up will not be used in any way. Unless I want to drop you an email or sumpin.
Second, check out AERO's <a href= http://www.aeromt.org/PDFs/BlPtCompDoc.pdf>repowering Montana</a> report, which outlines a plan to use a combination of energy efficiency, solar and passive solar, wind and water to make the state energy independent not at all reliant on coal.
Mike's right about solar batteries -- but folks should just kick their extra energy back into the grid, and take it out when solar doesn't cut it. Instate hydro power is more than enough to make up for the shortfalls. That is, no batteries needed.
I've got guesses as to why these things aren't being talked about. For one, efficiency saves consumers money without putting any money into providers' pockets, so there's little incentive from the market to encourage it. Another thing, a lot of these plans cost money to implement and return the investment over the long-term; again not too sexy for folks looking to make a quick buck off a government subsidy.
It also means that the investment money has to come from somewhere -- personally I like the idea of government low-interest loans, which would actually create revenue we could give as grants to public projects in energy efficiency, etc...
Anyhow, get an account already!
Yes I've heard about AERO and there ideas. I think they are overly optimistic on future development of certain technologies and the whole plan would take massive government intervention to implement. The only thing they talk about that makes sense is some of the steps to conserve energy that can be done today.
A lot of the ideas in the AERO plan are based on commodity and agricultural prices staying the same even when you start using massive amounts to make energy. As we are all ready seeing with ethanol and corn prices, this assumption is not true and commodity prices are rising due to the demand for these crops for energy.
I just think the whole AERO plan is overly optimistic in its ideas and goals. Thanks for the info though.
Here in New York State, more than half of our year (closer to 2/3 of the year, here in the Mohawk Valley) is sunless. We have overcast skies. And all those stupid jets spewing God-knows-what into the clouds makes for more. Solar panels just won't work here. The only thing that would seriously work here is nuclear powered energy-- and the tree-huggers won't have that.
All this talk about "cheap, sustainable" energy is just a bunch of hot air.
What do you think of all this ethanol hype? I am a new reader and therefore am not aware if you have posted about it before.
I think it's all baloney, that it takes more fuel and energy top produce, manufacture, and transport the stupid stuff than to use gasoline. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'd like to hear.