RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

[tieman55]

RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

Technology is largely a lie, it is today's vernacular for miracles.

Technology does amazingly great things to improve productivity in our lives but that is where it ends.

Technology can not do away with the laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet that
is exactly what politicians, liberals and many others promise technology can do.

While miracles have happened, Church's and many leaders of Church's way way over sell those acts and the same is true of politicians, they promise that technology will some how over come the physical laws, just like a miracle.

There is no such thing as renewable energy yet conservatives either don't know it or I fear, they don't want to get in the way of the liberal agenda. I find it unbelievable that most conservatives are unaware of the 1st law of thermodynamics. So the only alternative is they really want the liberal agenda.

You cant renew energy and you can't use water. Energy can't be created or destroyed, it only goes in one direction, it is always less available, always! And last night while I was sleeping I inventoried all the water on earth, and it is still there, LOL so YES, you can't use water, deal with it.

I believe it is axiomatic that if a technology works, liberals will be opposed to it. If a technology doesn't work, liberals and many conservatives will be 100 percent for it. Do I dare say a "wall" not very tech but liberals use the promise of technology to conceal their agenda of open borders.

I could give you many many examples but just one each for now.

Technology that doesn't work, Solar panels: Solar panels produce no net increase in available energy. Solar Panels are a ponzi scheme where you send very valuable potential energy (coal) to China, they send back worthless solar panels and liberals and others love them. I am sure many doubt what I just said, but I assure you with NO doubt of being in error. Solar panels "produce NO net increase in available energy". In fact they produce negative amounts of energy.

The number one problem with solar panels are; Their power is never on demand and they are always at full load. So no mater how many panels there are, you can never ever reduce even one power plant, as the sun doesn't always shine. You must understand that ALL energy is produced with energy. To have a net gain, in any energy source, you must produce a multiple amount of new available energy to have a net gain and or surplus. To have a so called "renewable" energy economy you will have to double the amount of so called fossil fuels to fuel the "renewable" energy, as it will not produce any net increase in available energy.

Technology that does work that liberals and others are against, this is a tough choice as there are so many.

Burning trash for energy. The technology is here to completely "scrub" the pollutants out of burning trash. Burning trash would solve various problems at once.

1. No more trash in the oceans.
2. No more cost of picking up trash, companies will pay or pick up your trash for free.
3. No more land fills.
4. Lower electric cost.
5. Lower fuel prices as fuels are fungible
6. No more recycling, recycling is yet another ponzi scheme.

It will never happen because it is so beneficial, liberals just can't live with things that work, it in no way fits their agenda of control.

The number one thing that technology has brought to American is bigger government.
As american's we have taken the vast amount of productivity gains from technology and we have
purchased, more than any one thing, a larger government. Sad but true.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

There is so much scientifically wrong with this that I don't know where to begin. The primary issue is the Earth is not a closed system, there a massive amount of energy being ADDED to the system every day from the sun and that is the primary source of most the renewable energy being talked about. Sunlight drives the wind and water cycles that provide sources of energy. So there is no conflict with thermodynamics here.

The exact same arguments being used about solar could be said about coal, it produces no 'new' energy per se, it is just the utilization of solar energy captured by plants many years ago.

Yes, the sun is a finite energy source but one that not going to run out anytime soon.

 

[tieman55]

There is so much scientifically wrong with this that I don't know where to begin.

Your reply actual encourages me. Perhaps I am being far to cynical. If well meaning people don't easily get the idea that you can't create energy, perhaps this is a little more difficult to understand than I think it is.

All energy is produced with energy.

Oil can be used to pump oil from the ground, one gallon of oil can easily produce 100 to 1000 gallons of oil, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be used on demand.

One lb of coil can be used mine coal, one pound of coal produces enough energy to mine a ton of coal, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be sued on demand.

A shovel and a cheeseburger produces a ton of coal in the back of a pickup truck, that can be used on demand. Ten's of thousands of fold increase in net available energy.

A therm of natural gas pump thousands of therms of natural gas, a significant distance, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be used on demand.

A solar panel can never in its life span produce itself, it just can't.
Keep in mind that the solar panel is subsidized with potential energy at ever turn. The design and engineering is done with power produced by power on demand, the construction and assembly is done in industry that uses coal and oil, the transportation, installation and the maintenance of the panels is 100 percent done by diesel fuel. The people who work on the panels are fed, clothed and sheltered with oil, coal and gas. All of these fuels easily produce themselves with vast net gains in availability and all are available on demand.

A solar panel can not produce itself, let alone a multiple increase of panels.

The solar panel has far bigger problems than above. It is not available on demand, so the energy is basically worthless. And this next reason will be hard for people to understand, but a solar panel is always at full load, you cant throttle it, making it really valueless. We need energy when we need it at the level we need it and only, only , only potential energy can that.


God's solar energy plan: Take a hi-tech seed, plant it in a place that is naturally watered and in the life span of a solar panel you will have something worth in excess of 5 or 10 thousand dollars. The solar cell will be ready for the land fill. The money that was spent on the solar panel could plant thousands of trees, that would make the owner of those trees a multimillionaire.

Back to your reply, the major problem with your note is that you don't differentiate between the two types of energy, and only two. Kinetic and Potential. Any attempt to use the latter to "only" capture the former will be met with the reality of the 1st law of thermodynamics. It can't be done with an increase.

The word only is in quotes because there are some exceptions to that rule when you are using potential energy to capture kinetic energy, but "only" when you start out with potential energy.

One is called an economizer used in power plants to capture exhaust gas temperatures and feed them back into the system. Economizers are used in a few industry to capture wast heat. But you are always starting with potential energy.

The second every one will be familiar with but they really won't know exactly how it works but now they will. A turbo charger in an automobile uses wast heat from exhaust in a beneficial way. A turbo charger uses high temperature exhaust of above a few hundred degrees to turn a turbine that pushes air into the intake manifold of an automobile. The main gain that is seen in a turbo charged car is reducing/eliminating throttling lose. Engines use a great deal of energy to "suck" in the air to the motor past the throttle, Diesel engines have not throttle so they really gain from having a turbo. So instead of the engine working hard to pull in the air, the piston is actually pushed down by the pressure in the intake manifold by the turbo, giving a big increase in efficiency.

This is a good example of where you can capture kinetic energy that is wasted from your use of potential energy. And I will use it to make a broader point. This technology really works, it really does a great job. "if" a legislator wanted to do something that works, they could make turbos mandatory in all engines. It will NEVER happen, LOL never. Precisely because it works, my cynicism has returned.

Keep in mind that both of the above examples are fueled by potential energy and then the waste heat from the potential energy is harvested, so this kinetic energy is available on demand and is not always at full load. In both these examples, very little potential energy is used, almost none and a significant amount of kinetic energy is gathered. Similar to the production of energy, 100s of fold increase are needed to make a turbo charger a viable enterprise.


The suns fuel is potential, it emits kinetic energy, and if you lay out in it long enough and your fair skin you can get a sun burn. But it is a foolish endeavor to use good potential energy and try to capture the kinetic energy from the sun and expect to get a surplus, it is not going to happen.

 

[ok doser]

... solar panels ... power is never on demand ...

can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[ok doser]

The solar panel has far bigger problems than above. It is not available on demand, so the energy is basically worthless. And this next reason will be hard for people to understand, but a solar panel is always at full load, you cant throttle it, making it really valueless. We need energy when we need it at the level we need it and only, only , only potential energy can that.

right, so we store it as potential energy, in the form of a battery, commonly

or molten salt

or water pumped into a reservoir

all of these are examples of potential energy

 

[tieman55]

"Power on demand"

When you turn on an electrical device, fuel is added to a power plant.

The turbine / generator in the power plant in a power plant turns at an electrical speed. That speed produces the Hertz or the cycles per second, a governor keeps the speed of the turbine at 60 hertz .

Fuel is added that creates more and or hotter steam that turns the turbine. The turbine / generators are linked with many other turbine / generators via electrical lines. This forms the grid. The grid has to have what is called spinning reserve, or excess capacity. At any time if a power plant is lost for whatever reason, there has to be enough spinning reserve to compensate for the lost power.source. When the power source is lost , fuel is added to all the other plants to take up the loss, that is what you call "power on demand" You can't operate at full throttle, if the grid was at full throttle and you have an unfed demand, you have what is called a black out. or load shedding.

Power has to be available on demand or it is worthless, we want power when we want and or need

 

[ok doser]

"Power on demand"

When you turn on an electrical device, fuel is added to a power plant.

The turbine / generator in the power plant in a power plant turns at an electrical speed. That speed produces the Hertz or the cycles per second, a governor keeps the speed of the turbine at 60 hertz .

Fuel is added that creates more and or hotter steam that turns the turbine. The turbine / generators are linked with many other turbine / generators via electrical lines. This forms the grid. The grid has to have what is called spinning reserve, or excess capacity. At any time if a power plant is lost for whatever reason, there has to be enough spinning reserve to compensate for the lost power.source. When the power source is lost , fuel is added to all the other plants to take up the loss, that is what you call "power on demand" You can't operate at full throttle, if the grid was at full throttle and you have an unfed demand, you have what is called a black out. or load shedding.

Power has to be available on demand or it is worthless, we want power when we want and or need

ok, i understand

When solar panels are feeding power into the grid, what happens to all the other plants feeding the grid? Their demand drops, their fuel delivery is lessened, fuel is saved for when it's needed (like nighttime)

 

[tieman55]

The natural course in this discourse is trying to avoid the law that forbids using potential energy, good and useful energy into a ponzi scheme to produce a net increase, it can't happen, it doesn't happen.

The most value that a solar panel can ever have is at the moment it is made, at that point it can be put into the grid and that electricity can be used. But what is its value? It is not on demand. What is it value. The most it could ever be worth is the value of the cheapest available potential fuel. Today that is natural gas. The fuel cost of natural gas is about 2 cents a kilowatt hour.

Now the truth is it is not worth near that much. The power company needs to buy the power at a discount as it is there business to produce power. I purchase things and then resale them, I get and or give about a 30 to 40 percent discount to do that, power companies would need to do the same. So the value of the electricity is about 1.4 cents per kilowatt hour Panels at 1.4 cents per KWH will never ever ever produce the fuel that took them to produce them. And that isn't their biggest problem. Their biggest problem is the power they will generate takes 30 years to get! You wasted good potential energy that was produced on demand to get what. A dribble of juice over 8 hour periods over 30 years that can never reproduce itself. You can't get around the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Trying to use solar power to store energy is a further loss of potential energy. In a battery, you can never ever ever produce the energy to even make the battery. Not to mention the 20 or 30 percent you have lost in charging the battery and discharging it. It doesn't pencil out.

Electricity is kinetic energy, you can't store it, it doesn't work out, you will lose at least 30 percent of the original potential energy.

 

[wonderdog]

RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

Technology is largely a lie, it is today's vernacular for miracles.

Technology does amazingly great things to improve productivity in our lives but that is where it ends.

Technology can not do away with the laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. Yet that
is exactly what politicians, liberals and many others promise technology can do.

While miracles have happened, Church's and many leaders of Church's way way over sell those acts and the same is true of politicians, they promise that technology will some how over come the physical laws, just like a miracle.

There is no such thing as renewable energy yet conservatives either don't know it or I fear, they don't want to get in the way of the liberal agenda. I find it unbelievable that most conservatives are unaware of the 1st law of thermodynamics. So the only alternative is they really want the liberal agenda.

You cant renew energy and you can't use water. Energy can't be created or destroyed, it only goes in one direction, it is always less available, always! And last night while I was sleeping I inventoried all the water on earth, and it is still there, LOL so YES, you can't use water, deal with it.

I believe it is axiomatic that if a technology works, liberals will be opposed to it. If a technology doesn't work, liberals and many conservatives will be 100 percent for it. Do I dare say a "wall" not very tech but liberals use the promise of technology to conceal their agenda of open borders.

I could give you many many examples but just one each for now.

Technology that doesn't work, Solar panels: Solar panels produce no net increase in available energy. Solar Panels are a ponzi scheme where you send very valuable potential energy (coal) to China, they send back worthless solar panels and liberals and others love them. I am sure many doubt what I just said, but I assure you with NO doubt of being in error. Solar panels "produce NO net increase in available energy". In fact they produce negative amounts of energy.

The number one problem with solar panels are; Their power is never on demand and they are always at full load. So no mater how many panels there are, you can never ever reduce even one power plant, as the sun doesn't always shine. You must understand that ALL energy is produced with energy. To have a net gain, in any energy source, you must produce a multiple amount of new available energy to have a net gain and or surplus. To have a so called "renewable" energy economy you will have to double the amount of so called fossil fuels to fuel the "renewable" energy, as it will not produce any net increase in available energy.

Technology that does work that liberals and others are against, this is a tough choice as there are so many.

Burning trash for energy. The technology is here to completely "scrub" the pollutants out of burning trash. Burning trash would solve various problems at once.

1. No more trash in the oceans.
2. No more cost of picking up trash, companies will pay or pick up your trash for free.
3. No more land fills.
4. Lower electric cost.
5. Lower fuel prices as fuels are fungible
6. No more recycling, recycling is yet another ponzi scheme.

It will never happen because it is so beneficial, liberals just can't live with things that work, it in no way fits their agenda of control.

The number one thing that technology has brought to American is bigger government.
As american's we have taken the vast amount of productivity gains from technology and we have
purchased, more than any one thing, a larger government. Sad but true.

It's hard to believe that this post is for real.

There's so much wrong with it, it seems pretty pointless to really address it, but I think a start would be that the poster obviously doesn't actually understand what "renewable" energy" is or what it means.

"Renewable energy" simply means that the source of energy is rapidly and naturally recurring. For example, wind, flowing water, or sunshine. Once the energy from the sun is converted to electricity, the sun still continues to shine. On the other hand, while fossil fuels like coal might (or might not0 replenish after they're gathered and used, that replenishment wouldn't occur for thousands of years. It's unsustainable.

Renewable energy sources are flow-limited, meaning that while the source of the energy will replenish, it may stop for periods of time (windless days that a windmill sits still, or at night when the sun doesn't shine and solar panels can't collect/convert the sun's energy).

But as has been pointed out: energy can be stored. So a solar panel can collect & convert energy from the sun and that energy is then stored, for example in batteries or to charge a generator for later use. Lo and behold: the stored energy that was collected by solar panels in the sunlight can be used at night when there's no sun!

By the way, burning trash (in some cases not all) is considered an example of renewable energy. For the most part however, burning trash is unsustainable. Too poisonous.

 

[tieman55]

Power plant scrubbers, they work. The technology exist to scrub the smoke coming out of power plants. About the only thing they wont take out is nuclear sources of which they are almost zero in domestic trash.

The technology does not exist to keep trash out of the oceans because you won't allow countries with no room to land fill to furn the trash.

Most landfill will eventually leak, they are expensive and they only postpone the problem of the trash. Burn it, get it over with and scrub the smoke so it as clean as the air around the power plant.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

There is so much scientifically wrong with this that I don't know where to begin.

Your reply actual encourages me. Perhaps I am being far to cynical. If well meaning people don't easily get the idea that you can't create energy, perhaps this is a little more difficult to understand than I think it is.

All energy is produced with energy.

Truth.

Oil can be used to pump oil from the ground, one gallon of oil can easily produce 100 to 1000 gallons of oil, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be used on demand.

One lb of coil can be used mine coal, one pound of coal produces enough energy to mine a ton of coal, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be sued on demand.

A shovel and a cheeseburger produces a ton of coal in the back of a pickup truck, that can be used on demand. Ten's of thousands of fold increase in net available energy.

A therm of natural gas pump thousands of therms of natural gas, a significant distance, hundreds of fold increase in the net available energy, that can be used on demand.

A solar panel can never in its life span produce itself, it just can't.
Keep in mind that the solar panel is subsidized with potential energy at ever turn. The design and engineering is done with power produced by power on demand, the construction and assembly is done in industry that uses coal and oil, the transportation, installation and the maintenance of the panels is 100 percent done by diesel fuel. The people who work on the panels are fed, clothed and sheltered with oil, coal and gas. All of these fuels easily produce themselves with vast net gains in availability and all are available on demand.

A solar panel can not produce itself, let alone a multiple increase of panels.

I can think of nothing that wouldn't prevent solar panels from being used in the production of other solar panels. Though I personally think a mix of wind, solar, hydo and nuclear would be best.

The solar panel has far bigger problems than above. It is not available on demand, so the energy is basically worthless. And this next reason will be hard for people to understand, but a solar panel is always at full load, you cant throttle it, making it really valueless. We need energy when we need it at the level we need it and only, only , only potential energy can that.

There are people who have successfully disconnected from the grid and run their homes on nothing but solar and wind power, hardly seems worthless. And yes you can transfer that solar energy output into potential energy for later, its called a battery or where possible pump up hydro.

Oh and I forgot, a lot of our current nuclear power plant designs cannot be throttle well either and run at full load, you are saying they are worthless?

God's solar energy plan: Take a hi-tech seed, plant it in a place that is naturally watered and in the life span of a solar panel you will have something worth in excess of 5 or 10 thousand dollars. The solar cell will be ready for the land fill. The money that was spent on the solar panel could plant thousands of trees, that would make the owner of those trees a multimillionaire.

In the lifetime of a solar panel, you can only be talking about burning wood and maybe charcoal. Those were good for pre-industrial age but I don't see them doing the same work that solar and wind is doing now.

Back to your reply, the major problem with your note is that you don't differentiate between the two types of energy, and only two. Kinetic and Potential. Any attempt to use the latter to "only" capture the former will be met with the reality of the 1st law of thermodynamics. It can't be done with an increase.

The word only is in quotes because there are some exceptions to that rule when you are using potential energy to capture kinetic energy, but "only" when you start out with potential energy.

One is called an economizer used in power plants to capture exhaust gas temperatures and feed them back into the system. Economizers are used in a few industry to capture wast heat. But you are always starting with potential energy.

We use kinetic energy to create potential energy sources all the time. There is a gentleman in Greek Mythology I think named Sisyphus who can explain it to you in great detail. And yes there is no increase in the process but that is true of ALL energy transfers. The kinetic energy in sunlight is captured and turned into potential energy by both a solar battery system, solar pumped hydro system and plants to coal system. Its the same thing just by different methods and yes different efficiencies but they are all useful.

The second every one will be familiar with but they really won't know exactly how it works but now they will. A turbo charger in an automobile uses wast heat from exhaust in a beneficial way. A turbo charger uses high temperature exhaust of above a few hundred degrees to turn a turbine that pushes air into the intake manifold of an automobile. The main gain that is seen in a turbo charged car is reducing/eliminating throttling lose. Engines use a great deal of energy to "suck" in the air to the motor past the throttle, Diesel engines have not throttle so they really gain from having a turbo. So instead of the engine working hard to pull in the air, the piston is actually pushed down by the pressure in the intake manifold by the turbo, giving a big increase in efficiency.

This is a good example of where you can capture kinetic energy that is wasted from your use of potential energy. And I will use it to make a broader point. This technology really works, it really does a great job. "if" a legislator wanted to do something that works, they could make turbos mandatory in all engines. It will NEVER happen, LOL never. Precisely because it works, my cynicism has returned.

Keep in mind that both of the above examples are fueled by potential energy and then the waste heat from the potential energy is harvested, so this kinetic energy is available on demand and is not always at full load. In both these examples, very little potential energy is used, almost none and a significant amount of kinetic energy is gathered. Similar to the production of energy, 100s of fold increase are needed to make a turbo charger a viable enterprise.


The suns fuel is potential, it emits kinetic energy, and if you lay out in it long enough and your fair skin you can get a sun burn. But it is a foolish endeavor to use good potential energy and try to capture the kinetic energy from the sun and expect to get a surplus, it is not going to happen.

Except the solar energy would not be collected at all if the solar panel is not there and then you wind up using more of your other potential energy sources to do a job that could be done repeatedly for several years without it. You have a sun pouring out massive amounts of energy every day and most of it goes to waste, I don't see anything wrong in collecting a little more of that energy even if you have to expend some energy up front to do it.

The best I can figure is you are trying to imply that because we still have to use fossil fuel sources to make solar panels the effort is not worth it but I just don't see it. This remains true of all energy sources but eventually, we will be able to make solar panels without fossil fuel use with just wind and solar and we will get there a lot faster if we throw nuclear into the mix.

 

[tieman55]

Truth.



I can think of nothing that wouldn't prevent solar panels from being used in the production of other solar panels. Though I personally think a mix of wind, solar, hydo and nuclear would be best.

You can't renew energy. Energy is discover-able and can be used once, that is it, you cant reuse it. Wind is a different animal and has it own different problems but two of the same. The wind doesn't always blow and it is always at full load, it can't be used on demand, so it has little or no commercial value.




There are people who have successfully disconnected from the grid and run their homes on nothing but solar and wind power, hardly seems worthless. And yes you can transfer that solar energy output into potential energy for later, its called a battery or where possible pump up hydro.


I was off the grid for nearly 10 years, it was a pain in the you know what, it was far more expensive and the life style was far less comfortable than being on the grid. Once the grid was available I jump at the chance to get on it. My standard of living rose significantly.



Oh and I forgot, a lot of our current nuclear power plant designs cannot be throttle well either and run at full load, you are saying they are worthless?

Not true about nuclear, if they have rod's you can throttle them and they can run far less than full load. NO power plant starts and stops and full and no load, only windmills and solar do that



In the lifetime of a solar panel, you can only be talking about burning wood and maybe charcoal. Those were good for pre-industrial age but I don't see them doing the same work that solar and wind is doing now.

No, a tree has far more value than using it for fuel, However once that higher value, lumber is used in say 100 years, yes you can use wood for fuel. It is a very good and clean fuel. Wood has a higher value as a fuel than does coal, try buying a cord of fire wood and you will discover the value. Again, if you take the investment in just one solar panel and plant a few hundred trees in a place that is naturaly watered at the end of the life of the solar panal you will be a rich man with the value of the trees.


We use kinetic energy to create potential energy sources all the time.

No they don't. Kinetic energy only has value where the potential energy use to capture the kinetic energy is a very small fraction of the recovered energy. Solar panels are not always a bad idea. If your in the middle of now where and it would cost 100,000 to get power to you, then sure use solar panels, that makes sense, but don't thing your renewing energy, your not, you can't renew energy, energy and only be used once.

I don't see anything wrong in collecting a little more of that energy even if you have to expend some energy up front to do it.

There is nothing wrong with using a solar panel, but your not renewing energy, and you should't make other pay for your use of them by subsides which are all over solar and wind ponzi schemes.



The best I can figure is you are trying to imply that because we still have to use fossil fuel sources to make solar panels the effort is not worth it but I just don't see it. This remains true of all energy sources but eventually, we will be able to make solar panels without fossil fuel use with just wind and solar and we will get there a lot faster if we throw nuclear into the mix.

Well we agree on nuclear 100 percent, but again, solar and wind don't produce any net gain in available energy. You have to build a power plant every week to fuel the ponzi scheme. I copied and pasted this below, It is not a coincidence that more coal fired power plants are being built today then ever, as that is what is making your so called renewable energy. You nor anyone else can renew energy, it just can't be done.

China is not alone in constructing coal-fired power plants. According to Urgewald, about 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries; this data comes from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

Well we agree on nuclear 100 percent, but again, solar and wind don't produce any net gain in available energy. You have to build a power plant every week to fuel the ponzi scheme. I copied and pasted this below, It is not a coincidence that more coal fired power plants are being built today then ever, as that is what is making your so called renewable energy. You nor anyone else can renew energy, it just can't be done.

China is not alone in constructing coal-fired power plants. According to Urgewald, about 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries; this data comes from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.

You seem to be taking a complex physical, economic and social equation and ignore most of it to focus only on a narrow part of it and say "this doesn't add up." There is no need for a net gain in available energy. I recently saw a discussion on how a person wanted to turn his $200 a month electric bill into $7 a month. Solar panels and a power wall did that. Yes, he might have been able to do the same with a diesel generator and be better off in the larger energy equation but that was not a practical solution when you factored in his costs, needs, and a desire to fit into the neighborhood.

You also seem to be keying on a definition of renewable energy that is different from the common use. Yes, there are no renewable sources of energy in the manner you are talking about even the sun but that is not what is meant when they refer to renewable energy. We are talking about sustainability, not net energy. And when it comes to our available fuel sources, there are none more sustainable than the sun. When you factor in all the parts of the equation wind, solar, etc with nuclear is your best answer.

We are frankly building more coal plants because we are afraid of nuclear power which if done properly could replace coal as a power source economically, safely and practically.

 

[jgarden]

RE: Schumer"s and Cortez's Clean Energy Economy

There is far more objective data that supports the existence of "climate change" and the need for "clean energy" than this President's assertion that America is experiencing a "national emergency" on her southern border!

If this President stated, with a straight face, that the world was flat, the "DEPLORABLES" would all accept it without question!

 

[tieman55]

I recently saw a discussion on how a person wanted to turn his $200 a month electric bill into $7 a month.

The above is not real, everything that is done to get the lower power bill is subsidized by government laws and the use of cheap "available" potential energy. It is a facade, it is not really happening, it is constructed just for you to believe that is happening but I can assure you it is not. Now, if I am that guy, I might very well do the exact same thing, because to him it is real, he is paying less, but he is not renewing energy and the reason he is paying less, is because someone somewhere is paying more. A good standard of leaving can "only" be achieve by cheap available potential energy.

meant when they refer to renewable energy.

Progress, yes I object to the term "renewable energy" and you can easily see that you can not renew energy, great, just coin another term that is not misleading and I will applaud you and adopt your new term.


more sustainable than the sun.

2nd law of thermodynamics, Entropy, or Energy only goes one way, less available.

So "nothing" is sustainable.
If you believe in E=MC2 then it is impossible to use all the energy we now have available to us on this earth.
The challenge is to grow a set to use the energy that is available to us. The major point of my post is that this won't happen because anything that works will be opposed by the ruling class, it just will be. They will double, triple, quadruple down on things that don't work, like solar before they will ever agree to solving a problem, like using the energy that is now available.

 

[tieman55]

All energy is produced/found/obtained/gathered/and or captured by using an amount of energy. Question: Which energy is "cleaner energy" Energy that is produced with a high net gain in availability? or energy that is produced with a low net gain in availablity?

You will avoid that question like the plague!

LOL

When your world view is destroyed in 30 seconds perhaps its time to reevaluate your world view.

 

[ok doser]

more sustainable than the sun.

what is more sustainable than the sun? :freak:

 

[ok doser]

You will avoid that question like the plague!

who are you talking to?

 

[ok doser]

Question: Which energy is "cleaner energy" Energy that is produced with a high net gain in availability? or energy that is produced with a low net gain in availablity?

explain clearly what you mean by "net gain in availability"

 

[tieman55]

Sorry if I responded to the wrong person

I was trying to respond to the climate change post ?

But my question is applicable to everyone,

Which is better?

Energy that is produced with a high net gain in availability? or energy that is produced with a low net gain in availablity?

As far as the sun being sustainable, it is burning out. In addition, the sun is not and has likely never has been the largest source of energy for the earth.

So the sun is irrelevant in the sustainability issue, as it is not the source of most of the fuel on earth.

The overwhelming amount of energy on earth is from creation, not from the sun. Remember E=MC2 The sun didn't create the M in E=MC2