(continued)(On a lighter note let me point out that i am genuinely surprised and delighted that you, as an American, show interest in the environment. Society and friends always had me believe Americans cared only for their country and not for the world as well. Thank you for destroying this stereotype. Sorry it took me a while to write and i apologize for the time and energy it took you to read this text, but thank you anyway)
(continued)Another point: If you don't support exploiting renewable energies, then what do you support? Relying on oil and coal until there is nothing left? Until the air you breathe will have more carbon dioxide and monoxide than oxygen? Do you want an environmental and economical crisis? You oppose so much, yet what do you support?
(continued) We would have much more time to develop our technology in this area and make all industries 100% green This is a worst case scenario. A CNN Reporter at the 8pm(greek time, i dont know American time) said that if, hypothetically, all nations mobilized to use all their renewable energies, 90%(!) of the world's energy demand will be met.
Well you have to realize, my benchmark is "Greenhouse Beneficial". "Renewable" doesn't quite cut it if it does this: greyfalcon. net/ lca.png greyfalcon. net/ n2ostudy.png greyfalcon. net/ palmoil greyfalcon. net/ tropics3 greyfalcon. net/ n2o.png greyfalcon. net/ landuse ifg. org/ pdf/ biofuels.pdf greyfalcon. net/ agrofuels greyfalcon. net/ peaksoil As such, to me, BioFuels aren't much different than Coal-to-Liquids. In some cases they might be drastically worse.
"The growth potential can't even outpace our increase in demand, much less replace it" "We can get thousands of times the electricity of what we need." These are two contradicting statements of yours. Please tell me what you really think on this matter because you have me confused.
As i said before, i did not mean biofuels when i meant renewable energies. Anyway, less than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases are produced by cars. What i meant was investment in technologies such as: solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear. Do you agree or disagree?
About nuclear energy, i realize that there is a great cost involved and waste disposal is a problem. But i, as a taxpayer, would willingly have a 10% raise in taxes, knowing that my country relied on nuclear energy and other alternative energies.
You have to understand my friend, that nuclear energy is a supplement. We cannot have 90% or 100% of a country's energy relying solely on nuclear energy. Thats costly and just not practical. But i believe that nuclear energy can cover at least 20% of a country's enegy demand effectively.
I am not talking about biofuels, even though i support them. BioFuels are NOT worse than Coal-to-liquids, because as the name suggests and as i am sure you are well aware of the fact that they are created by coal although biofuels are created by products of the soil.
(continued)And i ask you: if we mobilized our money and energy to take advantage of all the renewable energies available to us and it comes out that it can only cover 70% of our needs, wouldn't you still do it? Certainly, we would still be 30% dependent on oil and coal, but there would be enough coal and oil more thousands of years to come, not for dozens like it is today.
So what is that? More Coal, Nukes, and Agrofuels? Ethanol? No BioDiesel? No Nuclear? No Noone's died? Yeah bullshit, debilitating cancer kills Sequestration doesn't work. greyfalcon. net/ ccs Are we better off by burning coal? No Wind Solar unreliable? Thats why you do Geothermal, and Pumped Hydro Electricity Storage. Ethanol doesn't help conserve. Impact? Importing more LNG for fertilizer, destroying our topsoil, and shifting other crops into rainforrests. Bad deal
I hope you are well aware that it is impossible to achieve complete energy independence in less than 20 years. But someone has to make the start. You have to understand that a very large percentage of renewable energies , in the United States of America (where you live) and in Europe (where i live)hell, in the whole world, are just not used because they are deemed too costly or ineffective.
(continued)(On a lighter note let me point out that i am genuinely surprised and delighted that you, as an American, show interest in the environment. Society and friends always had me believe Americans cared only for their country and not for the world as well. Thank you for destroying this stereotype. Sorry it took me a while to write and i apologize for the time and energy it took you to read this text, but thank you anyway)
cdeacious 4 years ago
(continued)Another point: If you don't support exploiting renewable energies, then what do you support? Relying on oil and coal until there is nothing left? Until the air you breathe will have more carbon dioxide and monoxide than oxygen? Do you want an environmental and economical crisis? You oppose so much, yet what do you support?
cdeacious 4 years ago
(continued) We would have much more time to develop our technology in this area and make all industries 100% green This is a worst case scenario. A CNN Reporter at the 8pm(greek time, i dont know American time) said that if, hypothetically, all nations mobilized to use all their renewable energies, 90%(!) of the world's energy demand will be met.
cdeacious 4 years ago
==hypothetically, all nations mobilized to use all their renewable energies, 90%(!) of the world's energy demand will be met.==
Forget 90%
We can get thousands of times the electricity of what we need.
greyfalcon. net/ greenenergy.png
greyflcn 4 years ago
ok, so why be so negative about actually doing it? and why havent you answered th rest of my questions?
cdeacious 4 years ago
greyflcn 4 years ago
Also back on the nuclear/coal side of things.
It ain't cheap.
And thats before you even begin to factor in the massive "externality" costs.
Renewables don't really require a 24/7 military patrol around them.
greyfalcon. net/ costlycoal
greyfalcon. net/ costlycoal2
greyfalcon. net/ h2nuke
greyfalcon. net/ dilbert3.png
And if we were to include this as a nuclear overhead cost, then it's just comical.
greyfalcon. net/ iraqvsenergy.png
greyflcn 4 years ago
"The growth potential can't even outpace our increase in demand, much less replace it" "We can get thousands of times the electricity of what we need." These are two contradicting statements of yours. Please tell me what you really think on this matter because you have me confused.
cdeacious 4 years ago
As i said before, i did not mean biofuels when i meant renewable energies. Anyway, less than 25% of the world's greenhouse gases are produced by cars. What i meant was investment in technologies such as: solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear. Do you agree or disagree?
cdeacious 4 years ago
About nuclear energy, i realize that there is a great cost involved and waste disposal is a problem. But i, as a taxpayer, would willingly have a 10% raise in taxes, knowing that my country relied on nuclear energy and other alternative energies.
cdeacious 4 years ago
You have to understand my friend, that nuclear energy is a supplement. We cannot have 90% or 100% of a country's energy relying solely on nuclear energy. Thats costly and just not practical. But i believe that nuclear energy can cover at least 20% of a country's enegy demand effectively.
cdeacious 4 years ago
I am not talking about biofuels, even though i support them. BioFuels are NOT worse than Coal-to-liquids, because as the name suggests and as i am sure you are well aware of the fact that they are created by coal although biofuels are created by products of the soil.
cdeacious 4 years ago
==BioFuels are NOT worse than Coal-to-liquids==
My benchmark is Greenhouse gases.
2x worse isn't quite so bad compared to 10x worse.
guardian. co. uk/ comment/story/0,,2043462,00.html
Most other stuff like Corn, is probably closer to dead even with Coal-to-Liquids.
Also consider,
Coal is Biomass. Really old biomass, but biomass the same.
Which is the other scary aspect Any significant gains with cellulosics would directly apply towards coal-to-liquids.
greyfalcon. net/ cellulosic
greyflcn 4 years ago
(continued)And i ask you: if we mobilized our money and energy to take advantage of all the renewable energies available to us and it comes out that it can only cover 70% of our needs, wouldn't you still do it? Certainly, we would still be 30% dependent on oil and coal, but there would be enough coal and oil more thousands of years to come, not for dozens like it is today.
cdeacious 4 years ago
greyflcn 4 years ago
Dont be so negative. Rudy Guiliani is trying to promote energy independence.
Nuclear Power: 30 years, wouldn't have cancere showed by now.
Coal: He never said to use it. Use your ears.
Ethanol and biodiesel: They are very good energy alternatives.
I'm not going to say vote Guiliani, but if you want to challenge him find some real reasons.
cdeacious 4 years ago
Lets talk about "Energy Independance" then.
How is it even possible to do that given what he's said.
There's not enough raw biomass
greyfalcon. net/ biolimits.png
The growth potential can't even outpace our increase in demand, much less replace it
greyfalcon. net/ oilvsethanol.png
Furthermore, why is it even desirable.
OPEC will still get their dollars from China, India or Latin America. So it's not like we're denying them funds. So whats the point?
greyfalcon. net/ dilbert2.png
greyflcn 4 years ago
I hope you are well aware that it is impossible to achieve complete energy independence in less than 20 years. But someone has to make the start. You have to understand that a very large percentage of renewable energies , in the United States of America (where you live) and in Europe (where i live)hell, in the whole world, are just not used because they are deemed too costly or ineffective.
cdeacious 4 years ago