Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
I like solar panels,, have put in Many solar gates and am currently installing solar on my garage/shop for my floor heat and what ever else I can do.
They have their place in small applications. What I'm talking about is the substitution of a coal fired electrical plant with wind turbines or solar panels.Mtn.man wrote: I like solar panels,,
I agree that they aren't a perfect replacement for coal fired, but there is still plenty of use for them.
For example, down in Arizona there is a ton, a ton, of land that has no use, just arid crap desert that is a billion degrees from pretty and would not be hurt at all to have a solar plant, especially the smaller solar thermal variety. We had something in the range of 8 billion sunny days a year if memory serves. Even if it is just to help push the technology along it doesn't hurt. Mind you, Southern Arizona doesn't have oil, or coal, or water for hydroelectric or farming, but it does have sun and wind, might as well use it.
The problem with the solar in the desert is the water and transmission costs. The wind also presents much of the same transmission cost issues. The people who need power tend not to live in the type of places where solar and wind work well.
In my mind, the only long-term solution will be Nuclear but that will not happen while the "no growth" environmentalists have sway. I do think that oil and NG will have long term rolls to play for generations to come as will solar and wind, but each will fit niche needs.
I seem to have stirred up some strong opinions here.
Origionally, my post was to point out the ridiculous and contradictory nature of the enviromentalist/animal rights thought processess. As some of you replied, there are no perfect solutions. For every potential means of generating power, there are drawbacks. Solar, at least at this point, is inefficent. Fossil fuels pollute to varying degrees and are a finite commodity. I personally don't see much of a down side to wind turbines or nuclear power. However, there is a public perception of nuclear as being dangerous and wind towers as being aesthetically unacceptable. As such, neither option is likely to reach its full potential.
One of my cheif frustrations during the presidential debates last year was the polarization of the two parties on issues of energy. The Dems, predictably, were pushing solar, wind, geo thermal, etc. The Reps were pushing for developing our own petroleum resources. A lot of us were thinking that all of these are good ideas. Why should we have to do one or the other? Why not develop and use every option available to us?
As far as fossil fuels are concerned, I agree they are the least expensive, most efficent way to produce energy right now. I don't believe this should preclude us from developing alternatives now. My big beef with oil is that it makes our enemies rich. We pump literally BILLIONS of dollars into the middle east, specifically Saudi Arabia. Lets not forget, most of the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 were Saudis. Energy independence is a critical issue to our national security. As such, every idea presented as a means to contribute to this end should be given due consideration and evaluated scientifically. This process will affect a much more usefull means of solving a problem that will impact all of us eventually than dismissing any of these ideas meerly for policical reasons.
I don't know why the U.S. lets anybody tell us what to do. Saddam had the right idea... "Wow, that's a peachy oil field. I'll take it!"
Yes, I feel pretty strongly about this, especially when the utterly contrived notion of 'save the planet' is used by some trust funded, green idiot driving a Humvee or Tahoe whilst texting away about some evil capitalist.GreenScoutII wrote: I seem to have stirred up some strong opinions here.
When nature nazis started practicing what they preach, there will be more for the rest of us.
I agree with you that we need to work on other energy sources and further refine the ones we're using now.
This is a link to oil consumption and imports - I linked to the imports page
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pe...im0_mbbl_m.htm
I agree with you about the middle east, sometimes I think we're there to provide oil security for the rest of the world at our expense.
Yeah, that chaps my ass too... I have sometimes thought only someone completely detached and separated from the realities of life can have the attitudes and beliefs some of these folks do. Of course, some of them believe they are somehow special and the rules/restrictions they would place on the rest of us shouldn't apply to them.Originally Posted by roberth
Thanks for posting the link. Its good information.
Yep,, Neither one is efficiant enough.. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine..(I know..)
When I did those couple of "solar farms" last year, Talking with the "experts" I found out that those things are just now to the point of being able to convert 40% of the sunshine to useable energy. The rest just bounces back..
Also, from what I gathered, at this point in time,other than research or, small applications, They really aren't good enough to justify the cost.. It would take 45 years for the one over by Arvada res. to pay for itself.. The panels only last 7-10 years at best, so guess what..
I agree it is a good idea,, It just isn't going to happen for many years..
Sarcasm, Learn it, Know it, Live it....
Spleify 7-27-12Marlin is the end all be all of everything COAR-15...
As one who now lives in TN.....He better stay out of my yard. NO Liars welcome to walk across my green grass with their dirty nasty bare feet! I got a deterrent for those!
To come off a bit extreme.....I feel its my God given right to deplete as much as I can the natural resources of this earth as I feel necessary! Yep I'm no "green" lover!
I find it funny these lefties feel ok to pass along the burden of mass amounts of debt to our future generations but feel obligated to save energy for them. Losers!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote