"Help" for what exactly?

[Nraman]

Large scale wind plants are constructed in well mapped 'Wind Corridors' where the wind blows nearly constantly at the altitude where the wind energy is tapped.
In addition, when the wind declines at one farm it usually picks up at another and the total interconnected amount of energy remains relatively constant.
Energy companies have done their homework and they have a good handle on the best ways to integrate wind power into the grid.

China is pushing to become the world leader in wind and solar power technology because they know they are going to need all they energy they can get their hands on.
You'll find few 'environmental wackos' in China.

I realize that blacksmiths just hated to see transportation migrate to automobiles instead of horses but you can only fight progress for so long.

Edison promoted DC current till he was blue in the face, preached about how dangerous Tesla's AC current was and fought him in court for years.
But in the end, the technological superiority of AC current prevailed.

And all along the way, some individuals fought against change and some embraced it.

The Danes, pioneers of bird killer energy, found to their disappointment that they could get very little electricity from killing innocent birds and bats.
If it was not for the anti progress so called progressives, we would have clean nuclear power.
As for China, they build and have been for a while one coal powered power plant average per month. Their involvement in "green" technology is meant for dummies like us that will buy taxpayer subsidized, inefficient, part time only trash. They may use this part time technology to give part time electricity to their slaves that currently have none, in remote areas.
I cannot believe how the nuclear power pioneers have been intimidated by the Hanoi Jane Fonda types to the point that they actually think that propellers on a mountain top are a real solution. The French, Japanese and others in the mean time use the power of the atom.
If you buy this, you will most likely also think that corn ethanol is a solution that makes sense and not a pure tax dollar give away to multibillion dollar corporations at our expense.

 

[Nraman]

This argument ignores the HILARIOUS inefficiency of the internal combustion engine and the economies of scale that come with producing lots of power in one place instead of lots of little places.

This argument ignores the fact that gasoline packs more energy than TNT, IOW it is a very dense form of energy that regardless of engine inefficiencies, friction etc. the net result is that you can get from here to all the way there.

I'm sorry that debate makes you angry.

I never get angry so, feel free.

 

[donner]

This is the funniest part of the whole thread.

Agreed. They might be smart enough to know the differences between their, there and they're.

 

[Nraman]

We've got one. It's just wayyy over-regulated:

And you thought that we'll never agree with each other.

 

[JB Books]

I have no problem with nuclear power. I am all for it. If it is actually cost effective to utilize some "green" forms of energy, I am for that too., but it is crazy to spend a dollar to save a dime.

 

[Nraman]

I have no problem with nuclear power. I am all for it. If it is actually cost effective to utilize some "green" forms of energy, I am for that too., but it is crazy to spend a dollar to save a dime.

The truth as I see it is that nuclear power in this country is by design expensive. A plant that should take two years or less to be built can take from ten to never.
Another "green" form is hydroelectric, which is also impossible to implement today thanks to the activists.
Coal, that is our main source is dirty in many respects including radioactive material that end up in the air. The dirty little secret is that the coal fired plants produce radioactivity, not the nuclear plants.

 

[Gideon]

Just another idea for the government to kill.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years

 

[poopgiggle]

This argument ignores the fact that gasoline packs more energy than TNT, IOW it is a very dense form of energy that regardless of engine inefficiencies, friction etc. the net result is that you can get from here to all the way there.

No one argues that you can't get from here to there. The argument is that electric cars can do their jobs, within their range, at a lower monetary and environmental cost than their internal combustion counterparts.

 

[Nraman]

No one argues that you can't get from here to there. The argument is that electric cars can do their jobs, within their range, at a lower monetary and environmental cost than their internal combustion counterparts.

For driving around in a company electric car and other small applications, no problem. To replace a car the average Joe uses to go any place any time he needs to, not anytime soon. Joe can't afford to have a spare car parked to make up for the shortcomings of the electric car.
Battery technology is nowhere to that point and burning dirty coal to power a clean car doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Now, lets dream for a moment. We have nuclear and hydroelectric plants pumping out all the juice we need, we electrify the highways with a third rail or something more appropriate so that I can drive all the way to Dallas and back and you got yourself a winner.

 

[Gideon]

For driving around in a company electric car and other small applications, no problem. To replace a car the average Joe uses to go any place any time he needs to, not anytime soon. Joe can't afford to have a spare car parked to make up for the shortcomings of the electric car.

The only reason this is a problem is because the industry can't agree on a universal quick-change battery pack yet.