Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="1krr" data-source="post: 2708857" data-attributes="member: 750">Better said that wind is not the "only" solution. You can't replace coal and gas fired generation with wind but you could with wind/solar/nuclear. Hell nuclear alone could replace fossil fuel generation many times over. That's a popular oil/gas propaganda tag line but the problem is that it's industry BS. The truth is that oil and gas industry takes in 4 times the subsidies ($550 billion vs $120 billion toward renewables). This despite record profits and paying some of the lowest percapita taxes in all industries. If they paid the percentage that a mom and pop electronics shop pays, those rigs would be rusting piles of iron<a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables" target="_blank">http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables</a>There isn't a base load factor. There are already diversified generation use cases that pull power from wind and solar farms and use throttle NG plants based on load. It isn't hard. Have you seen the crap coal plants call exhaust? Only people I know arguing against reducing and cleaning coal are the people who don't live down wind of a plant. I don't disagree but if you add nuclear to the mix and diversify your energy sources, any one source spiking in price isn't going to double your costs over night.No I definitely don't. I want to see the energy monopoly broken and producers competing against each other.EDIT: sorry for the multiquote from hell!</blockquote>

Verification