• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Letting Shell drill in Arctic could lead to catastrophic oil spill, experts warn

Until we have a viable replacement, ready to be distributed and used like modern fuel products,
Oil is the only thing keeping about 80 % of the Humans alive on this planet.
So while calamity's statement might be discouraging to you, that does not make it factually incorrect.
We simply cannot feed everyone without oil products!

Green energy is a viable replacement. We have the technology, we have the money, it is just ideological barriers and the effect of lobbying. We have had an alternative for a long time. It won't be funded even though it is essentially free if you just print the money to build it.
 
Green energy is a viable replacement. We have the technology, we have the money, it is just ideological barriers and the effect of lobbying. We have had an alternative for a long time. It won't be funded even though it is essentially free if you just print the money to build it.

You really do not know much about energy. Do you?

mo-per-gsp-2005-dollars-1987-2010.jpg


Notice all the green energy sources yield least amount of BTU per dollar.
 
Green energy is a viable replacement. We have the technology, we have the money, it is just ideological barriers and the effect of lobbying. We have had an alternative for a long time. It won't be funded even though it is essentially free if you just print the money to build it.
Please enplane which of the alternatives is viable for use as diesel today.
Keep in mind it needs to be ready to replace diesel, to be distributed and sold at tens of thousands of locations.
Human transport is not the real issue, but growing and distributing food.
There are only one viable replacement to do that, and they are just starting trail runs.
Audi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water - ScienceAlert
Green energy can only be viable, if it is available where, and in the needed quantity, when it is needed.
To do that it needs storage and accumulation technology.
 
Please enplane which of the alternatives is viable for use as diesel today.
Keep in mind it needs to be ready to replace diesel, to be distributed and sold at tens of thousands of locations.
Human transport is not the real issue, but growing and distributing food.
There are only one viable replacement to do that, and they are just starting trail runs.
Audi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water - ScienceAlert
Green energy can only be viable, if it is available where, and in the needed quantity, when it is needed.
To do that it needs storage and accumulation technology.

Look, nothing is explosive or as cheap as oil. I'm not going to deny that. But we still have the capacity to replace what we have with a green grid, it is just it isn't done because of ideological barriers and lobbying. How can you say we can't do green energy if we haven't tried a complete revamp of our energy sector?

As I said in an earlier post, there is The Space Based Solar Network, or SBSN. I really don't want to type everything out because I have before. Basically this method only uses the sun, and can power the world three times over while cutting your electricity bill in half. We have the money to do it, trust me. 10 billion dollars over 10 years. 100 billion. If that is too low for you to believe me, because a lot of people don't when I say that, then multiply it by 10. 100 billion dollars for 10 years or 1 trillion dollars. 100 billion can easily be printed.

The only reason why we don't have green energy is because of the lobby and the jobs lost. Otherwise we could turn completely green. Homes could power themselves, taking the load off of the SBSN. We would probably do that through tax incentives, and when the technology gets cheaper for the typical family. And well, they would get paid instead of paying for electricity. There are already ideas for power storage for the home family. Fuel cells were the ones I read about, I bet there are other ideas. There are storage technologies designed for power stations. We have the design, there is enough power from the sun, we have the technology, but we don't do it because of ideological barriers and lobbying.

By the way, all methods could be used in accordance with the SBSN. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, I mean you name it. But that would probably all be more expensive than just sending three satellites in space to collect solar energy and beam it down to Earth.
 
Last edited:
Look, nothing is explosive or as cheap as oil. I'm not going to deny that. But we still have the capacity to replace what we have with a green grid, it is just it isn't done because of ideological barriers and lobbying. How can you say we can't do green energy if we haven't tried a complete revamp of our energy sector?

As I said in an earlier post, there is The Space Based Solar Network, or SBSN. I really don't want to type everything out because I have before. Basically this method only uses the sun, and can power the world three times over while cutting your electricity bill in half. We have the money to do it, trust me. 10 billion dollars over 10 years. 100 billion. If that is too low for you to believe me, because a lot of people don't when I say that, then multiply it by 10. 100 billion dollars for 10 years or 1 trillion dollars. 100 billion can easily be printed.

The only reason why we don't have green energy is because of the lobby and the jobs lost. Otherwise we could turn completely green. Homes could power themselves, taking the load off of the SBSN. We would probably do that through tax incentives, and when the technology gets cheaper for the typical family. And well, they would get paid instead of paying for electricity. There are already ideas for power storage for the home family. Fuel cells were the ones I read about, I bet there are other ideas. There are storage technologies designed for power stations. We have the design, there is enough power from the sun, we have the technology, but we don't do it because of ideological barriers and lobbying.

By the way, all methods could be used in accordance with the SBSN. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, I mean you name it. But that would probably all be more expensive than just sending three satellites in space to collect solar energy and beam it down to Earth.
What you are missing is that it is not ideological barriers blocking people from using alternative energies, it is a financial barrier.
People will use whatever they see as in their own best interest, currently they have trouble seeing how alternatives benefit their financial interest.
Home photovoltaic solar is a much better deal than it used to be, but still requires more vision than the average consumer possesses.
I see the solution as excess solar and wind energy stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels, distributed through existing channels.
Some type of energy credit could be worked out, that would encourage people to install extra capacity of solar.
When enough people have solar, we will need the variable load of the refineries making the fuel to take the surplus.
 
HOLY ****!!!! DANGER in real life? Ya know, you shouldn't take showers, falling in the shower is a leading cause of injury in home.

Brilliant. This means the U.S. must ban showers. (wink, nudge) The added benefit will be the conservation of water, natural gas, and electricity.
 
100 billion can easily be printed.

The only reason why we don't have green energy is because of the lobby and the jobs lost. Otherwise we could turn completely green. .

The answer is SO SIMPLE! Just print money. That worked out very well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it. And turning completely green! Sure, with all that newfound, printed money. Obama gave hundreds of millions of it his cronies at Solyndra, which promptly went bankrupt.

Green energy is several times more expensive than other kinds, and in any case, won't fly aircraft or drive trucks. I love to see these Leftists flying past me on the freeway in their Prius'. Terrific gas mileage, until you're doing 80 MPH.
 
The answer is SO SIMPLE! Just print money. That worked out very well in the Weimar Republic, didn't it. And turning completely green! Sure, with all that newfound, printed money. Obama gave hundreds of millions of it his cronies at Solyndra, which promptly went bankrupt.

Green energy is several times more expensive than other kinds, and in any case, won't fly aircraft or drive trucks. I love to see these Leftists flying past me on the freeway in their Prius'. Terrific gas mileage, until you're doing 80 MPH.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I would read up on MMT.
 
What you are missing is that it is not ideological barriers blocking people from using alternative energies, it is a financial barrier.
People will use whatever they see as in their own best interest, currently they have trouble seeing how alternatives benefit their financial interest.
Home photovoltaic solar is a much better deal than it used to be, but still requires more vision than the average consumer possesses.
I see the solution as excess solar and wind energy stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels, distributed through existing channels.
Some type of energy credit could be worked out, that would encourage people to install extra capacity of solar.
When enough people have solar, we will need the variable load of the refineries making the fuel to take the surplus.

And I'm saying with how the current economy works there is no financial barrier.
 
And I'm saying with how the current economy works there is no financial barrier.
If we want people to use alternative energy, alternative energy must be cheaper than the other
choices. How can this happen?
First the replacement should not require people to acquire a new vehicle or equipment.
Second the replacement should be compatible with existing infrastructure.
Third the replacement needs to be less expensive than the alternative. (naturally, not through taxation)
Organic oil is low right now, but the overall trend is up, oil is getting more difficult and expensive to extract.
The price of photovoltaic solar is trending down.
Photovoltaic solar can only grow if we fix the earlier incentive rules.
The net metering, and fixed price rules for surplus solar power, helped early adopters.
Those same rules are now discouraging utilities from allowing grid tied systems.
There needs to be a balance where all parties benefit.
As solar grows, there will be a problem of what to do with the wildly swinging supply.
Storing all that surplus as fuel becomes an elegant solution.
 
If we want people to use alternative energy, alternative energy must be cheaper than the other
choices. How can this happen?
First the replacement should not require people to acquire a new vehicle or equipment.
Second the replacement should be compatible with existing infrastructure.
Third the replacement needs to be less expensive than the alternative. (naturally, not through taxation)
Organic oil is low right now, but the overall trend is up, oil is getting more difficult and expensive to extract.
The price of photovoltaic solar is trending down.
Photovoltaic solar can only grow if we fix the earlier incentive rules.
The net metering, and fixed price rules for surplus solar power, helped early adopters.
Those same rules are now discouraging utilities from allowing grid tied systems.
There needs to be a balance where all parties benefit.
As solar grows, there will be a problem of what to do with the wildly swinging supply.
Storing all that surplus as fuel becomes an elegant solution.

I think people would gladly pay more if there were zero emissions.
 
I think people would gladly pay more if there were zero emissions.
Some will, but that is the danger, that some person who believes they are helping the environment,
are willing to pay more for a commodity. This artificially inflates the price and slows the adoption
of the alternative by the majority of people who only choose on price.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about. I would read up on MMT.

Your petty ad hominem attack is inappropriate and condescending.

Anyone who pretends that the United States can simply "print money" without any dire consequences is
undeserving of a response. Hyperinflations result, such as the Weimar Republic.

Present some facts, rather than attacking me as utterly ignorant. That is shameful of you, and as weak as it gets for you to say.
As weak as it gets.
 
Your petty ad hominem attack is inappropriate and condescending.

Anyone who pretends that the United States can simply "print money" without any dire consequences is
undeserving of a response. Hyperinflations result, such as the Weimar Republic.

Present some facts, rather than attacking me as utterly ignorant. That is shameful of you, and as weak as it gets for you to say.
As weak as it gets.

Read up on MMT. Cause you can, been doing it for years. Don't call me ignorant, you're the ignorant one not even knowing what I am talking about.
 
Some will, but that is the danger, that some person who believes they are helping the environment,
are willing to pay more for a commodity. This artificially inflates the price and slows the adoption
of the alternative by the majority of people who only choose on price.

If the only products that are sold on the market are electric cars, maglev, fuel cell, what have you, then those products would compete in the market. Totally green transportation is in the market. Which means there will be competition, and prices will stabilize.
 
If the only products that are sold on the market are electric cars, maglev, fuel cell, what have you, then those products would compete in the market. Totally green transportation is in the market. Which means there will be competition, and prices will stabilize.
Taking away peoples choices is not freedom, but coercion, it is actually a poor form of encouragement.
As I have already discussed, human transport is not really the issue, but tractors, ships and jets.
 
Taking away peoples choices is not freedom, but coercion, it is actually a poor form of encouragement.
As I have already discussed, human transport is not really the issue, but tractors, ships and jets.

How is that taking away from peoples' choices? We have gasoline cars today that flood the market. I don't see any other type of car. So if you have a problem with having green energy transportation consume the markets, then you have the same issue with gasoline cars. Only way to be consistent. So I guess cars are a form of coercion?

You are right, that is a problem. I know they can make space planes using compressed air air planes and are then laser ignited. But that's for like providing a payload to the ISS.

With ships you could put your payload under a sheet of solar cells. All equipment and payload have solar cells on top of them. Once the circuit is complete the pumping energy from the solar panels will power the engines. The key is area. The more area you got the more electricity that will be generated. Something to be explored at least.

Those big ass tractors man I have no idea. Which makes me nervous. I know everyone will say "but we have this many years left," but seriously, how are we going to power our current transportation? Are we going to have to redesign the process of doing things?

I know space X has a kickin new train. There were ideas for maglev trains. Maglev trains have a huge potential with solar energy. Just power the magnets and off you go.
I've seen ideas of totally automating the transportation system, at least for citizens. Everything is powered by sun, and no one would own a car. The units are public.

But you have a very good point. How are we going to supply energy to our great huge forms of transportation? We don't have hydrocarbons forever. Apparently you can make flammable hydrocarbons, but I do hope we move past that to something less intrusive to the environment. Time will tell.

PS - Fuell cells?
 
Not at all, that's the point. I wish he was running independent.

Why? He hasn't lost his policies and he has the machine working for him rather than against him.
 
**** oil. Lets get off of it and let Russia and China fight over the middle east.
 
Back
Top Bottom