Quote:
Originally Posted by SAMIAM
I don't mean any disrespect to those of you who want solar and wind,because I know that you mean well......but geeze,guys.....Solar and wind together only account for 1% of our power......and our president has said he will double that in the next few years to a whopping 2%.Wouldn't a reasonable person think that maybe we should explore a clean emission plan for natural gas,coal......and HORRORS...even oil that are all plentiful within our borders?.....I know,I know, how good it feels to have solar panels and windmills,but they won't power a motor vehicle or get a plane into the air.They just trickle a little power into a huge battery pack and,occaisionally,back to the grid.
I think we are being hoodwinked with this global warming thing.
|
You know what... I'd agree with you whole-hog if it meant we could drill on US territory.
The problem I have with our reliance on petrol isn't because I'm a "treehugger" (which is somehow a dirty word on this form) or "green". I don't suggest these things to "feel good" - but I do hate how dependent we are on foreign suppliers for our fuel.
That being said... why not more water or steam or gas turbines to create energy - it doesn't have to be solar or wind. It's hardly a warm-fuzzy thing, as far as I'm concerned. It's more about self-reliance to me than anything else.
As far as our infrastructure goes, it takes time to implement these things so that there is an impact on the power grid. The initial implementation takes upfront costs that other energy sources don't call for simply because they are "common".
I'll leave you with this graph from the NY Times about where things are going with energy (graph #1) and how much has been spent to develop new sources (graph #2):
Graphs and article can be read (and a lot bigger, I might add!) HERE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/16/business/16solar.html