joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy And no, at the present price of petroleum and current state of technology wind and solar do not make good economic sense. If they did then government subsidies and mandates would not be needed. Hey boys and girls, willbeurdaddy is subtly advocating NUCLEAR POWER! Yes the US Goverment also subsidies plant construction and operation for many nuclear plants. Both those in the works and in operation right now. If the goverment didn't do this, would it make good economic sense? Likewise, what do we do with those spent nuclear fuel? Toss it in the river or some dump? Course not! Its kept, for the next few thousand years, in a specially designed complexs. These complex requires personnel to be highly trained and motivated to keep in operation regardless of outside political problems. Likewise, it must maintain a sizable security force that would rival any 2nd-world nation. How much do you think one of those complexs cost, willbeurdaddy? Still as cost efficient as solar or wind power? Can you do small nuclear power planets, like with solar or wind? quote:
ORIGINAL: Willbeurdaddy And what studies/models have been done on the long term climate impact of large scale use of wind and solar? CO2 isnt the only thing that may or may not impact the climate. There is no logical reason to believe that widespread disruption of normal air currents and reflection/absorption of sunlight would have no impact. If we just gagged and bound all the conservatives up, we wouldn't have any problems with Climate Change. How many conservatives would want Sarah Palin hogtied and gagged? Seriously, there have been a number of publications over the last generation of years, talking about the very concept you are asking. Over the years, I've seen it in Popular Mechanic, Popular Science, Scientific American, National Geographic, and many non-science oriented newspapers and magazines. My guess is, you not only didn't bother to look up your question online for answers, but, throwing out total crap to buy yourself time to come up with some 'really good bullshit'. You've been against a mountain of evidence that points out what Climate Change (the scientific theory) attempts to explain as the most likely circumstances effecting the planet. Your not against it, because your a scientist or a skeptic (who understands the science); your against it out of political motivation. Which is to say, you know very little to none, of what your talking about; but hoping none of us catch on to your game.
|