It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: GiulXainx
This is why the push for green energy is so forceful. Especially when it comes to the democratic presidential campaigners.
Our goal is to do away with coal, and natural gas (fossil fuels) all together and make the move toward wind, tidal, and solar energy.
Everyone keeps trying to evade this issue saying "We won't have enough power for our cities!"
This happens time and time again. But the real problem is people not willing to enhance, study, or experiment with it. At least not on a scholar scale. A lot of people have lost interest in it since it does not provide them a job as soon as they graduate.
And if you are having trouble believing in these three categories remember. We didn't believe in school that we would ever have smart phones. Everyone who was born in the 1970's til the 1990's knows we did not have smart phones AT ALL. Then all of the sudden we have them.
Stop trying to ignore green energy.
originally posted by: Edumakated
If green energy is viable, then the free market will develop it. The reason it hasn't taken off is because the cost relative to the effectiveness is simply not there for the vast majority of folks.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
Are electric cars really "better for the environment"? Do they help to reduce our "dependency" on "foreign oil"?
Errrr, no.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
So 86% of our electricity comes from fossil fuels and nuclear energy...
Lets call them what they are: fossil fuel/nuclear energy (waste) cars.
originally posted by: gladtobehere
But in the defense of the "electric" car, 13% of electricity comes from hydro-power and "other renewables"... Mmm hmm, sure.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: Edumakated
If green energy is viable, then the free market will develop it. The reason it hasn't taken off is because the cost relative to the effectiveness is simply not there for the vast majority of folks.
But wouldn't you agree that since our "free market" isn't exactly a true "free market" that some industries may be restricting the development of certain green industries as well which make it more difficult for them to gain ground???
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: gladtobehere
So what do you make of Elon Musk's assertion, that a space less than a fifth the size of a central state of the United States, would be all that is required to power the entire USA with solar energy? And when I say Elon Musk, I am not talking about some gormless halfwit of a stock broker, but the man who put together the team that made history by landing the first stage of a rocket, instead of wasting it as every other rocket launch to date has done, and also manufactures electric cars, and recently put to market the infrastructure to make those cars a going concern, not to mention revealing his intention to put together a huge solar energy factory called the gigafactory?
The man makes money like you and I breathe in and out, and did it by thinking it through every time. I recommend you adjust your assumptions.
In 2013, Seattle City Light only produced about 1/2 of its required power itself, granted this was hydro. However, almost 10% of Seattle's power was generated by a combination of petroleum and nuclear, with nuclear being the largest percentage outside of hydro.
originally posted by: plaindoughnut
a reply to: gladtobehere
Living in Seattle they are your best bet. 100 percent of Seattle's grid is hydro.