(01-05-2018 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Some one was asking on another thread what the Democrats would run on in 18 and 20. Here you go. Many people don't want drilling off their coast. If the corporate Republicans go along with this one they might well lose some of their otherwise loyal GOP voters. Democrats should highlight their opposition.

(01-06-2018 11:44 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Some one was asking on another thread what the Democrats would run on in 18 and 20. Here you go. Many people don't want drilling off their coast. If the corporate Republicans go along with this one they might well lose some of their otherwise loyal GOP voters. Democrats should highlight their opposition.

Wait. What?

Democrats are going to run on coastal enviro issues related to the decision to open up the coastal shelves to drilling? And that is going to cost the republican base in places like California, Oregon and Washington. I guess.

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

(01-05-2018 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Some one was asking on another thread what the Democrats would run on in 18 and 20. Here you go. Many people don't want drilling off their coast. If the corporate Republicans go along with this one they might well lose some of their otherwise loyal GOP voters. Democrats should highlight their opposition.

(01-06-2018 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

You do understand where most of your electricity comes from, don't you?
Coal and natural gas.

(01-06-2018 01:04 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

You do understand where most of your electricity comes from, don't you?
Coal and natural gas.

Natural gas is relatively clean. Coal can be replaced with wind and solar.

(01-06-2018 12:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

Well...That alternative today does not exist in the competitive marketplace. Maybe at some point a breakthrough in technology will make it feasible(and I hope that happens)...but...I see nothing today to lead me to believe we are close to that. NG at this point seems our best route to clean and efficient energy.

Of course we can expand the theft of fruits of people's labors and subsidize more bad technology like is happening everywhere with solar farms. Having an energy source that has an efficiency of less than 30%(when the sun shines) is not a prudent or fiscally responsible route. I have no problem with building these monstrosities with private capital...but...to steal money from people to build them is purely criminal.

(01-06-2018 12:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

Well...That alternative today does not exist in the competitive marketplace. Maybe at some point a breakthrough in technology will make it feasible(and I hope that happens)...but...I see nothing today to lead me to believe we are close to that. NG at this point seems our best route to clean and efficient energy.

Of course we can expand the theft of fruits of people's labors and subsidize more bad technology like is happening everywhere with solar farms. Having an energy source that has an efficiency of less than 30%(when the sun shines) is not a prudent or fiscally responsible route. I have no problem with building these monstrosities with private capital...but...to steal money from people to build them is purely criminal.

(01-06-2018 03:16 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 12:05 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

Well...That alternative today does not exist in the competitive marketplace. Maybe at some point a breakthrough in technology will make it feasible(and I hope that happens)...but...I see nothing today to lead me to believe we are close to that. NG at this point seems our best route to clean and efficient energy.

Of course we can expand the theft of fruits of people's labors and subsidize more bad technology like is happening everywhere with solar farms. Having an energy source that has an efficiency of less than 30%(when the sun shines) is not a prudent or fiscally responsible route. I have no problem with building these monstrosities with private capital...but...to steal money from people to build them is purely criminal.

I cant tell you how many people got burned by purchasing a $35,000 wind turbine under Obama, because they got a $10,000 tax credit back. They saw $10,000 as free money and went for it.

For one, they got ripped off. They were sold a $24,000 turnkey system that was worth about $4,000. Second, the installations were usually shoddy, on towers that were way too short, placed in a position that was too close to houses, trees, or other obstacles. One guy did an ROI calculation after 7 years of use of his turbine, and determined his time to break even on his net $24,000 investment was 169 years.

This was the problem with the Obama free-money for clean energy debacle. All companies did was to jack their prices up, do shoddy work, grab some money for a few years, then shut down before the turbines needed warranty maintenance.

It wasnt just american firms going bellyup during this time. In the UK, a company called Evoco installed about 200 of the 10kw turbines in the countryside. To their credit, the Evoco turbines were at least built with a siginificant enough blade size and tower specs to be able to generate some poewr. You'd need 22-24mph winds to ever get 10kw out of it, and it cost about $40,000. However, it did at least have the specs to produce the power in the correct wind, whereas the american $34,000 turbines could never get close to producing much power.

The problem with Evoco is that they sold a lot of these turbines in a short amount of time (about 200), then about 6months to a year in, discovered they had a flaw in their rotor braking system. (The system that rotates the blades when the winds get too high to prevent overspinning) One by one, the turbines were breaking and throwing their blades across the countryside.

The company kept telling people not to press them on repairs, otherwise they would go out of business and people would be stuck with expensive "yard ornaments." After sinking millions more back into the company to correct the braking problem, the company still went bankrupt. At least one couple successfully sued the company's insurance provider to get their investment back.

This is the problem with clean energy, the "free money subsidies", and the rush to get products to the market too quickly. It causes bad things to happen. And its too bad. Because Evoco had a product that, if they could have gotten the price down to $30,000, their turbine would have a payoff of about 7.5 years in an area with 15mph average winds. And thats about the maximum length of time you would want to see with a mechanical device. Instead they rushed out and installed 200 of them, discovered a serious flaw after the fact, and it caused them to go bankrupt.

(01-06-2018 11:44 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 08:25 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Some one was asking on another thread what the Democrats would run on in 18 and 20. Here you go. Many people don't want drilling off their coast. If the corporate Republicans go along with this one they might well lose some of their otherwise loyal GOP voters. Democrats should highlight their opposition.

Wait. What?

Democrats are going to run on coastal enviro issues related to the decision to open up the coastal shelves to drilling? And that is going to cost the republican base in places like California, Oregon and Washington. I guess.

(01-06-2018 01:04 PM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 12:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 10:25 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  

(01-05-2018 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The alternative to offshore drilling is bringing oil in by ship from countries that don’t really like us. And that is a much more dangerous proposition on many fronts—including oil spills.

No, the alternative is electrification and clean energy.

You do understand where most of your electricity comes from, don't you?
Coal and natural gas.

Natural gas is relatively clean. Coal can be replaced with wind and solar.

(01-07-2018 10:51 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Fossil fuels are subsidized by the lack of pricing on carbon emissions. If the playing field were leveled, clean energy would be cheaper even with the cost of storage solutions.

(01-07-2018 10:51 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Fossil fuels are subsidized by the lack of pricing on carbon emissions. If the playing field were leveled, clean energy would be cheaper even with the cost of storage solutions.

(01-07-2018 11:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 10:51 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Fossil fuels are subsidized by the lack of pricing on carbon emissions. If the playing field were leveled, clean energy would be cheaper even with the cost of storage solutions.

Fossil fuels are subsidized because they are better, therefore the powers that be want to make them more economical. At any pricing point, fossil fuels are going to work better than solar at night or wind on a calm day. That's one big problem with alternatives, reliability. Another is infrastructure. We have windmills turning right now that the electricity isn't going anywhere because there are not transmission lines. And the NIMBY folks hope to keep it that way. Remember Ted "Blond in the Pond" Kennedy blocked an offshore wind farm because it messed up the view from his seaside mansion?

We need to get away from fossil fuels and onto alternatives. But we need viable alternatives before that can happen. And right now the alternatives aren't physically viable, without regard to whether they are economically viable.

(01-07-2018 10:51 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Fossil fuels are subsidized by the lack of pricing on carbon emissions. If the playing field were leveled, clean energy would be cheaper even with the cost of storage solutions.

(01-07-2018 12:21 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 10:51 AM)Ohio Poly Wrote:  Fossil fuels are subsidized by the lack of pricing on carbon emissions. If the playing field were leveled, clean energy would be cheaper even with the cost of storage solutions.

Quit selling. You've sold us. Like I said earlier it's going to take a solar field equal in size to the state of West Virginia to power the US. The bulldozers will be at you house in the morning to get started.