So, what if..............

Then I propose making Florida the official gulf coast drilling site. Abandon the off shore rigs, and land base them in Florida. Perhaps one next to each Home Depot would suffice.
Gene can have one in his back yard for retirement income.
Since the entire fishing industry has been destroyed for thousands of years, perhaps 1 per mile along Floridas beaches is the solution.
The workers can use the empty hotels as bunk houses.
Plenty of Cuban cheap labor there too.

Jeff, while there's no shortage of hyperbole in your posting, in all sincerity, what is your answer for getting oil? None of our Corvettes run off Pixie dust. We need oil. I'm an engineer, and I love technical solutions. What is yours?

I'm as polite and sincere as I can be with this request. What is your solution for getting oil?
 
Then I propose making Florida the official gulf coast drilling site. Abandon the off shore rigs, and land base them in Florida. Perhaps one next to each Home Depot would suffice.
Gene can have one in his back yard for retirement income.
Since the entire fishing industry has been destroyed for thousands of years, perhaps 1 per mile along Floridas beaches is the solution.
The workers can use the empty hotels as bunk houses.
Plenty of Cuban cheap labor there too.

Jeff, while there's no shortage of hyperbole in your posting, in all sincerity, what is your answer for getting oil? None of our Corvettes run off Pixie dust. We need oil. I'm an engineer, and I love technical solutions. What is yours?

I'm as polite and sincere as I can be with this request. What is your solution for getting oil?

Mike,
I am not a deep green weenie, however, I do believe we have to be more responsible as caretakers of the earth.
The fact that petrochemicals have been found in polar bear blood, specifically, fire retardent, makes my skin crawl. The mere fact that it is detectible, presumes enormous amounts in the ocean , once diluted, to be actually measured. While mother earth can heal, the amount is finite.
As is oil. Like you, I love my Vette, but at what cost? We have to use oil wisely, and broaden our options. The fools that shot down T Bonne Pickens proposal of wind turbines off shore, merely for the view, are fools. An accident there would be nothing compared to poisoning our food supply/chain.
Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me. Charging advanced vehicles , such as a Tesla, for bulk use of commuting is viable. There is NO substitute for oil as a lubricant, but their are alternatives to energy. Delaying a change how we think only prolongs the inevitable, as oil is also a finite supply.
As for your question, I have no qualms with earth bound collection, so long as we are RESPONSIBLE collectors. The endless cycle of large companies farming, dumping, selling/declaring BK, then leaving the clean up costs to the EPA, read taxpayer, must end.
Collect the shale oil, but return the area to normal afterwards.
Mine that coal, but burn it in factories with scrubbers.
The cycle will complete itself
As EPA mandated changes in this country, rather than comply, companies left, and went to Mexico. Now, the Rio Grande is toxic. China is waking up to the fact the YangSi is toxic. They are now looking into responsible commerce. Why, as a human race, must we pollute every country untill we learn to just deal with it, rather than run.
We NEED to leave our children an earth that has a future and hope, and we can do that, we know how, but greed gets in our way.
 
I leave you with this. The gulf disaster will have MORE impact upon our earth and food chain than Chernoble. Think about that.;)
 
...Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me...
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my home in Australia. The federal government actually gave me a rebate to do so. Now, any electricity I don't use from the solar panels, goes back into the grid and I get paid for it - pretty easy choice to make really, the government paid to install the system then buy power from me :thumbs:

But, if they can do it that easily on my house, why isn't the Simpson Desert (HUGE desert in the middle of Oz) covered in solar panels? I would have thought that would be a great idea :confused:
 
...Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me...
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my home in Australia. The federal government actually gave me a rebate to do so. Now, any electricity I don't use from the solar panels, goes back into the grid and I get paid for it - pretty easy choice to make really, the government paid to install the system then buy power from me :thumbs:

But, if they can do it that easily on my house, why isn't the Simpson Desert (HUGE desert in the middle of Oz) covered in solar panels? I would have thought that would be a great idea :confused:

I hear of nasty chemistry involved in making those panels, much less the disposal hazards when they eventually fail....

apparently it's better to burn coal today than solar panels....from a EPA standpoint as well as cost...

the weenies still down on coal are blowing more smoke than a modernized coal plant...the chemical ANALysis of scrubber gases coming outta a plant is cleaner air there than in the surrounding atmosphere....such is the efficiency of modern scrubbers....
and so what do they DO with all that coal ash...gypsum for sheetrock....most always have a sheetrock plant next to a coal fired power plant....

:drink:
 
...Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me...
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my home in Australia. The federal government actually gave me a rebate to do so. Now, any electricity I don't use from the solar panels, goes back into the grid and I get paid for it - pretty easy choice to make really, the government paid to install the system then buy power from me :thumbs:

But, if they can do it that easily on my house, why isn't the Simpson Desert (HUGE desert in the middle of Oz) covered in solar panels? I would have thought that would be a great idea :confused:

Solar has to be subsidized by governments. It's the most expensive way to generate electricity (20 - 30 Cents/kW-h vs. 5 Cents for gas/coal/nuke). It also has the problem of going off when the sun goes down:banghead:.
 
...Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me...
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my home in Australia. The federal government actually gave me a rebate to do so. Now, any electricity I don't use from the solar panels, goes back into the grid and I get paid for it - pretty easy choice to make really, the government paid to install the system then buy power from me :thumbs:

But, if they can do it that easily on my house, why isn't the Simpson Desert (HUGE desert in the middle of Oz) covered in solar panels? I would have thought that would be a great idea :confused:

Solar has to be subsidized by governments. It's the most expensive way to generate electricity (20 - 30 Cents/kW-h vs. 5 Cents for gas/coal/nuke). It also has the problem of going off when the sun goes down:banghead:.

While it may have a larger initial investment, the energy cost is zero. Generating during the day only is not a problem. That is when you have the largest load anyhow. If you generate more than you use during the day, and sell it back to the grid, you have credit for the grid at night.
 
...Solar is also viable. A world of solar panels, using point of usage makes so much sense to me...
Last year, I had solar panels installed on my home in Australia. The federal government actually gave me a rebate to do so. Now, any electricity I don't use from the solar panels, goes back into the grid and I get paid for it - pretty easy choice to make really, the government paid to install the system then buy power from me :thumbs:

But, if they can do it that easily on my house, why isn't the Simpson Desert (HUGE desert in the middle of Oz) covered in solar panels? I would have thought that would be a great idea :confused:

Point of usage. Installing at your home required ZERO infrastructure. Covering the desert means more transmission lines. That is why you were subsidized. Any other measure requires infrastructure investment.
Nevada is presently making a large plant outside Vegas. It's short transmission line into town to run all them hotel A/C's is a small investment for a free energy source.
 
All the large, flat roof industries in Riverside and San Bernadino county have been offered FREE solar install, by the utilities, (no tax money).:goodevil:
Seems to me the private sector must see a business win win there.
98% of all solar panels are US made. I cannot see ANY bad there at all.;)
More jobs, more construction, less pollution, free energy, lower bills, fewer transmission lines. ;)
 
Well this certainly is an interesting discussion. I live in an area that is supposed to be ideal for solar power. But....

1. It is VERY expoensive to install. I am not a poor person, but it is WAY beyond my price range.

2. The solar panels only provide enough power to run minimal electical devices. I have a brand new energy efficient central air conditioning system and there is NO WAY solar panels can run it.

3. Now that some people have started using solar power the electric company has realized that their profits are down. So they have JACKED UP the price of electricity dramatically FOR EVERYONE. So much for Al Gore's "carbon credits".

4. Most of the solar panel stuff is made OVERSEAS. So it may be a "green job" to make, it but American labor isn't benefitting from it.

5. No power when the sun goes down. The solution has been battery storage. But that has it's own can of worms when those batteris go bad. You have to dispose of them and they contain all kinds of nasty stuff.

6. For solar power for large locations there are two main problems...

The reasons that solar power plants do not power the world are summed up in two reasons: cost and reliability. Solar plants made of solar cells are extremely expensive to build. Thousands of square feet of solar cells are required to generate enough power for even a very small town. A large city simply doesn't have enough room for a solar plant, or enough money. The second main reason is the unreliability of the plants. If the plant has a few cloudy days, there will be no electricity for the town. This is not an option for many towns or cities. In the modern age of today, we need to have power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, not only on sunny days, sometimes at night.
 
Last edited:
Well this certainly is an interesting discussion. I live in an area that is supposed to be ideal for solar power. But....

1. It is VERY expoensive to install. I am not a poor person, but it is WAY beyond my price range.Do you think new nuclear plants are cheaper?

2. The solar panels only provide enough power to run minimal electical devices. I have a brand new energy efficient central air conditioning system and there is NO WAY solar panels can run it. It's not about total generation, it's about peak usage

3. Now that some people have started using solar power the electric company has realized that their profits are down. So they have JACKED UP the price of electricity dramatically FOR EVERYONE. So much for Al Gore's "carbon credits".This conflicts with you saying it is cost prohibitive

4. Most of the solar panel stuff is made OVERSEAS. So it may be a "green job" to make, it but American labor isn't benefitting from it.Do you think Chinese workers install this stuff?

5. No power when the sun goes down. The solution has been battery storage. But that has it's own can of worms when those batteris go bad. You have to dispose of them and they contain all kinds of nasty stuff.That would only apply to a stand alone system, not a grid system

6. For solar power for large locations there are two main problems...

The reasons that solar power plants do not power the world are summed up in two reasons: cost and reliability. Solar plants made of solar cells are extremely expensive to build. Thousands of square feet of solar cells are required to generate enough power for even a very small town. A large city simply doesn't have enough room for a solar plant, You place them on the roofsor enough money. The second main reason is the unreliability of the plants. If the plant has a few cloudy days, there will be no electricity for the town.Not true if connected to the grid This is not an option for many towns or cities. In the modern age of today, we need to have power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, not only on sunny days, sometimes at night.


Dep. It's about peak generation, and having peak production during peak usage. Installing peak usage at point of use eliminates building new plants and more transmission lines. That is the Utilities incentive.
We have 2 peak power plants in Anaheim, because it is cheaper than additional lines. Natural gas runs turbines, and this could be replaced by solar POU. They would be retained for power demand, such as cloudy days.
Solar is a SYSTEM COMPONENT, and a replacement for fuel generation.
Ideally, it would be solar by day, and wind/hydro by night.
If fuel burning was not an option, we would find a way to make it work.
Germany is way ahead of us on this front. Once again, foreign countries will lead the way, while we argue what is wrong with it.:eek:
 
All the large, flat roof industries in Riverside and San Bernadino county have been offered FREE solar install, by the utilities, (no tax money).:goodevil:

No tax money? Isn't that where the state of California get it's money?

Here is a list of government funded "green" energy financial incentives for California, must be 50 of them:

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=CA

Read again. Almost all of those are funded by City Munincipal power companies, because it is cost effective, rather than stressing the grid.
 
Living in the desert mentioned above, the Mojave, I have a question for all the greenies pushing solar.

Putting up all these solar panels is going to shade all the desert soil and plantlife below them. Ground temps will change, plant growth rates will change. Essentially the entire ecosystem in that area will be grossly affected but no tree huggers seem to care.

While it's not as dramatic and welcoming as a stand of oaks there is indeed a well developed and delicate environment represented here. It may look barren and wasted to a grasslands guy but there is a serious amount of LIFE in those acres!:tth:
 
Living in the desert mentioned above, the Mojave, I have a question for all the greenies pushing solar.

Putting up all these solar panels is going to shade all the desert soil and plantlife below them. Ground temps will change, plant growth rates will change. Essentially the entire ecosystem in that area will be grossly affected but no tree huggers seem to care.

While it's not as dramatic and welcoming as a stand of oaks there is indeed a well developed and delicate environment represented here. It may look barren and wasted to a grasslands guy but there is a serious amount of LIFE in those acres!:tth:

Point of usage means on the roof. Why not roof all them casinos with solar?
Just imagine if the Luxor was built of black solar panels instead of just black glass panels?
As for the desert project, I have to agree with you.
I hope the environmental impact study in El Dorado valley was fair and extensive.
 
Last edited:
All the large, flat roof industries in Riverside and San Bernadino county have been offered FREE solar install, by the utilities, (no tax money).:goodevil:

No tax money? Isn't that where the state of California get it's money?

Here is a list of government funded "green" energy financial incentives for California, must be 50 of them:

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=CA

Read again. Almost all of those are funded by City Municipal power companies, because it is cost effective, rather than stressing the grid.

Not true, half if not more are state funded and the municipal appliance credits and insulation credits are tied in with the cash for appliances program. Even if they were ALL funded by municipal electric suppliers, who do you think pays additional costs incurred by the utility? Here is a hint, consumers do.

Anytime a business increases their cost, the consumer pays for it. It's basically a tax (another additional tax).
 
I anxiously await the fuel cell coming to fruition and start moving homes off the grid.

When I enquired about panels two years ago the 1200 sg ft flat roof of my garage was ideally situated. The cost then was $35,000 after rebates and it calculated to a fifteen year payback at the rates of the day.

I didn't do it as the payback exceeded the projected life of the panels. Now, two years later, who knows?
 
All the large, flat roof industries in Riverside and San Bernadino county have been offered FREE solar install, by the utilities, (no tax money).:goodevil:

No tax money? Isn't that where the state of California get it's money?

Here is a list of government funded "green" energy financial incentives for California, must be 50 of them:

http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/index.cfm?re=1&ee=1&spv=0&st=0&srp=1&state=CA

Read again. Almost all of those are funded by City Municipal power companies, because it is cost effective, rather than stressing the grid.

Not true, half if not more are state funded and the municipal appliance credits and insulation credits are tied in with the cash for appliances program. Even if they were ALL funded by municipal electric suppliers, who do you think pays additional costs incurred by the utility? Here is a hint, consumers do.

Anytime a business increases their cost, the consumer pays for it. It's basically a tax (another additional tax).

Your gonna pay anyhow. Transmission lines and power plants cost MORE than POU solar. As the populace grows, one or the other is required. In the LONG term, solar is cost effective. The utilities see it, but the populace doesn't.
The utilities are faced with an aging infrastructure that needs replacing and enlargement. They have studied both sides, and see that POU solar is the way to go. This is increasingly a free market decision.
 
I anxiously await the fuel cell coming to fruition and start moving homes off the grid.

When I enquired about panels two years ago the 1200 sg ft flat roof of my garage was ideally situated. The cost then was $35,000 after rebates and it calculated to a fifteen year payback at the rates of the day.

I didn't do it as the payback exceeded the projected life of the panels. Now, two years later, who knows?

Just like computers, the cost will drop with increased production. That same system here in Anaheim would be $15,000 installed, with a 30 year life. Payback is still at 12-15 years.
If we can make an interlocking system that seals, and is designed into the roof structure, the install would be close to equal in roof install, with a glass surface that would outlast any roofing material we now have.
It would also reduce roof heat soak, which reduces cooling costs. Another win win.
 
Top