I keep hearing them pushing wind and solar energy to replace coal - i think these people are clueless.
it would take 4,000 wind turbines with 130 ft. blades to replace the electric output of a single nuclear plant....
2007-12-09 03:13:51 · 9 answers · asked by PD 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
and 1500 wind turbines to replace a single coal plant
2007-12-09 03:17:14 · update #1
not sure nomames, maybe you should ask a republican....
2007-12-09 03:25:46 · update #2
hold on, i'll find some solar stats
2007-12-09 03:27:30 · update #3
it would take 140 of these:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Solar_two.jpg
to replace the energy output of a single nuclear plant nuclear plant
2007-12-09 03:31:35 · update #4
most people cannot afford solar panels - dreamworld argument
2007-12-09 03:32:52 · update #5
homegirl, your arguments assume that most people give a damn about the environment and are willing to spend large sums of money now to save money in the future. WAKE UP
solar prices have increased over the last 3 years and any decline in price will take decades to become practicle for most people.
http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm
Meanwhile hundreds of coal plants are scheduled to be built nation wide - solar does not compete with coal - nuclear does - welcome to reality.
2007-12-09 04:05:17 · update #6
I agree! Nuclear energy is the best option, but try telling that to Al Gore groupies!
2007-12-09 03:18:18 · answer #1 · answered by elaine 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Given effort, I think that some of our energy, perhaps 10% could realistically come from wind.
Its even better for solar power, because the sun is, relatively speaking, more reliable.
However, I agree that nuclear power plants are probably the best option. I think that they should be reprocessing waste though, uneconomical, but at least it is more environmentally friendly.
Given that global warming could result in a Permian like extinction, even if alll of the oil/coal/auto industry's lies were true, their bankruptcy, and a temporary recession are a neglible cost to prevent a mass extinction.
2007-12-09 03:25:09 · answer #2 · answered by ch_ris_l 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know about you but I want a solar system in my home. I could sell or trade electricity to my local utility company, when Toyota markets the 300 mile electric/hybrid car I can charge the car from my solar system.
The sun is a nuclear power plant free for the use.
You have only addressed wind power where are your statistics on solar?
2007-12-09 03:25:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nuclear power would be a great resource but the environmentalist killed it with legal issues like the Endangered Species Act and more. Anyone that would like to build such a facility will pay more in legal fees then in construction costs. And if you look they are doing the same thing to wind turbines too - because they kill birds. These people won't be happy until we return to the stone age.
2007-12-09 03:47:26 · answer #4 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the main important subject is human beings do no longer take it one step extra to understand you won't be able to easily invent a clean potential source. you are able to invent a clean economic equipment. If batteries could run all potential nicely sufficient which could be great, yet how do you run that economic equipment? the place is the equipment? you're putting 1000's of tens of millions of human beings out of artwork around the international by no longer utilising oil. the completed economic equipment would come to a halt. human beings would initiate figuring out to purchase and advertising pirated batteries besides. There would be no administration. the only component oil can get replaced with is yet another substance precisely the comparable as oil. it would could be finite to allow for a solid figuring out to purchase and advertising and fee placing. it would could be sufficiently complicated to mine in great parts so as that companies and not persons could administration production to maintain marketplace stability. it would could be oil. If absolutely everyone has hardship know-how this, in basic terms take a jiffy out and consider out to conceptualize an economic equipment that purposes with out oil. That being suggested, this is ridiculous to anticipate liberals understand this decrease than conservatives. few human beings truly think of roughly this and carry close the all encompassing carry oil has on the international.
2016-11-15 00:35:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Fair and honest question. As a self-described liberal, I have wondered the same. Solar and wind energy is a joke. We ought to be building nuclear like mad. It's insane. I agree.
2007-12-09 03:19:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If everyone had solar panels on their rooftops that would be a significant beginning and then we could go from there.
2007-12-09 03:30:25 · answer #7 · answered by Kelly B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yep. And not even Ted Kennedy will accept a windmill in his area...
It's truly unbelievable. They won't let us drill, mine or even explore for further energy sources domestically, yet they whine incessantly about our dependence on foreign sources.
Now we should burn our food supply...
Sheesh!
2007-12-09 03:18:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
why do some republicans ask stupid A S S questions?
2007-12-09 03:21:09 · answer #9 · answered by nomames 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋