Speyside wrote:Tail, I am pointing out 2 items from one of your previous posts that I think are invalid. The concept behind her bill is not completely erroneous. It is reaching beyond our present capabilities. Please keep in mind I am only talking about the energy portion of the bill. I pointed out where green energy does make sense. Also, using less energy is green. The second statement that is invalid is that green energy is unreliable, here also, I pointed out in basic terms why. Green energy is an area where I have extensive experience. I am simply pointing out where and why green energy is viable as a business proposal, and that our goals should always outreach our existing technology.
Most renewables are unreliable.
Here in new england we don't get the same solar energy as Arizona. For instance.
Wind is even worse in terms of reliability.
If you want to power your home with wind AND solar, you NEED another form of electrical supply.
Because if it's a cloudy, windless day you'd be f*cked.
I like the idea of tidal sources, but there are limited areas to put them.
Biofuels are considered green, but they're nothing more than diesel made from plants. It does nothing to improve the pollution aspect, just the supply.
We need new ideas. The government should encourage this. But not with their foot on our throats.
If we are forced to divert all efforts towards renewable and alternative energy, then we'd be minimizing our efforts to improve efficiencies with our existing sources.
AOC's plan is dangerous and misguided and based on fear mongering.
Don't fall for it.
For renewable energy to work we need storage.
Super conductivity would be a plus, but unless we live at zero degrees kelvin we're still a ways off.
These are good goals. But tying our hands to half the viable options is the wrong way to achieve anything.