JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
What about the sustainability benefits of green energy? Fossil fuels are essentially depletable resources. While we may not get as much bang for our buck with wind turbines and solar power right now how are we supposed to progress in that technology if we stick to our old ways?

We have more untouched natural resources right now that we wont have to worry for a very very very long time. Right now our country doesnt need to waste more money on something that has proven its self more costly time and time again. LET THE GREENIES FUND THIER OWN REASEARCH.

They are making more fuel efficent less polluting vehicles these days, and coal has been cleaned up considerably. Natural gas is also very efficent and fairly clean, plus they are refining it into gasoline.

Yes we can do things to reduce our pollution and the are fairly easy and DO NOT REQUIRE THE DEMONIZING FOSSIL FUELS.

We need to produce our own resources and tell the likes of OPEC to kiss our collective ankles three joints up!!!!
 
I believe the same equation exists for those horribly ugly eyesores call wind turbines!

And you would be absolutely correct.

Here are some approximate costs for various electricity generating fuels/methods:

Hydo - $.005/kwh
Coal - $.035/kwh
Fuel Oil - $.045/kwh
Natural Gas (combined cycle) - $.065/kwh
Natural Gas (steam turbine) - $.085/kwh
Natural Gas (gas turbine) - $.12/kwh
Wind - $.17/kwh
Solar - $.23/kwh

If you are a PGE customer you pay about $.085/kwh retail due to averaging in a LOT of coal and hydro (dam) generation. Take out the coal and hydro from the generating base and you will at least triple retail prices per kwh.

Which fuels/technologies are currently under attack? Hydro and coal! What a coincidence!
 
EXACTLY, how can something that has been produced by the earth naturally for so long, all the sudden quit producing.
It isn't and will not. Anyone who even vaguely considers the idea that oil is the byproduct of fossil remains, prehistoric plant matter etc. is following the dolphins over the rainbow. The earth is a crucible and way down deep it is churning out oil, natural gas and other 'natural' products. That is what I believe anyway.
 
Sorry, but your facts are just wrong, fredball. Not even close in fact.
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

I see you've been ignored. Let me help you out. This thread is about a false and misleading e-mail that was started in 2010 and forwarded by countless grandmas who never fact check anything. A simple search will let you know that volcanoes are actually a drop in the bucket compared to everything else. Why are people so afraid of the scientific method and fact based information?
 
It isn't and will not. Anyone who even vaguely considers the idea that oil is the byproduct of fossil remains, prehistoric plant matter etc. is following the dolphins over the rainbow. The earth is a crucible and way down deep it is churning out oil, natural gas and other 'natural' products. That is what I believe anyway.

Too bad there's evidence to support both 'biological/organic' and 'abiogenic' origins of oil. And, drum roll please, they are both theories. Old article, but enough good information for you to get the gist. The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil | LiveScience

In the end, the process of creation of usable reserves takes thousands of years(usually). The process of draining a reserve and using it takes only decades(usually). Although there have been a few oil fields that just keep on producing and seem to never want to go dry.
 
Too bad there's evidence to support both 'biological/organic'
I am open to any logical theory but if you consider the nearly infinitesimal amount of oil we have used say, in the last 100 years how many cubic feet (or should I say cubic miles) of organic material it would have taken to produce it? And specifically what do the proponents say made up the largest amount of organic material that produced all the oil?
 
During the development of fossil fuel technologies, the government subsidized the oil and gas industries at a rate 5 times greater than what the government is giving renewable industries now. Most recent subsidy data I could find indicated that fossil fuels have received $72 billion between 2002-2008, whereas renewable energies have received $29 billion. Guess oil isn't so cost effective after all?

http://www.dblinvestors.com/documents/What-Would-Jefferson-Do-Final-Version.pdf

This is such utter BS. Compare apples and apples. Times were different back then. There was little if any government subsidy for anything. Government wasn't standing in the way with needless taxes and regulations either. If my history classes are true it is my understanding Drake, Rockefeller and the gang were burning off gasoline as a waste byproduct. They were after kerosene to sell to folks as a replacement for whale oil to burn in lamps. It was entrepreneurs who looked at what to do with this "waste gasoline" and developed an engine that use it for fuel.

As far as the study referred, do a google search on the authors......... A little hint: One of the authors, Nancy Pfund, is based in San Francisco and sits on the board of directors in a few heavily government subsidized companies.
 
It has been said before evertime you have a major eruption it wipes out all the work the tree huggers have been tryin to shove down our throats.


You mean these volcanic eruptions somehow blast away certain legislation? It's not the actual environmental stuff that counts, it's the "I can forcefully control your life because I'm holier than thou" attitude that still prevails.

And no doubt there's some treehugger that will happily blame the seismic activity on your pick up truck.
 
You mean these volcanic eruptions somehow blast away certain legislation? It's not the actual environmental stuff that counts, it's the "I can forcefully control your life because I'm holier than thou" attitude that still prevails.

And no doubt there's some treehugger that will happily blame the seismic activity on your pick up truck.

Sorry for the vagueness!!!!
UNfortunantly the legislation is left behind. if we could somehow figure a way to attatch the legislation to the lava fields in Hawaii and make it disappear too that would be great. I wonder if we could get the ones thinking up all this garbage to stand with thier legislation in front of the lava fields.

Oh and treehuggers hate my truck, hehehehehehehe '76 F-350 with a 460 passes everything but gas stations
 
AS I read this I have come to the conclusion that if a Liberal says it ,It is Gospel truth even tho Lib's for the most part are anti god, If a conservative says it It's Utter B.S.
 
The government always goes to the extreme. They start out with something that sounds reasonable but they can't stand to leave it at that and ad to it until it is crazy.
 
AS I read this I have come to the conclusion that if a Liberal says it ,It is Gospel truth even tho Lib's for the most part are anti god, If a conservative says it It's Utter B.S.
All a liberal needs to show is they care and also have good intention. Nothing else need be questioned. The truth be known if the liberal special interests had the power they have today 150 years ago, many of us would not have electricity because hydroelectric dams would not have been built. We would still be relying on horse drawn transportation because we wouldn't have the hwy and railroad systems.
 
All Moot! ]
facts are, but dont fit the narrative; Co2 is not a cause but a byproduct of the naturally warming planet. Set aside all other natural occurances, when the seas warm they let off stored CO2. just one degree produces more CO2 than man can ever hope to generate in a lifetime. just check out your carbonated drink which stays fizzy longer if you keep it cold. leave it on the counter for a while and all the gass vents out.
 
We are all for that, the problem is that most of the so called "clean energy" pollutes more during its entire life cycle, esp when you include manufacturing. Take solar cells, for example. After they are manufactured, very clean. Unfortunately, half of them are manufactured in China, which has so little regard for industrial pollution, that a cloud of smog now reaches all the way to Japan. An engineer I worked with in the power industry told me that the total energy/money it took to create a solar cell would never be reclaimed during it's useful life. Ethanol is another example where we do not get as much energy out of the fuel than it takes to create it. To me, the best tip off that we don't get out of a technology what we put into it is the presence of a subsidy necessary to make the product affordable enough to sell. If we get less out of than we put into it, then that energy has to come from somewhere. As in so many things, follow the dollar to get to the truth. Money = energy. If the money equation does not balance, then neither does the energy.

Case in point. The wind turbine. Subsidized like crazy, planted on Republican land owners land!(who as we know hates the greenies), and they make millions off of them. Trust me, my friends have hundreds of them on there land in the gorge. It's a crazy experience, this thing called life.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top