RSS FeedsWhy does the right-wing media choose to make their listeners ignorant about alternative energy?
There is so many different technologies out there that can easily replace oil from clean synthetic fuel extracted from coal to hydrogen technology which is true and tested, to electric powered cars like the Tesla htttp://www.teslamotors.com that can go from 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds and then there is Air powered cars which run on compressed air that gets about $3 a tank and goes as far as 200 miles http://www.theaircar.com/
Why does the con media make their listeners ignorant about these technologies? Their like junkies, they can’t get enough of their drugs. Do we need to put them all in rehab?
There is also natural gas powered vehicles
There is thermal energy, solar energy, thermal-solar energy, wind power, ocean current power.
Denmark is a country which gets 20% of their electric power from wind mills. They have a green technology boom going on and their unemployment rate is 1.6%!
Why can't the U.S do the same?
If it's not built yet, then what is this??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqpGZv0YT4
Your ignorance is typical of most neo-conservatives.
And by the way, if you weren't so lazy, you would find out the air powered car is coming into the European market this decade and Mexico ordered a fleet of 2000 to run their Taxi service to reduce smog in the city.
Please, stop being ignorant…it's damaging to this country.
Air powered cars for example can recharge in a few minutes if hooked up to a high pressured compressor which will give you 200 miles more of travelling. Click on the YOu Tube link I posted.
They are are also working on a car that uses both air compression and one tank of gas that can get you from San Francisco to New York on one tank of gas.
SIDNEY, your ignorance defines your lack of intelligence.
All the technology I listed here exists today. Please inform yourself and give clean energy a chance.
Oil won't last forever and we lose 800 billion dollars a year to foreign countries so we can keep being addicted.
Oil companies want us to be addicted, their making record profits.
With solar energy, their making solar panels much more efficient these days and cheaper. Most of our energy needs are during the day, so that takes care of most of it, even when there is clouds out!
Wind mills are an excellent source, they run even during the night! Denmark get's 20% of their energy from wind mills, the U.S only gets 1%. Pathetic, considering we can supply 30% of our needs with wind.
Nuclear plants take a very long time to come online. Wind mills are very fast to put up, as well as solar panels. We can use nuclear power in conjuction with clean energy sources…any bit helps to reduce our impact on the planet and our dependence on foreign energy.
Why are you liberals out of your mind and so gullible about things that are not economically feasible or even physically possible.
I am an alumnus of Caltech and what they're currently researching are:
1) a way of making butanol, a better motor fuel than ethanol, without using food crops.
2)transforming sunlight—far and away the most plentiful source
of energy available to us—into hydrogen, a chemical fuel that can be stored and used after dark.
3)fuel cells, which liberate that energy by turning the hydrogen back into water.
Wind is the cheapest renewable-energy source now, because we cherry-pick the high-wind-velocity sites. As a bonus, the wind’s potential energy goes up as the cube of the wind speed—1/2 mv2 times the mass of air per unit time,which introduces another factor of v. And wind energy is relatively economic, about five cents perkilowatt hour in very high-wind-speed areas, but, even adding in the lower-wind-speed areas, when you calculate the total kinetic energy that we can get at the surface of the earth, there is to be had in practical terms about two to four terawatts.
powered by Yahoo Answers
February 2nd, 2009
Because, then they would oil lose companies as donors.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
We don't. The problem is, left-wing extremest want to keep prices high then tell us "how concern" they are for the poor. The question is, who's kidding whom? To listen to the liberals, you would think that the democratic party is going to help buy more fuel efenice vehicles for the people who can not afford them, since they "claim" they want to save energy. Not to mention what they will "supposedly" do for the homes they live in. You would have to live under a rock to believe all the hype handed out by the democrats.
Also, how long will it be until we have these alternative fuel vehicle up and running at a price the poor can afford them (say in the $10,000 range or cheaper), while people like Nancy Pelosi makes millions on her oil stock?….
One thing people fail to understand about cars with some of these alternative fuels like natural gas: You have a wreck in one of these cars, the wreck site is going to look like a bomb site. It will have the effect of a 1,000 lb bomb going off. Are you ready? Ever seen natural gas expose under pressure?
References :
http://swampie.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/nancy-pelosi-invests-in-t-boone-pickens-water-and-land-grab-scheme/
February 2nd, 2009
Right wing media? You are joking, right? Everyone knows the media has a liberal bias.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
OK, I just looked into the so called air car… It isn’t even built yet.
If you build it, they will come.
It isn’t that the “right wing media” doesn’t report on these things, it is just they are not practical yet.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
The left has no answers other than tire gauges, and thats why Nancy wont call the Democrats back to Congress from their 5 week vacations, the Republicans are up there waiting for them with the lights out debating energy., along with 12 Democrats
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Because the money over the short term is in oil, and the corporations call the shots with this administration, and this administration, in turn, controls Fox News…which is the center-piece of the right-wing media.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Now let me ask you a question…I am traveling across country and am driving 600 miles per day. With theses new cars where do I get the power to do this with out allot of wait to regenerate or long stops??
Have you ever had a windmill close to where you live? i have and the noise is defining,24 hours a day.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Here’s what I’ve noticed. In their minds, “alternative energy sources” is the same thing as “offshore drilling.”
While, to liberals, “alternative energy sources” means developing new ways of providing things like heat and electricity, ways that don’t depend on oil at all, conservatives think it means finding new places to drill for more oil.
No wonder we get nowhere in Congress. There is a very basic inability to communicate between the parties.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Because it doesn’t further their agenda, which is driven by personal profit.
Don’t worry, things will turn around in a big way once the right-wing figures out they can get stupidly drunk rich off of alternative energy too.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Your insults define your intelligence. The alternative sources will become the norm but not in our lifetime and until then we will need OIL, COAL, WIND, SOLAR but oil will still be the #1 source and that we will have to be drilling for and our reserves are the largest in the world.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
They don’t! But how many libs are overlooking the problems of the technologies you’ve mentioned. Solar power is great– when the sun’s out but doesn’t work well after dark. It’s can’t be stored. The same thing goes for wind. You can’t store wind.
Where are you going to come up with the electricity for electric cars? That power that comes from your wall has to come from somewhere. Where are you going to get your compressed air?
Hydrogen fuel cells are efficient. But it takes a lot of energy to make hydrogen from anything. And hydrogen is very flammable. Remember the Hindenburg? That was all over with in less than one minute.
Natural gas generates CO2 and if there’s a wreck and the fuel tank ruptures you can have a very big explosion.
You can make bio fuels from a lot of things soybeans, corn, wheat, and other crops. But those are things that can be eaten by humans. Which would you rather have fuel or food? You can’t have both from the same thing.
Liberals are all for alternative energy. And I am too. But be realistic. There aren’t many sources that are viable alternatives to fossil fuel.
GeoThermal, nuclear, and hydro are the only ones that can be varied sufficiently to meet the changes in loads. And what is the liberal side saying about those? They are too messy. They will harm the animals. They are too dangerous.
Conservative aren’t ignorant. And they aren’t blind to the facts.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Why are you liberals out of your mind and so gullible about things that are not economically feasible or even physically possible.
I am an alumnus of Caltech and what they're currently researching are:
1) a way of making butanol, a better motor fuel than ethanol, without using food crops.
2)transforming sunlight—far and away the most plentiful source
of energy available to us—into hydrogen, a chemical fuel that can be stored and used after dark.
3)fuel cells, which liberate that energy by turning the hydrogen back into water.
Wind is the cheapest renewable-energy source now, because we cherry-pick the high-wind-velocity sites. As a bonus, the wind’s potential energy goes up as the cube of the wind speed—1/2 mv2 times the mass of air per unit time,which introduces another factor of v. And wind energy is relatively economic, about five cents perkilowatt hour in very high-wind-speed areas, but, even adding in the lower-wind-speed areas, when you calculate the total kinetic energy that we can get at the surface of the earth, there is to be had in practical terms about two to four terawatts.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
Becuase they love them some oil, and oil companies.
Hey Bob, your big on that tire guage thing huh? I bet you think your pretty sharp, ha there skippy. That was a snippet out of a much broader speech taken out of context so McCain could have a sound bite that the righties could hold on to and parrot. Bob, let it go man, the tire guage has run it’s course. It’s a good idea in a much broader solution, unfortunately people like you can’t get past the little things like that. It feels pretty good to make fun of a good thing huh?
References :
February 2nd, 2009
your deliberate ignorance sort of makes me a little ill
References :
February 2nd, 2009
I think some politic folks would rather continue top alienate people under “divide and conquer” techniques, than to actually try to solve problems.
____
namsaev:
I suppose the concept of batteries has escaped you and the “storage” problem…
References :
February 2nd, 2009
The truth is that we will need all sources of energy in order to meet energy demand over the next 100 years. Whether that be alternatives or fossil fuels. I hate to say it but most of that energy will still come from fossil fuels. The main reason is that although we have a lot of these technologies they are still not able to produce energy on a scale that would make them commercially viable.
References :
February 2nd, 2009
rijim2001 is correct. You should look into the numbers and not fly off the handle ranting and raving using vague generalities about alternate energies. i looked up some info:
Humanity’s current energy consumption rate
is 13 trillion thermal watts, or 13 terawatts. As rijim2001 said if you used ALL THE USABLE WIND SURFACE OF THE EARTH windmills would only generate 2 to 4 terawatts. That's only 20 to 30% of humanities CURRENT needs!
As far as Denmark goes just what is its energy needs? Only 9.57% of its energy production comes from RENEWABLE sources like wind turbines. (SEE 1st SOURCE BELOW). And of that 9.57% about 17% is generated from the wind.
In the from 1980 to 2006 its energy production has increased about 30 times. Its renewable energy production in the same period increased less than 5 times while oil production increased nearly 6 times and natural gas increased a whopping 20,000 times. Check these numbers out at the Danish 2nd website below.
I believe you need to re-assess your ideas about the scale of renewable energy sources before you star to condemn any one political party when there seems to be a very large gap in your own source of information.
References :
http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/graphics/Publikationer/Statistik_UK/energy_in_dk_2006/html/kap02.htm
http://www.energistyrelsen.dk/graphics/UK_Facts_Figures/Statistics/yearly_statistics/Figures2006.xls