However, switching to full solar/wind power is guaranteed to destroy the environment ala my other comments on this article. The vast amount of space and water used would consume natural habitats. To avoid making apparent changes to “wilderness”, they almost certainly choose the central plains as a staging area (once again putting the south under the liberal north great thumb), which would drain aquifers and potentially see wide desertification, and most surely decrease the supply of food and increase the cost of groceries, thus creating an undue hardship on the poor!!!

Wow, liberals once again unwittingly destroying everything they stand for, simply by being unreasonable uneducated. This from the enlightened ones?

I’m a still conceited?

Both sides of the aisle are forever bleeped. All we do as a nation (as a nation) is switch sides whenever we rediscover the side we put up is totally dysfunctional.

Honestly, I think representatives are obsolete. We don’t need representing anymore, we can vote. There’s no technical impossibility in voting (even those there’s a political difficulty).

I say we remove representing from the legislative agenda. Their job should be to simply write laws, not vote on them. I also say we make it so they cannot receive any other form of income in their household. Too many of them are invested on either side of the energy line, that they’ll never find a true feasible “green” option (nuclear), because none of them are invested in nuclear. Yes that would mean they can’t invest in the market, and their spouse would be jobless. Maybe then we’d get people who are serious about writing functional law, rather than being a tool for the lobbyists.

Not to mention that in order to ensure solar power could sustain the US, they’d have to fill the central plains with solar panel farms. These farms need water to cool and would drain the local aquifers to do so. Farmers are afraid that such a thing would create another Dust Bowl and destroy large sections of central plains.

So in short, Greenpeace would destroy 1/4 of the North American environment to save the world.

Now, the ironic thing is that these solar panel farms would desertificate surrounding areas, which would create more heat absorption, thus enhancing a feedback loop that would raise the global temperature, according to pro-AGW scientific beliefs.

So, what about wind. Well wind turbines take a lot of oil to build, and a lot of oil to lubricate. Giant farms of them would simply switch us over from burning oil to lubricating with it. So even with wind power, we’d still be drilling for oil, and we’d still be fracking for oil and gas as well.

So, we’re back to the nuclear option. Metal pipes for coolant, concrete for meltdown prevention. No desertification, no draining aquifers (coolant is cycled), no mass amounts of oil to lubricate.

Seems like Greenpeace has very little education on the topic of green energy!

They have a new article called “Nod Your Head for U.S. Offshore Wind Power”.

Well, not only did I not nod my head, I critiqued it as follows:

“I know Areva has gotten themselves into the Industrial Wind business, probably for the good PR from the mainstream media and the tax incentives and outright grants from various government agencies, but when this bubble bursts, as it is starting to do in Denmark, Germany, and the US, it will make the company look like its engineers never really understood the concepts of energy density or capacity factor.

If Areva wants to ride the wave of the future, design and promote fast-spectrum SMRs that turn unprocessed spent LWR fuel into power.”

Three hours later, they still don’t seem to want to post it. Am I just being antsy?

You don’t need to be a conservative to be pronuclear, you just need to be a reasonable person who bothers looking at the numbers. We have plenty of liberal nukes here.

Same old Greenpeace.

Gotta wonder if they consider differing opinions a spam attack though.

Reminds me of an interesting article in New Humanist a couple of months back, check it out if you fancy a read

http://newhumanist.org.uk/1949/power-struggle