Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The 99% can force ALL states to adopt this plan to convert 100% energy generation within 20 years.

Posted 1 year ago on March 14, 2013, 8:47 p.m. EST by inclusionman (7064)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

And that is how we Roll in NY.

http://news.yahoo.com/ll-never-guess-u-state-could-fossil-fuel-220938614.html

You’ll Never Guess Which U.S. State Could Be Fossil-Fuel-Free by 2050 Takepart.com – 2 hrs 24 mins ago

Wouldn’t it be great if someone had a plan that outlined how to convert New York State’s energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight?

Actually, some scientists have one that’s ready to go.

A new theoretic study lays out how New York State’s entire end-use power could be provided by 50 percent wind, 38 percent solar, 5 percent geothermal and the rest wave and tidal energy. This ambitious goal could be achieved as early as 2030, with 2050 being the deadline when all conventional fossil fuel generation would be phased out completely.

The plan generates a large net increase in jobs, and attractive jobs at that. How could any reasonable politician or business person not want to jump on board?

Robert Howarth, co-author of the study and a professor of ecology at Cornell University, tells TakePart that he’s been working on climate change and its consequences since the 1970s. “I’m increasingly alarmed by the observed rate of warming, which is even faster than most models have predicted,” he says. “If we are to solve the problem of global warming, our current energy policies are completely wrong-headed.”

For this reason, Howarth dove headlong into clean-energy alternatives.

“Many pundits tell us that solar, wind, etc., are great conceptually, but that it will take many decades to start to make these technologies economically feasible. Mark Jacobson [a co-author of the study, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, and the director of Atmosphere/Energy Program], on the other hand, has been doing some nice work illustrating how society can transition rapidly to renewables if we integrate production and use of energy in a systems perspective.”

When Jacobson visited Cornell a couple of years ago, Howarth and several of his colleagues asked him if he thought they could apply his vision to New York State.

“New York is one of the larger economies in the world and New York City is the most energy-efficient city in the U.S.,” says Howarth. “Jacobson got excited about writing such a blueprint, and we have worked together since then to produce the paper we released earlier this week.”

Their study anticipates that if the percentage of new electric power generators that were wind, water, solar (WWS) were to start increasing today, by 2020 all new generators would be WWS generators.

“Existing conventional generators will be phased out gradually, but no later than 2050. Similarly, all new heating and cooling technologies will be WWS technologies by 2020 and existing technologies will be replaced over time, but by no later than 2050,” states the study.

Howarth explains that the diversified set of renewables used in the plan add economic and physical stability to the system. “The particular sources were chosen based on the siting characteristics and energy resources available in New York, following the general guidance that Jacobson has laid out in earlier writings,” he says.

The study lists quite a number of recommended short-term first steps that need to be taken to start the conversion to WWS in New York, but Howarth believes they can all be accomplished.

“We wanted to produce a real plan and not simply a thought exercise,” he says. “As political and business leaders study the plan—and its huge benefits to the State in terms of better health, lower health care costs, and more predictable and sustainable energy sources and costs—we feel they will endorse the plan, and begin to implement the steps.”

Howarth adds that, “Over the next decade, the economic advantage of renewables will only grow larger. And of course, the plan generates a large net increase in jobs, and attractive jobs at that. How could any reasonable politician or business person not want to jump on board?”

“Reasonable” and “politician” are not words usually seen in the same sentence, but here’s to hoping they might be a perfect match in this case.

199 Comments

199 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

50%wind, 30%solar, 5%geothermal, and 15% water. Let us also not forget the fifth dimension here, and which is for us all to take on the challenge and implement individually and also as a community. That is learning how to not use energy in the first place. At least learn how to dramatically reduce our consumption of energy. Yes, the true alternative energy, is the alternative TO energy!

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Thanks,
I'm a Sierra Club member.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

They have changed tactics recently to include civil disobodience andthe head of the org was arrested at a protest.

But you probably know that.

Great group.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Good to see they may be finally waking up to fracking:

""Update (6:46 PM 2/02/12): In response to the TIME piece, Brune posted a message on the Sierra Club blog explaining the decisions on the Chesapeake donations:

It’s time to stop thinking of natural gas as a “kinder, gentler” energy source. What’s more, we do not have an effective regulatory system in this country to address the risks that gas drilling poses on our health and communities. The scope of the problems from under-regulated drilling, as well as a clearer understanding of the total carbon pollution that results from both drilling and burning gas, have made it plain that, as we phase out coal, we need to leapfrog over gas whenever possible in favor of truly clean energy. Instead of rushing to see how quickly we can extract natural gas, we should be focusing on how to be sure we are using less — and safeguarding our health and environment in the meantime.

Read more: http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/#ixzz2QWsL6SlK ""

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

There it is. Plain as can be.

Greentech NOW!!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree 100%. More can be accomplished if every individual cut use of cars, turned down the thermostat, (turned off A/C), skip a meal of red meat.

And that should be the goal however we generate electricity.

Thanks for adding this important fact.

[-] -2 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

And red meat does what for WWS?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The production of red meat is the most energy intensive food production system on earth. Any individual who goes vegan will reduce their carbon footprint dramatically.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

Sorry, but never going to be a vegan, nor would I force it on anyone else.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No need to apologize, i haven't given up steak entirely either. And I'm not advocating forcing it on anyone. Just stating the fact that red meat adds much to each persons carbon footprint.

http://www.mensfitness.com/nutrition/what-to-eat/new-study-eating-less-red-meat-can-save-your-life-and-the-planet

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange

http://www.bhsjacket.com/2013/limiting_meat_consumption_critical_climate_change

Eat more chicken, or just a salad! Healthier for you, & the planet.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

Already do that, but just can not give up a good rib eye, or when in florence, Italy, a large bistecca alla fiorentina! Better than Chicago!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ha. I don't doubt it, and Chicago has great steakhouses & Italian food.

[-] -3 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

Wow! You really are a little control freak. Do you goose step too?

I'll drive as much as I want, eat whatever I want and keep whatever temp I want.

Don't like it? That's too God damned bad. FU and yer little control freak friends.

[-] 3 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Think about this; your inconsiderate energy consumption habits is making my life as well as other people's lives miserable by way of to support your bad habits somebody is out there burning up dead dinos and thereby polluting the air, water, and land which I breath, drink, and eat. That is why we would like you to get your dumb inconsiderate ass in line. Please get with the program.

[-] -1 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

With what power source did your post just get processed?

Did you ride a bicycle and charge a battery? I think not.

I think it's time YOU get with the program before asking others.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

My computer sucks so little juice it can run on power from gerbils running in a cage. The vehicle I usually ride to work gets eighty miles to the gallon, but two days a week I ride a bicycle. My thermostat is set on sixty-five in the winter, and in the summer I don't bother with a/c. The lights in my house are all LEDs. I do not consume much juice to live. I don't expect others to be as frugal as I, but it would be nice to see others more considerate. Yet, I don't get upset over that. Inconsiderate folk end up shooting themselves in the foot. Just wait; when energy prices quadruple, and more environmental laws get put into place, its only a matter of time, you'll be eating crow. If you can't be considerate of of others, at least do yourself a favor.

[-] -2 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

Uh huh. Rationalization FAIL.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And who is trying to control you? Are you off your meds?, or are you just unable to comprehend a suggestion?

Not everyone cares enough about their environment, and their families to cut down these things. Some people prioritize gas guzzling cars, unhealthy eating, and unnecessary air conditioning/heating, over their children.

Your allowed, We call those people shortsighted, selfish, glutinous, dirty, indulgent, greedy, inconsiderate fucks.

But no one is trying to control you.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

"or are you just unable to comprehend a suggestion?"

Then why does your title include the word FORCE?

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The title refers to people "forcing" our govt to implement clean energy.

My 'suggestion' that Mooky misunderstood as "control" referred to car use, heating/coolin habits, & cutting out red meat.

Understand?. You could have figured it out if you took the time to read the comments.

Don't be a hater. Refrain from the obvious divisiveness.

[-] -1 points by mookeydoes (-7) from Fort Sumner, NM 1 year ago

It's none of your business. Just worry about YOURSELF instead of your free advice to others.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The planetary condition IS my business. I'm gonna worry about that, & agitate all pols to implement clean energy, & ask all individuals to each do something.

Please, give up your car, put a sweater on in the house if you cold & turn down the thermostat, and become a vegan.

Do it for your loved ones.

[+] -4 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Wind and solar are unreliable.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

What are all those windmills doing out there?

I don't know of the sun burning out anytime soon, but if one learns to not rely on energy too much then one doesn't worry about it in the first place.

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

You mean the windmills that kill birds,.....and require either coal or petroleum based fuels to run? While the sun is reliable ( rises every day ) ,solar power is not.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I'm not so sure those windmills are running on fuel though I hear they might be chopping up a few birds. As far as solar goes, I have a clothes dryer which runs entirely on solar, and works even on cloudy days. I'm not really into electricity in the first place. Although I do have electrical power to my house for grins and giggles, (I do have a stratocaster which needs power if it is to sound on volume, but other than that,) if my electricity suddenly shuts down, I don't give a hoot.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

What runs your computer?

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

Like my strat' I play with my computer because I can. Besides it don't use a whole lot of juice. If my lights go out and my computer goes down, I don't give a hoot.
If it takes shutting down a computer and my strat to get rid of an oil or nuke plant, I'll happily do it.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

your little empty gestures will have no affect.

[-] 2 points by Shule (1696) 1 year ago

I know. That's why I play with my computer, and play my strat.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I believe there is a plan to retrieve and eat the wind turbine killed birds in order to not waste them.

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

So many people just love to eat dead sparrows

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I think their isn't enough dead birds to worry about it. Maybe this provides for an effective way to cull the bird population of the stupid birds. Eventually the surviving birds will be smarter and will avoid the wind turbines.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

"stupid birds"? the epa will have issue with that. you're ridiculous, downright silly,...............and dumb

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I better watch out for wind turbines.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Every form of energy has pluses and minuses. Oil has this really bad minus called war.

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Oil can be depended upon,.......solar and wind cannot.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Don't forget that oil is solar energy stored by living organisms. Except for nuclear energy, everything is indirectly powered by the sun, even our own bodies.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL, but solar energy does not have to burned like oil, & so does not create pollution.

See the difference?

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

In the case of carbon, every animal or insect is a polluter. The carbon dioxide that a plant takes in and converts to a carbohydrate through photosynthesis might eventually be eaten by an insect or animal. When the insect or animal burns that fuel, carbon is released back into the atmosphere through respiration and the process is repeated over and over.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/carbon_cycle.aspx

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

All true. WE must stop burning everything to generate electricity.

Don't you agree we must cut the pollution we create? And doesn't that mean stopping the burning?

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Yes, and the most efficient way is to cut consumption first, before even considering alternate energy.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LED lighting = 95% efficient.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I converted an older Maglite flashlight to LED. Brighter light and the expensive D cell batteries now last 5-10 times longer.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LED = the way to go - till something better comes along.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Implementation of thorium reactors as well - safer - smaller foot print - easier to shutdown - when not needed to produce electricity - due to the storage and distribution capability of LQM's ( liquid metal batteries )

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Implementation of liquid metal batteries to the power grid = "storage" and distribution of electricity. Power generation would not have to be full time with a current loss of 50% of the power being generated. There is a ton of savings.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support your suggestion that we must encourage less consumption, and agree it can accomplish more reductions faster than any alt energy implementation.

But that is no reason for NOT implementing alt energy. We MUST pursue both! Reducing consumption, & replacing the burning of fossil fuels with clean energy.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I'm not against alt energy but for it. Our change needs to made in a cost efficient way, not just a feel good way.

For example some people receive tax breaks or other incentives to install solar panels on their roofs. A $10,000 system might only produce enough power to run a single older inefficient refrigerator. It would be far more cost effective to buy 10 energy efficient refrigerators at $1000 each that would save much more energy than an equivalent dollar amount of panels could produce.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

i support the deduction for energy efficient appliances AND the deduction for installing clean energy generation equipment (solar, wind, fuel cell).

Not because it makes me feel good but because it IS good, and is cost effective/efficient.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

oil, petroleulm is being constantly produced,.................... deep in the earth. not much sunlight there

[+] -4 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

wikipedia,the first and last resort of the mentally challenged.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Ad hominem, attacking the messenger instead of the facts. Can you provide credible sources that support the abiogenic theory of oil creation?

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Anyone can write anything thats in wikipedia.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I would bet the info contained on that page is more credible that the info you provided.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Just think how much faster that that ( end of fossil fuel ) could be accomplished Nation Wide - If everyone supported it. ( WORLD WIDE )

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

When we are constitutional, we will automatically conserve.

Currently the wealthiest country is wandering the streets at 4 am looking for a fix, or a whore. Without mass media telling it what to do, it will continue with consumption and corruption.

Good ideas, but without ART5, to make the nation constitutional, how will they be shared widely? Without ART5, we will finance the criminal operation of the gov infiltrators.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

An improved document won't makeup for the lack of knowledge and courage required to secure and hold on to liberty.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

By amendment free speech will be un abridged. People can then share knowledge needed to retain and maintain liberty.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

A perfect document lacking the people necessary to stand up for it's principles is worthless. Today there are few who will stand up to defend those principles, so tyranny slowly strangles us, regardless of how well written the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Meaning those that do know the principles must unify in educating enough people to create an informed movement.

It is only near perfect, or we wouldn't be in this situation now.

The greater meaning of free speech was left out, so that is all that really needs to be shared and agreed upon to justify full support for ART5 whereupon at ART5 we can see that meaning written into the contract.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Oh well. Guess all is lost. Might as well give up, find a corner of a cave to crawl into & cry me a river.

No way but your way!

Thx

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

The authority needed to see methods of conservation shared widely resides with ART5.

Proper preparation making the nation more constitutional, assuring constitutional intent will make it possible to use free speech for sharing conservation methods and effort on commercial television.

It can also remove the right to free speech that corporations currently have by amendment. Meaning they won't be able to mislead the masses to gain profit.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great!. Can't wait. Whats next for your plan.?

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Once citizens can discuss constitutional intent, and agree upon it, the vital control for ART5 is germinating.

Free speech is central because knowledge needed for survival can be readily shared. The intent of the most sincere on this forum CAN manifest in simple, fundamental agreements which will be seen, understpokand adopted.

The first agreement is that, regarding the natural law value of be able to readily share info needed for survival. Obviously, of it is getting harder to survive, it could originally be caused by an abridging of free speech.

Then it is obvious that NO official will un abridge, meaning we citizens must use the law of the land to amend our social contract which controls officials, politicians in their duty.

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Excellent, you got it all figured out. but you didn't answer my question.

What do we do next?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Occupy congress and demand they convene an ART5, but, if that is done BEFORE citizens can define constitutional intent, the convention may not serve the people.

Here is the catch 22. We need free speech to define its meaning. There is so much money directed at misleading, and using powerful communication tools to do it

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Occupy congress, or not yet? Define constitutional intent? Whassat?

Define free speech?

Oh well. Let me know how I can help.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Yes, occupy congress, but be aware IF they do it and alec controls it INSTEAD of the people who HAVE defined constitutional intent, the outcome will not serve the people.

Constitutional intent is basically parallel to the survival instinct, or the social aspects of it. Or, if we cannot define constitutional intent, we are doomed to de evolve as slaves in an increasingly toxic environment no matter what.

With free speech as it was intended, Americans can properly define constitutional intent. However it is abridged. It's greater meaning is found in sharing information which enables survival.

There is no where for Americans to take information where it WILL be shared with enough other Americans, who will work to understand so our lives are protected by our collective democratic action.

Your open mind, pure intent and inquiry are helping.

The basic challenge for Americans is to get out of the political box constructed for us by using conceptual basis of philosophy or natural law that are easily and readily completely shared and accepted.

We are human beings and we have a purpose. Our constitution serves that, HOW is the functional exercise of defining the constitutional intent applicable to ANY law made under our constitution. No other law will survive the scrutiny, and that is what the framers intended, but those that would write history, removed that fact or the written communications that defined it. Amendments are laws.

The partisan and corporate created issue based politics are completely dysfunctional and our democratic choices are being handled and translated from the intent we think we are supporting to one that serves corporations and the military industrial complex.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Now I understand less, But I am familiar with ALECs efforts in Art5 so I may not be able to support this.

In any event my question was let me know how I can help.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

A simple acceptance of what is reasonable and also instinctually correct is the most helpful at this point where Amercans need most to begin to define constitutional intent.

Do you support amendment that will return the meaning of free speech? That meaning being found in the understanding derived from sharing information which can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, trust, respect, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I don't know what you mean, but I do support free speech.

Is that good?

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Try this. If you were a parent, would you pass or ignore a real opportunity to see that your child grew in a nation that honored and held high the freedom to speak and create understandings that may manifest; forgiveness, tolerance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting your child's life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Who is Chris Brown? Isn't he a rapper who beats women.

You have many examples of speech that increases understanding ut can't lik to it? Nor will you give ME an example?

I guess it's not that important.

Thanks anyway. And good lucj again. Let me know how I can help.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

What is " freedom to speak and create understandings that may manifest; forgiveness, tolerance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting your child's life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness"

Give me an example of that free speech, & an example of how we don't have that freedom.

In any event I do of course support free speech for my family.

[-] 0 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

All of my posts are examples of speech that increases understanding.

I can look for a few links that demonstrate censorship. Oh, Chris Brown has some pages that document the problems he's had. I think there is a navigation box here, algoxy.com that has some examples.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

a woman in nj was arrested for reciting the constitution ( free speech, 1st amendment) at a town hall meeting.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No link? What town in NJ? When did this happen?

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

happend last week in NJ, Gloucester county, Clayton, in Franklin township, March 14 2013

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I saw news on it from, Alex Jones, The Blaze, Fox, RonPaul forum, but no non right wing news source.

In any event it sounds like a flimsy case against the women, and an abuse of power by the assessor/police/gov.

This isn't really thread related though. It might e etter on oneofthe many gun threads.

Do you have something additional to say about climate change?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Don't forget stormfront. It was prominently featured there too.

I couldn't find a single legitimate report.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I suppose it happened but it is clearly blown out of proportion because guns were confiscated.

Oh my god the un is coming for our guns, Obamas brown shirted fema troops are on the march.

What a joke.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

After every other right is long gone, they will still be sitting in their basements gripping their cache with all their might, screaming about how the 2nd is the only one that counts.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I know, what a joke. They claim they are all about rights and have nothing over the last 10 years about all the rights that are being threatened.

They should be asked about stop n frisk.

[-] -1 points by urbanguy (-67) 1 year ago

Well, we are ranked 32 in world press freedom...

Anyway, she wasn't arrested for reading anything. She's accused of threatening to come back with a gun. It's anybody's guess what really happened.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 1 year ago

Certainly not the person who posted the story here.

Perhaps that poster should go disrupt a city council meeting and see what happens.

[+] -5 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

It's a scam.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But we can all agree that we should cut pollution right?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

If she had initiated a discussion on constitutional intent that lead to the meaning of free speech instead of reading th 1st it may have had a different outcome.

People don't like having their faces rubbed in what they already know,the text of the1st AMD. They do not know its meaning tho.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

She did not do anything wrong.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

She didn't fit in and Americans are just screwed up enough to react wrongly. The real problem is that she doesn't and very few do; know the meaning of free speech, they just recite the text of the first amendment which everyone knows. Meaning she's wasting their time.

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

She did not start off by reading the constitution. She was there to question a doubling of her property taxes.Her husband and 7yr old daughter were with her.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Hmmm, ugly. Must not have been a public building. Worse is that she has no constitutional court to seek reparations through.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

It was a public building,a town hall meeting was being held in it. When she got home, the police were waiting for her , the arrested he. Her bail was set so high that she couldnt make it. her bail was set lower when she said she couldnt make the bail,.............in return, she HAD to surrender her pistols. her guns ( 2). The person that lodged the compaint against her said that she threatened to come back with a gun. All town hall meetings are taped, AND except for the complainent , no one there could be found to back up what the assessor ( complainent ) said . The woman is an orthodox Jew who homeschools her kids. So, on the uncorroberated word of one person, the woman was arressted and her guns confiscated.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

That's outrageous! It sounds like she was set up, which is done more and more on larger and larger scales, depending on the amount of control needed over people that do not act as they were told.

This is why ART5 is needed. If nothing else just to re establish constitutional courts.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Because the United States has never used an Article V consti‐ tutional convention to propose amendments, these questions have never received definitive answers. This Article’s position is that Congress does not have the power to limit a convention. The text and history of Article V indicate that Congressʹs role in calling a convention is merely ministerial. The original purpose of Article V was to give States the power to circumvent a recal‐ citrant or corrupt Congress. It thus makes little sense for it to give Congress broad power to control a convention. In light of the text of Article V and its purpose to empower States, States should have the power to limit the scope of a convention and to limit their applicationsʹ validity to only a certain topic. The original purpose of Article V also indicates that States’ applica‐ tions should be grouped and counted by subject‐matter.

From http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

Page 1011

1016 Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30 citrant Congress would be significantly curtailed. It is neces‐ sary, therefore, to take a middle road when interpreting the Convention Clause. While the States may not have direct au‐ thority to limit a constitutional convention, they do have the ability to indirectly do so by applying for a convention limited to a specific subject matter. Congressʹs ministerial duty to call a convention would require that it call the limited convention the States requested.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Haven't seen this in the constitution.

"While the States may not have direct au‐ thority to limit a constitutional convention, they do have the ability to indirectly do so by applying for a convention limited to a specific subject matter. Congressʹs ministerial duty to call a convention would require that it call the limited convention the States requested."

It seems the states apply limits by refusing to ratify.

I would present that IF the people undertake a dialog directly addressing constitutional intent, in their states, agree on its definition, then go to their states and test the officials in their ability to accept that intent and work for it. When officials fail, they are impeached on the basis that they cannot properly apply "official discretion", which is ALLWAYS rightful and lawful.

Once this happens in a few states, the people will catch on.

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Look here for accountability

http://www.cusdi.org/index.html

Ok it is art 5, as you say, but not a constitutional convention

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I like it, but its not law yet and the only way to make it law is ART5. It lacks a basis of principle that converts to "constitutional intent", and because of the intent of ART5, which could easily be what are essentially national ballot initiatives, SOMEONE must determine if they have constitutional intent if passed.

With a dumbed down population that is deceived and manipulated, democracy of any kind is going nowhere. We are way better off just demanding the principles of the republic are strictly upheld, then collectively voting that they be.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

For limited Article V

See page 1517.... To 1518

http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/96/1509.pdf

EDIT. Also 1516 bottom through 1520

Also. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No3_Rogersonline.pdf

The purpose of the Convention Clause strengthens the ar‐ gument that Article V gives control of the convention process to the States. The records of the Constitutional Convention clearly show that the purpose of the Convention Clause was to protect the States against a recalcitrant or corrupt Congress. In the face of congressional inaction, the States could circumvent the national legislature to propose needed amendments.62 If Congress had broad discretionary power over the conventions, it could potentially prevent or obstruct a convention that was desired by two‐thirds of the States, thereby defeating the pur‐ pose of the convention method of amending the Constituti ...... Page 1015

http://www.pointoforder.com/2011/09/21/article-v-and-the-runaway-convention/

Lots of uncertainty is noted.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Thanks for the links. I found this.

"One safeguard of particular relevance to this blog would be for the House or Senate (or both) to adopt a rule that would prohibit submitting an out of scope amendment to the states for ratification"

That page has the senate determine intent. If they could properly do that,we would not have gotten as unconstitutional as we are.

[-] 1 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

Initiatives Amendment This site’s plan uses the Constitution’s second method in which the States apply for a Limited Article V Convention, then propose and finally ratify the Amendment. It accommodates Congressional unwillingness to call an Unlimited Article V Convention by addressing only the limited issue of a Citizens' Initiatives Amendment. It advocates reasonably contemporaneous applications for the Convention, which will prevent Congress invoking laches against the States in order to avoid calling the Convention. It also accommodates prior "necessary and proper" congressional interpretations contained in the CRS report on second method procedures.

http://www.cusdi.org/basic_schematic.htm

http://www.cusdi.org/solution.htm

[-] 2 points by gsw (2687) 1 year ago

And here http://www.cusdi.org/action.htm

A limited art 5, not a constitutional convention

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Where is "limited ART5" in the constitution.

I like the idea, but it appears to lack specific authority.

From what I've seen, the citizens confusion or ignorance of constitutional intent, is the reason for fears of ART5.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

From the conclusion of this study (quote)

"If complete conversion to WWS occurs, the 2030 NYS power demand for all purposes (not only electricity) could be met by 4020 onshore 5-MW wind turbines (providing 10% of NYS’s energy for all purposes), 12,770 off-shore 5-MW wind turbines (40%), 387 100-MW concentrated solar plants (10%), 828 50-MW solar-PV power plants (10%), 5 million 5-kW residential rooftop PV systems (6%), 500,000 100-kW commercial/government roof-top systems (12%), 36 100-MW geothermal plants (5%), 1910 0.75-MW wave devices (0.5%), 2600 1-MW tidal turbines (1%), and 7 1300-MW hydroelectric power plants (5.5%), of which 89% are already in place. The onshore wind capacity installed under this plan (20.1 GW) would be less than twice the 2012 installed capacity of Texas."

Do you understand those numbers? Four thousand and twenty ON shore turbines, and twelve THOUSAND, seven hundred and seventy OFF shore turbines!!! And that's only about 50% of what is needed according to the study.

THEN-5 million and 500,000 "rooftop systems" and they produce a whopping 18%??

Oh yeah...the oceanic people and the environmentalists and the PEOPLE are going to freaking LOVE this proposal. Yeah. Uh huh. You would have to FORCE people to do this. And then pray another Sandy doesn't strike and take down the entire grid...and for good. Yep. Great idea.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

It will work. It will withstand hurricanes, And the numbers are very small compared to the manufacturing capacity of the country.

Clearly you are just against green energy and are looking for reasons to hate on this excellent and necessary plan.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Here are the specs on one 5 MW turbine.

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/design/5-mw-turbine-intended-for-on-and-off-shore/

Now, picture in your mind, what 16,790 of those look like in NYS. And that's just the turbines. How much pollution will come from the construction and manufacturing and hauling of all that steel? And concrete? Etc?

Have you ever seen a turbine farm? Google Tehachapi Pass Wind Farm and look at it. That's the result of only 5,000 wind turbines in a very large state (California). The NYS study requires more than triple that amount with 4000 of them on shore in a SMALL state, and nearly triple that mount of turbines off shore.

As far as withstanding hurricanes- http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/storms/hurricanes/story/2012-02-12/wind-farms-hurricane-danger/53083084/1

"Offshore hurricanes could demolish half the turbines in proposed wind farms just off the USA's coastlines, according to a study out Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

"We find that hurricanes pose a significant risk to wind turbines off the U.S. Gulf and East coasts, even if they are designed to the most stringent current standard," the authors from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh write."

"Engineer Stephen Rose and colleagues conducted the study in response to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Energy, which said that wind energy should ideally provide one-fifth of all electricity in the USA by 2030. The engineers estimated that over a 20-year span many turbine towers would buckle in wind farms enduring hurricane-force winds off the coasts of four states — Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Texas — where offshore wind-farm projects are now under consideration."

I'm being practical and trying to get you to imagine just the sheer size and space of the actual turbine towers and their physical limitations.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Already well aware of the size, energy required to construct, risk of damage from weather.

None of that changes the fact that we MUST implement massive wind farms to start generating clean energy.

And THAT is the payoff that makes it all worth it.

[-] 0 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

Pressure on power is a well understood concept that does work when applied in the right amount and way.I would think that in order for our polls to get off the oil tit money should require a massive amount.This being the most glaring problem highlighting the American political lack of leadership.Oil fuels the war machine.The war machine must have oil.No solar tanks.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"no solar tanks"? So you're against solar tanks? Cool. Maybe battery operated?

How do you feel about pressuring every state to convert ALL energy generation (non military) to non fossil fuel methods?

[-] 1 points by oldgrandad114 (12) from Stanford, MT 1 year ago

1973 oil embargo.2013 same problem.how long must we play wack a mole?We know who the mole is.Let us kill the mole.Let us stop sucking each others dick.We know tjhe enemy.Lets kill it!

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No sucking goin on (Can't speak for you). Who exactly do you wanna kill?

[-] 0 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Massive protests to demand implementation of this type of plan is required.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

A plan for a plan is needed.

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This IS the plan!!!

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March13/EnergyPolicyHowarth.html

Do you support the plan?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

I support, but we need lawful gov first. Where's the plan for that?

[-] -1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I thought you had that plan to change the govt!

Sheesh! the guy with the plan to change the govt is askin where is the plan to change the govt.

I guess you don't really have a lot of confidence in your plan huh?

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

The opposite, I'm wondering why you aren't including the plan to defend the constitution to use its power to share ways of conservation and demonstrating new lifestyles.

ART5

With ART5 the-99-can-force-all-states-to-adopt-this-plan.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok! Your way is the only way. How are we gonna implement/execute your plan?

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Occupy congress and demand they begin to convene an ART5 convention. They are 100 years over due. In 1911 the requisite number of states applied.

The long list of constitutional violations and defense of the constitution are the theme of protest.

Then protest at each state Capitol demanding they use their power, as the law says they must.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Excellent idea. When is that occupation scheduled for?

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Right after citizens realize that free speech is so abridged they will die if they don't unify and kick ass getting the protesting masses over the ignorance and misinfo the elite have imposed.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"they will die"? Wow, fear monger much?

So it isn't scheduled? Ok. when you get it going I will be with you.

I mean after all I don't wanna die.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

911 only happened because free speech is abridged, 3k died in 20 secs. Why did DHS buy 450 million rounds of 40 cal?

This is not fear mongering, these are facts and people do die when they do not act on facts.

A primary action for the people is to recognize that the freedom to share information which will protect life IS constitutional intent.

That is what I'm working to inspire. Scheduling anything is premature Without that is premature.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Fine. No occupation of congress. No prob, you brought it up not me.

9/11 happened because of free speech being abridged?

Please explain.

[-] 1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Efforts to expose the methods of secrecy used to could not be shared in a 4 year period preceding 9-11.

The perps would not have done 9-11 if the secrecy used was understood. It could be breached and leadership identified.

I like the idea of occupying congress, but the idea of doing from the movements present mindset does not sit well. If the people can address constitutional intent, we can demand what we are due by law later IF the nwo doesn't crash the economy and create reason for martial law and suspension of democractic rule.

This is why I say go ahead and occupy congress, because if that message gets through, then constitutional intent can likely follow.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Great, how can I help?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

Protesting is not the "entire" (entire added later) answer, it's just a way to meet other like-minded people. Once the people meet, they should be innovating their connections in productive ways.

[-] 2 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

That is what the elite have done with media control and cognitive infiltration. Without free speech they cannot effectively innovate.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Protesting is absolutely an integral part of the answer! Petitions, phone calls, pressuring the people in power, retiring any pol who doesn't support green energy, any pol who doesn't support ending fossil fuel subsidies....?.... retire 'em! Any institution that doesn't support divestment of fossil fuel corps...?.... march on 'em and agitate for change!!

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

Ok, I should have written, Protesting is not the full answer.

Yes, protesting is the catalyst. Unfortunately the adrenaline that protesting induces addicts the protestors into doing more protesting rather than using the courts to win their arguments.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We don't need every protester to file lawsuits. just a few. Then many more to come out in support.

That's a pretty good model.

And remember we are still in a building/growing mode. We have years of hard work on the streets, courthouses, voting booths ahead of us.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

I've pretty much come up with about 3 to 5 consumer lawsuits that could have huge benefits for main street.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Excellent. Good work. Are you in contact with a lawyer?

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (631) 1 year ago

Lawyer's are an odd bunch. One must somehow come into their pathway in such a way as to garner their interest. Unfortunately, calling a lawyer's office may not be the ideal way.

But I have not given up.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Sounds good. Stay strong.

We are with you!!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I find little data supporting Howarth's assertion that NYC is the most energy efficient city in the US. In fact, it is not even in the top 3. Mainly because NYC is so old. The statistics also don't include the efficiency of the electricity generation and distribution for the city and the many inefficient and leaky old buildings.

Also, LED lamps are far from 95% efficient. LED lamps currently available to the consumer are about five times more efficient than an incandescent lamp (80 lm/W vs 17 lm/W). That still translates into about 50% of the energy used to power an LED lamp resulting in the production of visible light. The rest is just dissipated as heat.

Most LED lamps are produced thousands of miles from US consumers (China, Taiwan, etc.) and a lot of energy is required to manufacture and transport them. Prior to the ban most incandescent lamps were produced in the US.

Typical consumer price of a 60W incandescent: $ 0.40

Typical consumer price of a 60W LED lamp: $ 20 (Guilt abatement fee for the 1%)

BTW, energy is not generated. Electricity however can be generated by any number of energy conversion processes.

Wind turbines and solar panels are mostly produced outside the US and must be transported thousands of miles for domestic use. They also require thousands of miles of land and distribution infrastructure that displaces farms, homes, and open space. Nukes on the other hand are produced domestically, requires 5% of the land area compared to wind and solar, are located close to the consumer, and have a far smaller impact on the land and the environment.

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/downloads/Top_Cities_chart.pdf

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/translating-uncle-sam/stories/which-us-cities-are-most-energy-efficient

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/10/most-energy-efficient-state-calif-no-longer-tops-list/1#.UUjWVxysiSo

http://www.homedepot.com/p/t/203845891?productId=203845891&storeId=10051&langId=-1&catalogId=10053&ci_sku=203845891&ci_kw=%7bkeyword%7d&kwd=%7bkeyword%7d&cm_mmc=shopping-_-googleads-_-pla-_-203845891&ci_gpa=pla#.UUjaDRysiSp

http://www.homedepot.com/p/t/100080337?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=60W+lightbulb&storeId=10051&N=25ecodZ5yc1v&R=100080337#.UUjaohysiSo

http://www.gizmag.com/worlds-first-100-watt-equivalent-led-replacement-bulb/18659/

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree. NYC IS the most energy efficient city whether you see the evidence or not.

LED are much more efficient than you claim and cannot be compared to 1 60 W bulb but maybe 50.

Land use is negligable with solar/wind. not an issue.

Nukes close to consumers? This you propose as a positive with a straight face? Aaaaaaaaa ha ha ha.

Nuclear energy is much too expensive (much more than any energy source) and much too dangerous. Can you say Chernobl, or fukushima?

All alternative clean energy equip must be manufactured here. That has to be part of the law/plan.

Join us. We need your support. It's time to be responsible in our use of this planet.

[-] -2 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The article has so many flaws and mistakes it should make you skeptical. A very little research reveals the errors.

What data did you find on the land area required for a solar or wind farms including the thousands of miles of new high tension wires (at $ 1 kk per mile) ? The number is 45 times the area required for nuke plants and distribution (mainly because they can be located near major areas of consumption). Research the data yourself. Don't believe the propaganda.

Americans have lived right next door to nuke plants for seventy years without a single casualty. 80 people have died in wind turbine accidents in just ten years.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We have to wait for a nuclear meltdown/disaster for you to realize that nuclear energy is too dangerous?.

Do you know how many workers died building nuclear plants.?

Wind farms land usage is negligible, not an issue.

Nuclear power plants must be AWAY from populated areas. Otherwise we need evacuation plans.

Have you done the research on evacuation plans required for wind farms?.

LOL

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

Where is your data?

In the last 12 months US wind powered generators accounted 3% of the total electricity production. Nukes accounted for 20%.

There are currently 65 operational nuclear power plants in the US. That means 10 nuclear power plants generate as much as all of the wind turbines in the US. Plus nuke output can be varied on demand. Wind power is unpredictable and today the US taxpayer is forced to pay some wind utilities not to produce electricity.

Nukes use 1/700 of the land area including additional transmission lines needed for vast wind farms. 60,000 acres of wind farm are required to produce the same power output as a large, 1.2 gigawatt, conventional power plant which occupies less than 200 acres of land.

Winds farms must be located hundreds of miles from the cities and suburbs where the electricity is needed. Additional land (greater area than the land needed for the farm) is required for new transmission lines which cost ~ $1,000,000 per mile to install. Up to 50% of the electricity generated can be lost in long transmission lines due to radiation and I2R losses.

Nukes just need water adjacent to the generation site which is also a frequent commodity near large population areas.

Nukes are also a lot cheaper than wind farms ($ 1.7 / GWe vs $ 6.9 / GWe).

http://bravenewclimate.com/2012/08/16/talking-turkey-on-nuclear-costs/

http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/too-much-windpower-rivers-surged-this-summer-and-oversupply-cost-2-7-million/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/01/27/205400/supreme-court-federal-transmission-siting-clean-energy/?mobile=nc

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I disagree.

And you need an evacuation plan for areas around nuclear power plants.

None necessary for wind farms.

Sorry that is all the evidence I need.

The cost numbers you mention will improve exponentially as we ramp up production/use.

The land use for wind farms/transition lines is negligible. Not an issue.

Sorry I can't support introducing risky, dangerous, expensive nuclear energy to population centers.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

I agree that an evacuation plan is unnecessary for wind farms because people pre-evacuate to avoid the deafening noise and ugly sky-line. Other animals are just killed outright when they get near them. No need to evacuate them; just collect the carcasses.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

LOL. Ok I guess you give up. Now your just doing a comedy routine.

Don't be upset. We just disagree. Doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I could very well be wrong, (been wrong before).

Of course I don't think so. But that is the nature of being wrong.

Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

The 65 nuclear plants in the US are already located near heavily populated areas and have been for 70 years. No casualties. None.

Building newer, safer plants reduces the current risk (there are three new plants underway in the US now; 15 more on the books).

There have been 80 wind turbine deaths in 10 years. They also kill over one million birds per year (many on the endangered species list) and have created night-time wind inversions documented in places like Texas that are killing crops.

Wind turbines are 10 th century technology that should have gone the way of the buggy whip if not for Gov forced taxpayer subsidies. The noise generated from a wind farm is deafening. It is impossible to live near them and even cattle grazing nearby suffer physically including reducing milk yield and increasing premature births.

This data is not hard to find. Wind is not the answer, solar is even less compelling.

http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/10/15/killing-farms-some-conservationists-believe-hundreds-thousands-birds-and-bats-are

http://www.voanews.com/content/wind-turbines-take-steep-toll-on-birds-and-bats/1524387.html

http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Wind-power-takes-precedence-over-protecting-3839441.php

http://betterplan.squarespace.com/todays-special/tag/wind-farm-crop-damage

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120822102616AAzDtd5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9418769/How-noisy-is-a-wind-farm.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9653429/Wind-farm-noise-does-harm-sleep-and-health-say-scientists.html

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/wind-farms-a-noisy-neighbor

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/hot-wind-farms-120429.htm

http://www.windcows.com/

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

"Kill A million birds annually".? NOT! "Sound deafening"?. Nope! "Killing crops". absolutely untrue!

Sorry I disagree with your spurious accusations.

And we do not need an evacuation plan for alt energy power generation.

The fact we need evacuation plans for dangerous, expensive nuclear power plants should be enough of a hint for all of us to end the risky, ignorant flirtation with nuclear energy.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 1 year ago

You should open your mind to new ideas. Insist that proponents of a technology show you the data. Don't rely on promises; look at the data yourself.

One clue, any article that includes the words "generate" and "energy" consecutively can be discounted as technically inept.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Oh ok. Thanks for the unneeded advice.

I'm gonna open my mind to the new ideas of alternative renewable clean energy generation.

And as long as an evacuation plan is necessary I will fight against it.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

So a question: for any extended period of sunless, windless days, what is the back up plan? One can not store wind or solar generated energy, especially when he system is relying on 88% WS. A grid requires potential at all times. There is nothing in the article that speaks this issue. As stated, it is theoretic. While fully support alternative energy, it needs to be a cost effective, efficient and workable solution. I believe that nuclear is the best piece for a hybrid solution, and some fossil fuel backup. People are not going to forgo HVAC, either at home or the workplace.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Storage of wind.solar energy generation is absolutely possible & definitely part of this plan.

Nuclear is the most expensive and dangerous energy generation model we could pursue. So that is an obvious and resounding NAY!

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

I support nuclear power, so we will disagree there. While storage is part of the plan, we are not there yet, and until we are, there will be need for alternative sources. Would you rather burn coal instead?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I support shutting down coal plants. I support using the EPA to enforce the finding that the govt can force emissions to be clean or shut down.

http://www.coalguru.com/north_america/us_likely_to_delay_climate_rule_on_new_power_plants_report/8182

I support shutting all nuclear plants (and Zero nuclear weapons http://occupywallst.org/forum/anti-nuke-is-pro-99/)

It's just too expensive and deadly.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

So what's your back up plan?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The plan is stop burning fossil fuel. That means implementing solar/wind/hydrogen fuelcell/geothermal/wave power. And any other renewalble source

This is the backup plan, the plan was fossil fuels, that was a total disaster.

There is no other backup.

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

You need back up or alternatives in any plan, otherwise you are destined to fail at some point. My First rule for good design.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

implementing renewable energy generation IS the backup plan to the ill fated plan A (burning fossil fuels).

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

VQ, that is Not an answer, as I asked for backup for alternative energy, especially during implementation. To answer that the backup plan is the backup is talking in circles and not logical. Energy requirements are only growing, not shrinking. You answered that alternative energy is the backup to fossil fuel. Alternative energy is the potential replacement for current fossil fuel, not the back up plan. Your getting hung up on rhetoric again and not listening (your VQ habits).

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

No circles, no rhetoric, no shit.

We have no backup plan to this energy backup plan.

The 1st plan WAS burning fossil fuels, the backup now being implemented IS alternative energy.

Perhaps you disagree, Fine. You may. But that is the facts.

You want nuclear to be the backup? NO!!!!

It's too fuckin dangerous & expensive!!!!

Next!

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

Next what?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Next question.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Oil and coal are not disasters.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Oil and coal are not disasters.

Sure they are.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

The are readily available and they work.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Only extracting & burning them is the disaster.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

No, its not.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Yeah it is. We must cut pollution.

[-] -2 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Pollution has been cut, epa has seen to that. More pollution comes from volcanic eruptions than gasoline and coal.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

We have a better chance reducing man made pollution than volcanic pollution, so I think it's better to focus on us.

Won't you give up your car, and become a vegan to save the planet for your family?

[-] 0 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

No, there is no reason to do so.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Why not?

Don't you agree we must cut down on pollution.?

We need you to help improving the environment.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Maybe you can cut down car use, and meat consumption, you don't have to cut it out entirely.

Don't you agree we must cut down on pollution.?

Please join us in improving the environment.

[-] -1 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

I have no intention to cut down either.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Reason being to cut down on pollution. Don't you agree we should cut down on pollution.?

[-] 0 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

Sorry, I will not give up my car, or stop eating meat.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Thorium breeder reactors - not continuation of uranium reactors.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Liquid metal batteries - storage and distribution on the grid. BTW - solar cells even collect energy on cloudy days.

[-] -1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

IMO, I have reservations on battery systems for that amount of power required. And yes, solar can work on cloudy days, but less to effect, depending on the overcast thickness, maybe from 50 to 80% reduction.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

The liquid metal batteries are really something very unique and should be put into use to smooth out the input from wind turbines but also for analysis and study of ramped up capabilities. Amount of storage duration of use with out input till drained etc etc

[-] 0 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

Have read some about the technology, definitely has promise, but remains to be scaled up to full commercial use for a period of time. I do like the added features of a more instantaneous potential to the grid (smoothing / dampening effect). I have seen you post a lot of references to this technology, so I took a brief look , and am intrigued and will further research it.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

It could be one of the missing pieces to a truly efficient power grid.

A single battery the size of a freight container ( or larger ? ) set in a series(?) with multiple feeds? Or distributed through the grid as buffers/nodes?

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

Will be interesting to see where it goes. And also Interesting that my comment was seen as negative by someone?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Not to worry ( negative vote ) someone does not like this conversation about viable alternatives to fossil fuel.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It's scalable to any size feasible.

And it can use recycled materials, mostly aluminium.

It certainly would be making major headlines if not for the owners of the media being heavily invested in the oil/coal industries.

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

No, I do not believe the media is holding back information. It's residing where it belongs at the moment: in technical journals and publications. When the time is right, it will spring forth without any problems. The problem with the media is they like a nice two minute summary for their news cycle. Have patience, I would rather have a real system working than some report about the possibility. When the time is right (and money to be made), there will be lots of jobs, new companies starting up, etc. let's leave the process to the engineers and scientists where it belongs and out of the political arena. If it works, it will happen.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And besides aluminum the other components are dirt cheap. So picture a receiving and distribution center - a large field covered with in-series batteries - how much stored energy is that? The possibilities are exciting.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

It sure is exciting.

The problems involved in our current grid system could be a thing of the past, and yet there's still this brick-wall attitude to anything that will get us off the teat of big oil/coal/gas. Those phukkers need to be rounded up and used for methane production. LOL.

Seriously, I'm off to have lunch to celebrate Saint Patrick's day. Apparently he got rid of the snakes in Ireland, and shipped them all to Australia, or something. Enjoy your day/night, DKA.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (28146) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LOL - watch out for leprechauns - tricksters - I hear.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Have you checked out the liquid metal battery, engineer4? http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511081/ambris-better-grid-battery/

[-] 1 points by engineer4 (366) 1 year ago

See my note tonDKA above. Yes, have read about the Ambris company, and Sadoway, the founder. I intend to follow up with some additional reading and conversations with some colleagues in the power generation industry to learn more about it. But I do remain skeptical about a non backup alternative.

So here's a question: will there be acceptance of wind turbines in backyards, mountainsides, oceans, etc, without all opposition we see today because of NIMBY and all the other groups that seem to have issues with anything anymore,without costly impact studies that are really only a delaying tatic at times? Personally, I have no issues with ocean or and based wind farms, I enjoy observing technology at work (but then I am an engineer and just wired that way).

[-] -2 points by fanya11 (-35) 1 year ago

Fossil fuel free?? What a fucking joke. You assholes really believe this shit. Sooo...no cars using gas...no planes using jet fuel...no buses or trucks using gas...

spark another doobie asshole

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Fuck you too, ignorant moron!

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by fanya11 (-35) 1 year ago

Build another windmill asshole....that is ..as long as the government pays to put it up, and operate it...since it can't compete against coal, oil or natural gas.

Fossil fuel free.?? Won't happen in 200 years moron

[-] -3 points by eteller (-132) 1 year ago

I like your style. No sarcasm intended.