Published: Thursday, July 24 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
Reducing energy consumption should be the goal of everyone. We need to build
better buildings and houses that are energy efficient in their operation and
durable in their lifespan. But no one if promoting the idea of shutting down
power plants, at least not until an alternative source of energy can be found
and implemented to take the place of that carbon producing plant.Our
reliance on fossil fuels is bad for our environment and our security. Would we
be so locked in to the politics of the Middle East if it were not for our
reliance on the oil that exists beneath their soil? Would those nations and
their citizens have the economic power to wage terror across the world were it
not for the dependence of the civilized world on their energy source?The dedicated and constant search for alternative sources of energy should be
our constant goal. And the efficient and judicious use of that energy, from
whatever its source, should be equally as constant.
Of course we can't "shut down" our use of fossil fuels right now. I
don't think any responsible person recommends such a course. Someday,
hopefully soon, we will likely replace most fossil fuel use. We will have to,
because fossil fuels are finite. Until that day comes, however, we should take
reasonable steps to encourage conservation and renewable energy. This is not an
all-or-nothing situation. Just because we have to rely on fossil fuels (or
nuclear energy) now, doesn't mean we shouldn't minimize our dependence
as much as possible.
I hate it when the power goes out. I hat having to turn off things to keep my
power bill down. I really like to have utility's in my house. I would not
like to use an out house or carry water in. I want to live as comfortable as
possible. I'm grateful to live in a place where I can live comfortable. Sun
or wind power is too costly for me to ever break even in my life time.
The devices & many others listed by Mr Haycock as 'necessities'
really aren't. They are just gadgets some have been convinced they need to
make life easy, but do they really?I'd bet this thread will
break down into the hydrocarbons good and green energy bad. If any of you paid
to Quantum of Solace, you'd know water is the mist crucial natural
Very good letter and very reasonable comments. Unfortunately, the radical right
is bought off by dirty fuel. Dirty fuel and their cohorts are going to be
blasting you today. Many will use solyandra as an example as to why we must
still baby drill instead of go green. They'll conveniently sweep global
warming and all the oil accidents we've had under the rug.
Germany is a much smaller country than we are, they also receive far less
sunlight than we do. Yet they manage to generate ten times more electricity from
solar power than we do. There is no excuse for our inaction. No one wants us to
do without energy, but we have to move much faster on replacing dirty energy
with clean energy.
"Our very civilization depends on a reliable supply of electrical energy,
including the use of cell phones, computers and all the other modern
"necessities." Without it, many will not survive. ======= Hyperbole, over the top rhetoric, the sky is falling...Look -- Nobody is claiming, saying, or implying we do not need or
depend of a reliable supply of electrical energy! NOBODY.But -- The fact is, Fossil fuels are not only dirty, but they are a finite
source of energy.Which means, once it's used -- it is gone
forever.What we need is 1). RE-Newable energy.AND 2) It MUST be Green. Waste not, Want not.An
ounce of prevention, is worth a pouind of the cure.However, a
warning to those who think global warming is a hoax: there is another side
to the coin, and that may be much worse than what we have now.
You know what is convenient and awesome? Clean air to breathe. Clean air that
doesn't cause asthma and reactive airway. Clean air that doesn't
result in the deaths of many elderly each year. Clean air that attracts economic
growth to our community instead of keeping it away. Clean air that doesn't
result in the acidification of our oceans, record heat days, more wildfire,
extreme weather, record droughts, no snow for our ski industry and less water
for farmers.How does this balance out with the conveniences of
inexpensive fossil-fuel electricity?
No question we can't just walk away from fossil fuels. No question also
that we should just sit on our hands and do nothing but rely on them because it
is easy.We need a current program spurring reasonable conservation
and a serious plan for future development of alternative sources.
The Real Maverick said:"Unfortunately, the radical right is
bought off by dirty fuel. Dirty fuel and their cohorts are going to be blasting
you today. Many will use solyandra as an example as to why we must still baby
drill instead of go green."Oh, Solyandra just scratches the
surface.Here is a partial list of "Green Companies" that
received tax-payer money from the Federal Government (Crony Capitalism at its
finest, brought to you by the Democrat Party) to the tune of 3 billion dollars,
who are now bankrupt, shut down, or have been sold:* Solyndra:
$570.4 million* Abound Solar: $494.3 million* A123 Systems: $390.1
million* Babcock & Brown: $178 million* Azure Dynamics: $119.1
million* Range Fuels: $162.3 million * ECOtality Inc.: $135
million* EnerDel, subsidiary of Ener1: $182.8 millionGreen
energy is a scam perpetrated through the hoax of AGW.
Does Harry really believe it's all or nothing? Well, it is because we
cannot discuss a comprehensive shift away from fossil fuels without hurting your
feelings. You know fossil fuels are not good for your health but they are for
your pocket book. You know the extraction of fossil fuels is trashing
eco-systems all over the world not to mention air quality in the Uinta Basin and
yet it's not where you live so "who cares". No one has ever
suggested we cut them off cold turkey but when there is no policy it makes me
wonder who really cares about our world. Conservatives argue that coal jobs will
be lost but in reality coal jobs have already been lost and will continue to be
lost to technology and in the east coal is almost history anyway. Companies that
continue to fight against this grain will find themselves in bed with the
dinosaurs but unlike the dinosaurs nothing of value will be able to be extracted
Nobody said anything about doing away with electricity and people surviving!Like being dependant on Wale Blubber, Fossil Fuels are finite.We must find RENEWABLE sources of Energy, and it MUST be
clean.Rather than playing the viticem, or being all or
nothing, Black & White, etc.How about we say -- OK,
From here on out...no more new fossil fuel burning plants be made.All new plants, from here on out myst be clean or renewable.As new
plants are built - we have a clean and pertetual future.As old plants wear
out - they are phased out.It's like oil lamps, and candles.They will still be around, but more as old museum pieces from and acient
time, than being our ONLY source of power...
...except the reality of supply suggests we're going to have no alternative
some day. Not, in the case of oil, that far away.
The future is nuclear energy. When China and India are using as much power as
the USA (which will be sooner than later) the answer to clean energy is looking
us right in the face. NUCLEAR is GREEN.
To "LDS Liberal" if fossil fuels are like whale blubber, then fossil
fuels are not a finite resource. It only becomes finite if all of one gender is
killed or else if all whales are killed. If you really think that fossil fuels
are like whale blubber, then you must think that the oil is being constantly
regenerated at some unknown rate.How do you define "clean"
fuels? Is nuclear considered a "green" energy source? (The fuel can be
recycled and it doesn't emit CO2).If we stop building coal and
natural gas plants, what do you propose we use to replace them?
The continued, unregulated consumption of fossil fuels is an enormously
profitable scam being perpetrated by Big Oil. This evil empire runs our
government, owns our politicians, controls the automotive industry, condemns
environmental regulations and does everything in its power to ensure its own
survival and prosperity, even at the expense of the planet. They,
along with our complicit politicians, are the "conspiring men" spoken of
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTIs nuclear considered a
"green" energy source?[Yes, sort of -- Green-er, but
it's not re-newable, and breeder reactors have not yet proven to be
economically feasible]I have little problem with nuclear -- I
was around nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors all the time in the Military.
Roland Kayser said:"No one wants us to do without
energy..."Oh really? Consider the words of your Dear Leader:“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my
plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily
skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad,
because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural
gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was,
they would have to retro-fit their operations.” -Barack Obama (January 17,
2008)Sorry, but we've been hearing this blather about wind and
solar for decades, and yet it still isn't a very viable option. BTW, these
wonderful utopian wind farms are killing migratory birds.
The thing I would love to know is how those espousing green energy are walking
the walk. I have some friends who are environmentalists that truly do what
they preach. However, I also have friends who preach green, but who drive old
cars which get worse gas milage and emit far more polution than a Suburban,
smoke and litter. Look at Mr. Green - Al Gore. He lives in a 10,000 sq. ft.
mansion and flies around in private jets. Yes, you little people should pay
more for energy - so us rich people can feel good about ourselves. Likewise,
Tom Seyer is donating $100 Million to Democratic campaigns to help stop the
Keystone pipeline (after making billions in fossil fuels). Anyone want to bet
he has economic interests which will be adversely affected by the pipeline.If you are living green - please tell the rest of us how and why we
should improve. If you are not, walk the walk before you talk the talk.
To "Open Minded Mormon" but nuclear power is green energy. The
Cambridge Dictionary defines green energy as "energy that can be produced in
a way that protects the natural environment." Nuclear power meets that
definition. It has a small footprint so the land is minimally impacted. The
weapons grade material can also be turned into fuel rods and generate power in
the newest power plants. The fuel is recyclable, and has uses other than
weapons and power.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments