Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hunter

(38,304 posts)
21. Except they don't reduce the use of gas.
Mon Oct 2, 2017, 06:36 PM
Oct 2017

If hybrid wind/gas electric grids work, if they are profitable, more will be built and the overall consumption of natural gas will increase.

There are billions of people on this planet who haven't yet been invited to participate in the affluent high energy industrial consumer economy.

As an affluent person it's immoral to say I get to burn the gas, but you don't.

My own electricity comes from Pacific Gas and Electric. PG&E's greenhouse gas emissions are in the low range for the industrial world. Yeah, 24% is nuclear.

Furthermore, PG&E rates our household a "smile" emoji for energy efficiency, that in spite of the 24/7 pumps of our water garden. (The water for these gardens is waste from our reverse osmosis system... we are totally first world affluent in some ways. I like to watch birds and fish. Occasionally birds eat the fish, but more often it's raccoons.) I guess the LED lighting and my disdain for central heating and cooling make up for the energy used by the pumps. But I'll never convince my wife we could live without the refrigerator, even though I've lived without one for long periods myself, as a kid and young adult.

Another way of reducing one's environmental footprint is to avoid meat, but we're total hypocrites about that because we have animal shelter rescue dog family and don't expect them to be vegetarians.

Some new stuff. Eko Sep 2017 #1
The trouble is that people see wind turbines as a symbol of progress... hunter Sep 2017 #2
I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right. NNadir Sep 2017 #3
Wow Eko Sep 2017 #4
I live in California. The hills are littered with dead Enron-era wind turbines... hunter Sep 2017 #6
What do you mean by dead turbines? Eko Oct 2017 #11
Here, too, is another picture from Nature, of the realities of the wind industry. NNadir Sep 2017 #5
Yes, this is much better. Eko Sep 2017 #7
Here you go, way awesome. Eko Sep 2017 #8
The toxic wastes of a careless high energy industrial society suck. hunter Oct 2017 #10
Yup, Eko Oct 2017 #12
How about arsenic? Arsenic has a half life of forever. hunter Oct 2017 #13
Nope. Eko Oct 2017 #14
Seriously? You think the arsenic goes away? hunter Oct 2017 #16
Well, Im sure Eko Oct 2017 #19
The same sorts of processes that decrease the bioavailability of toxins like arsenic and lead... hunter Oct 2017 #20
This was your statement. Eko Oct 2017 #23
I would ask you to take a second Eko Oct 2017 #15
I'm some kind of quixotic Luddite and evolutionary biologist. hunter Oct 2017 #17
Yes you have said that many times. Eko Oct 2017 #18
Except they don't reduce the use of gas. hunter Oct 2017 #21
Gas is profitable without wind. Eko Oct 2017 #22
You'd be okay with more gas. I get it. hunter Oct 2017 #24
Wow. Eko Oct 2017 #25
So what? Eko Oct 2017 #26
Your enthusiasm for solar and wind augmented gas power plants is clear. hunter Oct 2017 #27
Yes, because somewhere I am sure Eko Oct 2017 #28
I'd happily see Ivanpah removed, and the landscape restored to the best of human ability. hunter Oct 2017 #29
Natural gas is successful without solar and wind. Eko Oct 2017 #30
We are not "buying time." hunter Oct 2017 #31
Of course we are. Eko Oct 2017 #32
Going back to the original argument... hunter Oct 2017 #33
Of course you are because it's not about global warming Eko Oct 2017 #34
Welcome to the twenty first century. It's a messy place... hunter Oct 2017 #35
Not afraid. Eko Oct 2017 #36
It would be silly to be afraid. hunter Oct 2017 #37
And I am not a silly person. Eko Oct 2017 #38
Im not even going to post the pictures from this. Eko Sep 2017 #9
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»A Minor Problem For Sound...»Reply #21