Comments on: Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won’t Save Natural Gas

By: Imogen Cooper

Imogen Cooper — Sat, 01 May 2010 06:10:31 +0000

Every government should focus more on Alternative Energy so as not to be too dependent on Oil and avoid air pollution as well..-”

By: Michael Williams

Michael Williams — Sat, 01 May 2010 00:52:48 +0000

Wind power is a good source of electricity but it also takes up lots of space just like solar power plants.,”"

By: Joago Ambisi

Joago Ambisi — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:06:16 +0000

I come from Nigeria. I am 82, my English is no very good, I used to be a farmer, like my father and his father before, we’ve had the same peice of land for over 4 generations, the climate there is changing we cannot survive there any more, it was too hot, water consumption was large and took a toll on the land. I even being black could no longer stand the heat most of my life spent on my land and in the heat I’m a worker no soft bellied office man, in the space of 50 years I had noticed the change, the weather was harsher, I hated it and began to give up, even 1 degree can make a difference, so I left the country and moved to England. Believe me you it is changing and you westerners will see this only once your over run by people of my type climate refugees.

Europe is seeing this already and before you’ll know it so will you!

By: GaZ

GaZ — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:32:17 +0000

Has anyone looked at Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)?

Seems like a viable way to deal with our problems in the short to medium term. Some investment will be diverted from renewables R&D. However In light of the very real problem of climate change surely this is going to happen. Of course there are issues of safety to be addressed

But people please don’t dismiss renewables technology out of hand we’re gonna need it. Do not doubt it.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 04:18:05 +0000

Climate refugees????? Millions of climate refugees???? Can you tell us Jessica just what the heck you are talking about? Honestly, I have never, not even once, ever heard of a climate refugee. If you are talking about refugees from the devestation of the great tsunami, I would kinda see what your saying. Except, the tsunami was caused by an earthquake, which is pretty much unrelated to climate. So, what the [expletive deleted]are you talking about?

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:33:29 +0000

What makes me laugh is the amount of CO2 produced in actually making those turbines LOL.

By: Dan McGrath

Dan McGrath — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:19:23 +0000

Jessica - Millions of Climate Refugees? You mean Minnesotans who flee to Florida and Arizona? Who is this rant directed at, exactly? Please try to avoid offensive language when posting here. It causes the moderator (me) some hassle and makes me not want to allow your comments though at all. I’m not at all impressed by posters who don’t provide their email address, either. hehethisisfake@hotmail.com is simply childish, but so is the use of profanity and non-fact-based emotional appeals. Try to put together a rational argument next time you post here. Thanks.

By: Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:25:09 +0000

You are quite simply wrong, mislead and niave.
Are you willing to risk it?
Wait, the whole ‘ think about your kids’ thing will not have any impact on you because you are selfish and do not give a [expletive deleted] about anyone else.

You live in a comfort blanket surrounded by luxuries and your greed. I am sure that if you were to ask the millions of ‘climate refugees’ what their opinion on your actions and behaviour is their response would be ignored also.
BUT then again I am sure you ignore their presence also.

Does it feel good in the morning to ‘pretend’ nothing is happening?

You are one of the millions of ignorant people in the world who have decided, as usual, that this is all wrong.
I will tell you what is wrong.
Your ideas.
Your beliefs.
And most of all your morals.

You should care.
You should stand up.

It is so much easier to diagree with it all. You can still justify your selfishness then. You can blame someone.
Do not turn on politicians. They at least admit it is happening. At least they are trying.

What have you ever done that you are proud of?
Have ever stood up to save others lives?

NO
because you are niave.
[expletive deleted] it. [expletive deleted] you.
Look at the facts.
Not the ones that have been bent, changed and interperated wrongly.

By: Bob Janicki

Bob Janicki — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:42:50 +0000

What is this scam that if we don’t develop this these new alternative energy sources that are inefficient in the long run, we will be reliant on foreign oil. The answer is NUCLEAR! This form of energy is clean and plenty of research and preparation has been done to transfer and store its waste at Yucca Mountain. Three Mile Island never hurt a fly and the U.S. has the scientific prowess to maintain safe facilities. Nuclear power and development of energy efficient automobiles is the route that makes sense and will not waste $$$$$$$ for the next 2 or 3 decades.

By: Alexander

Alexander — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:25:48 +0000

It is not possible to solve the Global Energy Crisis and The Global Warming Crisis without developing the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental responsible way. And please, before calling anybody a MORON, check the worldwide energy consumption and then come to conclusions based on facts. Yes, the “clean burning of coal” is going to be extremely difficult and I even say extremely expensive. But I don’t believe in the word “impossible” as long as we don’t cheat on the laws of nature.The crux of my argument is that people are going to burn coal because it’s cheaper and more readily available than other alternatives. ”We need time but no pollution”, to develop serious energy sources like Plasma Fusion (in conjunction with Super Conductivity) and lower our energy needs per capita drastically by changing our lifestyle in the developed world. 1) Today humanity uses 426 Quads (426.000.000.000.000.000 BTU or 1.055 x 10.000.000.000.000.000.000 joules) of energy per year, of which the lion’s share comes from burning coal. (50 % worldwide, I don’t think that is a very bad estimate)2) In ten years time humans will “need” or use 150 Quads more, thinking about the 3 billion people in the fast developing countries like China, India, Indonesia, Russia, etc., sitting on very big coal reserves!3) Global Warming has set in and one of its major contributors is CO2. Our days are counted if we don’t do anything about it!In my opinion it will be impossible to take coal out of the energy equation for the next 100 years, because all the renewables (now worldwide probably a energy contributor of less than 3 %) will not be able to off-set the amount of energy produced from coal and coal is the most available fossil fuel in those fast developing populous countries. Social pressures will force those fast developing countries to burn coal anyway (in a clean or dirty way). Wars have been fought for much sillier reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that we have to develop the technology to burn coal in a clean and environmental friendly way, despite the extreme difficulties and extremely high costs. We cannot deprive humanity today of about 220 Quads (halve of its energy “needs” or usage) and we cannot go-on burning fossil fuels as we do today without destroying the global climate completely. Both ways (depriving or dirty burning) will bring war, death and mass extinction for humans. A great consolation for me lately was the book I was reading by Richard Dawkins called: “The Ancestor’s Tale, A pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution”. There it becomes completely clear that life will go-on on earth with or without humanity. But I would appreciate it if we (humans) could be part of life on earth in the future. We will definitely not be there, if we pretend to WINDMILL ourselves out of this inevitable predicament.

By: Matt P

Matt P — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:26:00 +0000

I agree with Brian that we will, someday need to do something about our dependency on fossil fuels. But that time is far far away. We are only in the infant stages of our exploration of alternative energy. Wind towers and ethanol will be looked at in the future as steam locomotives are today. With research and science, many advancements could be on the horizon. That last little quip by Neil says it all. My dad told me the same thing.

By: Neil F.

Neil F. — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 03:13:18 +0000

Brian M: You are assuming that they would be willing to compromise if we hold our noses. They will not. You are falling into the trap of accepting their premise that alternative energy will work. It will not, and has not for the 40-50 years + that people have been trying to make it viable.
Peak oil is a myth, if you don’t believe that then you have not done enough research on it.
Also, the two largest importers of oil into the US are Canada and Mexico. The 5th is Saudi Arabia.
You are trying too hard to be thoughtful and considerate. The end result of that is that it puts you on the fence. You can’t stay up there forever. You will eventually need to come down on one side or the other.
Here is what I suggest you do. Write down everything you have interests in on a piece of paper, ie: global warming, alternative energy, peak oil, reaching across the isle, etc, etc. Then spend some time researching each one. Note the pros and cons of each one. And don’t believe anything just because you want it to be true. Then form an opinion about each one. The end result will be that you will have an “informed” opinion. Because in my opinion, you are not exhibiting an informed opinion.
My Father used to tell me “Believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you see” I have found that to be sage advice.

By: Matt k

Matt k — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:28:20 +0000

Brian m I think you missed the point - govenment involvement in the form of subsidies (with a basis in taxation=theft since it’s involuntary) has distorted the market in the UK, as all government involvement does. I’m all for alternative energy and believe the market will select it when the supply of fossil fuels starts to dwindle. No government force required.

By: brian m

brian m — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:00:48 +0000

I am not a believer (since Global Warming=Cult) in humans as the cause of climate change. In fact, temperatures in the USA are in a decreasing trend. However, I do believe in the use of alternative energy because I believe global fossil fuel demand will ultimately surpass supply. Read the book Huberts Peak, in reference to oil reserves. I repeat, I strongly oppose the theory proclaiming human carbon dioxide production is the primary cause of global warming. Yet our global oil reserves (that we can efficiently harvest) will not meet our demands in the next couple of decades. I cannot stand wacko environmentalists however alternative energy should be an investment America makes so we can tell the Middle East, Russia, and Brazil we dont need you nor will you have the ability to compromise our freedoms and national security any longer. Alternative energy research/development and further fossil fuel exploration both should be pursued to make America independent and secure. Dont be closed minded and remember America’s motive. This is one time where we hold our nose and agree with enviromentalist wackos and in return demand more oil/gas exploration as a compromise with them.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 06:23:35 +0000

Great information thanks heaps