<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: It&#8217;s Not Easy Being Green</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/</link>
	<description>"Let that be a lesson to you, boys and girls. Don't ever argue with the Big Dog because the Big Dog is always right"</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:25:29 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129935</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 21:58:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129935</guid>
		<description>Individual solar power wouldn&#039;t work here- this is a forest- same for wind. I agree that eminent domain is a sucky issue, but it&#039;s going to have to be done sooner or later, or there&#039;s going to be lots of people dying of thirst, and while you are digging the lakes, hydro electric dams would be in order. 
If Rahm Emmanuel says don&#039;t waste a good crisis, why cant we say don&#039;t waste a good dam?
I agree one solution can&#039;t fit all, but to ignore the oil and gas off of our coasts is willfully being ignorant, as we have the technology now- we need the power to bridge into alternatives. The same with coal- there must be a way.
My grandmother used to say, &quot; Can&#039;t never could.&quot; We just have to keep on looking, but don&#039;t ignore what&#039;s under our noses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Individual solar power wouldn&#8217;t work here- this is a forest- same for wind. I agree that eminent domain is a sucky issue, but it&#8217;s going to have to be done sooner or later, or there&#8217;s going to be lots of people dying of thirst, and while you are digging the lakes, hydro electric dams would be in order.<br />
If Rahm Emmanuel says don&#8217;t waste a good crisis, why cant we say don&#8217;t waste a good dam?<br />
I agree one solution can&#8217;t fit all, but to ignore the oil and gas off of our coasts is willfully being ignorant, as we have the technology now- we need the power to bridge into alternatives. The same with coal- there must be a way.<br />
My grandmother used to say, &#8221; Can&#8217;t never could.&#8221; We just have to keep on looking, but don&#8217;t ignore what&#8217;s under our noses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129933</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 18:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129933</guid>
		<description>Hydroelectric will work in some places, not in others.  Pros?  It&#039;s clean and efficient.  Con&#039;s?  They are expensive to build, and if eminent domain is a problem for you, as you indicated in your post, you may want to revisit the idea.  I used to go camping in the TVA when I was younger.  It&#039;s a great area, but the history involved a massive relocation of a bunch of folks.  there are still many old home foundations at the bottom of Kentucky Lake.  

There isn&#039;t going to be a single answer either.  The solution isn&#039;t simply drill more, build more hydroelectric, build more nuclear, windmills, or solar.  By outside the box I mean think locally.  Geothermal works in many places, but not everywhere.  you have to be able to drill very deep holes in the ground, and that just isn&#039;t practical in some areas due to the geology.  Big solar power generation plants may work in some areas, but in others it may be a better idea to foster policies that encourage individual homeowners to invest in generating their own power.  Battery technology is already capable of storing enough energy to power a home over reasonable amounts of time.  If enough homeowners installed photovoltaic panels and stored energy they weren&#039;t using, or sold it back to the grid, then power generated by existing nuke plants and hydroelectric dams could be diverted for use in more consuming loads, such as a car factory or something.  

The ability to scale back our use of finite resources is very real and very practical.  I don&#039;t think we will ever be completely independent from oil, but we can certainly become less dependent on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hydroelectric will work in some places, not in others.  Pros?  It&#8217;s clean and efficient.  Con&#8217;s?  They are expensive to build, and if eminent domain is a problem for you, as you indicated in your post, you may want to revisit the idea.  I used to go camping in the TVA when I was younger.  It&#8217;s a great area, but the history involved a massive relocation of a bunch of folks.  there are still many old home foundations at the bottom of Kentucky Lake.  </p>
<p>There isn&#8217;t going to be a single answer either.  The solution isn&#8217;t simply drill more, build more hydroelectric, build more nuclear, windmills, or solar.  By outside the box I mean think locally.  Geothermal works in many places, but not everywhere.  you have to be able to drill very deep holes in the ground, and that just isn&#8217;t practical in some areas due to the geology.  Big solar power generation plants may work in some areas, but in others it may be a better idea to foster policies that encourage individual homeowners to invest in generating their own power.  Battery technology is already capable of storing enough energy to power a home over reasonable amounts of time.  If enough homeowners installed photovoltaic panels and stored energy they weren&#8217;t using, or sold it back to the grid, then power generated by existing nuke plants and hydroelectric dams could be diverted for use in more consuming loads, such as a car factory or something.  </p>
<p>The ability to scale back our use of finite resources is very real and very practical.  I don&#8217;t think we will ever be completely independent from oil, but we can certainly become less dependent on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129927</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 16:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129927</guid>
		<description>I also should add, that since we need the water anyway, and will desperately by 2035, and since our aquifers are being depleted, why do we not dam more lakes, and use hydroelectric power- the cleanest of them all, and kill two birds with one stone, so to speak? We WILL need more water, we will have to build more lakes, or desalination stations which require power, not produce it, so hydro electric makes good sense- better than this generation of photovoltaics do at the moment.
All Barama has to do is have a real Roosevelt moment and go all TVA on the nation, and that would stimulate the economy, and create two things we do need desperately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also should add, that since we need the water anyway, and will desperately by 2035, and since our aquifers are being depleted, why do we not dam more lakes, and use hydroelectric power- the cleanest of them all, and kill two birds with one stone, so to speak? We WILL need more water, we will have to build more lakes, or desalination stations which require power, not produce it, so hydro electric makes good sense- better than this generation of photovoltaics do at the moment.<br />
All Barama has to do is have a real Roosevelt moment and go all TVA on the nation, and that would stimulate the economy, and create two things we do need desperately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129926</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 15:33:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129926</guid>
		<description>There are areas where I can agree with you, but any way you cut it right now, the public is being asked to pony up money it doesn&#039;t have, for technology that isn&#039;t ready for prime time, and in this environment, if the infrastructure isn&#039;t there, the practicality isn&#039;t either. I agree we should get to work, but Barama is ignoring the drilling aspect of this, and that would keep more money here for alternatives HERE.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are areas where I can agree with you, but any way you cut it right now, the public is being asked to pony up money it doesn&#8217;t have, for technology that isn&#8217;t ready for prime time, and in this environment, if the infrastructure isn&#8217;t there, the practicality isn&#8217;t either. I agree we should get to work, but Barama is ignoring the drilling aspect of this, and that would keep more money here for alternatives HERE.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129925</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 May 2009 15:20:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129925</guid>
		<description>Alright, where to start?  I am taking a break from my break from contributing to these discussions.  After taking a long moment out of my day a few weeks ago to attend the local &quot;tea party&quot; I just felt I had better ways to spend my time.  I feel compelled to say something here because I have participated in a great deal of exhaustive study regarding power generation.  I could write a book on the matter, but I will try and keep this reasonably short.

I don&#039;t know where you got the idea that nuclear power doesn&#039;t require just as many transmission lines as any other type of electric power.  Transmission lines are an issue regardless of how your electricity is generated.  Just because it is generated a certain way doesn&#039;t change the need to transmit the generated power from its origin to its distribution network.  

Only certain types of solar power require water.  There is a parabolic dish technology that focuses sunlight on pipes full of water.  The water heats and creates steam that is used to generate electricity.  The steam ends up in the atmosphere where it is returned to us in the normal cycle of precipitation.  Photovoltaics use no water.  They contain materials that react to certain frequencies of sunlight.  Electrons are excited in these materials that become useful as voltage.  The power generation technique that uses the most water?  Nuclear.  Though one could argue that hydroelectric uses more water depending on your use of the word uses.  

Now, while there is no argument that nuclear power is the most capable technology for generating massive amounts of electricity, there exist some very real downsides.  Safety is one.  If there were to be a building boom of nuclear power plants, it would only take one building contractor to cut one corner and the results could be catastrophic.  The fact that nuclear power plants make good targets for sabotage is another.  Pollution is a huge factor.  While nuclear power is carbon free, nuclear waste is a byproduct.  That stuff doesn&#039;t go away in our, or our kids great-great grandkids lifetimes.  

Solutions?  I am a big fan of photovoltaics.  They are initially expensive, but as the technology refines, the prices will come down.  I am not going to completely address your misunderstanding of smart grid technology right now, that is another very long post.  To be short though, if the government wanted to raise taxes on those that use more electricity, all they would have to do is read your meter.  That technology already exists and has for quite some time.  Back to photovoltaics.  Instead of many great big power generation stations, create incentives to put them on individual homes.  Many municipalities already have a bidirectional type of grid that allows homes that generate their own power to pipe any excesses back to the grid.  Power companies pay for that stuff.  Existing power sources would then be more capable of supplying power to big factories and businesses.  Invest a whole lot of money in energy storage technology.  That is one of the next big revolutionary ideas.  As it stands electricity must be used as it is generated when speaking of large scale use.  Geothermal power is wonderfully efficient if your geography and geology allow for it.  

People in the U.S.A. aren&#039;t thinking outside the box enough where meeting our future energy needs are concerned.  If we don&#039;t start committing more resources to those needs we are going to end up buying all of our technologies from European countries.  I&#039;m not kidding either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alright, where to start?  I am taking a break from my break from contributing to these discussions.  After taking a long moment out of my day a few weeks ago to attend the local &#8220;tea party&#8221; I just felt I had better ways to spend my time.  I feel compelled to say something here because I have participated in a great deal of exhaustive study regarding power generation.  I could write a book on the matter, but I will try and keep this reasonably short.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know where you got the idea that nuclear power doesn&#8217;t require just as many transmission lines as any other type of electric power.  Transmission lines are an issue regardless of how your electricity is generated.  Just because it is generated a certain way doesn&#8217;t change the need to transmit the generated power from its origin to its distribution network.  </p>
<p>Only certain types of solar power require water.  There is a parabolic dish technology that focuses sunlight on pipes full of water.  The water heats and creates steam that is used to generate electricity.  The steam ends up in the atmosphere where it is returned to us in the normal cycle of precipitation.  Photovoltaics use no water.  They contain materials that react to certain frequencies of sunlight.  Electrons are excited in these materials that become useful as voltage.  The power generation technique that uses the most water?  Nuclear.  Though one could argue that hydroelectric uses more water depending on your use of the word uses.  </p>
<p>Now, while there is no argument that nuclear power is the most capable technology for generating massive amounts of electricity, there exist some very real downsides.  Safety is one.  If there were to be a building boom of nuclear power plants, it would only take one building contractor to cut one corner and the results could be catastrophic.  The fact that nuclear power plants make good targets for sabotage is another.  Pollution is a huge factor.  While nuclear power is carbon free, nuclear waste is a byproduct.  That stuff doesn&#8217;t go away in our, or our kids great-great grandkids lifetimes.  </p>
<p>Solutions?  I am a big fan of photovoltaics.  They are initially expensive, but as the technology refines, the prices will come down.  I am not going to completely address your misunderstanding of smart grid technology right now, that is another very long post.  To be short though, if the government wanted to raise taxes on those that use more electricity, all they would have to do is read your meter.  That technology already exists and has for quite some time.  Back to photovoltaics.  Instead of many great big power generation stations, create incentives to put them on individual homes.  Many municipalities already have a bidirectional type of grid that allows homes that generate their own power to pipe any excesses back to the grid.  Power companies pay for that stuff.  Existing power sources would then be more capable of supplying power to big factories and businesses.  Invest a whole lot of money in energy storage technology.  That is one of the next big revolutionary ideas.  As it stands electricity must be used as it is generated when speaking of large scale use.  Geothermal power is wonderfully efficient if your geography and geology allow for it.  </p>
<p>People in the U.S.A. aren&#8217;t thinking outside the box enough where meeting our future energy needs are concerned.  If we don&#8217;t start committing more resources to those needs we are going to end up buying all of our technologies from European countries.  I&#8217;m not kidding either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blake</title>
		<link>http://www.onebigdog.net/its-not-easy-being-green/comment-page-1/#comment-129912</link>
		<dc:creator>Blake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 14:52:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.onebigdog.net/?p=6407#comment-129912</guid>
		<description>In addition, the emphasis on corn- based ethanol is bad in several ways, one of which is the amount of water needed to refine this type of ethanol. Brazil has a fine ethanol industry, in which sugar cane is used- sugar beets would also be good for this instead of corn. We are allowing a segment of the farming industry to dictate what is to be used, and if the subsidies for corn are withdrawn, as they might be, that would be a good thing.
Anytime a product diversion causes the prices of foodstuffs to rise 10- 15% in a year, that diversion of the product from food to fuel is a bad thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In addition, the emphasis on corn- based ethanol is bad in several ways, one of which is the amount of water needed to refine this type of ethanol. Brazil has a fine ethanol industry, in which sugar cane is used- sugar beets would also be good for this instead of corn. We are allowing a segment of the farming industry to dictate what is to be used, and if the subsidies for corn are withdrawn, as they might be, that would be a good thing.<br />
Anytime a product diversion causes the prices of foodstuffs to rise 10- 15% in a year, that diversion of the product from food to fuel is a bad thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

