Emission Free Energy: Does It Exist?

In my last post, I made some comments about the wrath of climate change provided by The Young Turks. I also spent a few hours of time reading some of the comments to see if I could learn something, and to my surprise I did.

The initial thread starts off like this by Paul Swan:

“You’re not gong to solve climate change problem and fossil fuel power with solar, wind and water. Solar is the most inefficient form of power production in the country. With 1.16 million installation it produces just .6% of the nations net electrical production. Wind produces just 4.7% of net electrical production. The most comes from hydro-power which is at 7%. However hydro-power is confined to rivers that have a high discharge rate. Fossil fuel production accounts for 67% of electrical production in this country. The only form that’s even close is Nuclear with 20%. Now just to remind you that’s 20% run on just 99 facilities most of which are at least 30+ years old. Yes nuclear costs a fortune however nuclear is the only form capable of mass electrical production per unit and high efficiency, and it is has new technology.”

In response to this comment, another YouTuber named Reel Deel says the following:

“Wind and solar are viable. Nuclear is viable as well, but one nuclear meltdown has more negative impact on our planet than a decade of burning fossil fuels. And this isn’t accounting for waste heat, which is a gigantic issue in nuclear… Wind and solar are the future.”

And in response to this, I replied:

“Given that guy’s (Paul Swan) comment, how is solar and wind viable with those low lowers of output compared to coal?”

So Reel Deel responded saying:

“If it creates energy for cheaper than the amount invested into it it is viable. Solar and wind are viable, arguing against this makes you WRONG.

If solar/wind weren’t viable they literally would not exist… What would be the point of solar city if we had to burn hydrocarbons to operate it? Fortunately, that is not the case. You’re a moron.”

Lol Now at this point of the conversation, I wasn’t attempting to prove either person wrong. I was merely going off the comments of Paul Swan and applying it to what Reel Deel was saying because the two doesn’t add up, which is why I asked the question from the beginning. Sure, I can do a google search and find out some answers or search through some energy research but for the sake of conversation, I wanted to see if this guy had a response because going off the notion that if fossil fuels (no matter how we feel about them) produce way more energy than solar, wind, water and nuclear combined then how can they be viable? And by viable, I was implying its practical application and its affordability for the consumer (us). Because there’s a difference (in terms of costs) between investing in “cheaper” energy and then transporting that energy all across the grid and into our homes and publicly funded buildings.

So in an attempt to clarify my question, I responded by saying:

“Are wind and solar viable to fuel the entire world, yet alone America in comparison to our current methods? I ask because solar and wind depend on the sun which does not shine in every area of the planet 24/7…the same goes for wind power. We assume the wind will always blow enough to feed electricity to millions of people every day. What happens on days the sun doesn’t shine or the wind blows in the right direction? In what areas will these wind and solar projects be fitted because given my statements above, it would be foolish to place a ton of solar panels in Michigan (my state) and expect it to feed the entire state’s energy demand. If it were up to me, every home with have panels generating their own electricity but that’s another story. Let’s we placed panels in the most sun friendly areas. Will that supply the entire country’s demand? The same with wind assuming we placed them in traditionally windy areas. How can you practically account that these sources will provide the demand compared to what we have now? The infrastructure that would need to be in place for a sun friendly state like Nevada or Arizona would need to be “yuge” in order to transport that energy to a state like mine or somewhere that receives less sun throughout year. Considering these hypothetical scenario, how would prices for energy be viable or affordable when you consider all of what I just stated above?

If you know the answer or have a better understanding than I do, then please, inform me or direct me to a better source of info…there’s no need for name calling, we’re dealing with an issue here, not child’s play.”

Now at this point, whether the guy responds or not I really don’t care because for one, I actually like the idea of renewable energy because I am fascinated by the idea of using the sun as a source energy. However, I’m not that delusional to believe I can sustain myself all year long from the sun living in an area that receives only so much sun throughout the year. It’s one thing like an idea but it’s another to actually run that idea and see if it’s practical or not. If it was just about placing solar panels on roofs and converters in every home along with Tesla batteries to store that energy, then I would be all aboard for the ride cause we’d be less dependent upon utility companies for electricity we could get for free from the sun. However, I’m smart enough to know it’s bigger and much more sinister than that.

*Recommended Reading & Watching

Why Are Alternatives Important

Climate Science Debate : Global Warming Alarmist VS. Global Warming Skeptic

Intelligence Squared Debates: Coal-fired Power will Soon be Obsolete

Climate Change: The EPA Has Gone Overboard (Full Debate)

Intelligence Squared: A Tax Won’t Fix Climate Change

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.