Saturday, August 04, 2012

The Chart Says It All

Note that the Left's "preferred sources" are....on the left.



mz said...

There is no real context for those numbers. That doesn't make them wrong, but they don't represent the intrinsic nature of the methods. Natural gas and coal are very efficient - as in converting potential energy to work. Solar and wind aren't. That is why research dollars should go into wind and solar. Which methods to use shouldn't be an either/or proposition. As the 3rd world continues to develop, you are going to need to find new sources of production to exploit like solar and wind if we are going to maintain our present standard of living.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Feds should pay for 'research.' We could quibble, but I'll grant that for argument's sake.

But we are installing the stuff and ratepayers have to cough up money for bullshit.

You want to install the stuff, fine. Pay for it yourself. Call it "research" if you like.

But don't make ME pay extra for electricity b/c you want to "research."

Saint Revolution said...

To augment mz's point, there also is the concern RE: application and which souvce energy is 'highest and best use' for each and every individual application.

Energy applications for American medical interests in rural Uganda are different than providing energy for coffee makers in Cincinnati homes.

Continued private-sector-funded research to lower alternative energy costs is the key.

Research on my tax nickel? Absolutely not.

Abandoning the alternatives, however, is not an answer.

Let the market dictate the lives of the alternatives...not millions of gifted tax dollars to GE, Solyndra, et. al.