Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/20/09 08:46 PM, Patton3 wrote: Just a quick note. This is completely original, in that I didn't take ideas from any politician, at least not intentionally. I'm sure there are some places were my ideas and other clean energy plans overlap.

Because there overly vague, undetailed and sound like any other politicians stumping for some "form" of clean energy.

Add more realistic details adn the like to add some wieght to it.

At 1/18/09 08:27 PM, Patton3 wrote: We can do it. And if we do it right, it can be economically and environmentaly sound at the same time. Here are some steps I think would work:

1.) Pass more strict mandates on efficiency for products, especially cars.
benefits
-our cars our so ineffeicient that most of them aren't even legal in foreign countries, and their popularity is plummeting over here. Europe and Japan lead the way in this area, their cars MUST get at least 40mpg.(not sure what that is in kilometers)
-We break our dependence on foreign oil. Sorry Achmed, sell that shit somewhere else.
-our products are more competitive in foreign markets
-we use less energy as a whole, making subsequent steps easier.
2.) Expand clean energy oppurtunities at home. Build wind turbines in the great plains, solar stations in the Nevada desert and on unused roof space, use geothermal in places like yellow stone.
benefits
-less polution
-create jobs that are IMPOSSIBLE to send overseas
-this will move technology forward by DECADES
-no more coal, oil takes a big hit.
3.) Once we have one hundred percent clean electricity, offer 10 billion dollars to the first company to come up with a line of electric cars that are affordable and have incredibly long battery life. Capitalists will trip over themselves to get at this kind of oppurtunity.
benefits
-boost the economy
-push technology ahead by decades, again.
-get rid of oil for good.
-the free market will create thousands of jobs on it's own.
-no more smog around cities. This equals higher property values. : ) Oh, and higher life expectancy.
-These cars will be immensely popular overseas.
4.) Use metheane from animal waste for energy in the form of methane digesters
benefits
-less polution
-far left liberal vegan's will shut up about the global warming aspect of the meat industry.

This is my own little version of a clean energy plan for thye U.S. What do ya'll think? Feel free to add anything you think would be beneficial. Or a better way to do some of the things I listed above.

Also, just sayin'. I think this is a good plan because whither you believe in global warming or not, (I do for the record, and most people in the scientific communty seem to think so too), it's hard to argue against something that can have such great economic benefits.

One final note. This won't just be a walk in the park. It'll take some serious political will and lobbying to get this ball rolling. But I think this administration is the one to get it started.

20 years...
let me remind you of a familiar writing
Created in 7 days with clean energy HA!!!

What I'm just saying is 20 years may sound great, but do remember several things.

1. Science, though miraculous, is far from miracles. We try to implement what we do know, hypothesis on what we don't know, then test what we think we know. Once that is done, the engineers try to implement what the scientists know, think of a way to "appeal" to the public, then manufacture these things. "God" may be able to create the world in 7 days, but we know nothing about how to make sufficient energy yet.

2. Remember that coal is shipped from several states, one big one being west virginia whose economy relies mostly on coal. Take away the need for coal, send tons of people off the job (though you say windmills and solar power provides jobs, your taking more jobs than providing if you look at the faculty for renewable resource. Just like people to say "remove coal" as if it's ONLY because of the destructive force in it. It's not that we can't do those things now, it's just where would a great number of people work afterwords? Removal of coal will take longer than 20 years just to "ease" us out.

3. Capitalists are already trying to trip over themselves to provide a convenient supply of energy in cars so we don't depend on oil anymore. Supply and Demand. We demand they have pure energy cars that function like gasoline cars do and if they provide, PROFIT! They just have to figure out what is the ????

4. Burning methane is stupid, if you notice the after product produce more greenhouse gas than coal. (I have heard this from a book and can't find any other comparison to confirm)

5. Please tell me your not going to support taxing of farmers D: they have a bad enough economy as it is.

20 years...
let me remind you of a familiar writing
Created in 7 days with clean energy HA!!!

What I'm just saying is 20 years may sound great, but do remember several things.

1. Science, though miraculous, is far from miracles. We try to implement what we do know, hypothesis on what we don't know, then test what we think we know. Once that is done, the engineers try to implement what the scientists know, think of a way to "appeal" to the public, then manufacture these things. "God" may be able to create the world in 7 days, but we know nothing about how to make sufficient energy yet.

2. Remember that coal is shipped from several states, one big one being west virginia whose economy relies mostly on coal. Take away the need for coal, send tons of people off the job (though you say windmills and solar power provides jobs, your taking more jobs than providing if you look at the faculty for renewable resource. Just like people to say "remove coal" as if it's ONLY because of the destructive force in it. It's not that we can't do those things now, it's just where would a great number of people work afterwords? Removal of coal will take longer than 20 years just to "ease" us out.

3. Capitalists are already trying to trip over themselves to provide a convenient supply of energy in cars so we don't depend on oil anymore. Supply and Demand. We demand they have pure energy cars that function like gasoline cars do and if they provide, PROFIT! They just have to figure out what is the ????

4. Burning methane is stupid, if you notice the after product produce more greenhouse gas than coal. (I have heard this from a book and can't find any other comparison to confirm)

5. Please tell me your not going to support taxing of farmers D: they have a bad enough economy as it is.

I agree with one and two, but can you make three a little more clear?
On point four, it will be toxic to the environment either way, so why not put it to good use growing our food and supplying power to the grid? Not having to pay the electric bill would be a huge monkey off a farmer's back.
On point 5, I don't see where you found that. Rather, I think aiding farmers in going green and providing tax cuts for doing so would be the best way to go.

One final note, let's change it too "100% clean energy in 30 years."

At 1/20/09 10:05 PM, Patton3 wrote: One final note, let's change it too "100% clean energy in 30 years."

You're still breaking our balls here. 100% energy is a huge project to just turn over in 30 years. We don't have the resources, capital or intellectual, to pull it off in that time frame without other stuff going down the shitter.

At 1/19/09 06:51 PM, Patton3 wrote:
Just wonderin', about what are we looking at as far as price and efficiency for an average sized collector?

It's pricey, but rigourous tests thus far say that while you put in a lot, you also get a lot of bang for each buck, and I mean a lot. Some estimates even say you could power the whole planet with one satellite-mass-catcher system.

Probably not quite that good, but definitely good enough to put in the expense.

I am more than sure that the Oil companies will do their best to bring such ideas to the ground.
Making your own power source can be very difficult and may cost a lot.
I'm not sure about this, but I think that building a windmill or such on goverment land is most likeley illegal.(Considering the point of view of the averege joe, that doesn't own any land)

At 1/20/09 11:26 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 1/20/09 10:05 PM, Patton3 wrote: One final note, let's change it too "100% clean energy in 30 years."

You're still breaking our balls here. 100% energy is a huge project to just turn over in 30 years. We don't have the resources, capital or intellectual, to pull it off in that time frame without other stuff going down the shitter.

Just because a timeframe is set doesn't mean it's a failure if it isn't meat exactly. etting it done within 10-15 years of this time frame could still be chalked up as a win.

At 1/20/09 09:50 PM, HahaISuckMoreThanYou wrote: 4. Burning methane is stupid, if you notice the after product produce more greenhouse gas than coal. (I have heard this from a book and can't find any other comparison to confirm)

Actually it prevents the relase of greenhouse gas. Methane will be released just by simply leaving cow manuer out to rot (which we already do to make fertilizer.) That methane is being released into the atmosphere. If we burn that methane and make good use out of it (we can still use the shit for fertilizer) then that methane is not going into the atmosphere, but is instead being converted into Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but it is much less powerful than methane. The amount of CO2 released from burning methane causes less global warming than releasing the methane alone.

5. Please tell me your not going to support taxing of farmers D: they have a bad enough economy as it is.

I don't want to blindly tax them, just provide incentives for them to use greener technologies. This could be done through tax hikes on practices bad for the environment, or by tax cuts for practices good for the environment. Most likely a combination of both.

At 1/22/09 08:31 PM, Patton3 wrote: Just because a timeframe is set doesn't mean it's a failure if it isn't meat exactly. etting it done within 10-15 years of this time frame could still be chalked up as a win.

The problem isn't just the resources either, it's the research. It takes time to develop viable sources of alternative energy that could fully replace our current system, and then completely turn over the existing infrastructure. 60-100 years is more reasonable.

If we wanted it done in say, 30-45, it would require every person to make a substantial contribution in terms of altering their lifestyle to consume less, and producing as much of their own energy as they could. We'd also have to completely re-structure the economy to get rid of the consumption-based model, which doesn't actually work as the system grows to a size where it is no longer negligible compared to existing natural resources.