Only Greentech Can Save U.S. Economy, Says Über-Investor - Page 3

**NaglfarCommando** · 05-12-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultimo Hombre

Call me crazy but I'm one of those WACKOS who believes that a "temporary solution" to something so fucking horribly toxic isn't a solution at all...

We could develop solar powered batteries that could run a home before we will figure out how to properly get rid of toxic waste from a nuke plant...

You're right. I'm from Vegas so I'm not a big fan of it either. But it has to be done for the short term.

And FFS there should be people jumping on new technologies, we went from absolutely nothing to what we have now in a little over 100 years.. there has to be something better.

kingstu · 05-12-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaglfarCommando

You're right. I'm from Vegas so I'm not a big fan of it either. But it has to be done for the short term.

And FFS there should be people jumping on new technologies, we went from absolutely nothing to what we have now in a little over 100 years.. there has to be something better.

Nuclear is better and the waste issue is WAY overstated. Don't you think the 50% of U.S. energy from burning coal causes some waste problems?

Mithra · 05-12-2008, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingstu

Nuclear is better and the waste issue is WAY overstated. Don't you think the 50% of U.S. energy from burning coal causes some waste problems?

It shouldn't...

The best "greentech" will be technology that captures the carbon emissions from burning coal/oil/wood etc and then puts it to use.

Something like the algae products that capture the carbon emitted from power plants and can then be used to produce ethanol.

It captures carbon AND produces more fuel

Depth · 05-13-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mithra

It shouldn't...

The best "greentech" will be technology that captures the carbon emissions from burning coal/oil/wood etc and then puts it to use.

Something like the algae products that capture the carbon emitted from power plants and can then be used to produce ethanol.

It captures carbon AND produces more fuel

I've seen the algae tanks, they look promising.

Are there plans anywhere to use these tanks as filters for coal burning set-ups?

Heresy · 05-13-2008, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingstu

Say what?

From the WSJ op-ed section...

The op-ed mentioned the subsidy per megawatt hour, but did not mention how much actually goes to the solar and wind subsidies, as a percentage, or flat out dollar amount. If they're less than 1% of total power generation, then they're not getting much out of that 16 billion dollar pie. Coal on the other hand.....................

We can spend 2 billion a week in Iraq, but spend less than a billion a year subsidizing the future. But hey, at least we're subsidizing the hell out of oil and coal.

**NaglfarCommando** · 05-13-2008, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kingstu

Nuclear is better and the waste issue is WAY overstated. Don't you think the 50% of U.S. energy from burning coal causes some waste problems?

Yeah I know. The newer Nuclear reactor tech is a lot better than what's already been made. We could have a few reactors made to help shore up power demand in the US. [shrugs] who am I to suggest it tho?