To: patton
Net zero greenhouse emissions doesn't imply perpetual motion. There are a number of methods for generating electricity that don't produce greenhouse gases.
Though I do remain skeptical.
9 posted on
05/13/2005 10:17:51 PM PDT by
mcg1969
To: mcg1969
Uhhhhhhhmmmm, Kuhschiesse. Unless somebody built a nuke by the port.
You know of a way to turn an engine without burning fuel?
Well, ok, let me back off - I do. Solar power. Burns about ten times as much fuel as the dirtiest oil, when all is accounted for.
Wind power. Bird blender. Need I say more?
Environmentally, dirty as heck.
How about tidal power?
That might actually work. Hmmm.
16 posted on
05/13/2005 10:26:02 PM PDT by
patton
("Fool," said my Muse to me, "look in thy heart, and write.")
To: mcg1969
I was scratching my head here...and as long as the subject has been brought up...
If what you say is true, why use the term "net zero" ?
Why not just say "zero" emissions.
What does "net zero" mean ?
18 posted on
05/13/2005 10:28:09 PM PDT by
stylin19a
( Social Security...neither social nor secure.)
To: mcg1969
There are a number of methods for generating electricity that don't produce greenhouse gases. Nuclear power...
To: mcg1969
Though I do remain skeptical. Are they not inferring 100% of Seattle City Light's power generation is hydro-electric + nuclear?
Somehow, I doubt it, too.
106 posted on
05/14/2005 6:06:33 PM PDT by
okie01
(The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson