Posted on 02/27/2011 10:25:07 AM PST by artichokegrower
The greenies are only in favor of energy sources that are not yet commercialized. As soon as they actually become commercially feasible then they’re against it.
This is true of photovoltaic, wind, biomass, hydro, etc, etc.
We the people are insane to allow these fools to run our lives!!!
What you are describing is the basic law of economics. To get X I have to not get something else. IOW, competition between competing goods.
The root concept of liberalism is that they reject this notion. They really believe you can get something without giving up something else.
I recently had an extended conversation with my boss on this topic. He is verrry liberal, but a really great guy.
He sincerely believes no policy should be implemented unless it makes things better for everybody. I tried to point out that this is by definition a contradiction in term. He didn’t really submit a counter-argument, he just refused to accept that mine was valid.
I think when people refuse to look at facts, it is because they are arrogant, not believing they could possibly be wrong. Ignorant of the facts, stupid, or willfully blind.
Is there anywhere on earth that is not ‘environmentally delicate???”
I see your point, but there is another possibility.
Fear.
The prospect of being forced to re-examine your basic worldview is terrifying to most people. It was the driving force behind Christians fed to lions and heretics burned at the stake, not to mention the gulags and concentrations camps.
Liberals have a remarkably simplistic worldview, despite their recent vogue for describing themselves as “the reality-based community.” (Chuckle, snort.)
Examining facts that challenge thei worldview might, to their minds, require reconsidering the whole edifice. This is the mental equivalent of an earthquake, everything they think of as solid is so no longer.
They deal with this by clinging more desparately to their worldview, just as those of other religions often do when they are challenged.
There is also the fairly obvious fact that air-cooling doesn’t work nearly as well where the temperature is really high.
OTOH, humidity is very low and temp high, so evaporative cooling is more efficient. But that gets you back to needing lots of water.
You are right on point. It is hard to take a good hard look at your views and think you could be wrong. It’s always hard to do that. What I notice with many liberals, especially on the far left is, they behave like 2 year olds. Throwing fits if they don’t get their way, name calling, shoving, hitting, bullying, ect. All emotional with little to no substance and almost always the end results are disastrous for everybody.
I've seen some small solar generators using Stirling engines and about a 20' reflector. They were air cooled and seemed to be a well thought out design. The only problems could arise from the mechanical complexity (and cloudy days!). The units were modular, about 20 horsepower, and largely self maintaining. They could be ganged to provide whatever output you needed.
OTOH, humidity is very low and temp high, so evaporative cooling is more efficient. But that gets you back to needing lots of water.
Just can't cheat on the laws of thermodynamics. In truth, I've never seen an air cooled central power plant either but there are some that use large shallow basins of water with no cooling towers. They are along the Ohio river and I suspect that the EPA pulled their permits to use river water directly so they were stuck with ponds or big investments in towers. Along that part of the river there are large plants every 4 or 5 miles. The coal is brought in by barge from Kentucky and all the power goes to the Boston-Washington corridor.
Regards,
GtG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.