This is no joke California governor,,, “””Gov. Gavin Newsom has appealed directly to investor Warren Buffett to support demolishing four hydroelectric dams on a river along the Oregon-California border “”””””””””

And they're going through rolling black-outs. because they can't produce enough electric power now

Seems they're trying to show how stupid they are....

Prove me wrong ,,,,Please
link,,,,, www.sfgate.com/news/ar...447595.php

That beggars belief mate. Surely they are not that stupid that they will reduce their power output when they are already falling short on supplying sufficient power.

Oh yes he will. He wants to eliminate all gas cars in 5 years too. With no electricity the freeways are going to be full of bicycles...

Quick before property values drop, move to California. With a little time you can be a movie star! Or you will end up a homeless drug addict.

I can see in the future. Won't be long when the USSR of C is nothing but solar panels and wind generators and they will still be in the dark.

ByTheWay...the USSR of C get a lot of their power from out of state.

One of the reasons they are finding themselves in the dark is they are refusing to buy electricity from coal fired plants. They complain that they are big polluters, unlike their forest fires.

Loke wrote:

One of the reasons they are finding themselves in the dark is they are refusing to buy electricity from coal fired plants. They complain that they are big polluters, unlike their forest fires.

But they are happy to chip the worlds forests causing total devastation then call it biofuel and green

yes we seeing the push for electric cars too...but it takes a lot of power to make them and the footprint of battery is arguably worse than the fuel.... not to mention the bits battery is made of and the growing pile of dead cars with unfixable issues already.

Green, the new marketing speil since low fat has been debunked.
Are there viable clean sources of electricity?
Good question.
Define clean.
Is biomass a clean source of energy? f*88 no, with a caviate.
That being, are they harvesting the methane gas from land fill sites, big tick if yes.
Are they then pulping forests for wood chips and burning them as fuel?
Please explain to me how coal is bad, but wood chips are good as a fuel.
So no tick there and yet that is now nearly 50% of green energy production in the USA.
You guys are supposed to be smarter than that, being leaders of the free world and all.
IMO the cleanest source of power emissions wise is a modern nuclear power plant, no not the majority that are currently in operation, the older ones lose out badly in the nuclear waste and decommissioning issues.
Wind and solar have a place, IF someone can come up with a way of storing the vast amounts of energy they can prooduce when the wind blows and the sun shines, crack that and things will be good until we get fusion on line sometime in the next 100 years.
Unfortunately there are too many vested interests, coal, gas, wood chipping etc stopping decent development of alternative power sources, decent storage and modern nuclear etc.
As Pete said at the start "Prove me wrong"

dhc4ever ,,,Most of us in the good old USA are pretty level headed , with some common sense , Now our politicians are another matter.
Seems that some are on a power trip ,trying too out do each other



pete

Just what I have always wanted. Thousands of square miles of solar panels and wind generators.

And then we must decommission the hydroelectric plants. In my mind this is the only sustainable form of truly environmentally friendly electricity. It is there as long as you have a water supply and gravity.

pete4d wrote:

dhc4ever ,,,Most of us in the good old USA are pretty level headed , with some common sense , Now our politicians are another matter. Seems that some are on a power trip ,trying too out do each other pete

It’s all about money mate...who can make the most and benefit personally.

Well, green energy means different things to different folks. If it takes 50 years to grow a tree that burns up in 3 months then the only way that is green is if you only burn one tree in 50 years.
"Modern nuclear power plant" if you are talking about one that uses fuel rods only burns 5 to 10% of its fuel before the rest have to be put in long term storage. That is neither green nor efficient. If you are talking about a Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor then it is over 95% efficient and uses Thorium which is hundreds of times more abundant than the uranium you need for fuel rods.
You can put up enough solar and wind to provide power for a single home as long as you have enough batteries to do the job after the sun goes down and when the wind is below 10 mph because you can throttle your use to match what is available to you. Most of the world wants to have hot water, clean clothes, warm food and lighting on demand and that requires a consistent and predictable power supply.
There are a few questions being raised about whether fusion will provide a predictable and high enough quantity of electrical power for mass consumption. You still need diesel for trucks and trains and aircraft fuel for passenger and military planes. There is also fertilizer, medicines and a host of plastics and other daily use items that all come from fossil fuels.

A lot of challenges ahead. I'm not saying it can't be done just that there are a lot of things most folks are not considering.

I believe that the only source of green energy comes from hydro electric facilities, where they use water flow to drive turbines to produce billions of little amp ants that run through the copper cables. This of course is after they have used a heap of power to produce the hydro plants.

Paul, Airbus are currently researching/experimenting with concept planes that use electricity for short haul and hydrogen...stored as a liquid in the aircraft...for longer haul flights. However these are long term projects...well into the 30’s.

NASA has tested some all electric turbines on aircraft but the big hangup is batteries.
As far as green energy there are some good options but right now the best is hydroelectric with geothermal coming in a close second - if they make use of the hot spots that are available. East and slightly north of Yellowstone could be developed to produce more power than all the dams in the USA combined. It would have to be built as a closed loop system (double loop) but it will make someone a ton of money.
I also think that we need to have some Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors to produce the isotopes needed by NASA and the medical field. They don't generate long lived isotopes that have to be stored for centuries and they use almost everything they do produce. The reactors will still have to be scrapped out but they have a very long time in use before that is required.
Farther out in the future will be a device that "pulls" energy from the zero point field. Maybe in a hundred or so years??