![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)

To me the choice is simple, we can prop up a cabal of brutal dictatorships that kill homosexuals, keep women as second class citizens, and don't care if they destroy the environment.
Or we can by our oil from Canada.
To be explicit, if you object to harvesting the Alberta oil sands you are an objectively misogynist, gay bashing, Gaia raping hypocrite.
;P
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 20:50 (UTC)The problem with the traditionally advocated alternatives (solar/wind) is that the math doesn't work out. Even with a signifigant (100%) increase in efficiency the relative enrgy density of wind and solar power means that you'd have to pave most of the US with collectors in order to meet current energy demmands.
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 21:04 (UTC)So you use wind and solar to add to the aggregate energy output.
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 21:58 (UTC)It just annoys me when people push "alternative energy" as if it represents some all encompassing solution while also ignoring the practical engineering issues like storage, distribtion, and relative density of said energy sources.
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 22:17 (UTC)Hydrocarbons are popular because they have such a large energy density. If you had a battery that could go ounce for ounce with them you'd have a ready replacement for vehicle's hydrocarbon fuel.
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 21:05 (UTC)Your power will not come from one giant coal plants, but from lots of little sources.
The grid will become smart. More efficient. Superior distro.
Storage will improve, improving efficiency.
And devices will require less and less power, reducing demand.
All of these in concert will help ween us off the barrel.
So that's energy. Now onto textiles.
(no subject)
Date: 4/11/11 21:23 (UTC)βΈ®