Well this doesn't seem real.

The sad thing is, I think the stats on wind farm bird deaths are accurate, but the article is playing the whole thing for laughs. Of course, the hypocrisy of environmentalists who advocate for wind energy isn't going to change from hearing that wind farms kill birds, so maybe there's no point in trying to convince them otherwise.

Ah, my good friends Satire and Hyperbole. Can't wait to see how many morons take this seriously (even here?).

Environmentalists that have a clue don't advocate for wind energy. The ones that listen to Al Gore and Co., who are just politicians and no better than the rest of them and only in it for themselves and those who pay them, are the ones that advocate for dumb ideas like wind and nuclear fission. Solar could be okay in a small country at this point in its development, but not here, yet people still preach it for some reason.

Cpt - where is the satire and hyperbole? Are you actually stupid enough disregards the *oft reported* killing of wildlife by Wind farms and solar laser...I mean solar energy factories? You may not care, but to pretend it doesn't happen just make you look like...(again)....the stupid sheeple the government relies on.

Here's leftist environmentalism at its finest:

Threaten the rare but beautiful three-spotted dung beetle habitat, and you can shut down the drilling operations for billions of barrels of oil.

Slaughter a flying Endangered Species with your precious "green" energy (which is grossly expensive, unreliable, and will *never* replace fossil fuels), and you can break out the BBQ sause, 'cause we're having bird for dinner.

True, and I don't mean to lump all environmentalists with the attitude of total hypocrisy, but Gore and his ilk definitely give the whole cause a bad name. Even though I'm relatively conservative, I agree with a lot of the basic principles behind honest environmental protection. Honestly, it's a matter of long-term species survival that a lot of people seem to ignore. But the push to use technology that isn't ready in the name of environmental protection doesn't help anyone.

My favorite future energies are solar, technological/artificial photosynthesis, and algae, but none of those are ready at present.

"honest environmental protection"

Key words. Most reasonable, rational people believe in this broad principle regardless of political ideology -- who likes swimming in a lake full of shit or drinking dirty water. hell, I remember as a kid walking down the side of a busy road you would be *choking* on the exhaust fumes because cars were so dirty. But...the EPA is out of control, and the hit-and-miss application of "save the little critter..." policy is repugnant, and should be to even the staunchest of government sheep.

Solar - is a non-starter, Warden. Behind every good solar plant is...wait for it...a delicious fossil fuel plant to take over when the sun goes down, because we dont' ahve energy storage capacity to keep power running 24/7/365 from solar and other bullsht tech like wind. And you don't turn off a fossil fuel plant during the daylight, and turn it on at night...they have to keep running...so solar/wind is the biggest scam out there.

Algea...nowhere near the energy density needed, if I'm correct.

Isn't the whole point though that, if we research and invest in cleaner forms of energy and keep working to perfect them, they'll eventually get to the point where they can fully support our energy needs without needing fossil fuel back-ups, and at the same time work to make them safer to wildlife? Is that disillusioned?

@ Krellin: You do realise that when the sun goes down in America, the sun comes *up* somewhere else, right?

Then again it wouldn't surprise me to see you claim the world is actually flat and the so-called "round" earth theory is just a libtard conspiracy...

y2k - don't misunderstand me - who isn't' for cheaper, cleaner fuel -- duhhhh, it's a no brainer. Government sponsored green energy is rarely as green as you think, or as cheap as you are told...or viable...as explained above.

We had a great energy source- the fuel cell - being researched and the research was essentially killed off by the governemnt throwing money at their energy of choice...windmills and solar....which pumped a lot of money into companies in Michigan that eventually went belly-up bankrupt, and China bought all the research on the cheap. Perfect example of another government failure - picking losers.

I'm intrigued by the notion that the government killed off fuel cell research? Can you link to something discussing that? Can't find anything myself from a couple quick google searches.

"Solar - is a non-starter"

Funniest thing Krellin ever said. Yeah, the largest energy source for billions of miles, capable of powering a million Earth's for millions of years, can go screw itself.

Solar is also just as much about storage as it is efficiency. But whatever, not relevant.

The problem with wind is obvious - space. The birds are a semi-issue, but honestly, there are a ton of things besides windmills that contribute to bird deaths in the air, and rarely are birds threatened so much by the turbines as they are by the amount of their habitat that a wind farm takes up.

The problem with coal is clear, but it's so big that it's impossible to actually divest completely. Divesting partially, and investing in partial alternatives, even natural gas if necessary, is a more reasonable option that private businesses would be wise to start doing because of the prices of natural gas versus coal anyway. The problem there is that many cities and townships force a certain energy group on consumers, not that consumers aren't wise enough to figure that part out themselves.

Solar is definitely an option if we get creative - rooftop panels, in particular, would have to become a cheaper option. That said, it's probably going to be awhile before our in-debt-over-their-heads plutocracy actually comes up with a) the funding for solar expansion, and b) subsidies in order to make it a more accessible option.

Hydroelectric and geothermal are excellent for a place like Seattle or San Diego, but not Indianapolis or Detroit in your case, krellin. That needs to be figured out on a smaller, individual city scale if it's ever going to get bigger.

y2k, Bush's $1.2bil plan for hydrogen cell expansion was killed by Obama in 2008 or 2009, if I remember right.

I wouldn't call solar a non-starter, but as I said, it's a "future energy" not a viable current one. As for algae, the difficulty there is in genetic engineering. Most algae are practically useless in terms of usable energy. There are some viable engineered species, but they currently require too much in the way of maintenance for widespread use, and there's almost no infrastructure for growing algae in large scales. Ideally, practically any watery environment would be suitable, and there's some research into making ocean algae pay off, but it's all a minimum of 20 years off even by the most optimistic estimates.

It sounds like the Obama administration changed its attitude towards fuel cells recently?

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/23/president-obama-changes-course-and-backs-hydrogen.aspx

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2012/05/hydrogen_fuel_cell_vehicles_and_the_obama_administration_.html

SYnapse - it's only funny because you are so incredibly, woefully ignorant about what it actually takes to keep an energy grid running 24/7/365

SYnapse - if solar is so fucking easy and cheap to provide....now read carefully...CONSISTENT, CONSTANT, FULL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL ENERGY NEEDS 7 DAYS A WEEK, 24 HOURS PER DAY, 365 DAYS PER YEAR...

Then why aren't you a fucking billionaire selling solar energy, asswipe? Hwo come some evil, greedy Republican or Wall Street rpfiteer hasn't started the global solar power comapany and put oil and coal to rest?

and the answer isn't "because oil owns everyone", because that's obvious not true. Fact is, solar power is expensive and inconsistent.

But I know...it's easy to act like a 3 year old and look up at the su and worship.

Fuck, there constant WATER/WAVE energy that is a hell of a lot more consistent and reliable than the sun, dumbass.

@Y2k - yes, there is renewed interest in fuel cells recently.....because.....solar and wind have been such an utter failure. AND.....wait for it....because battery capacity utterly sucks and isn't even a fraction of where it needs to be to make other inconsistent energy sources viable.

So, wind power sucks, but there have been some real improvements in solar recently, that looks very promising. Soon, I think we'll see solar cells around ~50% efficient. Add that with better storage technologies and I think solar could account for a decent % of our energy.

You still need a steady baseline though. If people refuse to use Nuclear, then it has to come from Gas/Fossil Fuels.

What I'm really excited about are Thorium reactors. I think those have real promise.

Abge - nano-tech is definitely going to make a huge impact on solar in terms of efficiency - but you still need a night-time energy source (storage)...and that is nowhere on the horizon that I have seen.

There's actually a little incubator company in metro-Detroit working on DC power systems, targeted at buildings - basically do a convert from AC to DC at the wall, and then power the building infrastructure (lighting, heat, etc) with DC - way more efficient. Interesting stuff.

Why specifically do you like Thorium? I'm unfamiliar with whatever advantage they may have.

It cant be refined into dirty bombs, it produces much less nuclear waste with shorter half lives, it doesn't need to be so hot, so you don't need giant water cooling and there isn't as much risk of a melt down.

check check and check. You just need to ward off the Asgardians coming to retrieve it.

Also I don't think the obstacles for solar are as big as you let on. Yeah, it's dark at night, but people also consume less power. Also, no one (who knows what they're talking about) is advocating for 100% solar power. There has to be a mix.

Yes...a mix that includes fossil fuels and/or nuclear. But right now, we are being *forced* to use inefficeint, expensive "green" energy. Michigan passed legislation under that waste-of-carbon Jennifer Granholm that required, by law, that x% of energy came from renewables (wind and solar....in fucking michigan!!) which, naturally, drove energy prices through the roof. That's the sort of bullshit government intervention crap that needs to stop. About the onyl thing it did was create artificial industry that popped up, spent a lot of government grant money, and then sold their findings to China for pennies on the dollar.