Renewable energy cuts
 

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is going
to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of renewable
energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do. Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable sources
could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind. Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is going
to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of renewable
energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable sources
could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those hydrogen
bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/2018 7:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is
going to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of
renewable energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable
sources could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy
needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those hydrogen
bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.


If we have to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather have some that weren't
designed and built 50- 60 years ago. He doesn't want *more*. (We have
treaties that govern that). He just wants ones that will work if it is
ever necessary to use them.

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/18 8:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 7:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is
going to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of
renewable energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go
before they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but
to significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable
sources could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy
needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those hydrogen
bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.


If we have to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather have some that weren't
designed and built 50- 60 years ago. He doesn't want *more*.Â* (We have
treaties that govern that).Â* He just wants ones that will work if it is
ever necessary to use them.



Right, because Trump understands the science, right? :)

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 8:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 7:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is
going to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of
renewable energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go
before they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but
to significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable
sources could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy
needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right
direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those hydrogen
bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.


If we have to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather have some that weren't
designed and built 50- 60 years ago. He doesn't want *more*.Â* (We have
treaties that govern that).Â* He just wants ones that will work if it
is ever necessary to use them.



Right, because Trump understands the science, right?Â*Â* :)

No, but he has advisors in the DOD who do.

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/18 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 8:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 7:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is
going to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of
renewable energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go
before they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but
to significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea,
IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable
sources could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical
energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right
direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention
are solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all
the renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those hydrogen
bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.


If we have to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather have some that weren't
designed and built 50- 60 years ago. He doesn't want *more*.Â* (We
have treaties that govern that).Â* He just wants ones that will work
if it is ever necessary to use them.



Right, because Trump understands the science, right?Â*Â* :)

No, but he has advisors in the DOD who do.



Donald Mongo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwNJla8WvoY&t=19s

Renewable energy cuts
 

On 2/1/2018 8:47 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 8:22 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 8:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/1/2018 7:48 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/1/18 7:31 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is
going to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of
renewable energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do.Â*Â* Renewables have a long ways to go
before they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs
but to significantly cut back on their development is not a good
idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable
sources could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical
energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right
direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention
are solar and wind.Â* Both rank low in the energy production of all
the renewable sources.


I suppose Trump has to find some way to build more of those
hydrogen bombs he wants to use. We don't have nearly enough of them.


If we have to have nuclear weapons, I'd rather have some that
weren't designed and built 50- 60 years ago. He doesn't want
*more*.Â* (We have treaties that govern that).Â* He just wants ones
that will work if it is ever necessary to use them.



Right, because Trump understands the science, right?Â*Â* :)

No, but he has advisors in the DOD who do.



Donald Mongo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwNJla8WvoY&t=19s


Ok. I'll admit. That's funny.

Renewable energy cuts
 

On Thursday, 1 February 2018 08:31:53 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is going
to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of renewable
energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do. Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable sources
could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind. Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.

Report in our local news said the new hydro electric project at Muskrat Falls Labrador is having a hard time selling electricity to New England. Appears that Quebec has the market sewn up. Too bad, Nova Scotia has a share in this project. There are undersea cables bringing the hydro from Labrador to the island of Newfoundland and then to Cape Breton. The plan was to string the high tension lines through mainland Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick and on to Maine. Should have been a win win for everyone.

Renewable energy cuts
 

True North wrote:
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 08:31:53 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is going
to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of renewable
energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do. Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable sources
could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the renewable sources that get the most attention are
solar and wind. Both rank low in the energy production of all the
renewable sources.

Report in our local news said the new hydro electric project at Muskrat
Falls Labrador is having a hard time selling electricity to New England.
Appears that Quebec has the market sewn up. Too bad, Nova Scotia has a
share in this project. There are undersea cables bringing the hydro from
Labrador to the island of Newfoundland and then to Cape Breton. The plan
was to string the high tension lines through mainland Nova Scotia,
through New Brunswick and on to Maine. Should have been a win win for everyone.


You don’ know how to share?

Renewable energy cuts
 

On Thursday, 1 February 2018 13:02:30 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Thursday, 1 February 2018 08:31:53 UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
The Washington Post is reporting that the Trump administration is going
to recommend a 72 percent reduction in the development of renewable
energy sources.

I think that's wrong to do. Renewables have a long ways to go before
they can generate the majority of the USA's energy needs but to
significantly cut back on their development is not a good idea, IMO.

The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that by 2050 renewable sources
could potentially supply 80 percent of our electrical energy needs.
That may be a little optimistic but it's heading in the right direction.