Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Washington Post: Five myths about green energy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:17 AM
Original message
Washington Post: Five myths about green energy
Of course this article is neither fair nor balanced. Nor is it a complete, scientific, scholarly analysis of the situation. It's really more about stirring the pot, with a nod to a few issues that don't get a lot of media play. As a result it appeals to the more heretical part of my nature. There's a bit more on each of the items in the original article.

Five myths about green energy

Americans are being inundated with claims about renewable and alternative energy. Advocates for these technologies say that if we jettison fossil fuels, we'll breathe easier, stop global warming and revolutionize our economy. Yes, "green" energy has great emotional and political appeal. But before we wrap all our hopes -- and subsidies -- in it, let's take a hard look at some common misconceptions about what "green" means.

1. Solar and wind power are the greenest of them all.

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

2. Going green will reduce our dependence on imports from unsavory regimes.

In the new green economy, batteries are not included. Neither are many of the "rare earth" elements that are essential ingredients in most alternative energy technologies. Instead of relying on the diversity of the global oil market -- about 20 countries each produce at least 1 million barrels of crude per day -- the United States will be increasingly reliant on just one supplier, China, for elements known as lanthanides. Lanthanum, neodymium, dysprosium and other rare earth elements are used in products from high-capacity batteries and hybrid-electric vehicles to wind turbines and oil refinery catalysts.

3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.

In a global market, American wind turbine manufacturers face the same problem as American shoe manufacturers: high domestic labor costs. If U.S. companies want to make turbines, they will have to compete with China, which not only controls the market for neodymium, a critical ingredient in turbine magnets, but has access to very cheap employees.

4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.

Nissan and Tesla are just two of the manufacturers that are increasing production of all-electric cars. But in the electric car's century-long history, failure tailgates failure. In 1911, the New York Times declared that the electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical" than its gasoline-fueled cousins. But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.

5. The United States lags behind other rich countries in going green.

Over the past three decades, the United States has improved its energy efficiency as much as or more than other developed countries. According to data from the Energy Information Administration, average per capita energy consumption in the United States fell by 2.5 percent from 1980 through 2006. That reduction was greater than in any other developed country except Switzerland and Denmark, and the United States achieved it without participating in the Kyoto Protocol or creating an emissions trading system like the one employed in Europe. EIA data also show that the United States has been among the best at reducing the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per $1 of GDP and the amount of energy consumed per $1 of GDP.

My personal preference is for a radical powerdown of western civilization, either voluntary or involuntary. My hope is that would result in some degree of rebalancing of the global situation, away from purely anthropocentric activity and towards a situation in which all life has a better chance to maximize its opportunities. I have no hope that we will achieve such a shift voluntarily so long as the existing hierarchical power structures remain intact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
1. The author of the piece is with the Manhattan Institute...free-market blah-blahers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Thanks.
It's pretty easy to stir the progressive pot if one uses a free-market paddle, especially if it has been bought by Scaife...

I believe that the oil and market interests that support outfits like this are doomed even in the short term due to peak oil and the continuing economic crash. If that is true, then their efforts to block alternative energy development could help lead to the involuntary aspect of the powerdown I hope for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. And all the energy company ads in the Wash Post. Even the Caps hockey games are full of coal ads. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoNothing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. "My personal preference is for a radical powerdown of western civilization"
Why western civilization specifically? So China gets to thrive and prosper, you just want North America and Europe to devolve?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Makes you wonder what country they are actually from
1 of the Biggest Free Traders here at DU is actually from Canada
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. Thankfully that person is eating pizza. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I include China in the general category of "western civilization"
Perhaps I should have said "modern industrial civilization". It has nothing to do with nations, and everything to do with the death fixations of industrial power hierarchies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. "the death fixations of industrial power hierarchies."
Good grief. THIS is why sending people to college willy-nilly is a bad idea. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Au contraire, mon frère
Colleges teach people to understand that death-dealing industrial power hierarchies are the normal, positive, even inevitable end-state of human cultural progression. For the sake of its own survival the best thing our civilization can do is to subject its production units to industrial education. Our owners realized that back at the start of the Industrial Revolution, resulting in compulsory public schooling. The uniform product of such a system is pretty much incapable of questioning the system's underlying values. Unless something occasionally goes wrong with the programming and a red pill should suddenly appear, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
FreakinDJ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Intellectual Masturbation
In some cases a college education is a "Terrible Thing"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I'm guessing a sophomore philosophy student.
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 12:34 PM by Codeine
Mayyyyyybe liberal arts. Any bets on how long it will be before he invokes Foucault?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I'm actually a Comp Sci grad, 25 years or more ago. An IP packet processing specialist
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 12:33 PM by GliderGuider
And I'm much more likely to invoke Zerzan than Foucault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. Strange how computer science / tech leads us to these types of conclusions.
I know many a comp sci major would would agree with that statement (the one about schools), as do I. I never graduated for that reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Actually, this POV isn't normally taught in universities.
Some profs tried it back in the 60s and early 70s, but the system purged them quite effectively.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #17
29. You'll still find it in action groups in universities.
Unfortunately the contradiction of going to a university while decrying its teaching methods tends to get you laughed at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. What you call "intellectual masturbation" I call "progressive." His statement is correct.
Now, you could have attempted to back up the "intellectual masturbation" statement, but instead you just leave the claim out there without actually going to any length whatsoever to explain your position or how you disagree with his position.

Now, GG does take it a bit further than I might in the end, but that particularly statemnt I have no disagreements with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Regarding taking it too far,
I mostly do that on the Internet in the interest of setting the cat among the pigeons. In real life I'm just a mild-mannered meditator who drives a car like everyone else. I can't remember the last time I spiked an old-growth redwood, blew up a dam or rammed a Japanese whaler...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. What horseshit
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 11:39 AM by jpak
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Fun, isn't it?
Reminds us all not to get too invested in our positions.

Or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whattheidonot Donating Member (301 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. energy takes energy,
all energy takes energy, resources, vital minerals, and lots of water. there is a trade off to all energy supplies. we are going to need them all plus conservation. conservation makes great sense but does not produce much direct industry. the saving could be huge and they could go into other industries. The price of oil going up with our present system of transportation and economy is out of the question. high oil prices will not work. everybody will end up in about 5 cities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Do you ever wonder at the underlying belief system that insists "we are going to need them all"? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. Did you ever wonder about the underlying mental state of someone who advocates
...the extinction of their species?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #22
51. Go Gravity or Go Broke
not with gravity you don't

www.ufoworkshop.0catch.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
9. OK, so let's start with #1
Edited on Sun Apr-25-10 11:58 AM by OKIsItJustMe
"Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats."


http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Concentrating%20Solar%20Power/cat=Applications#Q84
...

Q: Do concentrating solar power (CSP) plants require a lot of land? How much, exactly?

A: Relatively speaking, no. Consider Hoover Dam, for example. Nevada's Lake Mead, which is home to the dam, covers nearly 250 square miles. In contrast, a CSP system occupying only 10 to 20 square miles could generate as much power annually as Hoover Dam did in one recent year. And if we take into consideration the amount of land required for mining, CSP plants also require less land than coal-fired power plants do.

It's hard to say exactly how much land is required for a CSP plant, however, because this depends on its generating capacity and the particular technology used. For example, a 250-kilowatt plant composed of ten 25-kilowatt dish/engine systems requires less than an acre of land. And a parabolic trough system uses about 5 acres for each megawatt of installed capacity. But in any case, the solar resource needed to generate power using CSP systems is quite plentiful. Imagine being able to generate enough electric power for the entire country by covering about 9 percent of Nevada — a plot of land 100 miles on a side — with parabolic trough systems!

...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. And of course wind turbines don't take the land they're on out of "production"
With land-based wind turbines we even to get to double down on our usurpation of resources. We get to produce even more power to refine aluminum and run our air conditioners, and we don't even lose our ability to rape the land at the same time. Bonus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. "... we don't even lose our ability to rape the land ..."
A little extra loading there?

Is any planned use, "rap(ing) the land?"

What use of the land (by humans) does not constitute "rape" in your definition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The word "rape" is definitely loading. However, to answer your question
In order not to constitute rape, human land use would have to meet both of these two criteria:

1. No long-term degradation of soil quality or associated water quality due to human use; and
2. No wholesale exclusion of other species from the land in question.

Under these criteria virtually all modern agriculture - whether done under wind turbines or not - qualifies as rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. "... virtually all modern agriculture ... qualifies as rape ..."
OK, that leads to the question, is there any form of agriculture, modern or not, which does not qualify as "rape?"

Are all acts of "raping" the land equal in your eyes? For example, is no-till organic farming as evil as slash and burn?


It is the nature of life (all life) to affect its environment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Is there any form...
Low intensity horticultural practices (especially rain-fed organic gardening) and most permaculture wouldn't constitute rape in my opinion.

Of course there are shades of gray. But you asked about "rape" which to me implies those practices at the black end of the spectrum. Of course all life affects its environment, but the extent to which humans have coopted the organic production capacity of the planet, and in the process ruined much of it for other species, goes far beyond such a benign description. Not if one has any sense of compassion that extends out beyond the merely human.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. The point is, except in the event of plauge, life is evolutionary limited to the damage it can cause
(And even then, plague tends to reset itself.)

Humans, however, have gone a step beyond evolutionary limitations and are able to do damage where they otherwise couldn't. Human existence does not necessitate wholesale damage of the ecosystem, yet the current paradigm is just that.

I do not discount all agriculture of course, but it should be very low impact. Vertical farming, and such. Closed ecosystem life support systems and the like. I have given up hope for Earth though. It's probably not happening until we get to Mars. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. If we can't get it right here, we can't get it right anywhere
The worst projections for climate change still leave Earth more hospitable than Mars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Mars requires self-sufficiency.
Waste is not a viable option on Mars. On Earth it is the most profitable option, or so far it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OKIsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. If we can't get it right here
We won't be going elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. We can get it right here and we have in the past. Google CELSS.
Expanding it on a society wide scale is not necessary on Earth, on Mars it would be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. You can't blame the wind turbines for the agriculture that was there before.
But the idea that wind farms are not ever built on pristine environments is nonsense, it's happening. In places where you couldn't even build a house because the federally protected viewshed would have been damaged. They just changed their definition of what constitutes a viewshed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. Yes, many plans for massive wind farms rape the land.
They change the local environment by laying transmission lines and access roads, by felling trees. There's a reason the Steens project is opposed by the Auburn Society of Oregon. And there's a reason that the Steens project is building 3 104 turbine wind farms, it allows them to go under the radar as far as environmental protection is concerned.

Wind farms don't significantly add to the raping of the land on agricultural plots, but they most certainly do when they are put on pristine federally protected land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larry L. Burks Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
50. Go Gravity or Go Broke
The manipulation of gravity is what we want and what we need.

Come and check out my web page on the manipulating of gravity.

www.ufoworkshop.0catch.com

If you want to see them jump out of their skin. Start talking about the manipulation of gravity.

Nothing cheaper. Nothing cleaner. The all time winner and still champion. Gravity

Larry L. Burks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
25. wow that was a waste of time...well i did learn something.
bobby is really good at doing 10th grade c level research and writing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Christopher Calder Donating Member (61 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
26. Renewable Energy Leads to Food Supply Collapse
The greatest threat to US national security is not terrorism, Iran, or North Korea, but global overpopulation combined with our government's counterproductive interest in "renewable energy." The public has been misled into believing that renewable energy is a good thing, but the provable facts show just the opposite. Hobbits may be able to live poetically, generating energy from the wind, the sun, and the soil. The evidence shows that real human beings living in an industrialized civilization need highly concentrated nonrenewable energy to survive.

Renewable Energy Leads to Food Supply Collapse

Renewable energy schemes other than hydroelectric power take up too much land area and produce far too little energy to be of any economic value. Biofuels are the worst disaster of the 21st century, causing the starvation deaths of millions of people worldwide by displacing food production. Biofuel farming erodes topsoil, causes water pollution and water shortages, skyrockets the cost of fertilizer, and has accelerated global warning by increasing the release of greenhouse gases. Nitrogen fertilizers used to grow biofuel crops unleash large amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas estimated to be 296 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Indonesia is now the third largest emitter of carbon dioxide, because burning down forests to grow biofuels releases their carbon content into the atmosphere. Liquid biofuels made from switchgrass, wood chips, or food products are so costly and inefficient to manufacture that they provide little, if any, net energy gain, and cellulosic ethanol is even more expensive to produce than corn ethanol. William Jaeger, an Oregon Science University agricultural economics professor who has studied biofuels extensively, spoke out against biofuel production to the Oregon State Legislature and stated that "Given currently available technologies it is difficult to see the net contribution of biofuels rising above 1% of our current fossil fuel energy consumption – for either Oregon or the U.S."

Wind power sounds like a good idea until you discover that to produce the energy output of just one automobile engine you need a Godzilla sized wind turbine that costs a small fortune and kills birds and bats by the thousands. Wind and sunlight are highly diffuse phenomena, so collecting their energy will always require monster sized artificial structures covering an impossibly large amount of land area to replace the concentrated energy content of fossil fuels. Wind power is a useful way to pump irrigation water, and solar panels are a responsible way to power a few light bulbs in a remote vacation cabin, but they are both terribly inefficient ways to power an entire nation. Humans need affordable, reliable power 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, not just when the wind blows and the sun shines. T. Boone Pickens claims that building wind turbines in America will create many "green jobs," but a study of Spain's energy program found that for every new job created by state funded wind power schemes, 2.2 jobs were lost due to higher energy costs, and each new wind power job cost almost $2,000,000. in government subsidies.

Advanced civilization demands the use of highly concentrated nonrenewable forms of energy. It is currently politically correct to condemn fossil fuels as evil, but if humans never used fossil fuels there would be no modern medicine, no efficient transportation system, no electronics or modern conveniences, and no large scale human food supply. In a fossil fuel free world we would be stuck in a primitive society based on subsistence farming, domestic animal grazing, hunting and fishing. That may sound like wholesome bucolic fun until you realize that the average human lifespan would be somewhere between 20 to 35 years, and the total world population would be a billion people at most.

The human food supply was built on highly concentrated fossil fuel energy and cannot be maintained and expanded as needed with weak and inefficient renewable energy schemes. It takes enormous amounts of energy to produce food, and in the largest sense one could say that food equals energy and energy equals food. The higher we pump up energy costs with renewable energy, the higher the price we pay for food. Food price inflation has caused climbing death rates around the world, and it is currently estimated that approximately 20,000 children die of malnutrition and related illness every day. The humane way to curb world population growth is to provide universal family planning education and financial incentives for people to have fewer children, not through the intentional starvation of the poor.

It is a mathematically provable fact that the only energy source that is big enough and concentrated enough to practically replace our vast fossil fuel energy reservoir is nuclear power, and carbon free nuclear energy is our only hope for limiting greenhouse gas emissions. The United States Congress is planning to legislate high taxes on CO2 emissions, but if we do not have sufficient nuclear energy capacity to provide us with carbon free energy, such draconian tax schemes will collapse our economy. Instead of taxing already expensive energy and food, our leaders should reduce the red tape required to build nuclear power plants and limit lawsuits against power plant construction.

France relies heavily on nuclear power and has the cleanest air and lowest electricity rates in Europe. Denmark built over 6,000 expensive wind turbines as a minor supplement to its energy grid, and now has the highest electric rates in Europe, about double what the average American pays. Denmark has been unable to shut down a single fossil fuel power plant as a result of embracing wind power as they need inherently dirty coal burning power plants as backup when the wind stops blowing. France has significantly reduced its carbon emissions, but Denmark has only increased its greenhouse gas emissions, up 36% in 2006 alone. The Chair of Energy Policy in Denmark has branded wind power "a terribly expensive disaster." Solar power is even more expensive than wind power and you get absolutely no solar power at night.

You often hear unjustified scare stories about nuclear power, but it has a far better safety record than any fossil fuel and will not produce the kind of massive ecological and food supply destruction caused by biofuels, wind, and solar power schemes. Nuclear power is flexible and can be used to produce superior quality synthetic gasoline and jet fuel using carbon dioxide sucked right out of the atmosphere. Nuclear power can even be used to produce synthetic fertilizers, which currently require large amounts of natural gas to create.

Nuclear power is safe, reliable, carbon free, takes up very little space, and does not displace food production. There are no problem free energy sources, but all of the well known negatives of nuclear power can be addressed and corrected by responsible design and policies. We cannot make the sun shine 24 hours a day or the wind blow all of the time, so their diffuse and intermittent nature makes them a cost ineffective dead end investment. For information on 100% meltdown proof thorium powered nuclear reactors that do not produce long-lived radioactive waste or contribute to nuclear weapons proliferation, see: http://thorium.50webs.com

Geothermal energy is a valuable asset that may some day satisfy as much as 10% of our nation’s energy needs, but strictly speaking geothermal is not a renewable energy source because hot geothermal wells eventually run cold. The United States Government subsidizes wind power over 14 times as much as nuclear power, and over 93 times as much as the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas. Environmentalist are blocking natural gas production, geothermal power plants, nuclear reactor construction, and even some wind power projects because of the visual and sound pollution created by legions of noisy, gargantuan wind turbines despoiling the landscape.

Obviously, the United States needs massive amounts of new energy to survive, so unless we adopt responsible energy polices that face facts honestly, the USA has no positive economic future. Our mathematically impossible attempts to replace the highly concentrated energy of fossil fuels with the inherently weak and diffuse energy of wind, solar, and biofuels will cripple our economy and lead to a dramatic, lethal shrinking of the human food supply.

For scientific details, see "The biofuel hoax is causing a world food crisis!" at:

http://biofuel.50webs.com


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
45. Ethanol isn't a "renewable energy" source, it is a form of stored energy
Ethanol requires input energy, so it is only going to be a small part of the final mix. Your "analysis" is nothing more than a conglomeration of right wing think tank talking points. The below analysis incorporates all the externalities associated with all the energy options we have available to us. You can download the entire paper at the second link.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
27. Transmission lines are the silent killer.
Over 10 million bird deaths every year would be added by the low end of transmission line expansion. The amount of forest needed to be felled, I don't even want to contemplate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
35. He's cherrypicking facts...

Since when did land mass requirments become the criteia for identifying green energy? And note that he does not include hydroelectric power or offshore wind turbines in the discussion, both of which are renewable, pollution-free, and use virtually no land mass. The existence of wind-turbines does not necessariy preclude the use of land for other productive purposes, such as farming. Solar panels can be put on roofs--I haven't seen that done yet with nuke plants, coal mines, or oil wells. True, large scale solar generators require land mass, but they tend to be in areas, such as the desert, that were not in productive use.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. hydroelectric power uses virtually no land mass?
You are aware that massive reservoirs do not appear next to massive vertical drops naturally in nature. The combination is necessary for hydroelectric power. The reservoirs you see behind a hydro-electric damn are either 100% man-made or are artificially expanding a natural reservoirs by a substantial margin.

In terms of land use hydro-electric is the worst. However they are very valuable in their ability to deliver power only when needed and also absorb excess power from the grid (pump storage).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Sorry, I should have clarified that I meant micro-hydro
using underwater turbines and/or sloughs rather than dams. I live on a river on which all the dams are being removed but the generating power will be replaced with small projects like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. All the generating power?
micro-hydro is great but can it replace the amount of power produced by major hydro-electrics.

Also the grid needs storage and the only cost effective storage system to date is pumped storage hydro-electric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue Meany Donating Member (986 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. In thiscase we have small dams being replaced by relatively
large-scale micro-hydro that generates about the same amount. A typcal project might power 1800-2000 residences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Thats good to here.
There are lots of small damns in this country and usually they don't have a large enough body of water behind them to be effective. The most effective damns have oversized generators and thus can vary output as needed. That combined with pumped-storage makes them very versatile at balancing supply & demand (especially in a low carbon world).

Small damns not so much. So if they can be broken and replaced with micro-hydro along the run of the river than that is great.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Of course he is.
We all do that, it's just real obvious here. As I said in the OP this is not exactly a scholarly treatise. It's a hit piece.

See joshcryer's comments above regarding the placement of wind turbines in "non-productive" land. I have a friend who is on the board of directors of a British Columbia wind farm that's being built in a section of virgin forest on a mountain ridge. Complete with access roads and transmission rights-of-way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 07:28 PM
Response to Original message
42. their "Five Myths" bullshit
every time I've read the 'Five Myths' it was this kind of CRAP.
I want to quit the Sunday Post but I actually make a few bucks more than the subscription from the coupons that come with it. Probably like a $5 difference.. I should just drop them, because they still print that George Will's thoughtful essays :eyes: :puke: :puke: :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
49. Just gotta loave that statement about batteries
But the same unreliability of electric car batteries that flummoxed Thomas Edison persists today.

The ignorance on display in that statement is rather stunning. I wonder if the author owns a cell phone, and knows anything about the battery that makes it work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-25-10 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
52. Vile PR crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC