Greens vs Green Energy

Locutus
#1
via: Old Green: Clean Energy (external - login to view)

Old Green: Clean Energy—New Green: No Energy



In the wake of the Solyndra scandal, green energy companies have been losing friends left and right, but at least they could count on support from loyal greens—or maybe not (external - login to view):
Two environmental groups in April filed suit to block an energy project they said would seriously harm the local ecosystem.
It wasn’t a coal plant, or an oil refinery, or a nuclear reactor. It was a wind farm — the very sort of “clean” energy environmentalists champion as an alternative to dirty traditional supplies. . . .

But national and local environmental groups are fighting to block or delay many solar plants, wind farms, hydropower and biomass plants and other forms of “clean” energy, along with new transmission lines needed to bring that energy to customers.

The effect, observers say, is to slow green energy growth. Even if renewable production rose at three times the overall energy output pace, it would still make up just 16% of domestic supplies by 2035, from 10% now, according to the Energy Department.

For years, the green argument was something like this: If only we can replace fossil fuels with cleaner, renewable energy sources, we can enjoy our current standard of living without endangering the environment. Now it appears some greens have advanced the argument to a brand new phase: It’s as if they’ve replaced a green energy policy with a no-energy policy.
Good luck with that.






Case in point:


Two environmental groups in April filed suit to block an energy project they said would seriously harm the local ecosystem.

It wasn't a coal plant, or an oil refinery, or a nuclear reactor. It was a wind farm — the very sort of "clean" energy environmentalists champion as an alternative to dirty traditional supplies.

But the Portland Audubon Society and Oregon Natural Desert Association say a wind farm on Oregon's Steens Mountain, along with needed access roads and transmission lines, would threaten eagles, sage grouse and bighorn sheep and call it (external - login to view) the "antithesis" of "responsible renewable energy development."

Also in April, an appeals court took up a lawsuit seeking to stop a 399-megawatt, 3,200-acre solar power plant in Panoche Valley, 130 miles southeast of San Francisco. Environmentalists say it will harm the endangered blunt-nosed lizard and kangaroo rat.

"No one disputes the necessity for solar energy," the green groups' attorney told the court, but "it is improper on this site."

Environmentalists are openly hostile to oil, coal and nuclear energy. And while some had backed natural gas as a "bridge fuel," opposition has soared as a U.S. supply glut makes gas far cheaper.

But national and local environmental groups are fighting to block or delay many solar plants, wind farms, hydropower and biomass plants and other forms of "clean" energy, along with new transmission lines needed to bring that energy to customers.

The effect, observers say, is to slow green energy growth. Even if renewable production rose at three times the overall energy output pace, it would still make up just 16% of domestic supplies by 2035, from 10% now, according to the Energy Department.


more greenitis:

Do Greens Have A None-Of-The-Above Energy Policy? - Investors.com (external - login to view)
 
beaker
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Ddoes it surprise anyone that anything that is touted as green does not necessarily meet the criteria set by conservancy groups, nature clubs, agricultural land protection organizations, wildlife associations, fisheries groups, forest land people, all of whom have different priorities? It would be so much simpler to ridicule those damned "environmentalists" if they would just conform to your opinion of them

If we aren't careful we, us damned environmentalists, will force the corporate investors to start thinking for themselves, instead of just about themselves and how they can make a quick buck.

This article expresses it beautifully, My word, they finally get us investors on side and we're all environmentalists now, etc. and they start complaining because our "clean" energy projects are screwing up the environment. WHAT MORE DO THEY WANT?

Try developing an alternative, renewable, clean energy source that can happen where you live.
 
petros
#3


Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Try developing an alternative, renewable, clean energy source that can happen where you live.

Do you have my numbers yet? Or or you going to let me keep calling the idea a bust?
 
beaker
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Do you have my numbers yet? Or or you going to let me keep calling the idea a bust?

It isn't a question of me letting you do anything, the amount of effort that you put into the care of your money, the use you make of the energy that you already have, plus our conversation about setting you up with a business-like alternative energy scenario, are indications that you think, and that might be the wrong word, that you are unalterably correct, and will therefore continue to call the idea a bust. In such a circumstance it would be pointless to waste more time on it.

The chart in the linked article from the OP that shows land use for windmills versus other energy forms is clearly a red herring. Windmills take a tiny fraction of the land projected there. The space between the mills can be used for a variety of functions, including natural ecosystem.
 
petros
#5
Prove it. Show the numbers.
 
JLM
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Prove it. Show the numbers.

Some people talk "green" a lot, others turn off lights, dry the laundry on the outside clothes line and walk to the corner store!
 
petros
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Some people talk "green" a lot, others turn off lights, dry the laundry on the outside clothes line and walk to the corner store!

I do those things to save money, not to be green.
 
JLM
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I do those things to save money, not to be green.

If you are saving money you are more than likely being "green". I'm not sure if loading up cyberspace with multiple threads on this somewhat tiring subject is being particularly green & besides we are only going to make a tiny dent until G.M., Ford etc. start turning out vehicles that run on chicken manure.
 
petros
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If you are saving money you are more than likely being "green". I'm not sure if loading up cyberspace with multiple threads on this somewhat tiring subject is being particularly green & besides we are only going to make a tiny dent until G.M., Ford etc. start turning out vehicles that run on chicken manure.

Personal vehicles aren't a big issue. Ships are the biggest polluters in the transport sector.
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Personal vehicles aren't a big issue. Ships are the biggest polluters in the transport sector.

When you figure there are probably 10,000 vehicles for every ship?
 
petros
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

When you figure there are probably 10,000 vehicles for every ship?

Yup.
 
JLM
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Yup.

I should have known better knowing your wisdom is beyond reproach!
 
beaker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

If you are saving money you are more than likely being "green". I'm not sure if loading up cyberspace with multiple threads on this somewhat tiring subject is being particularly green & besides we are only going to make a tiny dent until G.M., Ford etc. start turning out vehicles that run on chicken manure.

Saving money is a big part of being green. And you are right, vehicles are big users of Carbon energy sources. But I don't think we can rely on GM and Ford to help us get back on track. Not too long ago one of the suburban cities around Victoria decided to make a step forward to encourage electric cars. Unfortunately they didn't give much thought to where the electricity was coming from. To be consistent they should have brought in regulations that would encourage people to generate their own power at home. We need a government that is capable of looking beyond their noses, in order to tie the various aspects of energy and its use together.
 
petros
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

To be consistent they should have brought in regulations that would encourage people to generate their own power at home. .

But that's not economically feasible or a reliable source is it?
 
JLM
#15
I just got to thinking, Petros from what you are saying shipping oil overseas is about the ungreenist thing we could be doing. Pipe it across Bering Strait?

Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

Saving money is a big part of being green. And you are right, vehicles are big users of Carbon energy sources. But I don't think we can rely on GM and Ford to help us get back on track. Not too long ago one of the suburban cities around Victoria decided to make a step forward to encourage electric cars. Unfortunately they didn't give much thought to where the electricity was coming from. To be consistent they should have brought in regulations that would encourage people to generate their own power at home. We need a government that is capable of looking beyond their noses, in order to tie the various aspects of energy and its use together.

You want to generate power cheap? Install a 1000' long treadmill in kids' playgrounds with a chocolate bar at the far end! Of course there would be screaming from those idiots against child labour!
 
beaker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

But that's not economically feasible or a reliable source is it?

If you define your terms it might help to understand your question.
 
petros
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I just got to thinking, Petros from what you are saying shipping oil overseas is about the ungreenist thing we could be doing. Pipe it across Bering Strait?

Kitimat is 3 days closer to Asia than Vancouver by ship. Moving freight as efficiently as possible is what the Asia-Pacific Gateway Corridor is all about. Moving goods in and out of Western Canada on our current 100 year old infrastructure is horrible but some people want us to stay in the 19th and 20th centuries.
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

If you define your terms it might help to understand your question.

I understand it, you have to burn something to produce power. Fossil fuels are expensive, wood is a diminishing resource and most home owners probably shouldn't be fooling around with any nuclear.
 
petros
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

If you define your terms it might help to understand your question.

When are you going to cough up proof I can make money and supply myself like you claimed I can?
 
beaker
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You want to generate power cheap? Install a 1000' long treadmill in kids' playgrounds with a chocolate bar at the far end! Of course there would be screaming from those idiots against child labour!

install one in every government office and cubicle.... they could generate enough to keep the computers going, themselves warm, and a minimum of lights going. Talk about working with renewable energy.
 
JLM
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Kitimat is 3 days closer to Asia than Vancouver by ship. Moving freight as efficiently as possible is what the Asia-Pacific Gateway Corridor is all about. Moving goods in and out of Western Canada on our current 100 year old infrastructure is horrible but some people want us to stay in the 19th and 20th centuries.

That thought did cross my mind. Is it enough?
 
petros
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

That thought did cross my mind. Is it enough?

When you add in all the benefits of the gateway? It's light years ahead.
 
B00Mer
#23
I think a better title for the thread would be "green energy vs environmentalist"

Family Security Matters (external - login to view)

dailycaller.com/2011/03/28/ar...gy-production/ (external - login to view)
 
Cabbagesandking
#24
The posts are confusing the generation of electricity and the use of fossil fuels for transportation. Studies show that by 2030 all new generation can be done by wind, water and solar by 2030 and all generation by 2050.

That is globally.

Replacing other carbon sources is an entirely different prospect. However, it can probably be done in the same time frame and peak oil and the bursting of the "fracking bubble" make it likely that it will be.
 
beaker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

When are you going to cough up proof I can make money and supply myself like you claimed I can?

As I mentioned earlier, "If we aren't careful we, us damned environmentalists, will force the corporate investors to start thinking for themselves, instead of just about themselves and how they can make a quick buck."
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

The posts are confusing the generation of electricity and the use of fossil fuels for transportation. Studies show that by 2030 all new generation can be done by wind, water and solar by 2030 and all generation by 2050.

That is globally.

That is malarky.

Quote: Originally Posted by beakerView Post

As I mentioned earlier, "If we aren't careful we, us damned environmentalists, will force the corporate investors to start thinking for themselves, instead of just about themselves and how they can make a quick buck."

Ever think that maybe those inviolved in punting panels and wind gennys are milking the masses for profits and really don't give a **** about anything but money?
 
beaker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

That is malarky.


Ever think that maybe those inviolved in punting panels and wind gennys are milking the masses for profits and really don't give a **** about anything but money?


If you read my first post in this thread you may see that we are agreed on that. Odd eh?
 
petros
#28
Speak of odd. What are the odds that NG companies, oil companies, coal power companies, hydro electric companies, wind energy companies, nuclear energy companies are in competetion and will do or say just about anything to push their products?
 
beaker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CabbagesandkingView Post

The posts are confusing the generation of electricity and the use of fossil fuels for transportation. Studies show that by 2030 all new generation can be done by wind, water and solar by 2030 and all generation by 2050.

That is globally.

Replacing other carbon sources is an entirely different prospect. However, it can probably be done in the same time frame and peak oil and the bursting of the "fracking bubble" make it likely that it will be.

I introduced the electric vehicle to the discussion to show the inconsistency of people who expect environmentalists to be happy that someone is doing anything at all about the environmental problems associated with carbon based fuels. The OP tries to give the impression that environmentalists are wrong to consider the environment just because some proponent thinks they have a green project.
 
petros
#30
Are you saying wind gennys are bad for the environment?
 

Similar Threads

12
McGuinty’s green energy disaster
by Locutus | Dec 12th, 2011
4
Liberals’ green energy strategy blasted by auditor
by Retired_Can_Soldier | Dec 7th, 2011
5
Ontario Tories vow to kill green energy deal
by mentalfloss | May 12th, 2011
5
Green Energy Act
by scoops11 | Jun 12th, 2009
no new posts