+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    7,767

    Green Energy Mythology

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...ergy-myth.html



    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.
    Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.


    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.

    [T]he very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?


    4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.

    Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge?


    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.
    Last edited by mumbles; 04-25-2010 at 09:49 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    6,557

    Re: Green Energy Mythology

    There a massive gaping hole in your moonbattery-fed opinion. Problems with new "green" technologies are not unique, any new technologies start out less cost effective than the current technologies.

    But when governments encourage investment in new technologies .... guess what happens?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Green Energy Mythology

    Where to begin on this silly monstrosity of ignorance. The amount of things they have wrong or purposely neglect is stupid. So in point form and with few sources. (I can provide them on request but since you are not going to read them anyway.)

    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.
    Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.
    Disrupts habitats a lot less than other technologies since it is mostly using farmer fields and rooftops Areas that have already been disrupted. There affect is also localized.

    A wind mill field has a duel purpose. It can also be used for farming and other practices..... A gas power plan cannot and produces vast amount of waste.

    Nukclear power is clearly better..... However they are expensive as hell to build. Wind has lower start up costs.

    Large scale Wind generators are placed in areas with high consistent wind and the wind doesnít stop blowing all the way across the country at once hence there is a constant flow of energy that can be expected.

    Wind also has the benefit of helping farm communities.


    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.
    These elements are not only found in china. China just happens to produce most of your goods. There are many other places that produced these things. You yourself can produce them.

    Last I checked china was less unsavoury than most of the middle east.


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

    [T]he very concept of a green job is not well defined. Is a job still green if it's created not by the market, but by subsidy or mandate? Consider the claims being made by the subsidy-dependent corn ethanol industry. Growth Energy, an industry lobby group, says increasing the percentage of ethanol blended into the U.S. gasoline supply would create 136,000 jobs. But an analysis by the Environmental Working Group found that no more than 27,000 jobs would be created, and each one could cost taxpayers as much as $446,000 per year. Sure, the government can create more green jobs. But at what cost?
    $446,000 / 27,000 people = $16 per job created.... I think the government made their money back in taxes from the now working people. (or at the very least not paying them unemployment)

    Steel workers are also considered part of the green collar job. Itís any job created by a green technology or industry. Kind like the auto industry. http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...809506,00.html
    4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.


    Those who believe that Detroit unplugged the electric car are mistaken. Electric cars haven't been sidelined by a cabal to sell internal combustion engines or a lack of political will, but by physics and math. Gasoline contains about 80 times as much energy, by weight, as the best lithium-ion battery. Sure, the electric motor is more efficient than the internal combustion engine, but can we depend on batteries that are notoriously finicky, short-lived and take hours to recharge?
    90% of people live less than 40 km from their work and that makes up 90% of their driving. Hybrids get the best of both worlds and vastly reduce gas used by using electric generation for a good portion of the drive.

    No matter how you look at it oil demand is greatly decreased.

    Technology has vastly increased as demand has increased. (itís called development and capitalism)


    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.
    You started off far behind and your population growth rate exceeds 2.5% (who ever heard of a statistic from 1980-2006?, most people would do this every 5 years not ever 26)

    Carbon emissions per capita

    United states. 19.48
    Canada 15.82 (25% less)
    United Kingdom 9.2 (50% less)

    In short you started out WAY WAY far behind and you are still far behind. Saying that you dropped faster than others percapita over the past 26 years is silly when you have 2x as far to drop.

    You have the highest carbon emissions of any major country on earth.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/en...ons-per-capita

    Itís about time you faced it mumbles. Technology advances. Ideas change and they will only change more rapidly. Anybody on earth can see the energy prices are sky rocketing around the globe. Most countries are in an energy crises. With finite resources it is far cheaper to produce more efficient items than it is to produce more power. Just like after the 1970 oil crisis cars got smaller. We are in the 2010 energy crises and oil shortage. Cars canít get much smaller.
    Last edited by Spector567; 04-26-2010 at 07:27 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. BEWARE SCAM Green energy solutions llc nicholasville, ky
    By scam_greenenergy solution in forum Internet Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-04-2014, 01:08 AM
  2. green card
    By jamaica in forum Internet Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-09-2011, 01:43 AM
  3. Green Win Network?
    By tellme in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 04-14-2011, 08:29 AM
  4. Dan Gets Green Scam
    By jkleiman in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 12:56 AM
  5. House of Green INT
    By kalevala in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2005, 09:00 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •