Going Green Doesn’t Work


Pages: 1 2

Going “green” is not going well. The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2010 forecast predicts fossil fuels will “continue to provide most of the energy consumed in the United States…” Only 6 percent of the “energy consumed by 2035 will be replaced by renewable fuel sources.” They will be principally wind and solar, for electricity and home heating, respectively, but with oil as our energy mainstay. Today,

nearly half of voters favor continued deepwater drilling in spite of the oil rig disaster that brought such serious environmental damage to Gulf of Mexico shorelines. “Some 80 percent of voters nationwide support offshore oil drilling…closer to shore,” a June 30 Rasmussen Poll reported.

President Obama’s ideologically-based decision to substitute alternative, green energy for oil is a romantic political choice which America will not see fulfilled for a more than a generation, if ever. But the President’s determination to drive toward other energy sources is seen in his decision to appeal Federal District Court of New Orleans’ ruling against the Administration’s six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf. As columnist Charles Krauthammer noted: “We haven’t run out of easily accessible sources of oil. We’ve been run off them by environmentalists. They prefer to dream green instead.”

Wind power has been hoisted up by Obama Administration wishful thinking as a major alternative power source despite its anemic potential. Take General Electric Company’s plan to build wind turbines on Lake Erie. “Projects like this would never get off the ground if it weren’t for massive tax breaks and government subsidies,” said a Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial blog. “But even then, wind power would be so costly that [the electric power company] wouldn’t touch it if it weren’t for the legal requirement that Ohio utilities buy 12.5 percent of their energy from ‘renewable resources,’ like wind, by 2025. The main argument for wind is that it is ‘green.’ It is not. Because wind blows irregularly, turbines run only about 30 percent of the time…. windpower will make money for companies like General Electric on the backs of taxpayers and ratepayers.”

Government subsidies for windmills and for GE come naturally to Obama. He and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt are buddies. Immelt is a presidential adviser. His company was likely the beneficiary of billions in green projectsas a major wind turbine maker. Immelt wrote his stockholders in 2009, the Obama Administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.” According to the Washington Examiner in March 4, 2009, an item in Obama’s budget for fiscal 2010 labeled ‘climate revenues’ and totaling $646 billion, inspired confidence in Immelt. On page 115 of Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget a chart showed forecasts, beginning in 2012, of billions of dollars a year in “climate revenues….by forcing companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases (and GE could benefit as possibly the only ‘secondary market trader of the credits). It would all be in the workings of “Cap and Trade” legislation passed by the House June 26, 2009. The legislation would place limits on greenhouse gases and require a massive switch to cleaner energy. The bill appears dead in the Senate. But, like ObamaCare–pronounced dead early this year–it, too, could rise from its political grave, and quite possibly will in a new form.

Pages: 1 2

  • therealend

    What color is going broke represented by? Vermillion?

  • George

    This propaganda just falls flat….like the "poor have it great in America" and "recycling is a wasteful leftist plot about guilt" articles…..or even the very strange "we're not running out of landfill space" article. Though I guess it does dovetail nicely with the "we'll never run out of fossil fuels" articles and the "global warming is a hoax" articles.

    “promote responsible domestic production of oil and natural gas.”

    Yes, but energy companies don't seem to understand the "responsible" part. They work cheap without much concern for the environment and the extra cost of responsiblitly is taken from people anyway in the form of pollution, disease and death….

    BTW: Everyone should see the documentary Gasland…before they think of natural gas as being "clean".

    • TLH

      Gasland? isn't that al gore's autobiography?

    • Sprinklerman

      George,
      I used to work in the electrical generation business. Nuclear by the way, which doesn't provide anywhere near the "carbon footprint" that so many people buy into. There has never been an accident in the US at a nuclear power plant that has lead to the death of anyone. But Greenpeace and other environmental groups still doesn't like it. Most of Western Europe have very successful nuclear power systems.

      Two problems with wind and solar;
      1. Pound for pound, the energy produced by these devices is significantly less than that provided by hydrocarbon and nuclear fuels.
      2. Solar and wind are not reliable energy supplies. There are vast areas of this country that can't depend upon these sources to provide electricity.

      End part 1

      • George

        The fact that wind can't replace all energy production tomorrow isn't a excuse. Of course it can't…no one says it can….this is about a slight move in the direction of renewal energy and those that make money off the status quo can't even have the suggestion.

    • Sprinklerman

      Lastly, while the earth may be warming, (although recent trends indicate differently) the cause of global warming is what is in doubt. I cannot believe that what I breath out and living plants use in photosynthesis to produce food for itself is what is causing global warming. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is necessary for life on earth…ALL LIFE. Most importantly, the only method being proposed by Al Gore and his followers to reduce this "pollutant" is a cap and trade system. If CO2 is the pollutant that others say that it is, how does a cap and trade system reduce CO2 emissions? How come I and others can't just plant trees and bushes?

      • George

        Yeah, but that's like saying…"global warming?…but it's cold!"…yeah, so you don't really understand the issue or the science. You also don't understand the basic concept of cap and trade….but it's OK…what you do think has got you confused and bitter and angry at Al Gore. There is a wealth of resources outside this cultic bubble to learn all about it. You can and should plant things….it's fun to cultivate things.

        • davarino

          What is the issue or the science George? Please fill us in since you are so informed.

          • George

            Haven't you misinformed and been misinformed enough by all the FPM articles on the subject? the astonished "WE EXHALE CO2…IT'S NATURAL!" meme isn't even an argument…it's as I said, like dispelling the work of climate scientists because you are cold in winter. Its some raw meat tossed down into the cultic pit.

            So no davarino…I don't want to do a bunch of research and write you a term paper. If I want to know what you think…I will check the FPM articles.

          • davarino

            Thats cause you got nothin. I agree, the exhale CO2 argument is rather lame, but you still got nothin

          • welldoneson

            George, nothing you've posted here makes any sense.
            Just straw-man arguments.

            I can tell you that here in B. C., for years the lefty enviromentalists urged us to get away from large scale hydroelectric and go with "run of the river" small scale generation. Now that we do that, the same environmentalists are AGAINST run of the river. Seems it needs roads and construction sites in wilderness areas. If you need more proof that these guys are full of shiite… how about the insistence in years gone by that we switch to biofuels like alcohol? Now they campaign worldwide against THAT, something about increasing the price of food grain.

            So which is is, are the greens putting forth stupid, ill-thought out alternatives and then seeing the error, or are they simply 'gain-saying whatever we do in order to keep the donations for their cause coming in?

            It's a trick question, Georgey… it's not one or the other, it's BOTH! Greenies' real motiviation is anti-capitalist politics, not the environment.

          • George

            Hmmm…well last I checked "greenie" and "greens" wasn't some big single group…it's your shorthand. I can't speak to whatever is going on with you locally…and because I don't buy the idea that all movement towards alternative energy is some communist plot doesn't mean I have to answer for every environmental kook out there.

            BTW…please look up what a strawman argument is…please.

  • Thunder

    Solar panels and wind turbines do not work constantly, thus maintenance costs exceed their output more often than we think.
    Stop putting money in that nonsense.

    • Grayzel

      I was involved in the Carter green energy rebates. I built, sold and installed passive and active solar hot water heaters and designed and built solar homes. As I visit these neighborhoods now I can not see a single product in use. The solar homes we built had solar green rooms attached with walls that came up from the basement to shut off the home from the glass area when temps in the room collector fell. Since all the solar and wind products require maintenance, I assume, that is why they are all non-functioning now . The only ones in service, that I know of, at this time are the collectors I built for my barn, milk house and home.

    • sherm

      correct….the amount of energy consumed in the construction of all the components exceeds the energy produced over the life of the turbine…therefore, net energy loss…

  • davarino

    This is what we get when we elect someone who thinks he knows everything. If he were smart he would consult scientists as to the usefullness of these "renewable" energy sources and realize there is no way they compete with oil. There is so much energy concentrated in oil that nothing come close except one. Can any of you lefties even get your mouth to say the word? You know what it is, but I think your head might explode if your mouth spoke this word. There is no way that wind and solar can replace the energy output of oil. I dont think it could happen even if you covered North America with solar panels and dotted the landscape with wind mills, but you non scientists keep believing and pay sudo-scientists to tell you the lie. Sure GE and Vestas will tell you whatever you want to hear, cause they love the business. I wont buy another GE product, because they make cheap crap anyway, but I dont want to help a company that hamstrings America just for profit.

    Oooo there is one of those other evil words you lefties hate, "profit". Now go dogpile GE because of evil profit. Ya right, as long as they do your bidding then profit is ok.

    NUCLEAR…..5 greenies heads just exploded hehehehe

    • George

      Well, there's no way to compete with it now. But this is like your grandfather arguing for the burning of wood. At some point we will have to stop burning the earth to get the released energy. That point is in the future….but we need to start working towards it now.

      As to the strawman of solar can't replace oil today…right now….no one is saying that. You're shadowboxing and fighting the future.

      • davarino

        Since you obviously are not a scientist you dont understand there is no way wind and solar will never replace oil or nuclear. You probably believe in perpetual motion machines as well, but there will never be such a device either, not unless magic comes into vogue. Your arguement sounds good but I can guarentee you that wind and solar will never replace oil and nuclear for their power output. There just is no way. Its not a matter of waiting for the future and maybe we will solve some mystery, there just is not that much energy per square foot from the sun, there just is not that much energy per square foot from wind. What you are saying is that some how scientists will be able to create more energy than what is actually there.

        Ok, say it just one more time so we can see just how ignorant you are.

        • George

          If it's up to people like you then we're f*cked. We'd still be debating the dangers of moving on from steam power.

          • davarino

            Oh ok so your going to stick with, "we just got to believe". Maybe the aliens will come down and show us how to time travel.

            You got nothin

          • davarino

            We are not debating the dangers of moving on from oil. We are saying there is no alternative to oil or nuclear. The alternative do not put out any where near the same amount of energy. Get it?

          • Kevin

            And again, to harp on the point, there were really no such arguments. There were a few who believed that going faster than 30 miles an hour was physically impossible for humans, but that had nothing to do with energy sources. And anyway, at the turn of the 20th Century, steam was still acquitting itself pretty well in the technological war against petrol; the Stanley Steamer was the first automobile to break 100 MPH.
            The "argument" was a very simple, pragmatic one; which kind of engine was more reliable and practical. Gas won, Diesel came in a distant second, and steam lost. Unless you count nuclear power generators, on land and sea, that is.

            The whole point of a free market based economic system is indeed relying on the type of people who think we're done for if we have to rely on each other. Democracy works the same way, really.

      • Kevin

        See George, here's the problem; granpa didn't argue about burning wood or not. People discovered coal and then oil, recognized the value in using them instead of trees, and began inventing ways to do it.

        The free market is based on a larger freedom. It is not perfect, obviously. But there was no central authority sending people hither and yon at its wise whims. People had ideas, and in certain places, largely Northern Europe, the liberty to benefit from them.

        There is no reason whatsoever for us to be planning for a future we won't be here for. If we raise our children properly, and they the same, then our grandchildren will be quite capable of solving whatever energy issues they face. The command economy didn't fail because the Soviets were bad at it, but rather because they were good at it; it's a bad idea that just doesn't work.

    • Stan

      George: "I never said that solar and wind is a replacement for oil and nuclear!" Others: "Well what is a replacement for oil and nuclear?" George: "Something that hasn't been invented yet but we should keep looking."

      Me: "While we're looking for a viable replacement, we need to keep using oil and nuclear right?" George? George? George!!!???

  • owyheewine

    An analysis of huge wind farms has revealed that they actually INCREASE natural gas usage. The analysis revealed that the gas turbines needed to provide constant power when the wind doesn't blow operate at a low efficiency when they are constantly starting and stopping. If they were to be the base load, they would run at a very high efficiency and would burn less gas than they currently do.
    Of course solar panels don't produce anything when the sun goes down, so they too must be backed up. and gas turbines look like the choice there too.(GE is the world's biggest maker of gas turbine generators). Batteries will never be efficient enough to store energy economically.
    Too bad that the mention of the laws of Thermodynamics cause the public's eyes to glaze over. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of them could see the folly of green energy.

    • George

      Batteries will never be efficient enough to store energy economically.

      Really… never? Let's stop trying. I know you aren't doing anything about it….but let's all stop trying to do anything about it. Let's burn all the oil untill it's all gone and go eat some fried butter…YEE HAW!

      • owyheewine

        The most efficient battery, the lithium ion battery uses an ion of Lithium, molecular weight 6, to store 1 electron, molecular weight 0.001. It don't get no better, Jack. er George. Those pesky laws of physics get you every time.

        • davarino

          Hehe dude this guy obviously doesnt understand energy cannot be created from nothing, but I guess he lives in a world of magic where anything can happen.

          George, did you get that? Again you are getting schooled. It doesnt getting any better than that. Energy does not come from nothing, you cannot create it. If you only have so much energy to deal with, you can only capture so much and that is it. I am trying to help you so when you go to some other site and try to act like you know what you are talking about you will seem intelligent.

          If you have X amount of energy from the sun per square foot per second that is all you can capture, period. Even if solar panel manufacturers could capture all the power from the sun per square foot per second it still doesnt come close to oil or nuclear.

          Go pound your bongo drums somewhere else dude.

          • George

            OK, OK…so I'm ignorant because I think there are yet undiscovered methods to generate and store energy…for being under the crazy perception that at some point, we will run out of fossil fuels. I'm afraid one of the largest deposits in this hemisphere is currently gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. Other than that thing, we (the US) have about 3-4% of whats left…we are going into the deep ocean, not because environmentalist have driven us there but because the time of the low hanging fruit is already coming to an end. Need is rising around the world and will continue to rise. I know…crazy…looney stuff.

            So Davarino and you both slip in nuclear power…but that isn't the issue. I don't have a problem with nuclear power…other than all the problems…between building the plants and trying to get rid of the waste…they work great…the former taking close to a decade and the latter taking 1000 years or so….and they use a lot of water.

            The argument that alternative energy can and needs to replace all other energy production in the next couple of years…is a strawman. The idea that alternative energy in any form will NEVER replace the burning of fossil fuels or nuclear power seems shortsighted.

            The argument that we will invent a magic, perpetual-motion machine energy is a wacky, over-the-top strawman that davarino introduced because he's a spiteful d*ck.

            The argument that the lithium ion battery is simply the limit of energy storage and nothing better is possible based on the laws of physics is also very shortsighted. Even a cursory glance about the internet will show you advancements on this front. The "battery" of the future may not be a "battery" like we think of them now…

            And no davarino..I'm not writing you a term paper on advancements in energy storage…get your lazy ass to google.

            The argument that we can't transmit alternative power over the crappy wires on poles we have all over the country because of strength and density issues…also seems short sighted. Is there no other way to transmit power? I would guess none of you are inventors.

            Davarino says: "Energy does not come from nothing, you cannot create it."

            Again with stupid arguments no one is making davarino…you're not pounding on evidence…you're bashing me with your stupid conclusions. What you think about the future is about as useless as a dead dog.

            Years ago, when people dreamed of data storage being very very tiny…did you yell and scream that there was only so much room on the magnetic tape…so it will NEVER happen?

            So for some of you…if you are really so cynical that you think we are doing the best we can currently…and there are no advances in our energy future…then of course any "green" intitative is a waste of time.

            If you think that we can advance out of fossil fuels, then the issue becomes how…where is the money going to come from. In America, the market supposedly should create clean energy if that's what people want….but that's really simplistic isn't it. You think BP or any energy giant is really doing all they can to put themselves out of business? I'm afraid the major energy advances of the future will not come from oil company R&D.

            So that argument can't take place unless you think we have some hope for the future. Davarino seems to think we're f*cked.

            So that's about as clear as I can be. Thanks for all the self righteous dust kicking.

          • davarino

            So strawman is the way to go now? Every time you get backed into a corner just yell strawman.

            I am not the one proposing a perpetual motion machine, you are. You seem to think that some day in the future we will be able to collect more energy from the sun than what it puts out. I have no problem with alternative energy if it has a promise, but they are throwing money at current technologies that cannot do the job. If you want, keep doing research on current technologies till they are viable, but the existing technologies will not put a dint in current needs.

            If you think its such a thing of the future you should invest in these alternative energy sources. It might work out for you in the short run, until the fad wears off and everyone realizes these technologies will never produce what we need. I would love nothing more than to quit buying oil from the middle east so we could give them the finger.

          • George

            Well you hit every post. Grats. I thought you would look around a bit and do some research of your own…but no.

            "I am not the one proposing a perpetual motion machine, you are."

            You're just a intellectual dishonest poster. The amount of collectable "energy" available via the sun was a point you brought up and keep trying to give me…like the argument that energy can be "created" from nothing….yours. When you take someone's argument (and originally my argument was that this propaganda falls flat) and you exaggerate it to something silly or stupid that you are prepared to argue against…that's a strawman. I would think you would know the concept by now, but you don't seem to recognize it. Giving your dishonest methods the proper name is not an attack.

            Look at all the space and time your bs takes up. It gets in the way. I don't know why you are such a hateful, nasty little b*astard…but maybe you're uncomfortable or just old.

            Now, you're fond of giving assignments, so I will give you one. Just find one way to get collect more energy from solar panels and I will be so impressed. It doesn't even have to work immediately…just one possible way to vault the barrier you have put on it. And if actual implementation seems too huge and sci-fi for your cynical mind…think of the hoover damn.

          • davarino

            Just to give you an insider investing tip. The solution is going to be nuclear and something else. We could generate electricity with nuclear, and charge our golf carts with that power. I guess if everyone is driving golf carts then collisions wont be that bad.

            We could keep using natural gas in different forms, but solar and wind will never cut it. You could use them to suppliment if it makes you feel good, but it will never supply more than a fraction of our needs. The only breakthrough might be to make it cheaper, but thats it.

            How the hell are you able to post such a long comment?

            Thanks for playing

      • Wdwrkr

        George, you SEEM to be saying that we don't know what the future sources of energy will be, but, we (gov't) needs to make big-time investments in research to get there. Well, as an engineer that did my MS thesis on solar energy many years ago, it seems we have progressed very little over the past 20 years for all the $ billions spent developing alternative energy technologies. There have been advances, but, they are meager for all the $$'s expended. If anything, the vast amounts of $$'s spent on research has demonstrated the meager limits of alternative energy technologies. In fact, if alternative energy research to date is a guide, it shows these alternate technologies are not affordable.

        At this point, I believe we would be MUCH better off re-directing the $$billions spent on alternative energy, to research on improving efficiency/cleanliness of existing oil/gas/coal sources. We are much more likely to solve the the emissions problems of carbon-based fuel sources than to discover/develop new sources of energy.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/topperj topperj

    All the "green" (and that word makes me want to scream!) initiatives are a sham. None of these so-called alternative fuels will ever replace fossil fuels. The goal of these anti-energy zealots is to make the Unites States Africa. No energy, no life. Government has never been bigger in this country. This is anathema to everything this country was found on and stands (stood?) for. The bigger the government, the less the freedom. The bigger the government, the smaller the private sector. This administration, founded on Marxist and Communist principles, is taking the country down the path to serfdom and certain irrelevance. History shows us this will all end badly if allowed to continue and fester. Who will stand up the the czars in our administration?

    • George

      Yeah that's right topperj….and next they'll come for your precious bodily fluids.

      • groovimus

        George your arguments will never get past this: Wind and solar are extremely low power density. In other words, considering pound per pound of equipment, and acre by acre of land required for installations, AND the transmission lines required to gather the power from the remote installations, make these sources of power about a factor of 10 too low as measured by power density, for large scale power production. Add to this the fact that routine maintenence and repair operations are geographically spread out, makes the low power density attribute unsurmountable for the purposes of realistic economics. Just helpin you face reality here. These uneconomic projects will forever require subsidies from the taxpayers for the stated reasons, forever draining our economy, and hurting our country's competitiveness and well-being. (electrical engineer writing this)

        • George

          Well…if you think the "plan" is to cover the globe with current windmills or current solar panels and replace all other sources of energy…then your caution is well founded. That would be pretty stupid.

          There are lots of other alternative energy possibilities, the focus of this article is on wind imparticular and they still have to avoid some things and cherry pick facts to drive home the slimy point that it;s all a communist conspiracy or something…and I like the picture of the windmill in flames…nice touch.

          So the current, maintstream state of wind and energy power isn't really the issue…advances won't come until we start turning the wheel slightly in that direction.

      • davarino

        George, you are a what? What kind of scientist? Engineer? Communications major? Teaching degree? Let me guess, you had a course in "college" about global warming and now you are an expert.

      • No Comrade

        Typical ignoramus response. When you haven't got anything intelligent to say, be ridiculous. You can't even imagine how stupid you look.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

    If the goal is to restrict or destroy US economic output in general, and US industrial output in particular, dp economic and energy policy should work great.

  • A. Ray

    Some have addressed energy density per square foot or cubic feet. Can this be expressed in BTUs (British Thermal Units?) ? How many BTUs of energy are in a cubic foot of gasoline versus a cubic foot of sunlight? Can this be expressed in layman's terms? Can the area of a solar panel (producing electricity the most efficiently now, best scenario) be expressed comparably? Or would WATTS be a better expression for comparison?

    • groovimus

      Here's a way to look at it as power density. One square meter of midday sun impinging perpendicularly on 1 square meter is roughly 1 kilowatt of available power. Since photovoltaic cells are pretty inefficient, maybe 150 watts can be converted to electric power. Running a solar heat engine may get you 250 watts. That same square meter would be large enough to place a 15 kW generator including fuel tank. So the power density of hydrocarbons could be said to have 100 times the power density of photovoltaic cells at midday. Lets say the sun shines 12 hours a day. This in itself reduces the power density of solar cells to 1/200 of hydrocarbons. Now since the sunlight doesn't fall perpendicularly all day long, another factor of 2/pi enters into this. Now we are down to solar cells having a power density of 1/(pi x 100) or 1/314 of hydrocarbons. And it gets worse because of potential cloud cover and dirt on the cells. So lets just say 1/500 power density. So if a typical power plant takes up 1/2 square mile, a solar plant would take up 250 square miles for equivalent power output.

    • Maurice

      A,

      This is VERY simple: 4 ounces of gasoline, under the right conditions, has the potential to KILL every student in an average sized class room.

      Four cubic feet of sunshine coming through the classroom window on a rainy day will distract them for the rest of the block, making their time in class a waste!

  • Nina

    So what you all think is to go on as usual. Drill baby, drill. So things like the present disaster notwitstanding, we should do what we have been doing for decades. And when we finish with our coasts which will be uninhibitable, then we will still be dependant on our ''riends" in Saudi Arabia, etc. Is that what you want? We can land on the moon, have stations in space, but we have to be enslaved to a twentieth century power source? Had the people of the last century been thinking thus, we would still have coal powered trains. Because you don't like Obama, it doesn't mean that everything he stands for is bad. The time has come to think about alternative sources of energy, and quick. We don't have much time. Yes, there will be mistakes. It will be more expensive. But in time the American genius will find ways. And then we will be independant and have new industries which will do for the labor force what the automobile industry did for the twentieth century workers. Of course, if many like you here will be obstinate, just because the liberals want it , and stay in their old ways and force the country to stagnate, then we'll be in for very hard times indeed.

    • chris jones

      Nina may have a point! It's actually crossed my little right-wing mind that a whopping big gasoline tax, for instance, might be a great idea. I know, I know, but wouldn't it be great if they could viablize some alternate energy sources and, most importantly, end our dangerous dependence on the Saudis and the Venezuelans and the Iranians and the rest of the long list of little Adolph Hitlers that seem to all have most of the oil and seem to have us by the family jewels. So yeah, good point. Just because the lefties want something doesn't neccessarily mean it's a bad plan. Just usually.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/welldoneson welldoneson

      Nina, we don't need to deep water drill, there are all kinds of reserves that are easily accessible. Environmentalists, with millions of dollars of donation money and the help of true-believer legislators, have helped put that off limits.

      The Obama admin. changed Bush admin. regulations to encourage deep sea drilling. They glossed over safety shortcomings. They even awarded BP for great safety and cleanup practices! They practically PAID BP to do this deep water drilling! Obama announced new policies to allow more offshore drilling. Doesn't that seem a little suspicious? It goes against ALL his hard left handlers stand for.

      The blowout happened 18 DAYS after that drilling announcement. Within weeks Obama has tried to BAN offshore drilling, a move he KNEW would send the drilling rigs to Brazil, where the U. S. had just underwritten about $2 billion in investment money for THEIR offshore drilling.
      And you have faith in this admin. to lead the way to new energy sources? WHY?

      • George

        Huh? Please cite what regulations were changed to encourage deep sea drilling. The Mineral Management agency had become systemically corrupt from years and years of neglect and not giving a f*ck. How did the Obama Administration gloss over safety shortcomings?

        Environmental purist would say no drilling anywhere anytime…but Obama is not a leftist…he is very much like Bill Clinton in that he will compromise. Deep sea drilling was considered safe…

        Obama did not and is not trying to ban offshore drilling. Where do you get this sensational nonsense?

  • http://www.hybridpwr.com Mike Keller

    Attempting to harvest energy from sunlight is extremely inefficient (as in low single digits). By contrast, modern power plants (natural gas fired gas turbines operating in a "combined-cycle" mode) are nearly 60% efficient. Throw in the expected capacity factor (how many hours in a year does the machine operate) as well as average output (solar energy is not constant and peaks in the afternoon) and it becomes painfully obvious how that solar (and wind) are very poor energy source.

    Expected efficiency x expected capacity factor ( i.e. ___ hours /8760) equals measure of basic capability to produce energy. Solar is something like 0.25 % while the power plant is around 50%

    Not sure that will help you out A . Ray, but may be a simpler way to compare energy sources on an "apples-to-apples" basis.

  • http://www.sandp500analysis.com Norrin

    I love how the supposed champions of the working class are always so strongly supported by the nations top corporations. Wal Mart, for example, loves Obama. If the liberals continue to run this country, soon we'll all be working for 6 dollars an hour and on welfare.

  • groovimus

    This posted in reply to Ray but not visible unless you click the button. I'll do a little editing and repost:

    Here's a look at power density. Midday sun impinging perpendicularly on 1 square meter is roughly 1 kilowatt of power. Photovoltaic cells are inefficient, maybe 150 watts converted to electric power. A solar heat engine may get 250 watts. That square meter is enough to place a 15 kW generator & fuel tank. Thus power density of hydrocarbons could have 100 times the power density of photovoltaic cells at midday. Say the sun shines 12 hours a day. This reduces the power density of solar panels to 1/200 of hydrocarbons. Given sunlight doesn't fall perpendicularly all day, a factor of 2/pi now applies. Now we are down to solar having a power density of 1/(pi x 100) or 1/314 of hydrocarbons. And it 's worse because of potential cloud cover, dirt on the photovoltaic panels, outage of panels, plus area for roads and aisles for access. So lets say 1/500 power density. Say a conventional power plant takes up 1/2 sq. mile, a solar plant would take 250 sq. miles for equivalent average power output, & would fit in a square 16 miles on a side. Quite massive in size and cost.

  • groovimus

    OK I ran the power output numbers based on surface footprint in my last post, and I got the power plant output at almost 20,000 MW, about 10 times more than a very large plant. If we use the same example and change to a 7500 generator fitting into 1 square meter, this would translate to a 2000 MW conventional power plant fitting on 1/10 square mile, ( a square .33 mile on a side) which seems about right for an actual facility not counting buffer areas, roads, parking, etc. The 500 factor now means the solar plant would fit into 50 square miles, or a square 7 or so miles on a side. Still humongous.

  • A. Ray

    So Groovimus, a conventional gas power plant producing 2000 megawatts would fit at the end of Golden Gate park on the San Francisco Peninsula. But a solar plant putting out the same amount of power would require a plant the size of the ENTIRE city and county of San Francisco? If that is true, I say lets build the first one in San Francisco!

  • http://www.greenerbilling.com/blog/ Issa

    What is said in this post doesn't surprise me at all. People knows about climate change, they see and read about it – but, they seem to cast a blind eye and the government can only provide a band-aid solution that doesn't really address the issue. I believe that it should start with a strong awareness campaign. If people will learn to live a greener and sustainable life, there's no need to burn all those fossil fuels in the first place. We see in science channels ( in TV ) a lot of wonderful ways how gadgets and gizmos run in renewable, cleaner energy source — yet, it seems to be an expensive solution that won't even reach the grassroots level. In the end, every choice has its own dire consequence.

  • Peter E. Coleman

    If our Money were the color of Blue-then we would be talking about Blue Energy.

    Everything else is just cover in someone(s) plan to make sure you use less. Reduce the supply and jack up the price.

    When the cost of heating one's home doubles, look for laws to come outlawing the cutting of hardwood trees.

  • A. Ray

    New ways of producing energy, solar and wind, are supplemental energy sources at this point in time. The "science says.." is repeated so often that it's only natural that people say "Okay then PROVE it." I'm not a scientist or engineer, so please just prove it. Riding a horse or driving a car are both means of transportation. You don't need to use a computer, or ask a scientist, to figure out which is better in most people's lives. But it doesn't mean we give up it just means that the 'Henry Ford of nucleur fusion cars' hasn't figured it out yet.

  • Thunder

    ALGOR!!! Anyt friction heats up the world….
    You brainless, retarded imbecile

  • Scuba

    Gayy

  • Egag

    Also Gayyyyyy.

  • Steven Klingler

    Gayyyyy times infinity.

  • Olivia Todd

    I hate everybody and ima poopy face

  • Scuba

    Olivia Todd sucks!

  • I Hate Steven

    TACO BELL SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Olivia is the worst!

    Olivia is a dummy!

  • Kevin Heart

    I believe in equal rights. But all women get out of here… OK?

  • I Hate Everyone now

    Steven smells bad and Meatloaf is a loser!

  • Kevin Heart

    I love the way you look. But I believe that you would look better with your cloths off. ;)

  • Mr. Yaughn

    Never forget. Mr Yaughn is always watching you.

  • Olivia Todd

    I <3 Meatloaf Paynasty Badget

  • Olivia Todd

    Balls and weiners

  • GreenerthanU

    I used to recycle and try and be green. Now I stopped. If you don't use the gas, then someone else will. I figure that mankind is going to keep buring oil until it runs out. The only way to help earth is to use up all the oil until its all gone (which we are going to do anyways). Why prolong the Earths suffering by driving a under powered plastic Prius?

  • http://dncheck.keyhints.com/ns2.transip.net+acrobat-solarpanelsbournemouth.wordpress.com try us

    Hello colleagues, its fantastic piece of writing concerning tutoringand entirely explained, keep it up all the time.