It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Green" energy is expensive, does not avert climate change.

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Even after receiving the equivalent of $43 billion in subsidies, solar energy still accounts for less than 1 percent of Spain's total electric output. But now residential electric bills are going up, and energy-intensive industries have begun moving their plants to Malaysia and Brazil to escape rising electricity costs and an increasingly unreliable power supply. Spain has the worst-performing economy in the European Union and, despite its massive support of renewable energy, remains the biggest violator of the Kyoto Protocol. Unemployment -- including thousands of former "green" workers -- hit 18.5 percent in July and is expected to be even higher next year.

This is the nation Obama wants the United States to emulate?

www.washingtonexaminer.com...



Solar and wind energy have consistently proven itself to be unreliable, subsidized, and expensive White Elephants which will do very little to avert climate change. Instead, they detract from more efficient ways of cutting CO2 emissions, such as, Geothermal, Hydroelectric, and Nuclear.

I really don't understand some peoples love stories with Wind and Solar.

  • They statistically generate power most often when clients need it the least.
  • They are located far away from the grid and thus require long and expensive transmission lines.
  • They are enormously expensive. While all forms of energy require subsidies wind and solar take the cake for getting the highest per kilowatt hour of energy generated, far more than the much talked about Nuclear.
  • They have extremely low capacity factors simply because the sun doesn't shine all the time, and the wind doesn't blow all the time. A 1000 kilowatt Wind Mill will on average generates 300 kilowatts of energy. This means they need enormous amounts of space, are unreliable, need backups and are expensive.
  • They supply poor quality energy due to fluctuations in wind speed, therefore most often are limited to a maximum of 20% of the grid, and usually require dirty natural gas generators in order to smooth out these fluctuations. Without subsidies, some energy companies have to be payed to accept wind energy into the grid.
  • Coal power stations cannot change energy outputs quickly. If wind is used to replace Coal, then the coal power stations have to be ran in "hot-standby" as a backup. This means they are burning the Coal anyway and bypassing steam from the turbines.
  • They cannot provide base load power, like coal, for example, can.
  • Spreading out the generating capacity of a large geographical area to get rid of the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive as it requires a massive, complex grid, and has never been demonstrated.
  • Energy storage designed to fix the aforementioned problems is enormously expensive, but does not help the capacity factor.
  • Wind and Solar need enormous amounts of physical recourses (concrete, steel), to build. Storage makes this significantly worse.
  • The cleanest countries are Nuclear, Hydro, or Geothermal, the worst are ones attempting to implement wind.
  • In some countries, Nuclear PROFITS are paying to subsidize WIND because it is so expensive.
  • Per unit of electricity generated, Wind kills as many people as Coal (not including air pollution related deaths). This is far worse than Nuclear.

If you would like me to explain any of these, just ask.

To replace a single Nuclear Reactor (AP1000), it would require 761 of the largest wind turbines at a cost of 17 billion dollars with a total area of 7000 hectares. This is best case. By comparison, AP1000 plants are planned to be built in the United States (with its absurd Nuclear laws) costing under 7 billion dollars each, and are presently being built in China for 2 billion each. This is mirrored in Japan. Wind Power is actually so useless at replacing the main polluter Coal, that "Big Coal" actually loves Wind and Solar. They derail discussion from building actual alternatives to coal like Nuclear, to electrical generation that does very little.


Of course, many point to the Carter Administration, as if they were somehow anti-fossil fuel, and pro-green. Reality is, they were pro-coal, and anti-nuclear. From Carter's 'malaise' speech:


Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel -- from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the sun.

Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.

You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.

www.pbs.org...


While honestly moving production of oil domestically is a great idea, the notion that Carter was somehow "green" is BS. Coal is the most polluting fuel there is - large open cut mines, NOX emissions, huge amounts of CO2 emissions. It seems he put solar panels on the roof of the white house just to appease some of the environmentalists. Fact of the matter is, electrical demand is exponentially rising in many parts of the world. An energy source is required that is environmentally sound while also being cheap, reliable, and sustainable. Instead of looking towards obvious pipe dreams, it is time to shift our focus to reliable, green and cheap energy sources, - like Nuclear, Hydro, and Geothermal which have the possibility of filling this role.

Thanks.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by C0bzz]




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Well said....its a load of crap!
Maybe the world is getting hotter???
But, can anyone truthfully tell me that they know that is not normal- DO NOT MENTION AL GORE: LMFAO.

Can anyone offer me an answer as to:
HOW CAN A GLOBAL TAX COOL THE PLANET AND STOP THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?
Here in Australia we have one maverick senator, willing to go against the agenda of economic enslavement- SENATOR BOB BROWN.

He was the only one that I heard of here, ready to buck the trend.
Dont get me wrong folks- I like the man; yet I think his political party (lijke all of them) SUCKS!

Have a look- he had a petition going against the Copenhagen Agreement!
It seems he has won that round for now- the NWO will keep trying though; but probably introduce the legislation by stealth.





[edit on 11/16/2009 by KRISKALI777]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   

There is no technical or economic reason why Australia cannot get a steady, safe and reliable supply of energy from a mix of solar, wind, ocean, biomass and geothermal power.

bob-brown.greensmps.org.au...

I am worried about that bill as it seems to be based on political correctness rather than the actual realties. Technical and economic reasons against the above include cost, intermittency, and low energy densities.

BTW, I'm in Melbourne and Australian. I set it to Boston because I love peoples prejudice against Americans. It's hilarious.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Gosh politicians are probably the dumbest people on the planet.


Thats just what they think of all of us!!!

I keep hearing this crap about Australia being one of the biggest polluters; yet they take that average on the minerals (such as coal) produced.
They real polluters ( the nations that require and burn the stuff) get out of the equation.
So in essence we pay for what they choose to consume.

Its a bit like if I sold you a car.
You drove the car into a wall; and then I wasobliged to pay for your medical expenses.

Think about it.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Australia being one of the biggest polluters; yet they take that average on the minerals (such as coal) produced.


Yep. It's funny when Europeans talk about the success of Kyoto. What they really have done is outsource all their polluting industry to China. One third of emissions originating from China are caused from the production of exports.
Likewise, the figure is often inflated for Australia because of significant amounts of Aluminum smelting. To get rid of inaccuracies due to this, it's best to search for "levelized Co2 emissions per capita" although that can be difficult to find.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 




To get rid of inaccuracies due to this, it's best to search for "levelized Co2 emissions per capita" although that can be difficult to find.


I guess if they wanted us to know that 'THEY' would make that technology available in every home and then slap another tax upon us.......S@%T; I probably just gave someone whom MAY be watching this site- another bad idea......they never seem to notice the good-ones though!!!
Ohhh stuff it- if you cant beat 'em...........AVE AVE MOLOCH.......AVE AVE MOLOCH



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Im not even sure that it was Mankind has caused the Global Climate change, Here is a few questions that I have. Would be nice for science to get involved in the Carbon Taxing BS.

1.Could rising CO2 levels be from Amazon and African deforestation?

2.Could The earth be going through a "hot phase" due to the axis of the earth rotating off center by 3 degrees?

3.Could Global Climate Change be causes by increasing solar flares?

Anyone?



[edit on 16-11-2009 by CowboyDrifter]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by CowboyDrifter]

[edit on 16-11-2009 by CowboyDrifter]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by KRISKALI777
Well said....its a load of crap!
Maybe the world is getting hotter???
But, can anyone truthfully tell me that they know that is not normal- DO NOT MENTION AL GORE: LMFAO.

Can anyone offer me an answer as to:
HOW CAN A GLOBAL TAX COOL THE PLANET AND STOP THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT?


Does anyone actually know where all the money thats payable under this KyotoProtocol actually goes to? This was on the Breakfast show this morning. The person being interviewed is meant to be explaining how Carbon Credits work, but hes not doing a very convincing job of knowing what hes talking about. Hopefully this link will work.

tvnz.co.nz...

If it doesn't work the url is tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breakfast-monday-november-16-3145559/video?vid=3146665

He says in his replies "I guess..." this, and "I guess..." that.

When asked where the credits will come from, he initially says "from other countries..." and then when further pressed, he admits that there are very few maybe no other countries with Carbon Credits anyway. Its all a big CON. Another TaxPayer funded scheme for joe-public to pay for, the governments are taking more funds out of our household budgets.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
How about Cold Fusion, Zero Point Energy, and Water fuel cell?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by CowboyDrifter
 


Yes yes and yes to all of the above!
3 points for you my friend!

There have been a few ancient threads on "Solar System warming".....yeah I know it sounds weird, yet there are Astronomers whom have present evidence of warming on other planetary bodies. Finding that could be a challenge now though- its unwise to have a profession as a scientist and refute Global Warming. It can be very bad for your pay-cheque.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by masonicon
How about Cold Fusion, Zero Point Energy, and Water fuel cell?

All fantastic and deserve further research. However, honestly I don't see all three happening in the short to mid term.



Im not even sure that it was Mankind has caused the Global Climate change, Here is a few questions that I have. Would be nice for science to get involved in the Carbon Taxing BS.

I am not sure if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real also, but we must remember a great deal of scientists do. Therefore, the world seems desperate at a fix to this issue, and Solar / Wind keep getting proposed then implemented. As described, Solar / Wind will not help us fight Global Warming, and instead will simply increase the cost of living as we bury ourselves in debt subsidizing wind.

Therefore, it in the best interest for humanity to come up with something that not only appeases the environmentalists, but also allows us to produce cheap, abundant base-load power. Something that CAN replace Coal - like Nuclear, Geothermal, and Hydro which all possibly can fill this need. And in the case that AGW is not real, we get environmental benefits anyway. For example, no toxic sludge nor thousands of air pollution deaths that coal causes while securing our energy future. Remember, Nuclear Plants were not originally implemented to fight Global Warming.

Carbon-tax is a separate issue. Maybe we wouldn't need it if we didn't invest in crap like Solar and Wind. I'm not saying we should subsidize Nuclear, but if the NRC is abolished, the public image is cleaned up (Three Mile Island caused exactly ZERO injuries for example), laws regarding Nuclear Energy are reformed, then energy companies will line up to build Nuclear Plants, just like they are in South Korea, Japan, China & India.

Thanks.

[edit on 16/11/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Just posted a thread on how to fight big wind - pretty interesting book idea and outline. Dr. Martin has really fought with these *expletives*.

How to Fight Big Wind.

"Refuse to be silenced by Robert’s Rules of Order. Screw Roberts! Major Henry Martyn Robert never had to abandon his home to a wind turbine!"


[edit on 18-11-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
One volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has ever produced since the beginning of our history.

The planet is warming, but I don't know if this is due to CO2.

My biggest fear is not global warming but the constant idiotic destruction of our primary source of Oxygen.

To the topic of "green" energy production.

I think so far wave generators are our best option.


A wave powered electric generator using direct energy conversion is described which includes, within a water and airtight, buoyant envelope tethered to a fixed point relative to the sea bottom, one or more stators and one or more elements moveable by the force of inertia, the relative motion of the moveable element within the stator generating electricity. Also within the buoyant envelope is a rectifier for rectifying the electric energy generated by the moveable element, and power transmission means for supplying the generated and rectified electric energy to a power station. In a preferred embodiment, a conductive fluid is employed as a moveable element, this fluid being passed through a concentrated magnetic field, the resultant electrical power being tapped by electrodes whose axis preferably is orthagonal to the field and direction of fluid motion.


Source to Patent

If my memory serves me correctly there is a version of this already in use and functioning quite efficiently may I add.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Some people don't seem to understand this.

BTW, great work, starred and flagged.


I have family in Spain, and they are telling me things are really bad there, but they started getting bad since the Socialist party took over, unemployment began rising once they took power.

A friend I grew up with in Spain came to the United States because she didn't like the way things are going in Spain, massive unemployment, etc. She has been here for 4 years now, and her sister wants to move to the United States also.


[edit on 19-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
.........
The planet is warming, but I don't know if this is due to CO2.


It is not, during warm cycles water vapor levels increase naturally, and it is water vapor that is the main ghg.

BTW, some other members and I have pointed out the fact that the entire Solar System is changing. Most planets with an atmosphere have been warming at the same time Earth was warming. Even Pluto was warming, even as it was moving away from the Sun.

I pointed out a recent research in which scientists are saying 'SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES THE SUN is heating the atmosphere". Part of this is due to the fact that the Sun's activity, which includes it's magnetic field is weaker now than it has been for at least 100 years. This is allowing more interstellar dust, as well as more high charged particles are entering the Solar System.


Surprise In Earth's Upper Atmosphere: Mode Of Energy Transfer From The Solar Wind


www.sciencedaily.com
"Its like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.


I posted the above at the following link.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the Earth's magnetic field has also been weakening since 1840, and it is now weaker, and fluctuating more than it has for tens of thousands of years, this is allowing more charged particles to enter Earth's atmosphere also, and it is changing the dynamic of the Earth, including it's climate.



image.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Scientists have known since at least 1978 that dramatic Climate Change was coming, and they said this was going to happen because there was a new region of space which the Solar System was entering, and in this new region of space there was, among other things, more interstellar dust.

The following link is an article i started in 2006, there was another i started earlier but can't find it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These are a couple of articles I posted on the above link.


Title:
Is the solar system entering a nearby interstellar cloud
Authors:
Vidal-Madjar, A.; Laurent, C.; Bruston, P.; Audouze, J.
Affiliation:
AA(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AB(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AC(CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique Stellaire et Planetaire, Verrieres-le-Buisson, Essonne, France), AD(Meudon Observatoire, Hauts-de-Seine; Paris XI, Universite, Orsay, Essonne, France)
Publication:
Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 223, July 15, 1978, p. 589-600. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:
07/1978
Category:
Astrophysics
Origin:
STI
NASA/STI Keywords:
ASTRONOMICAL MODELS, DEUTERIUM, HYDROGEN ATOMS, INTERSTELLAR GAS, SOLAR SYSTEM, ABUNDANCE, EARLY STARS, GAS DENSITY, INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION
DOI:
10.1086/156294
Bibliographic Code:
1978ApJ...223..589V

Abstract
....................
Observational arguments in favor of such a cloud are presented, and implications of the presence of a nearby cloud are discussed, including possible changes in terrestrial climate. It is suggested that the postulated interstellar cloud should encounter the solar system at some unspecified time in the near future and might have a drastic influence on terrestrial climate in the next 10,000 years.

adsabs.harvard.edu...


ESA sees stardust storms heading for Solar System

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Monday, August 18, 2003
Source: Artemis Society

Until ten years ago, most astronomers did not believe stardust could enter our Solar System. Then ESA's Ulysses spaceprobe discovered minute stardust particles leaking through the Sun's magnetic shield, into the realm of Earth and the other planets. Now, the same spaceprobe has shown that a flood of dusty particles is heading our way.
...........
What is surprising in this new Ulysses discovery is that the amount of stardust has continued to increase even after the solar activity calmed down and the magnetic field resumed its ordered shape in 2001.

Scientists believe that this is due to the way in which the polarity changed during solar maximum. Instead of reversing completely, flipping north to south, the Sun's magnetic poles have only rotated at halfway and are now more or less lying sideways along the Sun's equator. This weaker configuration of the magnetic shield is letting in two to three times more stardust than at the end of the 1990s. Moreover, this influx could increase by as much as ten times until the end of the current solar cycle in 2012.

www.spaceref.com...

Yes, in part the problem is the way the Sun's polarity changed, but it is also true that the Solar System is entering a region that has denser, and denser interstellar dust, as well as charged particles.


Space radiation hits record high

Now, the influx of galactic cosmic rays into our solar system has reached a record high. Measurements by NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) spacecraft indicate that cosmic rays are 19 per cent more abundant than any previous level seen since space flight began a half century ago."The space era has so far experienced a time of relatively low cosmic ray activity," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, who is a member of the ACE team. "We may now be returning to levels typical of past centuries."

www.newscientist.com...


There is nothing we can do to stop this, but politicians, policymakers, and environmentalists are using this to increase their power, and to shove down everyone's throats their agendas.



[edit on 19-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The entire green energy and climax change propaganda is a hoax, when you have thousands of lobbyist in congress pushing the CRAP and trade bill to enrich their personal pockets at the expenses of tax payer you know that is not going to benefit anybody but themselves.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
The entire green energy and climax change propaganda is a hoax, when you have thousands of lobbyist in congress pushing the CRAP and trade bill to enrich their personal pockets at the expenses of tax payer you know that is not going to benefit anybody but themselves.


Kind of funny that back in the day when I was saying something similar to this most members would claim that I was being paid by oil companies to say these things...
The same would happen to anyone that saw what was truly happening, those who didn't want to accept the facts kept claiming "you are being paid by oil companies to say these things".... Talk about being ignorant heh?


I agree with you Marg, at least on this.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You know that we share more than you think
, our environment is going to change with us or without us to help, that is they way nature works, if nature wants to eliminate the human species out of the face of the earth its going to do it regardless how much climate bills our moronic and greedy congress passes.

I remember you used to be heavy on the Climate topics back in the days



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
One volcanic eruption releases more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has ever produced since the beginning of our history.


Well, a flood basalt eruption does over thousand of years, but normal volcanic activity in any given year compared with human CO2 emissions is negligable.


Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)


volcanoes.usgs.gov...


The Mount Toba eruption c72,000 ya put a lot of CO2 into the atmopshere but the primary result was a sudden, drastic cooling due to the soot, ash and suphur. A subsequent increase in temp a few hundred years later may have been due to the initial cooling aerosols having rained out but CO2 lingering longer in the atmosphere and causing a short term global warming - until that too rained out and the ice age resumed as normal.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Volcanoes are not the only natural source that release large amounts of CO2 Essan, you should know that by now.

More or less 770 Gt of CO2 are natural meanwhile around 26.4 Gt of CO2 emissions are manmade.

BTW, when are you, and others like you going to realize that the entire Earth NEEDS CO2?....

CO2 is not a problem, in fact with more atmospheric CO2 there would be more harvests, and the entire planet would be greener, not to mention that we would be able to feed more people and animals...



[edit on 19-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join