When "Clean" Energy Is Dirty

reply to post by Muckster

Do you actually know anyone who has a small wind turbine?

I and many of my neighbors in Texas do. They provide no benefit when the wind is not consistently above 5 to 10 m.p.h. My gates and security lights are solar/battery operated.
The problem is that I didn't ask for or get taxpayers (my "neighbors") to foot the bill for my experiments.
If you and your friends want to do that, great! But, why should taxpayers (your "neighbors") pay for it?
I think you've missed the entire point of the general objections, here:
It's not against solar or wind or Tesla coil's or pig farts; it's about making other people pay for something that may not work or benefit them.

Also you failed to address the following point...

coal, gas or oil power station is made from the same materials that are not renewable and cause pollution.

So? The point here is that calling wind or solar "renewable" misses the costs and pollution of their creation, production, installation and maintenance -- just like any others.
Even the staunchest advocates of solar and wind do not beleive that they will ever account for more than a fraction of power needs, so the "cause pollution" problem is going to be with us until fusion comes around.
Further, your definition of "pollution" and "emissions" may be different from others. There are people suing now, even in the UK, over the noise of the turbines, the destruction of property values, the loss of wildlife due to turbines and windmills.

Another big non-point

You seem to think that wind and solar are some panacea or magic remedy that deserve the transfer of my money to their creators and supporters. I disagree.

Why not make this a voluntary situation?
For every dollar, pound or euro your contribute to "green" energy production, your bills will be reduced in proportion to their contribution to the grid!
There will be NO TAKERS!

You cannot sell small scale power stations to individual so instead you wire the energy into their homes thus chaining them to contracts and a lifetime of payments for dirty energy.

Yes you can. We have 2 oil wells on our property. The lease required the producer to direct the escaping wellhead gas to my barn, where it runs the incubators, lights, et c. for the poultry. All over the U.S. methane is being captured from landills to small-scall generators to power the landfills, in not part of the locality,

You can't see what you don't want to see, can you?

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


You seem very opposed to 'green' energy being publicly subsidized.

You DO understand conventional forms of power are also publicly subsidized, right?

Thats sort of the point of public funding for 'alterate' sources of energy-to give them equal footing with the previously established big boys on the block (oil coal, nuke, etc)

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by jdub297

 

The earth is slowing down, if its time is up in the dvd, ie, the natural cycle, OR if they've used HAARP too many times.

You are dreaming. The reduction in velocity of the Earth's rotation is a natural process. It slowed by about 6 hours/day in the first 4,5 billion years before HAARP.

Iron is still a good magnet, but I would be going with the Telsa Coils.

Iron is a poor magnet, ask anyone who really learned basic science in school.

As for Tesla coils, they use power to generate static electricity. The one I built when I was 12 plugged into a 120v socket to turn the 1/4 h.p. fan motor that ran the belt from the base to the crown/diffuser. We wasted hundreds of watts, if not thousands, making sparks jump, hair stand on end, tin-foil balls fly, and fluorescent tubes glow in our hands as we touched the coil. It provided no useful power compared to what it used. Can't be done!

Get a science text book, and read it.
Please.

jw

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by jdub297

 

You seem very opposed to 'green' energy being publicly subsidized.

You DO understand conventional forms of power are also publicly subsidized, right?

No. The "big boys" started out with NO subsidies! What everyone calls "tax breaks" and "subsidies" are generally no more than any other business gets under the tax code. The "depletion allowances" and "exploration credits" are only recent creations as oil fields have become more difficult to find and bring to production. A majority of the public, the US Congress and 10 presidents believed that it ws better to keep US production going instead of becoming totally dependent upon foreign oil.

Would you have preferred otherwise?

Thats sort of the point of public funding for 'alterate' sources of energy-to give them equal footing with the previously established big boys on the block (oil coal, nuke, etc)

Wrong. It is not to give them "equal footing." It is to keep them afloat, despite a non-viable business-plan.
You can't make solar panels for $12 and sell them for $7 in a normal business plan (Solyndra). Or batteries for $3 and sell them for $1 (A123). Or cars for $250,000 and sell them for $40,000 (GM).

The whole "point" of these boondoggles is to prduce "showcase" projects that look great at first, but quickly fall apart when the reality sets in.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


i tried to respond to your points, but they are so full of straw men, attacking ideas i never brought up, that i gave up and just wrote this instead.

reply to post by stanguilles7


No, he doesn't get it - he is one of the notorious posters around here that just come on and mindlessly regurgitate whatever FOX News and other right-wing shill media tell them to think.

We all know there has been a massive assault on clean energy, and environmentalism in general, by all the Republicons who suckle at the teet of big oil and coal. This is incredibly obvious to anyone but the most obtuse of political ideologues (see above).

Lately they have taken a particular shining to wind energy. See for example:

Myths And Facts About Wind Power: Debunking Fox’s Abysmal Wind Coverage


The main arguments presented against it on this thread are quite myopic, naive and frankly childish. "Oh it's not really renewable because it requires rare earth minerals and steel and blah blah."

First off - nothing is ever 100% renewable. Duh. That is just a moronic starting point to any debate other than for those who are truly desperate to start one (again, see above). At the end of the day it's a matter of pros versus cons, energy returned over energy invested, etc, etc - and with renewables like wind the pros far outweigh the cons, at least to anyone who actually cares about planet over profit (do not see above).

Second - "rare" earth materials aren't all that rare. This is just a misnomer. China has a monopoly on them because they produce them so cheaply (since they do it without any regard for the environment) but there are plenty of other options if people would just put ethics before $$$$.

See:
Oh, the irony – rare-earth minerals aren’t that rare

Third - these materials can also be recycled. They're just generally not because of cost, but the times they are a changin'

See:
Rare Earth Elements—End Use and Recyclability

RARE EARTH ELEMENTS GETTING RECYCLED, FINALLY



Anyone on ATS who wants the FULL facts on something needs to really put their critical thinking caps on and investigate the whole story. This website is absolutely polluted with political trolls (*cough* see above *cough*) who come on here to incessantly preach these brainwashed memes not for the sake of truth or denying ignorance - but so they can repeatedly defend their desperate broken worldviews from reality.

reply to post by mc_squared

I knew it wouldn't ake you long to come in and spray ad hominem instead of address facts. at least you acknowledge that "renewable" as a justification for alternatives is a complete falsehood, as compared to conventional energy production.

Face it, the dependence upon subsidies for alternative sources belies the fact that they are still not competitive enough to stand on their own merits as true "alternatives."

Oil companies did not depend upon subsidies when they were start-ups, and the technology and markets 150 years ago were much less sophisticated than those of today.

Every single one of the projects I've described could never have passed muster in an economics class, or an underwiter's review. They were sold for their own sake, instead of the electricity they were touted to be capable of producing.

When you can get over your obsession with thepersonal attacks and name-calling, perhaps you might come up with a reasonable argument why taxpayer money should be used to support business plans that do not any sense.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


There's nothing ad-hominem about it. I just like telling it like it is.

I have routinely shown the content in your posts is completely misinformed, scientifically illiterate, willfully ignorant, and most of all politically biased.

You provide nothing to the conversation other than your irrelevant brainwashed beliefs. Whenever you do bother to actually post a source or a link - it usually takes about 5 seconds of googling to show you are either cherry-picking select soundbites that conform to your twisted politics, or relying on completely biased perversions of the original source, ones that usually say the complete opposite of what's actually being said.

Now here you are making some insane case about subsidies - when you know full well fossil fuel industries get an absurd amount of government assistance - so you try to dial the argument back to "start-ups" 150 years ago?

Yeah - I rest my case.


Meanwhile the case for renewable energy is much bigger than "business plans". It's about living in a world that is clean, healthy, responsible, and free of unnecessary dependence on plutocrats who control all our resources and use them to turn us into virtual wage slaves.

So I've said this numerous times now - I could actually care less about your political ideologies or opinions on global warming or what not. You simply offend me as someone who posts on a conspiracy forum. You are so utterly clueless to the actual conspiracy happening here - it's just painful to watch.

There are so many people in this world who are sheeple because they're too consumed by their iphones to understand what's going on - how their freedoms are subversively taken away, and how government AND big business use them and rip them off everyday. But then there's the army of useful idiots who have been bred to not only ignore these things - but to actually defend them against anyone who gets it and speaks out against this stuff.

Political trolls like yourself are everything that's wrong with ATS - why this place has gone so far down the toilet over the years. This "conspiracy" forum is FULL of the biggest, most clueless sheep I've ever seen in my life. It's sad and frustrating and I'll continue to speak out against it when I see it. So I frankly don't care if it's name calling or whatever - it's the plain and simple truth, and all you can ever seem to do when you get called out on it is play the victim. You got a problem with it - then stand up and defend yourself with actual facts. Otherwise I'm tired of your BS.

reply to post by mc_squared

No, he doesn't get it - he is one of the notorious posters around here that just come on and mindlessly regurgitate whatever FOX News and other right-wing shill media tell them to think.

Whoa are you talking about the OP? Because if so you are mistaken... Unlike people who have online friends on ATS I happen to know DizTheWiz personally...Probably smarter then most of you people on here.... He is actually contributing something that can make a change, and not pointless threads that make front page...Maybe you should start becoming knowledgeable in making your own energy just like he is...Good thread Diz....

Seriously you people need to start fending for yourself because soon there wont be anyone to fend for you....

reply to post by jdub297


Hmmm... i think that there’s a cultural difference here. I know that, in America, you are quiet big on the whole private enterprise and zero interference from government, whereas in Europe we are often used to government stepping in and using tax payers money to fund certain things. Personally i fear the corporate world far more than i fear the government (and that saying something when you consider that i don’t trust the government as far as i can spit) but that’s a whole new thread on its own.

Also, wind power is not for everywhere... i would imagine that in Texas solar would be a better option. But here in Blighty we are one of the windiest places on earth. As for the people who complain about the noise etc... Well let’s be honest, you would get complaints if the government erected free cash dispensers

I don’t think we are ever going to agree so i will just agree to disagree; otherwise it’s simply a waste of time and effort. You have oil in your back yard so maybe you’re a little biased; I have been a passionate advocate of organic and green living for years, so maybe I am a little biased.

The one thing that does irritate me though is when people use the fact that this technology is not yet as effective as fossil fuels, for producing energy, as the reason to ridicule it. Before WW1 planes were the pathetic novelty toys of a few rich people. Made of canvas and wood they were often laughed at whenever people spoke of them as a serious mode of transport. By the end of the WW2 these planes had gone from wooden jokes to metal jets capable of travelling at the speed of sound. This was only possible because of massive investment from Governments and this was brought about because of the necessity of War. I guarantee you, if oil dried up tomorrow, within a few years Wind, Tidal and Solar would be performing the job just as well as fossil fuel. The corporates are not going to make this investment because all they are interested in is there shareholders interests.

Personally i think it’s great that governments are making these investments... I’d rather my tax money be spent on these projects than on projects that can increase a cruise missiles range or improve Themobaric weapons effectiveness.

To be honest I see the whole argument of anthropogenic climate change debate a bit like the flat earth debate. While most people except that the world is round and has moved on, there are still pockets of resistance that throw up wild claims backed up by pseudoscience and misused statistic to back up their claims. Now I may be wrong, but that’s how I see it. So I guess when you say deny ignorance... well, for me that phrase, in this instance, is a matter of perspective. Its a great motto for ATS but is often thrown around just as a weapons to use against someone who doesn’t agree with your point of view, which in my opinion is an act of ignorance in itself. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you does not make them ignorant!

Like i say, i guess we are too different to come to any agreement and that s just the way it is in life sometimes...

Peace

reply to post by Muckster

You have oil in your back yard so maybe you’re a little biased; I have been a passionate advocate of organic and green living for years, so maybe I am a little biased.

I have been growing some of my own food, and often enough to give away or even sell, for more than 30 years. The mere fact that someone found oil under my land doesn't change my reverence for it, or nature or ecology. It is your own bias that shows through when you jump to the conclusion that since I benefit from oil, I must be against nature. This is the pathetic mindset in the US (I guess the UK, as well) that prevents some from seeing the bigger picture and looking for common ground. Hhow sad.

The one thing that does irritate me though is when people use the fact that this technology is not yet as effective as fossil fuels, for producing energy, as the reason to ridicule it.

I've never ridiculed alternative sources of energy! I USE wind and solar and alternative to the grid! I LIKE being somewhat self-reliant, and conservative of the precious natural resources we've been blessed with. I was "green" before most ATS members were born, and long before it was a "movement" or cool.

I ridicule those who beleive that their new idea should be paid for by taxpayers. I ridicule those who believe that progress only comes from government intevention. I ridicule those sheep who believe that a "consensus" can not be mistaken or misguided.

Before WW1 planes were the pathetic novelty toys of a few rich people. Made of canvas and wood they were often laughed at whenever people spoke of them as a serious mode of transport. By the end of the WW2 these planes had gone from wooden jokes to metal jets capable of travelling at the speed of sound. This was only possible because of massive investment from Governments and this was brought about because of the necessity of War.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that aircraft were developed without government support! People laugherd at the "start-ups" that we today call "pioneers of aviation." Multi-engine commercial aircraft like the DC-2 and DC-3 were created long before we entered WWII. Airplanes evolved frm PRIVATE enterprise, not from government dictates or "investments." Most "military" aircraft were converted COMMERCIAL plabes!

With the introduction of the Douglas DC-2 in 1934 and the DC-3 in 1936, air travel became much more comfortable and somewhat more commonplace. The DC-2 could fly coast-to-coast faster than any passenger plane before, and the DC-3 had both day and sleeper models, allowing passengers to travel cross-country in comfort. By 1939, at least 75 percent of all air travelers were flying on DC-3s. While the earlier trimotors had been plagued by engines that transmitted noise and vibration back to the passengers, Douglas planes added soundproofing to its cabins, ventilation ducts, and structure. Upholstered seats mounted on rubber and padded arm rests further reduced noise and vibration. The planes could also fly higher, around 20,000 feet, (6,100 meters), reducing, although not eliminating, turbulence, and the spar structure made the cabin roomier and easier to navigate than the contemporary Boeing 247, which had an internal spar that passengers had to step over.

The introduction of these transports of the mid and late 1930s can be credited with increasing the number of air passengers from 474,000 in 1932 to 1,102,000 in 1937 and to 1,176,858 passengers in 1938 (U.S. Department of Commerce statistics). Other statistics state that the number of passenger miles traveled in the United States increased 600 percent from 1936 to 1941, a growth that was very largely due to the DC-3.

[url]http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Commercial_Aviation/passenger_xperience/Tran2.htm

It is mis-guided and false beliefs and propaganda that lead people to think that government is the only solution to problems or innovator of industry.

I guarantee you, if oil dried up tomorrow, within a few years Wind, Tidal and Solar would be performing the job just as well as fossil fuel. The corporates are not going to make this investment because all they are interested in is there shareholders interests.

But, that would be the MARKET at work, wouldn't it? You prove my point!


deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297

I have been growing some of my own food, and often enough to give away or even sell, for more than 30 years.

Excellent... hope you use organic techniques

The mere fact that someone found oil under my land doesn't change my reverence for it, or nature or ecology. It is your own bias that shows through when you jump to the conclusion that since I benefit from oil, I must be against nature

Did i say you are against nature? Please show me where i jumped to this conclusion because i honestly don’t remember saying it. I’ve gone through my previous post and can’t see where I’ve said that... If I did then I apologise for making that assumption... but I don’t think I did!

I've never ridiculed alternative sources of energy! I USE wind and solar and alternative to the grid!

Oh really... but didn’t you say...

Wind energy has already been revealed to be a false god for the "green" and "renewable" faithful.

Sounds like you are ridiculing it to me!

I ridicule those who beleive that their new idea should be paid for by taxpayers. I ridicule those who believe that progress only comes from government intevention. I ridicule those sheep who believe that a "consensus" can not be mistaken or misguided.

Fair enough... like i say you have your belief i have mine... personally i believe that the "free market" is a joke that doesn’t work. Privatisation, the free market... rich get rich, the big guns monopolise!

You seem to have overlooked the fact that aircraft were developed without government support! People laugherd at the "start-ups" that we today call "pioneers of aviation." Multi-engine commercial aircraft like the DC-2 and DC-3 were created long before we entered WWII. Airplanes evolved frm PRIVATE enterprise, not from government dictates or "investments." Most "military" aircraft were converted COMMERCIAL plabes!

Wow... its a bit arrogant of you to assume i was referring to American Aircraft... You do realise that there was more than one nation involved in WW2. Many aircraft manufacturers during WW2 were heavily subsidised by their respective governments!

Also, that wasn’t even the point i was making... simply that with investment (from anywhere) technology can improve at very fast rate.

It is mis-guided and false beliefs and propaganda that lead people to think that government is the only solution to problems or innovator of industry.

As is the belief that the free market will magically make everything ok because of the will of the people. Th free market controls the people, not the other way around.

that would be the MARKET at work, wouldn't it? You prove my point!

No, that would be a simple case of necessity and removing the biggest obstacle from the equation... the greedy big oil companies!

deny ignorance

Right back at ya