Green Jobs Myths - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-03-2009, 09:07 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The National Review and a libertarian website as sources?
Yes. Conservatives. Expect the left-wing sites to tout "green jobs".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The actual "article" you quoted contradicts itself and to be quite frank I think it flat out lies at times.
It's pretty clear that Spain had a bad experience and Denmark piggy-backs on other countries and their nuclear energy to get a good environmental rating. If it's too good to be true it probably is. If we could have the standard of living of Denmark without nuclear power I would be all for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I'd really like to see them explain this.
Spain has its own experience and there is no cheaper fuel than coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear is the closest of the green technologies for affordability. Any other choice will force consumers to pay a lot more for the same energy they demand. With less money in pocket to buy other products the economic effect is straightforward. More nuclear plants should be built unless someone can show me a successful wind/solar powered country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The pdf that is disguised to look like a scientific report is nothing but a report of a report filled with attack.
Most environmental/political/economic positions can be seen as an "attack". I don't feel sorry for environmentalists who "attack" as a lifestyle.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2009, 10:21 PM   #17
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yes. Conservatives. Expect the left-wing sites to tout "green jobs".
There are sources that are neither... go figure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's pretty clear that Spain had a bad experience and Denmark piggy-backs on other countries and their nuclear energy to get a good environmental rating. If it's too good to be true it probably is. If we could have the standard of living of Denmark without nuclear power I would be all for it.
How is it clear, from that pseudo-science article? An "article" that is trying to lay out facts about Spain's issues shouldn't spend any time discussing Obama. It was a shit article.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Spain has its own experience and there is no cheaper fuel than coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear is the closest of the green technologies for affordability. Any other choice will force consumers to pay a lot more for the same energy they demand. With less money in pocket to buy other products the economic effect is straightforward. More nuclear plants should be built unless someone can show me a successful wind/solar powered country.
Did you read the passage I quoted?

It says:
Quote:
The $100-million Nellis project created 200 jobs at a cost of $500,000 per job.
Yet it admitted earlier that it was able to produce energy at affordable prices... explain that math.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Most environmental/political/economic positions can be seen as an "attack". I don't feel sorry for environmentalists who "attack" as a lifestyle.
Um, OK... It still doesn't explain why an "article" that is trying to lay out facts about Spain's issues shouldn't spend any time discussing Obama.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 12:13 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
There are sources that are neither... go figure.
You need to show me those sources. To me once studies are completed people from the left and right view the same studies with different perspectives. I don't think that will ever change. The question is whether green technologies are really cost effective or not. I think they are not or else we would all be adopting these technologies precisely because we could afford them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
How is it clear, from that pseudo-science article? An "article" that is trying to lay out facts about Spain's issues shouldn't spend any time discussing Obama. It was a shit article.
If Obama wants to adopt cap and trade and alternative energy sources it should be cause for worry unless the new technology really is cheaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Did you read the passage I quoted?

It says: Yet it admitted earlier that it was able to produce energy at affordable prices... explain that math.
He doesn't believe in the government statistics because they include subsidies to arrive at their statistics. If you include government spending and support towards the project as a cost (which it is because tax-payers pay for it) then you get overly expensive jobs. We want jobs that pay for themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Um, OK... It still doesn't explain why an "article" that is trying to lay out facts about Spain's issues shouldn't spend any time discussing Obama.
If Obama wants to adopt green energy and it will involve increased tax burden or a larger energy bill there will be people politically that won't agree with Obama on that and would like the motion to stop for economic reasons.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 01:28 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You need to show me those sources. To me once studies are completed people from the left and right view the same studies with different perspectives. I don't think that will ever change. The question is whether green technologies are really cost effective or not. I think they are not or else we would all be adopting these technologies precisely because we could afford them.
These sources have been shown to you time and time again.

Any major changeover in infastructure or energy is going to cost in the short run, everyone knows this... Why do you think we're so hesitant to change? We're lazy and cheap. There is no other reason why people will go to great lengths to deny science other than their wallets and their stubborness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If Obama wants to adopt cap and trade and alternative energy sources it should be cause for worry unless the new technology really is cheaper.
Cheaper when? Now or in the long run?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
He doesn't believe in the government statistics because they include subsidies to arrive at their statistics. If you include government spending and support towards the project as a cost (which it is because tax-payers pay for it) then you get overly expensive jobs. We want jobs that pay for themselves.
Where in the article does he show those numbers factored in?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If Obama wants to adopt green energy and it will involve increased tax burden or a larger energy bill there will be people politically that won't agree with Obama on that and would like the motion to stop for economic reasons.
Well this doesn't answer my question about your sources at all, but that's not suprising. Yes we all know that if the energy is going to cost us more in the long run then it's not worth it, this is a no brainer.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 03:24 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:34 AM
why is it that, at present, it's cheaper to use oil and coal than it is to use wind and solar?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 06:34 PM   #21
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why is it that, at present, it's cheaper to use oil and coal than it is to use wind and solar?
It really is fucked up if you think about it...

We know the possibilities. Why haven't we been working on this the last three decades? Once you figure out an efficient way, guess what? It's free, always around, and it doesn't pollute...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2009, 07:39 PM   #22
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,885
Local Time: 10:34 AM
North America has huge (and stranded) reserves of coal and nat gas to burn through before wind/solar look profitable on a large scale. That juices the electrical grid though.

I think we are closer on fuel efficient and hybrid cars. Politically and on a cost basis.
__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 12:49 AM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Nuclear is the cheapest green technology and it is still not cheaper than oil. It's supply and demand people. There is a WORLD demand for energy and wind and solar don't cut it. I even remember a socialist teacher I had that gave up on solar because he said it was made of precious materials that couldn't be mass produced to be cheap enough. I don't know if that's changed but I'm sure if it was I would be the first to pick up a panel. Certainly in Africa it hasn't been reliable. This is one of the arguments that is being put up about the environmentalist movement preventing economic development in the third world with their draconian standards.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 01:13 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
These sources have been shown to you time and time again.
Europe is not showing the way so I don't see what sources could possibly let the world know that there is a real replacement for oil and coal. The only green technology I see that has some promise is nuclear power, especially fusion, as opposed to the current fission:

Fusion power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not available yet and I read somewhere that it may be a couple of decades before we see something substantial in that light but it's safer at least.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Any major changeover in infastructure or energy is going to cost in the short run, everyone knows this... Why do you think we're so hesitant to change? We're lazy and cheap. There is no other reason why people will go to great lengths to deny science other than their wallets and their stubborness.
Cheap or economical? A standard of living is based on purchasing power. If we all bought organic food what would happen to our standard of living? Mass production is a huge factor in the adoption of new technologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Cheaper when? Now or in the long run?
I haven't seen any evidence that wind and solar can be cheap enough in the long run or short run. They seem to be supplements only. Wind isn't always reliable since not all countries have enough wind to power their countries and some countries (Hello Canada) have less sun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Where in the article does he show those numbers factored in?
He doesn't directly source it but it shows here that taxpayers are paying for it:

Nevada Renewable Energy & Energy Conservation Task Force

Quote:
Nevada has a growing PV industry. Much of that growth is the result of the Solar Energy Systems Demonstration Program or SolarGenerations for short. SolarGenerations is managed by the Task Force, the utilities and the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well this doesn't answer my question about your sources at all, but that's not suprising. Yes we all know that if the energy is going to cost us more in the long run then it's not worth it, this is a no brainer.
Well that's the debate now isn't it? Can we mass produce enough wind and solar to compete with conventional energy sources? It doesn't look like it in Europe so far, hence Spain's experience.

Oops a conservative making a point at 5:28:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...E3MWY5ODhhOWU=

Oops again at 2:53 and 3:54:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommo...ZiZTE5ODQyN2U=
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 08:06 AM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Cheap or economical?
Cheap!!! Economical people would understand that a small increase in the short run will give them a decrease overall in the long run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I haven't seen any evidence that wind and solar can be cheap enough in the long run or short run. They seem to be supplements only. Wind isn't always reliable since not all countries have enough wind to power their countries and some countries (Hello Canada) have less sun.
Right now we see wind powering moderately sized cities in certain areas of the US, so if definately plausable, and so far economical in those cities, but you're right, right now we're limited to certain areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
He doesn't directly source it but it shows here that taxpayers are paying for it:
Well then that makes his math false, and crappy reporting.




Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well that's the debate now isn't it? Can we mass produce enough wind and solar to compete with conventional energy sources? It doesn't look like it in Europe so far, hence Spain's experience.
You based on the one crap article you've read about Spain? Have you done any other research maybe some less biased on the subject of Spain?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Oops a conservative making a point at 5:28:
Um, except that our nuclear technologies weren't very safe back then... did he forget that?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 12:02 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Cheap!!! Economical people would understand that a small increase in the short run will give them a decrease overall in the long run.
That's not certain for obvious reasons. Mass production is required to lower prices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Right now we see wind powering moderately sized cities in certain areas of the US, so if definately plausable, and so far economical in those cities, but you're right, right now we're limited to certain areas.
I think it will always be limited, on top of some people complaining about housing values decreasing when wind turbines are made nearby residential areas. It's like having any other kind of noisy infrastructure built nearby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well then that makes his math false, and crappy reporting.
If that's the case 99% of all news reports would have 0 facts according to you. When people read newspapers they don't have direct internet sources available for the public to see. Of course if they lie then other newspaper articles can counter them. You can go the next step further if you want and say the statistics are fake from the source but that would eliminate discussion based a cynical perception. See what I already posted on Denmark from the NRO link:

Nuclear Energy in Denmark : WNA

Quote:
Denmark as a political entity can be represented as getting most of its electricity from coal, and a substantial amount from wind.

The country in fact is not isolated but is part of two major electrical grids which depend on nuclear power for much of the base-load supply.

Nuclear power provides an essential part of Denmark's electricity. Its high usage of wind in fact depends primarily on imported Scandinavian hydro power especially to West Denmark, and secondly on both East and West Denmark each being part of a major grid system incorporating a large proportion of nuclear power.
Piggy-backing on nuclear power from other countries shows how vital nuclear power is for green energy. Even coal is still major.

The most green countries and cities:

Living Green: Full Country and City Rankings: Countries Overall | Your America | Reader's Digest

Finland:

Nuclear Energy in Finland: WNA

Quote:
Finland has four nuclear reactors providing 27% of its electricity.

A fifth reactor was approved by the government in 2002, on economic, energy security and environmental grounds. This is now under construction for 2012 start-up. More are planned.

Provisions for radioactive waste disposal are well advanced.

Finland generates about 82 billion kWh per year and has a very high per capita electricity consumption - some 16,000 kWh per head per year. While some of it comes from hydro (17.5% in 2007), much of it is either imported (14 TWh net in 2006) or generated from imported fuels (26% coal, 13% gas in 2007). All of its gas comes from Russia.
Iceland is in a special situation that can't be replicated throught the world:

Geothermal power in Iceland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You based on the one crap article you've read about Spain? Have you done any other research maybe some less biased on the subject of Spain?
If it doesn't agree with Obama it's biased? Spain was the forefront of solar technology. Spain is a left-wing country so seeing their radical policies gives us an taste of what would happen if we copied them. The study was by an economist at the university. Economists are usually the ones who look at economic statistics via a cost benefit analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Um, except that our nuclear technologies weren't very safe back then... did he forget that?
Even if it was considered dangerous back then they certainly could go with it now since there are already many nuclear power plants working today and improved waste disposal methods.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 12:04 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
why is it that, at present, it's cheaper to use oil and coal than it is to use wind and solar?
Here's the answer to your question. I don't think this a conservative newspaper but here goes:

James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch - Getting Real on Wind and Solar - washingtonpost.com

Quote:
Getting Real on Wind and Solar

By James Schlesinger and Robert L. Hirsch
Friday, April 24, 2009



Why are we ignoring things we know? We know that the sun doesn't always shine and that the wind doesn't always blow. That means that solar cells and wind energy systems don't always provide electric power. Nevertheless, solar and wind energy seem to have captured the public's support as potentially being the primary or total answer to our electric power needs.

Solar cells and wind turbines are appealing because they are "renewables" with promising implications and because they emit no carbon dioxide during operation, which is certainly a plus. But because both are intermittent electric power generators, they cannot produce electricity "on demand," something that the public requires. We expect the lights to go on when we flip a switch, and we do not expect our computers to shut down as nature dictates.

Solar and wind electricity are available only part of the time that consumers demand power. Solar cells produce no electric power at night, and clouds greatly reduce their output. The wind doesn't blow at a constant rate, and sometimes it does not blow at all.

If large-scale electric energy storage were viable, solar and wind intermittency would be less of a problem. However, large-scale electric energy storage is possible only in the few locations where there are hydroelectric dams. But when we use hydroelectric dams for electric energy storage, we reduce their electric power output, which would otherwise have been used by consumers. In other words, we suffer a loss to gain power on demand from wind and solar.


At locations without such hydroelectric dams, which is most places, solar and wind electricity systems must be backed up 100 percent by other forms of generation to ensure against blackouts. In today's world, that backup power can only come from fossil fuels.

Because of this need for full fossil fuel backup, the public will pay a large premium for solar and wind -- paying once for the solar and wind system (made financially feasible through substantial subsidies) and again for the fossil fuel system, which must be kept running at a low level at all times to be able to quickly ramp up in cases of sudden declines in sunshine and wind. Thus, the total cost of such a system includes the cost of the solar and wind machines, their subsidies, and the cost of the full backup power system running in "spinning reserve."

Finally, since solar and wind conditions are most favorable in the Southwest and the center of the country, costly transmission lines will be needed to move that lower-cost solar and wind energy to population centers on the coasts. There must be considerable redundancy in those new transmission lines to guard against damage due to natural disasters and terrorism, leading to considerable additional costs.

The climate change benefits that accrue from solar and wind power with 100 percent fossil fuel backup are associated with the fossil fuels not used at the standby power plants. Because solar and wind have the capacity to deliver only 30 to 40 percent of their full power ratings in even the best locations, they provide a carbon dioxide reduction of less than 30 to 40 percent, considering the fossil fuels needed for the "spinning reserve." That's far less than the 100 percent that many people believe, and it all comes with a high cost premium.

The United States will need an array of electric power production options to meet its needs in the years ahead. Solar and wind will have their places, as will other renewables. Realistically, however, solar and wind will probably only provide a modest percentage of future U.S. power. Some serious realism in energy planning is needed, preferably from analysts who are not backing one horse or another.

James R. Schlesinger was the first secretary of energy and established the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Robert L. Hirsch is senior energy adviser at Management Information Services Inc. Previously he managed the federal renewables program at the Energy Research and Development Administration, the predecessor to the Energy Department.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2009, 01:02 PM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That's not certain for obvious reasons. Mass production is required to lower prices.



Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I think it will always be limited, on top of some people complaining about housing values decreasing when wind turbines are made nearby residential areas. It's like having any other kind of noisy infrastructure built nearby.
Yes but a nuclear plant nearby will increase those home values through the roof.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If that's the case 99% of all news reports would have 0 facts according to you. When people read newspapers they don't have direct internet sources available for the public to see. Of course if they lie then other newspaper articles can counter them. You can go the next step further if you want and say the statistics are fake from the source but that would eliminate discussion based a cynical perception.
Anyone with the simplist understanding of high school economics could tell you this guy's math was flat out false, I'm sorry you can't see it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If it doesn't agree with Obama it's biased? Spain was the forefront of solar technology. Spain is a left-wing country so seeing their radical policies gives us an taste of what would happen if we copied them. The study was by an economist at the university. Economists are usually the ones who look at economic statistics via a cost benefit analysis.
This has nothing to do with Obama, that's the freaking point. One should have written the report based on Spain's evidence on merit alone, spelled out what they thought the facts, etc. Instead it was a report summarizing the real report and attacking Obama, you can't see that? I give up, you can't even understand the most elementary concepts of science, facts, or bias.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Even if it was considered dangerous back then they certainly could go with it now since there are already many nuclear power plants working today and improved waste disposal methods.
It's exhausting...

Listen to the video again and then you'll see why I said what I said.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 07:07 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
. More nuclear plants should be built unless someone can show me a successful wind/solar powered country.
That is the whole point of research. Build it and they will come/know. I'm not at all on board with a nuclear plant in every state to prove this is the only remedy. There are alternatives to oil and nuclear energy.
We just have to find it.
With that said, there's more interest in not finding alternatives than there is to finding it. Can't imagin why that would be.
__________________
sue4u2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 07:40 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sue4u2 View Post
Can't imagin why that would be.
YouTube - Beatles Cartoon - Taxman

That's why.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com