Green Jobs Myths - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-06-2009, 09:02 PM   #31
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Just because wind and solar cannot do the whole job doesn't mean we shouldn't promote it at all. At the very least, people can begin having hybrid energy, some fossil fuels and some renewable resources. That's the first step, because it's cost-effective and allows for a full transition. Just look at what the car industry has lined up for that: waiting lists for hybrids and such. Some system like that for energy would be a huge first step because it's the most marketable option you can have.
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2009, 09:51 PM   #32
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,882
Local Time: 10:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Just because wind and solar cannot do the whole job doesn't mean we shouldn't promote it at all. At the very least, people can begin having hybrid energy, some fossil fuels and some renewable resources. That's the first step, because it's cost-effective and allows for a full transition. Just look at what the car industry has lined up for that: waiting lists for hybrids and such. Some system like that for energy would be a huge first step because it's the most marketable option you can have.
Like you said, the first step is already being done. The Prius, the Insight.....even the new hybrid Fusion looks sporty and fairly affordable. A few token wind turbines are going up here and there, maybe even a whole wind farm. These are heavily subsidized in most cases, and I have little problem with that.

The only thing really stopping the private sector is the huge reserve of cheap hydrocarbons the planet still has. Sure, it will get more expensive over the next few decades, and that's when alternatives will really take hold.
__________________

__________________
Bluer White is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 11:43 AM   #33
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
The only system I'm seeing now is fission and the future may include something better, fusion. Until then it's still going to be coal and gas, which hybrids burn by the way. The internal combustion engine has been improving for a long time and still is. The global warming guys keep pushing us to go too far beyond what the economy can take. When a real alternative to coal and gas appears I'll be first in line.

I was hoping that Craig Venter would get some breakthrough in developing bacteria that can absorb C02 and create fuel as a green technology but the size and scale are nowhere near what is needed at this point.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 12:00 PM   #34
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The global warming guys keep pushing us to go too far beyond what the economy can take.
Because we've been lazy and stagnent for decades when it comes to energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
When a real alternative to coal and gas appears I'll be first in line.
Why would you? You don't believe the environment is in danger so why would you even care?
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 01:51 PM   #35
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Because we've been lazy and stagnent for decades when it comes to energy.
No because there is no replacement that can create enough energy for the entire public without starving the population and forcing our economy backwards. Eg. Africa, what have solar panels done for them compared to coal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Why would you? You don't believe the environment is in danger so why would you even care?
This confirms what conservatives believe of liberals all along. "I care more than you." BTW when you feel you care about the environment more than me and feel good saying that, it's just a drug in your mind. Go buy a solar panel and eat your bread and water while the rest of us get on with our lives. Oh that felt good.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 02:23 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
No because there is no replacement that can create enough energy for the entire public without starving the population and forcing our economy backwards. Eg. Africa, what have solar panels done for them compared to coal?
Yeah, you completely missed my point. My point was that societies as a whole have not put much effort at all to get away from oil, I honestly think this movement is to light a fire under some people's asses and start working on these things we should have 30 years ago, otherwise we'll find ourselves up shit creek someday.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This confirms what conservatives believe of liberals all along. "I care more than you." BTW when you feel you care about the environment more than me and feel good saying that, it's just a drug in your mind. Go buy a solar panel and eat your bread and water while the rest of us get on with our lives. Oh that felt good.
What are you talking about? This is why it's so hard to talk with you and why frankly so many just choose to ignore you. This makes no sense in response to my post, none whatsoever...

My point is that you try and post as many "articles" as you can saying that global warming is a myth, etc... So if you don't believe the planet is in jeapordy then why would you be first in line? It makes me think you really do believe that there is an issue, but that denying science allows you to feel better about being selfish... So which is it? There is a problem, or there isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with "I care more than you", this is honestly one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen you make.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 03:12 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Yeah, you completely missed my point. My point was that societies as a whole have not put much effort at all to get away from oil, I honestly think this movement is to light a fire under some people's asses and start working on these things we should have 30 years ago, otherwise we'll find ourselves up shit creek someday.
Yes we have you just didn't notice. Have you heard of fuel injection? We've been decarbonizing the entire 20th century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
What are you talking about? This is why it's so hard to talk with you and why frankly so many just choose to ignore you. This makes no sense in response to my post, none whatsoever...

My point is that you try and post as many "articles" as you can saying that global warming is a myth, etc... So if you don't believe the planet is in jeapordy then why would you be first in line? It makes me think you really do believe that there is an issue, but that denying science allows you to feel better about being selfish... So which is it? There is a problem, or there isn't a problem. It has nothing to do with "I care more than you", this is honestly one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen you make.
Here I'll make it more clear. I don't like oil cartels. I would love to move away from fossil fuels because of them. Also there's the fact that, (yes in MANY years), we will eventually have trouble finding more oil. We will move onto some form of nuclear power unless some genius can come up with some other way. I just think that it's hard to take the environmentalist movement serious because of their overt Marxism that ruins any credibility they have.

Yes we have some effect on the planet regarding C02 but it is nothing to worry about because the effect is so small. I mean otherwise the greens would have supported nuclear power in a big way to meet the Kyoto targets ASAP which could have been done with the technologies now. The right feels that the Marxists keep using the environment to push their agenda which is anti-industry and frankly I'm tired of the propaganda and bad science that is being pushed to make us feel guilty that we are "selfish" while the rich liberals and rich environmentalists and NGO types and bureaucrats live with big money, big pensions and consume more energy and resources for their standard of living than the middle class that they are pointing to. People aren't dumb they are aware of the hypocrisy.

I'm also INCREDIBLY angry at the idea of green jobs at a time when the middle class that was more independent in the private sector is being replaced with government workers which is the direction that many poorer countries find themselves. I can do the sacrifice to save money to get some independence but most of the middle class aren't and then you couple more taxes, more bureaucrats, green jobs (yielding little output) and you see a trend to a modern version of feudalism. The only people who make money are business owners and government workers with pensions. Everyone else to bad so sad. I don't think the greed of the past loose monetary policy has ended. First it's government trying to force banks to lend to people who can't pay, then it's banks fooling investors to invest in these people, then it's a market panic, then it's the public asking the taxpayer to spend money we don't have, then it's the green movement adding to the bill, then it's health care and education adding to the bill. Who's going to pay for all of this? Everyone is trying to pass the bill, nevermind that it will have to be paid for at some point. Geitner is telling China that the budget will be balanced and then the congress is ramping up all kinds of social spending nullifying his ascertion. Now we have BNP goofs reacting out of ignorance in the Euro election much like fascists during the '30s (though thankfully in a smaller scale). People are getting fed up and many don't know why but I do. Economics can't be ignored and there is no free lunch. This includes environmentalism. When economics gets REALLY bad we may find ourselves in more war and not less.

So like the article I posted "let's get real." How is wind and solar subsidies fueling a future replacement technology? Even liberal Europe has moved on with nuclear.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 03:25 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yes we have you just didn't notice. Have you heard of fuel injection? We've been decarbonizing the entire 20th century.
That's nothing compared to where we should be...


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I just think that it's hard to take the environmentalist movement serious because of their overt Marxism that ruins any credibility they have.
As I find you and the others in the extreme right to have absolutely no credibility due to your not even wanting to or pretending to try and understand science. That coupled with your charges of "Marxism" every chance you get the extreme right becomes laughable. They are even becoming a minority within their own party here in America, many Republicans have woken up and understand the environmental implications. Now if we can just get them to wake up and understand "Intelligent Design" can not be taught in a science class.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 07:03 PM   #39
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
That's nothing compared to where we should be...
The question is what can we afford? The economy can collapse faster than C02 concentrations destroying the planet (especially since C02 is needed for life to exist on earth).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
:As I find you and the others in the extreme right to have absolutely no credibility due to your not even wanting to or pretending to try and understand science. That coupled with your charges of "Marxism" every chance you get the extreme right becomes laughable. They are even becoming a minority within their own party here in America, many Republicans have woken up and understand the environmental implications. Now if we can just get them to wake up and understand "Intelligent Design" can not be taught in a science class.
You're right. The Republican party (for now) has gone to the left but that's because the U.S. public is in the mood for leftism because they haven't had to pay for it yet. Increase energy costs or taxes, or both and they will reconsider. I never thought that I would be looking for Europe for a more moderate approach than that of the U.S.. It's bizarre.

Intelligent design has nothing to do with me. I agree with many conservatives on many things but religion to me is separate from science. You can actually study science and have religious beliefs as long as philosophy and science are kept to their areas. Deep down everyone has some wish or opinion on the origins of the universe but we need evidence. Just like we need evidence that man is warming the planet uncontrollably beyond nature's variations. (Currently it's been cooling since 1998 and hasn't gone beyond the 1930's). Maybe scientists will get hard evidence in the next 10 years with the NASA satellites studying water vapour so we all can be convinced one way or another?

Question: Do you believe that solar power and windpower can replace oil and coal? Or do you believe that increased energy prices from adopting these technologies will force new and better technologies to arise?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 07:20 PM   #40
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
(especially since C02 is needed for life to exist on earth).
It's the constant repeating of this that just makes me realize how much of you just don't get it. This is such a Rush answer. It's like some recently gave him a 5th grade report on plant growth so he figured that was enough to go on. Put a bag over your head and tell me CO2 can't be dangerous.






Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Question: Do you believe that solar power and windpower can replace oil and coal? Or do you believe that increased energy prices from adopting these technologies will force new and better technologies to arise?
It has replaced it in certain markets. But it's going to take awhile before it can on a large scale. Hate to break it to you, but energy cost are going to rise no matter what in the next decade or so. So hold on. It doesn't matter if we go to nuclear, stay with the status quo, or wind it's going to cost more, that's just where we are.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 10:37 PM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It's the constant repeating of this that just makes me realize how much of you just don't get it. This is such a Rush answer. It's like some recently gave him a 5th grade report on plant growth so he figured that was enough to go on. Put a bag over your head and tell me CO2 can't be dangerous.
Well the argument about C02 is still going on in peer-reviewed journals and its a debate between postive and negative feedback. I don't think the science is settled on it yet:

A Layman’s Explanation of Why Global Warming Predictions by Climate Models are Wrong � Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

You can make fun of his "intelligent design" beliefs but they have nothing to do with his research. The day the new sattelite info comes in to prove positive feedback is the day Roy Spencer is screwed so there's the challenge. Of course if negative feedback is proven there will be lots of emotionally invested people that will have to eat crow and find real jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It has replaced it in certain markets. But it's going to take awhile before it can on a large scale. Hate to break it to you, but energy cost are going to rise no matter what in the next decade or so. So hold on. It doesn't matter if we go to nuclear, stay with the status quo, or wind it's going to cost more, that's just where we are.
This sounds like an offer we can't refuse. Most of the high prices in the past had more to do with futures gamblers and an oil cartel. We have plenty of energy. Nuclear at least is cheap enough to offset some of consequences of cartel economics. If Europe can do it safely so can we.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2009, 11:00 PM   #42
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well the argument about C02 is still going on in peer-reviewed journals and its a debate between postive and negative feedback. I don't think the science is settled on it yet:
But it's not ongoing. Any scientist worth their salt would never argue that CO2 is natural therefore can't be dangerous, that's just bullshit science.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
You can make fun of his "intelligent design" beliefs but they have nothing to do with his research.
I could care less if a scientist held "intelligent design" beliefs, but his problem is he sells it as science and therefore it makes me question any understanding of the scientific process this person has. He has an agenda, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

This sounds like an offer we can't refuse. Most of the high prices in the past had more to do with futures gamblers and an oil cartel. We have plenty of energy. Nuclear at least is cheap enough to offset some of consequences of cartel economics. If Europe can do it safely so can we.
Once again, you just ignore, ignore, ignore...

You don't think prices are going to rise if we move to nuclear?

Forget oil cartels, the price would still rise. Open your eyes.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2009, 01:18 AM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But it's not ongoing. Any scientist worth their salt would never argue that CO2 is natural therefore can't be dangerous, that's just bullshit science.
The vast majority of it comes from oceans absorbing and releasing it. Also decaying vegetation is much larger than what humans produce. What humans put in is quite small percentage wise of the total and if the 1930's (which had less man made C02 production) had much higher temperatures than even 1998, let alone now, there is obviously something else in nature we are not accounting for. Water vapour is very important to study because most of the atmosphere is water vapour (largest greenhouse gas) and how clouds form is going to have to be studied more closely. And I think you've already agreed with me in the past that more studies should continue on this line.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I could care less if a scientist held "intelligent design" beliefs, but his problem is he sells it as science and therefore it makes me question any understanding of the scientific process this person has. He has an agenda, period.
He publishes his material in peer reviewed journals so whatever agenda won't mean much unless he can convince others with evidence, which he is doing slowly. There's plenty of agenda on the otherside, especially with business owners and bureaucrats that stand to make money on cap and trade and to increase in power and influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Once again, you just ignore, ignore, ignore...

You don't think prices are going to rise if we move to nuclear?

Forget oil cartels, the price would still rise. Open your eyes.
Nuclear is much cheaper than wind and solar. The difference in cost is enormous and we could get some benefit of relying less on rogue countries that would like to use oil like a carrot and a stick on us just like the 1970s. If wind and solar could be as reliable as nuclear it would have happened already. I would prefer the cheaper option of the three. It would be nice to rely on oil and coal only(preferably more drilled in N. America), but if cap and trade is going to happen nuclear would soften the blow. Obama's promise of in 10 years being energy independent would have some more creedence if he supported nuclear power along with more domestic oil drilling to keep prices reasonable but now there's no chance of being energy independent at all.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2009, 08:31 AM   #44
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 09:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Nuclear is much cheaper than wind and solar. The difference in cost is enormous
I don't know how anyone could say this with such assurity. There just isn't enough true side by side comparison... but whatever it's never stopped you before from making such ridiculous claims.


Solar and geothermal cheaper than coal and nuclear(ScienceAlert)
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2009, 08:37 AM   #45
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I don't know how anyone could say this with such assurity. There just isn't enough true side by side comparison... but whatever it's never stopped you before from making such ridiculous claims.


Solar and geothermal cheaper than coal and nuclear�(ScienceAlert)
That article was discussing Australia, a country endowed with both hot rocks and an overabundance of sunlight with a small population, the economics of nuclear power plants would be different in other places and nuclear mustn't be taken off the table.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer 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 10:59 PM.


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