Green Jobs Myths

[purpleoscar]

Myths fuel the eco lobby's emissions-slashing, green-jobs fantasy

Myths fuel the eco lobby's emissions-slashing, green-jobs fantasy

Ideologically-driven employment claims don't stand up to scrutiny

By Gary Lamphier, The Edmonton Journal

April 23, 2009

In December 2007, just as the worst recession in decades got underway, 54 leading U.S. economists were asked by Business Week magazine to share their economic outlook for 2008.

More than 96 per cent saw another year of modest growth. Only two predicted a recession -- even though it had already started.

In July 2008, when oil prices hit $147 US a barrel, some of the biggest brains on Wall Street -- along with famed energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens -- predicted crude would soon hit $200.

Wrong again. With oil now hovering around $50, the experts overshot the mark by $150.

As these gigantic goofs illustrate, forecasting anything -- from next year's economic growth, to the outcome of the Stanley Cup playoffs, to this weekend's weather, to the growth of man-made carbon emissions by 2050 -- is a fool's game.

Most forecasts turn out to be dead wrong. Why?

They're often based on faulty assumptions, an inability to anticipate the impact of complex future technological or societal changes, incomplete or inaccurate data, and last but not least, built-in biases.

Even the most fair-minded forecasters often see what they want to see -- depending on their particular vested interest -- and then do their best to rationalize the preordained conclusions their "research" inevitably produces.

All of which brings me to the current topic du jour: the glorious dream, perpetuated by the green lobby and its allies that the world can end its reliance on evil fossil fuels, slash carbon emissions, save the planet, and create millions of well-paid new green jobs, with little or no pain.

Along the way, we're told, we could also end the recession, replace the millions of North American jobs that have disappeared since the downturn began, and set the world on course for a bright, sustainable, shiny future.

This is pure fantasy, of course, and it's even more delusional in light of the current global economic crisis.

Entire countries are now flirting with bankruptcy, global bank losses are expected to top $4 trillion US, according to the International Monetary Fund, and the U.S. has already lost more jobs -- 5.1 million -- than Barack Obama's celebrated green-jobs plan promises to create over the next 10 years.

Yet, if anything, the fantastical dream of economic salvation through green jobs grows stronger by the day. But that doesn't change a simple fact. The world depends on fossil fuels for an obvious reason. They're cheap, plentiful, efficient and flexible.

The preferred green alternatives -- solar power, wind power, biofuels, geothermal, tidal power, fuel cells -- are far more costly, less reliable and largely unproven, on a mass commercial basis.

All rely heavily on massive public subsidies -- from cash-strapped governments that are already straining under the weight of huge deficits -- and in the case of corn-based ethanol, are arguably more damaging to the planet than fossil fuels.

Most thoughtful people know this. But that doesn't stop the greens from pushing their sanitized version of the future.

Witness the 70-page report issued Wednesday by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club Prairie Chapter, and the Alberta Federation of Labour, titled It's Time to Build Alberta's Future.

At a time when Alberta -- and the rest of the country -- is shedding thousands of jobs every month, the report suggests the province could create more than 200,000 green jobs in areas such as mass transit, renewable energy and publicly funded home retrofits.

Predictably, the report slams "false solutions" such as Alberta's $2-billion commitment to carbon capture and storage technology, which doesn't align with the green movement's selective enthusiasm for new technology.

I hope you read the report. It's thought-provoking. But after you do, I'd suggest you read another report, produced last month by a group of economists and legal experts from four U.S. universities, titled Green Jobs Myths.

The report can be downloaded, free of charge, from the U.S.-based Social Science Research Network.

Be forewarned: the painstakingly researched 97-page document doesn't make for easy reading. It's a scholarly study, full of footnotes, detailed tables, and comprehensive economic and energy data. It's not a polemic.

But in the end, it paints a damning, highly critical picture of the lofty job creation claims that are so casually tossed around by people like Al Gore, and pressure groups such as Greenpeace.

It's impossible to do the report justice in this column. It covers far too much ground, and the details are exhaustive. But it concludes that there are seven myths behind the current ideological push to create so-called green jobs:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1358423

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.

Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.

Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.

Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.

Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.

Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.

Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.

Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

 

[the iron horse]

The 'Green Jobs' Myth - WSJ.com

 

[financeguy]

Oh wow, I'm gonna go out tomorrow and buy about twenty seven Hummers.

Yeah! I'm fucking the environment, just 'cos I can! Wow, look at me, what controversy I generate! Look, mum, I really pissed off the libruls with this one! Look at me, everyone!

 

[purpleoscar]

Yeah! I'm fucking the environment, just 'cos I can! Wow, look at me, what controversy I generate! Look, mum, I really pissed off the libruls with this one! Look at me, everyone!

Begin

It should be controversial to have another unproductive bureaucracy increasing energy costs just because they can. BTW I drive a Toyota Echo and I try to use energy efficient smart powerbars and walk when I can. Though I do this to SAVE MONEY as opposed to being self-righteous about pretending to save the planet.

You of all people, a libertarian, should hate fake "green jobs". If the market place was colluding to keep green energy that could come near nuclear power or oil in cost out of the market then I would be fine with government intervention but I don't see real viable alternatives at all. Even the EPA is making C02 a poison gas when it's necessary for life on earth. I could see Milton Friedman clawing his way out of his grave. "As usual unexpected consequences will come from the good intentions of regulators." Maybe I should go leftwing and get a "green job" (preferably with a government pension) and rob the public and be called a saint for it. Now that's an idea.

End

 

[BVS]

It's so frustrating to see those who revel in ignorance. From your telling people how they should feel down to your childish tongue sticking out smilie.

This article is dripping with bias. But of course you wouldn't see that... You avoid all the tough questions on the environment, and you honestly think it's a made up movement in order to push socialism. I hope some day you'll be as curious about the environment that you were about saving and you'll read something that isn't from the Rush library about what is going on...

 

[purpleoscar]

It's so frustrating to see those who revel in ignorance. From your telling people how they should feel down to your childish tongue sticking out smilie.

This article is dripping with bias. But of course you wouldn't see that... You avoid all the tough questions on the environment, and you honestly think it's a made up movement in order to push socialism. I hope some day you'll be as curious about the environment that you were about saving and you'll read something that isn't from the Rush library about what is going on...

They are not pushing socialism? Creating green bureaucrats is exactly that. They cost money but do they produce? Pointing out hypocrisy is not telling people how to feel. I get the sense I'm supposed to agree with people out of conformism. No one else is put to that standard when they point out Republican hypocrisy. Get over it. My response was quite appropriate to FinanceGuy's "Hummer" straw man.

Most of the tough questions against man made global warming are being asked and being ignored. Yes I'm being tongue n cheek, but if cap and trade is adopted the higher energy prices ensuing will make me use more often than When U.N. weather projections exclude El-Nino and La-Nina and haven't done the due diligence on water vapour should I be blamed for being critical? If McCain would legislate cap n trade (he would) I would be just as critical. People have to stop taking criticisms personally in a debate forum.

Here I've got a project for you. How about you find sources of information that shows the U.N. weather projections are reliable enough to predict disaster so there can be a debate instead of people ignoring conservative threads.

 

[BVS]

Here I've got a project for you. How about you find sources of information that shows the U.N. weather projections are reliable enough to predict disaster so there can be a debate instead of people ignoring conservative threads.

What?! What does this have to do with anything we are talking about? Are you purposely trying to create distractions?

Do you honestly think that no matter what we do the planet will not be effected? Will the planet be the same as it is or has been 100 200 years from now, no matter what we do?

 

[Diemen]

It's so frustrating to see those who revel in ignorance. From your telling people how they should feel down to your childish tongue sticking out smilie.

This article is dripping with bias. But of course you wouldn't see that... You avoid all the tough questions on the environment, and you honestly think it's a made up movement in order to push socialism. I hope some day you'll be as curious about the environment that you were about saving and you'll read something that isn't from the Rush library about what is going on...

Stick to the topic at hand, BVS. There's no need to get personal in your response.

 

[A_Wanderer]

They are not pushing socialism? Creating green bureaucrats is exactly that. They cost money but do they produce? Pointing out hypocrisy is not telling people how to feel. I get the sense I'm supposed to agree with people out of conformism. No one else is put to that standard when they point out Republican hypocrisy. Get over it. My response was quite appropriate to FinanceGuy's "Hummer" straw man.

Most of the tough questions against man made global warming are being asked and being ignored. Yes I'm being tongue n cheek, but if cap and trade is adopted the higher energy prices ensuing will make me use more often than When U.N. weather projections exclude El-Nino and La-Nina and haven't done the due diligence on water vapour should I be blamed for being critical? If McCain would legislate cap n trade (he would) I would be just as critical. People have to stop taking criticisms personally in a debate forum.

Here I've got a project for you. How about you find sources of information that shows the U.N. weather projections are reliable enough to predict disaster so there can be a debate instead of people ignoring conservative threads.

Do you support funding for scientific research into global warming, to establish the mechanisms and the most cost effective responses?

 

[purpleoscar]

Do you support funding for scientific research into global warming, to establish the mechanisms and the most cost effective responses?

Yes. The NASA satellite that is supposed to be studying water vapour in 2013 I'm interested in seeing their data in coming years. I'm sure man has some effect on the planet but the C02 sensitivity predicted by the IPCC hasn't panned out. Knowing how much is natural versus man-made is the most important discovery we need. It's very easy to overreact and make a cure that's worse than the disease. Depending on how large or small the C02 impact is there's an opportunity to adapt as opposed to call C02 a poison and point at industry. Of course industry (in order to stay alive) raises the prices on consumers.

Having green jobs based on wind/solar power and ethanol are already failures, why pour money into those dead ends. Fusion seems decades away and cap and trade in Europe just raises prices for people. Is the added cost supposed to force innovation? Are there any viable cheap technologies that will thrive under higher energy prices? To me it looks like another layer of bureaucracy to pay for with dubious promises.

 

[purpleoscar]

What?! What does this have to do with anything we are talking about? Are you purposely trying to create distractions?

Relax dude. You were talking about my ignorance, right? Okay then show my ignorance. I don't have an ego that needs to be right. I can be proven wrong. Debates help with bringing out people's sources so many different points of view are shared.

Do you honestly think that no matter what we do the planet will not be effected? Will the planet be the same as it is or has been 100 200 years from now, no matter what we do?

No, but the degree of what we do and how much we affect the planet is not certain, especially historical record of wild fluxuations with human industry involved. Hence the study of water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas). Solar studies are important as well. Wouldn't it be the nail in the coffin if the IPCC can show that climate change is largely due to humans and that water vapour is not a big deal? I know there's lots of doom and gloom but many NASA (along with Roy Spencer) are saying that it had to do with scare tactics used as a method to gain funding from Congress. If James Hansen feels he needs to do that to get funding then there is a serious problem.

Also Bjorn Lomborg did a good book that shows past laughable environmental alarmist claims that overstated things for funding purposes and even a scientist that admited that the environmentalist movement likes to exagerrate things in order to steer the public in the "right" direction. To me there is a serious problem with funding and science and a conflict of interest keeps creeping up which leads to shrillness and arrogance towards the public. If there is a feeling that the public NEEDS to be lied to then how much is science and how much is a propaganda megaphone? I think the debate hasn't been solved yet and some "deniers" are getting different results than the IPCC.

 

[BVS]

Having green jobs based on wind/solar power and ethanol are already failures, why pour money into those dead ends.

How so? I know for a fact that wind is very effective and proving to be very profitable for places here in West Texas.

 

[BVS]

Relax dude. You were talking about my ignorance, right? Okay then show my ignorance. I don't have an ego that needs to be right. I can be proven wrong. Debates help with bringing out people's sources so many different points of view are shared.

I'm relaxed I'm just not sure why you insist on trying to steer the thread in another direction, you do that a lot.

No, but the degree of what we do and how much we affect the planet is not certain, especially historical record of wild fluxuations with human industry involved. Hence the study of water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas). Solar studies are important as well. Wouldn't it be the nail in the coffin if the IPCC can show that climate change is largely due to humans and that water vapour is not a big deal? I know there's lots of doom and gloom but many NASA (along with Roy Spencer) are saying that it had to do with scare tactics used as a method to gain funding from Congress. If James Hansen feels he needs to do that to get funding then there is a serious problem.

Also Bjorn Lomborg did a good book that shows past laughable environmental alarmist claims that overstated things for funding purposes and even a scientist that admited that the environmentalist movement likes to exagerrate things in order to steer the public in the "right" direction. To me there is a serious problem with funding and science and a conflict of interest keeps creeping up which leads to shrillness and arrogance towards the public. If there is a feeling that the public NEEDS to be lied to then how much is science and how much is a propaganda megaphone? I think the debate hasn't been solved yet and some "deniers" are getting different results than the IPCC.

I think you'll find exaggerations are everywhere not just the environmentalist movement. Societies as a whole are lazy and don't like to change, in order to make change you do have to paint a worse case scenario sometimes. You show the worse case scenario to get people to quit smoking, to not drive drunk, etc... What do you think threat levels are for?

So I wouldn't exactly call it lying. It's ridiculous that in 2009 recyling is still not found everywhere.

 

[purpleoscar]

Obama�s Green Delusions by Alex Alexiev on National Review Online

Obama’s Green Delusions
The false promises of renewable energy.

By Alex Alexiev


Standing in front of an array of photovoltaic solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base last Wednesday, President Obama gave us to understand that his vision for an America powered by clean, renewable energy and awash in green jobs is becoming a reality faster than anyone could have imagined. Nellis, near Las Vegas, is the home of the largest solar-energy plant in the Western Hemisphere and, in the president’s words, a “shining example” of what renewable energy can do to put our economy on a “firmer foundation for economic growth.” It is a success story that needs to be replicated “in cities and states across America,” Obama said, and he announced a “solar energy technology program” to do just that.

The figures do indeed look impressive at first sight. The $100-million plant was built without a penny of government money, we are told, yet it provides the base with electric power costing 2.2 cents per kilowatt/hour, which is less than one-fourth of the 9 cents that Nevada Power charges its other customers. The annual savings will amount to $1 million, guaranteed for 20 years. Proof positive, it seems, that our green future is now. Or is it?

Beyond these numbers, uncritically reported by the mainstream media, is the reality of a make-believe industry touted by environmental zealots, corporate freeloaders parading as entrepreneurs, and a president capable of staggering disingenuousness. If the Nellis solar project is a “shining example,” it is a shining example of everything that’s wrong with Obama’s green delusions. The project makes no economic sense on its own merits and, like all renewable-energy projects, was made possible only by a combination of government coercion and state and federal handouts at the expense of utility customers and the American taxpayer. The coercion in this case came in the form of a state mandate that Nevada utilities must obtain 20 percent of their power from hugely expensive renewable sources by 2015; the handouts came in the form of a 30 percent federal tax credit, accelerated depreciation rates, “solar energy credits,” and similar goodies. It is such government largesse — and the promise of more to come — that convinces the renewable-energy industry’s corporate welfare queens to line up behind dubious projects like Nellis.

In his speech at Nellis, President Obama asserted that he wants “everybody to know what we’re doing here in Vegas,” and he pointed to Germany as an example to follow in the solar business. He should have followed his own advice and looked more closely at the German example. After Germany guaranteed solar producers a rate seven times as high as the market rate, the country’s electric bill jumped by 38 percent in one year.

Obama also should have mentioned what happens to investors who fall for Washington’s green hype. For the two private companies involved in the Nellis project, it has not been a success story. SunPower Corp., the builder of the solar plant, has lost 75 percent of its market value in just the past year and is facing an uncertain future (to put it mildly). MMA Renewable Ventures, a San Francisco–based firm, which financed the project, was recently sold to the Spanish company Fotowatio for the fire-sale price of $19.7 million, after losing more than half of its business between 2007 and 2008.

The Spanish purchase of the dying MMA made no business sense except in one critical area: It allowed Fotowatio to establish a beachhead in the United States, which, with $20 billion of green-energy tax incentives in 2010 alone, increasingly looks like the world’s last refuge for solar freeloaders. Most European countries have seen the damage that green energy can do to their economies and are rapidly (if quietly) scaling back their support. This is especially true in the countries that have been leaders on solar and wind power. Both Germany and Spain have dramatically slashed their subsidies for renewables, and Spain has reduced its commitment to green power from 2400 megawatts in 2008 to 500 megawatts or less in 2009.

There is yet another lesson from Spain that Obama prefers not to discuss. The $100-million Nellis project created 200 jobs at a cost of $500,000 per job. The longer Spanish experience, according to a recent study from Juan Carlos University, shows a cost of $774,000 for each government-subsidized green job created since 2000. More disturbingly, for each of these jobs, 2.2 jobs in other industries were destroyed because of higher energy prices, not counting manufacturers who vote with their feet. This is surely a success story that Americans can do without.

— Alex Alexiev is an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Spain's experience with green jobs:

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf

Something Rotten in the NYT - Chris Horner - Planet Gore on National Review Online

Nuclear Energy in Denmark : WNA

In a nutshell: Denmark imports much of their electricity so they piggy back on other countries to get their "green" status.

 

[BVS]

The National Review and a libertarian website as sources?

The actual "article" you quoted contradicts itself and to be quite frank I think it flat out lies at times.

There is yet another lesson from Spain that Obama prefers not to discuss. The $100-million Nellis project created 200 jobs at a cost of $500,000 per job. The longer Spanish experience, according to a recent study from Juan Carlos University, shows a cost of $774,000 for each government-subsidized green job created since 2000. More disturbingly, for each of these jobs, 2.2 jobs in other industries were destroyed because of higher energy prices, not counting manufacturers who vote with their feet. This is surely a success story that Americans can do without.

I'd really like to see them explain this.

The pdf that is disguised to look like a scientific report is nothing but a report of a report filled with attack.

 

[purpleoscar]

The National Review and a libertarian website as sources?

Yes. Conservatives. Expect the left-wing sites to tout "green jobs".

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.

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.

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.

 

[BVS]

Yes. Conservatives. Expect the left-wing sites to tout "green jobs".

There are sources that are neither... go figure.

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.

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:

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.

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.

 

[purpleoscar]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

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?

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?

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.

 

[Irvine511]

why is it that, at present, it's cheaper to use oil and coal than it is to use wind and solar?

 

[BVS]

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...

 

[Bluer White]

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.

 

[purpleoscar]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=Njc0MWEwZTkxYzA2MWQzMGUzMmIyZWE3MWY5ODhhOWU=

Oops again at 2:53 and 3:54:

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=NTM4NGY5ZTFiYzU5ZmQxNmExZmY2M2ZiZTE5ODQyN2U=

 

[BVS]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

 

[purpleoscar]

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[BVS]

That's not certain for obvious reasons. Mass production is required to lower prices.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[sue4u2]

. 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.

 

[purpleoscar]

Can't imagin why that would be.

YouTube - Beatles Cartoon - Taxman

That's why.