The myth of renewable energy

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: "Renewable energy comes from things that won't run out -- wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day -- oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium."
Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:

The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
 
Rather like balancing a chemistry equation.....


But, strawberry shortcake sounds great for dessert. :lol:
 
Don't tell that to Germany and China.

Don't tell them that professor George Miley has confirmed 4 times that cold fusion is a fact. Not to even go into rossi. Don't tell them that their solar and wind power within a decade is going to be fucking worthless!:eusa_whistle:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/193579-report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley.html

Education

B.S., Chem. Engineering/Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, 1955
M.S., Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, 1956
Ph.D., Nuclear/Chem Engineering, University of Michigan, 1959


Academic Positions

Professor Emeritus, Nuclear and Electrical Eng. - University of Illinois, August 2010 - Present
Professor, Nuclear and Electrical Eng. - University of Illinois, 1967- August 2010
Associate Professor - University of Illinois, 1964-1967
Assistant Professor - University of Illinois, 1961-1964

Major Consulting Activities

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (present)
Clean Energy Technologies, Sarasota, FL
Dept. of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL


http://www.ece.illinois.edu/director...le.asp?ghmiley
 
Last edited:
Well, Mathew, I hope you are correct. But untill I see the Cold Fusion processes working, I am not going to stop pushing for power that does not destroy the environment.
 
Don't tell that to Germany and China.

Don't tell them that professor George Miley has confirmed 4 times that cold fusion is a fact. Not to even go into rossi. Don't tell them that their solar and wind power within a decade is going to be fucking worthless!:eusa_whistle:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/193579-report-on-a-conversation-with-george-miley.html

Education

B.S., Chem. Engineering/Physics, Carnegie Mellon University, 1955
M.S., Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, 1956
Ph.D., Nuclear/Chem Engineering, University of Michigan, 1959


Academic Positions

Professor Emeritus, Nuclear and Electrical Eng. - University of Illinois, August 2010 - Present
Professor, Nuclear and Electrical Eng. - University of Illinois, 1967- August 2010
Associate Professor - University of Illinois, 1964-1967
Assistant Professor - University of Illinois, 1961-1964

Major Consulting Activities

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA (present)
Clean Energy Technologies, Sarasota, FL
Dept. of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Idaho Falls, ID
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM
Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL


http://www.ece.illinois.edu/director...le.asp?ghmiley

How much money has he made off of his LENR?
 
Well, Mathew, I hope you are correct. But untill I see the Cold Fusion processes working, I am not going to stop pushing for power that does not destroy the environment.

You apparently did not read the article I posted, not a big surprise.
 
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: "Renewable energy comes from things that won't run out -- wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day -- oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium."
Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:

The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable.

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.

Go back to sleep.

You're post is silly.
 
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: "Renewable energy comes from things that won't run out -- wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day -- oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium."
Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:

The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable. Who the fuck do you think does not know that?

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.


Your post is seriously pointless
 
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: "Renewable energy comes from things that won't run out -- wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day -- oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium."
Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:

The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable. Who the fuck do you think does not know that?

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.


Your post is seriously pointless

I agree. Of course there materials used in solar panels that are not renewable. They aren't made of plants. Yet, the energy they are able to produce once they are established as infrastructure does not diminish any supply of potential energy with usage. There may be maintenance on the equipment and materials that have to be used which are non-renewable, but this is negligible in comparison to the what we use today that is non-renewable simply within a 24 hour period around the globe, and is no excuse to not convert to "non-renewable" energy sources. Oil is going to run out within 150 years tops, so we are going to have to make a conversion at some point. We should do it now.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.

"Clean." "Green." What do those words mean? When President Obama talks about "clean energy," some people think of "clean coal" and low-carbon nuclear power, while others envision shiny solar panels and wind turbines. And when politicians tout "green jobs," they might just as easily be talking about employment at General Motors as at Greenpeace. "Clean" and "green" are wide open to interpretation and misappropriation; that's why they're so often mentioned in quotation marks. Not so for renewable energy, however. Somehow, people across the entire enviro-political spectrum seem to have reached a tacit, near-unanimous agreement about what renewable means: It's an energy category that includes solar, wind, water, biomass, and geothermal power. As the US Energy Department explains it to kids: "Renewable energy comes from things that won't run out -- wind, water, sunlight, plants, and more. These are things we can reuse over and over again. … Non-renewable energy comes from things that will run out one day -- oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium."
Renewable energy sounds so much more natural and believable than a perpetual-motion machine, but there's one big problem: Unless you're planning to live without electricity and motorized transportation, you need more than just wind, water, sunlight, and plants for energy. You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources:
The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable.

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.

Go back to sleep.

You're post is silly.

What's my point? Let me use simple words since it is obvious you cannot understand language aimed at people who read science journals. There is no such thing as renewable energy.
 
Sometimes life hands you lemons, sometimes it hands you strawberry shortcake.



The myth of renewable energy | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists


What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable. Who the fuck do you think does not know that?

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.


Your post is seriously pointless

I agree. Of course there materials used in solar panels that are not renewable. They aren't made of plants. Yet, the energy they are able to produce once they are established as infrastructure does not diminish any supply of potential energy with usage. There may be maintenance on the equipment and materials that have to be used which are non-renewable, but this is negligible in comparison to the what we use today that is non-renewable simply within a 24 hour period around the globe, and is no excuse to not convert to "non-renewable" energy sources. Oil is going to run out within 150 years tops, so we are going to have to make a conversion at some point. We should do it now.

It is amazing how few people can actually read.
 
You better fire off a memo to China!

China pledges 'green' push over next five years

"We will effectively conserve resources and protect the environment. We will respond actively to climate change," Wen said in a speech to open the annual session of China's parliament, or National People's Congress.

The country will seek to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 17 percent in the 2011-2015 period -- as part of its wider goal to reduce carbon intensity by at least 40 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

It will slash energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16 percent by 2015, and hopes to raise the percentage of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix by 11.4 percent from 8.3 percent last year, the premier said.

Wen said the country had made "genuine progress in energy conservation, emissions reduction, ecological improvement and environmental protection" in the 2006-2010 period, and had "vigorously developed clean energy" technologies.

Energy consumption per unit of GDP fell 19.1 percent over the past five years -- close to the original target of 20 percent, the premier said.

China pledges 'green' push over next five years - Channel NewsAsia



Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

Green China? You'd better believe it - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
 
What's your point?

That renewable source of energy like solar and wind and geothermal are useless?

That they serve no purpose whatever?

No shit there's things we need and use that aren't renewable. Who the fuck do you think does not know that?

But there are some sources of energy that ARE renewable.


Your post is seriously pointless

I agree. Of course there materials used in solar panels that are not renewable. They aren't made of plants. Yet, the energy they are able to produce once they are established as infrastructure does not diminish any supply of potential energy with usage. There may be maintenance on the equipment and materials that have to be used which are non-renewable, but this is negligible in comparison to the what we use today that is non-renewable simply within a 24 hour period around the globe, and is no excuse to not convert to "non-renewable" energy sources. Oil is going to run out within 150 years tops, so we are going to have to make a conversion at some point. We should do it now.

It is amazing how few people can actually read.

" You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources"

I didn't miss a thing. Don't be an asshole. This is far from an arguement against RENEWABLE energy. This is just another excuse for a lazy republican to continue to drive his SUV and feel good about it, or rather, not have to feel bad about it. "Let's just give up and continue to use oil until there is no more... then we will worry about it." Fucking morons. Have some consideration for future generations who are going to have to deal with this mess, and will have to deal with the escalated price of oil while trying to put into place an infrastructure of RENEWABLE energy.
 
I agree. Of course there materials used in solar panels that are not renewable. They aren't made of plants. Yet, the energy they are able to produce once they are established as infrastructure does not diminish any supply of potential energy with usage. There may be maintenance on the equipment and materials that have to be used which are non-renewable, but this is negligible in comparison to the what we use today that is non-renewable simply within a 24 hour period around the globe, and is no excuse to not convert to "non-renewable" energy sources. Oil is going to run out within 150 years tops, so we are going to have to make a conversion at some point. We should do it now.

It is amazing how few people can actually read.

" You need raw materials, real estate, and other things that will run out one day. You need stuff that has to be mined, drilled, transported, and bulldozed -- not simply harvested or farmed. You need non-renewable resources"

I didn't miss a thing. Don't be an asshole. This is far from an arguement against RENEWABLE energy. This is just another excuse for a lazy republican to continue to drive his SUV and feel good about it, or rather, not have to feel bad about it. "Let's just give up and continue to use oil until there is no more... then we will worry about it." Fucking morons. Have some consideration for future generations who are going to have to deal with this mess, and will have to deal with the escalated price of oil while trying to put into place an infrastructure of RENEWABLE energy.

Nah...conservatives just love their daddies...

1911B_OPEC_wideweb__470x299,0.jpg
 
You better fire off a memo to China!

China pledges 'green' push over next five years

"We will effectively conserve resources and protect the environment. We will respond actively to climate change," Wen said in a speech to open the annual session of China's parliament, or National People's Congress.

The country will seek to reduce carbon emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 17 percent in the 2011-2015 period -- as part of its wider goal to reduce carbon intensity by at least 40 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels.

It will slash energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16 percent by 2015, and hopes to raise the percentage of non-fossil fuels in its energy mix by 11.4 percent from 8.3 percent last year, the premier said.

Wen said the country had made "genuine progress in energy conservation, emissions reduction, ecological improvement and environmental protection" in the 2006-2010 period, and had "vigorously developed clean energy" technologies.

Energy consumption per unit of GDP fell 19.1 percent over the past five years -- close to the original target of 20 percent, the premier said.

China pledges 'green' push over next five years - Channel NewsAsia



Green China? You'd better believe it

A recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that China was the world’s number one investor in green energy in 2010.

With a total investment of $54.4 billion, China was well ahead of second-ranked Germany ($41.2 billion) and the US in third place with $34 billion invested, not to mention Australia with $3.3 billion and ranked 12th.

In terms of installed capacity, China’s wind power sector alone doubled every year between 2005 and 2009. According to the latest statistics from the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC), China added 18.9 GW of new wind power capacity in 2010, thus overtaking the US with the most installed wind power capacity in the world.

China’s parliament, the National People’s Congress (NPC), recently considered a 'New Energy Industry Development Strategy’ which is to be adopted as a major policy document by the State Council (some changes are expected due to the Fukushima nuclear plant disaster).

According to this proposed development strategy, during 2011-2020, China will invest about $800 billion in seven green energy areas, namely, wind, solar, nuclear, bio-energy, hydro, coal cleaning and smart power grid.

Green China? You'd better believe it - The Drum Opinion (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Did you read about all the pollution that is happening in China because of "green" energy?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top