Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

[Lewdog]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Exactly . The funny thing is that idiot is probably still railing on that you can't have a majority power grid based on renewables even though more and more countries and states are doing exactly that. Like 71% of Oregon's utility power comes from renewables...

Wow.. 71% hey??? THIS is why you're too far behind to deal with the reality that wind and solar are not alternatives, just supplements....

WHAT do you think is the major source of ELECTRICAL generator in Oregon?? This is a discussion, so I need an answer to have a discussion.. ONE SOURCE accounts for 80% or more of Oregons' renewables.. What source is that SandSquid?????

 

[flacaltenn]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

 

[Lewdog]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

 

[flacaltenn]

When tidal projects are completely designed and proposed they get to be quite environmentally ugly.. This is the project I referred to in the UK.. They literally DAM a very sensitive marine estuary to get the power directed to the turbines.. Don't think even our EPA would allow this to happen... Or at least I hope not.. This is NOT very Green at all...

In Severn Bay.. Go look it up under Tidal barrage projects...

 

[flacaltenn]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

 

[Lewdog]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

 

[flacaltenn]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

 

[Lewdog]

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

 

[Billo_Really]

Published on February 27, 2019
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

written by Michael Shellenberger

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette
Mod Edit -- Moved link to article from later post to where it belongs..

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.


France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

 

[Lewdog]

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

You still haven't shit all over my post about creating energy from bacteria.

 

[flacaltenn]

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

You still haven't shit all over my post about creating energy from bacteria.

Ain't got time to ruin everybody's parade... LOL... I know a lot work going into bacteria and algae and fungi as "fuels"... But you need to make the distinction that FUELS are different than what is used to create electricity.. All of this faulty "alternatives" list is solely grid electrical generation..

I got no problem with your bacteria.. Or algae or fungi as fuels. But I'll bet heavily that the greenies will get punked again when they find out that the STRAINS of these things are "genetically modified"...

You can watch me laugh my ass off as their little glittery heads explode once again...

 

[Lewdog]

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

You still haven't shit all over my post about creating energy from bacteria.

Ain't got time to ruin everybody's parade... LOL... I know a lot work going into bacteria and algae and fungi as "fuels"... But you need to make the distinction that FUELS are different than what is used to create electricity.. All of this faulty "alternatives" list is solely grid electrical generation..

I got no problem with your bacteria.. Or algae or fungi as fuels. But I'll bet heavily that the greenies will get punked again when they find out that the STRAINS of these things are "genetically modified"...

You can watch me laugh my ass off as their little glittery heads explode once again...

Well other than the MIT link I provided earlier in the thread, there was another place where they were growing algae in a bubble and collecting the methane gas off of it for fuel.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are you certain there ARE ANY that don't have ugly enviro impacts?? Look at the pictures of those underwater turbines in the concept sketch above.. Look at the diver... It's like putting LAND BASED wind turbines into sensitive MARINE environments. The impact doesn't have to be just filleting dolphins.. It could silting up the marine beds and killing the basic food chain...

Enviros get stupid about what's Green when it's THEIR hare-brained ideas. There is definitely a HUGE double standard in "environmental impact" considerations.. And I stand back from the RUSH to do ANYTHING to replace coal and gas and nuclear and SEE that MANY of these items on the "alternative" list are actually enviro threats...

Like large scale geothermal for example.. It's not actually renewable.. The wells "wear out".. And essentially it's a dirty mining operation very much like fracking.. In fact, a lot of fracking techniques were developed in early geothermal mining.. And YET -- the Greenies just keep on listing it without a care in the fucking world..

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

You still haven't shit all over my post about creating energy from bacteria.

Ain't got time to ruin everybody's parade... LOL... I know a lot work going into bacteria and algae and fungi as "fuels"... But you need to make the distinction that FUELS are different than what is used to create electricity.. All of this faulty "alternatives" list is solely grid electrical generation..

I got no problem with your bacteria.. Or algae or fungi as fuels. But I'll bet heavily that the greenies will get punked again when they find out that the STRAINS of these things are "genetically modified"...

You can watch me laugh my ass off as their little glittery heads explode once again...

Well other than the MIT link I provided earlier in the thread, there was another place where they were growing algae in a bubble and collecting the methane gas off of it for fuel.

OMG -- you're gonna be CREATING MORE GHGases???? Nothing to go wrong there right? Why not burn cleaner natural EXISTING gas without BUILDING man-made artificial GHGases??? Natural is always better than man-made -- AMIRIGHT??

 

[Lewdog]

What is considered "ugly environmental impacts" depends on who is making the argument. For example many will say the three rivers damn project in China is an absolute disaster... but then again those aren't the people who are walking around China with a mask on because the smog is so bad it is causing serious long term health problems.

Even tho it's politically incorrect to remind people, there's a BIG diff between pollution and CO2 emission.. And they get "solved" in different ways. You can design new coal plants that would be much cleaner than any existing plants in terms of pollution (and if you burn the right TYPE of low sulphur coal... But the CO2 emissions might actually increase...

Greenies get themselves screwed repeatedly by advocating for things that aren't fully "environmentally green".. Like the big hydro projects at the beginning of the 20th century.. Or TODAY in England with the supposedly green "biomass conversion"..

That is a tale of woe right there. They took an active role in COMMISSIONING too many biomass projects in England. Promised that they would be clean and only burn "renewable biomass".. But soon the UK ran out of waste wood and chips. Had to start importing the stuff and instead allowed the plants to literally burn garbage. Thus these green warriors ended up with "garbage incinerators" in their backyards. With a stinky polluting problem MUCH WORSE than coal... NOW they are screaming to get them removed, but they supply 4 or 5% of the UK grid power and can't be idled...

So in terms of "saving the planet from Global Warming", CO2 emissions is what needs to focused on..

You still haven't shit all over my post about creating energy from bacteria.

Ain't got time to ruin everybody's parade... LOL... I know a lot work going into bacteria and algae and fungi as "fuels"... But you need to make the distinction that FUELS are different than what is used to create electricity.. All of this faulty "alternatives" list is solely grid electrical generation..

I got no problem with your bacteria.. Or algae or fungi as fuels. But I'll bet heavily that the greenies will get punked again when they find out that the STRAINS of these things are "genetically modified"...

You can watch me laugh my ass off as their little glittery heads explode once again...

Well other than the MIT link I provided earlier in the thread, there was another place where they were growing algae in a bubble and collecting the methane gas off of it for fuel.

OMG -- you're gonna be CREATING MORE GHGases???? Nothing to go wrong there right? Why not burn cleaner natural gas without BUILDING man-made artificial GHGases??? Natural is always better -- RIGHT??

You are creating those gases in a bubble, not collecting them outside... and they are still natural, they are being created by algae. Not to mention, if you can create these algae bubbles close to the source where you burn them, it creates less risk, and methane is one of the cleanest fuels you can burn.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Published on February 27, 2019
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

written by Michael Shellenberger

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette
Mod Edit -- Moved link to article from later post to where it belongs..

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.


France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

somehow i'm not buying that either
If you took all the cars off the road today ..which are half plastic to begin with you still need fossil fuels for the manufacture of thousands upon thousands of products alone.

ya get 20 gallons of gasoline out of a 55 gallon drum of oil
i forget what they turn into diesel and other stuff,,thats used for or turned into other stuff

the employment chain reaction from just pumping and digging whatever out of the ground IS YUGE
i don't know what it is but i'm pretty sure we could find out .
remember to hug an American wild catter for setting your great nation back down the road to energy Independence

obama said you cant just drill baby drill
OH YES WE CAN ...
would could did done

Co2 is just plant food don't worry about it .. AND life thrives in warmer climates

like i said its important to have clean air ,water, land ... their is nothing wrong with preserving natural beauty for future generations and being good stewards of the land ...which also includes using these fuels that have propelled us into the modern age ...(Hug a white man) efficiently and wisely ...
no one wants to see massive oil spills or coal fires that have been burning for 100 years...but i do want my jeep...this whole cheap electricity thing is nice to

the green Germans have seen their electricity rates rocket

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Published on February 27, 2019
Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

written by Michael Shellenberger

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet - Quillette
Mod Edit -- Moved link to article from later post to where it belongs..

When I was a boy, my parents would sometimes take my sister and me camping in the desert. A lot of people think deserts are empty, but my parents taught us to see the wildlife all around us, including hawks, eagles, and tortoises.

After college, I moved to California to work on environmental campaigns. I helped save the state’s last ancient redwood forest and blocked a proposed radioactive waste repository set for the desert.
In 2002, shortly after I turned 30, I decided I wanted to dedicate myself to addressing climate change. I was worried that global warming would end up destroying many of the natural environments that people had worked so hard to protect.

I thought the solutions were pretty straightforward: solar panels on every roof, electric cars in every driveway, etc. The main obstacles, I believed, were political. And so I helped organize a coalition of America’s largest labor unions and environmental groups. Our proposal was for a $300 billion dollar investment in renewables. We would not only prevent climate change but also create millions of new jobs in a fast-growing high-tech sector.

Our efforts paid off in 2007 when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama embraced our vision. Between 2009–15, the U.S. invested $150 billion dollars in renewables and other forms of clean tech. But right away we ran into trouble.

The first was around land use. Electricity from solar roofs costs about twice as much as electricity from solar farms, but solar and wind farms require huge amounts of land. That, along with the fact that solar and wind farms require long new transmissions lines, and are opposed by local communities and conservationists trying to preserve wildlife, particularly birds.

Another challenge was the intermittent nature of solar and wind energies. When the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, you have to quickly be able to ramp up another source of energy.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

I used to think that dealing with climate change was going to be expensive. But I could no longer believe this after looking at Germany and France.

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

Energy-dense nuclear requires far less in the way of materials, and produces far less in the way of waste compared to energy-dilute solar and wind.

A single Coke can’s worth of uranium provides all of the energy that the most gluttonous American or Australian lifestyle requires. At the end of the process, the high-level radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce is the very same Coke can of (used) uranium fuel. The reason nuclear is the best energy from an environmental perspective is because it produces so little waste and none enters the environment as pollution.


France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

Mod Edit -- Shortened for copyright...

Now that we know that renewables can’t save the planet, are we really going to stand by and let them destroy it?

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment,” and president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organization. Follow him on Twitter @ShellenbergerMD

But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.

golly with those numbers i guess you're right
turn off the oil wells

 

[SandSquid]

Here ya go LewDoggie - what the fuck could wrong environmentally here huh???>

Those aren't the only ones being used FlacCalTennimissy. Are we going to make up lovie dovie names for each other now?

There are ones that sit on top of the water that have planks that ride on top of the waves and the up and down motion created is what is used to create the electricity.

That's not Tidal, it's Wave power. And it's very susceptible to storm damage and not really a schedulable power source. Since wave action is not as predictable as Tidal..

EVERYTHING is susceptible to storm damage.

Especially man-made "floaty stuff" on an ocean coastline..

Oh good lord... Only idiots would put all their stuff in one barrel. At no point have I ever said that using only one type of renewable energy is a smart move to make. Also, anyone that tries hard enough can come up with what they think is a reason something will be bad for the environment for some reason or another.

I'm glad you were able to search the internet however and come up with at least one example of a group that put tidal/wave energy in an area that hurt the environment. Kudos... now show me all the ones that don't hurt the environment with their placement.

He was talking about the Severn Bay project. It's not real. There is no dam. They are exploring ideas of how they can harness power there from an environmentally friendly method. And that is what scares him. It was not one even of UK top ten sites when the idea was being brought up to build tidal power sites potentially there and the idea was killed off almost a decade ago! lol.

Jeez if that's his "sources", wow, no wonder he never was able to respond to me with any factual data.


The only actual real life, non-fairy tale major environmental damage from energy capturing in the "Sensitive Severn estuary" thus far has been the 1991 Severn oil spill where an oil pipeline ruptured killing tens of thousands of seabirds, destroying their nesting area's and feeding area's, and polluting the estuary.



It's like the wave ones. "I saw the picture, and don't think we should even test it to see how it actually performs because the picture looks like it could hurt the environment"...
This:

is a full time job now.

Like you say "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good". Imagine where we'd be if that's what everyone did. "well I like this horseless carriage idea, but we just don't have the infrastructure to fuel them, so lets just keep riding horses".

1.3 million gallons of oil is spilled per year. And we can't stop that. We've been unable to drop that number. We have a spill in the Gulf of Mexico that's been dumping millions of gallons of oil for over 15 years killing off life there... And we can't stop it. We haven't been able to stop killing off the ocean with oil. But you are scared to attempt to study another energy source that could be safer?


But glad he wants to protect the environment. So he definitely has to be against Coal. I mean we have
Acid Mine Drainage, Air pollution from the plants, air pollution from the mines, CO2 emissions, Air pollution from coal during the transport, air pollution from the vehicles transporting coal, Coal fires, (40 tons of mercury goes into atmosphere every year from them, largest source of mercury releasing in US… But I’m sure we will hear mercury is healthy now too lol), coal combustion waste, coal sludge, flooding, forest destruction, greenhouse gasses from mining, degradation of groundwater, radical disturbance of 8.4 million acres of farm/rangeland and forests, heavy metals released in mining/burning (lead, antimony, cadmium, arsenic and even radioactive isotopes), methane releasing, subsidence, sulfur dioxide, thermal pollution, water pollution and heavy water consumption.

If this guy cares so much about smaller environmental worries he must be at the front of the line to get coal shut down. Or just have hypocrite as his middle name.

 

[flacaltenn]

If more jobs is your primary goal -- ban tractors.. That's a ridiculous and retarded argument. Because wind farm maintenance is a MAJOR cost to operating those whirly gigs. And they break often and need special attention.. Not NECESSARILY a "productive" use of labor for generating electricity...