Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.
But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.
But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.
Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?
technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.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 these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.
Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?
but it won't be inexpensive.
technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.
But these IDEAS should be thoroughly vetted BEFORE immature, and gullible politicians and leadership gets involved in pushing them out before the DETAILS are revealed.
Immature and gullible? Do you think that might apply to our idiot-in-chief?
Haha, wait a second Crick....
So he specifically mentioned the Severn Barrage idea, where they vetted the idea and decided not to go forward with it in that area and didn't push it out as an example of them actually pushing it out?
Does he really not realize THERE IS NO BARRAGE THERE???? That during the vetting process before handing out a contract to build it, they determined they couldn't solve the issues in that location for that idea?
Like they literally did a feasability study of ten different ideas and then axed the program.
Wow, he seems to be living in a fantasy world there. As entertaining as his stories sound, yeah nothing good comes from being that dumb.
our interstate freeway system didn't happen overnight, either.but it won't be inexpensive.
technology is improving all the time. we could resort one hundred percent renewables but it won't be inexpensive.
Germans are already paying three times what Americans are paying for electricity and they're not even close to 100%...costs to end use consumers from households to Business is a big issue
Spain was a complete disaster
Germany is very close to eliminating its last coal fired plant. The last 84 coal fired plants will be closed over the next 19 years. Renewable overtook coal last year as the largest single source of power. Forty percent of German power is produced by renewable sources.
Renewables overtake coal as Germany's main energy source | Reuters
Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy
That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.
But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.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
That maintenance is a major cost there is because they have zero fuel costs. If you remove the cost of fuel from a coal, oil or gas facility, maintenance will be its largest cost as well.
Prove it.But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.
It's true, green energy has low productivity compared to fossil fuels.
Prove it.But they do provide more jobs than the fossil fuel industry.
It's true, green energy has low productivity compared to fossil fuels.
Well, according to Fortune...How many jobs do you think are provided by green energy?