Germany Gets 85% of Its Electricity from Renewables in Record-Breaking Weekend

There is really only a few truly clean & rewewable energy sources: mainly Hydro & Geothermal. The rest lack the energy density required to offset their huge input costs, or environmental costs associated with rare earth mining.

Geothermal is excellent if your country has access to the right plate tectonics. Hydro is awesome if you have natural water flows to depend upon. Fun fact, Geothermal is like nuclear in a way, it's harvesting the heat energy from decaying radioactive within the earth's mantle to heat water and drive turbines. It's nature's nuclear reactor.

Both of these sources also work great for baseload, but if you are not able to access these, your only viable options are Fossil fuels & Nuclear. Solar & wind are gimmicks, they aren't clean, merely shifting the pollution burden elsewhere, ie. China, which eventually comes into the atmosphere due to their heavy reliance on fossil fuels. So while you may think you are doing good for the world & environment by installing roof top solar panels, you're just a victim of capitalism hijacking of the environmental movement and end up doing more harm than good.
 
I want to present to you a fact that most people who think renewables are clean and everlasting. It is not. Wind & Solar rely on a abundance of rare earth minerals which are very toxic and environmentally destructive to mine. The purification and processing of these rare earths into voltaic cells and windmill coils consume great quantities of energy, which at their source (CHINA supplies most of the world's rare earth), is energy from fossil fuels...

All you are doing with wind or solar is transfer your guilt to the chinese, who pollute to make it possible for you to enjoy your "clean" renewables (it's not renewable btw, rare earths are finite & the more you extract them, the more expensive it becomes).

Read this to get a sense of what solar in particular is doing more harm than good: http://www.news.com.au/travel/world...h/news-story/371376b9893492cfc77d23744ca12bc5

ps. This applies to all of our lithium ion batteries and like technologies, all very reliant on rare earth minerals.

I'll read it later when I get home. But as kneejerk answer I say that we have to figure out a way to make use of wind and solar energy without reliance on rare and toxic minerals possible. At its simplest we can make a homemade solar panel with beer cans and water. Obviously it is a very shitty one and not suitable for anything sensible but it works. In any case, if making wind and solar generator production safe is impossible then I really hope we figure out fusion energy ASAP.
 
C3k You're referring to liberalism now and socialism previously but I'm not sure what they've got to do with it in the context of the various conversations in this thread. There's a minor point about governments providing tax incentives to cleaner energy but no one is really talking about that.

It's a bit disingenuous to moan about fact based debate but make what is in effect an ad hominem attack based on what you think someone's political bent is. Believing in one type of energy over another or climate change or not is nothing to do with someone's conservatism or liberalism, it's just an associative relationship that a social liberal is more likely to care.

I'm bringing it up because you've made good points, now and earlier and they get weakened by association. I'm actually interested in the facts on this stuff.

Iratus; thanks.

The salient issues are comparing Germany's solution for power generation to that of the US. (And then decrying the US policy without also decrying the German policy.) Politics (socialism/feel-goodism, etc.) is important because Germany has applied several political constraints on power generation. CO2 is deemed a pollutant (this is directly attributable to feel-good-ism and has NO rational basis) and thereby is taxed and enriches the politician's coffers (and gives them power, influence, and control). Coal is thereby banned in Germany. No, I do not advocate for the return to the pollution of London, circa mid-1800s. As well, nuclear power has been politically banned in Germany. Solar and wind have serious drawbacks and environmental costs (strip mining rare-earths in China for solar panels is NOT a cost-free alternative to petrol/coal).

The free market creates the best solution...if it is allowed to operate. Politics prevents this in many cases: be it "greenies" shutting down nukes or "big power" corrupting politicians and squeezing smaller players out of the market. Politics and power are the meat and potatoes of the liberal/socialist crowd. (Statists want the politicians to enforce their morality across society. This affects power generation by rewarding or penalizing various forms of power generation.)

The true cost of power generation in Germany is NOT the kwh bill rates. You also must add in the other tax revenues which are then fed into the subsidized power generation systems. As well, creating a balance sheet showing the opportunity cost of cheaper alternatives would be interesting. (Lower taxes, lower bills, more jobs, etc.)

As well, realizing that energy consumption per capita is directly related to per capita productivity needs to be discussed. Sure, we could all live in sod huts heated by cow patties. Pretty damn green. Garden our own food using "night soil" as a natural fertilizer. Rain collection and water filtration for our drinking needs. But, that would lead to nations with the productivity of Ethiopia or Somalia. Creating a political movement which equates power use to evil ignores what a society based on non-power use would look like. We know what it has looked like and EVERY society turns to increased energy use at every available opportunity. (Aboriginal tribes in South America absolutely love refrigerators. Feel good researchers think that the humans living in the jungle should not be shown or introduced to new technology because it would corrupt the "purity" of their society. Think about that: they don't want these poor natives to have cold drinks or unspoiled food so that they (the feel good researchers) can study a stone age society. There are/have been several cases of this type of thing.)

Energy use could be more and more efficient. The market place does this. There is a liberalist twist which allows them to "feel good" by stating that subsidies (coerced labor from non-participants) are NEEDED to allow the new green technology to get past some hurdle. If it is a good solution, it will get past any hurdle. (Tesla cars are a joke...right now. Taxes (collected from everyone) are used to subsidize the cost of the car so the rich can buy they more cheaply. $150k for a car? That's out of my budget. Sure...the Tesla model MAY make sense someday. Just not today. So, the government got paid off by the company to use its power to tax the average joe so that the rich can buy the car...and feel good about being "green". That's the real energy cycle going on.)

If you haven't read any of the energy books by Bryce, I suggest you do so.
 
Are you f*cking making excuses? Even using cliched descriptors such as "The Perfect Storm". Especially after what I just wrote and you even quoted. No wonder history always repeats itself. The stupidity we humans do to ourselves.

We should declare you as the greatest human being. You have the power of hindsight. Able to explain away anything. You're God.

What makes us human? We make mistakes.

Figured your response would be something like that. And conveniently ignoring that Fukushima was indirectly caused by the actions of people like you.

I'll read it later when I get home. But as kneejerk answer I say that we have to figure out a way to make use of wind and solar energy without reliance on rare and toxic minerals possible. At its simplest we can make a homemade solar panel with beer cans and water. Obviously it is a very shitty one and not suitable for anything sensible but it works. In any case, if making wind and solar generator production safe is impossible then I really hope we figure out fusion energy ASAP.

The most interesting solar power plant I have seen that fits those needs is a molten salt power plant that last I heard is being built in California. An array of mirrors focuses light on a tower, which heats salt until it melts. The salt is then used to heat water to drive a standard steam turbine. The amount of heat gathered during the day is enough to continue generating power at night, making it viable as a baseline power source.

The drawback is the amount of land required, making it usuable only in desert terrain.
 
Figured your response would be something like that. And conveniently ignoring that Fukushima was indirectly caused by the actions of people like you.



The most interesting solar power plant I have seen that fits those needs is a molten salt power plant that last I heard is being built in California. An array of mirrors focuses light on a tower, which heats salt until it melts. The salt is then used to heat water to drive a standard steam turbine. The amount of heat gathered during the day is enough to continue generating power at night, making it viable as a baseline power source.

The drawback is the amount of land required, making it usuable only in desert terrain.
And that the rays of reflected light targeted at the boiler pop every bird (large and small) that flies through like a organic grenade because the reflected light is measuring something stupid hot like 1000*c. I just watched a BBC special on that this week. They literally explode in flight in a ball of feathers.

But hey, it's environmentally friendly... ;)
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...death-ray-thats-incinerating-birds-mid-flight
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to pay $0.45 per KWH.

If a house has solar and energy efficient appliances, they use less electricity. There's policy behind that price tag. They're trying to force people towards using less and generating locally.

The only thing stopping me from having more solar than I need, is money. If electricity were 45 cents/KWH here, solar would seem like a massive bargain.
 
If a house has solar and energy efficient appliances, they use less electricity. There's policy behind that price tag. They're trying to force people towards using less and generating locally.
In other words, forcing people to live like the third world.
 
And that the rays of reflected light targeted at the boiler pop every bird (large and small) that flies through like a organic grenade because the reflected light is measuring something stupid hot like 1000*c. I just watched a BBC special on that this week. They literally explode in flight in a ball of feathers.

Cats, windows and walls kill far more birds than anything else. Birds aren't typically super smart.
 
And that the rays of reflected light targeted at the boiler pop every bird (large and small) that flies through like a organic grenade because the reflected light is measuring something stupid hot like 1000*c. I just watched a BBC special on that this week. They literally explode in flight in a ball of feathers.

But hey, it's environmentally friendly... ;)
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...death-ray-thats-incinerating-birds-mid-flight

Every design has pros and cons. I figure there won't be too many birds passing through in deserts though.

Cats, windows and walls kill far more birds than anything else. Birds aren't typically super smart.

It really depends on the birds getting killed. If it's a rare endangered species, even one would be an issue. If it's the common urban scourge (pigeons), who cares if hundreds get killed a year.
 
..... It really depends on the birds getting killed. If it's a rare endangered species, even one would be an issue. If it's the common urban scourge (pigeons), who cares if hundreds get killed a year.

Here in OK, we have wind farms that make the first windmill pic in this thread seem rather sparse. Talked to one of the maintenance guys once. He said is is common to find protected birds of prey(eagles, hawks etc) under the windmills. They are supposed to report all of them but unofficial company policy is to simply toss the bodies into a trash can and say nothing. One of the not so well reported Obama admin policies was allowing fairly high protected species kill rates for wind farms because its good for the environment. Bottom line is everything needs a cost benefit analysis done that accounts for ALL the costs.

It wasn't too many years ago that I read where solar panels had finally reached the break even point on energy, meaning the energy produced by the panel over its lifetime exceeded the energy used to mine materials, make, transport and install it. Still wonder about the energy cost of disposing of/ recycling dead solar panels.
 
Here in OK, we have wind farms that make the first windmill pic in this thread seem rather sparse. Talked to one of the maintenance guys once. He said is is common to find protected birds of prey(eagles, hawks etc) under the windmills. They are supposed to report all of them but unofficial company policy is to simply toss the bodies into a trash can and say nothing. One of the not so well reported Obama admin policies was allowing fairly high protected species kill rates for wind farms because its good for the environment. Bottom line is everything needs a cost benefit analysis done that accounts for ALL the costs.

It wasn't too many years ago that I read where solar panels had finally reached the break even point on energy, meaning the energy produced by the panel over its lifetime exceeded the energy used to mine materials, make, transport and install it. Still wonder about the energy cost of disposing of/ recycling dead solar panels.

... typical political doublespeak. Tout a position as loudly as they could, but ignore it behind the scenes when inconvenient.
 
But thats the thing. Once we run out of Uranium or any fuel suitable for nuclear power humanity and our modern way of living is fucked. I'd like to see majority of power generated by renewable sources (even if it is unstable) so we can save the nuclear for sciency stuff where renewables are simply not suitable. IE powering space ships in the future and so on. I'm not a hippie trying to save climate, I just like to think ahead of my time and not condemn the future generations so I can have easy and cheap living right now.
I don't think we will run out of Uranium anytime soon.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx

Ramping up production capabilities in Namibia sometime this year.

Also there is plenty of seawater in the world to do science stuff as well whenever we get to that point. If we move to Thorium it would be easier, as it is more common than uranium is in our worlds crust.
 
(Aboriginal tribes in South America absolutely love refrigerators. Feel good researchers think that the humans living in the jungle should not be shown or introduced to new technology because it would corrupt the "purity" of their society. Think about that: they don't want these poor natives to have cold drinks or unspoiled food so that they (the feel good researchers) can study a stone age society. There are/have been several cases of this type of thing.)

There's absolutely an argument to be made for not stomping in on a group of people who are already happy with their lives and who have absolutely no capacity to integrate with modern society. And there is absolutely an argument to be made for study of their society. This is even a main theme of Star Trek.

I could contrast your attitude towards exposing these people to 'the truth' of the world with your desire to hide from the truth of CO2 as a pollutant (or whatever word you want to use to describe it). Interesting that you think you should be allowed to live with your ignorance but it's immoral to allow these natives to live with theirs, and their ignorance isn't even harming anyone external.

Energy use could be more and more efficient. The market place does this. There is a liberalist twist which allows them to "feel good" by stating that subsidies (coerced labor from non-participants) are NEEDED to allow the new green technology to get past some hurdle. If it is a good solution, it will get past any hurdle. (Tesla cars are a joke...right now. Taxes (collected from everyone) are used to subsidize the cost of the car so the rich can buy they more cheaply. $150k for a car? That's out of my budget. Sure...the Tesla model MAY make sense someday. Just not today. So, the government got paid off by the company to use its power to tax the average joe so that the rich can buy the car...and feel good about being "green". That's the real energy cycle going on.)

The market is efficient at making money. Unfortunately making that money can involve pushing some of the costs of making that money onto the rest of us. Pollution (of any sort) is "free" for someone to emit but poses costs on the rest of us. That is why governmental action is required. Perhaps a more fair (by some definition, not mine) solution would be to impose additional pollution taxes on ICE vehicle manufacturers or users in order to help equalize costs with non-emitting vehicles (I understand the concept of a zero sum game so don't bother bringing the costs to manufacture batteries into this). That would be a highly regressive tax however, so perhaps it simply makes more sense to subsidize non-emitting vehicles directly.

It is the government's job to collect taxes and put them to the best use for the society. I take issue with how a great deal of my taxes are spent. That's just the price for living in our society. This cover of lamenting the theft of taxes from unwilling participants just rings hollow as nothing more than a faux philosophically rigorous defense of a lifestyle to which you've become accustomed and which is no longer tenable.
 
Last edited:
I don't think we will run out of Uranium anytime soon.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx

http://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx

Ramping up production capabilities in Namibia sometime this year.

Also there is plenty of seawater in the world to do science stuff as well whenever we get to that point. If we move to Thorium it would be easier, as it is more common than uranium is in our worlds crust.

That is very true. Not to mention current reactors can only extract about 1-5% of the energy contained in uranium. Fast reactors can extract almost 100% of that energy, but are inherently more dangerous and costly.
 
There's absolutely an argument to be made for not stomping in on a group of people who are already happy with their lives and who have absolutely no capacity to integrate with modern society. And there is absolutely an argument to be made for study of their society. This is even a main theme of Star Trek.

I could contrast your attitude towards exposing these people to 'the truth' of the world with your desire to hide from the truth of CO2 as a pollutant (or whatever word you want to use to describe it). Interesting that you think you should be allowed to live with your ignorance but it's immoral to allow these natives to live with theirs, and their ignorance isn't even harming anyone external.

CO2: the widespread alarmism about CO2 is a religious cult. It has every characteristic of one, most especially the faith-based belief system.

Exposing aboriginals to "the truth"??? How is unspoiled food and clean water something which an "elevated" human withholds from another? Let them choose. And every time, they choose labor saving devices, and especially love refrigerators.
 
Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

I hate to tell you, but its a long time since wind and solar passed coal. And isn't wind power a good business in Texas.

On the topic, this is quite cool.
http://energinet.dk/EN/ANLAEG-OG-PR...tors-to-develop-North-Sea-Wind-Power-Hub.aspx
http://www.4coffshore.com/offshorewind/

UK already got 4x1200Mw projects there.

North%20Sea%20island%20billede.jpg

dogger%20island%20map%20north%20sea.jpg


In Denmark Horns Rev 3 (400Mw, 2017) and Kriegers Flak Denmark (600Mw, 2018) is to come online. Baltic 2 from Germany will be located near Kriegers Flak and interconnected. Its a 300Mw project. Baltic Power with 100Mw likewise from Germany. So will Kriegers Flak 2 from Sweden with 650Mw.
energinet-dk-seeks-cable-burial-protection-contractor-for-kriegers-flak-cgs.jpg
 
Last edited:
CO2: the widespread alarmism about CO2 is a religious cult. It has every characteristic of one, most especially the faith-based belief system.

Are you sure you understand how scientific research and publishing works? People without such background are constantly saying things similar to this and, as someone who has published plenty, that's just not how things work (search my bibliography if you don't believe me).

Earlier in the thread CacoSapo posted a link which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny (in case you'd care to defend it). When I see that caliber of "research" as counterarguments to actual published research it's just embarrassing for the denial crowd. Doesn't it bother you that your beliefs are being represented by such flawed and laughable claims? And before you ask, there are some in this thread on my "side" which aren't exactly filling me with pride with their argumentation so it absolutely goes both ways.

Exposing aboriginals to "the truth"??? How is unspoiled food and clean water something which an "elevated" human withholds from another? Let them choose. And every time, they choose labor saving devices, and especially love refrigerators.

How much are you willing to raise your taxes by to give those things to poor people in India? in Africa? In Bangladesh? Oh, I guess it's ok to withhold that kind of stuff from them if it's going to cost you *money*. More faux rigorous philosophy from the red pill crowd :rolleyes:.
 
Germany gets a couple of good weeks of sun and people start crowing about the tens-of-billions of dollars they've spent on solar panels. Germany typically gets less than 10% of their energy from solar (usually closer to 5%) even though it has the panel capacity to supply about 2/3 of their entire needs...because it's a northern... AND CLOUDY... country. The US would do much better than Germany if we built a lot of solar.... and if nat-gas wasn't so cheap and if our country wasn't so large and spread out. As it is, we'll continue to use less coal for the next couple of decades while we build new nat-gas plants because our gas is sooo awesomely cheap - - because it's basically a by-product of our current oil production (fracking).

It should also be noted that a lot of those governmental subsidies (like where municipalities have to buy back any unused power from home solar) are starting to be reduced or done away with... even in Germany.

In the end, we all vote with our wallets. People are all for cleaner air, energy, etc. But tell them they can have those things just by paying 2 to 3x more for all their utilities and watch how fast 'green' support dries up.
 
In the end, we all vote with our wallets. People are all for cleaner air, energy, etc. But tell them they can have those things just by paying 2 to 3x more for all their utilities and watch how fast 'green' support dries up.

So what if I told you I found a magic technique which made it profitable to go back to and even increase coal production. Would you support people voting with their wallets in that case? What if our new magic supply of coal wasn't expected to run out for 100 years? Would it be ok for people to vote with their wallets that entire time? Do you conceive of a line where just voting with ones wallet can't be the only component of a decision?
 
Are you sure you understand how scientific research and publishing works? People without such background are constantly saying things similar to this and, as someone who has published plenty, that's just not how things work (search my bibliography if you don't believe me).

Earlier in the thread CacoSapo posted a link which clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny (in case you'd care to defend it). When I see that caliber of "research" as counterarguments to actual published research it's just embarrassing for the denial crowd. Doesn't it bother you that your beliefs are being represented by such flawed and laughable claims? And before you ask, there are some in this thread on my "side" which aren't exactly filling me with pride with their argumentation so it absolutely goes both ways.



How much are you willing to raise your taxes by to give those things to poor people in India? in Africa? In Bangladesh? Oh, I guess it's ok to withhold that kind of stuff from them if it's going to cost you *money*. More faux rigorous philosophy from the red pill crowd :rolleyes:.

I applaud your desire to continue in academia. Remind me: who pays for all this research? Oh, there's no feedback loop there, is there?

Why would I ever wish to have coercion used to give the fruit of my labor to Indians or Africans or Bangladeshis? Withhold what? I'm all for letting them see how well they can live, rather than hide it from them "for their own good". Do they have any goods that I value? I'll gladly pay for them...without ever forcing my compatriots to have to pay to support my view of morality.

Your argument doesn't even get off the ground floor. You have an "appeal to authority", which is weak. (I am not impugning whatever academic achievements you have: I am simply pointing out that being published or not has no bearing...on anything.) As for stating that taxation is akin to morality, you show your statist roots.

Climate change is a cult.
 
I applaud your desire to continue in academia. Remind me: who pays for all this research? Oh, there's no feedback loop there, is there?

Obviously I'm too obtuse to get what you're driving at. And I'm not in academia but was fortunate enough to have significant opportunities to continue publishing while at Intel.

Why would I ever wish to have coercion used to give the fruit of my labor to Indians or Africans or Bangladeshis?

It's not coercion if you do it willingly, silly goose. But to answer your question, showing something to someone which they lack the capacity to afford is akin to withholding it from them. It's a difference without a distinction. For all intensive purposes (tee hee) it's the same thing.

Withhold what? I'm all for letting them see how well they can live, rather than hide it from them "for their own good". Do they have any goods that I value? I'll gladly pay for them...without ever forcing my compatriots to have to pay to support my view of morality.

Don't put words in my mouth about withholding anything from these people "for their own good" like a paternalistic god. We as a species lose something each time contact is made with one of these groups, something we can never get back. I'm not saying there are no arguments on your side, just I assume they carry more substance than "aren't popsicles rad!"

Given that these tribes have nothing of value (save themselves and their virgin culture), no capacity to integrate to modern society, no capacity for literacy (literacy must be taught while young before it becomes increasingly difficult to acquire), what benefit exactly are you proposing it serves to expose them to fancy things they can't afford to purchase, power, or maintain? If your argument is going to be that we have no right to decide what information we share with these people regardless of the consequence then lets leave this here because I'm sure a logically consistent viewpoint along those lines can be constructed. I'd simply to invite you to recognize that there are plenty of ideas which are logically consistent which don't appear to be practically feasible. Libertarianism is easy to make philosophically sound but is so practically unworkable that it's shocking people continue to defend it.

Your argument doesn't even get off the ground floor. You have an "appeal to authority", which is weak.

It's not an appeal to authority *if I AM an authority* sweetums. Sorry not sorry that you don't stand toe-to-toe with me on this subject but I'm sure I don't match your knowledge of faux philosophy and fake taxation outrage so I guess we're even. Feel free to pull rank on me there.

An appeal to authority is an appeal to someone who is *not* an authority on a subject. Like a pastor weighing in on science or some geocities page on global climate change.

(I am not impugning whatever academic achievements you have: I am simply pointing out that being published or not has no bearing...on anything.)

It has bearing on the fact that your weaponized ignorance of scientific study is not on par with my... actual knowledge of it. It is simply impossible for our current claimed understanding the global climate to be a fraud given how scientific publishing works. Period. You may not like it that you aren't smart enough to run in those circles but alas, that's just how the world works.

As for stating that taxation is akin to morality, you show your statist roots.

I don't have the first clue what this means. I'm even money on whether *you* know what it means either.

Climate change is a cult.

Oh right, I asked you support this a while back. Ready to do so? Or are we not done going through the "babby's first philosphy class" Chick tract?
 
upload_2017-5-14_20-55-39.jpeg

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ong-term-cost-and-efficiency-still-questioned

Someone posted this earlier. Very relevant graph about safety of each technology. Facts hurt!

Also, as far as cost for solar vs nuclear, aside from capacity factor mentioned in that article, you also have to consider how long the plant lasts. Photovoltaic panels have to be replaced every 25 years. Nuclear power plants run for 60+ years. Coal runs essentially forever. Capital costs skyrocket, when you factor that into the equation.
 
Iratus; thanks.

The salient issues are comparing Germany's solution for power generation to that of the US. (And then decrying the US policy without also decrying the German policy.) Politics (socialism/feel-goodism, etc.) is important because Germany has applied several political constraints on power generation. CO2 is deemed a pollutant (this is directly attributable to feel-good-ism and has NO rational basis) and thereby is taxed and enriches the politician's coffers (and gives them power, influence, and control). Coal is thereby banned in Germany. No, I do not advocate for the return to the pollution of London, circa mid-1800s. As well, nuclear power has been politically banned in Germany. Solar and wind have serious drawbacks and environmental costs (strip mining rare-earths in China for solar panels is NOT a cost-free alternative to petrol/coal).

The free market creates the best solution...if it is allowed to operate. Politics prevents this in many cases: be it "greenies" shutting down nukes or "big power" corrupting politicians and squeezing smaller players out of the market. Politics and power are the meat and potatoes of the liberal/socialist crowd. (Statists want the politicians to enforce their morality across society. This affects power generation by rewarding or penalizing various forms of power generation.)

The true cost of power generation in Germany is NOT the kwh bill rates. You also must add in the other tax revenues which are then fed into the subsidized power generation systems. As well, creating a balance sheet showing the opportunity cost of cheaper alternatives would be interesting. (Lower taxes, lower bills, more jobs, etc.)

As well, realizing that energy consumption per capita is directly related to per capita productivity needs to be discussed. Sure, we could all live in sod huts heated by cow patties. Pretty damn green. Garden our own food using "night soil" as a natural fertilizer. Rain collection and water filtration for our drinking needs. But, that would lead to nations with the productivity of Ethiopia or Somalia. Creating a political movement which equates power use to evil ignores what a society based on non-power use would look like. We know what it has looked like and EVERY society turns to increased energy use at every available opportunity. (Aboriginal tribes in South America absolutely love refrigerators. Feel good researchers think that the humans living in the jungle should not be shown or introduced to new technology because it would corrupt the "purity" of their society. Think about that: they don't want these poor natives to have cold drinks or unspoiled food so that they (the feel good researchers) can study a stone age society. There are/have been several cases of this type of thing.)

Energy use could be more and more efficient. The market place does this. There is a liberalist twist which allows them to "feel good" by stating that subsidies (coerced labor from non-participants) are NEEDED to allow the new green technology to get past some hurdle. If it is a good solution, it will get past any hurdle. (Tesla cars are a joke...right now. Taxes (collected from everyone) are used to subsidize the cost of the car so the rich can buy they more cheaply. $150k for a car? That's out of my budget. Sure...the Tesla model MAY make sense someday. Just not today. So, the government got paid off by the company to use its power to tax the average joe so that the rich can buy the car...and feel good about being "green". That's the real energy cycle going on.)

If you haven't read any of the energy books by Bryce, I suggest you do so.

hahaha. Poor guy. You must hate life, especially "liberals"
 
How come no mention of Germans burning trash for power? It's something the states should do, instead of massive landfills. Less greenhouse gases and you get electricity.
 
I thought everyone did that now. We have done it for ages here in Denmark as well.

US has some, but it's not very much. Stupid environmentalist are actually blocking it. Most probably think it'll be like tossing trash into a big fire and having smoke bellowing out a chimney and creating a lot of pollution. Which it obviously doesn't.

Few environmentalist probably understand that it's actually fairly clean, but they're delusional in thinking that the the government should push for zero waste. That once you make these waste-to-energy incinerators is that it'll have to be constantly feed. When looking at countries like Denmark, Germany, etc. They have both good recycling practices and they only incinerate what can't be recycled.

Nah, instead. Just make more pollution by having large smelly landfills, that bellow out methane.
 
Never mentioned... at what cost? Wind power costs 3x as much as the next best alternative and solar 6x. That raises the price of everything. They basically banned far more affordable nuclear power.

Germany is also ruining their views with 40 story windmills all over the countryside. Their famous black forest looks like War of the Worlds in some areas. Only going to get worse as they phase out nuclear power.
View attachment 24817 View attachment 24813 View attachment 24814 View attachment 24815 View attachment 24816
I'll take a few wind turbines over dying a couple years early from breathing coal fumes put into the air for decades.
 
US has some, but it's not very much. Stupid environmentalist are actually blocking it. Most probably think it'll be like tossing trash into a big fire and having smoke bellowing out a chimney and creating a lot of pollution. Which it obviously doesn't.

Few environmentalist probably understand that it's actually fairly clean, but they're delusional in thinking that the the government should push for zero waste. That once you make these waste-to-energy incinerators is that it'll have to be constantly feed. When looking at countries like Denmark, Germany, etc. They have both good recycling practices and they only incinerate what can't be recycled.

Nah, instead. Just make more pollution by having large smelly landfills, that bellow out methane.

Ye landfills is the biggest demon of all. Polluted area that requires a lot over a long period of time where its very hard to contain.

Just burn it and get energy, heat, metals etc out right away. Burning trash is not much different than burning biofuel. We already recycle plastic, paper, cardboard, batteries, electronics, metals etc.
 
Ahh, the ad hominem begins.

I "must hate life."

I "am not your intellectual equal. (I am stupid.)"

This is how it works. You show that the cult is totally faith-based, and the cult responds, not by embracing their faith, but by destroying the non-believer. This is the equivalent of every other liberal movement: any dissent is shouted down, banned, or the individual attacked. Thanks.
 
Ahh, the ad hominem begins.

I "must hate life."

I "am not your intellectual equal. (I am stupid.)"

This is how it works. You show that the cult is totally faith-based, and the cult responds, not by embracing their faith, but by destroying the non-believer. This is the equivalent of every other liberal movement: any dissent is shouted down, banned, or the individual attacked. Thanks.

The vast majority of your posts are nothing but ad hominems attacking "liberals", "greenies", and the "climate change cult".

This passive / aggressive approach, when confronted with facts and evidence is really quite sad.
 
Yes it is impossible... impossible to profit from it.
impossible to provide to everyone at a reasonable cost. Rich people don't give a shit, they'll pay for the virtue signaling. Poor people get to choose between heat or eat. I guess we can initiate another social program we can't afford.
 
I live in south Germany, and I can't say I'm bothered by the wind turbines. They look pretty cool and futuristic most of the time. I'd even say there don't even seem to be as many as there could be. The photovoltaic fields are more obvious, and I worry more about waterfowl landing on them, or plants not being able to grow below them, than from wind turbines. But either option look better than a giant gas or coal plant. Also, I pay normal money for electricity, and I earn academia money.
 
Comparing countries smaller than Montana to the entire U.S. is ridiculous. Hey look one little state has 40% renewable....Tell me when China or Russia hit that target.
 
Comparing countries smaller than Montana to the entire U.S. is ridiculous. Hey look one little state has 40% renewable....Tell me when China or Russia hit that target.

As the Chinese says, its just a number. So drop the excuses. If anything a bigger country is much better suited for it.

China also got twice the wind power capacity installed compared to the US.

Wind Power capacity (2016):
China 168.7Gw.
European Union 153.7Gw.
USA 82.1Gw.

Solar Power capacity (2015):
European Union 94.5Gw.
China 43.5Gw.
USA 25.6Gw. (We all know how much the US lacks sunny places...oh wait.)
 
Wont fly in Coalistan, but good for the Germans, preserving the health of their children and keeping their hills from turning into what places like West Virginia suffer from these days. Probably saves them a ton on healthcare.

Who wants to be a tourist down here with that kinda disgusting view:
13web_ENV-MINING_wide.source.prod_affiliate.91.jpg

Air quality's worse than the view.

That's what you get when you chase the dollar at the expense of all else, kids with asthmas, autism and all manner of sickness here. Hard to enjoy that extra pocket change when you got cancer.
 
People also forget how polluted coal is as a source. Uranium, thorium, arsenic, mercury, lead etc. All gets burned and a lot goes up the chimney and spreads over the area.
 
Comparing countries smaller than Montana to the entire U.S. is ridiculous. Hey look one little state has 40% renewable....Tell me when China or Russia hit that target.

Yeah, they just have 81 million people, 3.35 trillion GDP.. Yeah EXACTLY like Montana.
 
As the Chinese says, its just a number. So drop the excuses. If anything a bigger country is much better suited for it.

China also got twice the wind power capacity installed compared to the US.

Wind Power capacity (2016):
China 168.7Gw.
European Union 153.7Gw.
USA 82.1Gw.

Solar Power capacity (2015):
European Union 94.5Gw.
China 43.5Gw.
USA 25.6Gw. (We all know how much the US lacks sunny places...oh wait.)

Considering that China is where all of that is made, it's probably a bit cheaper for them...

No one in the United States would be against solar or wind if it was actually cheap. People just don't want to be forced into expensive technologies that result in thousand dollar power bills.
 
Back
Top