Good read for green energy proponents

[Cdnfireman]

Very enlightening about how “green” all the green technologies really are. Pretty much lays out the true costs both financially and environmentally that the green energy schemes cost the world to make a few people feel better about themselves.

 

[ATV Rancher]

The democrats aren't going to give up their religion irregardless of realities. As long as the materials can mostly be imported and the mess left somewhere else, they'll think they're saving the planet. Notice how their favorite crude oil comes from the Middle East and ever increasingly from Russia.

The "zero emissions" automobile mandate for California in 2035 is really misleading, considering all of this information.....which will likely never see the inside of a public school.

 

[ATV Rancher]

Relevant to the discussion.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden...on_3754398.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink

[h=1]Biden Targets Big Offshore Wind Power Expansion[/h]
BY REUTERS
March 30, 2021 Updated: March 30, 2021
biggersmaller Print


The Biden administration on Monday unveiled a goal to expand the nation’s fledgling offshore wind energy industry in the coming decade by opening new areas to development, accelerating permits, and boosting public financing for projects.
The plan is part of President Joe Biden’s broader effort to eliminate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to fight climate change, an agenda that Republicans argue could bring economic ruin but which Democrats say can create jobs while protecting the environment.
The blueprint for offshore wind power generation comes after the Biden administration’s suspension of new oil and gas leasing auctions on federal lands and waters, widely seen as a first step to fulfilling the president’s campaign promise of a permanent ban on new federal drilling.
The plan sets a target to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, which the administration said would be enough to power 10 million homes and cut 78 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
One of the first steps will be to open a new offshore wind energy development zone in the New York Bight, an area off the densely populated coast between Long Island, New York and New Jersey, with a lease auction there later this year.
The industry will employ 44,000 workers directly by 2030 and support 33,000 additional support jobs, the administration said, with a promise that they would be “good-paying union jobs.”
Many of those jobs will be created at new factories that will produce the blades, towers and other components for massive offshore wind turbines and at shipyards where the specialized ships needed to install them will be constructed. The administration predicted the nation would see port upgrade investments related to offshore wind of more than $500 million.
The administration said it will also aim to speed up project permits, including environmental reviews, and provide $3 billion in public financing for offshore wind projects through the Department of Energy.
The plan was met with skepticism by a fishing industry group that noted the plan’s pledge of just $1 million for research into the effects of offshore wind on fisheries. Fishing groups worry that massive turbines in the ocean would interfere with fishing routes and impact commercial species.
“Where’s our roadmap to not completely stomping out one of our main sources of food production and our main source of jobs in coastal communities?” Annie Hawkins, executive director of the Responsible Offshore Development Alliance, said in an interview.
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, in her remarks at a press conference, vowed to “work through those tensions” between fisheries and wind development.
The United States currently has just two small offshore wind farms, the 30-megawatt Block Island Wind Farm off Rhode Island and a two-turbine pilot project off the coast of Virginia. There are more than 20 GW of proposed projects in various stages of development.
Europe, by contrast, has more than 20 GW of capacity and plans to expand that more than ten-fold by 2050. Many of the companies developing U.S. projects are European, including Norway’s Equinor, Denmark’s Orsted, and a joint venture between Avangrid, the U.S. arm of Spain’s Iberdrola, and Denmark’s Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.
By Richard Valdmanis and Nichola Groom

 

[jhurkot]

[h=3]Financing the Manhattan Institute’s specious case against renewables[/h][FONT=&quot]The Manhattan Institute, a New York City-based think tank, received $75,000 from ExxonMobil last year for its Center for Energy Policy. Since 1998, the company has given the libertarian policy shop more than $1.3 million.
[/FONT]

 

[X-it]

Great article cndfireman. The so called greenies will not read one page of this article though. It would hit home what hypocrites they are if they did read it and try and prove inaccuracies of the article, so expect the same ignorance to carry on.

 

[jhurkot]

Great article cndfireman. The so called greenies will not read one page of this article though. It would hit home what hypocrites they are if they did read it and try and prove inaccuracies of the article, so expect the same ignorance to carry on.

Great unbiased article. I'm sure there is no connection to them being funded by an oil company....

"[FONT=&quot]According to [/FONT][FONT=&quot], The Manhattan Institute received [/FONT][FONT=&quot]$3,182,717 from Koch foundations between 1997 and 2017[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. [/FONT][10]"

 

[imdoo'n]

https://nationalpost.com/sponsored/life-sponsored/documentary-reveals-the-false-hope-of-so-called-green-tech?fbclid=IwAR0Dkcx6JZZT5FDTekRfPCt8CZkzZzCtWjs5cJ0BCCAltS77nHbfG7ikEuQ

 

[LennyR]

Great unbiased article. I'm sure there is no connection to them being funded by an oil company....

"According to , The Manhattan Institute received $3,182,717 from Koch foundations between 1997 and 2017. [10]"

But these facts are irrefutable

“For everything built or fabricated, one can trace a straight line back upstream to where people use heavy equip- ment (in some countries, just shovels) to extract materials from the earth. It is obvious that there is a measur- able weight in the materials used to build bridges, skyscrapers, and cars. Less obvious is the weight of materials needed to produce energy. Different forms of energy involve radically different types and quantities of ener- gy-harvesting machines and therefore different kinds and quantities of materials.Whether it’s liquids extracted from the earth to power an internal combustion engine or solids used to build batteries, any significant increase in materials used per mile will add up because Americans alone drive some 3 trillion road-miles a year. The same is true for delivering kilowatt-hours and all other energy uses. The upstream nature of the underlying minerals and materials needed for civilization has always been important. It is critical now that governments around the world are rushing to embrace renewable energy.
All machines wear out, and there is nothing actually renewable about green machines, since one must engage in continual extraction of materials to build new ones and replace those that wear out. All this requires mining, processing, transportation, and, ultimately, the disposing of millions of tons of materials, much of it functionally or economically unrecyclable”

 

[Cdnfireman]

Great unbiased article. I'm sure there is no connection to them being funded by an oil company....

"According to , The Manhattan Institute received $3,182,717 from Koch foundations between 1997 and 2017. [10]"

And where does greenpeace get their funding? Do you consider them and their mega donors unbiased? 3 million over 20 years from Koch might keep the utility bills paid, but for sure isn’t gonna be influence money.
Read the authors CV. He’s no shill for anybody. And note that most facts and statements in the paper are fully footnoted, with referenced information coming from sources that are mainstream and have no bias or axe to grind.
That article pretty much lays out the source material costs of the green energy schemes, but still doesn’t show the true costs as it doesn’t quantify the energy costs used to procure the materials.
What it does show is some of the costs to the environment that it took to acquire the materials for just your Tesla car’s battery. Add to that the energy required to sinter, fabricate and build it, and it just gets worse.
You obviously enjoy your car and the technology that it comes with, and I have often said that DC traction motors are superior for certain applications, and I give credit to Tesla for the many advancements in technology that they produce. Environmentally however, your car is a disaster on wheels. This article shows that instead of being a cure to environmental problems, it’s actually a detriment and is more environmentally costly than a comparable ICE powered car.
The same thing goes for all the solar and wind farms too. Add the decommissioning and disposal/recycling costs for all these materials makes the green energy industry an even bigger environmental disaster. Instead of making the planet better for our kids and grandkids, it’s passing them a huge headache and mess to clean up.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Crickets from the greenies on this site......I wonder why?

 

[ABMax24]

Crickets from the greenies on this site......I wonder why?

 

[Cdnfireman]

View attachment 234209
https://www.snowandmud.com/image/pn...0ohe96EUvetH/B/o/kR suRuB9ggAAAAASUVORK5CYII=
https://www.snowandmud.com/image/pn...0ohe96EUvetH/B/o/kR suRuB9ggAAAAASUVORK5CYII=

Typical socialist progressive response. Can’t refute the facts so attack the person instead. Atta boy!!

 

[ABMax24]

Typical socialist progressive response. Can’t refute the facts so attack the person instead.

You've found a heap of stones pigeon, quack, quack.

 

[Cdnfireman]

You've found a heap of stones pigeon, quack, quack.

View attachment 234210

You’re still not refuting the facts. I understand that you probably feel foolish and misled by the green movement but you’re not the only one....

 

[ABMax24]

You’re still not refuting the facts. I understand that you probably feel foolish and misled by the green movement but you’re not the only one....

Don't care what you think

 

[Cdnfireman]

Don't care what you think

Or about the facts.....

 

[ABMax24]

Or about the facts.....

I care about facts, and then draw my conclusions from them.

You on the other hand start with a conclusion and cherry pick whatever information you can to re-assert your view.

 

[Teth-Air]

Good technology will stay and bad technology is just marketing that can be all the rage but won't stick around. Here is are a couple of examples:

I have a water treatment company. Over the past few years we have sold chlorination and filtration equipment to commercial buildings, including City of Calgary. The purpose of the equipment is to make rain water and grey water safe for reuse for irrigation or in some cases toilet flush water.

Sounds fantastic but the maintenance and costs far outweighs the benefits as water is relatively cheap and readily available in Canada. In addition there are huge liability issues re-using water if someone gets sick due to improper treatment.

So why do building continue to put these grey water treatment skids in? Because it gets them credits towards an environmental program called LEEDS. Now they can advertise to potential tenants that they have a LEEDS approved building and "Green" companies will rent from them.

Most of the grey water systems quickly get shut down once the building is certified.

Either way, the water used gets returned to the river eventually. It is ridiculous how we are always taught that we should not "waste" water. The truth is, moving, heating and treating water is the waste and the water is never really wasted.

Example 2

Currently there is a dishwasher soap ad on TV that promotes people to use their dishwashers for 1/2 a load and claims it makes more sense because you use something like 15 litres to hand wash dishes and the dishwasher uses less.

Are people completely stupid? It's not the cost of the water, it is the electricity to wash and dry the dishes that is the real cost. Hand washing and air or towel drying will never cost more.

Example 3

My sister-in-law is involved with a company that sells "carbon capture" technology. The process is simple. Spray water trough a flue gas stream to pick up the CO2. e.g. the exhaust of a furnace or boiler. Now the carbon rich water is converted to soap through a chemical process.

This is being eaten up as something that will save the world.

I had a chance to be a part of this company but declined as soon as I realized that all that carbon is released to the environment as soon as the soap is used. Secondly the equipment to do this is expensive and requires more maintenance than it's worth. Just buying soap from traditional suppliers makes more sense.

This too is just marketing and I suppose if you can make a buck off stupid people maybe you should?

These "green" projects do still have some value though. We get to learn what works and what doesn't. We can often take a failed idea and reuse that technology in other ways.

Just be aware, ask yourself if the tech is valuable to you or the world, or just good marketing.

 

[Cdnfireman]

I care about facts, and then draw my conclusions from them.

You on the other hand start with a conclusion and cherry pick whatever information you can to re-assert your view.

And yet you still haven't refuted the facts of that article. The problem for you is you cant produce anybody with even close to the same credentials to counter his position. My conclusion is based on the facts and common sense.... you on the other hand keep trying to sell and justify technology that has never. anywhere in the world, been successful financially without massive subsidies of one kind or another by taxpayers. Add to that the technical issues presented in that article and these green energy schemes, to a fair minded person, are a poor idea in every way.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Good technology will stay and bad technology is just marketing that can be all the rage but won't stick around. Here is are a couple of examples:

I have a water treatment company. Over the past few years we have sold chlorination and filtration equipment to commercial buildings, including City of Calgary. The purpose of the equipment is to make rain water and grey water safe for reuse for irrigation or in some cases toilet flush water.

Sounds fantastic but the maintenance and costs far outweighs the benefits as water is relatively cheap and readily available in Canada. In addition there are huge liability issues re-using water if someone gets sick due to improper treatment.

So why do building continue to put these grey water treatment skids in? Because it gets them credits towards an environmental program called LEEDS. Now they can advertise to potential tenants that they have a LEEDS approved building and "Green" companies will rent from them.

Most of the grey water systems quickly get shut down once the building is certified.

Either way, the water used gets returned to the river eventually. It is ridiculous how we are always taught that we should not "waste" water. The truth is, moving, heating and treating water is the waste and the water is never really wasted.

Example 2

Currently there is a dishwasher soap ad on TV that promotes people to use their dishwashers for 1/2 a load and claims it makes more sense because you use something like 15 litres to hand wash dishes and the dishwasher uses less.

Are people completely stupid? It's not the cost of the water, it is the electricity to wash and dry the dishes that is the real cost. Hand washing and air or towel drying will never cost more.

Example 3

My sister-in-law is involved with a company that sells "carbon capture" technology. The process is simple. Spray water trough a flue gas stream to pick up the CO2. e.g. the exhaust of a furnace or boiler. Now the carbon rich water is converted to soap through a chemical process.

This is being eaten up as something that will save the world.

I had a chance to be a part of this company but declined as soon as I realized that all that carbon is released to the environment as soon as the soap is used. Secondly the equipment to do this is expensive and requires more maintenance than it's worth. Just buying soap from traditional suppliers makes more sense.

This too is just marketing and I suppose if you can make a buck off stupid people maybe you should?

These "green" projects do still have some value though. We get to learn what works and what doesn't. We can often take a failed idea and reuse that technology in other ways.

Just be aware, ask yourself if the tech is valuable to you or the world, or just good marketing.

Well said! Lots of technology may look good at first glance, but when everything is taken into account, the facts and common sense still are the yardstick as to whether they are viable environmentally and financially. The trouble with the greenies is that they typically have no technical ability and are easily led by the hucksters that promote this snake oil. And once they've made the decision to spend money on installing a system or buying an EV, its tough for them to admit the mistake and the fact that they bought a bill of goods....