On being green...

[Jake]

Interesting subject.

[QuantumJo]

Please tell me what the definition of green energy is?

According to the EPA “Green Power” is:
A subset of renewable energy and represents those renewable energy resources and technologies that provide the highest environmental benefit.

Electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, eligible biomass, and low-impact small hydroelectric sources.

Green power sources produce electricity with an environmental profile superior to conventional power technologies and produce no fossil-fuel based greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/gpmarket/

[old red]

The sad reality is that green is heavily subsidized which makes it not so green. The green solutions onto themselves are not sustainable as they do not create energy as efficiently as fossil fuels.

The EPA's 10 federal districts with seasonal blends that can't be intermixed has created regulated fuel shortages - that keeps pricing artificially high. That high pricing increases the cost of food and everything else that needs energy. That extra cost is also found in burning food (corn) waisted water and soil. Fuel is less powerful because of the restrictions. At the end of the day everyone is working harder using more resources than ever before to pay for green........

1/3rd of the energy used in the US is to power the communication super highway grid....... The very same place where the green theory resides in computer models.

I wonder how much harm "green" is really doing - guess we won't know until food & water become the next crisis.

[QuantumJo]

The green solutions onto themselves are not sustainable as they do not create energy as efficiently as fossil fuels.

As I write this I cant help thinking that some people may view my comments as those coming from a tree hugging nut who wants to see the demise of all internal combustion engines. That’s not the case. In fact the sound of a V8 with a big lopie cam or a I6 diesel or a jet engine turning fossil fuel into power makes my hair stand on end. I love the way it sounds, I love the way it smells and I love the visceral feeling when I mash the skinny peddle flat to the fire wall. It is truly in my blood. With that said...

Fossil fuels store a tremendous amount of energy. Humans have been burning wood for over 2,000,000 years. We first started to use coal around 1000 BCE. Kerosene in the 1850’s then gasoline and diesel soon followed. We may never find a fuel that we can extract from the ground so readily and use to make power again.

The problem with this is;
We are running out of oil.
We are using it millions of times faster than it was made.
We are dumping CO2 in our atmosphere a million times faster than it was removed by the plants that used it.
CO2 has a insulating affect in our atmosphere trapping heat.
The planet is warming which affects our weather, which doesn't bode well for our long term existence as a species.

Solar is a great renewable source of energy. On a individual basis PV arrays on a home can provide electricity for day to day needs like running electronic devices, electric motors that are in your refrigerator, washer and dryer and potently to charge an electric powered vehicle. The solar panels on my garage are producing about 8 million watt hours per year. That is enough for all our household needs and plenty left over to use for a few months of heat over the winter.

Large solar power plants like Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in San Bernardino County, California (420 gwh/year) and Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project Nye County, Nevada ( 500 gwh/ year) are just 2 examples of the potential of solar power on a larger scale.

Solar is just one aspect of renewable “green” energy. There is also great potential in wind, geothermal and hydroelectric / tidal.

By definition sustainable is; Able to be used without being completely used up or destroyed. Involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources.

So, I do believe that green solutions onto themselves are sustainable even if they do not create energy as efficiently as fossil fuels. Whereas fossil fuels are not sustainable at all.

[Bob Thompson]

I don't disagree with you Jo, we are in fact running out of oil. Albeit not as soon as some would have you think but that's beside the point.
All energy technologies have their negative side. I am not saying that we should abandon any of them. I am instead suggesting that the proponents of all the disparate methods be honest and give full disclosure of the impacts of their championed solution.
I suspect we will ultimately need a combination of systems to fully supply society going forth. And rest assured there will be some group ready to protest the implementation of whatever methods are suggested on behalf of some obscure species or other.
We will, as a society at some point realize that something has to give.
I personally think that thin film solar has the most to offer at the moment. Due to its low impact and relative ease of manufacture. It requires petroleum products to produce but the rewards outstrip the amount of oil needed to produce them. They are not however, a solution to transportation for obvious reasons. The biggest objection I've heard is that they are an eyesore and several HOA's have banned them. I suppose soon that someone will claim that the reflection is a hazard to migratory birds. Such are the waters we sail upon today.

[KRB64]

...1/3rd of the energy used in the US is to power the communication super highway grid....... The very same place where the green theory resides in computer models.

I wonder how much harm "green" is really doing - guess we won't know until food & water become the next crisis.

No kidding? That seems HUGE.

[68dually]

Nobody knows why the earth is warming a little bit. They just blame it on humans so that they can control more money. I mean , Greenland isn't called that for no reason. Right now it's a big block of ice but a thousand years ago they used to farm it. In the 70s they told us that we were in danger of another ice age coming and now 40 years later it's warming and it's the same liberals saying it. As for fossil fuels , they are affordable. All the rules governing fossil fuels that the goverments are starting to make are hurting economic growth. Think of the new rules for emissions , the new diesel trucks get 14 mpg and my old '91' gets 19mpg. They have cleaner exhaust but they burn 20% more fuel .If all the people in third world countries could afford solar or even electric heat they would do it but they have to burn wood which they say is bad for the ozone. We need to push affordable fuels to help bring people out of poverty and at the same time work on technology. It's technology that's going to save the environment but it has to be affordable for the average person. Remember VHS players? When they first came out they were almost $800.00 and 10 years ago they were $39.99.

[QuantumJo]

I agree with you Bob. There are two sides to any coin. The positive and negative side of any choice. The trick is two part. One picking the one that is less harmful and two being willing to accept change when a better solution comes along.

There was a clothing store in the Buffalo area who's slogan was “An educated consumer is our best customer”. When I was very young I had no idea what that meant, when I grew up I understood. The burden of knowing the up and down side of potential alternative energy solutions ultimately resides with the end user. I researched solar for about a year before I made the decision to go that way. From what I have found the biggest down side is the chemicals that are used to clean the silicon wafers that are used for the PV cells. I have all but given up on expecting disclosure from the supplier. They tend to highlight the pluses and bury the negatives.

I also agree that we’ll need several sources of energy. Putting all the eggs in one basket is not very wise. I would guess that nuclear and coal would be the obvious choices to be used in conjunction with renewables in order to have a well rounded source of energy for this nation.

By the way, the name of the clothing store was Syms. After 50 years in business they went bankrupt in 2009. That just goes to show how many educated consumers there are in this area.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51BQfPeSK8k

[old red]

Sorry guys been away from the forum for awhile. Please do not look at this as political as it is not. This subject interests me very much because to me there is so much waste created by federal subsidies that drive "phony capitalism". Now that we have brought global warming or so called climate change into the discussion we have come full circle. Global warming & green feed off each other driven by a cottage industry of professionals, schools & companies that are so careful not to use any verifiable facts. Everything is driven by a model that predicts the demise of the planet if we don't do X, Y & Z. Sound familiar?

The current tangible facts.......

Since 2007 energy and food prices have nearly doubled. (Kiplinger)
The world is consuming less oil today than we were in 2008. (Kiplinger)
The amount of recoverable oil has now put America as largest oil producing nation in the world by 2018.(WSJ) (NYT) (USN&WR)
The global temperature has been dropping in the last 10 years. (WSJ) (NYT) (USN&WR)
Ethanol blended fuels cause more C02 to be released into the atmosphere than just using fossil fuels alone would. (EPA)
We have destroyed millions of acres of set aside waterfowl habitat in the production of ethanol. (EPA)
Refined fuels in America is at least 25% less powerful today than it was before 2000. (ME)

So.....

Now if we are running out of fossil fuels why are we regulated into waisting so much fuel?

If the globe is not cooling why did they change the terminology from global warming to climate change subtly a few years ago?

Why did the whole world (other than the US) reject carbon credits in 2009?

If the world is in a oil surplus why is the US consumer still paying almost double for refined fuels?

Why was the incandescent light bulb considered too wasteful to use but the compact fluorescent light bulb too polluting to be made in the USA?

Why is this even a subject in this great forum?

Well because I drive a 2009 Dodge Cummins 1 ton truck. It gets at best 14-15 mpg & I have to change 3 gallons of oil every 5000 miles because the engine is asked to consume its own waste while it over fuels the engine during the regen mode to burn out the DPF (more waste). If I delete the truck the mileage will go up 25% 20 mpg & my oil changes with high quality synthetic oils can go up to 20,000 miles between complete oil changes. If I go from 15ppm fuel to 250ppm fuel (2007) my truck will get in the neighbor hood of 28 to 30 mpg.

So let's say that there is 10,000,000 3/4 & 1 ton diesels out on the roads in the US. Consuming 50% percent more resources than the same trucks less than 10 years ago? Who is creating the regulations that are driving that? Why are they doing that?

Gordon has been teaching us to verify our work, to think thru the process, to ask questions, then to answer those questions with knowledge gained thru effort.

Far too long too many people in my opinion have believed in computer models that were made with the least amount of effort and not verified by multiple independent non compromise-able sources.

I could be all wrong too. But I have a truck in the drive way I am preparing to delete because of the regulated waste it is designed to meet.

So have at it, you are my non-compromise-able sources.....

[KRB64]

Interesting.

Similar situation the other day when I was helping a friend with a new tractor purchase in the 80 engine hp range.

Tractors now have the same "technology" (is it tier 4?) that trucks did like you are referring to. The salesman said that power has gone down and fuel consumption has gone up.

So does the decreased emissions exceed the "cost" of increased fuel and oil consumption that you speak of? Who do you believe? Everybody is out to make a buck, including, unfortunately, most of those out to save the environment...

[W_A_Watson_II]

Old Red,

Great response! The only question I can answer is "If the world is in a oil surplus why is the US consumer still paying almost double for refined fuels?" I suspect it's because the value of our money (dollar) is woth about half what it was.

[QuantumJo]

Global warming & green feed off each other driven by a cottage industry of professionals, schools & companies that are so careful not to use any verifiable facts.

This is so untrue.

The indisputable facts are:

-It took millions of years for the earth to turn the carbon in living organisms into the fuel we use today as coal, oil & methane gas.

-In about 200 years we have used up more than half of these resources.

-Eventually we will run out.

-Over the past 400,000 years the earths climate has closely followed the rise and fall of Co2 in the atmosphere.

-We now have more Co2 in the atmosphere than any time in the past 400,000 years.

It's all academic whether or not there is 10,000,000 3/4 & 1 ton diesels out on the roads in the US. Consuming 50% percent more resources than the same trucks less than 10 years ago. Or refined fuels in America is at least 25% less powerful today than it was before 2000. They are cherry picked snippets that address the very short term. When one looks at cause and effect over the past 400,000 years the picture becomes clear.

Using Fossil Fuel as an Energy source Is Unsustainable and Detrimental to our Survival as a Species

[W_A_Watson_II]

There have been ice ages when the CO2<small></small> has been 10 to 15 times higher than modern levels (Ordovician Ice Age).

CO2 has gone up in the past and Temperature has gone both up and down.
CO2 has gone down in the past and Temperature has gone both up and down.
(Silurian and Devonian and Triassic and Jurassic)

Earth’s temperature is always changing, other wise we would not have had or come out of Ice Ages.
CO2 has always been present and levels gone both up and down.

Are we having an affect on the climate/weather, likely, but not to the scale the power and money control mongers are claiming.
Even the installation/use of Solar and Wind power affects the climate/weather.

Solar panels take sun that would have heated the earth and intercepts it to create power.
Wind generators, take energy from the wind, slowing it and causing climate changes down wind.

Will this earth come to and end? Yes, the Lord says so. When, I expect his return is sooner than later.

God Bless,
Will

[QuantumJo]

The Jurassic and Triassic are in the Mesozoic Era.
Triassic Period that extended from 248 Million to 206 Million Years Ago.
The Jurassic Period extended from 206 Million to 144 Million Years Ago.

The Devonian, Silurian & Ordovician are in the Paleozoic Era
The Devonian Period extended from 417 Million to 354 Million Years Ago.
The Silurian Period extended from 443 Million to 417 Million Years Ago.
The Ordovician Period extended from 490 Million to 443 Million Years Ago.

The earth was a very different place back then. To compare the earths atmospheric composition 490,000,000 years ago to what it was like 400,000 is like apples to oranges and has nothing to do with the information in my last post.

Solar panels do not “take sun” That is ridiculous.
When you say “wind generators” I have to assume that you are talking about Wind Turbines. They slow the wind no more that the house you live in. Do you suggest that we abandoned our dwellings so we don't cause climate change down wind?

As for what the lord says... I think that is a subject not to be discussed in this forum.

[Bob2]

Bicycles

The Jurassic and Triassic are in the Mesozoic Era.
Triassic Period that extended from 248 Million to 206 Million Years Ago.
The Jurassic Period extended from 206 Million to 144 Million Years Ago.

The Devonian, Silurian & Ordovician are in the Paleozoic Era
The Devonian Period extended from 417 Million to 354 Million Years Ago.
The Silurian Period extended from 443 Million to 417 Million Years Ago.
The Ordovician Period extended from 490 Million to 443 Million Years Ago.

The earth was a very different place back then. To compare the earths atmospheric composition 490,000,000 years ago to what it was like 400,000 is like apples to oranges and has nothing to do with the information in my last post.

Solar panels do not “take sun” That is ridiculous.
When you say “wind generators” I have to assume that you are talking about Wind Turbines. They slow the wind no more that the house you live in. Do you suggest that we abandoned our dwellings so we don't cause climate change down wind?

As for what the lord says... I think that is a subject not to be discussed in this forum.

And..... with that being said y'all need to send me your trucks and start peddling your bicycles to work, store, etc. etc. I will continue on my downward spiral into oblivion while driving your trucks.

Now let's get serious as some or all of you know our star (sun) in in the main sequence of life and as such is growing infinitesimally larger (not noticeable) by the human eye, as such sun is getting larger and larger it is consuming a bigger radii in our orbit around it.

Lets look at Mercury for example, the surface temperature has increased by 2.006 degrees F.) in the last 100 years, why? the sun is occupying more and more of Mercury's orbital radii .

Our Star (sun) in approximately 100 to 150 million years will go supernova, all life in our solar system will cease to exist.

Do I care? Not really! Will I continue to burn fossil fuel? Yep, so as I said at the beginning of this rant, send me your trucks so I can enjoy them and take the guilt of burning fossil fuels away from you Enjoy your bicycles.

Bob2