• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

going broke by going green

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is well worth the read. Here is just a sample to wet your appetite.


"Skyrocketing energy prices and lost jobs also mean millions of otherwise healthy Americans are subjected to new health threats: higher air conditioning, heating, transportation and other energy bills. For those who cannot afford the increased costs, this can mean death from heat stroke and hypothermia; reduced budgets for healthy food, proper healthcare, home and car repairs, college, retirement, and charitable giving; and psychological depression that accompanies economic depression.
Land withdrawals and leasing and permitting delays don’t just lock up vast energy storehouses. They kill jobs, eliminate billions in government bonus, rent, royalty and tax revenues – and force us to spend other billions to import more oil that we could produce right here at home.
The White House agenda represents a double power grab. It usurps state, local and private sector control over energy prices and generation, and gives it to unelected Washington bureaucrats. It also seizes our reliable, affordable energy, and replaces it with expensive, intermittent power.
While many Americans are duped into thinking renewable energy sources are the ticket to a clean world, they have not looked at the downside to these energy sources. Replacing fossil fuel power with coerced renewable energy means millions of acres will be covered with turbines and solar panels, and built with billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass and rare earth metals. It means millions of acres of forest and crop land will be converted to farming for inefficient biofuels that also require vast inputs of water, pesticides, fertilizers and hydrocarbon fuels.
Moreover, wind and solar facilities work only 10-30 percent of the time, compared to 90-95 percent for coal, gas and nuclear power plants. Even worse, prolonged cold is almost invariably associated with high atmospheric pressure, and thus very little wind. On December 21, 2010 – one of the coldest days on record for Yorkshire, England (undoubtedly due to global warming) – the region’s coal, gas and nuclear power plants generated 53,000 megawatts of electricity; its wind turbines provided a measly 20 MW, or 0.04% of the total. The same high pressure, no wind scenario happens on the hottest summer days.
“Renewable” and “clean” energy projects received $30 billion in subsidies under the gargantuan stimulus bill. They got another $3 billion in the “lame duck” tax deal. Federal wind power subsidies are $6.44 per million BTUs – dozens of times what coal and natural gas receive, to generate 1/50 of the electricity that coal does. At current and foreseeable coal and gas prices, wind (and solar) simply cannot compete. As to “green” jobs, Competitive Enterprise Institute energy analyst Chris Horner calculates that the stimulus bill’s subsidies for wind and solar mean taxpayers are billed $475,000 for each job created. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs reports that property tax breaks for wind projects in her state cost nearly $1.6 million per job. “Green energy” is simply unsustainable, environmentally and economically.

Going Broke by Going Green - Harry R. Jackson, Jr. - Page full
 

Fisher

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
6,913
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Well the issue is the cost. If people could buy solar kits with a 20 year life span for $2,000.00 instead of $20,000.00, then the economics reverse. It would free up more space on the grid for things like plug in cars and still be available as needed for homes, as well as give consumers more disposable income to buy other things. Solar power has been around longer than me, but the pricing has never come down to bring it into reach of most people. That is the bigger problem.
 

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
18,384
Reaction score
11,964
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
China is consuming more and more energy, and winning lots of friends in oil-producing nations like Venezuela, Ecuador and Sudan. India, too. That's already increasing the costs of fossil fuels.

Gas, oil & coal industries also get lots of subsidies and tax breaks. Sustainable is more expensive mostly because there's tons of R&D that needs to be done. If you had to build the entire fossil fuel industry today, the costs would be mind-boggling.

Many people are already aware of the downsides. At this time, there is simply no way to generate electricity with zero impact on the planet. That said:
• There's plenty of space to put in solar panels. E.g. PSE&G is putting small solar panels on utility poles; New York City is putting turbines in the East River.
• We're going to need more power, period. Building a conventional power plant also requires "billions" of tons of concrete and metal.
• Tidal turbines are 24/7.
• Wind does better than 10%.
• Solar powers mostly during the day... when demand is high. Yeah, that's gonna suck. ;)
• Fossil fuels are highly volatile. Solar panel assemblies don't tend to blow up, and aren't likely to soil the entire Gulf of Mexico.
• We won't need to eliminate huge swaths of farmland. E.g. there are plenty of roofs, utility poles, and highways that can all house solar.
• The downsides are generally smaller than those of fossil fuels... hence the impetus to develop them.
• Building sustainable energy supplies is only part of the picture. Conservation is also critical.
• And no, this will not "cost jobs." You'll still need people to manufacture those "billions" of tons of concrete and metal, after all....

So, thanks but no thanks for the scare-mongering.
 

sawyerloggingon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
14,699
Reaction score
5,703
Location
Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
China is consuming more and more energy, and winning lots of friends in oil-producing nations like Venezuela, Ecuador and Sudan. India, too. That's already increasing the costs of fossil fuels.

Gas, oil & coal industries also get lots of subsidies and tax breaks. Sustainable is more expensive mostly because there's tons of R&D that needs to be done. If you had to build the entire fossil fuel industry today, the costs would be mind-boggling.

Many people are already aware of the downsides. At this time, there is simply no way to generate electricity with zero impact on the planet. That said:
• There's plenty of space to put in solar panels. E.g. PSE&G is putting small solar panels on utility poles; New York City is putting turbines in the East River.
• We're going to need more power, period. Building a conventional power plant also requires "billions" of tons of concrete and metal.
• Tidal turbines are 24/7.
• Wind does better than 10%.
• Solar powers mostly during the day... when demand is high. Yeah, that's gonna suck. ;)
• Fossil fuels are highly volatile. Solar panel assemblies don't tend to blow up, and aren't likely to soil the entire Gulf of Mexico.
• We won't need to eliminate huge swaths of farmland. E.g. there are plenty of roofs, utility poles, and highways that can all house solar.
• The downsides are generally smaller than those of fossil fuels... hence the impetus to develop them.
• Building sustainable energy supplies is only part of the picture. Conservation is also critical.
• And no, this will not "cost jobs." You'll still need people to manufacture those "billions" of tons of concrete and metal, after all....

So, thanks but no thanks for the scare-mongering.
I don't\, see the "scare mongering" as you call it, I just see the facts laid out for all to see.
 

MoSurveyor

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
10,016
Reaction score
3,900
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well the issue is the cost. If people could buy solar kits with a 20 year life span for $2,000.00 instead of $20,000.00, then the economics reverse. It would free up more space on the grid for things like plug in cars and still be available as needed for homes, as well as give consumers more disposable income to buy other things. Solar power has been around longer than me, but the pricing has never come down to bring it into reach of most people. That is the bigger problem.
You can always take the lease option ...
 
Top Bottom