Five myths about green energy

Washington Post ^ | April 25, 2010 | Robert Bryce

[Carry_Okie]

As long as the environuts got us by the short hairs, it’s as good as useless.

Yup. But as long as the public doesn't understand that the environuts are destructive to habitat and this is all about money they'll keep us by the short hairs.

[ansel12]

What is blowing my mind about solar, is right now I am trying to price what it would cost to have enough solar to power a single 5000 BTU air conditioner in the summer and a single 700 watt electric heater in the winter, during the daytime, in the desert, and while still on the grid.

To me that seems as simple a requirement as an ordinary consumer could ask for, yet it would cost a fortune it seems.

[dhs12345]

Okay... I was referring to coal which was what we were talking about. But point taken and noted.

[RoadTest]

The uniform groupthink of the lackeys of international totalitarianism, the Democrats, asserts that drilling for oil is bad for the environment (Sarah Palin can take you to Alaska and Show you the pipes and the Moose living happily together), that free enterprise is evil capitalism (it’s just the generator of the nation’s wealth, that’s all), that government must control all aspects of society (everything they touch gets worse - far worse), and that the people of America are dangerous kooks allied with the bomb-throwers and assassins (no, that’s the Deocrats again, and their bed-partners the Muslim madmen and the racist rioters from Mexico).

[RoadTest]

“There you go trying to let facts get in the way of an agenda.
It isn’t about being green.
It’s about controlling peoples actions and lives and future... and about money.”

You put your finger on it.

[AlanGreenSpam]

“4. Electric cars will substantially reduce demand for oil.”

I’m totally surprised the author didn’t mention that electric cars ultimately use electric power from the grid that is mostly from oil-fired generation facilities!!

[DTogo]

3. A green American economy will create green American jobs.

Wind/solar farms are easier to construct than traditional fossil fuel power plants, and therefore generate fewer construction jobs.

Wind/solar farms are known to have low operating costs, including fewer employees to keep them running.

Wind/sun farms do not require exploration, drilling, mining, or transporting their fuel, and the millions of jobs that go with those industries.

These are some of the many "benefits" of renewable energy, but they do not equate to millions of "green jobs."

[four more in O 4]

Green energy: breeder reactors.

[neverdem]

I’m totally surprised the author didn’t mention that electric cars ultimately use electric power from the grid that is mostly from oil-fired generation facilities!!

Limited by the space on WaPo's OpEd page? Check the link in comment# 17.

[Impy]

Nuclear power is clean. Try telling that to those people.

[cogitator]

bump — thanks

[neverdem]

You’re welcome.

[Cindy]

Thread Bump.

[Captain Beyond]

bflr

[FreedomPoster]

Not the case at all. This is a typical fallacy in articles about energy issues, the idea that oil is used to generate a large amount of our electricity needs. It simply doesn’t. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro are where the big numbers happen. Oil is too valuable for transportation energy to be used much for central station power generation.

Any discussion or opining on energy policy that doesn’t make the clear distinction between transportation energy and energy for electrical generation is not worth spit.

[ExSoldier]

I dunno about green energy, but I have forever been researching construction techniques for my retirement that will be serious about energy savings and being low maintenance as well as being nearly invulnerable to a variety of environmental dangers like Hurricanes, earthquakes and forest fires. I came up with this: EARTH SHELTERED. God willing, I'll be able to afford to build something like this when I retire in the North Carolina mountains someday. Someday soon I hope.

[Doe Eyes]

The energy for electric cars for the most part comes from burning coal and oil. :)

Oil accounts for about 1% of electric generation.

You would be correct if you said coal and natural gas (68%). Nuclear power accounts for 20% of our electricity.

[wolf78]

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats.

Sorry, that's a nice talking point but it's way too general, way to unspecific to be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. As always, there is no true or false, only economics. The economic benefit of renewables is that they are dual-use, i.e. you can use farmland for wind turbines and a house roof supplies enough solar power for a either a household or an electric car. The disadvantage is cost. Some might say storage, but storage translates into cost: Batteries, pressurized air storage, hydrogen, all are expensive with current technology.

If you could produce solar cells as cheaply as plastic foil, i.e. if you'd pay more or less the same to cover your roof with solar cells or shingles, nobody would argue against them. The simple fact is: they are still too expensive for most applications. However, all that "brrr, it the laws of physics" talk might sound like a winning argument, but is largely irrelevant when you have huge deserts in Nevada. It's the economics, stupid.

[wolf78]

Green energy: breeder reactors.

Breeders are great, but so 20th century. I wanna see hybrid (fusion / fission) reactors that can use nuclear waste as fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_nuclear_fusion

[neverdem]

Thanks for the link.