Comments on: Green Energy Economics

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:42:35 +0000

angryc,
Between this blog and my Tea Party attendance, which was monitored and filmed by the FBI, I'm probably already on the "rightwing extremist" enemies list.

Which is fine with me. I am an enemy of the far left loons.

http://www.therightperspective.org/fbi-spied-on-tea-parties/

I just wish those black helicopters would stop flying over my house.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:38:29 +0000

What about Judith Miller ? She's no conservative. She has worked for The Progressive, National Public Radio, and the New York Times, liberal media all.

By: angry conserv

angry conserv — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:37:47 +0000

King,
You are stuck in the old way of thinking. The issue had been decided do not dredge up useless facts or question the consequences of the correct actions. Join the 21st century and accept the fact that the old ways destroyed the earth and oppressed the people and is responsible for all the misery. The new sustainable economy will repair the earth, create a
world without poverty. Even if it doesnt work it will punish those that have profited from the commerce that has enslaved so many.
Beware the day is not far off that if you oppose the correct path you will be branded as a hatemonger that is intent on destroying the earth and attempting to contiune the enslavement of the people throughout the world.
Our new world has no place for hatemongers.

By: Tbomb

Tbomb — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:03:58 +0000

Judith Miller….NY Times…

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:01:33 +0000

Rev, are you still trying to sell the idea that the NY Times is rightwing ? Oh, my. You destroy your credibility before you even begin to address the facts.

It seems to me you are criticizing Wald for NOT engaging in the normal, NY Times liberal spin (the Times has been a hair better lately. Maybe imminent bankruptcy has forced the Times into the last gasp drastic step of honesty).

I'm the first to question the NY Times, but overall, wind power is far more expensive than coal at this point. Wind is not competitive in the market. If it was, it wouldn't have to be subsidized. As for the wind backup facilities, you can't have substantive wind power without them (and you barely can WITH them). The wind does not produce constant energy. You're in fairy tale land about the smart grid, unless you're on board with the idea that the government should control your house's thermostat, and if they could, they could also do it with COAL, nullifying wind's advantage.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:27:30 +0000

I don't trust the writer, Wald, from the NY Times….and statements like this are why….

"Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm."

This is bullpucky. There will be initial costs to get started….but ain't no way that wind power is more expensive than coal power. Ain't no way. In addition, a "smart grid" system would not require backup generation.

To show you what I mean….Wald could have said that wind power costs more because not only are backup gas-powered plants necessary, but also backups for the backups, you know, in case one breaks down, and then contingency backup production methods to boot, in case of an emergency.

Village spin.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:19:10 +0000

I believe it was the current conservative Supreme Court who agreed with the EPA over CO2.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:19:02 +0000

Read Collapse — how societies choose to fail or succeed by Jared Diamond. I read it 2-3 years ago and still think of something from it nearly every day. Read about past environment, societies, egos …… and then challenge yourself to imagine our future.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 16:05:07 +0000

As an environmentalist, I am concerned with a lot of what humans are doing – the mountains of waste, the pollution of the oceans and fresh water sources, air pollution, cutting down forests…but I'm still skeptical over the idea that man is causing significant global warming due to an increase in a minor greenhouse gas. I'm not saying it's not true, but I'm not completely buying into it either. The climate of the earth constantly changes. The planet is always warming and cooling. Classifying CO2 as a pollutant seems bizarre to me, when all life on earth respirates CO2 and CO2 is required for our very survival, as is the greenhouse effect. When considered over the long term in earth's history, today's CO2 levels are very low and the earth is relatively cool.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

But I don't want to pave paradise and put up a parking lot either.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:11:34 +0000

I agree we must be careful and know what we are doing instead of listening to every special interest that wants to maintain the old ways of doing things so their own little personal world does not change. I am not sure the inhabitants of this world are capable of working that well together. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than just changing the energy we use. To quote an old song "we take paradise and put up a parking lot." All those plants we obliterated no longer use CO2 and produce O2 and there are lots and lots of other things we humans have done to upset the balance of nature. As far as jobs — there will be lots of jobs available when it is time to move all those seaboard homes, cities, and businesses inland — AND I am sure we cut down more trees to do that too.