Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    5:11 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Independent Voters Favor Renewable Energy To Keystone XL Pipeline 4:1, Poll Finds Back to Topics
Eugenian

Champion Author
Oregon

Posts:2,785
Points:540,645
Joined:Oct 2009
Message Posted: Nov 20, 2012 7:19:48 AM

The polling outfit Zogby Analytics has just conducted a survey showing very strong support for renewable energy and minimal support for the Keystone pipeline among centrist voters.

According to the poll, which was released by the National Wildlife Federation, independent voters say they would choose renewable energies like wind and solar over Keystone XL by a 4-1 margin. Only 12 percent chose Keystone as a priority. And among all voters surveyed across party lines, renewables received twice the support as fossil energies.
Visit Clean Technica for full article
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 1:41:01 PM

So what if oil is going to china.
Energy exporting societies have better economies.
You dont hear about Dubai, saudi or UAE complaining about all the oil they sell.
What about the U.S. back in the 1950s and 60s when we were the worlds leading energy exporter, a man with a high school deploma could get a job, support a family of 4, with no welfare.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 5/6/2014 1:44:55 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,819
Points:3,778,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 10:34:31 AM

NEWEST POLL SAYS,
"Americans support the idea of constructing the Keystone XL oil pipeline between Canada and the United States by a nearly 3 to 1 margin, with 65 percent saying it should be approved and 22 percent opposed, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,819
Points:3,778,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 10:20:38 AM

"Only the greediest / most uncaring profiteers and backward non-visionary types still see a viable future in outdated dirty increasingly expensive to extract fossil fuels."

Well that was a very thoughtful response. Quite a bit below your normal thinking process, SS.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 9:31:31 AM

Only the greediest / most uncaring profiteers and backward non-visionary types still see a viable future in outdated dirty increasingly expensive to extract fossil fuels.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:23,819
Points:3,778,840
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 8:32:57 AM

"The Landrieu-Hoeven bill would bypass Obama and authorize immediate construction of the proposed 875-mile pipeline between Alberta, Canada and U.S. refineries along the Gulf Coast. If it manages to clear the Senate, the Republican controlled House likely would move swiftly to embrace the bill – setting up a showdown with the White House.

“The construction of the Keystone pipeline is very important,” Landrieu, the new chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said late last week. “It is time to stop studying and start building.”"

--Eric Pianin (The Fiscal Times)
Profile Pic
merlinCO
Champion Author Colorado

Posts:4,263
Points:947,460
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: May 6, 2014 8:23:15 AM

Oil has been flowing to China illegally for years, keystone is not needed.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: May 4, 2014 5:29:07 PM

The democrats are calling for a vote on this.
I am sure it will get voted through, then not get signed once it reaches the white house.
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,769
Points:833,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 8:58:04 PM

Hmmm, owl burgers!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 5:21:12 PM

oilpan4 - If Spotted Owls tasted better and they had a bunch of guys out hunting them and squealing for limits and seasons and stocking programs they wouldnt be in trouble. But they dont taste worth a darn. That is their real problem -- they just dont taste good. Then who wants a wallmount of one anyway?

AC Trail maintenance isnt really that much of a problem. They have things like axes and crosscut saws (known as misery whips) and stuff. The only problem is it takes a lot more people and effort to get the trail open. Again - it costs tons more to go green. I want to see folks go back to cutting commercial sawtimber with man powered tools. But only if the greenies all volunteer to get on the misery whips and learn how to operate the horse powered skidders and loaders.

[Edited by: flyboyUT at 11/29/2012 5:22:18 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,695
Points:2,125,510
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 12:51:40 PM

They need to fully understand renewables first...You need backup systems for wind and solar....

Plus huge energy storage systems..

Cost prohibitive!!!

And how many states land area are they willing to devote to this???
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 10:02:16 AM

Oilpan - point taken. I'm looking into solar, btw. Solar City is willing to put up 15KW of panels for a lease cost of $160/mo, reducing my bill by $40/mo and supposedly "locking in" my electricity costs. Another company is willing to put of 4 KW of panels, charge me about $60/mo for a lease, and it will reduce my bill by about $20/mo. Both guarantee the inverters for a minimum of 10 years. Neither seems a good deal. Particularly so, if one considers that the only way to get out of the lease is to pay it off completely.

But to your point about concrete plants or electric arc blast furnaces - you are absolutely correct. My point with the chain saw was to give some of these folks here an easy target to think about. But your other examples are very well taken.
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 29, 2012 1:56:55 AM

" The inverters also typically go bad and are replaced every so often (10 -12 years as I understand it".

The wind-sun.com/forum guys are saying to expect replacement of name brand inverters after 5 to 10 years.

"How do you power a chain saw, 5 miles from the road, using solar"?

With everything being solar powered there will be no need to cut down trees. Or if there is they will use slaves with hand saws.
Everything about this AGW believer cry to abandon all fossil (and fissile for some reason) fuels points to boat loads more manual labor.
Electric saws (not solar powered saws) can be pretty mean, my electric hot saw is on par with my modified 440CS 46cc echo gas saw. Only problem is that electric saw draws almost 4kw, it will flip a standard 20amp 110v breaker under medium cutting load. I have a Lithium battery pack that could power it, only problem is 8 pounds of batteries at a cost of around $300 will only power that saw for maybe 20 to 30 minutes.
For me, 8 pounds of gas will power the echo for an entire weekend of tree disassembly.

We need 3 things to keep this country together, steel, asphalt and concrete.
I like to see a solar powered road paver. Or a solar powered concrete plant. I'd like to know how they intend to blast lime stone with solar power. Then are you going to haul your solar concrete, in electric powered concrete trucks? lol.
How about a solar powered iron furnace? Sure you can run an Iron furnace off electricity, yeah, you're going to need a power source that can sustain 50 mega watts for a little over an hour.
File that under suff not about to happen.

[Edited by: oilpan4 at 11/29/2012 1:59:13 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:53:01 PM

SemiSteve sarcastically replied: "OK, I get it. Amazingly, fossil fuels are so loaded with energy that all of the labor, health care and machines to build devices to dig, blast, pump, transport and burn them actually costs us less in dollars than to build a solar panel (X amount of dollars), put it in the sun and simply collect electricity thereafter."

--Uhh, actually yeah it is, despite your sarcasm. I realize you think: "Oh, yeah.. just put out a solar panel and life is now all rosy! You don't have to do anything else and it works forever and ever!" But that isn't reality, my friend. Their lifetime is generally considered to be 20 - 25 years. But by the end of their life, they only produce maybe 60% of their original power, depending on maintenance. The inverters also typically go bad and are replaced every so often (10 -12 years as I understand it).

But I saw a study only a few years ago where solar panels were compared to a coal or oil fired powerplant. It turns out that even with the plant maintenance and depreciation costs, and fuel costs, the coal or oil fired powerplant produces electric for about HALF the KWh cost of an identical sized solar array. If I were a business owner, and it were cost effective to go solar, I'd do so. I don't think that every business owner in the US is part of some secret cabal that's saying "no solar". No way. It hasn't been so widely adopted because it's simply not cost effective.

And the other thing you may not understand is that semiconductors are tremendously expensive to produce, use highly toxic chemicals (you like hydrofluoric acid?) and is energy intensive. Do you know about a process used to purify silicon called zone refining? It's a tremendously energy intensive process. That silicon is later doped (or not) to make N-type or P-type wafers, though some are "straight silicon". That's the substrate upon which solar cells are built using typical photolith processes. It's not easy, it's not cheap, and it's sure not "clean and green".

But let's get back to our example. I realize you are a proponent of solar energy. That's fine and dandy, but answer me this (and i'm expecting an answer from you, Steve: How do you power a chain saw, 5 miles from the road, using solar? You want to haul up the electric chain saw into the mountains to do maintenance on the Appalachian Trail after a storm, where trees have fallen across the path. How are you going to power your chain saw? Solar ain't gonna cut it. First off, the AT has many sections (particularly in the Smokies) where the sun doesn't shine for months at a time. And further than that, even if it did, you couldn't carry enough solar panels to power the blasted thing. But if you have another idea, please clue me in. Show me where I'm wrong, PLEASE! I'd love to be wrong on this and shown EXACTLY how to use solar in a cost effective fashion.

In addition, I'd like you to tell ALL OF US here EXACTLY what subsidies that oil industry is getting that nobody else is getting? You claim that the oil industry is subsidized. OK, how so? EXCEPT for the cost of drilling exploratory wells (which is a 50% writeoff, and consider that industry's R&D cost -which is also a writeoff for any other business), what are the oil companies getting that nobody else is? And talking about solar, what about all those companies (owned by Obama cronies) who have gone bust, taking upwards of a billion bucks of taxpayer money with them?
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:20:31 PM

Seems like the spotted owl needs to hurry up and die off already.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 10:31:03 PM

It is very obvious that drpepperTX does not understand why the Pultizer Prize is coveted, full of prestige and has been awarded since 1917!!!!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:47:19 PM

LOL, semisteve, come on out to one of my ranches here in Texas and see what real stewardship is all about!

The real world will be quite enlightening to one like you! Until you actually live it you cannot comprehend. Your post prove that.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:46:55 PM

LOL, semisteve, come on out to one of my ranches here in Texas and see what real stewardship is all about!

The real world will be quite enlightening to one like you! Until you actually live it you cannot comprehend. Your post prove that.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:33:15 PM

Yeah. Who cares about all that enviro whacko stuff anyway? We should be free to destroy our planet if we want to. That's what real freedom is all about.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:26:57 PM

Oh so true FlyboyUT!

As a landholder and true steward of land only those of us and the truly informed can know of the futility of government environmental Eco-imperialism.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 6:24:27 PM

Michiganian "What the heck is wrong with the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact??????"
===================
LOL, do your homework grasshopper, then get back to me. Wow! Hint: Pulitzer....LMAO!
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 3:53:14 PM

Want to see just how silly the whole 'environmental movement' really is---
.
>>>Over the Thanksgiving holiday, the White House released a big fat policy turkey: its final critical habitat rule for the endangered northern spotted owl. The Obama plan will lock up 9.6 million acres of land (mostly, but not all, federal) in Oregon, Washington and northern California. This is nearly double the acreage set aside by the Bush administration. Thousands of timber workers (along with untold thousands of related support jobs) will be threatened in the name of sparing a few thousand spotted owls from extinction.

As House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., pointed out earlier this year, timber-dependent counties hit hard by the federal land grab and unending environmental litigation remain racked by high unemployment. "The loss in economic activity caused by the original spotted owl plan caused an astounding decrease in federal tax receipts of nearly $700 million per year -- all from rural Northwest communities."

Despite two decades of massive government intervention and the near-destruction of the northwest timber industry, the furry bird is vanishing faster than ever. According to the Smithsonian Magazine, "(t)imber harvest on 24 million acres of federal land had dropped 90 percent from its heyday" by the year 2000. Yet, northern spotted owls are now "disappearing three times faster than biologists had feared." Indeed, spotted owl populations in key parts of Washington State "are half what they were in the 1980s." And overall, the bird has seen a 40 percent decline over the past 25 years, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ...

Punishing loggers and bringing the timber industry to its knees have made vengeful environmental groups fat and happy. But the northern spotted owl they claim to care so much about is catastrophically worse off thanks to green zealotry. One root cause: habitat loss (thanks in part to raging wildfires resulting from poor forest management and green opposition to thinning/controlled burns).

The other major, nonhuman culprit: the barred owl.

These barred owls began migrating from the East Coast in the 1950s, and the USFWS reports that the larger, more aggressive and more adaptable birds "are known to displace spotted owls, disrupt their nesting and compete with them for food." Barred owls are more prolific breeders, less finicky about their food and less picky about where they live. They also don't bow down before the Endangered Species Act or the hallowed "threatened" status of its weaker brethren. They are brutal predators known to slam into spotted owls, slicing them with their talons and decapitating them in their nests.

Conservation groups whine that barred owls are victims of "scapegoating." But USFWS Director Dan Ashe spoke the truth earlier this year: "We can't ignore the mounting evidence that competition from barred owls is a major factor in the spotted owl's decline."

Instead of admitting failure and letting nature take its course, however, command-and-control bureaucrats have appointed themselves Mother Nature's judges, juries and executioners. Their "main priority" is "reducing competition from barred owls." How? By gunning them down. Final details are still in the works, but the agency has floated past removal schemes that involve "luring territorial barred owls into close range ... using recorded calls and an owl decoy. ... A shotgun would be used to prevent wounding and ensure rapid and humane death." Experts say such an eradication plan would need to continue for centuries.

Twenty years of regulatory salvation have failed the northern spotted owl. Who believes that another top-down government exercise in species engineering -- this time backed with bullets -- will do the trick? When the government picks winners and losers, taxpayers always get screwed. No matter the job losses. No matter the death toll. Arrogant and unaccountable central planners never give a hoot.<<<

So they will kill one protected species to 'save' another protected species. And thirty years ago professional foresters tried to tell the "treehuggers" (nod to Jayrad) that spotted owls would not be saved by stopping logging. But nooooooo the "treehuggers' knew better. So we destroyed a industry for all practical matters for what!!!!!! NOTHING!!!!!

When will the professional environmnetal activists ever be held accountable for what they have done? Some things that turned out well for sure but lots of things that have hurt lots of people.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 3:43:19 PM

>> --It doesn't have the Republican propaganda seal of approval. Anything that doesn't have the RPS is automatically discounted as 'liberal hogwash.' You know, like the entire media? That is, when it presents stories the Republicans DON'T like. <<

Why do you think Republicans lost the election from Mitt Romney on down??? The voters saw through their outright lies.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 2:28:43 PM

"What the heck is wrong with the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact?????? "

--It doesn't have the Republican propaganda seal of approval. Anything that doesn't have the RPS is automatically discounted as 'liberal hogwash.' You know, like the entire media? That is, when it presents stories the Republicans DON'T like.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 2:18:32 PM

What the heck is wrong with the Pulitzer Prize winning Politifact??????
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 2:09:43 PM

Michiganian, where is the linked non-biased journalistic citation to back up the talking point you posted about "right-wing propaganda which gets disproven time and time again"? Still to lazy to look?

LOL, politifact??? Really??? LMAO.

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 11/28/2012 2:12:10 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 2:08:42 PM

In the context of this discussion, DrPepperTX, I'll give this link which disproved some talking points.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:59:33 PM

The Der Spiegel link is exactly what I'm looking for, drpepperTX. But I'm afraid that teenitup will STILL treat links like that as propaganda.
Profile Pic
1OILMAN
Champion Author Alabama

Posts:2,269
Points:221,160
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:49:35 PM

OK children, can we all say idiots?
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:33:37 PM

Semisteve also claims "We subsidize the fossil fuel industry just like we subsidize green energy", wrong once again, that statement is an overload of bull feces. The truth; "green" energy receives direct payment from the 'givernment' aka subsidies, fossil fuels receive only the same tax code treatment as any other industry EXCEPT "green" energies. To put it any other way is completely disingenuous, expected, but disingenuous.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,478
Points:1,248,920
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:30:29 PM

I always say I want to see the raw numbers of any report. Not provided. I want to see the questions asked. Not provided. I what to know who put the report out. That was provided, a web site called “Clean Technia” here is the stated focus of Clean Technia.

“”Technology-wise, our focus is solar power, wind power, energy efficiency, and clean cars. However, we also get into many other topics — geothermal, hydro, nuclear, energy storage, trains, buses, bikes, and more.””

They republished the story from Climate Progerss. A web site that was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards. They quoted the a pole that was done for the National Wildlife Federation.

I could run a pole that would give me any answers I wanted by asking the right questions and interrupting the answers any way I want. Here is an example. If clean energy was available at a completive cost would you be in favorer of the XL pile line or clean energy. DING DING DING we have a winner. Clean energy is favored over the pipeline.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:27:10 PM

Sorry semisteve, Stephan Kohler, the head of the German Energy Agency, says the country must act smarter and more realistically in its transition to renewable energy. The "feel-good" subsidies for locally produced wind and solar power have had unintended consequences, he says, and the environmental movement is often part of the problem.

Even the Germans are figuring it out as "German Energy Agency Chief
'We'll Need Conventional Power Plants until 2050'"
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,337
Points:440,885
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:14:57 PM

OK, I get it. Amazingly, fossil fuels are so loaded with energy that all of the labor, health care and machines to build devices to dig, blast, pump, transport and burn them actually costs us less in dollars than to build a solar panel (X amount of dollars), put it in the sun and simply collect electricity thereafter.

Well, sort of. We subsidize the fossil fuel industry just like we subsidize green energy. Only we put a lot more tax dollars into fossil fuels than we do into green energy. No joke. You heard me right. $521.73 to $7.24. The average American, (you and I) have put $521.73 into fossil fuels during the last 5 years and only $7.24 into green energy. If we put the same amounts of subsidies into green energy it would actually be cheaper.

So, the message I am getting here is that American conservatives and libertarians would prefer to destroy the Earth they live on if it means lower priced energy. (without counting the amount of taxes they pay and then give away the funds to big oil coal and fracking).

Thankfully the entire planet does not agree:

Half of Germany on Solar Power

And actually neither do the majority of Americans:

"Would Americans be willing to pay more for cleaner electricity? A new study finds that they would — $162 a year extra, on average."

Poll: Americans would pay more for clean energy
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,769
Points:833,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 1:04:26 PM

I don't think he/she cares about any factual information flyboyUT, that goes against the emotional ideology.
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,769
Points:833,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 12:50:19 PM

Michiganian continues the amusement of his/her emotional roller coaster ride!

The story linked only lists "they" as the proponents and without quotation or citation. Yet they quote known propagandists McKibben and Bold Nebraska.

By the way even with old route all environmental issues had been addressed and approved after three years of study.

Drpepper, thanks for the ERCB info.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 12:46:49 PM

Michiggy - have you looked at the data of how many miles of pipeliines presently cross the Oglalla Aquifer? Have you looked at how many barrels of oil they have already pulled from underneath the Aquifer?

This pipeline will not significantly damage the thing!
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 12:41:31 PM

By the way Michiganian, where is the linked non-biased journalistic citation to back up the talking point you posted about "right-wing propaganda which gets disproven time and time again"? Too lazy to look that up?
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 12:34:58 PM

LOL, straight from the Canadian Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) Michiganian, don't be lazy, do a little research away from a bias media.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:54:44 AM

>> that only about 715 square kilometers of land have been disturbed by oil sands mining activity, that is LESS than 0.19 % of Alberta’s boreal forest which covers about 381,000 square kilometers <<

Where is the linked non-biased journalistic citation to back up that talking point? I've been concentrating on the Nebraska Aquifer.

[Edited by: Michiganian at 11/28/2012 11:56:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,228
Points:3,455,295
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:53:14 AM

SemiSteve complained: "The right would have us believe that it is cheaper to build devices to dig, blast, pump, transport and burn things; than it is to build devices which simply sit out in the sunshine or turn in the wind and deliver the same result. Because of our industrial-based economy we have well-established ways to keep on doing what we've been doing; but since it temporarily costs more to establish new ways of doing things the right does not want to invest in that change."

--Now, not that I want to beat you down Steve, we talked about this. But do you think the laws of Physics differ for those who are conservative or moderate vs. those who consider themselves liberal? Again, Flyboy told you something that I was going to tell you, which is that those solar panels are not "forever". They require maintenance, they require cleaning, they lose efficiency over time, and as Flyboy points out, the processes for making them involve a whole lot of toxic chemistry, identical to semiconductors (IC or computer chips for those who are not "in the know" in this industry).

And again, I use the example of a locomotive pulling a 100 car train. Or better yet, how do you power a chain saw, 5 miles off the road, while doing trail maintenance on the Appalachian Trail? How does that work?

No matter what you do, it will have consequences. And my criticisms of your ideas are largely not about the end game, but the consequences of what you propose. If you are going to start putting up acres and acres of solar panels up everywhere, say, out in the desert, you are now going to change the climate and ecosystem of that desert. So what do you do? I'm not sure I know the answer, nor have ever claimed such. Do we all want energy independence? Sure. Would we all like a ton of free energy for everyone? Sure, but the problem is that it isn't free. And as to the pipeline, it moves crude oil. Crude oil and it's distillates contain tremendous energy density. The density of energy (calories or joules contained) is very great in that substance, as it is in most hydrocarbon substances. The energy density of sunlight is actually pretty weak. That's why it takes so much surface area to contain panels that don't really produce that much energy. You ought to consider that carefully. As well, how quickly do you think it would take to "spool up" on electric? Many, many years as far as I can see. No matter, we're stuck with petroleum for some time to come. I would estimate more than 200 years hence.

But again, for those who are complaining about climate change, there is a simple solution - plant trees. Reforest rain forests and plant trees on other marginal lands. Nature has presented us with a cheap and easy solution to the whole problem - if we believe that CO2 is the problem. That has been by NO means conclusively proven.
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:49:59 AM

Teenitup has now proven himself to be deaf, dumb and blind. He completely ignored the cold hard linked facts that the Kearney Hub of Kearney, Nebraska is the newspaper serving Kearney since 1888 as he only wants to concentrate on two paragraphs of the news story quoting 350.org and Bold Nebraska. Teenitup completely ignores the other side of the story mentioned in the Kearney Hub link:
>>Backers view the pipeline as a way to create jobs and lessen the country’s dependence on oil from unfriendly parts of the world. If Obama is serious about getting the economy back on track, they say, he will sign off on it.

But environmental groups say tapping the oil sands would lead to a devastating spike in greenhouse gas emissions.

Nebraska officials, including even some Republicans who are generally supportive of the oil industry, raised objections to the project’s initial route because of the potential risk to the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills and the Ogallala Aquifer. A draft report from the Department of Environmental Quality says a new route avoids the Sand Hills. <<

Here is the news story again. NOW READ THE WHOLE THING!!!
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,769
Points:833,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 11:25:22 AM

Also amusing is Michiganian's refusal acknowledge the fact posted below "that only about 715 square kilometers of land have been disturbed by oil sands mining activity, that is LESS than 0.19 % of Alberta’s boreal forest which covers about 381,000 square kilometers."

Talk about a beat down.
Profile Pic
teenitup
Champion Author Houston

Posts:4,769
Points:833,460
Joined:Sep 2012
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 10:56:45 AM

Funny, the Michiganian objects to "propaganda" yet wants to embrace the following propaganda published by the Kearney Hub “Keystone is the pure test for the president, the first really simple, pure test where we’ll find out whether or not he’s capable of leaving some carbon in the ground,” said Bill McKibben, an author and activist with the climate change awareness organization 350.org."

Surely you jest if you think 350.org is not propaganda.

<<"licking my wounds">>"; ? Apparently your intellectual dishonesty knows no bounds. It's amusing to watch liberals get emotionally distressed!



[Edited by: teenitup at 11/28/2012 10:59:40 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,224
Points:1,233,265
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Nov 28, 2012 10:16:24 AM

I see that teenitup is licking his wounds after his smackdown and crawled back into his hole.
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 8:46:57 AM

Sure YDraigGoch, no one has ever denied that the climate has always changed and that climate has always been a challenge to species survival. What people do deny is that it is natures course.

But I do agree with your ultimate point, build the KXL and other pipelines.

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 11/27/2012 8:50:18 AM EST]
Profile Pic
oilpan4
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:13,665
Points:332,370
Joined:Jul 2006
Message Posted: Nov 27, 2012 12:29:32 AM

If they want renewable power then they are free to buy solar panels and install them.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 8:27:47 PM

First, like I have said, climate change is a real problem. We will see severe weather contrasts for decades. However, research article in Science magazine show that the earth is a much more efficient carbon sync than was previously thought, and that the planet is warming at a slower rate than previously thought.

As more oil and gas is found in shale, the problem of moving it will exacerbate an already delicate climate shift. The pipeline is simply the cleanest way to move the stuff to refineries. Building new refineries closer to the source will be prohibitively expensive, and leave a huge carbon footprint.

I do disagree with the greedy bankers who want to exploit the oil and gas to sell overseas. That will only put us back in the pockets of the OPEC countries, and the profiteers that control them. Instead of becoming self sufficient, we will become dependant on OPEC again, but with a few more ultra wealthy people.

Just like the economy needs less spending, AND more revenue, we need to build the pipeline, AND cut back on oil usage.

The shale oil will give us some time to get to a point where we truly do not need the carbon based fuels any more. Sadly, we are nowhere near that point right now.

The country needs a lot of energy right now. We have four choices;

1. Cut back drastically on energy use, and hope technology will "save us" (It seldom does).

2. Become more dependant on foreign sources (which have been dramatically undependable for decades)

3. Supplement our diminishing energy supplies with coal (which we have lots of, but is the WORST polluter in the world)

4. Build the dang pipeline.

I vote for 4.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,873
Points:1,883,235
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 6:39:23 PM

SS: "Here's what makes no sense to me."


If all that you said was true and the money could be made back over time, then people would do it. The only reason people buy solar panels today is because they get a government kick back or subsidy for doing so. In other words it makes no economic sense to buy something that costs so much and produces so little, unless someone else is paying you to do it. I did the math myself when I built my house as I toyed with putting solar panels on the roof. In 2006 when I looked into this, a 30K solar panel system on my south facing roof (which is considerably larger than an average house) would produce about 2,500 kwh of power a year. 2,500kwh of electricity costs about $250 from my power company. Payback time, not including cost of funds: 120 years. I said no thanks to that and put the 30K into a geothermal heat pump instead. Payback time, including cost of funds: 8 years.

Until a set of solar panels that would fit on an average home owner's roof can produce around 25,000 kwh of power a year and cost around $25,000, nobody will buy it unless they are getting a freebie from government for doing so, which basically means they are mooching off of someone else.

mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 11/26/2012 6:42:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
drpepperTX
Champion Author Texas

Posts:13,434
Points:1,363,170
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 6:38:38 PM

Correct flyboyUT, NOthing is free! Consider also the vast amounts of land required for solar arrays recently built and planned and compare to an oil well with a footprint thousands of times smaller to produce the same BTU's.

[Edited by: drpepperTX at 11/26/2012 6:40:29 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 5:07:43 PM

Here is a story from a source even Michiggy will approve of - I make no claims as to its honesty.

Sensationalized of course - but maybe a grain of truth.
.
There are serious environmental effects of the new 'green tech'. NOthing is free. Nothing is without environmental effects.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,266
Points:1,532,370
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Nov 26, 2012 4:57:27 PM

"Solar panels and wind turbines are essentially a build-em once and sit back to collect the rewards kinda thing."

NO Steve thats not true at all. Solar systems require regular maintenance adn have a finite lifespan. They also have disagreeable environmental costs to produce them and dispose of them. If you honestly think wind turbines are soemhow maintenance free and last forever your dreaming. When the subsidies stop the windfarms are abandoned - because they are not economic to operate.
.
>>>The ghosts of Kamaoa are not alone in warning us. Five other abandoned wind sites dot the Hawaiian Isles -- but it is in California where the impact of past mandates and subsidies is felt most strongly. Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California "big three" locations -- Altamont Pass, Tehachapi, and San Gorgonio -- considered among the world's best wind sites. Built in 1985, at the end of the boom, Kamaoa soon suffered from lack of maintenance. In 1994, the site lease was purchased by Redwood City, CA-based Apollo Energy. Cannibalizing parts from the original 37 turbines, Apollo personnel kept the declining facility going with outdated equipment. But even in a place where wind-shaped trees grow sideways, maintenance issues were overwhelming. By 2004 Kamaoa accounts began to show up on a Hawaii State Department of Finance list of unclaimed properties. In 2006, transmission was finally cut off by Hawaii Electric Company. California's wind farms -- then comprising about 80% of the world's wind generation capacity -- ceased to generate much more quickly than Kamaoa. In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills.The City of Palm Springs was forced to enact an ordinance requiring their removal from San Gorgonio. But California's Kern County, encompassing the Tehachapi area, has no such law. Wind Power advocate Paul Gipe, who got his start as an early 1970s environmental activist at Indiana's Ball State University, describes a 1998 Tehachapi tour thusly:
"Our bus drove directly through the Tehachapi Gorge passing the abandoned Airtricity site with its derelict Storm Master and Wind-Matic turbines and the deserted Wind Source site with its defunct Aeroman machines. We also got a freeway-close glimpse of Zond's wind wall with its 400 Vestas V15 turbines, the former Arbutus site on rugged Pajuela Peak where only the Bonus turbines are still in service, and steep-sided Cameron Ridge topped with FloWind's few remaining Darrieus turbines before reaching SeaWest, our first stop. "As we approached SeaWest from the desert town of Mojave, the old Micon 108s were spinning merrily, but the Mitsubishis with their higher start-up speed were just coming to life. SeaWest and Fluidyne had done a commendable job of cleaning the Mitsubishis of their infamous oil leaks for the tour's arrival."<<<

Now if you wish I could dig up some information on the effects of mining the rare earth elements needed to make the solar panels and super magnets etc that are needed for your 'green energy' - but maybe you might consider doing it.

Steve - and others - if the so called geeen energy was economically viable we would be using more of it. At present it is not viable except when large amounts of government funds are used to 'buy down' cost of the power. That is not feasible for the long term.
Post a reply Back to Topics