Is It Really Green?

I have written a couple of times on the so- called “Green” technology, and what I believe is the future of energy, and I have been taken to task for not having a coherent grasp of the minutia relating to the various technologies of this “new” change in direction. I have said that I would be glad to embrace new Hybrid, or electric, or hydrogen cars, IF THEY WORKED, and if there was an infrastructure in place to refill, or re- charge, or re- whatever needs to be done.

But I have always felt that if you have to travel fifty miles round trip, in order to fill your car, you are not saving money, you are not reducing your precious “carbon footprint”, and you have not done the environment any favors in any way.It does not matter what fuel you use, if you have to travel to the ends of the earth to get it. I mean let’s face it, “Dilithium Crystals” are not real, and our energy needs are.

This is why I have advocated for the continued use of present- day fuels, which means (by virtue of common sense), that we need to drill for oil and gas on both coasts. Our finances dictate that we use our own fuel, and refine it here, and sell it here. This keeps the money at home. In the meantime, the search and refinement of alternative energy proceeds. After all, the company that perfects the next generation of usable energy is the company that can feasibly write its own future.

What I find incredible is the news that a nuclear reactor that would have provided energy to all of southeastern Texas was denied the issuance of Government surety bonds, which effectively killed the project, as it needed the bonds to help develop the capital needed to proceed. The environmentalists killed it, just as they have killed any further coal- fired plants, and here is the problem with these nitwits- they have NO alternatives. None- and that is not acceptable. The saying, Lead, Follow, or get out of the way comes to mind. The mindless throwing up of roadblocks is not adding anything positive to the discussion.

Because, let’s face it- Progress will happen, that is written in stone- the only question is in what direction progress will take. Standing pat, as the enviro- nuts seem to want, is impossible, so it would seem to me that if they really want to be a part of the discussion, they should open their mouths and say something, but say something that keeps the discussion on topic.

The Republican party has been called the party of No, but it is really the environmentalists, who say no to oil and gas, say no to coal, say no to nuclear power, say no to ethanol, and say no to both solar and wind, because the laying of transmission lines would hurt a snail darter fish, or some lizard. Here’s a thought- the lizards can probably crawl over the transmission lines as they do at my house. Give me a freakin’ break- animals are more flexible than you might think, and accept things like pipelines and transmission lines in their midst easier than you know.

In the end, there are two ways humanity can proceed- we can find and use ALL available forms of power we can harness, or we can kill off at least half of all humanity, which will free up demand on the uses of energy, won’t it? Which one do you think would be more desirable? More logical? More user- friendly?
Of course, the other way would give us more elbow room, but what if you are on the wrong side of THAT equation? Whoops! There go your hopes and dreams. No, I think that if you are logical about this, and not blindly adhering to an agenda that has ulterior motives, you would have to agree that the only logical way is the first one I described, using all available forms of power, and keeping our money here at home.

Reviling oil and gas, as some in the “green” movement are doing, is doing them no favors, because just what are they using for power while they are building their brave new world? Rubber bands? No- they are using gas powered machines- but they are not liking it. Still, it’s better than rolling the wind turbines over logs to get them where they want, I think even they would agree.

Sometimes being a hypocrite is the best you can do- do the ends justify the means?

Now we’re cookin’ with gas.
Blake

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

12 Responses to “Is It Really Green?”

  1. Big Dog says:

    Kermit the Frog once said; “It ain’t easy being green.”

    I suppose he knew more about this than the environmental wackos.

  2. In on it not says:

    “A windmill, in it’s entire usefull life, does not produce enough power to make a windmill.”

    Here is the heart of the problem, well set out by B.D.
    People are against nuclear power but for the future that is what it has to be. People look at the accidents that happened in the earlier years and have a melt-down in their logic. But do they look at the way the military has managed nuclear?

    And inside that equation lay the answer; Nuclear power is a dahgerous commodity. Much to dangerous to be left in the hands of market influences. Does that make any sense?
    The military can use nuclear on ships, subs and do it without mis-hap. Why? because they do things By The Book.
    They do it exactly the same, each and every time. They have a system of management, accountability, training and service.
    Unlike the private sector, the military runs things like…well, like the military! Civilians would not put up with that system.

    They would cut corners and they would take bribes, they would employee liberals who have no concept of responsibility. The very slame phylosophy that says “I am as important as anyone else,” would be put to practice in a government-run nuclear plant, when the inescapable fact is that an individual’s person importance HAS to be sub-servient to the needs of the nuclear power reactor.

    If nuclear power generation were in the baliwick of the military, I would be all for it. Green-light go go go!
    But when little slimmy politicians can dabble with it, use it to grant favours and twist arms…I have to say no.

    Politicians should not have that power over people. They have proven themselves unworthy to manage themselves. Liberal OR conservative.

    Nuclear should be in the hands of men who act like machines, like robots. Military men.

  3. Darrel says:

    “A windmill, in it’s entire usefull life, does not produce enough power to make a windmill.”

    DAR
    Actually, that’s not true. It’s not remotely true. Where did you hear such an absurd idea?

    D.

  4. Darrel says:

    BD: “I have said that I would be glad to embrace new Hybrid, or electric, or hydrogen cars, IF THEY WORKED, and if there was an infrastructure in place to refill, or re- charge, or re- whatever needs to be done.>>

    DAR
    Electric is going to be very tricky considering our battery technology only has, by weight, about 2% of the energy density of of gasoline.

    Hydrogen is NOT a net source of energy and never will be. It has to be made/extracted/compressed and this always is a net energy loss. No exception to that rule.

    Hybrids work very well. This is why Toyota has sold 1.7 million of them. But they are a bridge, they still use gas.

    Natural gas has promise, for a while, then we will be out.

    We have lots of coal and it can be liquified, but we throw about half of it away in the process.

    BD: …we need to drill for oil and gas on both coasts. Our finances dictate that we use our own fuel, and refine it here, and sell it here.>>

    DAR
    We will certainly do that. It’s inevitable. But the US only has a tiny amount of the world’s dwindling reserves and he have already burned up all of the stuff that’s easy to get to. Going to all of this trouble to get the last remaining amounts just so some silly bunny can put it in his Hummer, well, that’s dumb. The clock is ticking. Time to be smart, not dumb.

    BD: “…it is really the environmentalists, who say no to oil and gas, say no to coal, say no to nuclear power, say no to ethanol, and say no to both solar and wind,…>>

    DAR
    Oil and gas are a bridge running out. Coal puts out tremendous amounts of C02, nuke has hope (and I fight the environmentalists on this), ethanol is a joke and a net energy loss. No environmentalists say no to solar and wind. That’s ridiculous.

    D.

    • Blake says:

      Yes, enviro- nuts do say no to wind and solar, because of the laying of transmission lines, and the vast amounts of land needing to be confiscated then altered to suit these energy farms.
      We will need water in the future, of that you can be sure- why not hydro- electric on every new dam?
      Just remember, there is no benefit without some down side- that’s life.

      • Blake says:

        Also, just because coal tech is where it is at now, does not mean that it will always be at this level. Research, research, research- that will produce results. But in the end, the truth is that nothing but oil and gas produces as much bang for the buck right now.
        If ANYTHING does better, you will hear of it, you can be sure of that.

        • Darrel says:

          BLAKE: “nothing but oil and gas produces as much bang for the buck right now.”

          DAR
          Nothing is likely to produce as much bang for the buck in the foreseeable future either. Oil/gasoline/diesel are incredibly energy dense and we have no replacement, no substitute for such a powerful compact fuel (natural gas will carry us a while). When you burn it, it’s gone, for good. And we burn about 85 million barrels a day.

          D.

      • Darrel says:

        Well if they do say “no to wind and solar,” then you shouldn’t have any trouble at all citing an example of them saying this.

        D.
        ————-
        Sorry for mis-attributing Blake’s comments to you Bigdog. I’ll check the authorship more carefully.

        • Blake says:

          Darrel- I do not have the specific case with me. but the Sierra Club is suing to stop the laying of transmission lines from an existing wind farm in SoCal to LA- enviro- wingnuts have done this and more in stopping any progress on pretty much anything.

    • Big Dog says:

      Darrel, I see you slinked over here from GM’s website. Perhaps you could learn to read and comprehend. I did not write the things you attribute to me. I agree with much of the information (Blake is in favor of ethanol from sugar beets which would be more efficient).

      It would be helpful if you addressed the correct author.

  5. Liberty Card says:

    Power supply is another example of why the Federal Government should stay the hell out of business. They, and their local counterparts issue franchises to companies that supply power for a community. If a company came up with an alternative source for power, say a gazebo sized nuc plant that would suppy a thousand or so homes, would they be able to sell it to you and your friends?

    NOoooo! The utility would lose money! the tax base would suffer! The government insures inefficiency and waste.

    Cheers,
    Liberty Card

  6. Domestic Solar Power…

    This is a very good and informative post. I look forward to see more….