184 replies to this topic

[salsabob]

The term "Fossil Fuels" is an erroneous misnomer.
"Organic Fuels" are being naturally created as we speak in the earth's oceans, which cover 71% of the earth's surface.
Unspeakable vast quantities of plankton and algae absorb carbon during their life span and eventually form the basis for our current fuel supplies as they die and fall to the ocean floor.
These little guys use "Solar Power" to convert their food sources to potential organic fuel.
They are not fossils but are "Pure, Natural, Organic, Solar Powered" carbon fuel producing machines working in harmony with the pressure found at the bottom of the ocean.

An estimated amazing 62,000,000 gallons of this natural substance ooze from the ocean floor every year and has for millennia.

Ironically, now the push for "Green" energy suggests using algae to make "natural" crude oil.
(No doubt a billion dollar Algae tax grant is on the way... to those who are political supporters of the grantors.)

If you're implying that we should try to collect that 62M gallons of ooze from the ocean, you should know it would be orders of magnitude simplier to collect the "yellow" out of your pool after the neighbors kid pee'd in it.

[Rogerdodger]

I'm implying that the vast quantities of organic compounds improperly labeled "Fossil Fuels"l did not come from dead Barney and friends.


Maybe somebody is playing us?
Just maybe there's a whole lot more cheap energy than we are being told...
Maybe CO2 emissions are no more unnatural than H2O emissions.
Open your mind to critical thinking rather than consensus truth.
The earth is not flat.
See: Short Diamonds..3,000 year supply revealed in Russia!

Edited by Rogerdodger, 18 October 2012 - 09:00 PM.

[Rogerdodger]

Another Taxpayer-Backed Solar Company Goes Bankrupt...

COMPLETE LIST OF 'GREEN ENERGY' FAILURES...

Satcon received a $3 million DOE grant in January to develop “a compact, lightweight power conversion device that is capable of taking utility-scale solar power and outputting it directly into the electric utility grid at distribution voltage levels—eliminating the need for large transformers.”
Satcon is the second DOE-backed green energy company to declare bankruptcy this week. Electric vehicle battery manufacturer A123 Systems filed for Chapter 11 despite receiving a $249 million DOE grant. A123 and Satcon mark the latest in a long line of taxpayer-funded green energy failures.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($24 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($69 million)*
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy ($17.1 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.5 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
National Renewable Energy Lab ($200 million)
Fisker Automotive ($528 million)
Abound Solar ($374 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($6 million)
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Schneider Electric ($86 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.4 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
LSP Energy ($2.1 billion)*
UniSolar ($100 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($120 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($150 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($10 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.

The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy.


"it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves" ???
Like Solyndra's ($535 million) George Kaiser being a "bundler" of political donations?
George Kaiser in 2009: It's Time to Cash in on the Mother of All Government Handouts

Edited by Rogerdodger, 18 October 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[voltaire]

When railroads became popular they were putting in multiple lines for a while but most went broke and sanity prevailed. We still have rail When motor vehicles became popular there were manufactures everywhere and most went bust but motor vehicles were here to stay. When radio became popular there were manufacturers everywhere but most went bust. Remember the dot.coms. Most went bust but the internet is a permanent fixture. Solar is here to stay except the US will miss out as China and Europe dominate the market. In Australia power bills have risen as utilities generate new infrastructure and then find is not needed. Of course if you believe in the sceptic view of global warming then keep burning those fossil fuels. The rest of the world will eventually tax you for your behaviour as they are now on your airlines over Europe. Whales are again increasing so perhaps whale oil is a goer again. Solar energy is now so cheap that state governments no longer need to subsidise them. Here you can put in solar power for the cost of 2 quarterly power bills. In fact in many places you can get it free for a modest gov subsidy to installers from the federal government. As prices drop dramatically solar is a no brainer. Better and cheaper battery systems will mean mains power will become obsolete shortly for domestic users.

[Rogerdodger]

Your Strawman here is the implication that there is someone against solar powered inventions.
That is a false argument.

See above:

"The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and losers in the first place.
Venture capitalist firms exist for this very reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’ business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to “invest” in green energy."

Thus, in just a few short months we have a VERY LONG list of failures and wasted resources associated with politically connected contributors.

Railroads were another example of political corruption, aka: quid pro quo:
"Governments aided railroads be­cause politicians perceived some advantage to be gained by such promotion. Sometimes that advan­tage was personal and direct, as when they received stock or other emoluments from promoters; at other times, it may have been in­direct by way of facilities gained for some portion or all of their constituencies. Merchants, trades­men, manufacturers, farmers, and what have you, wanted a railroad to and from their communities. The city fathers of one town wanted to gain for their locale a favorable position visa a vis their competitors elsewhere.
Much of the history of railroads and gov­ernment intervention can only be correctly construed in terms of commercial rivalries, competing lo­cales, and the pulling and hauling between them for advantage.
Those involved frequently turned to politicians to get them to use government to better their posi­tion."
http://www.thefreema...oads-1830-1871/

See Atlas Shrugged, where the private sector railroads make wise economic decisions while the greedy government sector politicians use their power to destroy progress and innovation for their own self interests.

The newest i-Phone, if invented by government:

Edited by Rogerdodger, 21 October 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[voltaire]

Roger No rational person still regards Ayn Rand as having any credibilty. I say no rational person as a few still think her works were of substance. In an Ayn Rand world world there would be no regulation and social Darwinism would rule. The fact is that "social democracy" is the the preferred government of most nations and that includes the US. We recognise that capitalism is essential but safety nets are needed for those unable to cope. Basically it is still the "carrot and stick" approach. Entice and encourage self sufficiency, and make it difficult to loaf, but we will always have those who need support. I find it insulting that many think "charity" by individuals is better than government support. That results in favoured groups getting help while others don't. In other words if I favour one group or area they get help and others don't. Government is the best means of assistance as they don't discriminate. And it still is charity from the general population. Of course individual charity makes the individual feel good but its inefficient.

[stocks]

European energy policy

Because cheap gas is reducing coal demand in the US, there is “a lot of cheap coal in the marketplace”. As a result, Europe is burning more coal, while demand for gas – which emits much less CO2 than coal – is declining.

“You have this ridiculous situation where cash-strapped Europe is putting a lot of money into renewables to reduce CO2, meanwhile allowing ... the power generators to take much more coal and back out gas,” he said.



http://www.telegraph...rgy-policy.html

[stocks]

After Sandy, No One Lined Up for Wind Turbines

The greens want to go 'beyond oil,' but without it we'd freeze in the dark

Oil—and, more specifically, diesel fuel and gasoline—are proving to be the most important commodities in the wake of the huge storm that recently pummeled the East Coast. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, all of the critical pieces of equipment were burning gasoline or diesel fuel: the pumps removing water from flooded basements and subway tunnels, the generators providing electricity to hospitals and businesses, and the cars, trucks and aircraft providing mobility

Sandy left millions of East Coast residents in the cold and dark. If any of them have been demanding “green” energy, I haven’t heard about it. In the storm’s aftermath, the most hopeful sound of recovery is the joyous racket that comes from an internal-combustion engine burning fossil fuels


http://www.aei-ideas...-come/#comments

[diogenes227]

After Sandy, No One Lined Up for Wind Turbines

The greens want to go 'beyond oil,' but without it we'd freeze in the dark

Oil—and, more specifically, diesel fuel and gasoline—are proving to be the most important commodities in the wake of the huge storm that recently pummeled the East Coast. In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, all of the critical pieces of equipment were burning gasoline or diesel fuel: the pumps removing water from flooded basements and subway tunnels, the generators providing electricity to hospitals and businesses, and the cars, trucks and aircraft providing mobility

Sandy left millions of East Coast residents in the cold and dark. If any of them have been demanding “green” energy, I haven’t heard about it. In the storm’s aftermath, the most hopeful sound of recovery is the joyous racket that comes from an internal-combustion engine burning fossil fuels


http://www.aei-ideas...-come/#comments

Yes, everything takes years, nothing happens overnight, but it is good to see the chart in that link:



Nice steady decline in fossil fuel use and rise in renewable energy. Too bad they ended the chart in 2035. The next year oil runs out and fossil fuel drops off a big, big cliff ( ). If renewable energy is not ready to take over by then, yeah, our children and grandchildren could freeze in the dark or go back to chewing on the soot in the London fog. But, fortunately, our children know they live in the 21st century and they have just voted to go forward instead of back to the 20th and 19th centuries. I suspect they will solve these energy problems once we get out of their way.

[stocks]

Germany's Green Energy Fiasco

Germany came perilously close to a network breakdown in a February cold snap due to errors in the forecasts for
balancing power made by suppliers

In Germany, 75 percent of electricity goes to industry, for which a secure supply -- that is, at every second, and with constant voltage -- is indispensable. Neither solar nor wind power are suitable for that purpose today. Both fluctuate and provide either no secure supply or only a small fraction of a secure supply

Grid fluctuations lead to very unpleasant systemic effects. We have voltage fluctuations within the grid that create problems for industry. Or we overload the grids in neighboring countries. Poland is in the process of installing technical equipment to protect its grids by keeping out surplus German electricity.

Modern industrial power grids cannot tolerate the huge moment-to-moment energy fluctuations of intermittent unreliable energy sources such as big wind and big solar. Whenever attempting a large scale conversion to "green power," initial economic costs are exorbitant. The cost of the power plants themselves, the cost of new power grid infrastructure, and the huge cost of maintaining spinning backup power sources. And then there is the cost to society as lower and middle income customers strain to pay skyrocketing power bills.

But the real costs of such an ideologically driven, top-down attempt to transform a national power grid and power supply, begin to emerge as the unreliables approach 20% or more of total power capacity to the grid. The violent and unpredictable intermittency of big wind power in particular, leads to power failures -- blackouts, brownouts, selective shutdowns of power customers, etc.



http://alfin2300.blo...re-problem.html