Green Energy

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

The left believes in Green Energy: that it exists, it's cheaper, and could provide all our power needs, if we just embraced it. The facts (Science) says that Solar and Wind is unreliable, space inefficient and highly expensive if you remember to add in the costs of over-capacity, backup plants, and storage (for when they aren't working). The cheap and reliable forms of Green Energy are: Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal: but the left hates those and has resisted the adoption of real green energy solutions.

Issue Lie Truth
Green Energy The left believes in Green Energy: that it exists, it's cheaper, and could provide all our power needs, if we just embraced it. The facts (Science) says that Solar and Wind is unreliable, space inefficient and highly expensive if you remember to add in the costs of over-capacity, backup plants, and storage (for when they aren't working). The cheap and reliable forms of Green Energy are: Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal: but the left hates those and has resisted the adoption of real green energy solutions.

I'm a fan of clean energy. The problem is that the agenda of the far left, and the real science/facts are too often in conflict -- and when science (logic) and politics conflict, I go with science. This is just a list of articles/topics around Green Energy debates.

The Basics

I've debated this stuff since the 1970's (and I was an early teen). And the fallacies and facts have been surprisingly static and consistent. The left doesn't give a shit about Green Energy or the environment, or at least not as much as they care about their political agenda -- otherwise they would support the practical kinds: Nuclear, Hydroelectric and Geothermal. You show something like how Nuclear Power is green, economical, scalable and could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels or coal, and most will think up dozens of creative reasons why they are against it. But if they really cared about CO2 as much as they claim, they'd be all for it. That demonstrable cognitive dissonance proves my point. They care.... just not enough to change their minds about their agendas. Here's the major topic areas:

4 items


Wind Power -
WindmillsSuck.png
The best thing you can say about Wind Power is that it's less wasteful and inefficient than Solar Power -- but that doesn't mean much. Those that are proponents are usually the least informed on the topic, and they'll talk about how great it is in cost/MWh of generation. But what they ignore is like Solar, it is unreliable, so you need another plant (or overcapacity and storage) to deal with that lack of reliability. They never factor in those costs into their equations. Nor the bird-chopping environmental impacts. Being a fan of Wind means you hate the environment (since it takes more land, and resources to create electricity through that means), which is also why it costs more, and countries that use it (like Germany) have to have backup generation via coal or fossil fuels. To love Wind Power, you have to hate science and logic.

Solar Power -
SolarFreeLoader.jpg
I like the idea of residential Solar Power and people not being dependent on government regulated grids, and having the ability to survive in case of natural or man made disasters. I plan on adding it to my next home. What I don't like is lies (flim-flam), about how much industrial Solar Power costs, or the bullshit about how "green" it is. It is not as green as the proponents pretend, and if it was cheaper, how come places that implement it at scale have higher energy costs and less reliability? Someday, it might be ready (and that may be coming in a few short years or decades), but the point is that means they've been lying for the last 30 that it had already reached cross-over.

Nuclear Energy - Nuclear power is the safest and greenest form of energy on the planet: and the environmentalist left has always opposed it. The left got over 120 reactors blocked or cancelled in the U.S. so we stayed on fossil fuels and coal for that power instead. That was not about the environment, and it was anti-Science.

Biofuels - Biofuels are an anti-science flam-flam on the gullible, usually done by the left (though some farmers who like subsidies are fans too). The idea is to take land that you could be using to feed people (either directly or feeding animals we eat), and convert it and valuable water resources into growing fuel instead. You turn calories in petroleum alternatives, like alcohol or vegetable oil, into car or power-plant food. This works, but it is not efficient, often more polluting than fossil fuels. And why use it if you have perfectly good and cheap toxic waste in the ground? You can pump it out, refine it, and burn it instead for a fraction the cost (which is why you need to subsidize it to make it viable). Just leave the food for people. Since it costs lots of money, and requires regulation and subsidies to work, the left has always been a fan.

  • Hydroelectric Power

GeekPirate.small.png

Written: 2018.07.01 • Edited: 2019.07.02