California green energy - Oops

[Maverick]

I will offer an opinion on a different direction.

First, there should be no government/tax incentives AT ALL. None for anybody. Not for renewable energy. Not for petroleum or any fossil fuels. Find the true cost, and let the market dictate which solution is best. There should be no regulation mandating what has to be used. Whatever the most efficient and cost effective method is for your area should be the reason you use that form of energy.

Second, I will address the 800 pound gorilla in the room; Nuclear Energy. That is the cheapest, most efficient, cleanest, and takes the smallest environmental footprint of anything we have. The waste issue can be solved safely. It is ignored because of politics, and that is a foolish mistake.

On the surface, nuclear power seem the best bet until you look what goes on behind all this concrete.

The problem with nuclear energy is it's waste. Each plant creates 2,000 metric tons of radioactive waste a year, the waste ends up sitting on site because there is nowhere else to put it according to the DoE. "When we remove fuel from the core after its final usage, we store it in a pool on site, according to the DoE. So, how much lands and waterways do we need to contaminate for this clean power

Then we have the problem such Three Mile Island accident which was a multi layer failure, all nuclear power plants are built on the shores of lakes, rivers, and oceans. Take Washington State famed Hanford Site along the shores of the mighty Columbia River, it's been shut down for years and it was part of a super fund cleanup, all of it's waste is still there buried in multiple safety layers and it's still leaching out. Hanford has onsite 53 million gallons, 25 million cubic feet of solid radioactive waste, nuclear power plants are not clean energy when you take in to account it's waste.

Then we have earthquakes with Fukushima style incident.

 

[Morgan101]

Renewable energy sources aren't nearly as clean as people think, and nothing is free. How are you going to dispose of all those batteries when they go dead? Where are you going to mine all the rare earth elements that are needed? Look up neodymium in China, not that anybody cares what China does to their environment. A "push" from the government is just profit using taxpayer funds. There isn't a company on the planet that does it for philanthropical reasons.

Fukushima should never have been built where it was; another government failure. It isn't the technology that is at fault.

We could debate this until the cows come home, but it is very hard to get to the truth. Addressing the true cost of renewable energy is almost impossible to determine, and nobody wants to discuss the downsides. The best you will hear is that renewable energy is a better alternative in the long run.

 

[Maverick]

Yep, look at pegmatite mining of lithium, all those fancy batteries used in electric cars. No such thing as green energy, green energy is more damaging than natural gas and petroleum.

 

[Mountain trapper]

Yep, look at pegmatite mining of lithium, all those fancy batteries used in electric cars. No such thing as green energy, green energy is more damaging than natural gas and petroleum.

Absolutely correct. Many people are always looking for some pipe dream that will magically save the planet and make themselves feel good about "doing something". The answer has been right under our feet all along. The infrastructure is already in place and it's very abundant; oil, gas and coal. Its clean, easy to extract and to transport and reasonably priced. Why do some people continue fighting it. Naivety and gullibility is all I can figure.

 

[Maverick]

Safety in comparison

Deep Water Horizon 1 incident (the worst in US history)
82,000 birds of 102 species; about 6,165 sea turtles; as many as 25,900 marine mammals

Green Energy per year (US only)
Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds, 16,200 to 59,400 birds killed annually by solar farms just in southern California alone

So, everyone picks on natural gas and petroleum, so where is the g'damn outcry regarding green energy, it fxxken pathetic people pushing green energy don't give a rats ass about land destruction and wildlife deaths except when it pertains to oil fxxk em, the US had 44 oil spills since 1969 and not all spills killed anything thats 51 years.

 

[Morgan101]

Why do some people continue fighting it. Naivety and gullibility is all I can figure.

They have an agenda that is just as profit and money driven as fossil fuels. Oil and Gas are mature industries. Awfully tough to crack that lineup. Renewable energy is a brave new world. Who is going to be the next John D. Rockefeller? You have the government giving billions in subsidies, and then passing laws to mandate people are forced to use your product. Why not fight for a bigger piece of the pie?

 

[Brent S]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

Oil is not finite, as long as there are living things on the planet.

 

[Mountain trapper]

I agree that clean energy isn’t perfectly green. There are manufacturing, disposal and many other things to consider. I also know that oil is a finite material and will run out. If we don’t start exploring renewable energy now we are dooming ourselves to failure down the road. The sun shines Way more energy on the planet in a single day than mankind uses in a year. It’s just ignorance to not want to tap into that. As far as renewables not being perfect, well they aren’t. But by pursuing them and learning more and building on that knowledge each year they have the potential to become better and better. I like to use the analogy of a model t to a new Toyota. The model t was a piece of crap comparatively. But I’ve time cars were built better and better Until they are where they are today.

Have you ever looked around at all the wind and solar farms that are already out there?? These eyesores are everywhere. These so-called renewables have been tapped for years. The problem is they aren't as reliable or as cheap as oil and gas is. Take the government subsidies away and they'll all shut down tomorrow. They also have a lot more impact on the environment than oil and gas does. Yes, oil and gas could run out some day. But that won't be for at least another thousand years. New oil/gas deposits are being discovered every day. Quit drinking the kool-aid and fighting the best energy source that has ever been discovered. Some day when there's a true need for another source of energy somebody will come up with it.

 

[Mountain trapper]

Safety in comparison

Deep Water Horizon 1 incident (the worst in US history)
82,000 birds of 102 species; about 6,165 sea turtles; as many as 25,900 marine mammals

Green Energy per year (US only)
Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds, 16,200 to 59,400 birds killed annually by solar farms just in southern California alone

So, everyone picks on natural gas and petroleum, so where is the g'damn outcry regarding green energy, it fxxken pathetic people pushing green energy don't give a rats ### about land destruction and wildlife deaths except when it pertains to oil fxxk em, the US had 44 oil spills since 1969 and not all spills killed anything thats 51 years.

Another little secret that many people don't know, or chose to ignore, is that there is more oil that naturally seeps out from the ocean floor than has ever been spilled. Eskimos used the natural oil seeps for their lamps since they first stumbled in to the arctic. Many other places around the world still have oil and gas seeping to the surface.

 

[DrHenley]

Natural gas is the greenest energy we have that can meet the demands. And the great thing about natural gas is that it doesn't take a billion dollar refinery to make synthetic gas by gasifying wood, coal, oil, biomatter, etc.

If you use biomatter, the carbon released by gasifying and then burning it came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it can be net carbon neutral (for those who obsess over such things, LOL)

 

[Mountain trapper]

Natural gas is the greenest energy we have that can meet the demands. And the great thing about natural gas is that it doesn't take a billion dollar refinery to make synthetic gas by gasifying wood, coal, oil, biomatter, etc.

If you use biomatter, the carbon released by gasifying and then burning it came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it can be net carbon neutral (for those who obsess over such things, LOL)

And Turkey just recently discovered a new gas field in the Black sea. Estimated to hold 320 billion cubic meters of gas. New discoverys of natural gas, and oil, are being found quite often.
Unless the natural gas is going to be transported by ship, all thats needed is a simple pipeline and a few compressor stations and it can be very economical to move it over long distances.

 

[tmttactical]

Fact, we (mankind) have never run out of any natural fuel. When the source gets too expensive, then the next resource becomes viable. We do not need to create new hazards by substituting solar / wind for natural gas or even oil. Existing technology exists to burn oil and natural gas, without polluting the air. Even coal can be burned cleanly. We don't need to create an entire industry to save the planet.

 

[Maverick]

How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.

Thank you Mav, Arctic, Urban and Dr Henley for educating me on this issue! Seriously, you guys know a lot!

 

[Brent S]

All I know for sure is man has changed the environment by burning fossil fuels in massive amounts. I also know that this planet we live on is the only place people can survive. Mars and the moon are great ambitions but they are really harsh environments to survive in. So the moral of this story is we need to develop new and cleaner ways to produce the energy we have grown so dependent on. You can argue about clean coal, cars that don’t make the cities air thick with smog and how great the petroleum industry is all you want. The tobacco industry said there was no definitive proof that smoking caused cancer too. Im not saying we should all live in the dark and never progress here. I’m just saying it is smart to want to peruse better ways of providing our way of life.

 

[DrHenley]

I went to graduate school with the idea of getting into alternate fuel technology. What I found out was that there was never an energy shortage, or even a fuel shortage. There were distribution shortages and problems caused by government regulations. One of the "big bad oil companies," Texaco, invented an engine called the Texaco Controlled Combustion System that could run efficiently on low octane fuel in automobiles because raising the octane level without using tetraethyl lead was very energy intensive and they could be more profitable by selling low octane (70) gas straight off of the fractionating column. This was before gasahol. Nobody was interested except UPS which bought a number of those engines for their delivery vans because they could idle very efficiently. UPS determined that the TCCS engines were 35% more efficient. But still nobody else was interested.

The Army was interested at first because the vehicles could run on just about any hydrocarbon including gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, vegetable oil, etc. The engine even ran on motor oil. But the Army suddenly lost interest.

 

[Wiredog8]

People attribute air pollution to the burning of fossil fuels and all the US politicians runaround crying the sky is falling. So, we implement clean air policies, set new regulations, and charge industries big fines for their carbon output.
Yet we continue to allow companies to buy their way out of the carbon issue (kickbacks, campaign contributions, and flat out bibs) while allowing third world and developing countries (China, really??) to spew forth all the pollution they want.

Fact is there is no carbon produced that wasn't already here. we have just redistributed it back into circulation from a containing vessel (timber, coal, oil, etc.)

Also a known fact but overlooked by the Gov, is the fact that trees in forests are most beneficial during the first 30 years (on average) of their lives for atmospheric carbon removal. We should be cutting down the 100 year old trees and begin timber cutting/ replanting on a 30 year cycle. But it will never happen.

Solar: Has it's uses, but major drawbacks such as not being an efficient stand alone power source. Also it is heavily dependent on oil for material to manufacture components. Factoring in the threat to wildlife makes this a less than satisfactory choice for heavy usage and reliance for long term usage.

Wind: Again, has a niche in the energy supply but is by no means a stand alone source.
Also it is heavily dependent on oil for material to manufacture components.
And the average lifespan of a completed wind turbine is typically shorter than the payout time-frame needed to make the turbine a viable expense as compared to profit. Factoring in the threat to wildlife makes this a less than satisfactory choice for heavy usage and reliance for long term usage.

Oil/Natural Gas: Cheap, relatively easy to extract/refine/and distribute. Has thousands of applications for use, as well as they are available worldwide in their raw forms. This is not to mention the thousands of different industries that rely on petroleum products daily for raw materials, additives, solvents, fuels, lubricants, transportation.
Oil/Gas are readily available, relatively safe, and cost effective with a documented over all lower instance of damage to wildlife,

 

[Morgan101]

How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.

You could build a nuclear facility in a smaller space than you would use for a High School. Waste is an issue, but it would be far less harmful to the environment than any of the renewable sources, and have a footprint a fraction of the size.

Why are the Wind Energy providers not held to the same environmental standards as the rest of industry? If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.

 

[DrHenley]

If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.

BUT IT'S GREEN!

 

[Maverick]

Under blackout threat, California may keep gas power plants state rushed to close

The state, which has made a big push toward green energy, has faced an energy shortage

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/blackouts-california-gas-plants

 

[Wiredog8]

You could build a nuclear facility in a smaller space than you would use for a High School. Waste is an issue, but it would be far less harmful to the environment than any of the renewable sources, and have a footprint a fraction of the size.

Why are the Wind Energy providers not held to the same environmental standards as the rest of industry? If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.

The color of green (kick backs, pay-offs, bribes) has a strange effect on what see and report.

 

[LindaSue]

We are a big exporter of oil. Thought this was of interest to the discussion.

“The largest sources of U.S. imported oil were: Canada (49%), Mexico (7%), Saudi Arabia (6%), Russia (6%), and Colombia (4%). According to the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and natural gas industry supports nine million U.S. jobs and makes up seven percent of the nation's gross domestic product.”

I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.

 

[Proud Prepper]

Look at the green energy pushed by Obama and the money the democrats made from those failed scams.

 

[Jayson]

This is the only green energy that the dumb hippies in Kalifornia are interested in.

 

[GeorgiaPeachie]

I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.

We currently do NOT have an energy source to replace coal and oil. Period. When green this or that is stated, it just means a very few people are going to make billions. Follow the money.

 

[Maverick]

I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.

Green Energy is a farce, simply put, the coal burning plants are pretty clean today and yes, russia, china, north korea and the rest of the third world, get a pass, yes. Also, Germany is now beholding to russia for it's heat (natural gas) Man made global warming is a myth, it's a naturally occurring cycle that happen on a geological time scale, it's just bureaucrats have found a way to tax man for what nature naturally does and if anyone jumps on me that scientist are objective is a g'damn fool, they have there head up the bureaucrats xxx so far they become intoxicated by the smell of money, ask them how much money did they receive from the government?!? As they say, follow the money!

https://www.doomsdayprepperforums.com/threads/california-green-energy-oops.13250/page-2#post-197630
https://www.doomsdayprepperforums.com/threads/california-green-energy-oops.13250/page-2#post-197625

 

[Morgan101]

In my fantasy world I would remove ALL government subsidies. Remove ALL tax credits and incentives, and let the free market dictate what type of energy would be best.

I worked in the renewable energy industry for a while. It is not cost effective, and it is not green. It takes more steel (energy) to build one wind turbine than it will ever produce in it's usable life. Wind turbines require neodymium batteries. Look that up and see how green they are. Of course, nobody cares how China destroys their environment.

Solar panels do not last forever. They have to be replaced, and nobody seems to have an answer as to what to do with the toxic waste they generate.

https://www.cfact.org/2019/09/15/the-solar-panel-toxic-waste-problem/
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is Nuclear Energy. It is the cheapest. It is the cleanest. It requires the smallest environmental footprint. If we can put men on the moon and travel to Mars we can solve the problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste.

 

[Jayson]

I saw a news report somewhere/sometime about a group of hippies that use cow **** to generate methane gas. Well, that’s renewable energy because we’ll never run out of **** in this world.

 

[erqueen75]

They will kill anything energy related that does not give em big bucks.

"Give that man a Kewpie doll!" (Stalag 17) movie quote, a must see for WWII enthusiasts.
The big 3 from Detroit and American owned oil companies were so deep in the D.C. lobbyists pockets...For how long did we have cars that got 11, 13, MPG?
Where is the motivation to have solar, wind, hydro-electric, geothermal take over when these guys are making money hand over fist?
This is not news to any of you, I know. And I suppose if any of us were the ones profiting from the sale of big oil, we wouldn't want that to change either.
It is sad that both energy sources cannot work in tandem, because both are needed-as seen in Texas.

I know that the startup to geothermal energy is outrageously expensive, cannot be used in all terrains, and also releases greenhouse gasses. But after that, isn't it then a constant, clean source of renewable energy? Isn't that what we're looking for? Can anyone educate me on this and why the U.S. government doesn't support this more please?
Thank you