Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
While AGW is the culprit, the item which will break us, financially, is water.
As AGW warms the climate we already see rainfall changing places. We built our farms where the water was. Now that it is moving, do we relocate the farms or the water. Moving water is pretty well known technology, but requires a great deal of energy. In the past the sun supplied the energy for the water cycle with no help from us. It evaporated, it moved, it condensed. In a warmer climate we'll either need to help mother nature, or relocate our farms.
One thing about big cities is that they tend to grow upon the water. Ports. Now the water is relocating from the arctic and Antarctic ice fields to the oceans and eventually around our skyscrapers. Move the skyscrapers or hold back the water. Big, big bucks.
Here's the only saving grace. We can kick the can down the road to our grandchildren instead of solving it.
I'm thinking that they're going to be pissed if we ignore it.
Reality differs with your propaganda.......
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/
Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post
Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net
Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek
BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.
"BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States.
BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector."
BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com
And on and on......your assertions are crap.
In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.
I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.
Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.
The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.
"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."
Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?
There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.
In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.
I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.
Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.
The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.
"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."
Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?
There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.
They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.
In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.
I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.
Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.
The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.
"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."
Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?
There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.
They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.
"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."
Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?
There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.
They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.
You continue to expose us to why you are so easy to fool.
No matter. Every generation progress overwhelms those in love with the view in the rear view mirror. The Greedy Generation no less.
The ship of conservatism has tripped over Italy, is on its side, and your Captain is already ashore. Do what you feels best.
I have a feeling that I am far more energy efficient than you ever will be. i've had an operable solar system for 28 years now...you? I have a water wheel as well...you? I have cars that are very old but very efficient and are paid off....you? We grow most of our own veggies...you?
"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."
Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?
There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.
They're cheap because they have been around for 100 years so the tech is well understood and because they are efficient as hell. That's the underlying problem with any of the o called green alternatives, not one of them is as efficient as that which they wish to replace.
"The One Percent Solution"
"By Michael Martineck on December 12, 2006"
"Armory Lovins makes his living studying energy use and efficiency. According to the physicist and cofounder of the Rocky Mountain Institute environmental think tank, the modern automobile uses just one percent of its energy to move its occupant hither and yon. The number is shockingly small, and it may point to big changes for future cars."
Probably doesn't count the energy it takes to get the fuel out of the ground, refine it, and transport it into the car.
A "negawatt revolution" would involve the rapid deployment of electricity-saving technologies, such as compact fluorescent lamps.
A negawatt is a unit in watts of energy saved. It is basically the opposite of a watt. Amory Lovins has advocated a "negawatt revolution", arguing that utility customers dont want kilowatt-hours of electricity; they want energy services such as hot showers, cold beer, lit rooms, and spinning shafts, which can come more cheaply if electricity is used more efficiently.[13]
According to Lovins, energy efficiency represents a profitable global market and American companies have at their disposal the technical innovations to lead the way. Not only should they "upgrade their plants and office buildings, but they should encourage the formation of negawatt markets".[14] Lovins sees negawatt markets as a win-win solution to many environmental problems. Because it is "now generally cheaper to save fuel than to burn it, global warming, acid rain, and urban smog can be reduced not at a cost but at a profit".[14]
Lovins explains that many companies are already enjoying the financial and other rewards that come from saving electricity. Yet progress in converting to electricity saving technologies has been slowed by the indifference or outright opposition of some utilities.[13] A second obstacle to efficiency is that many electricity-using devices are purchased by people who wont be paying their running costs and thus have little incentive to consider efficiency. Lovins also believes that many customers "don't know what the best efficiency buys are, where to get them, or how to shop for them".[13]
How many 'green energy' proponents are willing to look at the real cost of producing all that 'green energy'. It requires a maximum sized semi flat bed trailer to transport a single blade of the typical wind turbine, and that one blade is ALL that truck can transport. What energy was required to acquire and process the materials that went into that blade as well as the manufacture of the blades themselves which are most often mostly fiberglass reinforced with 'gasp' carbon fiber? How long does the wind turbine have to operate in order to offset the 'ungreen' processes used to build, transport, install, and maintain it?
Each tall wind turbine, including a safety margin around it in case it falls, requires about a half acre of land plus roads leading to it. A wind turbine to provide all the electricity for a single house costs something like $30k to build and $300 to $900 per year to maintain. It will be a long time before a homeowner will recoup their investment via lowered electricity costs or the environment will recoup in green energy considering the energy 'pollution' necessary to manufacture and install the turbine.
For that matter the huge turbines that can generate enough electricity to power 300 homes generally cost something like $3 to $4 million each. Given the fairly high maintenance on these things, how long will it have to last to recoup the carbon savings. How long to recoup the cost in electricity production given that these things still cost a bit more to run than the equivalent use of coal?
How much do wind turbines cost? | Windustry
A coal powered plant that can provide power for 700,000 homes costs something like $2 billion making it three times more cost effective than the 2000+ wind turbines necessary to provide the same amount of power.
NETL: Coal-Fired Power Plants (CFPPs)
Noise pollution is a problem with wind farms as well as them being placed in places that can really create an eyesore. Several communities in the USA and abroad have reported that their thriving tourist industries declined significantly after wind turbines went in and spoiled pristine views. And many places have passed ordinances prohibiting them from being located near residential areas due to unknown negative effects of them on people.
The upside is wind is free. And while it takes a hell of a lot of wind turbines across a large expanse of land to produce as much electricity as one coal fired power plant, wind turbines are at least more efficient and less costly than solar power and take up less room to produce the same amount of energy.
I read somewhere that we would need something like a billion wind turbines to replace coal and coal, I believe, accounts for less than 50% of all electricity production. I haven't done the math, but I'm guessing that enough wind turbines to replace coal would take up a whole lot of good farm and pasture land. That's probably why small countries with a coastline and populations approximating a large U.S. city or medium sized state are putting their wind turbines out in the ocean.
And as for the heavily tax payer subsidized ethanol, there is even less reason to push that as a CO2 reducing, green energy component. See this scientific test on that run by Edmunds:
E85 vs. Gasoline Comparison Test
And the costs cited in their study don't even include the cost to us tax payers in direct subsidies or the more expanded much higher food costs in both grains and proteins when food crops are diverted to production of ethanol. And a huge chunk of those subsidies are going to those much maligned oil companies.
See this:
Ethanol Subsidies: Too Much for Too Little | Taxpayers for Common Sense
Seriously folks. We need to use some common sense and honesty in evaluating this stuff. "Green" is green only if it actually helps the environment in necessary ways. When it fails to do that, no amount of propaganda, 'feel good' rhetoric, or noble sounding titles makes it something any of us should be forced to do.
Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.
Sure thing admiral. Yooooou're so studly!
Fox, it rarely ends well for the people who go obsessive about me, as they usually end up self-destructing in a hilarious fashion. You don't want to join that crowd. You've haven't gone into the sanity death spiral yet, so there's still time to turn back.
You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth. So there are absolutely no worries about that.
Amazingly stupid YouTube, yet skook seems to think it makes sense. It really is the best he can do, though, given his limited brainpower.
If I put a drop of India Ink in a glass of water, the water turns opaque black. Even though the concentration of ink molecules is just a tiny trace, it absorbs 100% of visible light. According to skook's theory, that can't happen, since it's just a trace. Given it does happen, it thus proves how skook's theory is retarded, as is any person who spouts such a retarded theory.
Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.
Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.
Because they are pollutants, are expensive, and have to be imported from countries who are not US allies.
The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.
The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.
