What is Climate Denial costing the US?

[Skull Pilot]

For one thing no one is stopping any company from producing renewable energy products.

We have seen how the government's so called investments in R.E. have worked so it's better for the American people that billions more of their tax dollars are not thrown into another low flush toilet.

 

[freedombecki]

Freedmbecki -

Saigon, my alma mater, Oregon State University, is showing a concern about both ocean current-generated electricity and wind turbines on marine mammals. (The wind turbines have made migrations confusing and deadly to certain species of water mammals in the Baltic region by EU zoologists), plus in Oregon, they are concerned about the Eastern gray whale, the Harbor porpoise, and the local pinniped populations.

I am happy to see a valid point posted after 4 pages of gibberish!!

This is an issue with tidal, and one that demands a solution. I think experts will find one, as it seems to be largely an issue of where in the water the turbines are positioned relative to the surface, but I agree it is a serious concern. No form of energy production will ever be perfect, so it is generally a case of choosing maximum gain against minium environmental impact and at the best price. Tidal absolutely passes that test.


And yes, I am Finnish! I don't know why the Wailing Wall makes up this shit. I should start insisting that he's Canadian.

Call it silly, but I always respect the Finnish for a number of reasons. The Finns were the first nation to pay back all their war debts, and in an elective class I took on breadbaking, our instructor gave us a recipe for Finnish Cardamom braid bread. It became a staple in my home in which we raised 2 children, my baby sister, and a nephew on, with a couple of minor changes to using whole Roman meal and honey in the recipe. Also, the Finnish have a special reverence for nature that is totally world class. Now, if we could just get some Finnish wisdom for both economic responsibility and ecological responsibility, this world could rock again.

The trouble with putting those turbines down into the depths for free tidal energy resources is the honing animals their vibrations would confuse and nonchary more amphibious species their blades would decimate. We should not put our comfort over eliminating dozens of rare species from the depths of the sea, who give humans a good source of protein that is heart-healthy, and who knows what other good use they could be to planetary health if wisely harvested, with my apologies to nutritionally marginal vegans. I'm saying that, because the maories who live on islands in the southern pacific have found a clam that cures arthritis in only one or two applications.

We could be a more gracious specie and respect others, although we have the power to destroy them if we choose carelessness as our bedfellow.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Anyone purchasing any so-called "green energy" products does so only because they are receiving government subsidies.

Nonsense. That simply is not true, and I guess you know that too.

I have just presented three private companies which all make huge profits and which do not receive any subsidies. They sell turbines and equipment to private and public sector clients just like any other company.

Those companies are investing in tidal because it is a better business model - not because they are being secretly paid to do so.

Of course some countries offer subsidies to start-ups, but no more so for renewable energy than for other forms of energy production.

The people who buy the products are the ones receiving the subsidies. You even admitted that government is one of their biggest customers. Those are tax dollars, by definition.

If you got rid of all the taxpayer money the "green energy" companies would evaporate overnight.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Many private companies sell products and services to public sector clients. But at this stage, I think it is unlikely that you can adequately understand what a private company does.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Saigon]

Call it silly, but I always respect the Finnish for a number of reasons. The Finns were the first nation to pay back all their war debts, and in an elective class I took on breadbaking, our instructor gave us a recipe for Finnish Cardamom braid bread. It became a staple in my home in which we raised 2 children, my baby sister, and a nephew on, with a couple of minor changes to using whole Roman meal and honey in the recipe. Also, the Finnish have a special reverence for nature that is totally world class. Now, if we could just get some Finnish wisdom for both economic responsibility and ecological responsibility, this world could rock again.

The trouble with putting those turbines down into the depths for free tidal energy resources is the honing animals their vibrations would confuse and nonchary more amphibious species their blades would decimate. We should not put our comfort over eliminating dozens of rare species from the depths of the sea, who give humans a good source of protein that is heart-healthy, and who knows what other good use they could be to planetary health if wisely harvested, with my apologies to nutritionally marginal vegans. I'm saying that, because the maories who live on islands in the southern pacific have found a clam that cures arthritis in only one or two applications.

We could be a more gracious specie and respect others, although we have the power to destroy them if we choose carelessness as our bedfellow.

I do apreciate those gracious comments, Freedombecki - not often we see compliments paid on this board!!

I totally agree with you about tidal power, and the project I have been following since I lived in New Zealand (linked below) is struggling to find the balance between production and damaging sea life. Vibration is one issue, but the other is the sheer size of the blades. At 18 metres across they can cut a shark in half. I suspect the answer is in covering them with a layer of nets of some kind to keep sea life above them.

Tidal power - Crest Energy

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While the cost of combating climate change is raised on a lot of threads (sometimes as a valid concern, more often as a means of avoiding the science), there is very little discussion given to what cost there is in denial.

1) Jobs.

Germany employs 370,000 people in renewable energy, mainly in small to medium enterprises. Korea, Scotland and Japan aslo have massive industries producing tidal and wind turbines, solar panels, consulting and conducting research into renewables.

2) Foreign Direct Investment.

Remember free market capitalism? People said it was a good thing? Well, my Renewable Energy share fund is up 12% over the past year. It invests in the countries listed above and a few more - but not the US.

3) Reputation.

As we've seen on other threads, climate change is not a political issue in most countries. Conservatives in the UK, France, Germany and around the world accept the science. The
Denial of the GOP makes them a bit of a joke in international science circles - and at some point that may cost the US quite a lot.

4) Money

New Zealand is ordering 200 tidal turbines at US$10 million a unit. Scotland won the deal ahead of bids from Japan and Korea. I call that good money to earn.

5) Technology

Research into renewables creates a lot of spin-off products and services that can become industries in their own right. Norway is a world leader in the field of Osmotic Energy - a field few people in the US have ever heard of. Who knows what may come out of that?

I love that Europe is burning more coal and less natural gas.

Europe Gas Carnage Shown by EON Closing 3-Year-Old Plant: Energy - Bloomberg

Don't they know the ice is melting?

"Germany’s second-largest utility and Europe’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, churned out 11 percent more greenhouse gases last year as coal-fired plants increased production, according to the company’s annual report. Their profitability has been increased by the collapse in carbon permits to record lows, cutting the cost of burning coal"

LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Many private companies sell products and services to public sector clients. But at this stage, I think it is unlikely that you can adequately understand what a private company does.

I'll leave it at that.

That means the money comes out of the taxpayer's pockets. Where is the benefit to the taxpayer from this green energy "investment?"

One thing is clear: you don't understand the slightest thing about economics.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

There is little point discussing this until such time as you figure out what a private company does.

For the 100th time - there ar no subsidies here. This is about PRIVATE companies and free trade.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Germany is phasing out its nuclear programme and replacing it with other forms of electricty generation. Hence it is using coal for another few years until some of the new stations come online.

 

[freedombecki]

Call it silly, but I always respect the Finnish for a number of reasons. The Finns were the first nation to pay back all their war debts, and in an elective class I took on breadbaking, our instructor gave us a recipe for Finnish Cardamom braid bread. It became a staple in my home in which we raised 2 children, my baby sister, and a nephew on, with a couple of minor changes to using whole Roman meal and honey in the recipe. Also, the Finnish have a special reverence for nature that is totally world class. Now, if we could just get some Finnish wisdom for both economic responsibility and ecological responsibility, this world could rock again.

The trouble with putting those turbines down into the depths for free tidal energy resources is the honing animals their vibrations would confuse and nonchary more amphibious species their blades would decimate. We should not put our comfort over eliminating dozens of rare species from the depths of the sea, who give humans a good source of protein that is heart-healthy, and who knows what other good use they could be to planetary health if wisely harvested, with my apologies to nutritionally marginal vegans. I'm saying that, because the maories who live on islands in the southern pacific have found a clam that cures arthritis in only one or two applications.

We could be a more gracious specie and respect others, although we have the power to destroy them if we choose carelessness as our bedfellow.

I do apreciate those gracious comments, Freedombecki - not often we see compliments paid on this board!!

I totally agree with you about tidal power, and the project I have been following since I lived in New Zealand (linked below) is struggling to find the balance between production and damaging sea life. Vibration is one issue, but the other is the sheer size of the blades. At 18 metres across they can cut a shark in half. I suspect the answer is in covering them with a layer of nets of some kind to keep sea life above them.

Tidal power - Crest Energy

Thank you for the link, Saigon, which does not mention it could cut a shark or a migratory whale into smithereens. It also claims silence and invisibility, but the way they say it it sounds like it's only out of people's notice, and not the honing animals whose lives are ordered by radar. Also, it has 200 killing stations, which it euphemized as "locations."

I hope you will listen to our financial men here, although it's easier to get lost in the enthusiasm for green sources that wind up doing more damage to the environment than coal, gas, or other fossil fuels. Also in order to procure funds, many of the green enterprises resort to hedging the realities of their ideas in euphemisms rather than in certainly dead animals who become ensnared or confused by the particular technology that ignores their existence.

Keep in mind, our financial sector is comprised of very bright mathematicians, many of whom are renaissance persons in their own right, pointing out actual facts that can be proven correct.

For example, one volcano can cover a quarter of the earth in emissions in less than a week, causing a lot more of the same problem big cities like Los Angeles have with smog from auto emissions, except only locally. People only notice stuff that is smelly. I lived in Oregon when Mt. St. Helens erupted and saw a fraction of ash lightly coating cars the next day, less than 100 miles south, and I'm here to tell you there was no odd smell. In a few months, it was forgotten. Had there been an odor, it would have gotten people's worried attention. Quite a few people died on the mountain thinking they would be exempt from getting trapped by a volcano. Unfortunately, the eruption was so violent it relocated a lake and lowered areas of the mountain's top to rearrange the skyline for miles around. All that stuff went up into the air, causing particulates over a huge area that basically floated east or north, away from us, although we got a little fallout. More stuff went into the air than all the cars ever built, a couple of sources claimed.

So blaming mankind may bring money to scientists trying to do a project, but it just is not factual that man causes more pollution than our own earth. In fact, if you look at the stats, mankind's contribution to the real atmosphere is measured in 6 one-thousands of a percent range. The real viper in any climate change is mother nature.

I'm sorry we're slow to fully fund science without a lot of braggadocio, but dividing the entire financial sector who love the earth as much than green claimants will be hard-pressed to move until they see figures proving otherwise. They think it's not nice to fool with Mother Nature. Just sayin'.

They're also not going to defend themselves from frontal attacks by people who haven't dug further than altered reports digging up financial backers who aren't so bright as the facts-and-figures guys. When you and the green community realize this, hopefully you will extend an olive branch rather than an ad hominem attack on the beautiful people that they are. It isn't easy to tell the truth only to have your ankles chewed on, but they do it so we will not allow exaggeration to drain the world economy unduly. They deserve utmost respect for their opinions that are quite disjoint from the smarm this world is seeing from cash-strapped researchers. There has to be a happy medium somewhere, but it is not going to be in slapping free people with restrictive societies prone to deception by strong central police states that evolve when people become blind to the truth on company P & L statements or declare war on existing energy industries who have bettered the lives of every civilized nation on the planet with instant lighting, instant communications, and the like. They light up the world:

 

[freedombecki]

From the usgsdotgov, here are digital images of before and after Mt. St. Helens erupted:

Sorry, but it was totally beautiful before, and not quite so wonderful later. Could've been the elevation loss, and it could have been its loss of beautiful forests that covered the slopes visible from far away.​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Germany is phasing out its nuclear programme and replacing it with other forms of electricty generation. Hence it is using coal for another few years until some of the new stations come online.

So why don't they burn natural gas instead of coal?

Do they hate puppies and children?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Actually Germany exports most of its coal, but it has massive mines. It does not have any natural gas reserves.

Germany now produces more than 20% of its electricity from renewables.

I think they are wong to phase out nuclear, but I respect their reasoning anyway.

By 2030, we should see all EU countries producing at least 30% of their electricity from renewables, with much of the rest coming from nuclear and hydro. Coal will be phased out by then, presumably.

This isn't a difficult topic to understand if you try and focus and take it seriously.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

There is little point discussing this until such time as you figure out what a private company does.

For the 100th time - there ar no subsidies here. This is about PRIVATE companies and free trade.

You're an idiot. The people who buy the product receive a subsidy, usually in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit. If government buys the product, then the taxpayers are still footing the bill. The bottom line is that a large fraction of the revenue from "green energy" comes from the taxpayers. Without government money the "green energy" industry would disappear. This has nothing to do with "free trade" or "free enterprise." There's nothing "free" about it. It's a government created market.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Actually Germany exports most of its coal, but it has massive mines. It does not have any natural gas reserves.

Germany now produces more than 20% of its electricity from renewables.

I think they are wong to phase out nuclear, but I respect their reasoning anyway.

By 2030, we should see all EU countries producing at least 30% of their electricity from renewables, with much of the rest coming from nuclear and hydro. Coal will be phased out by then, presumably.

This isn't a difficult topic to understand if you try and focus and take it seriously.

They export coal? Don't they realize that combined with oxygen, that's pure poison.
No matter the expense, they should burn natural gas and not coal.

They do hate kids and puppies.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Saigon]

Luddly -

That seems to be about right!!

you only have to read through this thread to see that the US is not a major force in science education. It's something that I think the US has to addresss.

 

[Saigon]

You're an idiot. The people who buy the product receive a subsidy, usually in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit. If government buys the product, then the taxpayers are still footing the bill. The bottom line is that a large fraction of the revenue from "green energy" comes from the taxpayers. Without government money the "green energy" industry would disappear. This has nothing to do with "free trade" or "free enterprise." There's nothing "free" about it. It's a government created market.

You really aren't getting this, are you?

Most power companies in western countries are private. They are the clients.

Not a subsidy in sight.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're an idiot. The people who buy the product receive a subsidy, usually in the form of a tax deduction or a tax credit. If government buys the product, then the taxpayers are still footing the bill. The bottom line is that a large fraction of the revenue from "green energy" comes from the taxpayers. Without government money the "green energy" industry would disappear. This has nothing to do with "free trade" or "free enterprise." There's nothing "free" about it. It's a government created market.

You really aren't getting this, are you?

Most power companies in western countries are private. They are the clients.

Not a subsidy in sight.

Private companies forced by government to buy green energy. Great idea, LOL!

 

[skookerasbil]

No elaboration needed!!!

[/IMG]




Who's not winning?




The k00ks NEVER consider "costs" with all of their pipe dreams. Thankfully, the masses do......