Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, September 07, 2019

The phrase "clean energy" normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Too many facts about the costs of pseudo-green energy in that article. We need more magical thinking. Economics, energy cost-benefit analysis, physics, etc., is just boring stuff that hurts our beautiful green agenda.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advocating re-colonization of parts of Africa or S. America is not the pathway to energy resourced for the future. The World Bank is not where Iook for solutions to world problems, it probably would be one of the last places I would look. Any solution they have will just profit the 1% who are already holding a high percentage of the wealth of the world.
I am surprised Lee posted this thread.
The idea that the only clean energy is less energy is disregarding thousands of years of progress by human beings on this planet and believing new discoveries and inventions aren't on the horizon.
They are and those who strive to discover and invent will be the powerhouse nations of the future, those who assume they won't be discovered will fall by the wayside.

#2 | Posted by danni at 2019-09-07 04:28 PM | Reply

Energy costs are settled. We have the least expensive options.

#3 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-07 04:30 PM | Reply

"Energy costs are settled."

What's the cost of climate change from CO2, since apparently it's settled.
It it $0.00?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:32 PM | Reply

Where are we going to find the raw materials, Danni? If Warren or Sanders is elected, and they stop fracking and oil exploration on their first day in office, how will they immediately off-set it? I await your answers.

#5 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-07 04:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"If Warren or Sanders is elected, and they stop fracking and oil exploration on their first day in office, how will they immediately off-set it?"

It would be like that time Obama placed a moratorium on deepwater drilling.
The next day, the world literally ended.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#2

Don't be surprised. I can no longer go through mental gymnastics in an attempt to defend points that are, in the long run, undefendable. My party has turned into anti-business loons.

#7 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-07 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#6

Case in point. That answer made no sense. You can't come up with a rational answer.

#8 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-07 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I can no longer go through mental gymnastics in an attempt to defend points that are, in the long run, undefendable"

420 ppm and rising looks more defensible to you?
Can I see your math?

#9 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:41 PM | Reply

"Case in point. That answer made no sense. You can't come up with a rational answer."

That answer demonstrated that the sky isn't falling.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:42 PM | Reply

#5

Rationally answer #5. Then we can have a conversation. How many ppm to extract the raw materials to make Clean Energy possible and make it plausible the day of President Warren's first day in office.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2019-09-07 04:46 PM | Reply

"How many ppm to extract the raw materials to make Clean Energy possible and make it plausible the day of President Warren's first day in office."

"Less than the ppm if we continue using fossil fuels" is the best I've got.

Can I get a serious answer to #4?
Because I strenuously doubt the existence of said cost.
So, the comparison you want to make, you can't make it. Yet you're sure green won't work...

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:51 PM | Reply

"If Warren or Sanders is elected, and they stop fracking and oil exploration on their first day in office, how will they immediately off-set it?"

We'll simply buy it from the Saudis, from Venezuela, from Iran, whatever.
Which is what we do right now anyway.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 04:52 PM | Reply

This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing"or can undergo"a near-term transition to a "new energy economy."

Among the reasons:

Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)"while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.

Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.

Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.

The annual output of Tesla's Gigafactory, the world's largest battery factory, could store three minutes' worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days' worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50-100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.

www.manhattan-institute.org

Actual Physics TM

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 04:57 PM | Reply

...and they stop fracking and oil exploration on their first day in office...

donald has signed 121 executive orders thus far; it's hard to say which ones they will overturn first.

#15 | Posted by REDIAL at 2019-09-07 04:58 PM | Reply

"Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability."

That's an odd turn of phrase, considering scientists didn't invent hydrocarbons in the first place.

"Scientists can't invent something better than this thing they didn't invent in the first place!"
Do people really not see the problem there?
???

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:01 PM | Reply

"Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left."

And it's even worse when you get to combined-cycle natural gas generators, which today approach 70% thermodynamic efficiency.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:02 PM | Reply

"Meanwhile, 50-100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced."

Gold miners would murder entire indigenous villages for that kind of yield.
These are stats designed to scare ignorant people.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:03 PM | Reply

"Of the 23 nations that derive most of their export income from oil and gas, none are democracies!" www.aps.org

I guess that matters less to most people than owning a SUV.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:11 PM | Reply

Of course, the metals needed to go green probably aren't coming from democracies either...

Going back to efficiency, is it really possible for any energy source to render bringing 5,000 lbs of steel to work and back every day sustainable?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:21 PM | Reply

"No energy is innocent. The only truly clean energy is less energy"

Oops, the truth slipped out.
Clean energy -- and even conserving dirty energy -- is incompatible with the capitalist growth paradigm.

That's the real reason behind the opposition to clean energy and conservation.
Never forget.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 05:35 PM | Reply

--Advocating re-colonization of parts of Africa or S. America is not the pathway to energy resourced for the future.

Sorry, but the 3rd world has the metals we need. And then we'll ship them all the toxic waste from worn out wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries. That's the real cost of "green energy." Enjoy your fraudulent "ecotopia."

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 09:11 PM | Reply

"Sorry, but the 3rd world has the metals we need."

And the oil too!

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 09:26 PM | Reply

And the high tech workers!

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 09:31 PM | Reply

CNN's insane town hall posse

It used to be that those who peddled apocalypse sporting their placards in the service of some cult on a flyblown city corner were an object of amusement. One could compile a book of cartoons with variations on the theme. Now the theme has become Democratic Party orthodoxy. The Democratic presidential candidates must all bow before it, as they did earlier this week in the course of CNN's "climate change town hall."

www.powerlineblog.com

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 09:58 PM | Reply

CNN's Presidential Climate Change Town Hall Was Insane

And the hysteria is getting dangerous.

"Put it this way: the most benign climate-change plan proposed during CNN's seven-hour Democratic Party presidential candidate town hall was more authoritarian than anything Donald Trump has ever suggested during his presidency. Democrats were not merely proposing massive societal upheaval but mass coercion.

CNN says it's a "crisis," though, so Democrats were free to offer one insane Nostradamus-like prediction after the next. Not only is every weather event now a manifestation of global warming, but Beto O'Rourke says our communities will soon be "uninhabitable," and Pete Buttigieg says the challenge of warming is on par with World War II, a conflict that took more than 400,000 American lives and tens of millions of others.
thefederalist.com

#26 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 10:24 PM | Reply

"As Joel Pollak notes, at this point climate change "is primarily experienced as a mass hysteria phenomenon," a collective illusion of a massive threat. Just listen to audience members earnestly asking questions based on the risible premise that we're on the brink of extinction. It's really one of the tragedies of our age that so many anxious young people have been brainwashed into believing they live on the cusp of dystopia when, in fact, they're in the middle of a golden age " an era with less war, sickness, poverty, and suffering than any in history."

#27 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-07 10:34 PM | Reply

What good is all that prosperity when since 1975, practically all the gains in household incomes have gone to the top 20% of households?

That's not prosperity for the bottom 4 in 5 households. That's treading water in order to make the rich even richer.

I suggest you try talking to young people. Anyone born since 1975 ought to do.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-07 11:15 PM | Reply

Case in point. That answer made no sense. You can't come up with a rational answer.

#8 | Posted by lee_the_agent

Of course it did.

You either didn't get it or you're playing obtuse.

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-09-08 10:58 AM | Reply

This is something that has been proven over and over. The article mentions aluminum. Though we use it abundantly every day and think nothing of it, aluminum is actually very energy intensive to extract from bauxite ore. It is one of the more difficult. That's why there's always been such a big emphasis on recycling aluminum. However, the world wants more, more, more, so bauxite must be dug out out of the ground and processed.

#30 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-08 11:08 AM | Reply

And the oil too!

#23 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-09-07 09:26 PM | FLAG: Guess, once again, you do not keep up on economic news [not surprising for a libbie]:

What country is the largest oil producer in the world?
According to the EIA, the United States surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world's largest crude oil producer in 2018.Apr 30, 2019
The World's Top Oil-Producing Countries - Market Realist

marketrealist.com 2019 the-worlds-top-oil-producing-countries

#31 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-09-08 08:12 PM | Reply

"What country is the largest oil producer in the world?"

It's something of a misnomer to say "we" produce that oil.

White it's true that oil is produced in America, it's not produced by America, and it's not produced for Americans.
It's produced by companies like ExxonMobil. It doesn't belong to us.
It belongs to multinational corporations, many of which aren't even headquartered in the United States, and it gets sold to the highest bidder.

I'm sure you can see the point I'm making here.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-09-08 08:16 PM | Reply

I support green energy for the same reason that I support fracking - anything that makes the US less reliant upon the rest of the world is a good thing. If it also strips money away from the Middle East and Russia - it is a double-win. Every dollar in profit removed from oil sales to the Middle East is worth 4-5x that in direct military spending. That is a good ROI even if there are more cost efficient ways to produce electricity than solar or wind. I do green financing advising work internationally. Solar is typically $1,500,000/MW of generating capacity - wind is typically closer to 2,000,000/MW. Coal and natural gas is much less and requires a much smaller geographic footprint. For coal, you are looking at a minimum capacity of 300MW or you don't even break ground currently. For me, personally, I believe cheap energy prices are the greatest thing to ever happen to mankind. Our increased lifespan can be traced directly by innovations allowed by cheap electricity - from food storage, fertilizers, clean drinking water, transportation, etc.

#33 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-09 07:36 AM | Reply

"Every dollar in profit removed from oil sales to the Middle East is worth 4-5x that in direct military spending."

If that were true, military spending would be dropping each year our oil production increases.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 08:45 AM | Reply

"If that were true, military spending would be dropping each year our oil production increases.
#34 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

It would be if the Dems stopped trying to do regime change in the ME and stopped trying to start a nuclear war with Russia. Further, it is not instantaneous. The ME is rapidly depleting their foreign reserves and will be forced to actually spend their money on their people rather than funding terrorism (looking at Saudi Arabia on that one). Iran is crippled due to low oil prices - the Saudis are almost bankrupt, ISIS funding from illegal oil sales was so tiny they could no longer put up a fight. If not for oil, we have no strategic need for having troops in the ME - let Europe protect the oil THEY USE.

#35 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-09 08:54 AM | Reply

"It would be if the Dems stopped trying to do regime change in the ME"

Don't look now, but Dubya and Cheney are Republicans.

#36 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 08:57 AM | Reply

#36 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That was a decade ago numbnuts. Hillary and Obama's stupidity is still ongoing now and costing us money. Further - if you are smart enough to realize Bush and Cheney's regime change was stupid, why did you support Hillary's misadventures in Syria and Libya? Some would think you are just a partisan troll with flip flopping like that.

#37 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-09-09 09:00 AM | Reply

Here's a nice source of green energy: Natural gas from a plant that employs carbon capture. Liberals and progressives should be giddy about that, right? How about nuclear? Zero carbon emissions there. Liberals and progressives should be all over that, right?

#38 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-09-09 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--Liberals and progressives should be all over that, right?

Pretty funny stuff. Clean, cost-effective, technological solutions that obviate the need for massive central planning and social control horrify the Leftists, eco-socialists, etc.

#39 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-09-09 09:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"why did you support Hillary's misadventures in Syria and Libya?"

I didn't.

Why do you have to lie about other people's positions to make your point?

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 09:40 AM | Reply

"Obama's stupidity is still ongoing..."

Trump has been in office over two years. It's his stupidity.

#41 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-09-09 09:43 AM | Reply

Energy costs are settled. We have the least expensive options.
#3 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT AT 2019-09-07 04:30 PM

Uh, geothermal is free, continual and does zero damage.

It's the most simple to install, maintain and obtain constant return.

#42 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-09-10 01:38 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort