Is Green Energy and Sustainability a Hoax?

Alligatorob

Alligatorob

SF VIP
Location
Northern Utah, transplanted from Florida/Louisiana
I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps. I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.

I just watched a Michael Moore produced documentary "Planet of the Humans" that makes the case for it all being hoax. Now I have never trusted Moore, some of his work is funny, but I always thought he had a strong bias. However in the documentary I do see a thread of truth.

His theme is that the environmental movement has largely been coopted by big business and politicians in a way that dupes a lot of people. I suspect some truth to this.

He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy. I am sure he gets some things wrong, but I do believe this is something we need to look more closely at.
 

Alligatorob said:
I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps. I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.

I, too, would like to see a transition to a cleaner environment....however, it seems that present plans are more "corporate" driven than effective.
Click to expand...
Solar power is great, in regions where sunshine is abundant. However, individual homes going "off the grid" can cost $20K, and about the time they break even, the panels and batteries need to be replaced....thus, starting all over.

Methane from cows and pigs creates almost as much greenhouse gas as fossil fuels....should we all become vegetarians?

The addition of Ethanol to gasoline is a Scam, IMO. The Ethanol reduces fuel mileage, resulting in little or no overall reduction in emissions. The Only ones benefitting from Ethanol production are the farmers...growing huge crops of corn. However, the energy consumed in corn production almost negates any benefits.

The ONLY "theory" I've heard of that makes Long Term Sense might be a transition to Hydrogen power. Solar power could generate the electricity needed to break water down to its hydrogen/oxygen components, which when burned would return the exhaust to water. However creating the infrastructure to support hydrogen fuel, and transitioning vehicles to such a fuel would take decades, and probably cost trillions of dollars.

I doubt that any real progress will be made in the next few decades....meanwhile, the planet will continue to warm, oceans will continue to rise, and we will All feel the results.
 
Don M. said:
The ONLY "theory" I've heard of that makes Long Term Sense might be a transition to Hydrogen power. Solar power could generate the electricity needed to break water down to its hydrogen/oxygen components, which when burned would return the exhaust to water.
Click to expand...
That may make sense, however we would need to do a real honest trade off.

It takes energy to make and maintain solar cells and hydrogen generation equipment. Do we really know how much, if any, net energy is saved? And solar cells on such a large scale will take a lot of space, where will that space come from and what will the environmental impacts of it be?

Right now solar is benefiting from a combination of the feel good thing, and politicians and big business feeding and benefiting from that feel good public support. We need hard answers, but they will be hard to come by.

I am hoping something like your solar/hydrogen approach will make sense, but am not convinced.
 

The solar/ wind etc is certainly not producing the amount we are using and each day some gadget and gizmo will need more...
The sun light ( in some states) is hardly enough to support those lawn lights etc let alone a household.... the cost of install and maintain it takes decades to break even.
Many IMO do not see the problems their "solutions" create if we are all to change to electric cars then what?

States have gone back to create yearly taxes for electric and hybrid cars to pay for roads as they are not paying those attached to fuels.

Now as seen below California is trying to scale back incentives to "go Solar" and a hookup charge to pay fro grid maintenance..... $60 a month for just a hook-up to grid even if you were able to produce enough for your own use.

California's new dilemma:
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/01/20/big-decision-rooftop-solar-california-off-table-for-now
The plan slashes, by about 80%, how much residents get paid for electricity generated by rooftop solar panels and proposes steep grid access charges, about $60 a month for a typical solar customer.

It essentially negates most of the financial incentives for homeowners to pay thousands of dollars to add solar panels to their roofs.
The utilities argue it fixes a cost shift where solar owners do not pay their fair share of grid maintenance costs, which are shifted to non-solar customers.
But the solar industry argues that the changes will likely cause demand for rooftop solar to dry up and throw thousands of solar installers out of work.
 
Jeni said:
States have gone back to create yearly taxes for electric and hybrid cars to pay for roads as they are not paying those attached to fuels.
Click to expand...
You make a good point, historically we have allowed the economy to sort out good ideas from bad. If a new technology of any kind really makes sense it will be cheaper or better than the alternative and people will buy it.

Subsidies like not taxing electrical cars for road use skews that process and can lead to energy inefficiency and greater environmental impact.

I can see some subsidies to help develop new technologies, but that support should be done carefully and not very long term. Our government has not proven very good at knowing what makes sense.
 
Alligatorob said:
You make a good point, historically we have allowed the economy to sort out good ideas from bad. If a new technology of any kind really makes sense it will be cheaper or better than the alternative and people will buy it.

Subsidies like not taxing electrical cars for road use skews that process and can lead to energy inefficiency and greater environmental impact.

I can see some subsidies to help develop new technologies, but that support should be done carefully and not very long term. Our government has not proven very good at knowing what makes sense.
Click to expand...
if people remember the whole Solindra fiasco .... these alternative energy items have been propped up by tax breaks and grants etc and are not providing as much as was once thought so far .... the idea of we are close if only we had a few more millions of dollars for research .... it might work.
The impact on wildlife and birds in these solar and wind farms is being hushed up as well.
 
Alligatorob said:
He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy.
Click to expand...

Not many people consider the astronomical amounts of petroleum products that go into producing solar panels, windmills (esp installation) and the like. If you've ever seen a windmill farm in development, it's full of heavy equipment. Windmills also have have a limited lifespan of 20-25 years which is already generating vast piles of discarded turbines that at present cannot be recycled. We need to find a way to produce and install green energy components with green energy factories and equipment as well as increase longevity.

Green energy components and their longevity issues leads to the next stumbling block which is the use of rare earth minerals in lithium batteries. At present, we're raping Africa for these...often with the exploitation of small children as workers. Lithium batteries have a lifespan of appx 10 years so they also become waste. Until we develop better battery tech, we're not doing Earth a huge favor.

The word "nuclear" freaks people out because of the safety issues and waste of conventional nuclear power plants. However, Generation IV Nuclear technology mitigates most of those issues. Europe is leading the way with Gen IV power plants and I hope they prove to be a viable solution until the kinks are worked out with turbines and battery storage.

.
 
Last edited:
AnnieA said:
The word "nuclear" freaks people out because of the safety issues and waste of conventional nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, ignoring the waste problem, nuclear is hands down the only currently proven and viable "Green Energy" source.

I believe we can find ways to safely manage the nuclear waste technically. The problem is we will be leaving behind a long term risk in need of management. But I think that problem is small compared to things like green house gases and habitat destruction. I am less sure we can do it politically.
 
Alligatorob said:
Absolutely, ignoring the waste problem, nuclear is hands down the only currently proven and viable "Green Energy" source.

I believe we can find ways to safely manage the nuclear waste technically. The problem is we will be leaving behind a long term risk in need of management. But I think that problem is small compared to things like green house gases and habitat destruction. I am less sure we can do it politically.
Click to expand...

Some Gen IV plants are designed to use waste from earlier tech nuclear plants. They also produce a smaller amount of waste that is radioactive for several hundred years rather than the thousands of years produced by conventional plants.
 
Alligatorob said:
I certainly would like to see the world less polluted and a better place, but I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps. I really want the whole Green Energy and Sustainability thing to be real, but what I hope and reality may be different.

I just watched a Michael Moore produced documentary "Planet of the Humans" that makes the case for it all being hoax. Now I have never trusted Moore, some of his work is funny, but I always thought he had a strong bias. However in the documentary I do see a thread of truth.

His theme is that the environmental movement has largely been coopted by big business and politicians in a way that dupes a lot of people. I suspect some truth to this.

He talks a lot about how much of what we consider "Green Energy" is more environmentally damaging than convention energy. I am sure he gets some things wrong, but I do believe this is something we need to look more closely at.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting. I have started watching this film and will finish it this afternoon or tonight. I have always said that we cannot keep increasing more and more. I think the planet is doomed. All that stuff about sustainability and Green Planet is just a bunch of bull. eg. Sustainability travel. There are just too many people. Trouble is that business people like more and more people because it means more and more money for them. I can't imagine what the world will be like in 100 years. Apparently the Americans and Russians have enough nuclear power to kill every living thing on this planet 3 or 4 times over. Not a very nice thought!
 
Alligatorob said:
I am not confident that a lot of what we do in the name of the environment really helps
Click to expand...
It would be nice to know the best approach, but on the other hand usually the mis-steps and poor performance of first products improve later, and I don't know how we can advance if we have to achieve a high level of perfection right off the bat. But I do wish we'd have some sort of trustworthy ROI for turning green, there are a lot of variables. I was reading (or maybe watching a youtube) that said for a cloth grocery bag to have less impact on the environment than the little plastic grocery bags, a person would need to use the cloth bag 1000 times.
We have a public power company in the city I live near and they are using a bunch of wind and solar and their rates seem pretty good to me (though that might be more because they are 'public' and not a private company that has to reap tons of profits).
My opinion is that more things need to be public, I've worked my whole career for big private corporations and they just lie and cheat and there is no real oversight. As far as I can tell, whatever work they get their hands on will be exploited for them to get large gains for the upper management while providing c#@p product.
 
I watched the video and Michael Moore is good at what he does. In my book it’s an attempt to convince you of a problem without having to do your own research and he’s good at convincing you of that. So I’m not willing to accept everything he says on face value and I’m not sure what his agenda is.

That being said we do have a lot of problems but there are a lot of scientist that are working on these. The trick is getting the politicians and big business to do the right thing and this is difficult because there are so many conflicts of interest.

There are key industries that produce most of the CO2 that no one is talking about yet scientist have good solutions that never see the light of day. Two key examples are concrete production & methane (cow farts).

Also, AnnieA has some very good points too.
 
Don M. said:
The Only ones benefitting from Ethanol production are the farmers...growing huge crops of corn. However, the energy consumed in corn production almost negates any benefits.
Click to expand...
I asked a corn farmer about ethanol back when I worked for an agricultural company here in Ethanol Central, eastern Nebraska. Turns out it isn't that great a deal for farmers either. The best strain of corn for alcohol production is genetically modified seed stock. The corn doesn't taste as good as natural corn for human consumption, so it's a one customer crop. Add on that most years commodity contract prices for regular corn are better than grown to purpose ethanol corn, plus the hassles of preventing cross-contamination of regular crops by ethanol plant pollen, and grain elevators don't want to store ethanol corn. About the only time it works out is a slump in commodity pricing, like a boycott from China (one of the largest buyers of US corn), when regular corn is diverted to alcohol production. Boycotts don't last long because US corn is the cheapest in the world, and the easiest to ship, as the Chinese found out when they tried to go to Brazil.

The real profiteers are the oil companies who have to meet California standards. A side effect is cheap gas/ethanol mix here in Nebraska due to all the plants overproducing industrial alcohol (no, it isn't sipping whiskey). I believe the mixes are 85% (E85) gas, or the more common 92% mix, though no alcohol is also available for better mileage. Alcohol does lower the combustion temperature in a car engine, a tiny bit less wear and tear, with fewer nasty SOx and NOx byproducts.
 
HoneyNut said:
It would be nice to know the best approach, but on the other hand usually the mis-steps and poor performance of first products improve later, and I don't know how we can advance if we have to achieve a high level of perfection right off the bat. But I do wish we'd have some sort of trustworthy ROI for turning green, there are a lot of variables.
Click to expand...
I agree, and knowing the best approach is particularly difficult.

When trying to develop new technologies and ideas lots of things have to be explored and experimented with for every one that works out. Probably at least 100 good ideas for every success.

For that reason I can see subsidizing the exploration of new ideas, problem is knowing when to let go. When to let the technology sink or swim on its own. We have many years of experience now with solar, wind, ethanol, etc. Surely we should be able to make some smart choices about what to let go of.

By let go when it comes to energy things I mean to stop the subsidies, and see if they can make it in the market unsupported. Ethanol for example, if it is a good idea there should be no need for the government to require its use.

I would not however trust the government, politicians, or big industry with that decision... Not sure who that leaves. But hey, we are smart people we should be able to figure it out.
 
There is a lot of manipulative negative media targeting renewable energy. Ironically in California, those controlling most of the environmental organizations for two decades have been against large scale solar developments, nuclear, and wind. However ordinary people that consider themselves environmentalists and people that actually live in locations solar farms are built, generally do approve such energy sources and even liberal politicians know that.

Sierra Club has fought against solar farms most everywhere, weakly pointing to habitat destruction, instead promoting urban rooftop solar installations. They point to wind farms killing birds. Nuclear has waste storage and warm outflow pipe issues. Solar's biggest issue is developing night time energy storage. There are now ways to mitigate all those issues. And note, the same organizations are against seawater desalination. Most of their argumentation has some value but tends to exaggerate, point to older negatives and ignores new improved designs and solutions.

The below link shows the vast amount of solar that has come on line in just a few years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California
 
I've heard friends who lived near wind farms bitterly complain about the noise. The earth does go through many cycles of warming and freezing. We do need carbon for life and there simply isn't one solution for all. Solar power in sunny climes is certainly idea. My son lives at the Jersey shore and you see solar roofs all over the place. It's open and flat, so it works well for them. In hilly and forested areas that simply isn't feasible at all, so nuclear power is a great alternative. That has some major drawbacks, but if handled correctly, it also works. My electric company uses it. Somehow, I still think super conductors using magnetism is not fully explored. That would be uber expensive to implement, but in the long run would aid in saving energy costs. Whatever, the argument will no doubt go on ad infinitum.
 
David777 said:
Sierra Club has fought against solar farms most everywhere, weakly pointing to habitat destruction
Click to expand...
Wastelands are a fragile environment. Solar farms in eastern Wyoming have severely impacted the habitat of the western horned rabbit, better known as the jackalope. These majestic animals who once freely roamed the plains are all but extinct due to loss of habitat to solar and wind farms. I hope organizations such as the Sierra Club will be able to force legislation to provide federal reserves to save an integral part of US heritage.
 

Attachments

  • wild.jpg
    wild.jpg
    174.5 KB · Views: 0
I watched the entire 100 minutes of the film yesterday and it's certainly educational. The closing scenes with the poor orangutans climbing the lone tree after all the jungle has been destroyed should be seen by everyone. I was surprised to learn that battery powered cars and solar panels only last about 10 years and that it takes a lot of energy to make them. Mos to this energy comes from non renewable energy. I have a relative who works for the provincial hydro utility and he says that it is impossible to have all the cars being charged each day. That says a lot since my province has a lot of hydro power.

The problem is this idea of business that we have to keep producing more and more and more. More people, more cars, more houses, more highways, more airports, more shopping malls, more, more, more. I think the world is doomed unless the business world and the very few rich are brought into a new way of thinking. There are just too many people in this world. Maybe Mr. Putin has a plan to get rid of some of them but then his plan isn't the best because we will all suffer.

Anyway, I wish there were more films like, "The Planet of the Humans" rather than "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Teen Wolf" but maybe most people don't want to think too deeply.
 
I realize this thread is referring to active solar energy rather than passive solar energy but wanted to add my 2 cents worth.
I live in a house designed for passive solar energy. While there are things we’d do differently , I still think, when designing living spaces, it’s best to work with Nature rather than against.

Obviously some locations are easier to use passive solar than others. It might be difficult to work around the multi level house next door that blocks your solar gain in winter. Or there are not enough sunny days. Apartments and condos are rarely designed with passive solar in mind.

I was told to think of a passive solar design in percentages. Maybe a house has only 10% passive features. Or 80% passive features. Passive solar applies to landscaping as well. And it’s not just heat you’re looking for from the Sun but light as well.

Passive solar doesn’t have the answers to all our issues in designing spaces economically and sustainable but it’s another tool to consider. If the homeowner does nothing but consider where the Sun will be shining on the east side of the house in December they’ve touched on passive design.

I’ll admit it’s easy for me to be a proponent of passive solar. I live in the southern USA. Our house is earth bermed on the north. The south side has a large expanse of windows. The eaves of the house allow winter Sun inside but block the summer Sun from entering. Flooring is designed to store solar gain as is one block wall. We have no neighbors so I don’t worry about covering those South facing windows.

We built our house in the 1980’s and since then there have been more innovations in windows, construction material , etc that make passive solar worth considering.

I will step off my soap box now!
 
Packerjohn said:
... I was surprised to learn that battery powered cars and solar panels only last about 10 years and that it takes a lot of energy to make them. Mos to this energy comes from non renewable energy...
Click to expand...

A great example of how solar and other renewable energy detractors will spew statistics they know are manipulated for their agenda. Sadly, in this Internet era, it is wise to be suspicious of all manner of news, especially political. So 10%? Sure in the earliest solar era some were that bad. How convenient in that 2020 video, not mentioning why they used that number in the video.

https://news.energysage.com/how-long-do-solar-panels-last/
snippet:

A 2012 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that, on average, solar panel output falls by
0.8 percent each year . This rate of decline is called solar panel degradation rate. Though this rate of decline metric will vary depending on which panel brand you buy, premium manufacturers like SunPower offer degradation rates as low as
0.3% . Solar panel degradation rates are constantly improving as solar panel technology gets better over the years, and degradation rates below 1% are common throughout the industry. In the years since this 2012 study was conducted, more efficient technologies have been developed and many newer panels have just a 0.5 percent yearly decline in energy output (or better!).

What does panel degradation rate mean exactly? For the above example, a 0.8% degradation rate means that in year two, your panels will operate at 99.2 percent of their original output; by the end of their 25-year “useful lifespan,” they will still be operating at 82.5%. A slightly more durable panel with a degradation rate of 0.5% will likely produce around 87.5% as much electricity as it did when it was first installed. To determine the projected output of your solar panels after a certain number of years, you can simply multiply the degradation rate by the number of years you are interested in and subtract that number from 100%.
 
MountainRa said:
Our house is earth bermed on the north. The south side has a large expanse of windows. The eaves of the house allow winter Sun inside but block the summer Sun from entering. Flooring is designed to store solar gain as is one block wall.
Click to expand...
That is impressive, wish my house was something like that.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top