Artful Dodger:

> I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't
> travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however)
> because it's more available and we can afford it.

I think it is not realistic to ask people to cut their consumption by 80%. It is what the average American would have to do in order to bring consumption to the world average. It would be like asking people to stop using their lights, refrigerator, air conditioner, car, etc. It would not only be unrealistic, it would be economically destructive.

I think that our shcool should teach children to use energy responsibly. Teach children to waste less electricity by leaving lights on, leaving the TV on, keeping appliances plugged in when they don't need to be, etc. We should teach children to reduce wasted energy.

Then we should teach children different values. We value big vehicles. Everybody wants a huge pickup truck, a huge minivan, a huge SUV. We should teach children that cars are not toys, but working vehicles. The vehicles that we choose should be a reflection fo the work we do, not of our desire to have fun. Here people buy big pickup trucks just to show off, not because they need them for work. Those values have to change too.

I think we are decade away from getting rid of oil as a source of energy. However, that does not mean that we should not plan for the future. Oil will run out sooner or later, and when it does we better be ready to substitute it with something cleaner. There are alternatives, they are not perfect, but that is no reason to reject them outright.

One thing is true, the oil industry is trying to milk every cent of profit out of oil. Their economic interests lie with oil and not with "green" energy. Alternative energy companies have interests that lie away from oil. Our politicians are now caught between economically competing interest groups. As always, our politicians will side with whoever puts the most cash in their hands. It is the nature of the lobby system. Since the oil industry has the most cash for now, their political interests will be represented more than those of "green" energy. As green energy becomes a bigger and bigger business, the political wil will shift, but we are decades away from that.

Bwild: Oil is free as is gas and coal. Oh wait, there's a cost to harvest it. But there's a cost associated with all energy sources. NO energy source is free. There's always a cost involved. Even once the source is tapped, there's a cost to maintain the equipment that captures the energy.

Unfortunately, we are years away from using renewable energy sources effectively and efficiently. In the meantime, I say drill and tap ALL sources of energy.

(V): "They still have to fly."
thats only because gravity is free also!

SL-Mark: It's not creating energy out of nothing, just taking advantage of natural phenomena, such as some of the devices mentioned which can obtain charge from the potential difference between one end buried and the other at a certain distance above ground. Reminds me of the old crystal radio sets.

(V): Well, its down to how you define 'free.'

Wind, solar, and even hydrocarbon are all 'free' energy, in the sense that you can produce more energy from them than what you put in to extract it.

This is the same with a bird (or even a glider). You need some energy to first reach that height, but then using the energy in the thermal (potential) convert it into motion (kinetic) to theoretically stay airborne indefinitely.

However, this is not the same 'free' as being able to extract more energy than that which is available, something only a perpetual energy machine can do, i.e. create energy out of nothing, something truely free and unencumbered! However, your bird is encumbered, its height and speed is limited by the energy available in the thermal.

SL-Mark: Would the way some birds use thermals to gain height to be able to travel further be considered using 'free' energy?

.... They still have to fly.

(V): Thank you for the link. Had a skim read, but will look at more carefully later, with an open mind :)

I did pick up two statements in the article "...you can’t get more energy out of a system than you put into it," and "more energy can’t be taken out of a system than is put into it or is already in it.”

The former statement is of course wrong as the author argues. Whether it be solar, wind, geothermal, hydrocarbon etc. these are all forms of potential energy, which we then convert (mostly) into kinetic energy to generate power.

The latter statement is true, imho, and refers to perpetual energy / motion machines which are not possible. I believe this is what you referred to as 'free' energy. But I'll read the article carefully first!

Übergeek 바둑이: I keep my heat low, turn off lights when not in use, drive only 4 miles to work, don't travel much, and on and on. The US may use more (they don't use the most however) because it's more available and we can afford it.

SL-Mark: Seem there is some disagreement over that. Plus more out than in is not free, just a reduction. If you get 300% more out then that is a good thing. Nuclear power is not 'free' energy, it consumes power, but creates more just as with all our present systems. Even green takes some power to create the collection devices.

"Your computer hard drive probably uses them too!"

Yes they do. Even might take my unused one apart to have a look at them.

"There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field."

I didn't say it was magic, just the application of science.

Artful Dodger: Yes, the position of 'hot spots' limits where geothermal can be used.

"Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs."

As part of the whole package of renewable energy, it in areas of good heat locality (eg Yellowstone park) you have a great potential.

"Just a small population. It's isolated."

Quite a bit of the population of the world lives near volcanoes and/or tectonic plates.

Green energy will never work in the USA. The reason is simple: energy consumption is too great in the USA. The USA has approximately 5% of the population of the world, yet the USA consumes 30% of the energy produced in the world. That means that on average, an American consumes 6 times the world average. Since consumption is 6 times the average, the only way the USA could make green energy viable would be to reduce consumption, and that means reducing wasted energy and improving efficiency at every level. The USA has no political will to change its energy consumption habits. Politicians talk of green energy, but only as a whitewash to the reality of overconsumption and waste.

(V): Guess you are talking about magnetic motors. Sorry, they don't work and certainly don't give free energy.

Neodymium magnets are very widely used, not just in wind turbines. Your computer hard drive probably uses them too! There is no magic in these magnets, only a strong magnetic field.

(V): Wrong again. I didn't miss anything. We have the same here in the US but it's only a very SMALL portion of the US energy needs. AND you are limited as to where you can build those plants. Either way, they won't meet the worlds needs. Just a small population. It's isolated.

rod03801: Oh no I didn't. you just presumed I did.

"You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake."

Yes you do.

Artful Dodger:

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce
approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation's energy. In addition,
geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of
approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal
energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power,
and 0.1% from fossil fuels."

... you seemed to miss that part, so I've made it clearer.

SL-Mark: Actually I caught glimpses of it through my science subscription choices on youtube. It's through using neodymium magnets. The same ones used in wind turbines.

rod03801: "But WHO said anything about stopping?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT"


This is how the radicals think. They don't listen to what you say and they always use a straw man in their arguments.

Where renewable energy technology is successful, fine. Build away. But how many BILLIONS must we waste? We've recently seen the waste. Enough. Get back to the drawing board and figure it out.

Chevy Volt. classic example of a waste. Like Obama: Lots of hype but no spark.

(V): "Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010

Great, and the other 74%....they all are freezing to death.

(V): Wrong again Jules. We've wasted millions because the technology isn't there yet. We need to work on the technology and THEN build. Right now you are in favor of building an airplane that simply CAN'T fly.

(V): It's not that complicated. You enjoy arguing, for arguing sake. The quote explains the question. You made the statement as though someone else had used the statement as some sort of fact, yet no one had even said it. It's just the way you love going round and round and round.

(V): "Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and now magnetic power amplifiers that produce more energy than inputted."

Produce more energy than input?????
Which journal did you read that in? Thought they had stopped publishing the 'Sunday Sport' :)

Jack: Like California's version of the 3 strikes law.

"Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit."

Only if it encourages the placement of a base there to look for him... But with an undisclosed primary role of looking into Helium3 mining!!

(V):<b> Walmart is rebuilding their store roofs to put solar power on them to operate their stores and sell the excess back to the power companies.

Some people are buying Chevy Volts and putting solar panels on their roofs to recharge them and they can sell the excess to the power companies except in California. They have a law against selling excess energy to power companies.

(V): True but we are in the process of creating a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood as well as stop insider trading with congress and the supreme court.

These career politicians have all become pigs feeding at the troth.

The supreme court needs to be put under our conflict of interest laws.

(V): lol, yes Newt is all for slave labor.
Newt wants to go to the moon to, maybe we can send him there without an environment suit.

Newt Gingrich wants child labour brought back!!

WTH

Jack: Like free solar powered electric car recharging points.

"Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits."

unlikely.. too many politicians rely on the extra cash to feed their greedy lifestyles.

(V): The answer is using more green technology that will ween us off the oil glut. Also not listening to corporate lobby groups that support nothing but propaganda on climate change for their own personal profits.

rod03801: Is there a point to the question?

(V): So, you don't know the answer to the question.

rod03801: Yes.

(V): Answering a question with a question? Fun!

rod03801:

But WHO said anything about stopping all at once?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT.

Bwild: Pumped power systems are essential for load balancing within our modern power systems.

(V):

"Artful Dodger: Is that a reason to stop building more green energy supply systems... no."

But WHO said anything about stopping?
I don't recall anyone suggesting THAT.

I'm sure everyone (except possibly the oil companies) would prefer that SOME day we ARE at that point. But we aren't yet.
There has to be a reasonable way to reach that point. But stopping using fossil fuels all at once certainly won't get us there either.

Artful Dodger: Is that a reason to stop building more green energy supply systems... no.

At the moment we cannot supply the entire world. But some countries like Iceland have tapped into natural renewable energy.

"Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation's energy. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland

Is that an isolated example, or just a country willing to use 'free' energy.

"In the meantime, we need to drill, drill, drill"

And when the price goes through the roof, what then? A Mad Max type scenerio!!

"I'll bet good money you use fossil fuels all the time."

..because we are still reliant on power plants built decades ago, and still in the process of building green systems. But there are (I've just read) some suppliers in the UK who invest the profits into more green energy. One supplier states that at the present over 50% of the energy they supply comes from green sources. That is a big difference compared to the big 6 energy companies in the UK, who's reputation at the moment is very bad.

After looking at the differences between them and the big 6.. it looks like a good deal. Even better then the non profit company we currently use.

We have a LONG way to go before we can supply the world with affordable, efficient, green energy. Anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or a moron. We're just not there yet. In the meantime, we need to drill, drill, drill.

(V): you can cite all the isolated green energy "successes" you want but that won't prove that the entire world can be sustained by these technologies. In fact, they can't. That's the science of it. Isolated example prove nothing.

"As predicted was inevitable, today the Spanish newspaper La Gaceta runs with a full-page article fessing up to the truth about Spain’s “green jobs” boondoggle, which happens to be the one naively cited by President Obama no less than eight times as his model for the United States. It is now out there as a bust, a costly disaster that has come undone in Spain to the point that even the Socialists admit it, with the media now in full pursuit....his is now an explosive scandal in Spain, coming on the heels of shabby treatment over there in payback to an academic team for having pointed the disaster out (joined by equally shabby treatment by the Obama administration).

I’d say “I hate to say I told you so,” but I revel in it. My only regret is that they couldn’t have admitted it about three weeks ago to coincide even more perfectly with the release of Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America. In the book, I detail the folly of Obama’s claims about European “green economy” miracles and what cramming them down here means for you, unless you stand up and fight back now.

The man who exposed the disaster, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, kindly praises the dissection of “free ice cream” “green jobs” economics on the jacket. That fight begins anew next week with the likely Senate vote on S.J. Res. 26, the Murkowski resolution to disapprove of the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to impose much of this agenda through the regulatory back door without Congress ever having authorized such an enormous economic intervention. Read Power Grab to get your head around the numerous fallacies and fabrications, and give Washington hell."

I'll bet good money you use fossil fuels all the time. Why is that Jules?

(V): you can cite all the isolated green energy "successes" you want but that won't prove that the entire world can be sustained by these technologies. In fact, they can't. That's the science of it. Isolated example prove nothing.

Jack: Which is probably more due to all the nuclear weapons testing. The contaminants from those far outweigh all the radiation leaks that have occurred.

... over 2000 atomic and hydrogen bomb tests.

"what lengths they will go to to buy off nuclear inspectors"

Then that is a problem of human corruption. Just as much as the BP oil spill.

"winter disaster being suffered by Europe this year"

??? All I can say on that is compared to last year in the UK, this winter has been mild.

(V):Yes radiation recovery continues but the effects on child birth defects and radiation caused cancers continue to rise. Their is no such thing ad acceptable radiation levers it is just another corporate backed scam. GE has already proven how unreliable their nuclear technology is and what lengths they will go to to buy off nuclear inspectors and then  their is also the long lasting effects on ground water when nuclear waste leaks into the ground.

Oil only creates dead zones like we have now in the Gulf because of the way energy cons like Hayward buys off politicians so they do not have to be responsible for the environmental damage they cause.

Green energy is the only cure for the environmental damage and climate change we are causing.

With the winter disaster being suffered by Europe this year I would think green technology would be a #1 issue.
 

Artful Dodger: Oh yes there is. Wind, wave, solar, geothermal and now magnetic power amplifiers that produce more energy than inputted. The main problems seem to be the old companies being unwilling to give up their market share of the energy business and therefore creating alot of misinformation.

"Fossil fuels can be harvested efficiently and cleanly."

Most aren't though are they.


"Less than a week ago 106 mostly Conservative MPs wrote to the Prime Minister, urging cuts in public subsidies to UK windfarms, on the grounds that these towering turbines were neither efficient to run nor pleasing on the eye."

NIMBY's aka Not In My Back Yard. The conservatives are probably being pressed by those who are looking more out for their house prices than anything else.

eg..
"In the affluent English village of Ashtead, Surrey, which lies on the outside of London, residents objected in 2007[13] to the conversion of a large, £1.7 million residential property into a family support centre for relatives of wounded British service personnel. The house was to be purchased by a registered charity, SSAFA Forces Help.[14][15][16] Local residents objected to the proposal out of fear of increased traffic and noise, as well as the possibility of an increased threat of terrorism. They also contended that the SSAFA charity is actually a business, thereby setting an unwelcome precedent.[17] Local newspapers ran articles titled "Nimby neighbours' war with wounded soldiers' families" and "No Heroes in my Backyard.""

Jack: Yes they are, just like every other European country. It's part of a concertive effort all within the EU to cut down on our dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear.

"This is not true radiation is nothing like these things. "

Toxicology wise, I believe it is true. If a tanker leaks it's crude oil into the environment it's effects can last for years or decades. Millions of gallons of escaped oil can create kill zones where nothing can live.

"Radiation cannot be recovered"

Yes it can, such efforts have been going on near the windscale nuclear plant for years.

Green Energy vs. Endangered Species vs. Native Americans
How ironic is it when a lefty-supported green energy project gets stalled by two other lefty favorite causes?

One of California’s showcase solar energy projects, under construction in the desert east of Los Angeles, is being threatened by a deadly outbreak of distemper among kit foxes and the discovery of a prehistoric human settlement on the work site.

The $1-billion Genesis Solar Energy Project has been expedited by state and federal regulatory agencies that are eager to demonstrate that the nation can build solar plants quickly to ease dependence on fossil fuels and curb global warming.

Instead, the project is providing a cautionary example of how the rush to harness solar power in the desert can go wrong — possibly costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and dealing an embarrassing blow to the Obama administration’s solar initiative.

[snip]

Native Americans, including the leaders of a nearby reservation, are trying to have Genesis delayed or even scuttled because they say the distemper outbreak and discovery of a possible Native American cremation site show that accelerated procedures approved by state and federal regulators failed to protect wildlife and irreplaceable cultural resources.

Just to recap, this was not only green-lighted but expedited by both the Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic Governor of California Jerry Brown… and now it’s being brought to a screeching halt (and likely costing taxpayers more money) because they cut corners trying to get a showpiece solar project open… probably wanting for Obama to be able to point to this example of his “green energy” plans on the campaign trail.

Mind you, I don’t want the cute little kit foxes to be hurt, and I definitely think we should honor the Native American burial site, just as I think Obama should honor the religious objections of Catholics and other Christians to birth control.

What this shows is more incompetence on the part of the Obama and Brown administrations… as if we needed more evidence of Obama’s incompetence.

hydro is the way to go.

Übergeek 바둑이: I didn't say fossil fuels ARE harvested efficiently and clean, I said it can be done. And it can.

Übergeek 바둑이: The mumbo-jumbo is people that support these vile Koch Nazis and continually make excuses for them. Nothing you can tell me about the Koch or Bush Nazi ties. And Koch joined the communist party in Russia before slimming his way to America.

As far as the tar sands go it is the greatest scam devised by corporate energy cons. Their is no such thing as clean oil or coal or nuclear energy.
If Canada wants to support China with this tar sand sludge and blight on the world let them ship it from their own ports.