Is Green Energy a Myth ?

[Nekota]

Here is a perplexing readout on renewable energy which makes one point clear about the unassailable position of renewable energy. Part of the problem stems from the lack of any standards or comparisons that can be applied to renewable energy.

Quote from the article :

Unfortunately, "renewable energy" is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven't discovered any form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.

I'm not a fan of these somewhat radical political groups (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist included) as they often distort information and do not present a balanced view. If it was balanced then it wouldn't create much fear and unrest so I will be interested in others comments. At least they didn't post about the clock of doom being advanced by running out of resources to support renewable energy.

 

[sparky]

Here is a perplexing readout on renewable energy which makes one point clear about the unassailable position of renewable energy. Part of the problem stems from the lack of any standards or comparisons that can be applied to renewable energy.
...

Here's the article: http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/the-myth-of-renewable-energy

I think it's "a perplexing readout" because of the headline combined with Stover's unfocused rambling style of writing. I couldn't easily decipher her thesis.
She never refutes that alternative sources of energy might be renewable; just that the materials used to create them aren't so renewable. Then on to other issues like a large and growing population makes the problem more difficult; Oh and hydro used to be renewable but now it's not. It's like Stover is channeling Andy Rooney.
BTW, it's 6 minutes to midnight. I hope that takes into account daylight savings time.

 

[keydiver]

I'm not going to waste my time reading that blog, but if her point is that since the materials that we use to capture green energy from sun, wind, or hydro eventually break down and need replaced, that's pretty poor IMO. By that same standard we don't *really* have transportation, its just an illusion, since our cars, buses, or planes wear out and need replaced, and we don't *really* have shelter, because our houses eventually wear out, need bulldozed over and rebuilt. As far as I'm concerned, unless she knows the exact date and time that the sun is going to be switched off, the winds stop blowing, or Niagara Falls will run dry, I'm still going to consider them to be renewable sources of energy.

 

[Smidge204]

She never refutes that alternative sources of energy might be renewable; just that the materials used to create them aren't so renewable..

*GASP* You mean a planet of finite size has finite resources?! The HELL you say!

Actually the argument can be boiled down to: "Even renewable energy sources consume non-renewable resources in their manufacture and maintenance."

Well no sh*t. It's still a huge improvement over what we're doing now, though, which is the entire point. A partial, imperfect solution is better than no solution at all.
=Smidge=

 

[evnow]

In the long run nothing is renewable / sustainable. We are talking really long run ... if something can be sustainable for the next 10,000 years (that would effectively double longevity of human civilization), I'd say it is "renewable".

ps : Yes, we need to take into account the full life cycle energy consumptions when making assertions about something being "green".

 

[evnow]

http://www.ecopreservationsociety.org/site/index.php/the-news/sustainability/399-the-key-to-sustainability-cradle-to-cradle-thinking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Key to Sustainability: Cradle to Cradle Thinking

A sustainable product has a minimal environmental impact. Ideally, the materials from which a sustainable product is made can all be reused to make a second product when that first product has reached the end its useful life. The best sustainable products are designed from the outset with a good idea of what it will become in its second life.

This type thinking has been given a name: cradle to cradle. One product effectively give birth to another. Cradle to cradle design is being touted as the future of sustainability, and for good reason.

 

[Herm]

Concrete and steel can be recycled, plastics can be burned if they cant be recycled.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

LOL!! i cant believe anyone would take the time to read it. i read about 4 paragraphs and had enough.

its taking BS, adding BS, mixing it with BS and the result??

anyone can take the definition of nearly anything and if stretched out enough will find a flaw. its like not sending a letter because the post office only has a 99.9994% delivery rate (that translates into a few hundred thousand pieces of lost mail)

i mean like sure, its possible you will lose something in the mail and i am willing to bet that nearly everyone here has lost something or knew someone that did. but that does not stop me from sending a letter if that is what i need to do.

there are other ways that lessen the risk at a much higher cost which i prefer not to use.

 

[klapauzius]

Hmmm..the sun shines for the next 5 billion years.
It produces more energy per year on this earth alone than all of mankind can consume (in fact current world, energy consumption is less than 1% of what the sun shines on the earth)
That is "renewable" enough for me...

If you are worried about it running out of juice, there ~ 100 billion other suns in this galaxy alone.

I think we are ok for the next 100 billion years or so, if we are willing to relocate at some point.....

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

the point of the article is that nothing lasts forever. like "oh wow?" thank you for that. i never knew that. i just kinda thought the 1.4 million dollars in goods that i will consume in my lifetime just went away for no reason.

landfills take up an ever increasing amount of land every day. we have so much garbage that there is a few "garbage islands" floating out in the oceans that several hundred square miles in size. i mean like NOTHING lasts forever.

the article puts the term "green power" into a negative light. its creating useless groundless FUD. i can see her point in writing the article. its her job to examine all possible events, consequences, etc for any change on a large scale

but at the same time; how much of a discussion should we have on the expected lifetime of brakes and the effects of emergency stops when we are headed towards a brick wall at 70 mph??

im sorry, but this article is just as relevant as the brake discussion

 

[klapauzius]

I think it (the above mentioned article) serves its purpose as a typical example of how some people distort facts to
promote a certain agenda.

I just cannot fathom why anyone would pick such an agenda...
Is it that wind turbines use precious steel and neodymium, which would be put to better use in
giant SUVs? Is it that solar power plants use precious water, that could otherwise be used on golf greens in the desert?
Clearly the latter has to take precedence!

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think it (the above mentioned article) serves its purpose as a typical example of how some people distort facts to
promote a certain agenda.

I just cannot fathom why anyone would pick such an agenda...
Is it that wind turbines use precious steel and neodymium, which would be put to better use in
giant SUVs? Is it that solar power plants use precious water, that could otherwise be used on golf greens in the desert?
Clearly the latter has to take precedence!

amen to that. the ONLY thing that is really clear here is that moving away from fossil fuels WILL a trillion dollars out of someone's pocket. an action that is definitely not moving forwards unopposed

 

[JimSouCal]

After reading THE history of Oil, The Prize, by oil industry consultant, Dan Yergin, what struck, in an extended analysis, is how we would have likely evolved a sustainable energy economy if we had developed around a solar centric source of energy for human endeavor (that extends to hydro, wind as the source for that energy is the Sun). The use of oil could be called accidental, and also, seeming at the root of most global conflict and wars.

Even though it is industry centric, the Prize is a great read on oil matters... By looking backward, one can see forward...

I also find it interesting the continual misuse of the word "produce" when it comes to the locating, pumping, lifting, and extraction of oil, as what is really going in is depletion. Language is important on how we view things, in a shorthand thinking sort of a way.

Clearly, empowered interests view oil and coal in the ground as $$$. These massive deposits are from an earlier time in our Planet, where the lifeforms and oceans were vastly different from today. Perhaps that fixed carbon and potential energy source really belongs to no one and should probably be left where it is until we figure out how adding co2 to the atmosphere effects the climate, and alters the pH of the Oceans.

For all me know, it may have a very important di-electric function in the electromagnetics of the ionosphere?

Oil as an energy source, particulary used in the ICE was maybe not the lucky draw in the process.

 

[adric22]

Well, I read the whole article. And even though some good points were made, it is still ridiculous to think that solar, wind, or hydro energy is not more sustainable than fossil fuels. Yes, we'll have to maintain power plants. Big deal. Who'd have thought?

 

[mbutter]

(From the above article

...Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years...

Oh, my, are we in trouble!! Every major dam I can think of is well beyond their 'life expectancy' with no obvious activity to replace them! :roll:

Sadly, it only takes one grossly inaccurate statement like the one about dams to cast doubt and suspicion about the other generalized statements in the article.

So, when we think about the differences between the 'classic' energy sources and any (alleged) green alternatives, our choices are option A is do nothing different and throw up our hands in defeat. Option B is to make the best of what we have available and improve it incrementally.

I choose option B.

(edited 11/27 at 5:19p)

 

[TomT]

When I took the Boulder/Hoover dam hard hat tour many years ago, we were told that the damn was built to have a life span of 1,000 years and, at that point, the concrete in the very center at the bottom would have just completely hardened... Regrettably, after 9/11, they no longer offer that tour.

(From the above article

...Even dams are typically designed to last only about 50 years...