Bummer: NY Times Says Planet To Burn Up If We Don’t Switch To Expensive Alternatives

Now we have Thomas Friedman hyperventilating

But I would not get caught up in the anti-carbon pollution details of the president’s speech. I’d focus on the larger messages. The first is that we need to reorder our priorities and start talking about the things that are most consequential for our families, communities, nation and world. That starts with how we’re going to power the global economy at a time when the planet is on track to grow from seven billion to nine billion people in 40 years, and most of them will want to live like Americans, with American-style cars, homes and consumption patterns. If we don’t find a cleaner way to grow, we’re going to smoke up, choke up and burn up this planet so much faster than anyone predicts. That traffic jam on the Beijing-Tibet highway in 2010 that stretched for 60 miles, involved 10,000 vehicles and took 10 days to unlock is a harbinger of what will come.

Doom. I guess Thomas missed that there has been no statistically significant warming in over 15 years, and, really, since there’s been a minor 0.28F increase since 1990, despite the increase in atmospheric CO2, we can almost say no significant warming since 1990. Much of it was due to naturally occurring El Ninos occurring during what is a primarily natural long term warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age.

But there is one more huge caveat: We also have to ensure that cheap natural gas displaces coal but doesn’t also displace energy efficiency and renewables, like solar or wind, so that natural gas becomes a bridge to a clean energy future, not a ditch. It would be ideal to do this through legislation and not E.P.A. fiat, but Republicans have blocked that route, which is pathetic because the best way to do it is with a Republican idea from the last Bush administration: a national clean energy standard for electricity generation — an idea the G.O.P. only began to oppose when Obama said he favored it.

It could be that Republicans are blocking this because we’ve seen Obama waste tens of billions on these projects while sending the federal taxpayer money to campaign donors with “green” companies. Then the companies shut down. The jobs do not appear. And then we see this

The US has had wind farms since 1981, what the left and the green movement don’t want to talk about regarding windmills is (as usual) the truth. The truth is: windmills, like solar panels, break down. And like solar panels, windmills produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. That’s the part liberals forget: making windmills and solar panels takes energy, energy from coal, oil, and diesel, energy that extracts and refines raw materials, energy that transports those materials to where they will be re-shaped into finished goods, energy to manufacture those goods. More energy than those finished windmills and solar panels will ever produce.

There are many hidden truths about the world of wind turbines from the pollution and environmental damage caused in China by manufacturing bird choppers, the blight on people’s lives of noise and the flicker factor and the countless numbers of birds that are killed each year by these blots on the landscape. The symbol of Green renewable energy, our saviour from the non existent problem of Global Warming, abandoned wind farms are starting to litter the planet as globally governments cut the subsidies taxes that consumers pay for the privilege of having a very expensive power source that does not work every day for various reasons like it’s too cold or the wind speed is too high.

The US experience with wind farms has left over 14,000 wind turbines abandoned and slowly decaying, in most instances the turbines are just left as symbols of a dying Climate Religion, nowhere have the Green Environmentalists appeared to clear up their mess or even complain about the abandoned wind farms.

As pointed out in the Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism, wind power requires the highest ground footprint of any energy source, yet still cannot generate the same power. It’s capacity factor is about 37%, versus natural gas with is about 87%, meaning that a 1,000 megawatt facility will generate about 370 megawatts. The same natural gas facility would generate 870 megawatts, yet take up less than 1 square mile to over 90 square miles for the wind farm. Wind is dependent on, well, the wind blowing within a certain range. If it is too windy they do not work, same as when not windy. The storage capacity for wind farms is virtually non-existent (hence the reason I say the research should go more into single home/small building style projects). The turbines last, at best, 30 years, leaving a rusting hulk sitting on a massive concrete slab blighting the landscape.

Eventually the alternatives will work and displace oil, coal, natural gas, even perhaps nuclear. They aren’t ready for primetime as of yet, and what all these government decrees will do is skyrocket the cost of living.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Bummer: NY Times Says Planet To Burn Up If We Don’t Switch To Expensive Alternatives”

  1. john says:

    Bummer Teach. US is already burning up. Maybe you didn’t see that news? Last year was the hottest ever in the USA. Do you think that we might break that all time record this year?

  2. Wasted_Gumballs says:

    Wait john, I thought you said before that 2008 was the hottest evah? no… you said 2010 was the hottest evah? Oh.. but now its 2012? But did you also mention 2011 as the hottest evah too? hmmm… seems odd that you can have more than one “hottest evah” records. Well then, of course you can, can’t you johnny. Just like you can have your own world where it’s just you and no one else. Especially those nasty females that you like to beat up on.

    natural gas becomes a bridge to a clean energy future, not a ditch. It would be ideal to do this through legislation and not E.P.A. fiat, but Republicans have blocked that route, which is pathetic because the best way to do it is with a Republican idea from the last Bush administration: a national clean energy standard for electricity generation — an idea the G.O.P. only began to oppose when Obama said he favored it.

    So, no comment on the fact that Democrats have been the ones blocking it since the GOP and Bush proposed it years ago? No comment on the fact that even now greenies and Socialists are still blocking construction of nat-gas electric generator construction? If the GOP were to suddenly accept this proposal, and I HIGHLY doubt that they are against it and blocking it, then the Socialists would\will not allow it to proceed out of the Senate.

    To blame GOP for something the Socialists are blocking is ludicrous. But then that explains the green agenda completely.

    If we as a nation were allowed to build the nuclear power stations years ago, we would not be having this discussion of where to get energy. And even now, we could be looking in to new nuclear alternative energy production, but these idiots only want to focus on “passive natural” ways that are high cost, high resource intensive, low reliability, and low power production.

    Makes perfect sense if you are a Socialist bent on depressing freedoms.

  3. Do you think that we might break that all time record this year?

    No, because so far 70% of the country has been below average.

    And records do not correlate to anthropogenic causation, as I tweeted in reply to Peter Gleik, who has, so far, refused to respond.

  4. July 4th links…

    Is America in a Pre-Revolutionary State this July 4th? America ought to always be in a pre-revolutionary state 200-Year-Old Fish Caught Off Alaska The Value of Self-Control Flying as Torture NeverWet superhydrophobic spray hits st…

Bad Behavior has blocked 6442 access attempts in the last 7 days.