Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...olumn/2101327/


    Year after year, we are treated to a message of environmental doom and gloom and admonitions on Earth Day. On the back of this sentiment in wealthy countries, governments have invested billions of dollars in inefficient, feel-good policies such as subsidizing solar panels and electric cars.

    But there are far better ways to improve environmental prospects for humanity and our planet. On Earth Day, we need more fracking, more wealth, smarter investments and fewer inefficient subsidies.

    German taxpayers have poured $130 billion into subsidizing solar panels, but ultimately by the end of the century, this will postpone global warming by a trivial 37 hours. The electric car is even less efficient. Its production consumes a vast amount of fossil fuels, and mostly it utilizes fossil fuel electricity to be recharged. Even if the U.S. did reach the lofty goal of 1 million electric cars by 2015 — costing taxpayers more than $7.5 billion — global warming would be postponed by only 60 minutes.

    These beguiling policies cost a fortune but make little difference to the environment because the technologies are still not ready. That's why we need to invest more in long-term research and development for green innovation. This would be much cheaper than current environmental policies and would end up doing more good for the climate.

    If we could make solar panels 2.0 or 3.0 cheaper than fossil fuels, we could get everyone, including the Chinese and Indians, on board for a greener future.

    Moreover, our focus on solar and electric cars diverts us from the world's most deadly environmental problems. In wealthy countries, most environmental indicators are getting better. We have cleaner air and cleaner water, and we suffer fewer environmental risks. But air and water pollution kill 6 million people each year and harm billions worldwide.

    Wealthy countries largely solved these problems through economic development.

    Poor countries should have the same opportunity to develop — so they, too, can have clean drinking water and switch to cleaner energy sources, instead of using dung and twigs for fuel.

    We can also directly intervene in poor countries. Many charitable organizations are involved in solving these problems by improving access to clean water and sanitation. By addressing these challenges, we do far more good for our planet.

    Earth Day also presents an opportunity to recognize our own environmental achievements. In spite of decades of political wrangling, which failed to produce a meaningful global climate policy, it was ultimately the shale gas revolution that curtailed U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

    Fracking has caused a dramatic transition to natural gas, a fuel that emits 45% less carbon dioxide than burning coal. Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that in 2012, carbon dioxide emissions was 12% lower than the peak in 2007. The shift from coal to natural gas is alone responsible for a reduction of between 8%-9% of the entire U.S. CO2 emissions. In fact, it amounts to twice the reduction that the rest of the world has achieved over the past 20 years.

    All energy projects have risks, and though the dangers of well contamination from fracking have probably been exaggerated, tighter regulation would reduce risks further. Also, natural gas is not the ultimate energy breakthrough because it is still a fossil fuel. Even so, fracking is likely the best green option of this decade. And if fracking happened worldwide, emissions would likely decline substantially by 2020. Over the coming decades, we need to drive down the cost of green energy through smart investments in green innovation.

    This Earth Day, we need a dose of realism about real environmental challenges — such as the air and water pollution that make life so miserable for billions — and the real opportunities that exist for environmental innovation, to make our planet a better place.

  2. #2
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    The big problem I see with the OP is that he says we need to keep "waiting" until solar panels are more efficient, cheap, etc etc. But that will always be true; better efficiencies will (almost) always be realized in the future, meaning there's no "good" time to buy-in. And without trying to build this "first generation" of renewable products, those producers will have less working knowledge, less experience, etc etc about how to improve the product.

    Also, I don't think the dichotomy of "only focused on electric cars/not focused on pollution" is quite right. As pointed out, there are many organizations solving these problems, WHILE we also have organizations trying to create better renewable energy products. It's not an "either or" issue, though the author might prefer more focus on one or the other.

    Finally, the problem with fracking, as the author pointed out, is the same problem with fossil fuel; limited resources. The whole point of "renewable" energy is that it's renewable. If fracking is greener, than great! But that doesn't mean we should stop investing in renewable energy.

  3. #3
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    ...

  4. #4
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536

  5. #5
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    154,417
    So Darrin believes in global warming?

    Cool.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    "waiting" until solar panels are more efficient, cheap"

    lots of Gw solar voltaic installations now.

    panels are so cheap now that many, even Chinese, mfrs are going bankrupt

    efficiencies are increasing, just like with battery advances.
    Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-22-2013 at 02:19 PM.

  7. #7
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    So Darrin believes in global warming?

    Cool.

    Never did I not believe in it <sic, wtf>. I just don't believe in the Al Gore, Manhattan gets flooded version.

  8. #8
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    Never did I not believe in it <sic, wtf>. I just don't believe in the Al Gore, Manhattan gets flooded version.
    I seem to remember Mahattan flooding this past year. Sea level rise of 1m - very conservative estimate - causes Manhattan to flood on a much more frequent basis. The fact is you don't know what you believe unless you get a chain mail telling you what to believe.

    You were reading USA Today when you stumbled across this article, right?

  9. #9
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    The big problem I see with the OP is that he says we need to keep "waiting" until solar panels are more efficient, cheap, etc etc. But that will always be true; better efficiencies will (almost) always be realized in the future, meaning there's no "good" time to buy-in. And without trying to build this "first generation" of renewable products, those producers will have less working knowledge, less experience, etc etc about how to improve the product.

    Also, I don't think the dichotomy of "only focused on electric cars/not focused on pollution" is quite right. As pointed out, there are many organizations solving these problems, WHILE we also have organizations trying to create better renewable energy products. It's not an "either or" issue, though the author might prefer more focus on one or the other.

    Finally, the problem with fracking, as the author pointed out, is the same problem with fossil fuel; limited resources. The whole point of "renewable" energy is that it's renewable. If fracking is greener, than great! But that doesn't mean we should stop investing in renewable energy.

    Pretty much everything I wanted to say!

  10. #10
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,536
    Solar power produced 100% of new energy on U.S. grid in March

    Solar power accounted for 100 percent of new energy on the U.S.’ power grid in March 2013 - an energy matrix that includes coal, natural gas, oil, and a variety of other renewable sources of energy.

    Notably, the 44 megawatts added by solar power were virtually the only source of new energy in a month that did not see any other sources provide new energy to the grid, according to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
    But, as shown in the chart below, March was hardly a fluke for solar power. In the first three months of the year, solar accounted for 537 megawatts of new generation, second only to wind power’s 958 megawatts.

    Moreover, the first quarter of 2013 saw twice as much solar capacity added to the U.S. power grid as in all of 2012. And the 264 megawatts of solar power added to the grid in 2012 represented more than the previous three years combined.

    As SmartPlanet recently reported, solar power has moved from being “an immaterial job creator to an economic driver.”

    “Since 2008, the amount of solar energy powering U.S. homes, businesses and military bases has grown by more than 600 percent according to the Solar Energy Industries Association,” according to U.S. News and World Report, “underscoring projections that solar will be the nation’s largest new source of energy over the next four years.”









    http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bull...in-march/18083

  11. #11
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    I seem to remember Mahattan flooding this past year. Sea level rise of 1m - very conservative estimate - causes Manhattan to flood on a much more frequent basis. The fact is you don't know what you believe unless you get a chain mail telling you what to believe.

    You were reading USA Today when you stumbled across this article, right?

    No, Fuzzy, my position hasn't changed.

  12. #12
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,943
    In the past hour anyway.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •