I want to thank the 500+ respondents out there who participated in May’s survey regarding the migration to clean energy, and offer you — and all our subscribers — the free report I wrote on the subject.
It’s true that the world is moving to clean energy, but at a far slower rate than many people would like to see. But why, exactly, is it so slow? I have my own opinions, but I’m constantly looking for accurate answers to this incredibly important question, and I’m very grateful to the more-than-500 of you who shed a heck of a lot of light on the subject.
Of course, there is a profound difference between opinion and fact. But when enough people share the same opinion, that level of agreement becomes an important fact on its own. That’s the reason for a survey like this. In some cases, perception is reality.
We need to migrate to MORE fossil fuels and nuclear because they are the most economical. The Tea Party movement in the USA will assure in 2012 that we elect DRILL BABY DRILL candidates and we end the insanity of the extreme green movement and progressive socialists. $$ will always flow to the most economical and practical sources of energy. Using the rule or law and force does NOT justify the green movement. Respect the free market and let the most economic energy sources win. The green movement will end come November 2012. No more free handouts. Time for many parasites to get a real job rather than spending taxpayers’ money that we don’t have.
It’s cool that 2GreenEnergy caters to readers with divergent viewpoints. But holy smokes!
A couple of points:
Let’s assume for a moment we should cast off all concerns about the costs to our health and safety, and that we have no obligation to preserve a habitable environment. Nuclear STILL won’t happen for the precise reason you name, i.e., it’s expensive. The actual cost of building these plants is almost never anywhere near the projected budget. Readers may want to Google “nuclear plant cost overrun,” and read a few of the 54,700 articles they’ll find on the subject. Here’s one that refers to a certain nuclear project as “satanic,” based on the actual amount of the overrun ($6.66 billion). The Florida utility, FPL Group, now estimates the cost of building a new nuclear power plant at over $9 billion, nearly double their previous estimate.
Also, I’m not so sure about the Tea Party in 2012. I’ll grant that voters are extremely displeased with big, wasteful, corrupt government. But the poll numbers surrounding the Tea Party are strikingly negative (currently favorable 32%, unfavorable 47%).
I spent most of the day with a couple of my partners from our recently minted Bermuda corporation “Island Green.” This is a start-up dedicated to bringing electric transportation to the tony island nation — then to the Caribbean and wherever else the trade winds may blow.
Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while may think that you’ve seen this post, as I’ve been mentioning our group and its mission for some time. But I’m sure you’ve heard the idiom “island time,” commonly used to describe the leisurely pace of life in these tiny, idyllic nations that don’t seek to challenge that of New York City (thank God). And yes, that’s the case here.
So, while we haven’t been moving with the speed of Roadrunner, it remains true that Bermuda is the most perfect place on Earth for electric vehicles: expensive gasoline, a total of 125 miles of roads, and an eco-friendly population of very high net worth per capita people. As I’ve said before, if Bermudians won’t buy EVs, it’s hard to imagine who will.
The webinar we’re planning for Wednesday, June 29th is entitled: “Renewable Energy: Let the People Speak.” Craig Shields will discuss the results of a recent survey, in which more than 500 people weighed in on the issue: What Are The True Impediments to Renewables?
The world is moving to clean energy, but at a far slower rate than many people would like to see. But why, exactly, is it so slow? Less than one-third of those interviewed cite “cost” as the big reason. So what’s going on here?
I hope you’ll be able to join us on Wednesday, June 29th, 2011, at 1 PM EDT.
“This comprehensive account, reflecting exhaustive research that took (its author) Prud’homme across the country, contains a series of dramatic stories and colorful characters that highlights the degradation of the nation’s once pure and abundant waters.”
Of course, what’s happening outside the US with respect to potable water is even more dire. Our planet faces extra-ordinary challenges in that space now; 1.5 billion people, about 20% of the Earth’s population, are denied this basic right. And, by all accounts, the situation is expected to worsen through the coming decades.
I’ll post a write-up when I’m finished the book. In the meanwhile, readers may want to check it out for themselves.
Apparently, the Fox News article “Four Dirty Secrets about Clean Energy” is going viral, as I just got it from a friend who is normally not too closely connected to the subject. I have to hand it to these guys; they’re sure good at getting their word out.
In addition to admiring the sheer aggression with which Fox promotes its beliefs, one has to like their cleverness as well. Even the ploy of referring to their enemies’ concepts as “Dirty Secrets,” implying as it does the existence of some clandestine group with a malicious, hidden agenda is really a very bright idea from a public relations perspective.
In any case, I promised my friend that I would take a few minutes and respond to each of these damnable “dirty secrets,” so here goes:
Dirty Secret #1: If “clean energy” were actually cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t need a policy.
The cost of renewable energy is anything but a secret. No one disputes that, in each of its many forms as they currently exist, clean energy is more expensive than coal – especially when it’s burned in the absence of scrubbers on the plants to remove the most damaging components of their emissions. And, though the prices of renewables are falling constantly, this inequality will remain in place for at least the next few years. The larger issue that the author elected not to discuss, of course, is that fossil fuels come with huge but generally ignored costs in terms of the health of our people, our society and our environment.
Dirty Secret #2: Clean energy advocates want to force us to use solar, wind, and biofuels, even though there is no evidence these can power modern civilization.
This ties into #1 above. No one who has seriously looked at the matter doubts that clean energy can power the civilization, but the issue is cost. As Dr. Peter Lilienthal, world energy expert whose software is used by power utilities in more than 80 countries says, “There’s plenty of clean energy, if you don’t care what you pay for it.” Most clean energy advocates suggest weaning ourselves off fossil fuels using the market forces that would be created by establishing a level playing field in which the true costs of all forms of energy are taken into consideration and “internalized.” We also hope for a bit of help from government; it would be good (as well as fair and wise) to remove the enormous subsidies bestowed upon the fossil fuel companies – and perhaps send the funds thus freed up in the direction of renewables, as the latter clearly represents a public good (as opposed to a public hazard).
Dirty Secret #3: There are promising carbon-free energy sources–hydroelectric and nuclear–but “clean energy” policies oppose them as not “green” enough.
Let’s start here by being honest: Fox News has heretofore expressed identically zero concern about carbon. In any case, it’s true that most clean energy advocates see obvious and serious dangers in nuclear power. I’m not sure what planet someone would have to be living on not to share these concerns. It’s also important to note that all sincere and objective environmentalists very much eagerly look forward to the commercialization of “advanced nuclear,” i.e., the next generation that can potentially operate safely and inexpensively.
Dirty Secret #4: The environmentalists behind clean energy policy are anti-energy.
It is true that there are environmental extremists who are unwilling to make any compromises, and thus become de facto advocates for the end of economic prosperity, a return to an agrarian society, etc. Pointing to a few people with fringe views may stir up the passions of a largely uninformed audience, but it’s hardly to the point. I’m sure you could find a few who believe in astrology as well, though I can’t see the relevance of that either.
The vast majority of clean energy advocates are honestly looking for trade-offs that make sense. In fact, we don’t see this issue as “us vs. them,” as all seven billion of us live on the same sick planet. Our main agenda is doing what’s right for this sorry world; I’m not sure Fox News can say the same.
Again, I congratulate Fox on its cleverness, even though its command of the facts and the intellectual honesty it displays in dealing with them are dubious at best.
An old friend told me the other day that his 25-year-old son had asked him what he thought life on Earth would be like in 100 years. Quite a good question, I think. But are there any answers that don’t scare the pants off you? With extremist governments with nuclear weapons, another century of environmental destruction, the steady creep of corruption, the world population growing exponentially – and the US government deficit doing the same – could this possibly have a happy ending?
I’m not optimistic, but I haven’t given up, either. As I told him, “That’s why I write. When people stop caring … as soon as people no longer speak and write about this stuff, and involve themselves in the issues, then we truly are done.” (I actually didn’t say “done.” I chose a different, more expressive term from our modern vernacular.)
Global climate change deniers wishing to argue their position often point out the oceans, enormous as they are, act as huge “carbon dioxide sinks.” It is true, of course, that the oceans absorb about 30% of the atmospheric CO2 we emit each year. But this has its own deleterious (some marine biologists say “catastrophic”) effects, in the form of ocean acidification. Linked above is a good article on the subject.
When I come across an article like this one from EVWorld’s Bill Moore: “Electric Cars and ‘Can’t Do Spirit’ of American Conservatives” I like to draw readers’ attention to it, and normally attempt to add some value in the form of commenting, elaborating, clarifying — at least amplifying. Here, however, he’s nailed this subject so perfectly that I can’t think of anything else to say.
Bill notes the many outrageous errors in a piece in “The Week” entitled, “The Folly of Doubling Down on Electric Cars,” in which journalist Ed Morrisey begins with the line: “So-called green vehicles are expensive, tough to dispose of, and may actually increase America’s dependence on foreign sources.” He goes on to explain how the car companies can’t sell EVs, because Americans simply don’t want them.
Morrisey takes a considerable drubbing – even from his followers – who make comments like “Please get your facts straight before you print trash,” and “You should retract this article. Did the author read tea leaves as research?” And here’s my own contribution — not an opinion, but a fact: Paul Scott, a personal friend who sells the LEAF at a local Nissan dealership, has customers coming out his ears; the problem, if there is one, is producing cars fast enough to satisfy demand.
But Moore says that his favorite comment on the article was: “This column by Edward Morrisey perfectly encapsulates the modern Can’t Do Spirit of American Conservatives. Their rallying cry should really be closer to ‘Why Bother?’ than ‘Don’t Tread On Me.’”
I’m with you there, pal; I really don’t understand this behavior. I know that most conservatives are completely sincere in their desire to see a stronger and more vibrant America. To that end, I submit that maybe it’s time they stop bashing their country’s attempts to lead the world in the Energy Revolution that lies at the very core of the global industry.
Today’s clean energy webinar with Dr. David Doty went very well. David spoke on “The World Energy Scene by the Year 2050,” presented his solution (“WindFuels,” synthetic fuels made from off-peak wind energy and CO2), and fielded a number of excellent questions from the audience. A downloadable version of the webinar should be available in a day or so.
Alex C. writes in:
I spent most of the day with a couple of my partners from our recently minted Bermuda corporation “Island Green.” This is a start-up dedicated to bringing electric transportation to the tony island nation — then to the Caribbean and wherever else the trade winds may blow.
I have put “
