Follow by Email

Tuesday, October 11, 2011

Blame, Dreams, and The Void of Substance

Even the Dreamers are saying "IF", and "Maybe."

Hey folks,

So why have we not completely switched over to the beloved "Green Energy" in this Country? Why is "Green Energy" not the Energy of the World? We are. Yes America. It's our fault. Oh, and of course Mother Nature. This piece in the New York Times gives you a GREAT inside look into the mentality of the Kooks, uh, Dreamers. It is well worth the read.

Basically JOHN M. BRODER, the Writer of this Piece, is blaming Nature and US for slowing down this "Green Movement." Yes folks, it is OUR fault that the World is not moving faster toward the Green Dream.

He starts out blaming Nature. It is Nature's fault that Nuclear Energy has slowed. He said that is was the Tsunami and Earthquake in Northern Japan in March that "shook faith in the safety of nuclear power worldwide." He talks about how a major Nuclear Plant Builder, Siemens, the largest Engineering Company in Europe, "would no longer build Nuclear Power Plants anywhere in the World."

The company’s chairman, Peter Löscher, said that Siemens was ending plans to cooperate with Rosatom, the Russian state-controlled nuclear power company, in the construction of dozens of nuclear plants throughout Russia over the coming two decades.
They will simply find someone else. This doesn't mean that Nuclear is dead. But it will most definitely slow the process. But then he blames US, for not joining the UN and NOT spending enough Money.

Even before Fukushima, the future of nuclear energy in the United States was already shaky because of the high cost of building and insuring nuclear plants there, and because — unlike Germany and other European countries — the United States has not moved aggressively toward requiring renewable, noncarbon-emitting power generation.

“Two things have happened in the last year, both affecting nuclear power negatively,” said Jason Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington, a nonpartisan research organization. “First Fukushima, and then the rising supplies and falling prices of natural gas have fundamentally changed the economics of nuclear power.” Utilities find it far cheaper to turn to natural gas for supplemental power generation and see no value in investing in new nuclear generating plants, which can cost $10 billion or more, he said.

Natural gas now sells for $4 to $5 per thousand cubic feet, or 28.3 cubic meters, in the United States, far below its peak price. “If natural gas were still selling for $13,” Mr. Grumet said, “we’d be building several nuclear plants right now.”
Yup. He blames us for using Natural Gas, and the fact he thinks that Natural Gas is just so damn cheap. It does not say it here, but the Kooks also hate our cheap Gas Prices. Too Cheap! There is no reason for us to switch to, uh, ?? We just keep using what we have and KNOW works. Damn it.

Because the United States has not adopted a national climate change policy that would drive demand for nonpolluting energy sources, the prospects for alternative energy sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydro are poorer in the United States than elsewhere else in the world. Renewable energy also suffered a sharp blow in the United States in September with the bankruptcy of Solyndra, a once-promising solar energy venture in California that received $535 million in federal loans. Republicans in Congress seized on the collapse of the company to question the Obama administration’s approach to supporting alternative energy ventures and the concept of so-called green jobs.
Solyndra was NEVER a once-promising solar energy venture that would create Green Jobs. It was a SHELL Company and a Money Laundering Scheme. That's all it, and MANY others like it, ARE. But we are not spending ENOUGH! Nope. According to Mr. Broder:

The American Energy Innovation Council, a group of American business executives concerned about what they call under-investment in basic energy research, issued a call recently for a tripling of government spending on clean energy research and development. They said that the energy sector in the United States spent a fraction of what other industries, like pharmaceuticals, devoted to advancing new technology.
Yeah, so NO evidence of success AT all in the Green Energy Industry. As a matter of fact, evidence is STRONG AGAINST it, yet they want to TRIPLE our throwing of money away. Money we do not have, on a Market that doesn't exist, to support a solution that doesn't exist. This is who these people are folks. If we would just get with the UN program, we would be sitting pretty. By 2050 Green Energy sources could provide 77 percent of the primary Energy Supply Globally. I though we only had ten years left? Or is it 20? Or was it 10 like 20 years ago. I'm confused. So what do we do UNTIL 2050? And what is that "Green Energy Source" that will accomplish this? {Crickets Chirping} "Uh, that's why we have to spend more money Pete. We have to find it. If we just got off of Oil, raise the price of Natural Gas to $13 Bucks, and Gas to $5.00 a gallon, people would HAVE to go Green. We have to switch." And I repeat, switch to WHAT?

At least they do site someone with a bit of intelligence here.

Daniel Yergin, the energy historian, notes in his new book, “The Quest,” that energy demand will grow 70 percent to 80 percent over the next two decades, and that the demand will largely be met with oil, gas and coal — used more efficiently. He noted that automakers, driven by government fuel efficiency mandates in the United States and China, or high fuel prices in Europe, are building a vastly more efficient fleet of cars and light trucks than in the past.
He added this.

However, Mr. Yergin said, the number of cars on the road is expected to double by midcentury, to two billion from one billion today, taxing fuel supplies, road networks and the atmosphere.

Mr. Yergin is less bullish on green energy than Dr. Pachauri. He predicted that more than 80 percent of world energy would be supplied by carbon-based fuels 20 years from now, but he did note that there continued to be encouraging developments in alternative energy technology.

“What kind of energy mix will meet the world’s energy needs without crisis and confrontation?” Mr. Yergin asked in “The Quest.” That is yet to be seen, he wrote, and lead times for innovative technologies may be long because of the scale and complexity of the global energy supply network. The competition for energy investment dollars will be between what he calls the incumbents — oil, gas and coal — and new entrants — wind, solar and biofuels.

“A transition on this scale, if it does happen,” he wrote, “has great significance for emissions, for the wider economy, for geopolitics and for the position of nations.”
As I keep saying. It's OK to Dream. I will even share the Dream. When someone comes along and says "I have Product A that will change your life. It is THIS. It works like that. You can afford it now and in the future. All you have to do it XYZ, 123, and done." I will jump on the bandwagon. But as of yet, there is no one saying that they have A. There is nothing to switch to. There is no Market. There is only Dreams. I live in Reality. This is where my Home is. This is where I Work. I wake up in the Morning and THIS is what I have to deal with. I have to go to the Gas Station to fuel my Car. Pay my Electric Bill. Fly on Planes. ETC. I live in a World that runs on Oil. Sorry. But until you come up with A, all you are doing is Dreaming.

NYT - The Year of Peril and Promise in Energy Production

No comments: