On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate ...

On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War

There are 34 comments on the American Reporter story from Oct 18, 2011, titled On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War. In it, American Reporter reports that:

There is virtually no doubt that global warming exists. Aside from a few cranks and those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, the scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing faster than ever before.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at American Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Charly

Westland, MI

#1 Oct 18, 2011
Here we go with the third time this discussion was started.

Doesn't change a thing. Green jobs economy is still a liberal fantasy doomed to failure. Solar power will never be much more than a rich man's hobby and nuclear power is still the most logical energy source other than fossil fuels.

We are not at the end of the fossil fuel age. We are at the beginning.
SpaceBlues

River Grove, IL

#2 Oct 18, 2011
Charly wrote:
Here we go with the third time this discussion was started.
Doesn't change a thing. Green jobs economy is still a liberal fantasy doomed to failure. Solar power will never be much more than a rich man's hobby and nuclear power is still the most logical energy source other than fossil fuels.
We are not at the end of the fossil fuel age. We are at the beginning.
May I call you "fiction man?"

Just follow Germany for reality. You are out of touch.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#3 Oct 19, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>May I call you "fiction man?"
Just follow Germany for reality. You are out of touch.
Why follow Germany...they have no natural gas, no oil, no forests and pay twice as much for energy as we do. And despite all their efforts on alternative energy don't produce a significant amount of energy from alternative energy.

I'd say Germany is an example of how big a mistake the conservation and green energy movement is. They would be much better off with nuclear power.

We have enough fossil fuel in our country to fuel us for several hundred years. Why in the world should we give it up for some sort of alternative energy fantasy?
Oscar

Danby, VT

#4 Oct 19, 2011
Germany clearly has little to no relevance to the energy policy we should develop here in the US.

For Germany the issue might be how they keep our cheap energy from hurting them competitively. Hence they probably will be after us to join them in the expensive alternative energy expansion.
Refomereducator

Danby, VT

#5 Oct 19, 2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0...

Is Environmentalism Really Working?
Stardust

Westland, MI

#6 Oct 22, 2011
Why keep posting the same article over and over?
SpaceBlues

United States

#7 Oct 23, 2011
Offshore Turbines More Powerful than First Nuclear Plant

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0...

Alpha Ventus wind farm consists of 12 five-megawatt towers and produces electricity for 50,000 households. It's the largest offshore wind farm in Germany.
Dusty

Westland, MI

#8 Oct 23, 2011
SpaceBlues wrote:
Offshore Turbines More Powerful than First Nuclear Plant
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0...
Alpha Ventus wind farm consists of 12 five-megawatt towers and produces electricity for 50,000 households. It's the largest offshore wind farm in Germany.
How much per kilowatt? How big was the subsidy?

No one has said we can't make electricity from wind. It just costs two or three times as much as nuclear, coal , natural gas or oil. And it will always cost three times as much.

In the US, without the subsidies no one would be doing wind or solar or electric cars.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#9 Oct 23, 2011
Alpha Ventus wind farm, 12 generators @ 20.8 million each = 250 million ($357 million).
I can find no mention of subsidies or how much customers are charged per kWh.
-
NB: The wind farm went online in 2009, a year later, two generators failed with, "gearbox trouble," [slide bearings]
-
Clean Energy with a Price Tag
Germany's Dream of Offshore Wind Farms Gets Expensive
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,...
I Know More Than You

Concord, NH

#10 Oct 23, 2011
Dusty The Dummy wrote:
No one has said we can't make electricity from wind. It just costs two or three times as much as nuclear, coal , natural gas or oil. And it will always cost three times as much.
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.

EPRI, Black & Veatch, DOE, and a host of others disagree with your "it will always cost three times as much" gibberish.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#11 Oct 23, 2011
Looks like subsidized by the customers.

"There are good reasons for the companies' hesitation. Behind the scenes, lobbyists for the power industry are trying to convince the German government to agree to better terms for their offshore wind farms. This isn't the first time. Following a crisis meeting two-and-a-half years ago, the industry managed to increase subsidy rates from the 9 cents per kilowatt hour that was originally planned to 15 cents. Now, under the so-called Renewable Energy Act (EEG) assessment, consumers will even be expected to pay more than 18 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity from offshore wind farms."

OH NO, not an energy company making profits!!!

"But this is only part of the truth. In the first nine years, at least, electricity customers could expect to see substantially higher EEG assessments on their electricity bills, while the utilities' profits would go up considerably. For them, the implementation of the model would be a real coup. They would receive the government subsidies within a significantly shorter time period and, after nine years, could sell the electricity from the wind farms, which will have been written off by then, at market prices.

As a result, the value of the operating companies would rise on the utilities' balance sheets, and so would the profits from the offshore wind farms. According to KPMG calculations, profits would go up from about seven percent today to almost 12 percent.

The industry hasn't been able to make such profits with its newly built, conventional coal and natural gas power plants in years. Nevertheless, the German Environment Ministry can apparently reconcile itself with the model. Its reasons are entirely pragmatic. According to ministry officials, the construction of offshore wind farms is now so far behind schedule that it is a pleasant surprise when anything happens at all."
Stardust

Westland, MI

#12 Oct 23, 2011
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
EPRI, Black & Veatch, DOE, and a host of others disagree with your "it will always cost three times as much" gibberish.
Right now in Vermont the SPEED act which is supsidized by the rate payers requires that the utilities buy the power from the wind generators for $.14 per kilowatt. The open market price is what? 4 to 5 cents?

That plus 40% of the cost of erecting these wind losers is paid by the taxpayers up front.

Wind is a loser and so is solar. No one would be doing it without the subsidies.

And no one has a cogent argument that the cost will ever go down. The lifespan of the equipment is the same as the length of time it takes to recoup your investment...even with all the subsidies.

I suppose you think electric cars at $40k each are a good deal too.
Oscar

Westland, MI

#13 Oct 23, 2011
How about geothermal?
SpaceBlues

United States

#14 Oct 23, 2011
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0...
ia a long piece but the latest, dated 10/21/2011. The other one mentioned in post #9 is dated 3/16/2011.

"The German government plans to install another 10,000 megawatts offshore by 2020, and 25,000 megawatts by 2030.

That would mean another 5,000 of these wind turbines, or 400 wind farms the size of Alpha Ventus. Large swaths of the German Bight would then resemble a pincushion from afar, turning the body of water into a sea of megawatts."
SpaceBlues

United States

#15 Oct 23, 2011
Oscar wrote:
How about geothermal?
Yes; how about it?

Here's about Japan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-...

"Japan's northeast Tohoku region could develop 740 megawatts of new geothermal power supplies, the Japan Geothermal Developers' Council estimated on Thursday.

The Tohoku region has been trying to rebuild following a magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, with some local governments showing willingness to invest in renewable energy following the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.

Studies show Japan, a land of volcanoes, ranks as the world's third richest nation in geothermal power, with the potential to derive 23,400 MW of energy."
Oscar

Westland, MI

#16 Oct 24, 2011
Geothermal is low tech and holds more promise for some parts of the world than it does for the US. The US leads the world in oil and natural gas reserves.

If Germany had our oil and gas there is no way they would be stupid enough to abandon it for more expensive wind and ultra expensive solar.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#17 Oct 24, 2011
Oscar wrote:
Geothermal is low tech and holds more promise for some parts of the world than it does for the US.
Yes and sadly it's not even utilised much where it is available.
Oscar wrote:
The US leads the world in oil and natural gas reserves.
Quite likely.
Oscar wrote:
If Germany had our oil and gas there is no way they would be stupid enough to abandon it for more expensive wind and ultra expensive solar.
IF Germany had the US reserves of oil and gas, it might have won WWII.
Fun Facts

Albuquerque, NM

#18 Oct 24, 2011
We could produce energy if we all sat on stationary bicyles and pedaled. But how many people would have to pedal, how much energy would it produce and at what cost.

Yes the wind in the North Sea should be sufficient to create energy, at what cost? If you don't have other resources, then you are stuck producing high cost energy. And if I were Germany and had to rely on Russia to send over the natural gas and oil, I too would start to produce high cost energy.

That isn't the situation the U.S. is in. We have low cost energy. We can extract that energy responsibly. There is no reason for us to spend billions of dollars to create high cost energy.

And with $14+trillion dollars of debt, pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into high cost green energy is sheer stupidity.
Oscar

Westland, MI

#19 Oct 24, 2011
Fun Facts wrote:
We could produce energy if we all sat on stationary bicyles and pedaled. But how many people would have to pedal, how much energy would it produce and at what cost.
Yes the wind in the North Sea should be sufficient to create energy, at what cost? If you don't have other resources, then you are stuck producing high cost energy. And if I were Germany and had to rely on Russia to send over the natural gas and oil, I too would start to produce high cost energy.
That isn't the situation the U.S. is in. We have low cost energy. We can extract that energy responsibly. There is no reason for us to spend billions of dollars to create high cost energy.
And with $14+trillion dollars of debt, pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into high cost green energy is sheer stupidity.
Agreed. How do we now convince the democrats. Or better yet how do we convince the voters so we can run people like Shumlin and Obama out of office?
Oscar

Westland, MI

#20 Oct 24, 2011
"Built With Tainted Money

That's because Germany's Renewable Energy Act (EEG) guarantees offshore wind farm operators a so-called feed-in compensation of 13 cents per kilowatt hour...."

"Each individual plant," says Klooster, "currently requires about 450 maintenance hours a year. We have to get this down to 150." That would be the minimum to make the turbines at least somewhat profitable. But everything is so incredibly difficult."

"Germany takes the same unconditional approach to regulating the wind that it applied to its decision to phase-out nuclear power. Since the political winds have shifted in Berlin, there is no longer an alternative to renewable energy. Germany has made its commitment to renewables, and now it has to stick to its guns. Klooster feels that all of this is "not normal." Fukushima, he says, did not radically alter his worldview. In fact, it only reinforced it. This sort of thing can happen."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Africa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
White power (Aug '11) Mar '17 Samuel-7g-Jackson 2
Medicine for Africa' which can be made by ordi... (Aug '16) Mar '17 Ache 2
Can an African-American join an African tribe? Jan '17 Anonymous 1
Mama hawah women clinic Dec '16 Anonymous 1
Do the Hausa's have slimmer features than other... Dec '16 Anonymous 1
Zaragemca Top Experience (Apr '14) Aug '16 Gerry Zaragmca 3
News Cultural appropriation: when 'borrowing' become... (Jun '16) Jun '16 Oh No You Di-nt 1
More from around the web