Comments on: 1 Step Forward, 2.2 Steps Back http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/05/08/1-step-forward-22-steps-back/ Richmond's Homepage For Business News Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:28:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/05/08/1-step-forward-22-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-5762 Robert Fri, 08 May 2009 19:49:35 +0000 http://www.richmondbizsense.com/?p=7348#comment-5762 It is about time that someone shines the bright light of rationality on the "green energy" fad. While I will be among the first to conserve resources, I also am honest enough to admit that I want reliable energy at affordable prices. The economics of so-called green energy do not add up and current technologies cannot overcome present challenges. Then ,of course, there are those stubborn laws of physics that keep making trouble. I cannot think of a single non-nuclear alternative source that can survive in the free market. All of them, except nuclear (which some do not consider green enough), are heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds. So, in effect, we all get to pay twice -- once for the subsidy and once for higher energy costs. Let's all be honest about the prospects of altenative energies in the near term -- investing in technologies that may help those energies compete in the free market. In the meantime, let's get focused on nucelar energy. It is about time that someone shines the bright light of rationality on the “green energy” fad. While I will be among the first to conserve resources, I also am honest enough to admit that I want reliable energy at affordable prices. The economics of so-called green energy do not add up and current technologies cannot overcome present challenges. Then ,of course, there are those stubborn laws of physics that keep making trouble. I cannot think of a single non-nuclear alternative source that can survive in the free market. All of them, except nuclear (which some do not consider green enough), are heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds. So, in effect, we all get to pay twice — once for the subsidy and once for higher energy costs. Let’s all be honest about the prospects of altenative energies in the near term — investing in technologies that may help those energies compete in the free market. In the meantime, let’s get focused on nucelar energy.

]]> By: Chris http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/05/08/1-step-forward-22-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-5748 Chris Fri, 08 May 2009 14:53:31 +0000 http://www.richmondbizsense.com/?p=7348#comment-5748 @Kim While I agree that the supply of coal (Carbon as you put it.) is not everlasting, steps are being taken to keep the resulting pollution out of the atmosphere. An example would be the new "scrubber" at the Dutch Gap power plant. This new unit removes more than 90% of the pollutants from coal burning AND results in a reusable byproduct called Gypsum, used to make drywall. As a person living close to this plant it's nice to see steam coming out of the scrubber stack instead of that yellowish looking junk coming out of the other stacks. Until renewable resources become cost effective (I've been waiting decades for this to happen.) they will only continue to provide the more wealthy folks knowledge that they are saving the environment while us common folk can only wait. At this point even funding for better choices would also be better than what we have available now. Even if I could afford to install solar panels or wind driven power generation I would have to remove at least 45% of tree growth from my property in order to install them. Defeating the whole saving the environment portion. We need more choices. @Kim While I agree that the supply of coal (Carbon as you put it.) is not everlasting, steps are being taken to keep the resulting pollution out of the atmosphere. An example would be the new “scrubber” at the Dutch Gap power plant. This new unit removes more than 90% of the pollutants from coal burning AND results in a reusable byproduct called Gypsum, used to make drywall. As a person living close to this plant it’s nice to see steam coming out of the scrubber stack instead of that yellowish looking junk coming out of the other stacks.

Until renewable resources become cost effective (I’ve been waiting decades for this to happen.) they will only continue to provide the more wealthy folks knowledge that they are saving the environment while us common folk can only wait. At this point even funding for better choices would also be better than what we have available now. Even if I could afford to install solar panels or wind driven power generation I would have to remove at least 45% of tree growth from my property in order to install them. Defeating the whole saving the environment portion. We need more choices.

]]> By: Kim Tingley http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/05/08/1-step-forward-22-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-5740 Kim Tingley Fri, 08 May 2009 12:37:47 +0000 http://www.richmondbizsense.com/?p=7348#comment-5740 Embedded in this article is the assumption that we can continue removing millions of pounds of carbon from the ground year after year, put it into our atmosphere, and nothing will happen - there will be no costs or job losses associated with it. Is this a realistic assumption? Embedded in this article is the assumption that we can continue removing millions of pounds of carbon from the ground year after year, put it into our atmosphere, and nothing will happen – there will be no costs or job losses associated with it. Is this a realistic assumption?

]]> By: Carter Snipes http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2009/05/08/1-step-forward-22-steps-back/comment-page-1/#comment-5739 Carter Snipes Fri, 08 May 2009 12:36:17 +0000 http://www.richmondbizsense.com/?p=7348#comment-5739 This article IS well written. The problem with the "Create 1 Green Job Take away 2.2 other Jobs" theory is that the equation is missing the negative externality which dirty energy represents. We need to calculate and include the long term negative effects that dirty energy will have on our economy before we give up on Green Energy as a jobs creation policy. When you do that it is clear that in the short term, yes clean energy won't create the jobs it displaces, but it will create a platform for future and sustainable economic growth. This article IS well written. The problem with the “Create 1 Green Job Take away 2.2 other Jobs” theory is that the equation is missing the negative externality which dirty energy represents. We need to calculate and include the long term negative effects that dirty energy will have on our economy before we give up on Green Energy as a jobs creation policy. When you do that it is clear that in the short term, yes clean energy won’t create the jobs it displaces, but it will create a platform for future and sustainable economic growth.

]]>