First Do No Harm
Posted by Jeff Id on December 14, 2009
A commenter graham, left this point on one of the first posts done at tAV. The post it was left on was in the pre-Mann days well before my suspicions of the corruption of the IPCC were confirmed:
There is a lot of money to be made if we restructure our societal infrastructure, for example toward an regionally focused system of energy production based in solar, wind, wave power, etc. Isn’t this a good thing? Doesn’t our country support innovation and growth? It seems to me the primary threat of change is to the powers that be in oil, coal, etc.
Graham asks, “Isn’t this a good thing?”
It’s one of the main points that non-technical greens like to make when arguing for change in the methods for producing energy, I don’t know if Graham falls into that category and this thread is NOT about him but that is beside the point. The concept that simply switching to a more expensive, non-continuous energy source , is ok and green is a common misconception. The absolutely destructive nature of going green is far more difficult to convey than nice things like sun, water and wind. You don’t have to be an Aero Engineer to notice that none of these energy sources listed by Graham actually work with today’s technology. – How crazy is that? None of them work yet they are still discussed.
The start/stop of wind power is too fast and requires coal or natural gas plants of equal capacity be available to switch on and off as the wind starts and stops. Nukes can’t change power output like that so coal or gas have to be backup and now you’ve paid twice for your generators. There are a lot of costs for operating a coal plant at less than full capacity, this is is not a ‘tiny’ detail, but rather represents a massive load on the economy for it’s very existence.
Solar is only operational during the day and we don’t have power storage capabilities yet for night operation. Again solar suffers from massive costs (which are improving rapidly).
Wave power is a dream in my opinion, when greenies start to see the size of the installations required to create any amount of power, that will die out quickly. It also suffers from intermittent collection as and massive costs of sea based operation as well.
All of these hurdles for solar can be overcome time. What’s more, I firmly believe they will be overcome with or without socialist intervention. The real question is, will socialist tax and spend get us there quicker than a free people? By the way the question is phrased – you know my answer already.
I note that Graham failed to mention the only working ‘green’ energy source which is Nuclear power. If we’re really so worried in this world about power generation, we should be building nuke plants everywhere. Copenhagen should be discussing how to build thousands of nuke plants safely and effectively, if that was the real purpose. Instead we see trucks with bird blender parts cruising down I80 every day because they have a pretty green sound when you say it in your head. Windmill, windmill….
Bad energy solutions raise costs for every product on the market. The result WILL be to slow technological development that could otherwise help us use the other acceptable ‘green’ source in our heads — sunlight….sunlight…yellow warm sunlight. – pretty sound.
These extra costs will starve millions of people, but you don’t hear that discussion in Copenhagen. The ignorance of the populace who don’t understand that switching to more expensive items cannot create jobs is mind boggling. But Jeff they are ‘green jobs’, happy sunlight, pretty plant, green jobs. No they are not, they are lost jobs, hungry people and the separation between wealthy and poor is increased. Think about it, we can’t make as much stuff because the stuff costs more. The market is therefore weaker, the poor work for less, the wealthy can buy more service with less money. You see the same pattern in every socialist country on earth. Pick one where I’m wrong.
All because people have stopped thinking with their minds, and have replaced logic with pretty green feelings.
Now as I say all of this, I am owner of a green company. I am not going to be one of the poor and I stand to benefit massively from the ignorance of these policies in Copenhagen. But I know in my heart, the best thing for Earth is for people to remain as free from government intervention as can be reasonably achieved. If the horrible doom and gloom predictions came true (which they won’t), we will have already replaced the technology in a hundred years and moved on. Consider that we’ve only had cars for a hundred years at this point. Before that, we were a far more destructive corn based society. We switched away from biofuel a long time ago (because we found something better) and the earth was better for it. Just why people think a cheaper energy source won’t be developed in the next 50 years without the glories of government taxation is beyond my comprehension.
I like to think with my head, not my heart. I wish they still taught that in school.