No substitute for fossil fuels at present.
fitlike min
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Dec 2009
QUOTE: Spain provides perhaps the best lesson. The government there
has
spent $43 billion on solar energy projects, yet solar provides less
than 1%
of the country's electric power. It was a bad investment.
Earlier this year, Congress approved a scheme to pour $80 billion - on
top
of the tens of billions already spent - into renewables.
A government report released last week indicates the money will be
wasted.
Renewable energy is the shiny gem that everyone wants but no one can
have.
Not even a president. Campaigning last year in Lansing, Mich.,
President
Barack Obama said that it was his goal for the US to generate 10% of
its
electric power from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025.
But he cannot, by the force of will or executive order, change the
laws of
physics and economics.
America has long relied on fossil fuels to power its economy. Oil,
natural
gas and coal provide about 84% of the nation's energy.
And for good reason. They are plentiful and typically easy to
retrieve, and,
consequently, cheap.
At the other end of the spectrum are renewable sources such as solar,
wind,
biomass and geothermal. They supply only about 4% of our energy, the
remainder coming from hydro and nuclear power.
An axis of environmentalists and Democrats want to change this ratio,
because, according to the usual complaint, we depend too heavily on
the
fossil fuels that emit CO2.
Trouble is, the market for renewables is poor.
Few want to use the inefficient, unreliable and expensive sources. But
that
hasn't slowed the renewable energy campaign, which has succeeded in
persuading the public that renewables are a sensible energy source and
convincing Congress to fund supporters' daydreams.
The government can continue to "invest" in renewables, and the
dreamers will
keep using public money to find the magic formula. But little will
change
over the next 25 years.
The federal Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook
says
in 2035, demand for liquid fuels will increase by almost 10% over 2008
levels, natural gas by nearly 7% and coal by 12%.
While use of renewables will increase as well - by 81%, including
hydropower - they will still be unable to unseat our dominant energy
source.
Fossil fuels' share of consumption will fall by only six percentage
points,
from 84% to 78% by 2035. Renewables will provide about 8%.
It's clear that renewables, which have benefited from government
subsidies
far in excess of what fossil fuels have received, can't compete in
today's
market and won't be faring much better a quarter century from now,
according
to the government's own reckoning.
It's just as clear that throwing taxpayers' dollars at renewables has
produced little progress.
Spain provides perhaps the best lesson. The government there has spent
$43
billion on solar energy projects, yet solar provides less than 1% of
the
country's electric power. It was a bad investment.
Chasing the wind is just as ineffective.
When Congress temporarily eliminated wind power credits in 1999, 2001
and
2003, the number of new turbine projects fell sharply. The Texas
Public
Policy Foundation says that providing a modest level of wind power in
that
state would cost taxpayers at least $60 billion through 2025.
Biomass is also a poor substitute.
It's both primitive - its sources are wood and trash - and an
environmental
nightmare, devouring in some cases as much as 10 times the land mass
than
needed to create a wind farm. And wind farms themselves are big land
eaters.
Geothermal energy, considered "free" energy from the earth, is also a
space
eater that requires heavy capital investment, which is often hard to
recoup.
In California earlier this month, a geothermal project was abandoned,
despite a $6 million grant from the Energy Department and roughly $30
million in venture capital.
Geothermal has, as well, some environmental drawbacks. The day before
the
California project was closed, Swiss government officials permanently
shut
down a geothermal project in Basel because, the New York Times
reports, "of
the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007."
Maybe some of these renewables will one day be cheap and reliable.
Technological advances will help. But today they are neither cheap nor
reliable, and, based on the government's report, won't be for another
generation.
Until they can compete, the country has to rely on proven sources:
fossil
fuels and nuclear power. To force cutbacks on these so that renewables
can
get a bigger market share, and to continue to fund projects with
public
money, is foolish and irresponsible.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=516042
Deirdre Sholto Douglas
> Geothermal has, as well, some environmental drawbacks. The day before
> the
> California project was closed, Swiss government officials permanently
> shut
> down a geothermal project in Basel because, the New York Times
> reports, "of
> the damaging earthquakes it produced in 2006 and 2007."
To say nothing of the fact that geothermal has a way of bringing
some really nasty chemical and elemental customers to the surface.
It's high in sulphur, ammonia, methane and CO2...while the sludge
is loaded with mercury, arsenic, nickel and vanadium. Power _and_
a future environmental clean-up site...what could be more efficient
than that?
Deirdre
________________
I doubt therefore I might be.
deem...@aol.com
Every form of energy production has drawbacks. Hydro is probably
the best, but dams have some, uh, detrimental effects on upstream
lowlands.
Jellore
Not to mention the detrimental effects downstream. Look at the
Colorado for starters.
deem...@aol.com
That's not hydro....that's wayyyyy too much irrigation and usage.
fitlike min
Reminds me of the old Northern English expression
You don't get out for't nowt!
Jellore
Well in a sense it is indirectly hydro too, as the majority of water
has to be stored upstream for hydro purposes, hence depriving the
lower reaches of natural flow.
Jellore
Unless you are a batsman from Yorkshire that is.
deem...@aol.com
Once a dam is filled, the natural flow downstream shouldn't be
interrupted....well, other than flood control. The Colorado is
literally used up downstream by irrigation and the LA metroplex.
Jellore
The natural flow of rivers is highly regulated by large dams such as
the Hoover. That is a fact.
deem...@aol.com
But that's not the reason the Colorado no longer reaches the sea.
conwaycaine
"Jellore" <jel...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:bb92cbf1-9592-4832...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
**
Are you sure lower reaches are deprived of natural flow?
Water that goes into the dam must come out.
Excepting for any evaporation due to the larger surface area.
And as deems says irrigation and the LA metroplex have sucked the river dry.
leaving Mexico with squat despite all sorts of treaties on sharing the
water.
Jellore
I never said that it was reason why the Colorado no longer reachers
the ocean, I said dams alter the natural flow of rivers downstream.
However having said the dams on the Colorado river have significantly
reduced river volume downstream.
Have a look at these links, it explains many of the negative effects
that dams have on rivers downstream.
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Are you serious? The water that is stored, which as you say ends up
largely as either irrigation or for consumption in LA, would have
ended up downstream. Without the dams there would be no water for
irrigation or for the great Californian metrolpolis.
deem...@aol.com
I'm not saying there is no effect downstream. Hydro depends upon
releasing water through the dam. The dam usually holds a finite amount
of water...so once the resevoir is filled, the amount of water passing
through will be the same. The Colorado has a finite amount of water
that is 100% used up before it reaches the sea....it doesn't matter
where the water is taken...it's still taken. The dams are not the
reason it is taken.
Jellore
I think what we are discussing here is the old chicken and egg
conundrum.
conwaycaine
***
Quite serious.
Your statement "majority of water has to be stored upstream for hydro
purposes, hence depriving the
lower reaches of natural flow" puzzles me.
As deems pointed out, once a dam is filled no lower reaches are deprived of
water.
Irrigation and consumption in LA appears to be an add-on to your original
line of thought.
deem...@aol.com
Probably. My initial statement was that hydro was the least
intrusive among power generating options. I might change that to add a
tie with wind energy...as long as you don't mind all those big
propellers dotting the skyline.
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
However a major problem is, especially here in Australia is that the
dams are rarely full. The major dams in NSW were last so in 1997. Much
water is held back that once flowed downstream.
deem...@aol.com
Yes, extended droughts are a problem with fllow....including power
generation.....but, having a resevoir does help during a drought.
conwaycaine
****
Is the problem too big a dam for too small a stream??
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Well too big at present for the amount of run-off. Interestingly a lot
of dams in Australia were enlarged years back in order to get us
through the dry periods...just so happens this dry period is much
longer and severe than the usual.
conwaycaine
****
There is a huge drought now going on in California.
Dams and reservoirs is dropping rapidly.
I've no idea where the Nut State will now go to get water.
Perhaps the Mississippi River?
deem...@aol.com
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9f6fac5b-c800-4ee3...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 2:15 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ff1976cc-d0c5-41f4...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 27, 1:26 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > However a major problem is, especially here in Australia is that the
> > dams are rarely full. The major dams in NSW were last so in 1997. Much
> > water is held back that once flowed downstream.
>
> > ****
>
> > Is the problem too big a dam for too small a stream??
>
> Well too big at present for the amount of run-off. Interestingly a lot
> of dams in Australia were enlarged years back in order to get us
> through the dry periods...just so happens this dry period is much
> longer and severe than the usual.
>
> ****
>
> There is a huge drought now going on in California.
> Dams and reservoirs is dropping rapidly.
> I've no idea where the Nut State will now go to get water.
> Perhaps the Mississippi River?
During the last drought, Georgia wanted to annex part of
Tennessee so they could tap into the Tennessee River for Atlanta.
Apparently there's a disputed boundary around Chattanooga which no one
gave a darn about until the water was running dry.
I've said it before....oil wars will be picnics compared to the
coming water wars.
La N
> On Dec 28, 10:01 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Dams and reservoirs is dropping rapidly.
>> I've no idea where the Nut State will now go to get water.
>> Perhaps the Mississippi River?
>
> During the last drought, Georgia wanted to annex part of
> Tennessee so they could tap into the Tennessee River for Atlanta.
> Apparently there's a disputed boundary around Chattanooga which no one
> gave a darn about until the water was running dry.
>
> I've said it before....oil wars will be picnics compared to the
> coming water wars.
We in Canada have long known that Merks have been hungrily eyeing our own
water supplies, our water becoming a commodity at least as valuable as our
oil.
- nilita
Fred J. McCall
:
:Are you sure lower reaches are deprived of natural flow?
:Water that goes into the dam must come out.
:Excepting for any evaporation due to the larger surface area.
:And as deems says irrigation and the LA metroplex have sucked the river dry.
:leaving Mexico with squat despite all sorts of treaties on sharing the
:water.
:
Mexico actually gets more of the Colorado than the original intent,
since the intent was percentages of flow but the treaty amounts were
set in a very wet year.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
deem...@aol.com
Be afraid....be very afraid. (There's still a Bush or two in the
pipeline)
La N
Ewwwwww ...... grosssss ......................
Jellore
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9f6fac5b-c800-4ee3...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 28, 2:15 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:ff1976cc-d0c5-41f4...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Dec 27, 1:26 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > However a major problem is, especially here in Australia is that the
> > dams are rarely full. The major dams in NSW were last so in 1997. Much
> > water is held back that once flowed downstream.
>
> > ****
>
> > Is the problem too big a dam for too small a stream??
>
> Well too big at present for the amount of run-off. Interestingly a lot
> of dams in Australia were enlarged years back in order to get us
> through the dry periods...just so happens this dry period is much
> longer and severe than the usual.
>
> ****
>
> There is a huge drought now going on in California.
> Dams and reservoirs is dropping rapidly.
> I've no idea where the Nut State will now go to get water.
> Perhaps the Mississippi River?
You may have heard that Sydney is just about to unveil a massive
desalinisation plant in order to "drought-proof" the city. It will
apparently supply 15% of the cities needs. It is controversial because
it is an energy-heavy process, not to mention the disturbance to the
local ocean ecosystem.
Whenever I return to Europe to see the family I nearly always stop
over in California on the way back. I was in San Fran for 4 days
earlier this month. Love the place, however I have to admit over the
years, much like NSW it appears to be getting drier and drier.
Jellore
And the Middle-East has long been touted as a probable/possible
flashpoint in any future water-war.
Jellore
Read a book recently by the late Marc Reisner called "A dangerous
place" on California. In it suggested that California might look to to
BC for future water.
The Phantom Piper
>
> Love the place, however I have to admit over the years,
> much like NSW it appears to be getting drier and drier.
You have touched upon one of the Great Stupidities
of our time. The Pacific Coastline is one of the
longest in the world, and yet California (where most
of it is) is constantly under threat of 'water shortages'.
These 'shortages' are largely fictitious, since both
Industry and Southern California Excess are not in
the least affected. Pulp Paper Mills (which use a
*tremendous* amount of water) continue to pump
out paper cups and glossy magazine stock at the
same rate they always have, and L.A. glitterati and
their attorneys continue to enjoy outdoor swimming
pools and golf courses _in the desert_. Meanwhile,
ratepayers are urged to cut back, conserve, and
suffer because of the 'Water Shortage', when in fact
there is still roughly the same amount of water on
the planet as there has been for millions of years.
The earth loses only a few decilitres per year due
to gravitational skimming by the moon, and the rest
is still locked up in the oceans. The answer is of
course desalination; plants could be built up and
down the coast, yielding not only Fresh Water but
Salt and other Minerals as well. It's a tribute to the
typical, shortsighted Conservative politics that this
has not been done: as usual, Short Term Profits
obscure Long Range Benefits. And as to Power,
well the potential for Wind, Wave, and Solar are all
very great along the California Coastline - but again,
Big Petro and the entrenched Utility Monopolies in
the state are dead set against any of that...
Disgusted,
The Phantom Piper
Fred J. McCall
:
:The answer is of
:course desalination; plants could be built up and
:down the coast, yielding not only Fresh Water but
:Salt and other Minerals as well. It's a tribute to the
:typical, shortsighted Conservative politics that this
:has not been done: as usual, Short Term Profits
:obscure Long Range Benefits.
:
Uh, it's the liberal Green types that are against this sort of thing,
you ignorant fuckwit. Conservatives generally want to build big
nuclear plants (which is what it's going to take to power this sort of
thing), huge desalinization plants, then split some of the water to
get hydrogen as a portable fuel.
It's morons like you who block such things.
:
:And as to Power,
:well the potential for Wind, Wave, and Solar are all
:very great along the California Coastline - but again,
:Big Petro and the entrenched Utility Monopolies in
:the state are dead set against any of that...
:
Again, it's the NIMBY Liberals who prevent power facilities (of any
type) from being built in California.
:
:Disgusted,
:
Me, too. You are either the most ignorant person on the planet or the
biggest liar. Perhaps both, considering who I'm talking about here...
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:02a6dc8e-dffd-4b16...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 28, 10:01 am, "conwaycaine" <conwayca...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Jellore" <jell...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> There is a huge drought now going on in California.
> Dams and reservoirs is dropping rapidly.
> I've no idea where the Nut State will now go to get water.
> Perhaps the Mississippi River?
During the last drought, Georgia wanted to annex part of
Tennessee so they could tap into the Tennessee River for Atlanta.
Apparently there's a disputed boundary around Chattanooga which no one
gave a darn about until the water was running dry.
I've said it before....oil wars will be picnics compared to the
coming water wars.
*****
That was indeed some drought.
It seems like other southeastern states got into a ruckus over water as
well.
Was it Florida getting torn up over the amount of water Alabama was taking
out of the river systems that drain into the Panhandle?
And here in North Carolina there was a big outcry over plans to transfer
water from the Catawba River basin to the Yadkin River basin .
conwaycaine
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Pr4_m.59237$PH1.14460@edtnps82...
> We in Canada have long known that Merks have been hungrily eyeing our own
> water supplies, our water becoming a commodity at least as valuable as our
> oil.
Plans are afoot even as we write.
We get the water and the Quebeckers get the country.
(Except for British Columbia which we shall annex forthwith)
conwaycaine
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1iuhj5dhlhdvrc3do...@4ax.com...
> "conwaycaine" <conwa...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> :
> :Are you sure lower reaches are deprived of natural flow?
> :Water that goes into the dam must come out.
> :Excepting for any evaporation due to the larger surface area.
> :And as deems says irrigation and the LA metroplex have sucked the river
> dry.
> :leaving Mexico with squat despite all sorts of treaties on sharing the
> :water.
> :
>
> Mexico actually gets more of the Colorado than the original intent,
> since the intent was percentages of flow but the treaty amounts were
> set in a very wet year.
I've seen pictures of the Colorado "River" as it enters Mexico.
Either we are getting most all the water or "they" cooked the results by
taking photos during exceptionally dry periods.
deem...@aol.com
> "La N" <nilita2004NOS...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And Alberta.....oil shale!!!!!!!
conwaycaine
********
I think the basic problem is that there are too many people living in
Southern California for the available water supply.
Couple that with attempts to grow crops in deserts and you have a major
problem.
La N
Look. We'll give you Molson's and Moosehead at a discount as an incentive
to stay home. 'kay?
- nil
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
:
Well, we *are* getting most of the water, which seems only fair since
we own most of the river.
However, treaty requires that a certain amount must be allowed to flow
downstream. Mexico gets something like 1.5 million acre feet a year.
--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney
deem...@aol.com
Nope, I'm pretty sure Plan Maple Leaf is just waitin' on the next
GOP Prez.
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Florida is a special problem. There are wayyyyy too many people
living there. gotta move some of 'em back up North. The Phoenix area
is another example. Whoever thought "Gee, let's put several million
people in the middle of a desert" was a good idea.
The Phantom Piper
>
> Me, too.
Perhaps you ought to stop reading your own posts?
(As for the other shite - well, why bother replying
to such utter nonsense; stay with Arizona Politics,
eejit: they're better suited to you...)
How'd That Whole McCain Thing Turn Out Anyway?,
The Phantom Piper
The Phantom Piper
>
> I think the basic problem is that there are too many
> people living in Southern California for the available
> water supply.
Well, and it's *how* they live in that Desert...
> Couple that with attempts to grow crops in deserts
> and you have a major problem.
It's not the Crops that are the problem; it's the Golf
Courses and the Swimming Pools and the *other*
Excesses which don't belong in a desert!
But mainly it's the fact that the Water Rights were
sold North-to-South during the state's history, so
the Water Districts from L.A. control the flow from
Kern and Monterey counties, and the ones from
*those* counties control the flow from Santa Clara
and San Mateo, and Marin controls Sonoma which
controls Mendocino - etc. Therefore when the taps
go on in L.A., the rivers run dry in Humboldt.
And yet there they are, with huge acreages of
Golf Courses and Open Air Swimming Polls,
failing as usual to spend the money to capture
all the water that simply washes into the ocean
every year through their storm canals...
Disgusted,
The Phantom Piper
Fifeshire Floozie
> During the last drought, Georgia wanted to annex part of
>Tennessee so they could tap into the Tennessee River for Atlanta.
>Apparently there's a disputed boundary around Chattanooga which no
>one
>gave a darn about until the water was running dry.
> I've said it before....oil wars will be picnics compared to the
>coming water wars.
I wrote about this book, Water Inc., once before ...
http://www.vardaburstyn.com/waterinc/index.html
"WATER INC.
A fast-paced eco-thriller about a multi-billion dollar water heist -
the biggest ever: Chinatown for the twenty-first century.
The United States is parched and has a terrible thirst after years of
drought. William Ericsson Greele, a brilliant, immensely powerful
industrialist, figures he's the man with the solution and Canada is
the place to make it happen. Exploiting Quebec's desire for
independence, he organizes a consortium to pipe and ship water south.
Serge Lalonde, a hot Quebec deputy minister, agrees to ram the project
through while US Senators, state governors and federal officials ride
shotgun for them. But there's one big catch: the project must be a
fait accompli before the plan goes public - otherwise a vigilant
environmental movement might successfully derail it.
Malcolm Macpherson, a Seattle aerospace executive, accidentally finds
out about the plan. He enlists the efforts of rebel-girl Claire
Davidowicz, director of eco-Justice USA, to try to head it off.
Together they win the support Quebec and US environmentalists, a
feisty British journalist, three rogue policemen, a reluctant
eco-terrorist and a maverick Vermont governor hated by Greele's group
and the White House. Deadly consequences follow in a desperate race
against time and power.
In an era when water scarcity has become a menacing reality all over
the world, Water Inc. is an exquisitely timely political thriller.
With action sprawling across urban and rural America, into the cities
and beautiful wilderness of Quebec, and as far as Mexico, Lisbon, and
Brussels, it's a story of greed, heroism, clashing loyalties, love and
mortal risk."
"In an era during which water scarcity--"one of the major problems of
the twenty-first century," according to the UN--becomes a very real
proposition for much of the world, Water, Inc. is an exquisitely
timely political thriller. With action sprawling across urban and
rural America, into the cities and beautiful wilderness of Quebec, and
as far as Mexico, Lisbon, London and Brussels, it is a story of greed,
heroism, clashing loyalties, love, hate and mortal risk."
An interesting, thought-provoking read.
Cheers, Helen
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > During the last drought, Georgia wanted to annex part of
> >Tennessee so they could tap into the Tennessee River for Atlanta.
> >Apparently there's a disputed boundary around Chattanooga which no
> >one
> >gave a darn about until the water was running dry.
>
> > I've said it before....oil wars will be picnics compared to the
>
> >coming water wars.
>
Sounds interesting, but the US isn't where the problem will
start....or be the greatest. Africa the ME, Australia, western China,
India.....the list goes on and on.
Fred J. McCall
:
:It's not the Crops that are the problem; it's the Golf
:Courses and the Swimming Pools and the *other*
:Excesses which don't belong in a desert!
:
You should go look at the relative water use of the two.
Hint: It's the wetland crops like lettuce that are being shut down...
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1f4b814e-514b-4b5f...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
And Alberta.....oil shale!!!!!!!
*****
Yes and the oil shale as well!!
(I'd forgotten about that)
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:137ba502-a345-4b80...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
*******
Many have moved but only "half back".
Now they bless us by driving on our highways at speeds somewhat in excess of
thirty miles per hour.
deem...@aol.com
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message
Plus, they're pretty much a buncha drunken rednecks.....they'd fit
right in!
conwaycaine
<deem...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f9ed5acd-89b8-4c24...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
*******
They will need to do something about their bent toward Moose
shagging..........