Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 (2 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:56 AM on 05/27/2009
Living near a wind farm I think more of them will be of a great benefit to our country, they work great.
12:20 AM on 05/27/2009
Green direction is very expensive and create more problems than good things!
Wind and solar energy sources need batteries and grid to provide energy, when sun and wind can’t.
As you can read in Tim Flannery book “The Weather Makers,” 2006:
“ Forests contain much more carbon than does grass, and they also absorb more sunlight (having different albedo) and produce more water vapor, which affects cloud formation”.
“Mature forests don’t take in much CO2 they are in balance, releasing CO2 as old vegetation rots, then absorbing it as new grows. For these reasons the world largest forests-the coniferous forests of Siberia and Canada, and the tropical rainforests are not good carbon sinks, but new vigorously forests are.”
If old trees will anyway rots it is nothing wrong to cut old trees and use wood energy especially if we can sequestered all GHG from that power plants as nutrition to grow forests.
It takes one ton of coal to generate an average of 2500 kWh of electricity.
It takes less than 1.6 ton of wood to generate the same amount of energy.
In huge power plants we are loosing 80% of heat energy in vain.
In small power plants we can use as electricity, as heat.
Only if we need forests we will grow them. Interests of our economy, our health, and health of planet must to be combined.
12:52 AM on 05/27/2009
If you can't do anything more than parrot the timber industry, you might as well shut up. Your ignorance in terms of the biodiversity and value of old-growth forests sounds like a collection of talking points from a BS factory.
01:25 AM on 05/27/2009
Yes, we have a lot of biodiversity by growing corn or grass for ethanol production. Grow there forests and leave old forest if you wish. Trees will provide much more energy from acre of land than any other plants.
01:02 AM on 05/27/2009
What a negative person who is nothing but a parrot for the greedy corporations who think only they can have a monolopoly in energy. Grow up and join the future.
01:30 AM on 05/27/2009
Where is your future? Wind, solar cell, geothermal, nuclear energy sources are disaster for environment. Learn basic Physics, not slogans of Republican or Democrat parties!
As Democrat, as Republican for some reason make from science of global warming circus for debate.
If Democrat seeing only carbon dioxide as reason, Republican arguing about the same carbon dioxide. Republican is only diminishing role of mankind in producing carbon dioxide.
Please stop nonsense.
It is not only carbon dioxide or other GHG influent climate:
It is winds and their direction, which send hot air to cloud level.
It is reflection, which send short wave back to space.
It is huge convection forces.
It is evaporation.
It is cloud formation.
It is ocean streams.
It is properties of water and ice.
Please excuse my poor English, and improve your poor understanding of Basic Physics.
12:06 AM on 05/27/2009
It sounds like mostly labor jobs so I don't see how they could be higher paying. Higher paying than what? How many thousands of construction workers are out of work across the land that wouldn't need to be "trained" nearly as much as workers from a manufacturing plant? I understand that they both need jobs but it seems like a more effective way of spending.
01:03 AM on 05/27/2009
Higher paying, for instance, than working in a fast-food joint or a Mall-Wart. Construction workers have skills that are directly transferrable to, for instance, installing solar generators, wind turbines, solar hot-water heaters, and other energy-efficient devices.

Development, manufacture, and installation of rooftop solar panels has been proven in Europe (even in Scandinavian countries, with cloudy conditions and short winter days) to significantly reduce dependence on fossil-fuel energy.

Do your homework. One of the things President Obama spoke of during his campaign was to decentralize the electric grid -- make households more energy-independent and reduce the impact of a major natural disaster on centralized energy networks.

Some solar homes in California are efficient enough to literally sell electricity to the power companies. We don't all have that kind of sunshine, but if the government made a significant push to get alternative energy into production, it could be revolutionary.

Of course, the super-rich, who got that way out of exploiting oil, don't want people to know this.

I've heard it argued (by an electrical engineer) that the US could have been independent via solar energy as early as 1980... if Big Oil had not sabotaged the efforts to cut off their gravy train. Look at the records of Reagan and the Bushwhackers... they encouraged ignorance and sold America down the river.

Back in the horse-and-buggy days, people couldn't imagine how the auto industry could provide decent jobs for people. Seen any buggies lately?
10:14 AM on 05/27/2009
I understand the benefits of being more efficient and using solar and wind to generate power. It's important that we decentralize the power grid and the easiest way to do that would be to make our own energy. Rather than subsidize corporate entities to facilitate this change the gov't needs programs to make it feasible for homeowners to "get off the grid".

The sales pitch that we are getting on the "green revolution" is blinding us to the fact that we are only switching corporate masters. We will still be paying the bills that make a select few wealthy.
10:19 AM on 05/27/2009
"Seen any buggies lately?"

Actually a man that I used to work with has one that he and his wife take out cruising on Sundays. He's even installed a generator that charges a battery while the buggy is in motion so it has the option for lights.
04:47 AM on 05/27/2009
Actually, construction workers (homebuilders and small commercial in particular) would probably need less training than someone in manufacturing to do low-income home weatherization work like this article talks about.
10:07 AM on 05/27/2009
Exactly my point. That would mean less money could be spent on training which would allow for more money to actually go toward achieving the desired goals.
No Pets but like Animals
11:05 PM on 05/26/2009
It is obvious that we have 5 lying repurgs online showing those of us that have experience in this area that you all do not have a clue when it comes environmental or energy jobs and other components .
We will remember all your ranting and raving as folks began to work, get training they need, and change a part of this country's economic make-up.
09:25 PM on 05/26/2009
That article is...heavily speculative. Its argument appears sound, but it doesn't have any real data about jobs lost, just estimates about jobs that might have been lost. I understand that tracking jobs lost due to green jobs is difficult, but without proper data, saying that the money for one job takes away money for two other jobs is like saying that buying a big bag of candy prevents me from buying two little bags of candy.

I'm not saying that the way the government is going about this is the right way. Government, no matter what cause they're pushing, is always in somebody's pocket, and always screws something up. But in this case I think the benefits outweigh the risks. If creating green jobs puts an economic strain on the private sector, as the article suggests, then maybe private business should just hire green workers to put solar panels on their roofs. Or hire green workers to improve their building's insulation, or install water recycling systems, etc. All of these are an initial investment, but would be a decrease in overhead in the long term. At least this way the money we're spending on energy goes right back into our system, instead of overseas to some oil-rich nation.
09:31 PM on 05/26/2009
Sorry, this comment was supposed to be in response to StopBadSurfing's post. Not sure how that happened.
07:46 PM on 05/26/2009
Another complete waste of money down a politically motivated rat-hole. If this worked, I'd say kudos, but when you see the experience from Spain, which already did this kind of program -- every green job COST 2.2 regular jobs. Every time this administration tinkers with the economy, they get it wrong.

Here's the study, for those of you interested in facts:

"Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find
that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s
experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,
by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs
on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add
those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would
have created."

Here is the link:
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
09:14 PM on 05/26/2009
Good point, but it get's worse.

The first thing off of the "Nobel Boy" Chu's desk was to k*i*l*l off all government funding to the DOE hydrogen fuel cell research and development programs on May 8th. It is this one technology, give everyone their own easily produced private source of electricity, that would take the oil and cartel's out of the picture in short order.
10:38 PM on 05/26/2009
Chu did that what a fraud he is...hydrogen is the future along with solar and wind and industrial hemp...

Obama is going backwards...
11:03 PM on 05/26/2009
The DOE will continue to fund research for stationary fuel cell applications, such as backup power on the power grid or at commercial facilities.
I am a Damn Liberal
10:58 PM on 05/26/2009
"9. Principally, these jobs were lost in metallurgy, non-metallic mining and food
processing, beverage and tobacco.
10. Each “green” megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the
economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro."

Nowhere do they show where they base the loss of jobs on. It also fails to take into account the numerous other jobs that will occur when we have cheap energy. The cost to society by continuing to burn fossil fuels are much too high. That is money that can be spent for greater good.

When the cost of energy is cheaper the cost of everything will be cheaper, contributing to a greater standard of living for the same cost.
No Pets but like Animals
11:36 PM on 05/26/2009
Why don't you provide that info to DOE team or make valid suggestions via the WH website; it is time for us to stop showing each other how smart we are on the blogs and utilize this energy to assist the president and his team to move to the next level. President Obama has said that he is open to all suggestions because there is a lot of work to be done to move through country to the next level. If we continue to push the can down the road and do nothing should not be an acceptable answer for the world number one superpower. Let's push aside our difference if we really care about this country and work together to get healthcare, energy, environmental changes, and education reform done.