Quantcast

California green energy - Oops

Doomsday Prepper Forums - The Number One Prepper Site

Help Support Doomsday Prepper Forums:

DrHenley

Top Poster
Global Moderator
VIP Supporting Member
Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
10,095
Reaction score
29,793
Location
Columbus, GA USA
Natural gas is the greenest energy we have that can meet the demands. And the great thing about natural gas is that it doesn't take a billion dollar refinery to make synthetic gas by gasifying wood, coal, oil, biomatter, etc.

If you use biomatter, the carbon released by gasifying and then burning it came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it can be net carbon neutral (for those who obsess over such things, LOL)
 

Arcticdude

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
6,173
Reaction score
18,470
Location
Undisclosed Northwest location
Natural gas is the greenest energy we have that can meet the demands. And the great thing about natural gas is that it doesn't take a billion dollar refinery to make synthetic gas by gasifying wood, coal, oil, biomatter, etc.

If you use biomatter, the carbon released by gasifying and then burning it came from the atmosphere to begin with, so it can be net carbon neutral (for those who obsess over such things, LOL)
And Turkey just recently discovered a new gas field in the Black sea. Estimated to hold 320 billion cubic meters of gas. New discoverys of natural gas, and oil, are being found quite often.
Unless the natural gas is going to be transported by ship, all thats needed is a simple pipeline and a few compressor stations and it can be very economical to move it over long distances.
 

Urbanprep

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2018
Messages
3,657
Reaction score
9,861
Location
Arizona
Fact, we (mankind) have never run out of any natural fuel. When the source gets too expensive, then the next resource becomes viable. We do not need to create new hazards by substituting solar / wind for natural gas or even oil. Existing technology exists to burn oil and natural gas, without polluting the air. Even coal can be burned cleanly. We don't need to create an entire industry to save the planet.
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
25,666
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.
 

GeorgiaPeachie

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
2,683
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Georgia
How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.
Thank you Mav, Arctic, Urban and Dr Henley for educating me on this issue! Seriously, you guys know a lot!
 

Brent S

Top Poster
Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2013
Messages
12,967
Reaction score
29,570
Location
South East US
All I know for sure is man has changed the environment by burning fossil fuels in massive amounts. I also know that this planet we live on is the only place people can survive. Mars and the moon are great ambitions but they are really harsh environments to survive in. So the moral of this story is we need to develop new and cleaner ways to produce the energy we have grown so dependent on. You can argue about clean coal, cars that don’t make the cities air thick with smog and how great the petroleum industry is all you want. The tobacco industry said there was no definitive proof that smoking caused cancer too. Im not saying we should all live in the dark and never progress here. I’m just saying it is smart to want to peruse better ways of providing our way of life.
 

DrHenley

Top Poster
Global Moderator
VIP Supporting Member
Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
10,095
Reaction score
29,793
Location
Columbus, GA USA
I went to graduate school with the idea of getting into alternate fuel technology. What I found out was that there was never an energy shortage, or even a fuel shortage. There were distribution shortages and problems caused by government regulations. One of the "big bad oil companies," Texaco, invented an engine called the Texaco Controlled Combustion System that could run efficiently on low octane fuel in automobiles because raising the octane level without using tetraethyl lead was very energy intensive and they could be more profitable by selling low octane (70) gas straight off of the fractionating column. This was before gasahol. Nobody was interested except UPS which bought a number of those engines for their delivery vans because they could idle very efficiently. UPS determined that the TCCS engines were 35% more efficient. But still nobody else was interested.

The Army was interested at first because the vehicles could run on just about any hydrocarbon including gasoline, diesel fuel, alcohol, vegetable oil, etc. The engine even ran on motor oil. But the Army suddenly lost interest.
 

Wiredog8

Molon Labe
Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,132
Location
South Texas/ West Texas
People attribute air pollution to the burning of fossil fuels and all the US politicians runaround crying the sky is falling. So, we implement clean air policies, set new regulations, and charge industries big fines for their carbon output.
Yet we continue to allow companies to buy their way out of the carbon issue (kickbacks, campaign contributions, and flat out bibs) while allowing third world and developing countries (China, really??) to spew forth all the pollution they want.

Fact is there is no carbon produced that wasn't already here. we have just redistributed it back into circulation from a containing vessel (timber, coal, oil, etc.)

Also a known fact but overlooked by the Gov, is the fact that trees in forests are most beneficial during the first 30 years (on average) of their lives for atmospheric carbon removal. We should be cutting down the 100 year old trees and begin timber cutting/ replanting on a 30 year cycle. But it will never happen.

Solar: Has it's uses, but major drawbacks such as not being an efficient stand alone power source. Also it is heavily dependent on oil for material to manufacture components. Factoring in the threat to wildlife makes this a less than satisfactory choice for heavy usage and reliance for long term usage.

Wind: Again, has a niche in the energy supply but is by no means a stand alone source.
Also it is heavily dependent on oil for material to manufacture components.
And the average lifespan of a completed wind turbine is typically shorter than the payout time-frame needed to make the turbine a viable expense as compared to profit. Factoring in the threat to wildlife makes this a less than satisfactory choice for heavy usage and reliance for long term usage.

Oil/Natural Gas: Cheap, relatively easy to extract/refine/and distribute. Has thousands of applications for use, as well as they are available worldwide in their raw forms. This is not to mention the thousands of different industries that rely on petroleum products daily for raw materials, additives, solvents, fuels, lubricants, transportation.
Oil/Gas are readily available, relatively safe, and cost effective with a documented over all lower instance of damage to wildlife,
 

Morgan101

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
861
Location
Missouri
How much land do we want to take from each state to produce enough power to generate 3.99 trillion kilowatt hours (US 2019 consumption)

The solar farm in California kills these birds by frying them mid flight through reflective heat, they are so bright that the airspace above the farm is a no fly zone.

We use 10 million megawatt hours per day in the US that's over 5000sq miles of full sun to produce the solar energy, in California Topaz solar farm, it produces 550-megawatt on 4,700 acres, that's 7.4sq miles so remember, we need to produce 10 million magawatts. Most of the time one can't get full sun in 100sq miles much less 5000.
You could build a nuclear facility in a smaller space than you would use for a High School. Waste is an issue, but it would be far less harmful to the environment than any of the renewable sources, and have a footprint a fraction of the size.

Why are the Wind Energy providers not held to the same environmental standards as the rest of industry? If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.
 
Last edited:

DrHenley

Top Poster
Global Moderator
VIP Supporting Member
Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
10,095
Reaction score
29,793
Location
Columbus, GA USA
If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.
BUT IT'S GREEN! :rolleyes:
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
25,666
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river

Wiredog8

Molon Labe
Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
941
Reaction score
1,132
Location
South Texas/ West Texas
You could build a nuclear facility in a smaller space than you would use for a High School. Waste is an issue, but it would be far less harmful to the environment than any of the renewable sources, and have a footprint a fraction of the size.

Why are the Wind Energy providers not held to the same environmental standards as the rest of industry? If any other company destroyed the environment taking up thousands of acres of land and indiscriminately killing large birds of prey they would be fined out of existence. The Wind industry does it every day, and politicians turn a blind eye.

The color of green (kick backs, pay-offs, bribes) has a strange effect on what see and report.
 

LindaSue

Member
Member
Joined
May 12, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
140
Location
Denver
We are a big exporter of oil. Thought this was of interest to the discussion.

“The largest sources of U.S. imported oil were: Canada (49%), Mexico (7%), Saudi Arabia (6%), Russia (6%), and Colombia (4%). According to the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and natural gas industry supports nine million U.S. jobs and makes up seven percent of the nation's gross domestic product.”
I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.
 

GeorgiaPeachie

A True Doomsday Prepper
Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
2,683
Reaction score
10,069
Location
Georgia
I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.
We currently do NOT have an energy source to replace coal and oil. Period. When green this or that is stated, it just means a very few people are going to make billions. Follow the money.
 

Maverick

Top Poster
Global Moderator
Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
25,666
Location
Washington State - between 2 mountains and a river
I’ve been thinking about this ever since the debate the other night. I’m not a believer in climate change, as so much of that data has been shown to be inaccurate and manipulated just to invoke fear. (Which is pretty similar to Covid, right?)
Anyway, I’m still trying to understand the push to end all oil and coal by the Democrats. What would it benefit them for the entire nation to turn to renewable energy? Are they going to make big money off it? Is it purely altruistic?
Biden said in the debate on Tuesday that he would end all oil and coal by 2035 and that it would, in return, give us thousands of jobs with higher pay. If there are currently millions of jobs invested in oil and gas, and it feeds so much of our GNP, how will the switch to renewable effect our country? It seems to me like a lot of people will lose their jobs and it is going to cost our nation a ton of money to not only build it, but also in not being able to export it.
I honestly don’t know if that is wrong or right - I’ve tried to read so much on it the past few days but it’s all contradictory and mostly opinion based. I know Germany is doing away with coal, and other nations have as well. Just wondering about the eventual global impact of that. Will China ever have to give up coal, or do they get a free pass?
Educate me!! Would love to hear all your answers.
Green Energy is a farce, simply put, the coal burning plants are pretty clean today and yes, russia, china, north korea and the rest of the third world, get a pass, yes. Also, Germany is now beholding to russia for it's heat (natural gas) Man made global warming is a myth, it's a naturally occurring cycle that happen on a geological time scale, it's just bureaucrats have found a way to tax man for what nature naturally does and if anyone jumps on me that scientist are objective is a g'damn fool, they have there head up the bureaucrats xxx so far they become intoxicated by the smell of money, ask them how much money did they receive from the government?!? As they say, follow the money!


 

Morgan101

Active Member
Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2019
Messages
194
Reaction score
861
Location
Missouri
In my fantasy world I would remove ALL government subsidies. Remove ALL tax credits and incentives, and let the free market dictate what type of energy would be best.

I worked in the renewable energy industry for a while. It is not cost effective, and it is not green. It takes more steel (energy) to build one wind turbine than it will ever produce in it's usable life. Wind turbines require neodymium batteries. Look that up and see how green they are. Of course, nobody cares how China destroys their environment.

Solar panels do not last forever. They have to be replaced, and nobody seems to have an answer as to what to do with the toxic waste they generate.


The 800 pound gorilla in the room is Nuclear Energy. It is the cheapest. It is the cleanest. It requires the smallest environmental footprint. If we can put men on the moon and travel to Mars we can solve the problem of how to dispose of nuclear waste.
 
Last edited:

Jayson

God Like
Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2020
Messages
683
Reaction score
2,277
Location
Kalifornia
I saw a news report somewhere/sometime about a group of hippies that use cow shit to generate methane gas. Well, that’s renewable energy because we’ll never run out of shit in this world.
 
Top