So here’s the thing: Part of being a good man means being a guy who believes in saving the earth, right? Some people asked why it was we ran a piece about why electric cars suck. First, cars are a good man obsession. You know, getting under the hood with your shirt off. But more than that, being a good man is being a green man.
Here’s the real pickle: we don’t see the nose despite our face sometimes. Guys are funny that way.
We made the argument that it all comes down the 100 year-old electric grid and a huge pile of coal. In a related story today, “Drawing the Line at Power Lines,” NYT environmental blogger ELISABETH ROSENTHAL makes the point that the objection to the Keystone XL natural gas pipeline is fine but in the absence of a broader plan about how to replace oil from the Middle East and in fact for moving even environmentally friendly power around the country we are no better off. “Using renewable energy to power machines and cars may be better for the planet, but will not obviate that necessity to transport power — and it may prove even harder to move politically.” She goes on:
“Large-scale energy is typically produced in remote places and inevitably needs to be transported to the populated areas where it is used. That is a fact whether the energy comes in the form of “dirty” traditional fuels like coal or oil, or in the form of cleaner natural gas. It is true even if it comes in the guise of “green” electricity, generated by the sun or wind.
There are pipelines, trains, trucks and high-voltage transmission lines. None of them are pretty, and all have environmental drawbacks. But if you want to drive your cars, heat your homes and watch TV, you will have to choose among these unpalatable options. Practically speaking, there is no energy equivalent of wireless.
Indeed, some of the most pitched energy battles being fought today involve not oil pipelines but “next generation” energy transport: the expansion of pipe networks for natural gas and the high-voltage transmission lines that connect large-scale wind and solar farms to population centers. And these systems are expanding rapidly as the United States shifts away from traditional fossil fuels.”
What say you to this, great green good men (and women)?
Ian. Free country and all that.
I would point out that spending money on proven losers–Solyndra, wind power, solar–is an opportunity cost. Outside of enriching connected cronies, there is only loss. The money spent there is not available to work on other things. Thorium nuclear, for example. And we’re moving slowly in on controlled fusion. Best to spend money on issues that promise results, or at least give us a good shot, rather than those which don’t.
We may not have the answer to pollution, but we shouldn’t start burning tires in our fireplace instead of using geothermal when available. There are always improvements to be made. If we abandon solar power now then there is less of a chance that money will be available for research progress. Solar power may not be perfect yet but it’s much better than it was when it first showed up in calculators. This post, as well as the electric car post, is not beneficial. All it does it discourage people who believe in a better future with more efficient possibilities.… Read more »
james. Iceland’s good luck is not entirely without a couple of gotchas. Geothermal means high likelihood of volcanic eruptions. Hydro means lots of rain, which restricts what you can grow. Hydro also means lots of terrain relief and you can’t farm scenery. See Iowa vs, West Virginia, for example. Very little of North America or Europe or Africa have access to geothermal. Ditto most of South America. Iceland is also quite small which means energy doesn’t have to go far from its origin to its users. I live in the Middle West, sedimentary clear down to magma, which is a… Read more »
cheap geothermal energy to heat our homes, and create electricity with.
yeah iceland has alot of volcanoes, but the idea still holds.
Five major geothermal power plants exist in Iceland, which produce approximately 26.2% (2010)[1] of the nation’s energy. In addition, geothermal heating meets the heating and hot water requirements of approximately 87% of all buildings in Iceland. Apart from geothermal energy, 73.8% of the nation’s electricity was generated by hydro power, and 0.1% from fossil fuels.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_Iceland
Germany is giving up on solar. For some reason, folks in northern Europe, land of long winter nights and short, cloudy winter days, figured they could heat themselves with solar. Go figure. Britain recently has been asked to pony up billions for gas generating plants to take up the slack when the wind is down. Gas generating plants spin up quickly from idle. Problem is, clean as they are at speed, they’re dirty at idle, which they’ll have to be 24-7 in case the wind drops. The wind farmers get a subsidy when they are generating, and a subsidy when… Read more »
First off, the Earth doesn’t need us to save it, it needs us to stop killing it.
Second, recent breakthroughs in solar technology are beginning what should be a major drop in price. Soon, most houses will be able to be fitted with solar panels, painted with solar paint, etc., Decentralized energy will be less profitable to corporations, but much less expensive, to individuals, in terms of infrastructure, and to our environment.
Unexpergated nonsense, Mr. Matlack. A good man realizes that the wishful thinking, pipedreams, pseudo-science, false-religion and even lies of the mankind-hating greens and the environmentalists have sickened, impoverished and killed more people from preventable malaria alone than even the automobile ever could.
A good man doesn’t fall for that hype, but works to see that his children are not left berift of the benefits of civilization.
Speaking of pseudo-science and lies: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n1_v55/ai_16399963/pg_2/