Comments on: Energy Myths versus Reality

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:52:30 +0000

Hmmmm. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, the fly in the ointment is those pesky conversion processes involved with enabling precision machine performance trying to keep the Second Law of Thermodynamics at bay.

In the electricity and transportation sectors, we have gotten a lot more efficient–and economic productivity seems to be both cause and result of that efficiency.

Using more machines that require less precision is exactly what our modernity has evolved to replace, resulting in vast improvement in the human condition. Would that the pharaohs have had efficient steam power….

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:26:58 +0000

Yes, Jevons paradox is true, but only within the context of a system that values economic growth as a primarly goal. It is not a physical law. If the primary goal was a reduction in energy use and an increase in sustainability, than efficiency would be very helpful.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2010/02/energy-efficiency.html

By: Jon Boone

Jon Boone — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:30:29 +0000

You are wrong, Coleman. The more energy sources, depending upon what they are, doesn’t equate to “merrier.” Wind technology is dysfunctional since it must make necessary compensatory systems less efficient, increasing both the financial cost and the thermal activity all around, subverting any ability to offset greenhouse gas emissions, which is its very reason for being. Meanwhile, its utter unreliability and occasionally extreme volatility puts the security of electricity supply at great risk. Although it’s application provides makework for engineers, it’s criminal for consumers.

Comparing the cost of wind with coal, nuclear, or natural gas is akin to comparing the cost of an automobile that doesn’t work when you want it to work with the cost of an automobile that performs precisely as required whenever desired. We have lemon laws protecting people who purchase cars in the expectation they are buying highly reliable machines from dealers who would sell them junk. We should demand similar laws for our electricity supply.

Wise energy policy would enhance, even extend, the technology that preserves the energy requirements of modernity. Technologies like volatile wind are not cutting edge and progressive; they’re retrograde and uncivil.

By: Coleman Hasie

Coleman Hasie — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 07:34:12 +0000

It appears to me that this issue requires further dissection. I’m quite willing to be wrong about this, but comparing oil imports to the cost of Wind turbine components that are manufactured in China, just doesn’t seem to jive. Oil is a finite energy source and the world cannot supply the demand, although it could cover that bet only 20 yrs ago or so. A wind turbine, well, parts is parts, followed by (and only if the geography fits the criteria), an unlimited and ever-present (part of the criteria) source of energy, ie. the wind. The electricity is used “on-the-fly” which reduces the demand on energy-generating plants powered by coal.
Really, the only green concerns for or against matter only if they affect the Fed’s decision to offer incentives. Wind turbines will go up if there is money in it and right now the greener the source the sourcer the green. However, energy demand will increase as populations increase and evolve. The more energy sources the merrier, right? I could be wrong.
What I believe ultimately matters to you and me is that we have a source of power should another one fail, and until we start trading in barrels of electricity all we are going to do is use what we generate stateside ( but not in Canada because that isn’t the USA) and become that much more self sufficient. Any reduction of dependancy is a positive.
Now, if the greenback is worthless…
I suggest removing the word “green” from any discussion that isn’t about color, although you could use it to describe myself about this subject and be quite accurate. I’d drive a 69 GTO everyday if I could.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:22:40 +0000

http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UN-reform-Socialist%20International-%20Position%20Paper_%20240105.doc

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:19:04 +0000

James Lovelock: “Perhaps one day the children we shall share with Gaia will peacefully co-operate with the great mammals of the ocean and use whale power to travel faster and faster in the mind, as horse power once carried us over the ground.”
Gaia A new look at life on Earth, by James Lovelock (1979) http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/gaia.htm

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:18:48 +0000

Richard Leakey: If you Google the exact phrase: “Professor Richard Leakey” you will find him in this book: Marxism and Environmental Crises by David Layfield.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:17:09 +0000

My first post has gone missing. I explained that I was given a list of scientists who are the main resources for man-made global warming believers. I searched these names and found a pattern.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:15:37 +0000

My point: Marxism is the primary resource for environmentalists these days.

We ARE what we read.

Readers of history books understand these ideas: pietas, fides, gravitas, dignitas, constantia. (These virtues were interwoven into the Roman education system.) Some people still read these ideas: Forgotten Gems http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=60&Itemid=262

Readers who love science fiction understand utopian ideas. (These are the ideas interwoven into our current culture.)

See “Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction” by Mark Bould
Product Description: Science fiction and socialism have always had a close relationship.

By: Kate

Kate — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:11:38 +0000

Lonnie Thompson and Richard Alley: are mentioned in ONE SENTENCE with James Hansen. (Note also the best hockey stick graph you are ever likely to see.)
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/12/world-doesnt-end-in-2100.html