Great "green" article debunked.

[William J. Decker]

As a former Physicist, I found this article very telling. Next time you run into a "green energy expert" ask him what his grade was in college for calculus. Many tell me that they never took calculus. I the respond to them, "Then you are wholey unqualified to even have an opinion about anything scientific."

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog...with-math.html

Hope this helps;

[Rob London]

I don't want to get into an endless debate about solar vs. fossil fuels, but this article in particular stinks:

• "Green supporters" have a problem with basic math? Oh really, like an entire movement can be boiled down to flawed arithmetic. Comon, even if you're staunchly anti-solar you have to admit that the debate is complex and runs deeper than basic math. Oh, and by the way, there's nothing in here that has anything to do with calculus.
• The comparison with nuclear is unclear. Why does it matter that a nuclear power plant would produce more energy? Nothing is said about the cost of building a nuclear plant vs. solar. Nothing is said about the controversy surrounding spent nuclear fuels. And nothing is said implying that the government is footing the bill for the solar plants, which are merely being allowed to be built on public lands.

[William J. Decker]

See Below:

Originally Posted by rlondon

I don't want to get into an endless debate about solar vs. fossil fuels, but this article in particular stinks:

• "Green supporters" have a problem with basic math?
• Yes. They believe that all or most of the U.S. electrical needs can be met with wind and solar. Basic science, for which one needs to use math, including calculus, says it cannot happen.
• Oh really, like an entire movement can be boiled down to flawed arithmetic. Comon, even if you're staunchly anti-solar you have to admit that the debate is complex and runs deeper than basic math. Oh, and by the way, there's nothing in here that has anything to do with calculus.
• My point was, and I speak with some authority as a former physicist who has worked with neclear generation at Dresden, that pie-in-the-sky, politically correct desires are not born out when one actually looks at the math.
• The comparison with nuclear is unclear. Why does it matter that a nuclear power plant would produce more energy? Nothing is said about the cost of building a nuclear plant vs. solar. Nothing is said about the controversy surrounding spent nuclear fuels.
• There is no "scientific" controversy around nuke plants of the disposal of the waste produced by them. There is, however, a political controversy based upon the publics lack of knowlege of matters scientific and political "choad wars" with Nevada. The repository has been in existence for years, but not allowed to be used, based solely on political, rather than factual or scientific reasons.
• And nothing is said implying that the government is footing the bill for the solar plants, which are merely being allowed to be built on public lands.

Government can either support or hinder nuclear plant building. Now they are hindering it, based upon political considerations. Obama's stated goal was to raise the cost of electricity so as to make other sources appear more desirable. See Solyndra and the other companies that are crony capitalism. Government regs for new plants are simply silly. Also see the environmental political play that is going on with regards to Keysone. Also, all the BS going out about the dangers of fracking.

Hope this helps;

[Jason Kaylor]

Yes. They believe that all or most of the U.S. electrical needs can be met with wind and solar. Basic science, for which one needs to use math, including calculus, says it cannot happen.

Will, even more "basic" science will tell you these are not finite resources. My 3rd grader understands this already. So to say that fossil fuels can meet US electrical needs is also a fallacy. The correct statement would be that fossil fuels can "currently meet US electrical needs".

Technically solar, wind and geothermal are not finite either, but at that point I think the earth will have bigger problems.

JJ

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Great discusion gets some of us looking at very important things .
Thanks ... Roy

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

Yes. They believe that all or most of the U.S. electrical needs can be met with wind and solar. Basic science, for which one needs to use math, including calculus, says it cannot happen.

Will, even more "basic" science will tell you these are not finite resources. My 3rd grader understands this already. So to say that fossil fuels can meet US electrical needs is also a fallacy. The correct statement would be that fossil fuels can "currently meet US electrical needs".

Technically solar, wind and geothermal are not finite either, but at that point I think the earth will have bigger problems.

JJ

North America’s Energy Future Is Bright

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

North America’s Energy Future Is Bright

ummm not really sure what that link to a Wordpress (blog - opinion) is about. It shows a chart to 2015. There is more than 3 years left, but not much more than 100 years according to the USGS.

Here is most of the data for almost all fossil fuel reserves:

http://energy.usgs.gov/

JJ

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by rlondon

I don't want to get into an endless debate about solar vs. fossil fuels, but this article in particular stinks:

• "Green supporters" have a problem with basic math? Oh really, like an entire movement can be boiled down to flawed arithmetic. Comon, even if you're staunchly anti-solar you have to admit that the debate is complex and runs deeper than basic math. Oh, and by the way, there's nothing in here that has anything to do with calculus.
• The comparison with nuclear is unclear. Why does it matter that a nuclear power plant would produce more energy? Nothing is said about the cost of building a nuclear plant vs. solar. Nothing is said about the controversy surrounding spent nuclear fuels. And nothing is said implying that the government is footing the bill for the solar plants, which are merely being allowed to be built on public lands.

I agree.

Right now, money (which equates to political clout) favors oil companies and shareholders of traditional energy providers but that is changing, too.

It will be a slow process, but a sure one, as we move in the direction of clean and efficient means of producing and using energy.

Progress always comes with the aggravation of dragging along the naysayers to the next level. It's to be expected.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

ummm not really sure what that link to a Wordpress (blog - opinion) is about. It shows a chart to 2015. There is more than 3 years left, but not much more than 100 years according to the USGS.

Here is most of the data for almost all fossil fuel reserves:

http://energy.usgs.gov/

JJ

We have vast energy reserves in this country in coal, gas and oil. What we lack is the willingness to get them out of the ground.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

We have vast energy reserves in this country in coal, gas and oil. What we lack is the willingness to get them out of the ground.

Might want to actually check that link out. I am going to trust the USGS over just about anyone's opinion.

I rented a room and house sat for one of the professors at NAU for geology during my college years. He had been awarded multiple grants from the USGS to do work for oil reserve studies and develop new affordable techniques in horizontal drilling (common place now a days). His findings even back then were approx 150 years left of oil. Keep in mind this is well before the over development of 75% of the worlds population in China and India.....not to mention places like Brazil (Petrovas).

Even BP agrees that renewable will see the largest percentage gain in energy sources, with natural gas being 2nd in gains. They expect a substantial decline in oil. Keep in mind this study is based on current prices. Have you seen the surge in nat gas prices lately?

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarti...tentId=7068677

JJ

[Michael Larson]

You are avoiding the obvious Jason.

We have vast reserves of coal and gas to meet our energy needs for centuries and oil too.

This is about green politics and nothing more.

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

We have vast energy reserves in this country in coal, gas and oil. What we lack is the willingness to get them out of the ground.

Originally Posted by mlarson

You are avoiding the obvious Jason.

We have vast reserves of coal and gas to meet our energy needs for centuries and oil too.

This is about green politics and nothing more.

Where do you people come up with this stuff? We are producing more oil now than we have since the late 90's.

I suppose political banter, the media and other misc new sources are actually "believable". Where are you getting your "centuries of reserves" data from? The USGS data says otherwise. I am probably going to believe a bunch of PHDs over Wordpress blogs.

Originally Posted by mlarson

North America’s Energy Future Is Bright

Here is "real" data on oil production.

Keep in mind 2011 numbers are only through October.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/Lea...s=mcrfpus1&f=a

I guess all the political hype that Obama hates oil is polluting the truth.



JJ

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

Where do you people come up with this stuff? We are producing more oil now than we have since the late 90's.

Yes, I know Obama told you that in his SOTU commercial.

But did you know that we are producing 40% less on federal lands? Why?

The fact is that privately held land owners and drillers have stepped up to get the oil It is the and green politics that is constraining supply.

And you still have not addressed our abundant coal and gas supplies.

How "green" are you?

[Jason Kaylor]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Yes, I know Obama told you that in his SOTU commercial.

But did you know that we are producing 40% less on federal lands? Why?

The fact is that privately held land owners and drillers have stepped up to get the oil It is the and green politics that is constraining supply.

And you still have not addressed our abundant coal and gas supplies.

How "green" are you?

Actually, you have ducked my original question and asked a new one that you are now accusing me of ducking.

Where is your data source for your repeated claim of "abundant coal and gas supplies" and "centuries of X energy source".

To recap I used the USGS site and you used some Wordpress site.

Originally Posted by mlarson

Yes, I know Obama told you that in his SOTU commercial.

I showed my source in the previous post. I do not watch TV as I do not have time for it. I use to love watching football, I don't even have time for that anymore.

Originally Posted by mlarson

But did you know that we are producing 40% less on federal lands? Why?

The fact is that privately held land owners and drillers have stepped up to get the oil It is the and green politics that is constraining supply.

HUH? I thought you wanted government out of it...............now you don't? Let me know when you pick a side so we can get back to our debate.

JJ

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jkaylor

Actually, you have ducked my original question and asked a new one that you are now accusing me of ducking.

Where is your data source for your repeated claim of "abundant coal and gas supplies" and "centuries of X energy source".

To recap I used the USGS site and you used some Wordpress site.



I showed my source in the previous post. I do not watch TV as I do not have time for it. I use to love watching football, I don't even have time for that anymore.



HUH? I thought you wanted government out of it...............now you don't? Let me know when you pick a side so we can get back to our debate.

JJ

The government owns huge tracks of oil producing lands that is not being leased. Get it?

COAL from the DOE

Coal is available as there is enough to last over 250 years.

Natural Gas