US green economy’s growth dwarfs the fossil fuel industry’s

Renewables, environmental, and efficiency industries grew 3x faster than fossil fuels.

Read the whole story

 

[rmgoat]

The fact remains, it takes a LOT more man hours for the green energy, correct? Or perhaps you dispute that fact? Please show where it takes less man hours (your original show me the numbers knee jerk reaction).

Are you basing your man hours estimate solely upon how often the machinery has to be maintained and replaced?

I'll quote from the article we are discussing:
"Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)—that is, miners, electricity grid workers, infrastructure manufacturers, and construction workers."

So, 11% of power generation takes 10X more people than 80% of power generation. You say infrastructure is why, but ALL forms of power generation require infrastructure.

Incorrect. 11% of energy CONSUMED is green. Percentage GENERATED is 17%. Not sure why the disparity exists but you are quoting the wrong number.

OK, wow that makes a difference. 17% of energy generated takes 10X the number of man hours that 80% does, better now? You asked for facts about how it takes 10X the man hours for green energy, they are in the article, now we see it has changed to semantics. (generated vs consumed)

We could also subtract the energy generated by hydro power and say that 14% of energy CONSUMED requires 10X the manpower of 80%.

1. Nobody is arguing we shouldn't continue with generating renewable energy.
2. You said "show me where it says it takes 10X the manpower", I did. Now it's "consumed vs generated", big whoop.

I do say that we should show some brains and invest in energy shifting or storage technology to enable us to make renewable energy more effective. Currently there is a plateau where more UNRELIABLE sources of energy (primarily green) are simply throwing money away. Nobody wants to be told that on the coldest day of the year you can't heat your home because it is cloudy. Are we at that point in the USA? No, but we're not that far off. If you really want green energy, invest in nuclear (China is). There are no easy solutions, and the "green new deal" is really not well thought out.

Lucky for you the US is a huge country spanning a continent - the sun is always shining somewhere in the US, and the wind is always blowing. In the UK last quarter green energy outpaced fossil fuel, and guess what - no power cuts. It’s perfectly doable.

Oh, and nuclear energy is great, efficient and clean - right up until you have to dispose of the nuclear waste. Then it becomes far more expensive and far more damaging to the globe than anything else. To say nothing of accidents, even just natural disasters like at Fukushima. Nuclear is not sustainable when you have to factor those things into the equation.

"the sun is always shining somewhere in the US"

Well no, it's not like the former 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire'. The US covers only four time zones (not counting Hawaii). Or one sixth of a day. So for some part of the day the entire US is in darkness. Yeah I know this is pedantic but it was so obviously wrong

And no I don't let you count the various islands as they are irrelevant to this as is the days in Alaska that have 24 hour daylight because they also have days of 24 hour darkness.

 

[DC]

Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)

And I bet there's 10x the owners in the companies too, distributing the wealth a bit more. Which is why they're so against it.

I’m in favor of clean energy, but all this language is misleading.

The correct way to view it that it costs nearly ten times as much manpower to generate our clean energy as our traditional energy requires.

This language of referring to the $1.3 trillion as a benefit and not a cost is straight out of pork barrel politics. “My projects (diversions of resources) generated thousands of jobs (unnecessary politically appointed work)”

We need clean energy, but let’s not fool ourselves about the costs by using misleading language. The costs are worth because they slow glisbal warming and provide a clean environment.

It doesn't matter what the manpower cost of renewables is. In the end, power is sold to the grid at a negotiated rate. The manpower cost is built into that market. Traditional fossil fuel plants are more capital expensive so power costs must include amortization. That's built into the market too. The only thing that isn't built into the market are the externalized costs of environmental impacts. If they were properly factored into the energy market, traditional fossil fuel power would be very expensive indeed.

It has some impact on the market prices, but at macro economy level it's a red herring because of the simple fact that the money gone to man-hours is not "evaporated". This money is directly pumped back into the economy.

We all need jobs and better this than being a coal miner.

 

[rmgoat]

Disenfranchised steel or coal worker doesn't want to learn to code. That's for them odd folks in California. He wants to do what he used to do and feel proud about continuing to do so.

That's not entirely fair. That disenfranchised steel or coal worker might be smart enough to know that a 40yo with a two year 'certificate' behind them is not going to land a job in Software Engineering, and even if it could, they'd likely need to uproot their entire family, and get crushed on property value differentials.

That is a good way to look at it.

Here Chrysler is closing 3rd shift. That’s 1500 jobs.
Even if all of those people have the aptitude for computer careers there are 700 IT jobs in the entire county… At any given time are a few dozen positions advertised (that’s all IT not just developers).

A 50 year old factory worker with a new degree in Computer Science is going to be looked over. Ageism is rampant in the industry.
There are plenty of people with experience they would be competing with too.

Citation – I am an old software developer.

But there is also plenty of job retraining programs for things like learning to become an auto mechanic (who are always in demand, just might still need to move out of your town of 3000 people to a city or near a city to get a job). Plumbing and electrical unions will often pay for training to become certified and happy to find you a job as an apprentice while you train. Probably does mean moving to where more jobs are.

Those are just a couple of examples. There are many, many retraining programs offered in and around Appalachia.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trum ... SKBN1D14G0

https://wfpl.org/rethinking-retraining- ... l-country/

As that WFPL article mentions someone retraining as a truck driver. Those are always in demand. Might or might not mean moving. Pay isn't that bad, though not as good as a coal miner in general.

But that isn't a route many would be willing to go with.

"As that WFPL article mentions someone retraining as a truck driver. Those are always in demand."

And good ones are not easy to find, when guys like my brother, and a friend of ours retire they will be hard to replace. Yeah I know it sounds like 'Young people these days' old fogey talk but it's true in this case. A lot of young guys try it but can't stand the hours, being away from family, a lot of hard labor, on top of the new micro management the old guys didn't have to deal with.

Wait till the self driving electric truck kills all the short to medium distance haul jobs.

 

[Deleted member 553147]

I'll quote from the article we are discussing:
"Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)—that is, miners, electricity grid workers, infrastructure manufacturers, and construction workers."

So, 11% of power generation takes 10X more people than 80% of power generation. You say infrastructure is why, but ALL forms of power generation require infrastructure.
Lucky for you the US is a huge country spanning a continent - the sun is always shining somewhere in the US, and the wind is always blowing. In the UK last quarter green energy outpaced fossil fuel, and guess what - no power cuts. It’s perfectly doable.

Oh, and nuclear energy is great, efficient and clean - right up until you have to dispose of the nuclear waste. Then it becomes far more expensive and far more damaging to the globe than anything else. To say nothing of accidents, even just natural disasters like at Fukushima. Nuclear is not sustainable when you have to factor those things into the equation.

"the sun is always shining somewhere in the US"

Well no, it's not like the former 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire'. The US covers only four time zones (not counting Hawaii). Or one sixth of a day. So for some part of the day the entire US is in darkness. Yeah I know this is pedantic but it was so obviously wrong

And no I don't let you count the various islands as they are irrelevant to this as is the days in Alaska that have 24 hour daylight because they also have days of 24 hour darkness.[/quote][/quote]
The funny thing here is that other countries have night time as well, yet that is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle to renewable energy supply. It’s a question of infrastructure. Set up some windmill parks at sea and in some of your vast, empty stretches of land and you are good to go. What exactly is the problem?

 

[olafmarzocchi]

I fail to see how employing many people would be a positive result.

Energy is a primary need of a society, it belongs to the primary sector just like agriculture.

Would you say "well done! We employ a huge number of people in agriculture!! We're the best"?

Obviously not: every person employed in the first sector is one too much, since it is taken from the secondary and especially third/fourth sectors (higher services, education, arts, research, ...).

Employing many people in the green sector directly or indirectly (energy production and workers producing or installing the required components) is a BIG downside of renewables.

 

[Sandwichman]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

 

[theSeb]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

Amazing.

 

[Wickwick]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

Actually, the town I live in doesn't even have 100,000 people in it. And it is exactly people trying to protect their own well being that I was addressing. Of course, lack of empathy for "those that are not like their own" is exactly what Trump parlayed into his current office. Let me just suggest such lack is not unique to big cities or their 'burbs.

Edit: I had to look it up. My town is certainly under 100k - it's barely 20k people!

 

[Oldmanalex]

I fail to see how employing many people would be a positive result.

Energy is a primary need of a society, it belongs to the primary sector just like agriculture.

Would you say "well done! We employ a huge number of people in agriculture!! We're the best"?

Obviously not: every person employed in the first sector is one too much, since it is taken from the secondary and especially third/fourth sectors (higher services, education, arts, research, ...).

Employing many people in the green sector directly or indirectly (energy production and workers producing or installing the required components) is a BIG downside of renewables.

As we have things called machines which now do a lot of our labor, our real problem there is how to not have a gigantic underclass with nothing to do. This tends to lead to social unrest and dictatorship, which in turn has negative effects on the secondary, tertiary and quaternary sectors, whatever they are. Therefore, having a great deal of meaningful employment in an industry which may be the only way of saving our asses long term is a definite social plus, even if the economics would be much more efficient in a system which will end up with half of us in a, rather hotter than traditional, gulag. It is not rocket science.

 

[DarthSlack]

I fail to see how employing many people would be a positive result.

Energy is a primary need of a society, it belongs to the primary sector just like agriculture.

Would you say "well done! We employ a huge number of people in agriculture!! We're the best"?

Obviously not: every person employed in the first sector is one too much, since it is taken from the secondary and especially third/fourth sectors (higher services, education, arts, research, ...).

Employing many people in the green sector directly or indirectly (energy production and workers producing or installing the required components) is a BIG downside of renewables.

It's almost like you don't understand how economies work. At all. Even a little bit.

Let me break it down Barney-style for you: Things change. Because things change, old jobs are sometimes rendered useless and go away and new jobs that didn't exist before are created.

That's how economies work, and have worked for centuries. Is that hard on some workers? Yeah, it is. However if the Republican side of the spectrum would pull it's collective head out of its ass and get behind retraining programs, the people being displaced would at least have a shot of being trained for the new jobs that are arriving. But apparently that's socialism or something.

 

[DarthSlack]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

Well let this suburban dwelling elitist say this: Fuck. You.

I actually voted for the person who would have given the disenfranchised white guys a helping hand. Unfortunately the disenfranchised white guys all voted for Trump.

So who's lacking empathy again?

 

[wagnerrp]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

Well let this suburban dwelling elitist say this: Fuck. You.

I actually voted for the person who would have given the disenfranchised white guys a helping hand. Unfortunately the disenfranchised white guys all voted for Trump.

So who's lacking empathy again?

According to the TV, it's the people going door to door trying to get a petition signed to sell the good American coal electrical grid to the Chinese... or something.... Had a hard time trying to figure out what they were even trying to argue...

 

[Uiop999]

Here are more endorsers: https:// clintel.nl/blah/blah/blah

No, those are more cherry-picking deniers. https://sciencefeedback.co/ and https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/ ... e-science/

 

[S_T_R]

Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)

And I bet there's 10x the owners in the companies too, distributing the wealth a bit more. Which is why they're so against it.

Publicly traded companies have lots of owners. Almost all traditional energy generating companies are publicly traded.

Technically true. There is the possibility that older, established companies have a relatively small number of very wealthy owners who control a vast majority of the shares, and possibly newer, smaller companies might have a lot more people controlling a lot less percentage of shares each. Of course, no guarantee that's the case either. I don't have data handy.

Utilities tend to have a lot of institutional shareholders. That is, mutual funds, pension funds, and index funds. Why? Because they're viewed almost like bonds: recession resistant and delivering regular income (via dividend payments). Such owners, if they take any actual interest in governance at all, are generally not activist.

 

[ScienceAndReason]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down. This on top of the massive amounts of tax money wind and solar companies get which artificially reduces the price of them at first, but they end up resorting to using fossil fuel plants to make up for lack of wind and sunlight.

This is really about the price of electricity and there is no substitute. Fossil fuels come out on top every time (link to study below). Unless you all want to pay three or four times as much on your electric bills. Shall we go into all of the nuclear plants being shut down resulting from wind and solar plants being built only to later have them blocked by environmentalist lawsuits?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ectricity/

 

[IntellectualThug]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down. This on top of the massive amounts of tax money wind and solar companies get which artificially reduces the price of them at first, but they end up resorting to using fossil fuel plants to make up for lack of wind and sunlight.

This is really about the price of electricity and there is no substitute. Fossil fuels come out on top every time (link to study below). Unless you all want to pay three or four times as much on your electric bills. Shall we go into all of the nuclear plants being shut down resulting from wind and solar plants being built only to later have them blocked by environmentalist lawsuits?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ectricity/

Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points.

 

[Deleted member 388703]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down. This on top of the massive amounts of tax money wind and solar companies get which artificially reduces the price of them at first, but they end up resorting to using fossil fuel plants to make up for lack of wind and sunlight.

This is really about the price of electricity and there is no substitute. Fossil fuels come out on top every time (link to study below). Unless you all want to pay three or four times as much on your electric bills. Shall we go into all of the nuclear plants being shut down resulting from wind and solar plants being built only to later have them blocked by environmentalist lawsuits?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ectricity/

Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points.

What is it with dipshills and picking ironic doublespeak usernames?

 

[ScienceAndReason]

Intellectual Thug wrote:

"Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points."

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate. I never cease to be amazed when people seek to kick out others who do not have the same conclusions about issues (like climate change) and can't see boondoggles as plain as the nose on their faces.

 

[co-lee]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down. This on top of the massive amounts of tax money wind and solar companies get which artificially reduces the price of them at first, but they end up resorting to using fossil fuel plants to make up for lack of wind and sunlight.

This is really about the price of electricity and there is no substitute. Fossil fuels come out on top every time (link to study below). Unless you all want to pay three or four times as much on your electric bills. Shall we go into all of the nuclear plants being shut down resulting from wind and solar plants being built only to later have them blocked by environmentalist lawsuits?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ectricity/

Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points.

What is it with dipshills and picking ironic doublespeak usernames?

at least they're a subscriber. If they're going to waste our time, they should pay for it ...

 

[Deleted member 388703]

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate. I never cease to be amazed when people seek to kick out others who do not have the same conclusions about issues (like climate change) and can't see boondoggles as plain as the nose on their faces.

[Asserts facts not in evidence]

 

[IntellectualThug]

Intellectual Thug wrote:

"Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points."

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate.

Prove it.

 

[IntellectualThug]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down. This on top of the massive amounts of tax money wind and solar companies get which artificially reduces the price of them at first, but they end up resorting to using fossil fuel plants to make up for lack of wind and sunlight.

This is really about the price of electricity and there is no substitute. Fossil fuels come out on top every time (link to study below). Unless you all want to pay three or four times as much on your electric bills. Shall we go into all of the nuclear plants being shut down resulting from wind and solar plants being built only to later have them blocked by environmentalist lawsuits?

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch. ... ectricity/

Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points.

What is it with dipshills and picking ironic doublespeak usernames?

Because doublespeak works on the crowd they're looking to mislead. It's not a crowd you'll find many of on Ars, but the tactics persist even when their suitability is pitifully low.

 

[mikus42]

China, for example, has emerged as a global climate leader in the wake of Trump’s determination to pull out of the Paris Agreement.

Some leader! China's actions speak louder than words. They are literally blowing smoke! The US has actually reduced carbon emissions. By the way, critizing China's record is not an endorsement of the US position.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/19/global-man-made-co2-emissions-1965-2018-bp-data/

Or maybe they are heavily burning coal etc WHILE investing heavily in the green tech that will take over? China, while a horrible regime, plan and act long term. The US plan and act with a horizon of 2-4 years. I wonder who’ll come out best 10 years from now?

Actions speak louder than words. We shall see if China actually follows through.

 

[cbreak]

Fun fact: The number of coal miners in the US is miniscule. 50,000.

They're pretty densely packed where they are though. Almost made the mistake of buying a house in a town with a coal economy. Would have been very very bad, as that house is now worth about 1/5th what they were asking 3 years ago.

As understandable as the move away from coal is, it's kinda sad to see an entire town shuttered basically overnight.

In germany, they disassemble and destroy whole towns because of coal

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/63591126 ... 1333560774

 

[Litazia]

Intellectual Thug wrote:

"Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points."

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate. I never cease to be amazed when people seek to kick out others who do not have the same conclusions about issues (like climate change) and can't see boondoggles as plain as the nose on their faces.

Oh yeah?

Wikipedia page for IER[/url]":13w9j605]The IER is the successor organization to the Institute for Humane Studies of Texas, an advocacy group established in 1984 by billionaire businessman and political donor Charles Koch.

…

IER has received funding from the Brown Foundation (started by founders of a construction and energy company), the Searle Freedom Trust and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. They have also previously received funding from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, and Peabody Energy.

So your source is basically a shill for the fossil fuels industry. Pardon me if people who have a vested interest in the status quo say that the status quo is good.

 

[IntellectualThug]

Fun fact: The number of coal miners in the US is miniscule. 50,000.

They're pretty densely packed where they are though. Almost made the mistake of buying a house in a town with a coal economy. Would have been very very bad, as that house is now worth about 1/5th what they were asking 3 years ago.

As understandable as the move away from coal is, it's kinda sad to see an entire town shuttered basically overnight.

In germany, they disassemble and destroy whole towns because of coal

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/06/63591126 ... 1333560774

Oh we do that here in America, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia_mine_fire

Even have songs about it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twQB29LNvCk

Lest you believe that song is a fictionalized account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise,_Kentucky

To date, no one's torn down an entire town due to putting up a wind farm, hydro plant, or solar array. Make no mistake, anyone reading this casually: coal is a poisonous monster that's been eating the towns it sustains from Black Mesa to Muehlenberg County to Cork, Ireland to Ukraine for as long as it's been used. We're literally digging up a vitrified composite of death from the depths of the Earth. It's like some kind of toxic Balrog that we run our cities on.

 

[Clazman]

Who would have ever guessed that a smaller sector of the energy market expanding, would have better growth than an already established sector of the energy market.

 

[Wickwick]

Who would have ever guessed that a smaller sector of the energy market expanding, would have better growth than an already established sector of the energy market.

But it's not just higher in terms of percentage. It's higher in terms of absolute numbers.

 

[numerobis]

Who would have ever guessed that a smaller sector of the energy market expanding, would have better growth than an already established sector of the energy market.

“A smaller sector” and “employs a lot more people” are a bit at odds with each other, don’t you think?

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Employing many people in the green sector directly or indirectly (energy production and workers producing or installing the required components) is a BIG downside of renewables.

...says the oligarch.

Renewables are cheaper than coal power. Full stop. They also produce more jobs. Full stop. They also are far safer for humans.

Win-win.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

They did a really shit job of it by electing folks to hurt the general populace (including themselves) in order to enrich the oligarchs.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

With so-called renewables, the cost of energy goes way up while people's standard of living goes down.

I guess you just have a hard time reading.

Here's what happens with more renewables in proper locations:

Energy costs go down

Standard of living goes up because more jobs are created, and we get far fewer health problems than coal power.

 

[Tom the Melaniephile]

Intellectual Thug wrote:

"Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points."

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate.

Prove it.

He can't because his source is literally funded by the fossil fuel industry, and he's spouting their talking points, including the nuclear power distraction.

 

[rmgoat]

I'll quote from the article we are discussing:
"Our analysis also suggests that in the US, nearly ten times more people were employed in the green economy and its supply chains (9.5 million) than employed directly in the fossil fuel industry (roughly 1 million)—that is, miners, electricity grid workers, infrastructure manufacturers, and construction workers."

So, 11% of power generation takes 10X more people than 80% of power generation. You say infrastructure is why, but ALL forms of power generation require infrastructure.
Lucky for you the US is a huge country spanning a continent - the sun is always shining somewhere in the US, and the wind is always blowing. In the UK last quarter green energy outpaced fossil fuel, and guess what - no power cuts. It’s perfectly doable.

Oh, and nuclear energy is great, efficient and clean - right up until you have to dispose of the nuclear waste. Then it becomes far more expensive and far more damaging to the globe than anything else. To say nothing of accidents, even just natural disasters like at Fukushima. Nuclear is not sustainable when you have to factor those things into the equation.

"the sun is always shining somewhere in the US"

Well no, it's not like the former 'The Sun never sets on the British Empire'. The US covers only four time zones (not counting Hawaii). Or one sixth of a day. So for some part of the day the entire US is in darkness. Yeah I know this is pedantic but it was so obviously wrong

And no I don't let you count the various islands as they are irrelevant to this as is the days in Alaska that have 24 hour daylight because they also have days of 24 hour darkness.

[/quote]
The funny thing here is that other countries have night time as well, yet that is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle to renewable energy supply. It’s a question of infrastructure. Set up some windmill parks at sea and in some of your vast, empty stretches of land and you are good to go. What exactly is the problem?[/quote]

If you are only speaking of wind power, which is all you mention, why the irrelevant "the sun is always shining somewhere in the US" which would only concern SOLAR power not wind. You didn't even mention solar so why did you include the obviously incorrect statement? I'm sure everyone on this thread already knows about offshore wind farms, since they are important to the UK situation you mentioned.

 

[rmgoat]

Intellectual Thug wrote:

"Can we just ban this obvious troll? He's linking to a climate denial website from an org founded by Charles Koch to argue his bullshit talking points."

The IER has been cited by The New York Times and their research is meticulous and accurate. I never cease to be amazed when people seek to kick out others who do not have the same conclusions about issues (like climate change) and can't see boondoggles as plain as the nose on their faces.

Oh yeah?

Wikipedia page for IER[/url]":3vnjjxiv]The IER is the successor organization to the Institute for Humane Studies of Texas, an advocacy group established in 1984 by billionaire businessman and political donor Charles Koch.

…

IER has received funding from the Brown Foundation (started by founders of a construction and energy company), the Searle Freedom Trust and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation. They have also previously received funding from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the Center to Protect Patient Rights, and Peabody Energy.

So your source is basically a shill for the fossil fuels industry. Pardon me if people who have a vested interest in the status quo say that the status quo is good.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” - Upton Sinclair

 

[Deleted member 553147]

The funny thing here is that other countries have night time as well, yet that is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle to renewable energy supply. It’s a question of infrastructure. Set up some windmill parks at sea and in some of your vast, empty stretches of land and you are good to go. What exactly is the problem?

If you are only speaking of wind power, which is all you mention, why the irrelevant "the sun is always shining somewhere in the US" which would only concern SOLAR power not wind. You didn't even mention solar so why did you include the obviously incorrect statement? I'm sure everyone on this thread already knows about offshore wind farms, since they are important to the UK situation you mentioned.

*sigh* Okay, my post was in reply to a comment about how there would be no heating on a cold day because it was clouded - I answered that the sun is always shining somewhere in the US. Sure, there are a few hours of nighttime, but that’s not what we were talking about and other countries seem to handle that fairly regularly occurring situation...
And renewable energy is generally understood to be a mix of different methods, wind power being the dominant one along with solar power. You know, as in - they kind of compliment each other, ensuring a steady flow of energy when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining in your particular neighbourhood.

So what is the point of your post really?

 

[rmgoat]

The funny thing here is that other countries have night time as well, yet that is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle to renewable energy supply. It’s a question of infrastructure. Set up some windmill parks at sea and in some of your vast, empty stretches of land and you are good to go. What exactly is the problem?

If you are only speaking of wind power, which is all you mention, why the irrelevant "the sun is always shining somewhere in the US" which would only concern SOLAR power not wind. You didn't even mention solar so why did you include the obviously incorrect statement? I'm sure everyone on this thread already knows about offshore wind farms, since they are important to the UK situation you mentioned.

*sigh* Okay, my post was in reply to a comment about how there would be no heating on a cold day because it was clouded - I answered that the sun is always shining somewhere in the US. Sure, there are a few hours of nighttime, but that’s not what we were talking about and other countries seem to handle that fairly regularly occurring situation...
And renewable energy is generally understood to be a mix of different methods, wind power being the dominant one along with solar power. You know, as in - they kind of compliment each other, ensuring a steady flow of energy when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining in your particular neighbourhood.

So what is the point of your post really?

The point was your statement was factually incorrect and irrelevant to the rest of your post which contained ZERO discussion of solar.

 

[Sandwichman]

Courting "green power" doesn't endear Trump to disenfranchised middle-class white men in rust belt and coal-producing states. Higher growth in renewables is of no political advantage for him.

Well that was a little racist. Just like anyone else middle America is just trying to protect their own well being. Just prove those that live in cities and the suburbs of those cities have no empathy for those that are not like their own.

They did a really shit job of it by electing folks to hurt the general populace (including themselves) in order to enrich the oligarchs.

These are the same tired tropes used over and over. People are to entrenched in their political views in spite of themselves. Just look up who represents the wealthiest districts and their constituents. So if what you say is true you also support those oligarchs.

 

[Deleted member 553147]

The funny thing here is that other countries have night time as well, yet that is not seen as an insurmountable obstacle to renewable energy supply. It’s a question of infrastructure. Set up some windmill parks at sea and in some of your vast, empty stretches of land and you are good to go. What exactly is the problem?

If you are only speaking of wind power, which is all you mention, why the irrelevant "the sun is always shining somewhere in the US" which would only concern SOLAR power not wind. You didn't even mention solar so why did you include the obviously incorrect statement? I'm sure everyone on this thread already knows about offshore wind farms, since they are important to the UK situation you mentioned.

*sigh* Okay, my post was in reply to a comment about how there would be no heating on a cold day because it was clouded - I answered that the sun is always shining somewhere in the US. Sure, there are a few hours of nighttime, but that’s not what we were talking about and other countries seem to handle that fairly regularly occurring situation...
And renewable energy is generally understood to be a mix of different methods, wind power being the dominant one along with solar power. You know, as in - they kind of compliment each other, ensuring a steady flow of energy when the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining in your particular neighbourhood.

So what is the point of your post really?

The point was your statement was factually incorrect and irrelevant to the rest of your post which contained ZERO discussion of solar.

*double sigh* Okay, this is tiresome but I too am of a pedantic nature so here we go.

Things can get lost in the mess of nested quotes here on Ars as a discussion evolves - but this is what I was responding to:

Nobody wants to be told that on the coldest day of the year you can't heat your home because it is cloudy. Are we at that point in the USA? No, but we're not that far off.

So to word my point more carefully for your benefit: if it’s cloudy over your house, chances are it’s sunny somewhere else in the US, thus solar power will still be generated. And in addition to solar panels, a fleet of windmills will also be generating power. Which means - even on a cloudy day you will still have power.

Does that make sense, or will we need further discussion of semantics?

 

[Curly4]

US green economy’s growth dwarfs the fossil fuel industry’s . . . (growth)

Your headline is very DECEPTIVE, purposeful so I think. The fossil fuel industry is a full grown industry and about the only growth it will have is as the population growths. That is the same as comparing a toddler to a full grown adult, yes the toddler's growth will dwarf the growth of the adult.

I have a question for you what would happen to the world if the fossil fuel industry would shut down over night so there would not be any more fossil fuel period? But just remember that it would not only effect the motor fuel but also the petrochemical feed-stock. This would mean for a very long time there would no longer any plastics and other products made from petroleum. Just something to think about.