Thursday, April 28, 2011

Green Energy: Another Liberal Pie in the Sky Lie

On the heels of the EPA forcing Shell Oil to abandon oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean because the drill site is 70 miles away from a village of less than 250, (1) it's time to call Obama out on his energy policies.  Obama wants us to believe that the Left's beloved alternative fuels are a real option to maintain the United States' energy needs.  He keeps talking about wind and solar power like they are developed and ready for mass use.  It's not.  He wants us to believe it's possible to have enough ethanol to replace gasoline. There isn't.

The Left wants us to believe that the problem isn't lack of supply in the oil.  Yet they cannot (or will not) explain why it is that when George W. Bush allowed oil companies to begin the process of preparing to deep water drill and to drill in Alaska, the price of a gallon of gas dropped from over $4 per gallon to under $2 per gallon!  Let's compare the oil prices under Bush before and after he allowed more drilling and after Obama cut back on drilling again (2):

That's right, sports fans. Bush left Obama with gas prices under $2 per gallon. Obama has overseen a rise to over $4 per gallon.  Obama's policies of cutting out deep water drilling thanks to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (which has been completely cleaned up in record time, by the way), the President has overseen gas prices doubling over his tenure with more price increases expected.  He can't even blame Bush for this one! His solution? "Green energy."

Green Energy SOUNDS great doesn't it? Using natural resources for cheap, renewable sources of energy.  Unfortunately, the reality slaps this idea in the face, and hard.  In an article in 2006, while the Drive-By Media was busy trying to tear down George W. Bush, USA Today published a study (3) saying ethanol won't solve any problems.  Noted in that article, ethanol "would supply only 12% of U.S. motoring fuel — even if every acre of corn were used."

12%, gang, ethanol could only supply 12% of our fuel needs, even if every acre of corn in America was used. As is, gas stations advertise that the gallon of gas you purchase may include up to 10% ethanol (so a mix of 90% gasoline and 10% ethanol).  For the record, true flex fuel vehicles use a mix that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.  Furthermore, the study states that neither ethanol nor other biofuels, such as those made from soybean, "can replace much petroleum without impacting food supplies."  So even if we could create enough fuel to meet our needs, the food markets would suffer because of it!  The same article stated, ""The agricultural effects of such a large-scale program would be devastating."

Yet Obama wants you to believe these alternative fuels can indeed help reduce your fuel costs and even replace gasoline in the short term. The truth is ethanol can't, and even if it could it would cause major chain reactions that would harm the food supply in America.  In the words of one of my favorite TV shows, that myth is busted.

How about solar power? (4 - Sources) Can we harvest enough solar rays to power our lives?  Not according to the many sources I find on the internet.  One source tells me that it would take $10-12 TRILLION to install enough solar power panels to fuel the United States. That would require the entire GDP of the United States for one year. That is every cent of every dollar made by every American.  That alone is a problem. Secondly, I've scoured the internet looking for one, ONE mind you, reputable source that would suggest that there is enough SPACE in this country to create enough solar panels to harvest enough solar power to fulfill our energy needs. Currently, solar power consists of less than 1% of our current electricity. (5)

So it would take $10-12 Trillion to create enough solar energy to fulfill our energy needs.  For the record, it takes $500 Million - $1 Billion to build a nuclear power plant. If we build 100 nuclear plants in America it wouldn't cost 1% of the cost of coming up with enough solar energy to handle our energy needs. Solar is not financially possible, while given reasonable government regulations, widely expanded nuclear power is easily available.

I can hear the Liberals now: Don't you think it's worth it to never have to pay for energy again? First of all, I live in The Real World.  We cannot come up with $10-12 Trillion, period, so there's no use pretending we can.  As my father told me (and probably your father too), money doesn't grow on trees. That money doesn't exist and you cannot cause it to exist to live up to a Liberal ideal. Secondly, considering the amount of solar panels that are required to power a standard residential home (200 sq. ft for a 2,000 sq. ft home, aka the entire roof basically) and the fact that most office buildings are largely vertical and not horizontal (in other words not having proportional roof space for the amount of square footage) it makes it less likely that there is enough room to put solar panels enough to power our nation. Not to mention the fact that at this particular latitude there is only so much sunlight available and many estimates doubt that there is indeed enough solar power to be harvested. So even if we could plant fields of money trees to come up with the $10-12 Trillion to build the solar harvesters needed (which again, can't be done) it is highly questionable that we can indeed harvest enough solar power to meet our energy needs. Oh and by the way, can't power a car on solar power. So even if all the other barriers could be dealt with, we still need cars.

Next comes another Liberal favorite, wind power. Unfortunately there are issues with wind power. (6) For one, due to the intermittent nature of wind, conventional power plans must be kept running, because powering them up and shutting them down would cause more CO2 emissions than leaving them up and running. (This is of course assuming the preposterous claim of Liberals that CO2, aka the stuff plants breathe, is bad for the environment.) Then when wind is strong, the turbines collect as much electricity as they can hold and have to be turned off. Throughout Europe, it is reported that turbines are usually operating at only 20% of capacity. Yet the American Wind Energy Association plan for 30%. Yet another example of Liberals living in an ideal situation rather that doesn't pan out in the Real World.

Then when wind is at its highest levels, turbines often have to be turned off, because if they are left running the turbines can be harmed! Oh, and don't forget that buildup of bugs, dirt, salt, etc on the blades of the turbines significantly reduce the energy output of wind turbines. What about safety? Well, there are a reported 43 fatalities due to wind turbines in America. Liberals are guessing, I suppose, that there must be hundreds more deaths by nuclear power in America, right? Actually, in forty years of using nuclear power in America, there have been 43 fewer deaths due to nuclear power than due to wind. (For those of you from Palm Beach, that means there have been zero fatalities due to nuclear power in the United States). Yep, zip, zero, nada for nuclear, 43 for wind. (7) So apparently it's not as safe either!

Then there's hydroelectric power. This particular form of energy actually works pretty well. Unfortunately, there is only limited ability to use it. The reason is that it requires a natural source of water rushing by gravity, (that'd be a waterfall, for those of you from Palm Beach). The places which are capable of being used for hydroelectric power (like Hoover Dam and Niagara Falls) are already being used. In other words, we cannot expand our hydroelectric capability to meet our energy needs.

So-called Green Energy is a fairytale being told by Liberals to idealists who believe it is possible to have zero-emission energy. The reality is wind power is less than 1% of our energy consumption, solar is also 1% of our energy consumption. They're nice supplements, but not capable of widespread use. They're at capacity. Hydroelectric is a good bit more of our power usage but again, we're at capacity. Talking up Green Energy is a way for Liberals to try to ride two horses with one rear end by satisfying their radical base with limits to creation of real energy like oil drilling and nuclear power, while also telling reasonable Americans that they are trying to obtain more energy to help their pocket books. Green Energy is a farce. We need to drill for oil. We need to build nuclear power plants. We need real solutions, not the Liberal pie in the sky lie that is Green Energy.


(1) Eye Opening Chart: Gas Prices under Obama

(2) Gas Prices: Bush vs. Obama

(3) Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems

(4) Solar Energy, Solar Power: Why Isn't It Used More? 

      Problems with Solar Power

(5) Energy in the United States

(6) A Problem With Wind Power

(7) Wind Energy -- The Breath of Life or the Kiss of Death: Contemporary Wind Mortality Rates

No comments:

Post a Comment

All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.

Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.