Defining the Greens (Part 5)
Posted by jennifer, April 25th, 2009 - under Opinion.
Tags: Philosophy
IT is wrong to assume that the Greens are luddites and in particular anti-technology.
This is a criticism often levelled against them because, as a group, they tend to oppose many new technologies, for example, the genetic modification of crops and nuclear energy.
However, the Greens are passionately pro solar technology.
The only problem with this technology is that it tends to be uneconomical without massive government subsidies which I understand are not a problem for the Greens – subsidies that is.
Consider the Solar New England project which aims to install 400 solar power systems in households in the New England region of NSW, Australia, by the end of the 2010 financial year: for a one-off outlay of A$2,440 residents receive a A$14,600 fully-installed one megawatt kilowatt solar power system that hooks straight into the power grid.
Households only have to pay a fraction of the cost because the systems will be provided in bulk and because of all the government subsidies for solar power.
The project has been described as “strengthening the sustainability of the region” and showing “collective and individual leadership” – but I’m not sure how. Then again, while I consider myself an environmentalist, I am perhaps not a Green.
*******************
Notes
The Greens are defined here in the broadest sense as one might refer to any group with particular unique characteristics for example farmers or Protestants.
Information on the Solar New England project from ‘Solar Simplicity Sells’ Matthew Cawood pg. 25 The Land, April 23, 2009.
The image of the solar panel is from http://www.germes-online.com/catalog/3/127/page2/209248/solar_panel.html
Jeremy C, Thanks for the that list. Also the info about Christopher Monckton.
“and have amazing confidence that we’ve the nouse in science and public policy and economics to get the reductions we need. ”
What are you talking about you dirty pig????
We need more higher CO2 levels and obviously so. What a prick you are. Clearly you are in favour of famine and the destruction of the natural environment.
Why are you claiming that we need CO2 reductions.
I’d whack you one if I could get hold of you. Why are you making such a filthy dirty lying anti-scientific claim?
Back your claim up slime-ball.
Why just up and lie like that all over again. Why not take a break from just lying all the time.
Lets make this very clear. We want higher CO2 levels. To help both man and nature out during the falling temperatures. This is what the science tells us. And it does not tell us anything else. The science is totally one-way and conclusive on this matter. Since CO2 helps plants cope with both drought and frost. And cold times means dry times.
How about lets go with what the scientific evidence says AND JUST STOP LYING ABOUT IT. Also skeptics must stop compromising with this lying filth about what the scientific evidence says. If any of you SKEPTICS can contradict me about what the scientific evidence says DO SO. But stop compromising with what it does say. We have to tell the truth about this clearly.
Hi Graeme,
Like you, I’m tired of all the lies coming from public officials and scientific prostitutes about climate change. But there are a lot more people, with minimal analytical skills, who have quaffed the AGW Disasterism kool-aid, on the basis of some classical propaganda techniques: appeal to authority, appeal to fear, bandwagon, and ad hominems.
But please tone down your rhetoric a bit. That amount of vitriol is not helpful. If this is how you behave online, I don’t think that I’d like to be around when you’re drunk.
“It seems to me denialists are so against their perceived ideological enemies that they just end up being against everything while the broad church that are the greens have moved on long ago and because they don’t regard their various ideologies as theology they can disagree and debate on things like nuclear.”
Surely you jest!
Or to borrow a line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
The IEA and the EIA, with a global view of energy, came up with the following busbar costs (in $US) of energy from various new-construction sources scheduled for completion between 2010 and 2015. I have added the federal subsidies currently provided in the US for each energy source. A 5% discount rate is assumed throughout. All of this is based on delivered energy, for that is what matters to the customer. As a reminder, electricity generated by existing nuclear plants in the US had a busbar cost in 2007 of $17/MWhr, or 1.7 cents/kWhr. That was the cheapest source of electricity in the U.S. in 2007.
Source………$/MWh….%capital….%fuel..%O&M…..gov’t subsidies($/MWh)
Coal…………$25-50……35%…..45%…..20%……..$0.44
Gas………….$37-60……15%…..80%…..5%……….$0.25
Nuclear………$21-31…..50%…..20%…..30%……..$1.59
Wind………..$35-95…..60-85%..0%…..15-40%…$23.30
u-hydro……..$40-80…..90%……0%…..10%………$0.67
Solar………..$150-300…90%…..0%…..10………..$24.30
Note the huge subsidies for wind and solar compared with other energy sources.
Intermittent sources like wind and solar need spinning reserves to keep the lights on, as previous posters have stated. Those costs are not included here.
Typical next-day scheduled wind in Texas is 8% of nameplate capacity. A 1.5 MW wind turbine can be scheduled for delivery of 0.12 MW.
The numbers above assume unscheduled wind farms (opportune energy sources), with availability from 18% – 45%, depending on location.
It is apparent that utilities have solid fiscal reasons for continuing to invest in new coal, gas, hydro and nuclear. They are happy to negotiate busbar rates they will pay to solar farm and wind farm owners. The utilities minimize their financial risk, have someone to blame when power interruptions increase, and maximize the PR value of such projects.
Without generous government subsidies, wind and solar markets collapse.
Until generous government subsidies sunset, the cost of wind and solar will not dramatically drop.
Manufacturers and contractors/distributors are simply capturing the extra profit as production and installation costs drop. For example, the cost of solar PV panels in 2003 in the U.S. was $4.40/Watt peak. The price in the U.S. at the end of 2008 was $4.80/Watt peak. In the meantime, solar panel manufacturers have continued to brag about manufacturing cost reductions of 15%- 20% per year.
Jeremy C
I watched the youtube clip it would seem George was having a scitzo moment Look at this http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/31/george-monbiot-wind-farms-renewable.
In which he is bitterly critisizing Lovelock for his lack of support for “renewables”. Also look at these
1. Australian Greens http://greens.org.au/taxonomy/term/54
2. Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear
3. World Wild life Fund http://www.wwf.org.uk/article_search_results.cfm?uNewsID=2163
4. “The Kyoto Protocol does, however, incorporate conditions that effectively exclude nuclear energy”. See Annex I
You can justify your own position which mean you and a few others are having second thoughts not that Green movement is. Only the stupid or ignorant could be convinced of it.
When many more take the plunge and say what Lovelock did you may have a point. A snippet:
“There is no such thing as renewable energy; it belongs as an idea with perpetual motion and other delusions, but politicians and ideologues have become skilled at using enticing words to cover essentially rotten ideas.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/29/lovelock-wind-farms
As I pointed out at length earlier simple maths show what a dumb idea renewables are.
My best guess is that Graeme Bird is right either you renounce the green movement or as he said you are plain and simply lying.
As for nuclear it too has doubts. It may change but world reserves are about enough for forty years unless we go for fast breeder reactors. These will produce a lot of material suitable for making making bombs as well. A pretty scary thought. But will this change anything? I doubt it since coal can produce power at 3 cents per Kilo Watt hour. You have to match that for everyone not just a few Western countries. The long and short of it is no matter what the green movement does eventually all the coal and all the oil will be burnt and the emissions go into the atmosphere.
I say go for it Don Juan! Then he wanted to knock them down not build them.
Jennifer said that she has never received any money from the Japanese for making her blog running a prowhaling line….however I have heard from very prominent whale researchers ( not Greenpeace) that your organisation has received many ….. so its word against word!
And the IPA is known to not publicly disclosure which companies fund its operations.
AEF is also working for weakening environmental laws and weakening the power of unions( for Gordon).
” “Shill” can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit “shill” for the industry at large, as their income is tied to its prosperity” this is to Luke!
Birdie – “…however I have heard from very prominent whale researchers ( not Greenpeace) that your organisation has received many ….. so its word against word!”
Prove it, give us the names of your confidants and the amounts Jennifer has received and from whom.
If you don’t you are confirmed as a slandering liar.
Peter W,
I can very well e-mail privately to Jennifer the names, but then I wait as well that the IPA is as open as well shows the companies that fund her organisation….
Perer W,
Like the blog your statement is very unprofessional. How do you know how the IPA is running? Your statement is pure fantasy and wish thinking. I can only see that ONE person or two can answer my statement and that is Jennifer or somebody from the Japanese whaling industry. You have zero to do with this!
Sorry Peter W….
“But please tone down your rhetoric a bit. That amount of vitriol is not helpful.”
Why are you telling ME this. Have you been around to the Quiggin’s place and bitch-slapped him and his coterie for abusing serious analysts and conscientious scientists? Have you been around to slap Harry Clarke down for his promiscuous use of the word “denialist” which is an open claim of lying and science-whoredom when its the other side? How about Lambert? You been around to his place?
What about Karoly? Have you requested the Where’s Waldo of the climate-unscience-world to tone it down?
These people openly abuse the owner of this blog and others on an almost weekly basis. And its them that are in denial of the science. Its them and not the people they are accusing.
How about you talk to them in a persistent way and then get back to me.
In case anyone missed it, Graeme Bird thinks we are in the middle of a brutal and pulverising ice age, that is without a shadow of a doubt about to get much much worse – I hope not much worse as I got brutally pulverised by a balmy west australian autumn day at the beach myself today. Remember those blokes in the 1970s who thought it was global cooling (I don’t, but apparently they were quite rabid if you believe sceptics)… well Birdy is one of them… just 30 years too late (which on a geological timescale is astoundingly accurate).
” I have never received any money from any whalers” – Jennifer Marohasy
Actually Jen might be right. I recall from an old whaling thread that Rune Frövik from the High North Alliance , Norway, told me in a comment in Norwegian ( see whaling thread) that the discussions on Jen’s site held too loosy quality to make it any interesting to participate in the whaling discussions.
I asked as well John Frizell from Greenpeace International to participate in the discussion but he was not interested….
“Actually Jen might be right.”
NO Jennifer IS right, thankyou.
Birdie – slander confirmed – you have no excuses. You’ve made the big bold accusations so either prove them or appologise. Jennifer replied she has not been paid by your anonymous whalers and you repeated your second hand accusations which compounds your slander. You are typical of the cowards who haunt the web – all mouth and no responsibility.
If it’ll make Birdie happy to have more slander-fodder, I volunteer to accept money from the whalers, but I won’t give them anything in return. That’ll help fund my chocolate Jones. Did you know about the correlation between chocolate and high intelligence?
Just on the greens and nuclear… well as a grassroots organisation it starts at the grass-roots, but I’d wager that the Greens is the 1st out of them, the ALP and the Libs to have a coherent pro-nuclear policy, based upon IFR technology.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2545996.htm (courtesy of Bravenewclimate).