Green Vitriol
Record snow falls in the eastern United States and in Europe, and again we see an exponential growth in vitriol revolving around the global warming or climate change debate. This really looks backward to the Enlightenment birth of what we call science, that originally went under the term natural philosophy, which grew out of the discussions between applied and theoretical theology. So we hear some people calling global warming a religion and others calling it settled science. The truth is that none of us now alive will be around when it makes all that much difference, but that sure doesn’t keep pundits and know-it-alls from making popish balderdash.
Back in the 1970s when the fear that the world was known to be heading towards another ice age, one of the discussions against cleaning up the air, was that it may lead to global warming. What we are now told in essence, when we saved the world from dirty pollution, we condemned the world to invisible pollution. So the cheap and simple solution should be let’s get dirty again. Of course that is really just a straight-forward fix that doesn’t fit within our self-righteousness coin flipping to save the planet — get rich.
If we could ask the Wooly Mammoths they would tell us to watch those ocean effect snowfalls because they could cause you to freeze to death in the stupendous snowy change that would start an ice age. Of course they did freeze to death during the start of an ice age. So in all our human smarts we know that we really don’t want to have that enter into our frigid natural philosophy discussions.
Now when we talk about green vitriol we are not talking about crystalline ferrous sulfate, but rather a vitriolic discussion about green energy and how it is going to save us from global warming and at the same time allow us to continue our gluttonous energetic lifestyle. That just isn’t going to happen, no matter what religious mantras we invoke, incantate, or resuscitate. There are a number reasons for that.
First of all our current technologies to provide green energy are just technological refinements of the stuff we had a generation ago. The reason the world does not run on windmills, solar panels and other similar technologies, is that they are not cost effective in comparison to fossil fuels and hydropower. Back in the last potential green revolution, the effective costs for these green energy solutions were about fifty percent higher than their vitriolic competitors. So to be an energetic solution the price of crude oil needed to be in excess of about $60 a barrel. For a short time that happened, but that was not a window, but more a freakish event.
Today we really don’t know what that break even number is, but just factoring in inflation that would probably put the energetic push with oil at from $80 — $90. The problem is the current price of oil is just below those figures, and has traded in that $70 — $80 range for about a year now since the Saudis stated that the world price of oil should be at least $70. Of course there is no market making manipulation there, just a simple commodity trading program, access to a whole lot of free money from saving the world from financial collapse, and someone with an Internet connection writing oil industry press releases such as:
Furthermore, we really don’t know how much oil is available in the less than $90 range. Back when peak oil competed with global cooling for environmental headlines we would have learned by now we would all be riding bicycles.
So if we really want good clean green technology what we really need to do is tax oil products so that the effective price of oil is say $100 a barrel. Then we could produce a market for all that green technology, except we really could not make enough solar panels and windmills to make a dent in our need for fossil fuel energy, and what would all that green energy do to the local environments, with windmills killing birds and solar panels covering hundreds to thousands of square miles? Then of course if we really want to be green, we must look at the total carbon footprint for those windmills and solar panels, including their design, manufacture, installation, maintenance, and distribution system.
Then, of course, it would help our save the world dreams if we replaced our current stupid electrical grid, with a smart grid. That would be a smart thing to do, because we now waste about 62% of the electrical energy generate according to the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Of course if we do that we should look at the total carbon footprint of that endeavor also. Furthermore if we eliminated all the energy wastes, that would also eliminate the need for cap and trade or energy taxes.
This discussion is especially important because most of the new green energy works just as well or better without a grid tie. Could it be that Thomas Edison was right about DC (direct current) and Nikola Tesla was wrong with AC (alternating current)? Of course without grid ties the land we sacrifice of green energy could be used for something else, but then our cities would grow dark, unless we build some other type of really green centralized power plants, with a much better spin on the technology that is now viewed with vitriol. But just look at the opportunities that would allow for the collusion between the big government and the big crony global corporations.
So what we briefly see is saving the world from ourselves really is not as simple as it comes out in the talking points and well edited speeches. Perhaps if we could find a way to harness all the green, political, and wasted energy in the country, we could find ways to live together with energy independence for all. But lighting those light bulbs in our minds could not be done with compact fluorescents, for the mercury poisoning would effect our already demented intelligence.
Back in the 1970s when the fear that the world was known to be heading towards another ice age, one of the discussions against cleaning up the air, was that it may lead to global warming. What we are now told in essence, when we saved the world from dirty pollution, we condemned the world to invisible pollution. So the cheap and simple solution should be let’s get dirty again. Of course that is really just a straight-forward fix that doesn’t fit within our self-righteousness coin flipping to save the planet — get rich.
If we could ask the Wooly Mammoths they would tell us to watch those ocean effect snowfalls because they could cause you to freeze to death in the stupendous snowy change that would start an ice age. Of course they did freeze to death during the start of an ice age. So in all our human smarts we know that we really don’t want to have that enter into our frigid natural philosophy discussions.
Now when we talk about green vitriol we are not talking about crystalline ferrous sulfate, but rather a vitriolic discussion about green energy and how it is going to save us from global warming and at the same time allow us to continue our gluttonous energetic lifestyle. That just isn’t going to happen, no matter what religious mantras we invoke, incantate, or resuscitate. There are a number reasons for that.
First of all our current technologies to provide green energy are just technological refinements of the stuff we had a generation ago. The reason the world does not run on windmills, solar panels and other similar technologies, is that they are not cost effective in comparison to fossil fuels and hydropower. Back in the last potential green revolution, the effective costs for these green energy solutions were about fifty percent higher than their vitriolic competitors. So to be an energetic solution the price of crude oil needed to be in excess of about $60 a barrel. For a short time that happened, but that was not a window, but more a freakish event.
Today we really don’t know what that break even number is, but just factoring in inflation that would probably put the energetic push with oil at from $80 — $90. The problem is the current price of oil is just below those figures, and has traded in that $70 — $80 range for about a year now since the Saudis stated that the world price of oil should be at least $70. Of course there is no market making manipulation there, just a simple commodity trading program, access to a whole lot of free money from saving the world from financial collapse, and someone with an Internet connection writing oil industry press releases such as:
- Oil rises on fears snow will increase heating oil demand.
- Oil falls because record snows keep people at home and off the road.
Furthermore, we really don’t know how much oil is available in the less than $90 range. Back when peak oil competed with global cooling for environmental headlines we would have learned by now we would all be riding bicycles.
So if we really want good clean green technology what we really need to do is tax oil products so that the effective price of oil is say $100 a barrel. Then we could produce a market for all that green technology, except we really could not make enough solar panels and windmills to make a dent in our need for fossil fuel energy, and what would all that green energy do to the local environments, with windmills killing birds and solar panels covering hundreds to thousands of square miles? Then of course if we really want to be green, we must look at the total carbon footprint for those windmills and solar panels, including their design, manufacture, installation, maintenance, and distribution system.
Then, of course, it would help our save the world dreams if we replaced our current stupid electrical grid, with a smart grid. That would be a smart thing to do, because we now waste about 62% of the electrical energy generate according to the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory). Of course if we do that we should look at the total carbon footprint of that endeavor also. Furthermore if we eliminated all the energy wastes, that would also eliminate the need for cap and trade or energy taxes.
This discussion is especially important because most of the new green energy works just as well or better without a grid tie. Could it be that Thomas Edison was right about DC (direct current) and Nikola Tesla was wrong with AC (alternating current)? Of course without grid ties the land we sacrifice of green energy could be used for something else, but then our cities would grow dark, unless we build some other type of really green centralized power plants, with a much better spin on the technology that is now viewed with vitriol. But just look at the opportunities that would allow for the collusion between the big government and the big crony global corporations.
So what we briefly see is saving the world from ourselves really is not as simple as it comes out in the talking points and well edited speeches. Perhaps if we could find a way to harness all the green, political, and wasted energy in the country, we could find ways to live together with energy independence for all. But lighting those light bulbs in our minds could not be done with compact fluorescents, for the mercury poisoning would effect our already demented intelligence.