Cyprus-Forum.com

[cyprusgrump]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Hi grump,

When posting a link, please copy/paste all the positive notes about green solutions, not just the negatives.

The green industry is not doing us any favors. It's like any other money making business. Governments may subsidize certain services or products deemed too expensive for the population to afford, no need to list them, you know. Green energy is one of them.

You are in favor of nuclear fusion, so I'm I. When perfected, this technology would worth billions. All the countries of the planet would have to pay dearly to "buy" nuclear fusion equipment & now how. Governments will be forced to subsidize once again. In essence, not different from the green technology as seen and practiced today. So, why are you arguing?

Get my drift?

Georgios100

There are no positives from the link I provided that I excluded... Read the link and you will see all the negatives...

Are you suggesting I should make my point then search the intermong for a different view and argue against myself?

No, I don't get your drift...

Of course you would have to buy a fusion power plant once it is available...

But we are forced to buy wind farms due to the green lobby and EU diktats - not because it is the best solution, not because it is greenest, not because it is most efficient and not because it is cheapest....

It is a huge unnecessary red herring...

here is my drift...
There are a lot of positive links out there but you only choose the negatives and no, don't argue with yourself but with me & other CF members. This is why CF was made available,sharing opinions while posting both negative & positive so everyone can judge...

Warm regards,
Georgios100

I don't believe any of the 'positive' links....

[georgios100]

Countries and scientists from all over the world are actively looking for alternative energy solutions. The investment in R&D is in the billions.

And yet, a few forumers already came to the conclusion, the effort is useless and too expensive. For the moment, yes, renewable energy equipment are costly and need government subsidies. As the technology advances, the cost will be reduced parallel with the increase of oil prices.

I won't be alive, neither will you, to answer our kids, why alternative fuels were not pursued earlier.

A typical phenomenon of unqualified forumers discarding green technology is the lack of vision towards long term energy needs. But we must plan for 50-100 years down the road, if we are to survive on this planet. This is the only reason, green technology is examined, tested and applied.

Of course, we all have our opinions which should be respected, right or wrong.

Georgios100

Then we will have Nuclear Fusion!

Hopefully yes, thanks for your input CBBB. Nuclear fusion is definitely very promising but... there is a but... alternative energy solutions implies by definition, more that one(1), just in case nuclear fusion is proven unreliable or inadequate to satisfy the total needs of a growing population.
Therefor, the R&D continues in all areas of green potential resources.

Where is cyprusgrump? I am sure, he will blow a gasket, reading the above comments as he hates green energy with passion.

Hey grump... are you still with us?

You're wrong...

I don't hate green energy - I'm all for cheaper cleaner energy sources...

What I hate is having expensive, dirty solutions forced on the population under some green banner.

As I posted earlier, Denmark has thousands of wind turbines and has no net reduction in emissions - just much more expensive electricity. That is ignoring the massive cost in energy and resources needed to manufacture, transport and install the turbines...

Government subsidies (I hate that too - taxpayer's subsidies is much more accurate) simply skew the market and are often influenced by outside sources ensuring that the cash doesn't go where it might do most good...

Imagine for instance if all the money wasted on wind turbines had been invested in research into fusion?

Here is an interesting article for you to read - Five Myths About Green Energy

Unfortunately, solar and wind technologies require huge amounts of land to deliver relatively small amounts of energy, disrupting natural habitats. Even an aging natural gas well producing 60,000 cubic feet per day generates more than 20 times the watts per square meter of a wind turbine. A nuclear power plant cranks out about 56 watts per square meter, eight times as much as is derived from solar photovoltaic installations. The real estate that wind and solar energy demand led the Nature Conservancy to issue a report last year critical of "energy sprawl," including tens of thousands of miles of high-voltage transmission lines needed to carry electricity from wind and solar installations to distant cities.

Nor does wind energy substantially reduce CO2 emissions. Since the wind doesn't always blow, utilities must use gas- or coal-fired generators to offset wind's unreliability. The result is minimal -- or no -- carbon dioxide reduction.

Hi grump,

When posting a link, please copy/paste all the positive notes about green solutions, not just the negatives.

The green industry is not doing us any favors. It's like any other money making business. Governments may subsidize certain services or products deemed too expensive for the population to afford, no need to list them, you know. Green energy is one of them.

You are in favor of nuclear fusion, so I'm I. When perfected, this technology would worth billions. All the countries of the planet would have to pay dearly to "buy" nuclear fusion equipment & now how. Governments will be forced to subsidize once again. In essence, not different from the green technology as seen and practiced today. So, why are you arguing?

Get my drift?

Georgios100

There are no positives from the link I provided that I excluded... Read the link and you will see all the negatives...

Are you suggesting I should make my point then search the intermong for a different view and argue against myself?

No, I don't get your drift...

Of course you would have to buy a fusion power plant once it is available...

But we are forced to buy wind farms due to the green lobby and EU diktats - not because it is the best solution, not because it is greenest, not because it is most efficient and not because it is cheapest....

It is a huge unnecessary red herring...

here is my drift...
There are a lot of positive links out there but you only choose the negatives and no, don't argue with yourself but with me & other CF members. This is why CF was made available,sharing opinions while posting both negative & positive so everyone can judge...

Warm regards,
Georgios100

I don't believe any of the 'positive' links....

Well, nice talking to you grump, as always a pleasure, thank you.
Georgios100

[Nikitas]

Let me get this straight: are you suggesting we have to go on being fleeced by some "green" crooks for another 50 to 100 years?

There ARE honest ecologically minded people out there, and if you bother to locate them you will see that they too are worried about the "green" scams. James Hansen, the father of global warming theory, regards Cap and Trade of CO2 a scam. Nobody is listening, Al Gore has steam rolled us all, telling us the debate is over, while making millions out of CO2 credits through his London registered corporation and his share in the Chicago Carbon Trading exchange.

Is this the way for the next century and our children?

[repulsewarrior]

....germans generate their own needs, and in many cases sell the excess to the power grid. they have not reduced their consumption, but from this effort they are one of three major players worldwide for producing solar cells, farms have found very innovative ways to generate power from their waste which serves hundreds of their neighbours.

[Free Spirit]

In reality someone told the EU about 'Get Real' and all the hot air that he emits (from both ends) so they've decided to put it to god use.

[CBBB]

In reality someone told the EU about 'Get Real' and all the hot air that he emits (from both ends) so they've decided to put it to god use.

GR became a priest?