Friday, April 30, 2010

GreenWackies Want Highest-Cost Electricity

The extremist Green fringe cannot be satisfied. But they will have opposition from Big Labor.

Could burning trash be a part of Wisconsin's clean energy future?

Some environmentalists and legislators are urging Gov. Jim Doyle to veto a bill they say undermines the state's renewable energy goals — and falsely promotes garbage as a clean technology source.

"Signing this bill will result in less renewable solar, wind and biomass energy for Wisconsin...

Not quite accurate. What the GreenWackies are saying is that the bill WILL result in INEXPENSIVE and RELIABLE energy for Wisconsin.

Exactly what wind and solar are not.

An amendment to the bill, added by Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Weston, and others shortly before the end of the legislative session included power sources such as "synthetic gas created by the plasma gasification of waste" and fuel from the "pyrolysis of organic or waste material."

Sen. Jeffrey Plale, D-South Milwaukee, a lead sponsor of the bill, said critics are misrepresenting the issue. He said the bill would promote new technologies, including a "demolecularization" process to get rid of trash that can't be recycled

So fuggedabout new technologies, especially those which would make landfills smaller and electricity cheap.

The GreenWackies aren't satisfied with that.

Same crap, different chapter:

“While the Obama administration’s embrace of nuclear energy has angered some environmental groups, it has won solid support from the labor movement. Each new nuclear reactor built could create hundreds of jobs for electrical engineers, pipe-fitters and construction workers. Based on industry statistics, most of those jobs will be union jobs, offering labor a way to boost membership rolls after years of decline ---The Hill, quoted in LaborPains

Sounds good, right? Energy, no smoke or CO2, lots of relatively high-paying jobs.

Wrong, neutron-breath.

The Sierra Club does not consider nuclear-industry jobs to be green jobs, because nukes are neither clean nor green,” Josh Dorner, a group spokesman, said. Greenpeace has opposed climate legislation in Congress in part because the bills provide “money for dirty technology,” including nuclear power.”

The GreenWackies are setting themselves up for a big fall. Couldn't happen soon enough.



Charlie Kress said...


wastenotIOWA has been promoting the plasma gasification for waste treatment for several years. None of us are paid. We are a 501(C)(3) organization. How the opposition labels this as "burning" is beyond me. We are promoting it for environmental, renewable energy and economic opportunities. I have spent four years promoting these benefits and an angered by those who do not understand the technology.

Charlie Kress, Treasurer/Spokesment

It is not burning. It does not produce dioxins or furans. Emissions are incredibly low.

jimspice said...

No one wants higher priced, inefficient energy, but, yes, a period of sacrifice is necessary to make the switch to sustainable energy. If we would have done this when we first should have, back in the '70s at Carter's urging, we would now be completing that process, and be energy independent.

Dad29 said...

Right-O, Jim.

If the wind is blowing and it's a cloudless day.

Then we'd have---what----30% of the demanded electricity?

Helluva plan.

jimspice said...

I apparently have higher regard for American ingenuity. Just like putting a man on the moon within a decade, I have no doubt we could have vastly improved green energy technology in the past 35 years. How? I don't know as we didn't do follow the course when it first became apparent. I'd guess giant leaps in solar cell efficiency and maybe mega-battery technology?

I'd love to see Obama say "By the time this decade is out, the US will not spend one dime on energy." It would also go a long way in reducing unemployment.

jimspice said...

That should be "hear Obama say" and "foreign energy".

Dad29 said...

You are correct--it is impossible to tell the end of the "what if" story.

Of course, if we had gone 80% nuke like some enlightened countries have, we'd be almost there!

But the point of the post was to make it clear that GreenWackies ALSO don't want to develop technology--in this case, to burn garbage.

So. Even with the large leaps in the last 5 years on storage batteries (see Johnson Control's Globe Battery developments) we're not exactly ready to power the City of Waukesha (much less LA) on batteries.

Happy to note that you're comfortable with good old US coal!!

jimspice said...

Not sure where the coal comment comes from. The damage done in extraction, and the fact that it represents NEW carbon introduced into the environment to which we've grown accutomed, rules it out in my book. Same for oil and natural gas. And peat for that matter, I guess.

I'd be OK with garbage in that it's similar to other bio-fuels. We just need to burn it centrally, and employ much better smokestack scrubbing technology than currently exists.

And can you imagine a lefty like me being open to nuclear? There are plenty of us. We base our opinions on science and not talking points.