Green is a flat tax on the lower classes. It increases the cost of electricity from 5¢ per kilowatt hour to 30-50¢ per kwh at 25% renewables, before governments switch back to normal energy sources to restore their energy systems.

Greens assume that the more money spent on green the greener it gets. They can't understand that it takes more energy to produce renewables than they yield. Windmills average 20-30% of name plate rating due to variable winds, and they ride on the infrastructure created by coal. Infrastructure is the biggest expense. Solar has to be subsidized, and it can only be used in the Southwest.

Even with the trace of renewables in the U.S., where electricity was once $100 per month, it is now $300 per month; and renewables are just getting started in the U.S.

Greens can't understand engineering. They think they can legislate a 54 mpg automobile into existence, while engineers can't produce any such thing. The only method of increasing gas mileage since fuel injection improved efficiency is to reduce weight. The smaller the vehicles, the less functional. Nonfunctionality wastes energy. Anyone who can afford a gas guzzler has to get one just to get enough space to haul groceries from the store.

Forcing increased fuel mileage onto trucks means they have to be smaller, which reduces efficiency. Using two trucks to do the work of one is wasteful.

Electric vehicles would be good for reducing smog in localized areas but not for increasing efficiency or reducing carbon dioxide in the air. Energy is lost to inefficiency (heat production) every time it is touched, particularly with electricity. Electricity loses about 60% of the energy in its initial generation, about 5-50% in every transformer (usually 4 or more required), 10-50% in transmission lines and about 60-70% in its application device. Contrivers claim 120 miles per gallon equivalence out of that.

Electricity is for luxury purposes, like kitchen appliances or demanding manufacturing; it is not an efficient form of energy. Even if renewables yielded twice as much output as input, they would be nonfunctional. Modern society was developed with an energy output of 50 to 100 times input, when shallow oil and coal were the sources. Even now, the output of total energy would be 30 to 50 times input. Reducing output to 10 times input would create a nonfunctional society.

An endless stream of propaganda on energy is designed for fools. Usually, a small part of a system is evaluated ignoring most of the expense. Solar, for example, will be described as producing 8 times as much output as input using laboratory conditions, while the sun produces a fraction of that for four hours per day and trivial amounts for a few more hours. The required infrastructure wipes out all benefit.

Everyone admits that solar would be zilch without taxpayer subsidies. Supposedly, solar gets cheaper all the time. That's not the whole problem. The biggest problem with solar is that four hours of electricity per day requires a lot of back-up. Eventually, batteries or other storage is supposed to solve that problem. Probably not in less than a century. In the mean time, power companies are supposed to buy the excess at the same price they sell it. No business stays in business selling anything for the same price they pay for it. The infrastructure is the largest cost with electricity.

In addition to taxpayer subsidies, renewables are being paid for by spreading the cost among consumers. Everyone has to pay for someone else's fake renewables. The lower classes get stuck with the biggest problem paying for the toys of the rich. Where else do rich people come from besides screwing the lower classes.

Practical environmentalists are overrun by greens with their mindlessness. The difference between "green" and environmental responsibility is in a mindless mentality. The mentality of green grows out of a need to fantasize. Fantasy is a substitute for reality. Fantasizers need a safe place to operate from. Reality is not safe for them, because they can never meet expectations in the reality medium. It's either resign themselves to failure or construct an alternative state of existence, where they can be what they want to be.

It's a lot like playing house. You pretend that you have a problem that we can solve, and we pretend that we can solve it.

Being a winner is an essential part of it. Winning is defined in a three second time span. Rational constructivity is a continuous process that never ends.

Winning is necessary for prevailing. If one iota of dissent is allowed, the fantasies collapse. Since such a purpose can never be totally achieved, the pretense of it being achieved requires total agreement. The demand is not in the fantasies, they can be anything, but in the one hundred percent agreement or cooperation required to replace reality with fantasies.

The focus of the effort is in eradicating dissent. Without dissent, everything takes care of itself. Reality is then whatever we say it is, which is fantasy.

Carbon dioxide has devolved into nothing other than that.

Green is like saying, automobiles are made of free and renewable iron. The homeless should be able to afford them. The motors only cost 50¢. The cost of putting pistons in them gets cheaper all the time.

It's also like saying roller skates are going to replace automobiles, being much more economical and free from pollution. To accomplish this, we will increase the velocity of roller skates and put wind screens in front of them. We'll add batteries and exploit carbon free and renewable electricity. We'll use wheels that go half way around, so they use half as much energy.

Electric Autos Waste Energy

The mindlessness of electric automobiles shows up in the energy lost as heat with electricity. Electricity is extremely inefficient. A very large part of electricity is converted into heat every time it is touched.

A natural gas turbine for generating electricity will have about 40% efficiency, while a natural gas auto will have about 30% efficiency. But the electric system loses energy in many places. Transformers get 30-90% efficiency, and many are needed. High voltage transformers can get up to 90% efficiency when expensive designs are used, but low voltage (household level) transformers get 30-50% efficiency. Power lines lose 10-50% depending upon length. Applications of electricity (motors or brakes) get less than 40% efficiency.

For these reasons, electric autos would recover about 10% of the initial energy of natural gas, while burning natural gas in an engine would recover about 30% of the energy. It means electric autos are no way to conserve energy or remove CO2 from the air.

The Economics of Coal

There is a huge amount of coal that should be used while transitioning into responsible nuclear energy. The dangerous pollutants such as mercury could be removed from coal infinitely cheaper than wasting money on fake renewables.

Instead, electricity is being generated with natural gas. In fact, nature gas is needed with renewables to be switched on and off rapidly during low output from renewables.

Natural gas is a luxury form of energy needed for household purposes. It shouldn't be wasted on generating electricity, when coal is available. When there is nothing left but coal, heating houses with coal is going to be problematic. But the next ice age will cover the coal within 50-200 years, and very little will be left of any source of energy.

Coal produces electricity at about 5¢ per kilowatt hour. Renewables have already pushed up the price to about 18¢ per kwh, which will go up to 30-40¢ per kwh at 25% renewables, which is the maximum modern economies can tolerate, as well demonstrated in Europe.

These price increases are a flat tax on the needy. No one at the bottom of society has any choice about the amount of energy they use. At 5¢ per kwh, the lowly need about $60-80 worth of electricity per month when heating with some other source. At 40¢ per kwh, that’s $480-640 per month, which no one in the bottom half of society can afford.

On top of that, the haters are dying to institute a carbon tax, which couldn't possibly influence the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, since no one in the lower half of society can change the amount of energy they use, and the upper half isn't going to let a carbon tax influence their life style. Supposedly, the Trump administration has no need for a carbon tax, since they love carbon dioxide. Guess again. Not only are they going to buckel under to greens and unrelenting social pressure, showing us how much they love the lowly, but it will be the states that institute the carbon tax, and "state's rights" will leave conservatives with no choice but to destroy themselves and everyone else to uphold the law.
 

Home Page	Science Errors	Sociology of Corruption