What are your thoughts on "Green Technology"?? Good or bad or work in progress.

This is a ‘Green’ solution that ends up costing less. http://www.mooncup.co.uk/

Oh, the practical aspects are:
– breathable air
– drinkable water
– non-toxic soil
– non-toxic animals
– forests that have not been killed by acidic rain.

Of course, you could always discuss the cost of destroying the planet and what the extreme weather is already costing us in loss of crops and destroyed buildings and livelihoods, but you are only talking about the cost of consumerism, right?

The emergence and growth of “green” is simply a result of the expanding acknowledgement that things cannot continue as they are. The hidden costs of business as usual are actually forcing the issue, and as the dire consequences of ignoring those costs grow ever more apparent, there is ony one direction in which the trend must proceed. The questions remain as to whether we have started in time or are advancing quickly enough to dodge the myriad of catastrophes involving 7 billion souls chasing after “the good life”.

http://media.factmyth.com/2015/12/simple-climate-change-diagram.jpg

I’m all for less pollution. I like not taking so much from the earth in terms of materials, if that will be the net result.

I also like that regarding energy some of the green solutions get us off the grid. Less dependent on government or private suppliers for daily energy. We are essentially at the mercy of what the power company charges if we are not independent from the grid.

We know there is arguing over global warming too. If a benefit of being more green is reducing the earth from warming then that’s good too, but this is not a necessary reason to be greener, there are plenty others, and this argument is almost a political distraction in my view.

I don’t know if alternate power really costs that much more. Is the price of solar an honest price? Or, is it inflated because the government will give a tax break? I’d really like to know.

Since we in America function on supply and demand and capitalism and greed, it’s hard to know what type of margins are being made on greener products. I guess if we looked at public ally held companies we could analyze some P&L statements, and balance sheets, but it won’t tell the whole story.

@cazzie Thanks for your second answer but this question is about green technology not climate change even though the two are indeed connected in various ways. From what I have seen, read and am attempting to implement in my own manufacturing plant, most of the green technologies comes with a larger carbon footprint than the current technologies it is intending to replace. One step forward two steps back.

@Cruiser I’m in a different tech environment than you are, I guess.

Here is the impetus for me asking this question. I buy calcium carbonate and lots of it for my adhesives I make. I buy the stuff because it is a very cost effective filler commonly used by all sorts of manufactures to help keep costs of their products down. The owner of the plant that produces my CaCo was just in my office here in Illinois and we were lamenting one of the last laws Barack Obama passed as a Senator here. He put into law that by the year 2017 the electricity used in Illinois will have to have 25% renewable (green) of a wind farm source. The man told me the cost of his electric is currently $.07 per kilowatt hour and that the wind farm electric will cost $.33 per kilowatt hour. He currently pays around $50,000 per month on his electric bill and next year he is projecting it will then go to $250,000 per month. I will suffer a similar fate next year and obviously these increased costs will be passed on to my customers and anyone who buys product made in Illinois.

Illinois has already endured 10 years of hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs due to high taxes and labor overhead costs and this is another dynamic of regulatory change that will undoubtedly force more large manufacturers to seek greener pastures in other states.

This if from an independent “analysis” of the legislation’s impact on Illinois business and residents:

 The current RPS law will raise the cost of electricity by $574 million for the state’s
consumers in 2026
 Illinois’s electricity prices will rise by 4.77 percent by 2026, due to the RPS law.
These increased energy prices will likely hurt Illinois’s residents and businesses, and
consequently, inflict harm on the state economy. By 2026, the RPS is expected to:
 Lower employment by an expected 8,000 jobs
 Reduce real disposable income by $793 million
 Decrease investment by $134 million
 Increase the average household electricity bill by $36 per year; commercial businesses
by an expected $365 per year; and industrial businesses by an expected $36,125.

I guess to cut the cord on Nuclear Power it is the price we will have to pay.

While research and development in the early stages might and probably is quite costly, but for the sake of the planet and future generations I think it is a cost that has to ,no must be endured .

When people focus on the costs, to me they are saying they don’t want to pay for the true cost of their activity. Economists call it “internalizing externalities.” Those increased costs of going green are the real costs finally being assigned to the responsible party instead of being born by society.

Totally for it.

As usual, I start to have a problem when government manipulates it.

Energy Production by Technology in Illinois
Fuel Source Value Units
Coal Power 90,949,011 MWh
Gas Power 4,364,445 MWh
Petroleum Power 110,882 MWh
Nuclear Power 94,050,482 MWh

The Coal is an obvious problem. It has to be replaced. The Nuclean power is a different beast and not an easy answer. It will depend of the age of the tech. I have a feeling, though, that it is old and wasteful and dangerous.

You fail to mention this.

source: http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=IL

@Cruiser After seeing your numbers I can’t help but wonder how much profit is being made off of each form of power.

Take for instance a regular refrigerator and a counter depth one. The counter depth is less materials, yet it costs 50–100% more, because it’s the more upscale thing to buy. When a color of an appliance becomes popular the price goes up in that color even if it costs nothing more to make it in that color. Organic products might not cost double to produce, but the perception is they do, so they get away with charging double. Often these special items I named do cost more to produce, but not that much more, but as the end consumer we don’t really know without digging for information.

Healthcare is an easy example. Drugs sold at incredibly high prices,,and a lot of people are convinced that has to be the case to cover research costs. Usually, the profit is gigantic. It’s not just covering research costs, but rather it is taken to whatever extreme the company can get away with. I don’t see why energy would be much different.

@JLeslie From what I know is probably not much profit if any as the upfront costs to build the windmills and the requisite infrastructure is enormous. The companies making all the money right now is GE and Siemans who build the windmills.

@Cruiser That’s what I mean! You have to look at every level in the chain. If GE is making hand over fist, then they are capitalizing on the desire to go green, maybe they could make less profit, but still a great profit, and we won’t be as dependent on fracking, nuclear, coal, and sucking oil out of our land and paying people we probably should be quasi enemies with.

Green is good, although it might be somewhat overpriced. And that would be SO preferable to not going green, futurespeak.

@JLeslie I agree with you but what I don’t agree with is going Green for the sake of going Green. It is in line with passing Obama care without reading the law itself. IMO once again the US and the rest of the world drags it feet for decades knowing it is polluting our world and when certain do gooders get traction all of a sudden we have to do everything we can right here right now without weighing the pro’s and cons and so far the law of unintended circumstances is winning this race to go green.

Despite massive jobs lost, higher costs, higher carbon footprints to have this green technology are not part of the meaningful discussions we should be having. @cazzie opened up this discussion with a great example of how a change in approach to something so basic and simple can make a measureable impact on our landfills and water treatments plants.

So instead of investing huge amounts of energy to process polymers to construct windmills and the turbines to generate this new form of energy…I feel we as human beings can each make meaningful adjustments in our mindset and change behaviors in how we consume our energy. If we take into consideration how we take energy for granted just like the air we breathe and the clean water we drink…if we consume less…less energy, less plastics and take a step back from the electronic creature comforts…we could make a huge impact on the need for energy on many levels.

@Cruiser I think if we had been more mindful of the environment all along, we wouldn’t be in such a mess. It’s the American way to do things to excess and extremes. The pendulum swings from one end to the other. People threw plastics into the landfills and oceans, and now we finally are really making changes regarding plastic. We could have done much more long ago.

Our cars probably wouldn’t have had the mpg they do without legislation.

I always desire less need for regulations. If companies were more moderate in the first place, the government wouldn’t step in as much. Government sometimes gets it very wrong, and does things that wind up with unexpected consequences. But, not everything the government does is bad.

If I heard all the details there is a good chance I might agree with you regarding the windmills. I don’t believe it’s as simple as green energy is always better than fossil fuels. I think people do oversimplify without investigating the non-green energy that goes into making green energy producers.

I know some businesses actually save switching to green.

New technologies always cost more at the start. Until Ford put the Model T on the assembly line, the automobile was a luxury item. Television was a luxury item until the late 1950’s or early 1960’s. In 1982, the Commodore 64 (with a whopping 64K memory!) sold for $595 US (in 2016 dollars that’s $1,481.25, according to the Wikipedia article. These technologies grew more affordable as competition produced competitive pricing. I think this is what will happen with the green technologies that seem prohibitively expensive right now.

It’s the lack of transmission infrastructure that’s the big hurdle for green elictrical output.

@Yetanotheruser You said once competition entered, the market prices came down. This means it has nothing to do with costs, and everything to do with monopolies. Now, it’s actually a little of both, and even more than those two things. Ford lowered costs with his assembly line, that’s one reason he could sell for lower prices. He also understood what Sam Walton understood, make your products affordable for the masses. Coca Cola is another example of a company that strives for market share, for volume, to make a lot of money. This actually goes to why America is such a great economic country when we are what we have been proud of since I can remember, when we have a huge, prosperous, middle class, and products affordable for that middle class.

I think the question, the ethical and moral question is: are there some industries we should not allow monopolies to charge outrageous prices? Does the public have to wait for competition, and even when we wait, might it wind up in collusion rather than price lowering?

Health seems to me to be an exception. Health includes, Doctor care, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, and environment. I’m fine with most of those people businesses for profit, it’s just how much profit before it hurts society? Business has to have some social conscience.

” Business has to have some social conscience.” @JLeslie Business are in business to make money…consumers consume what they produce. If green or whatever is really a concern…then consumers have to have some social conscience as well and IMO more so than the business as if consumers consumed with a better sense and commitment to the greater good of the world they live in but not buying things that clearly harm the world they live in then we would not be having this conversation.

@Cruiser I agree consumers need to have a social conscience too. Most customers aren’t going to research whether the goods they buy were made with a social conscience. I think it’s almost asking too much to expect it.

Of course people are in business to make money, I have no problem with that. The question is how much? Right now I’m analyzing my business, because we are making less than we had hoped, but we also are in our slow season, so hopefully it balances out. My husband wants to pay his staff more, so do I. We are looking for where we could raise prices a little by analyzing the competition, but I’m talking $5 and $10 here and there. If we can do it we will give the guys a raise or bonus, not sure which, for the added revenue and profit, and give a little to us too. We already pay in line with the competition, but I think it’s a sucky low number for the work they do.

I get it, really. But, businesses making $5 billion profit a year, probably could make half and still be doing pretty well. Employees could be paid more or consumers could be charged less. If an item costs less it would mean our poverty line could be lowered. Making life more affordable would mean wages would still be ok lower.

That’s always a q in my mind. Which is more important? Lower expenses or higher wages? I think it would be ideal if minimum wage could stay fairly low, and life was more affordable. Low wages keep us competitive in the world. The problem is people need food, shelter, and transportation. I feel fairly confident cars and housing can be cheaper than it is. When the housing market dropped, even new houses were being built for less. Cars sold in China are made cheaper by American manufacturers for that market. We were paying too much in payroll expense for years to auto workers at all levels. At the same time car prices went up and up. It just seems like there can be a better balance.

@JLeslie Then why all the social push back against the Climate deniers? People vote for legislation to support spending for climate change initiatives and green what ever. If people can hand wave yell and scream for change and threaten the lives of those who may disagree than I believe they can start by not consuming things that promote the things they believe are affecting our climate. So many talk the talk and so precious few walk the walk.

Green tech is just like “organic” or “natural” food. Part truth and part marketing, sometimes outright B.S.
I have seen some “green” solutions for tech that were anything but. I have also seen some things that actually are green be labeled as environmentally hazardous.

You can’t green capitalism. Capitalism requires infinite growth. There’s another name for an organism which exists through infinite growth: cancer. The problem with so-called “green” technologies is Jevons Paradox, in which more efficient use of resources actually results in the development of new uses for the resource which consumes even more of the resource.

TAANSTAFL. Infinite growth simply isn’t possible. We can develop all the fusion power, thorium slow breeder reactors, wind farms, solar arrays, and tide turbines we have the rare earth metals to build, but all that will do is provide even more resources to squander on an ever-proliferating explosion of worthless trinkets and excess. If we are to survive, it will not be as the Universe’s most successful cancer. We must learn how to exist with less physical goods and more spiritual fulfillment. “Green” technologies are a chimera which are making the situation worse by allowing the stakes and scale of the problem to inflate, making the inevitable crash worse.

@SmashTheState I have never heard of the Jevons Paradox but that puts my whole concern over the push for Green whatever in a nutshell.

There is a thread on Facebook today where neighbors in my community are bitching about a huge jump in their electric bills over last summers bills and not one person made the connection to simply higher cost per killowatt hour and as I said above due to the increase use of wind generated electricity in our electric service which cost a lot more. You can also point to the low cost of gasoline this summer and people don’t give it a second thought to drive anywhere anytime and sales of big SUV’s are again going gangbusters. Talk about an inconvenient truth…

I work in the power industry and have been in and out of just about every power production plant you can think of. By far the least expensive, green and sustainable is hydro electric. There are safety concerns and a finite quantity of available generation. Hydro is used for “peaking” power. It’s easily turned off and on when the grid demands a little more. The base load is done with either coal/gas or nuclear. There is nothing else currently that can supply the base load here in the states. Solar is not viable for supplying industry and it’s still expensive and hard to maintain. Wind power is generally in the same boat. Currently green power tech is basically utilized as a PR campaign.
That said residential could easily be done with green tech. Less reliance on a single point of failure grid is needed anyway. If we lose the grid yes that can happen it’ll be hell here.

@Cruiser Are you saying I pushback against the climate change deniers? Or, that many other people are pushing back? I don’t rant much about climate change. Like I said above, We don’t need climate change to want to be green. When I was a little kid I saw that commercial of the Indian crying from the litter and polution. Remember that one? I worry more about being dependent on foreign oil. That’s a better argument, because both political sides should be in agreement with that.

@JLeslie No not at all…I just made the comment that the minute any takes an opposing view they are often berated as being ignorant to the obvious that often is scientifically not all that obvious. As far as the Indian in the polluted waterways in the early 70’s that was all about pollution and we are still attempting to get it right but have made great strides yet manufactures still abuse their ability to dump toxic waste and consumers flush all sorts of medications, cleaners, motor oil down their drains thinking their small amounts have no impact on our environment yet hormones and potent pharmaceuticals are detectable in our waterways in levels that have environmentalists seriously concerned.

If you do worry about dependency on foreign oil…what is your answer?? More fracking that is generating millions of gallons of hazardous waste water and poisoning our ground water? We just do not have viable cost effective green alternatives that do not present a greater carbon foot print that current fuel sources unless you are a fan of nuclear power.

@Cruiser I hate nuclear power. Are you saying creating solar panels and windmills generate more carbon output than using fossil fuels? I realize some fossil fuels are used just for the energy in the plants and the transport, but overall I wonder if the energy used is actually just as bad or higher.

Coal plants produce more radioactivity than nuclear plants. Solar panels require large amounts of rare earth metals, of which 90% of the world’s supply comes from China because they’re the only ones willing to make their entire country look like the surface of the Moon to obtain them. Hydroelectric power requires the drowning of entire valleys and releases large amounts of mercury from the anaerobic decay of submerged trees. It also disrupts fish migrations. Wind power is inefficient and requires large amounts of costly, highly-skilled maintenance. Geothermal can’t be used everywhere, is very expensive to build. Meanwhile, natural gas is produced as a byproduct of oil drilling and since it would be burned anyway to get rid of it, is actually one of the cheapest and most efficient forms of power generation.

These are complex issues and so-called “green” technologies are not as efficient or sustainable as the neo-liberal feudal lords like Elon Musk would have you believe. TANSTAAFL.

@JLeslie @SmashTheState summed it up nicely. Just for fun here is a link on solar and wind power that may add details to this debate.

Thanks Smash and Cruiser. I am very interested in learning about this.

@SmashTheState Your assessment is superficial and misleading. Your first comment could be extrapolated to ‘Solar power relies on more radiation than what nuclear power plants produce as waste’.... sounds scary, is technically correct, but completely, contextually wrong. I am all for getting rid of coal completely, but I am not convinced about abandoning all nuclear power. Not every hydro plant floods vast plains of wooded areas. You mention nothing of wave or tidal power, both of which would not have been developed without the ‘Green’ initiatives.

Also, rare earth metals are in smart phones and computers, but I don’t see anyone protesting their production.

Sorry I wasn’t able to respond in a more timely manner. Life happened.

JLeslie This means it has nothing to do with costs, and everything to do with monopolies.

I didn’t intend to imply that competition is the only factor that place downward pressure on prices. To be sure, Ford was able to lower costs, partially through the use of the assembly line; there was also a streamlining of the supply chain. This was a concept taken to the extreme when McDonald’s needed a stable, goegraphically consistent supply of beef. It basically changed the supply chain.

@SmashTheState Capitalism requires infinite growth.

The best years of US capitalism were the post-war 1950’s. Capitalism was highly regulated, include import tarriffs and taxes on the highest incomes were at about 90–95%. These high taxes had the effect of an incentive to reinvest in the company, and ultimately led to larger A/R budgets, which in turn could bring new and truly innovative products to the market.

In our Friday and Sunday science group, we’ve been discussing this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

but problems occur with misplaced regulations on thorium. See this article that discusses both rare earth elements and thorium. http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Rare-Earths-Problem-Could-Have-A-Nuclear-Solution.html