Is Going Green BS?

According to some, the world is going to end in eight years unless we stop using oil and gas.  Some states have gone as far as to outlaw leaf blowers.  Some states will ban gas-powered cars within the next fifteen years.  John Kerry says coal will be obsolete by 2030.  There is a heavy push towards a green future.  But is it based on BS?

On the surface, going green seems like a good idea.  Plentiful energy that doesn't pollute?  Who doesn't want that?  There are many, however, who question the affordability, feasibility, the reliability, and whether or not there would even be a positive impact on the environment.  These concerns are legit, especially when it comes to solar and wind, the energy sources being pushed here in America.

This writer briefly touched on these concerns in a previous entry.  Wind and solar and very expensive, unreliable, and have to be replaced often.  Solar farms and wind farms take up absurd amounts of space and are a threat to local wildlife.  Wind turbines are knocking birds out of the sky.  Birds are flying over solar panels and bursting into flames.  Forests are being mowed down and deer are being displaced to make room for all of it.  These things break down often and when they do, where does the waste go?  Nowhere.  It just piles up in these areas where humans and animals will no longer be allowed to live, and farms won't be possible, either.  But we're saving the planet!  Yeah, right.  More like we're killing every living thing we can and can't see.

Wind and solar are literally the worst two options for clean energy.  There's a reason why these things have been limited to backup sources since they came into being.  It's because they suck and are more harmful than environmentalists will ever admit.  They might be fine for small areas with low demands and individual homes, but to switch the whole grid over to them is an argument only a retard could make.  The long-term damage simply isn't worth the very limited short-term gain.  Honestly, we're better off sticking with gas, oil, and even coal.

Hydroelectric is a possibility but is heavily restricted based on location.  If you live near a body of water, you'll be fine, especially if you live near a river.  If not, you're screwed.

Hydrogen is an interesting one.  It's abundant in supply and has already proven itself as a viable option for car fuel.  If we could use it to power factories and houses, it could be a nice alternative.  It's not the safest, but it seems to work fine.  It's certainly better than wind and solar.

Nuclear is clearly the way we should be going if we want energy that's both clean AND reliable.  It's very efficient to boot.  It can power all those big factories we'll need to make the things we want and those electric cars we're all going to be forced to drive in a few years.  The waste can be contained in a small building until you figure out how to dispose of it.  It's the perfect power source, but Greenies are opposed to it for some reason.  Maybe they're stupid.  Just a thought.

So, there are good clean energy sources out there.  The problem is that the powers that be here in America are focused on the worst two options.  We can look at Europe to see how worthless wind and solar truly are.  They've actually started buying fossil fuels again.  So, we see something is failing on a continental scale and decide to adopt it here in America?  Yep.  That sounds like a move Joe Biden would make.

Until next time...