Skip to content

Bad Green Energy! Bad!

August 12, 2012

Further proof that no energy is good energy if you can actually produce it comes courtesy of The Register.  I first heard of this a couple weeks ago, and I almost wrote about it then, predicting that the Greens couldn’t handle any new energy that actually works.

So what’s the energy that’s in trouble now?  Here’s the concept: you open a conduit deep in the ground and pump water down.  It comes back hot, and enables a nice renewable energy source with a small real-estate footprint.  What could possibly be wrong with that?

The problem? New geothermal techniques requires hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and environmental crusaders have convinced themselves that fracking is evil. Thanks to misleading propaganda such as the movie Gasland, campaigners fear contamination of the water table and apocalyptic earthquakes. (For some Greens, the world is a disaster movie set to loop.)

I love that last comment, by the way.

Fracking may have its problems (a small number, I’d note), but it’s been pretty clear that it’s proving to be an easy way to safely get access to deep in the earth with little to no environmental damage.  But it’s gotten a bad rap because… well… because it actually works.  There’s no energy like potential energy for a Greenie, and no energy like harvestable energy to make them mad, apparently.

But environmentalists are scoring some victories. A project called AltaRock in Oregon has been cancelled, despite environmental studies that the fracturing process was safe and posed no significant risk. A fascinating feature from the Greenwire news service captures the frustration.

“No matter how much information you give people, if their minds are made up, their minds are made up,” says an official at the Bureau of Land Management, which conducted the studies.

I’ll admit to being a bit biased, since a large amount of geo-thermal resides in the Pacific Northwest.  We already have a significant amount of hydro energy, which leads to this area already driving a significant amount of Internet traffic.  Harvesting more energy in the form of geothermal — which I’ll note has already been deployed here — would further provide jobs and growth for an area where I’d like to live the rest of my life.

But it’s hard to see where else those environmentalists who are against hydrocarbons and nuclear energy can turn for low-carbon energy. Unless power cuts really are the goal.

Yep.  And that’s where I always come back.  This isn’t about finding “safe” energy, it’s about stopping progress.  While conservatives get blamed for not wanting progress, it usually comes back to the other side often seeming to want to remove human progress from the equation and not worrying about the consequences.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. Ellen D. permalink
    August 13, 2012 7:59 am

    I don’t see the greenies get worked up about the number of birds and bats that get chopped up in the windmills. If they want to shut down all viable power generation facilities, they can turn off their computers, electronic devices, air conditioners and lights first.

    • August 13, 2012 8:50 am

      Actually, yes, I hear quite a lot about the danger of wind power to birds up here. If you’re not hearing about it in TX, it’s probalby because they’re complaining about hunting first…

      And beware hippies without air conditioning. I’m just sayin’.

      • Ellen D. permalink
        August 13, 2012 2:26 pm

        The difference is the wind farms get a bye from the govt. The oil companies get fined big time for every bird that get oil soaked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: