[Teppler]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well, lets ignore global warming. Reducing global warming is just a bonus to the real benefits of ‘green projects’.

Dinojuice is rare, expensive to extract, and often requires military force to secure a dinosaurgraveyard.

Wind blow, sun burn and river flow. It’s easy to see why energy companies are interested in these options and becoming less reliant on old trees and dinosaur juice. The real reason for pursuit of ‘green’ is nothing to do with the environment.

It’s just diversifying suppliers of generated energy and reducing logistical problems (no more Iran taking control of ships that navigated the wrong route, Saudi price fixing, Russians turning off taps, etc as well as simply being able to generate energy closer to the point of delivery).

‘Green’ is just marketing. e.g. Interfering with waterways has devastating ecological consequences (whether blocking navigations with hydro, or using water as cooling for furnaces or nuclear).

So yea, ignoring environmental issues both ways, “green” has some advantages in terms of source, supply, competition, logistics and distribution but the best solution might be a mixed approach.

There's always going to be advances to supplying and generating energy. Some of that is going to cross over into green for sure. It should be explored organically. The problem is beating people over the head with global warming. But you're saying let's ignore that for a hypothetical.