60 Minutes wrong about clean tech


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Maybe this is the show that has the answer to any question possible already in its name.

Research? 60 minutes. Scathing letters ETA? 60 minutes. Half life of factual content presented?

Etc.


#3

It's 60 Minutes that's been dead and dying since Dan Rather left the show. Their credibility is down the toilet. They are now just another mouthpiece for the lunatic fringe.


#4

It's been well known for a while that 60 Minutes will provide any notable figure or entity with a puff piece on request.

That they'll do hit pieces on request is a new low for them. Very sad.


#5

All these 60 Minutes misreported stories recently seem to have a right-wing slant, does anyone know what's going on behind the scenes? Did they get a new right-wing producer or hire some Fox News types for "balance" or something?


#6

60 Minutes has never been the same since they lost Andy Rooney.


#7

Why are people even slightly surprised at a lack of veracity in the mainstream media?

When I turn on the telly these days, I expect to be confronted with unadulterated shit.

So I don't.


#8

Its called 60 minutes because thats how long they spend doing research on their stories.

Wind power is now mainstream. The main limit to exploiting wind is actually the constraints of the grid. Several countries are coming close to maxing out on wind. The capital costs of wind are lower than for coal or gas, the maintenance costs are lower and there are no consumables. The only limitation is that the turbines only generate electricity when there is wind blowing. Even that isn't as much of an issue when a country has a comprehensive energy distribution infrastructure.

The reason Solyndra crashed is that the product was stupid. It cost much more to make than flat panels and was not particularly effective. Even then they might have survived if the ramp up in production in China had not been much faster than expected enabling them to achieve economies of scale.

The only thing that has held cleantech back is path dependence and government obstruction. Building a coal plant is much cheaper than building a one off experimental facility to use an untried technology. Idiots like Edward Kennedy blocked the Cape Wind project for over a decade because they thought an invisible dot on the horizon might ruin their view.


#9

I fully support renewables, but where is the base load coming from when the wind isn't blowing? You need some where to store the power, since transmission halfway across a country the size of the US isn't feasible.

Last I heard, China was leading the world in wind capacity, and they certainly aren't just using wind. Even the top per-capita country for wind power usage, Denmark (which is thanks to using solely offshore wind farms, a luxury not all countries have), still has to run natural gas, coal, oil, and biomass plants that have a combined capacity of nearly 4x that of their wind for their power needs.


#10

If there is the hydro capacity you can use off-peak electricity generated by wind turbines to pump water back up to the reservoir above the dam. Which works for most of the Northern US.

But more generally, yes, you don't usually want to go for more wind capacity than base demand. Combined Wind and Solar work pretty well together. Particularly in the US where most of the peak load comes from demand for A/C. Industrial use can often be shifted to off peak. That is certainly the case for uses such as aluminium smelting and electrolysis.

Wind isn't a panacea but it is certainly set to grow a lot faster than carbon fuels.


#11

I rember a german interview where a scientist was asked what would be the problem with renewables, and he said yes.

Meaning that this would be the problem. This exact question.


#12

After the Benghazi hack-job they lost all of their non-Tea-partying viewers. It only makes sense that they completely re-tool the show to satisfy the only audience they have left.


#13

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.