In China, the true cost of UK's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale

[stockholmer]

"On the outskirts of one of China’s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn.
Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen.

‘Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,’ he says. ‘But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.’
"Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world’s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines.

Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology..................."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html#ixzz1D6tTvGH3



China now controls 98% off all rare earths, either internally, or by contract. A professor friend here in Stockholm is one of those leading the wind turbine technology drive here, and he is appalled at what he saw on his latest trip to China. This is rapidly becoming a large political issue here, with calls already being heard for a ban on Chinese neodymium.

[Newest Reality]

1. Our technologies are two-edged swords

and we should be more careful how we swing them. Profit ideology puts those swords in the hands of the petulant infants who comprise a large part of the corporate takeover as they steer us towards oblivion.

[jpak]

2. It's China - they put melamine in baby food and lead in toys and spray pesticides on "organic" crops

for Chirst sake

Show us ANY Chinese energy or other industrial enterprise that's clean and green - they fuck them all up

yup

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. The OP is misdirection at its finest

The OP states:
"The reality is that, as Britain flaunts its environmental credentials by speckling its coastlines and unspoiled moors and mountains with thousands of wind turbines, it is contributing to a vast man-made lake of poison in northern China. This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."

Notice the language first of all. This passage was clearly designed to villify and demonize the green power industry. In addition, the OP provides zero evidence that "green" companies are trying to keep anything secret nor does the OP appear to direct any blame toward the government in China for allowing the alleged pollution.

This OP is a bit of propaganda aimed squarely at green energy alternatives and it was probably cooked up in some Koch Bros. funded, right-wing think tank. I am not buying it!

[jpak]

4. ding ding ding

:toast:

[stockholmer]

5. nice smear, avoid the facts, attack the motivations, so typical

[jpak]

7. Typical what? Global warmer denier, renewable energy hater?

The poster put the finger on it

yup

[stockholmer]

10. if the story was about pollution caused by batteries made for iPods, you would rip China and the UK

but, because it seems to hit near to something you have an emotional investation in that is so strong as to blind you from any criticism that would stop your pre-determined mindset and agenda, you resort to name calling and attribution of motivations

My question to you is.. what is your proposal to stop this pollutiuon?

Or, does it not matter to you because they are far away, poor and non-western, therefore as long as the EU and the USA can feel good about themselves, who cares?

[bluestate10]

15. My proposal.

Other materials can be used other than rare earths. The quandary is that scientists and engineers need to figure out how to maintain temperature and thus magnetic strength of the alternative materials, rare earths provide the benefit of delaying the temperature concern due to their performance at high temperatures. With wind turbines and electric cars being seen as solutions to energy needs and environmental pollution control, you raise a timely and legitimate problem.

[jpak]

16. Your disdain for America is palpable

There is nothing the US or EU can do about China's environmental problems

and where does the Nd for Swedish wind turbines originate?

and when did Sweden ban all products made with Chinese Nd?

or any Chinese product that has bad environmental record?

pot meet kettle

yup

[stockholmer]

23. I have no disdain for the USA per se,its the greatest experiment in republican democracy in history

if I had disdain, I would not spend some of my time posting on on an American message board

I think we on here, regardless of country of origin, have large issues with the many of the policies enacted by the USA government

these policies truly affect the entire world, many times for the worse, so we all try to offer critiques and solutions

cheers

[inna]

37. hello, there is nothing wrong with having "disdain for America".

What an absurd and irrelevant ad hominem, anyway. Discuss policies and ideas, not other posters' alleged anti-Americanism or lack of patriotism.

:puke:

[jpak]

38. OK - the OP has disdain for US wind power programs - but not Sweden's

which is highly hypocritical and anti-'Merican

better?

[stockholmer]

40. where did you get that idea from?, I never attacked US wind power, nor defended Swedens

[jpak]

41. " as the EU and the USA can feel good about themselves, who cares?"

that's where

[stockholmer]

44. last time I checked, we here in Sverige were still in the EU, just, thank god,not the Eurozone, lol

and that entire comment,taken in whole on my original reply, was also a critique of many here in the developed world to cover ourselves in feel-good policies at home, whilst ignoring the ramifications of those policies on the 3rd world (I absolutely am NOT accusing you,JPAK, of this, never seen a hint of this from single word of any of your posts I have ever read, you are a stand person in this regard)

[LeftishBrit]

59. Actually the OP (an article from the Daily Mail) is from the UK, not the US

[stockholmer]

43. agreed,also, how can a Swede be unpatriotic for the US? Similar to Palin charging Assange w/ treason

or am I missing something here?

[TheBigotBasher]

30. It is the Daily Mail

it has a very anti-green agenda.

They make Faux News look left wing.

[LeftishBrit]

57. +1000

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. I see you put a great deal of thought into your rebuttal!

I appreciate you demonstrating to all fair minded DU readers your ability and willingness to debate specific aspects of the article you posted. Hell, I will even give you another chance and state my objection to your OP in simpler terms.

Where is the evidence that green energy manufacturers are attempting to hide pollution allegations against mining and refining operations in China?

Who owns these polluting factories?

How much of the total output from these mining and refining operations in China end up in "green" energy products as a percentage of the total output? (I'll wager that it is a very tiny fraction of the total compared to the amount being used in other industries like defense, computer technology and communications.)

Cheers!

[bluestate10]

11. The permanent magnets that are used in wind turbines and electric cars

have rare earths in them. Wind turbines and electric cars take up around 30% of the world supply currently, the percentage will grow as wind turbines and electric cars become more popular. There are alternative materials for permanent magnets, but rare earth based magnets are desired for their magnetic properties at high temperature.

The OP raised a serious concern that scientists and engineers will have to address as wind turbines and electric cars become more prevalent. I prefer aluminum-copper magnets with on-board cooling to maintain magnetic field strength via maintenance of a constant magnet temperature.

[stockholmer]

21. Chinese rare earth firms, shortages, ownership,supply issues for wind turbine tech, etc

Baotou
one of the largest Chinese companies involved in neodymium and rare earth production, and one of the chief polluters

http://www.baotou.com/?gclid=CLr7wLfq8aYCFUQI3wodF0W4IA (Zhang Zhong is GM of Inner Mongolia Baotou)http://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyOfficers?symbol=600111.SS


here are more (including magnet production)

Shenzhen Smart Magnet Co
http://www.smart-magnet.com/

China Rare Earth Holdings Limited (Hong Kong Holding Company) very large
http://www.creh.com.hk/eng/index.htm


as to ownership, see your local authoritarian Chinese Central Communist party ledger of members and affiliates

China to cut 90 rare earth firms into 20
http://business.globaltimes.cn/industries/2010-09/571679.html

The Chinese Central Government will commit to step up efforts in restructuring the rare earth industry, releasing favorable policies as well as encouraging mergers and acquisitions in the industry, the China Business News reported Thursday, citing an unnamed source.
According to the draft plan, by 2015, the country will have incorporated the current 90 firms in the field into 20.




in regards to demand...........

http://www.thetradingreport.com/2010/12/17/rare-earth-element-shortages-threaten-global-wind-power-development/

The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) recently predicted that the world’s wind power capacity will increase by 160 percent in the next five years, with global installed wind capacity estimated to reach 409 GW by 2014, up from 158.5 GW in 2009.1 This surge in wind energy projects can be attributed to increased demand as governments look for cleaner sources of energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet growing energy needs.

Yet experts warn of a front of high pressure blowing in from the East, which could effectively calm this storm of development — at least in the short term. The newest wind turbine technologies largely depend on rare earth metals, quirky elements that are used to make special magnets that dramatically increase conversion efficiency. Yet the corresponding demand for these materials is hampered by the fact that almost all of the world’s supply is concentrated in China, where strategic investments in rare earth element extraction and refining in the 1980’s has given it cost advantages in the production process and an effective monopoly of the industry.

The GWEC’s prediction indicates the generation of an additional 250.5 GW of wind energy will require 167,000 tonnes of rare earth metals.2 To put that in perspective, China, which currently produces 95 percent of the world’s rare earth elements, only produced 150,000 tonnes of rare earth metals in 2009..........................

China has announced that in the next ten years it will construct an additional 133 GW of wind turbine generated electricity. This plan will inevitably contribute to a steep rise in demand for use of Chinese neodymium and other rare earth metals just to service the country’s domestic wind turbine market.3 To account for this, China will be forced to either ramp up production or slash exports. This increased internal demand could be at the heart of much of the recent tightening of export quotas and shipments by China. The effect of their actions has fundamentally shaken the countries around the world out of their slumber with respect to the stability of their REE supplies.

Neodymium is one of the rare earth metals typically used in permanent magnets. Modern high-efficiency neodymium magnets for wind turbines use close to half a metric tonne of the element per turbine. Other rare earth metals used in wind turbines include praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium.




http://www.glgroup.com/News/Braking-Wind--Wheres-the-Neodymium-Going-To-Come-from--35041.html

Braking Wind: Where's the Neodymium Going To Come from?

Summary
It has been estimated that to build the latest and most efficient one megawatt capacity wind turbine powered electric generator requires one ton of the rare earth metal neodymium for use in a permanent magnet made from the alloy neodymium-iron-boron. The total amount of neodymium produced annually in the USA is at most 600 tons, and all of it is used already to build nd-fe-b magnets for various applications. The current US installed capacity for electricity generation is 1,000 gigawatts (a gigawatt is 1000 megawatts), of which 0.6%, 6 gigawatts, is generated from wind turbines. The global annual production of neodymium, essentially all of which is mined in China, is today at an all time historical high of 26,500 metric tons.

Analysis
If wind powered turbines are to be used to generate electricity in the USA, and if those turbines are to use the lightest weight most efficient electric generators then each megawatt of capacity will require one tone of neodymium.

There is no significant neodymium production surplus.

Therefore the neodymium would have to be obtained from new production and such production would have to be over and above the total projected demand for 2014 already estimated at 38,000 metric tons, 50% greater than today's production and demand.

The only possible sources for this extra production would be:

1. Lynas Corp (Mt. Weld, Australia),
2. Arafura, Ltd (Nolan's Bore, Australia)
3. Molycorp (Mountain Pass, california)
4. Great Western Minerals Group, Ltd. (Hoidas Lake, saskatchewan, Canada),
5. Avalon Rare Metals (Thor Lake, Northwest Territories, Canada), or
6. Thorium Energy, inc. (Lemhi Pass, Idaho).

Not a single one of the above mining ventures has yet produced a single gram of commercial rare earth metal, although numbers 1 and 2 above are claimed to be 'ready to go," and 3 above was until 2000 a producing mine, which in 1994, for example, was the world's largest single point rare earth mining and refining operation with an annual total production of 20,000 metric tons.

Companies number 4,5, and 6 above are all in the process of validating resources and reserves and developing refining processes.

Various factors have recently brought the physical operations of all of the above companies to a halt, so that at the present time there is no foreseeable alternative to Chinese sourcing for rare earth metals at any date certain in the near term.

China does not have any known plans to divert any of its present or near term neodymium production to foreign manufacturers for the production of large scale permanent magnets for American wind turbine electricity generation.





As hybrid cars gobble rare metals, shortage looms

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/08/31/us-mining-toyota-idUSTRE57U02B20090831



China grip on rare minerals - China Tightens Grip on Rare Minerals
http://busn.uco.edu/dgoudge/China%20grip%20on%20rare%20minerals.pdf

[bluestate10]

48. There are alternative alloys that have comparable magnetic field strengths.

But don't have the broad operating range that rare earth based alloys have over the temperature ranges that wind turbine and electric car magnets will need to operate over. The temperature range problem can be corrected, but doing the correction would decrease the efficiency of wind turbines and electric car power cells.

[Hannah Bell]

54. Not a single one of the above mining ventures has yet produced a single gram of commercial REs = BS

the mountain pass facility was the #1 supplier to the "free market" countries until 1998.

The United States currently imports all of its rare earth elements (REE) raw materials from foreign sources, prin-cipally China (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010). This has not always been the case. The USGS annually reports global and domestic production and trade in REE in its publications Minerals Yearbook and Mineral Commodity Summaries.

Prior to 1998, when production from the Mountain Pass mine in California was curtailed, the United States produced most of the light REE consumed domestically and by free market countries.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/pdf/SIR2010-5220.pdf#page=8

[Demstud]

24. I'm confused by your reply

Where in the OP was the author claiming conspiracy to hid pollution allegations? Also, the accusation of this being a propaganda piece (from who and for what purpose isn't specified) seems pretty weak. You're demanding facts you seem to not know yourself, and making accusations and assumptions with 0 evidence.

[Vinnie From Indy]

27. Really? OK I'll play!

You write,
"Where in the OP was the author claiming conspiracy to hid pollution allegations?"

Well, it was this passage that the OP just recently deleted on edit:

"This is the deadly and sinister side of the massively profitable rare-earths industry that the ‘green’ companies profiting from the demand for wind turbines would prefer you knew nothing about."

I hope all DU'ers note the creative editing on this post by the OP. What more do you need to know about the motivations of the OP?

Cheers!

[stockholmer]

36. I edited the length due to DU board mods request on the post, sorry for confusion :D

[Vinnie From Indy]

42. LOL! - You're making this WAY too easy!

Soooooooo, the ONLY passages that you "edited" happened to be SOME sentences of an existing paragraph? Is that your story?

Well gee, I find it rather odd that the "mods" would tell you to reduce the size of a paragraph rather than the number of paragraphs during your alleged discussion with them. One would think the "mods" would be quite familiar with this particular DU rule concerning copyright especially since DU has been the target of litigation on the very issues of copyright and fair use.

Would you like to try again?

Cheers and thanks for the chuckles!

[stockholmer]

45. no they said that I had violated the 4 paragraph rule, so I chopped off the last ones

it is the 1st time I ever had such a request on here (Im pretty new person)

did not even re-read what I dropped off, as I was in middle of a very time-consuming reply

nothing more, nothing less, no sinister scary intent

it ultimtely means little anyway, as the link to the story has ALL the paragraphs

[inna]

46. it is explicitly against the DU rules to question motivations of other posters

[Chan790]

52. So are astroturfing and false-flag operations. n/t

[inna]

56. your insinuation is unfounded and vile

[bluestate10]

12. Whatever your motivation, you raised a serious problem

that scientists and engineers must solve.

[Demstud]

25. Agreed -nt

[Chan790]

51. For some of us, it's not the first go-round.

When you've seen enough smear-jobs, propaganda campaigns and astroturfing (and frankly, engaged in a few yourself.) you learn to know right-off when you're being bamboozled down a greased chute into a predetermined conclusion by a piece of agenda journalism.

Would you like me to deconstruct that piece for you? We have, briefly listed, the following agenda items:

*anti-Chinese notions meant to demonize Beijing to Westerners. (hitting all the buzzwords and frames.)
*energy-dependence frames.
*attacks on green technology.
*aggressive rhetorical posture.
*blatant violations of NPOV guidelines in journalism.
*appeals to authority and emotion.
*use of coded language and "stern father" frames.
*usage of direct quotation phrases from the trade association of the natural gas and petroleum industry.
*undertones of consistently RW "security" concerns that are consistently implied and not stated.

The piece is not only clearly an agenda piece of a pro-business RW think tank, it's not even a very good one. Rather hamfisted, I did better work drunk.

Spend less time being led around by the nose into what other people pay a lot of money to make you think and use that free time to read some Lakoff and Alinsky and Luntz. (it is of penultimate importance to know your enemy, second only to knowing oneself. A liberal "expert" in poli. comm. that has never read Frank Luntz or studied the approaches of Rove or Atwater is worthless) You'll be a better progressive for it.

[sudopod]

8. May as well villainize the hard disk manufacurers

or anyone who uses a magnet to pick up roofing nails out of the driveway.

Do MRIs = murder?

[Hannah Bell]

14. also a lie that china controls rare earth metals, as if they're found nowhere else.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=354752&mesg_id=355373

mongolian labor = cheap labor.

[bluestate10]

17. The issue isn't that rare earths don't exist elsewhere.

The problem is that environmental controls that are imposed on their extraction in western nations make the cost high. China has a decided cost advantage due to that nations cheap labor and lax environmental standards.

BTW. Abundant rare earth nuggets exist on the floor of Arctic seas, but their harvest pose even trickier environmental problems.

[Hannah Bell]

50. as i already said, we buy them from china because they're CHEAP.

we don't need to look on the floor of the arctic; they are common.

we mined them in the us until rather recently.

china doesn't have a monopoly, or "control" them, which is what the article stated. we could reopen mining in the us if we cared to. the facilities still exist.

[Jokinomx]

31. Very well could be.. great observation... n/t

[Vickers]

6. We should all go back to nice, clean, beautiful oil.

Mmmmmmmm....oil.

:9:9:9:9:9:9:9:9:9:9:9

[bluestate10]

18. The OP does not seem to be suggesting that solution.

The problems that the OP raised are real. China became the world's rare earth production leader by a wide margin because that country was able to skip safe work rules and environmental protection requirements that western countries face. With China now hoarding it's rare earths for internal use, I fear for African countries and the Arctic seas if controls, protocols, or alternatives do not come about.

[Hannah Bell]

13. "China now controls 98% off all rare earths" = bullshit. rare earths = fairly common.

the west gets them from china cuz it's CHEAPER.

[stockholmer]

32. bottom line, they do control 97 to 98% of production , most internally, some thru contract

many deposits in the rest of the world are either in cost-inefective locations, or the mining is not allowed due to environmental concerns (see the results of China for all you need to know about that)

A case in point with different commodity.... oil, many NIMBY's out there,(IMHO for good reasons, just look at the Gulf of Mexico!) and many non-cost effective reserves (shales, tar sands, miles deep ocean floor-lodged fields etc)



China Dominates Rare Earth Metals Market
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/02/02/investopedia50547.DTL#ixzz1D7YVlAR6

China's Role in Rare Earth Metals Production
China is responsible for approximately 97% of the world's rare earth metals mine production. In 2009, for example, China produced 120,000 metric tons of rare earth metals, far beyond the mining results of all other countries combined. In addition to being the largest producer of rare earth metals, China is the prevailing consumer, using the metals in a vast array of electronics slated for domestic and export markets. China has imposed export restrictions to ensure a supply for domestic manufacturing of electronics and other technology dependent upon rare earth metals. In conjunction with tighter controls over exports, safety and environmental issues will likely increase operational costs for China, resulting in higher prices for rare earth metals. Indeed, following China's 2010 announcement regarding the restriction of exports, rare earth metal prices quickly achieved record high levels. (For more, see China Keeps Its Rare Earth Minerals At Home.)


China's Rare-Earth Monopoly

http://www.technologyreview.com/advertisement.aspx?ad=biomedicine&id=93&redirect=%2Fenergy%2F26538%2F%3Fa%3Df



US says dependence on China for rare earth is economic, national security risk
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/109216/20110205/rare-earth-american-security-project-research-emily-coppel.htm#ixzz1D7aDr1Ex



Digging in
China restricts exports of some obscure but important commodities
http://www.economist.com/node/16944034

[Hannah Bell]

53. Bottom line: China doesn't "control" jack shit, it's about the money.

The US (or its corporations) *chooses* to buy rare earths mined in china in an environmentally destructive way, using cheap labor. Because it's CHEAPER. PERIOD.

The majority of consumer electronics manufactured in China for export are wholly owned by foreign corporations. So there is something else going on with all the recent hype about china "controlling" rare earths.

The Japanese recycle rare earths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/business/global/05recycle.html?_r=1

I believe the germans do too; at least i've read that they recycle computer components.

Prior to 1998, when production from the Mountain Pass mine in California was curtailed, the United States produced most of the light REE consumed domestically and by free market countries.

Heavy REE were obtained from imported monazite concentrates.

That changed in the 1980s after China became the dominant global supplier of light and heavy REE (Papp and others, 2008). In 2002, the Mountain Pass mine in California, the sole domestic producer of REE minerals, shut down.

Although the mine has continued to produce REE materials from stockpiled raw materials, no new REE ores are being mined. Since then, the United States has obtained all of its REE raw materials from imports, principally from China. China accounts for 95 percent of global REE production despite having only 36 percent of identified world reserves]/b]

The high concentration of production of REE in one country is not unusual for a minor metal commodity. For example, a single mine in the United States supplies 86 percent of world demand for beryllium and two mines in Brazil account for 92 percent of world niobium production (U.S. Geological Survey, 2010).

http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2010/5220/pdf/SIR2010-5220.pdf#page=8

The us has 13% of known reserves, the russian federation 19%, "other" 22%.

[Scruffy1]

19. Neodymium is the most common "rare" earth.

It is distributed world wide and it would seem that China's monopoly rests on low price as the result of low wages and no pollution control. The crapitalist will eventually destroy the US as we used to know it by making us completely dependent on sub standard foreign production. With no international agreements its just a race to the bottom for all the workers of the world.

[jpak]

20. Wind power in Sweden breaks new record (in 2010)

http://www.swedishwire.com/economy/6184-wind-power-in-sweden-breaks-new-record

Development of new wind power stations in the Scandinavian country is expected to break the record this year despite the fact that global investment in wind power has slowed during the economic slump.

“We are very happy but also surprised”, Gunnar Fredriksson, vice president of the trade association Swedish Wind Energy, told The Swedish Wire, adding that he’s been concerned about how the aftermath of the financial crisis would hit the industry. “The industry has well withstood the recession”.

The organization expects an addition of 557 megawatts (MW) to be installed in wind power in 2010, an increase by 36 percent compared to last year, it said Wednesday.

Gothenburg-based wind power operator Gothia Vind announced the previous day that it plans to build 100 new wind power station in Southern Sweden with a total capacity of 200-300 MW. The project will be made in collaboration with Dutch investment fund Green Power Development, backed by Japanese banks.

<more>

Sweden has 2163 MW of installed wind turbine capacity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union

So what is Sweden doing about its "clean green charade"?

:D

[stockholmer]

22. we burn dead rabbits for power

http://www.thelocal.se/22610/20091012/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/dead-bunny-rabbits-burned-for-bioenergy-sweden.php

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. That's good, even if it's just a small thing (nt)

[jpak]

29. I disagree - they should be feeding the poor Mongolians with these rabbits

Sweden

Fail

:D

[stockholmer]

33. do Mongolians like to eat rabbits? if so, I will see if we can ship them some on the next cull

[jpak]

34. only the "cute" variety

yup

[Kaleva]

55. i sometimes wonder what the actual output of the windfarms is compared to their rated capacity.

[MadHound]

28. Nice gratuitous slam on green energy,

You are, in essence, blaming Britain for China's lack of pollution controls. Hmmm, do you blame the US for Saudi Arabia's lack of human rights?

Oh, one other thing, China hasn't been exporting rare earth metals since last fall, just thought you would like to know.

[stockholmer]

35. aware of the block (see my prev posts)& yes,do partially blame US for Saudis,as in $90 bil arms deal

THE champagne corks are not yet flying, but American arms makers are surely readying them for take-off. The Obama administration is expected within days to notify Congress of plans to sell Saudi Arabia weaponry and logistics worth as much as $90 billion over the coming decade, in what would amount to America’s biggest-ever weapons sale. The orders reportedly include 84 F-15 long-range combat aircraft and scores of attack helicopters, along with naval vessels, advanced air defence systems, and contracts to refurbish the kingdom’s large existing stocks of American arms.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2010/09/saudi-american_arms_deal

[stockholmer]

39. that said, I firmly believe in Peak Oil,& I think that petrol fuel dependence is planetary suicide

[inna]

47. K&R and...

I want to see more posts/perspective from stockholmer; I don't want to see yet another European/non-American/foreigner be run off this board.

[Vinnie From Indy]

60. Why not simply google "Koch Bros" think tanks and read their work.

Also, please name a few "furiners" that have been run off. I do not believe that any such thing has happened.
Cheers!

[Statistical]

49. Thanks for posting. It isn't popular but the total plant lifecycle is what matters.

If you produce green energy from turbines that polluted the planet in construction it really isn't "green".

All you have done is shift the point of pollution, you haven't eliminated it.

[LeftishBrit]

58. I wouldn't go to the Daily Mail for info about such things (or about anything)

They are very right-wing, sensationalist and anti-Green (some of their writers are global warming deniers).

Here's the most recent UK-er's warning thread about that paper:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=300759