|
On April 24 2017 12:17 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 12:04 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 11:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit. Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.) So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics. I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them? You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh. As for the point of kH/hr per acre, you missed my point entirely. If we're going to replace fossil fuel use with renewables (aka Wind/Solar) at CURRENT CONSUMPTION rates, Wind can be laughed off the stage right now. Not only would the extreme amount of land use destroy bird populations at unprecedented levels, it would also necessitate cloistered use which means certain areas of the country would have a high % of useable land mucked up with turbines (wind is not a serious means of generating reliable energy in areas that average <7mph winds over the year). That's a real cost that needs to apart of the equation just as much as how unreliable wind energy is. As long as gravity and water tables exist, hydro power plants will continue to produce electricity (the point being that having your main energy producer up to an unpredictable variable is not the smartest idea).
Denmarks population density is ~4x higher than the USA's and they generate ~50% of their power from wind. Im not sure I buy this "wind takes up too much space to be practical" argument. And its not like america lacks for either coast, or flat, empty, windy places. Nuclear is cool, though as I understand it it requires even more subsides than true renewables in order to compete with fossil fuels. It's hard to promise the 30+ years of regulatory stability required to make investment into nuclear profitable. And even with that the state is still stuck with the waste. Solar and wind has funky market problems though. They are very different from fossil fuels in that basically the entire cost is upfront infrastructure investment, the cost of production is close to zero. In markets where they make up a large share of the total production this has weird effects, such as in california where wholsesale energy prices occasionally drops negative (producers pay to offload stuff to the grid). This disincentivizes further investment. As the transition to renewables continues new markets will have to be designed to deal with the new ways electricity is being generated, but this seems like an eminently solvable problem.
|
On April 24 2017 11:25 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit. Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.) So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics.
Solar cells are already much better than chlorophyll in efficiency. Worst solar cells produced is around 6%, chlorophyll is 6%. Best solar cells produced are around 40% and quickly improving year to year. Actual ones produced for usage are mostly around 15-20%. So ~3 times as efficient as chlorophyll.
Even future technology like nanowires is up to around 15% efficiency by now.
That isn't including production costs or lifetime etc. Just pure efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion_efficiency
|
On April 24 2017 15:56 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 12:04 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 11:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit. Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.) So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics. I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them? You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh. As for the point of kH/hr per acre, you missed my point entirely. If we're going to replace fossil fuel use with renewables (aka Wind/Solar) at CURRENT CONSUMPTION rates, Wind can be laughed off the stage right now. Not only would the extreme amount of land use destroy bird populations at unprecedented levels, it would also necessitate cloistered use which means certain areas of the country would have a high % of useable land mucked up with turbines (wind is not a serious means of generating reliable energy in areas that average <7mph winds over the year). That's a real cost that needs to apart of the equation just as much as how unreliable wind energy is. As long as gravity and water tables exist, hydro power plants will continue to produce electricity (the point being that having your main energy producer up to an unpredictable variable is not the smartest idea). Denmarks population density is ~4x higher than the USA's and they generate ~50% of their power from wind. Im not sure I buy this "wind takes up too much space to be practical" argument. And its not like america lacks for either coast, or flat, empty, windy places. Nuclear is cool, though as I understand it it requires even more subsides than true renewables in order to compete with fossil fuels. It's hard to promise the 30+ years of regulatory stability required to make investment into nuclear profitable. And even with that the state is still stuck with the waste. Solar and wind has funky market problems though. They are very different from fossil fuels in that basically the entire cost is upfront infrastructure investment, the cost of production is close to zero. In markets where they make up a large share of the total production this has weird effects, such as in california where wholsesale energy prices occasionally drops negative (producers pay to offload stuff to the grid). This disincentivizes further investment. As the transition to renewables continues new markets will have to be designed to deal with the new ways electricity is being generated, but this seems like an eminently solvable problem.
Denmark is tiny. They have 25% of the population and roughly 65% of the area of Florida. Put that into perspective. I have no doubt a state like Arizona could produce a majority of their energy needs from solar provided the efficiency of solar is where it needs to be in 15-20 years (I have much more confidence in this then anything substantial (ie relevant) from wind - the most primitive and unreliable of energy sources), but for a country the size of the US to have a 'national' energy policy that has as its main push solar and wind is idiotic if I may be so frank. I think we can all agree to eliminate subsidies (and no tax "breaks" aren't subsidies), but nothing can compete with Nuclear as a means to both:
Curb greenhouse gas emissions (if that's a thing you're interested in doing) Maintain our current energy consumption rates at comparable or lower prices (Please, sell people on making themselves poorer)
Gen IV MSR's will be a substantial technology increase in energy production and safety. We should be doing everything to decrease the Governments regulatory burdens and red-tape when it comes to Nuclear production. This is an area that you win with the general public. The idea that people are going to have to consume far less than they do now (ie make them poorer) so the planet can be saved (or for the few who make the anthro argument which is better, but still not good (ie people worse off, displaced, etc.)) and that radical changes must be made is not a winning argument to the public. It's why in the past 25 years there hasn't been much change even with the over the top inundation through the schools and Government bodies.
To me it seems like the push for Wind/Solar has less to do with greenhouse gas emissions and AGW and more to do with ideology, because the science is clear - Nuclear is by far the best contemporary option and it isn't even remotely close.
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#/media/File:Projected_LCOE_in_the_U.S._by_2020_(as_of_2015).png
Nuclear takes a long time to build. By the time it finishes it won't be much better than the alternatives. To then just get worse over its 40 year lifetime.
Big advantage it has is less loss in transmission since you can build it next to a major city, manufacturing, rail transit or IT centre. (Though nobody wants it there.)
Secondly it is constant and can thus stabilise the intermittent nature of solar and wind to some degree, though water is much better at that since you can decrease and increase it more easily.
|
I won't comment on the vids because I haven't seen them yet. But I want to add a point to the discussion that has been discussed, if at all, just implicitly.
The main problem with renews is that its focus is on electricity, not energy. We have a huuuuuuuuuuge energy demand that goes beyond elctricity. For transportation and heating especially. As long as this isn't adressed and we're just thinking about renewable electricity, we're not considering the broader picture. But all the jet fuel is kinda hard to produce just by using rapeseed oil.
Imo power isn't the problem because it's so easy to replace conventional by renewable. You don't need to change what you're doing, just switch the source and you're fine. We reduced the energy demand of lightbulbs by 90% over the span of 20 years, that helps of course but we still use the same concept for lighting.
Transitioning from fossil fuels in transportation and heating/cooling needs rethinking of the underlying system. Individual mobility, rural mobility, international mobility. Unless technology advances comparatively to LED bulbs I don't see a sustainable way of providing intercontinental travel. Energy efficiency of buildings isn't adressed much in the US as far as I can grasp it. Buying a house for 100k as part of the American Dream doesn't make it easy to up standards on heating systems or insulation either. The way forward is not the way we're on right now. Neither in the US nor in Europe. Cutting research isn't the way forward. Germany has incredible subsidies available e.g. for thermal energy storage tanks for businesses to push the technology. The UAE introduced legislation that renders it mandatory to install a cold water storage for public buildings. Those governmental interventions are necessary to push the market, allow risky innovation.
Anyway. I sincerely hope that climate change deniers can say: "told you so" in 20 years and not the other way around. Though we seem to agree that preventive action in healthcare is cheaper than the ER treatment. Maybe think about CC in the same way?
|
I'm just astonished this man managed to write a whole book. It's just blabber.
Edit: Also, what the hell is up with "think tanks" that don't disclose their funding.
|
On April 24 2017 18:06 Artisreal wrote: I won't comment on the vids because I haven't seen them yet. But I want to add a point to the discussion that has been discussed, if at all, just implicitly.
The main problem with renews is that its focus is on electricity, not energy. We have a huuuuuuuuuuge energy demand that goes beyond elctricity. For transportation and heating especially. As long as this isn't adressed and we're just thinking about renewable electricity, we're not considering the broader picture. But all the jet fuel is kinda hard to produce just by using rapeseed oil.
Imo power isn't the problem because it's so easy to replace conventional by renewable. You don't need to change what you're doing, just switch the source and you're fine. We reduced the energy demand of lightbulbs by 90% over the span of 20 years, that helps of course but we still use the same concept for lighting.
Transitioning from fossil fuels in transportation and heating/cooling needs rethinking of the underlying system. Individual mobility, rural mobility, international mobility. Unless technology advances comparatively to LED bulbs I don't see a sustainable way of providing intercontinental travel. Energy efficiency of buildings isn't adressed much in the US as far as I can grasp it. Buying a house for 100k as part of the American Dream doesn't make it easy to up standards on heating systems or insulation either. The way forward is not the way we're on right now. Neither in the US nor in Europe. Cutting research isn't the way forward. Germany has incredible subsidies available e.g. for thermal energy storage tanks for businesses to push the technology. The UAE introduced legislation that renders it mandatory to install a cold water storage for public buildings. Those governmental interventions are necessary to push the market, allow risky innovation.
Anyway. I sincerely hope that climate change deniers can say: "told you so" in 20 years and not the other way around. Though we seem to agree that preventive action in healthcare is cheaper than the ER treatment. Maybe think about CC in the same way?
Etanol is a pretty good rocket fuel if you just want to move things through the air. Would of course need other engines and processes than currently used. For boats I don't really know a good solution, havn't looked at it. Long distance ground travel should be trains. Same for logistic transports. Short to medium distance should be shared automatic, electric cars (taxi service basically). Same for logistic transports, bio fuels for above 300hp. A problem on ground is heavy machinery, same problem as for boats. If you solve one you mostly solve the other.
Geo thermal is the best for energy, especially heating things. Also a renewable resource.
Agreed that building requirements is the way forward if you really want to push the tech. Raises the amount of units sold, allowing for more competition and research.
edit, Was thinking a bit more and realised I forgot the most important short range transportation method for people. Walking, biking and similar methods that trains people and uses food as a resource.
|
On April 24 2017 00:56 Epocalypse wrote:Show nested quote +Is it worth it? Is it better to stay on fossil fuel and heat up the planet and see what happens? I'll leave that to you for now. It's easier to survive and thrive in heat than in cold. At the same time, since climate is ever changing, the fewer of our resources we have to put to heating, the more we can invest in research and development of new technologies.
Wow. Just wow.
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016.pdf
|
On April 24 2017 21:28 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 00:56 Epocalypse wrote:Is it worth it? Is it better to stay on fossil fuel and heat up the planet and see what happens? I'll leave that to you for now. It's easier to survive and thrive in heat than in cold. At the same time, since climate is ever changing, the fewer of our resources we have to put to heating, the more we can invest in research and development of new technologies. Wow. Just wow. http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/7/327/2016/esd-7-327-2016.pdf Oh nice website, thanks.
CC = more weather extremes. = colder AND/OR wetter winters, hotter summers, more hurricanes/floods/blabla
and please think about why the energy demand in the UAE or Sidney is so high during the summer months. I'll help you: air conditioning.
lmao
e: lower paragraph is directed at the person you quoted manit0u
|
On April 24 2017 16:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 15:56 KlaCkoN wrote:On April 24 2017 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 12:04 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 11:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit. Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.) So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics. I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them? You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh. As for the point of kH/hr per acre, you missed my point entirely. If we're going to replace fossil fuel use with renewables (aka Wind/Solar) at CURRENT CONSUMPTION rates, Wind can be laughed off the stage right now. Not only would the extreme amount of land use destroy bird populations at unprecedented levels, it would also necessitate cloistered use which means certain areas of the country would have a high % of useable land mucked up with turbines (wind is not a serious means of generating reliable energy in areas that average <7mph winds over the year). That's a real cost that needs to apart of the equation just as much as how unreliable wind energy is. As long as gravity and water tables exist, hydro power plants will continue to produce electricity (the point being that having your main energy producer up to an unpredictable variable is not the smartest idea). Denmarks population density is ~4x higher than the USA's and they generate ~50% of their power from wind. Im not sure I buy this "wind takes up too much space to be practical" argument. And its not like america lacks for either coast, or flat, empty, windy places. Nuclear is cool, though as I understand it it requires even more subsides than true renewables in order to compete with fossil fuels. It's hard to promise the 30+ years of regulatory stability required to make investment into nuclear profitable. And even with that the state is still stuck with the waste. Solar and wind has funky market problems though. They are very different from fossil fuels in that basically the entire cost is upfront infrastructure investment, the cost of production is close to zero. In markets where they make up a large share of the total production this has weird effects, such as in california where wholsesale energy prices occasionally drops negative (producers pay to offload stuff to the grid). This disincentivizes further investment. As the transition to renewables continues new markets will have to be designed to deal with the new ways electricity is being generated, but this seems like an eminently solvable problem. Denmark is tiny. They have 25% of the population and roughly 65% of the area of Florida. Put that into perspective. I have no doubt a state like Arizona could produce a majority of their energy needs from solar provided the efficiency of solar is where it needs to be in 15-20 years (I have much more confidence in this then anything substantial (ie relevant) from wind ? Your numbers are way way off. Denmark has ~135 ppl/km2. Florida has ~120 ppl/km2 . In other words the number of acres available per person to use for wind power plants is more or less identical in the two regions. (Its actually slightly less in denmark) I dont buy your argument that wind power takes up too much space. There might be other reasons that wind is suboptimal, not sure how a wind power plant would fare in a hurricane for one but lack of space doesnt seem to be a good reason. In the case of the US anyways.
|
On April 25 2017 12:05 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2017 16:45 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 15:56 KlaCkoN wrote:On April 24 2017 12:17 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 12:04 KwarK wrote:On April 24 2017 11:25 Wegandi wrote:On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. The only problem with that argument is that there are a significant number of primitivists and new-age folks who oppose the best foil to fossil fuel use - Nuclear. Nuclear is the best remedy to greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector. It's not perfect as Chernobyl and Fukushima demonstrate, but if that group of people is to believe that the continued use of fossil fuels means disaster on a global scale, then also opposing the best contemporary competitor is fucking stupid as shit. Actually, let me take that back. It's not just primitivists and new-age people, it's actually the mainstream opposition to current fossil fuel use that is against increased Nuclear energy production. Wind energy is a joke (as a replacement to current use) and is also an environmental disaster for native species. It's also extremely inefficient by kW/hr per acre of land use. Solar is promising far into the future on a larger scale when efficiency can mimic chlorophyll conversion efficiency. As it is solar and wind is only economical for adjunct personal use and only in areas where the climate is right. (Solar is better in Hawaii than Seattle, Wind is better in higher elevations than at sea level, etc.) So, I can't really take the current crop of arguments seriously until they start to admit the scientific reality (hey, if we're going to throw that around) that Nuclear is the only contemporary option to actually replace fossil fuel use at current consumption rates. Science is only "cool" apparently, when it conforms to leftist ideals and political arguments. Notice how no one marches for economics. I'm pro nuclear. Take that nonsense elsewhere. And as for using kW/hr per acre as a criticism of wind, what the fuck are you talking about? When and why would that ever be a meaningful comparison for different energy sources? How would it even work? Would nuclear always win because it's the most energy dense? Would solar always lose because the sun is bigger than the earth? Would we measure the acreage of the underground reservoirs of oil? Are we suddenly running out of acres on earth and needing to ration them? You can't make an argument about how other people are being intellectually dishonest and not respecting science and follow it by making up your own metrics. You'd not take me seriously if I attempted to prove that coal was better than oil using an argument based on pipelines per kWh. As for the point of kH/hr per acre, you missed my point entirely. If we're going to replace fossil fuel use with renewables (aka Wind/Solar) at CURRENT CONSUMPTION rates, Wind can be laughed off the stage right now. Not only would the extreme amount of land use destroy bird populations at unprecedented levels, it would also necessitate cloistered use which means certain areas of the country would have a high % of useable land mucked up with turbines (wind is not a serious means of generating reliable energy in areas that average <7mph winds over the year). That's a real cost that needs to apart of the equation just as much as how unreliable wind energy is. As long as gravity and water tables exist, hydro power plants will continue to produce electricity (the point being that having your main energy producer up to an unpredictable variable is not the smartest idea). Denmarks population density is ~4x higher than the USA's and they generate ~50% of their power from wind. Im not sure I buy this "wind takes up too much space to be practical" argument. And its not like america lacks for either coast, or flat, empty, windy places. Nuclear is cool, though as I understand it it requires even more subsides than true renewables in order to compete with fossil fuels. It's hard to promise the 30+ years of regulatory stability required to make investment into nuclear profitable. And even with that the state is still stuck with the waste. Solar and wind has funky market problems though. They are very different from fossil fuels in that basically the entire cost is upfront infrastructure investment, the cost of production is close to zero. In markets where they make up a large share of the total production this has weird effects, such as in california where wholsesale energy prices occasionally drops negative (producers pay to offload stuff to the grid). This disincentivizes further investment. As the transition to renewables continues new markets will have to be designed to deal with the new ways electricity is being generated, but this seems like an eminently solvable problem. Denmark is tiny. They have 25% of the population and roughly 65% of the area of Florida. Put that into perspective. I have no doubt a state like Arizona could produce a majority of their energy needs from solar provided the efficiency of solar is where it needs to be in 15-20 years (I have much more confidence in this then anything substantial (ie relevant) from wind ? Your numbers are way way off. Denmark has ~135 ppl/km2. Florida has ~120 ppl/km2 . In other words the number of acres available per person to use for wind power plants is more or less identical in the two regions. (Its actually slightly less in denmark) I dont buy your argument that wind power takes up too much space. There might be other reasons that wind is suboptimal, not sure how a wind power plant would fare in a hurricane for one but lack of space doesnt seem to be a good reason. In the case of the US anyways.
Not to mention that Florida is surrounded by oceans which can sustain off-shore wind farms.
The only reason to keep using fossil fuels is to prop up the fossil fuel industry at the expense of our planet's future.
|
|
Don't you, fossil fuel lovers, clean your house when it's dirty? How can you not want to switch to cleaner sources?
And if you think it's expensive, well - economically you are better than any generation before you. Do you think you would starve to death if suddenly governments would spend proper amount of money for clean energy transition? Right, you would have to live in a cage, poor people.
|
United Kingdom1658 Posts
Alex Epstein is a horrible starting Point for any sensible debate. By starting with him, it sets the tone for twisting words, and manufacturing information to fit an ideology.
On researching his work and his background, there are many clear indicators that he has a very strong ideological position, to which he bends his findings. Not the other way around. That is not a reliable approach to forming an argument based on a genuine, unbiased evaluation the of available information.
Show nested quote +So with the actual data, it feels perfectly plausible to replace the majority of fossil fuel within a few decades if we put in some EffOrt. Epstein addresses "experts" in his book: that they should be treated as advisers to guide one's individual thought, not as authorities that we should blindly follow. If we look at all the predictions that experts have made over the last 30-40 years, How much of it Has come TRUE? "Once again, the leading experts we were told to rely on were 100 percent wrong. It's not that they predicted disaster and got half a disaster, it's that they predicted disaster and got dramatic improvement. Clearly, something was wrong with their thinking and we need to understand what it is because they are once again telling us to stop using the most important energy source in our civilization. And we are listening." — Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
This current anti-science sentiment from deniers and including those in positions of authority, is dangerous in my view. The experts you are referring to are people whose funding is transparent, who approach the information from a Solid scientific position, and not an ideological one, and who can continue to iterate their work to try to build the Best possible predictions and data on the current state of things. Science, by and large, does not claim to have found "the answer", but searches for information and data and then interprets it to the best of its ability. It doesn't have the scaremongering agenda Which this sort of thing implies, and there is nothing wrong with, from an intellectually honest approach, digging continuously to find more accurate data or models, and update the body of information based on that. In fact, that seems like the best approach of all.
I suspect that what you're thinking of is more about the popular media, and how horribly they interpret and disseminate scientific findings, leading to a rather inconsistent view of actual scientific findings.
It's curious, aside, how scientists are alternately criticised for being too rigid, or for changing their minds too much. This fails to understand the scientific process.
You also fail to realise here that whilst scientific consensus relies on a huge body of work for an expert opinion, you are also relying on an "expert" opinion, but just from one man whose agenda you prefer, for whatever reason. You are then letting this expert tell you that you are more capable of making an intelligent judgement than those who dedicate their entire lives to furthering our understanding of any issue. This is, at least, an extremely arrogant belief. Your opinion is exactly that- an opinion. It does not carry anything like the weight of even a single genuine expert, MUCH less the accumulated findings of intellectually honest scientists who are searching for information, and not only that which furthers an ideology.
|
United Kingdom1658 Posts
Alex Epstein is a horrible starting Point for any sensible debate. By starting with him, it sets the tone for twisting words, and manufacturing information to fit an ideology.
On researching his work and his background, there are many clear indicators that he has a very strong ideological position, to which he bends his findings. Not the other way around. That is not a reliable approach to forming an argument based on a genuine, unbiased evaluation the of available information. I strongly recommend that anybody at risk of being taken in by his apparently robust logic, examine the criticism of his work and seek a balanced viewpoint before parroting an ideology which is dangerous at best.
Show nested quote +So with the actual data, it feels perfectly plausible to replace the majority of fossil fuel within a few decades if we put in some EffOrt. Epstein addresses "experts" in his book: that they should be treated as advisers to guide one's individual thought, not as authorities that we should blindly follow. If we look at all the predictions that experts have made over the last 30-40 years, How much of it has come TRUE? "Once again, the leading experts we were told to rely on were 100 percent wrong. It's not that they predicted disaster and got half a disaster, it's that they predicted disaster and got dramatic improvement. Clearly, something was wrong with their thinking and we need to understand what it is because they are once again telling us to stop using the most important energy source in our civilization. And we are listening." — Alex Epstein, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
This current anti-science sentiment from deniers and including those in positions of authority, is dangerous in my view. The experts you are referring to are people whose funding is transparent, who approach the information from a Solid scientific position, and not an ideological one, and who can continue to iterate their work to try to build the best possible predictions and data on the current state of things. Science, by and large, does not claim to have found "the answer", but searches for information and data and then interprets it to the best of its ability. It doesn't have the scaremongering agenda which this sort of thing implies, and there is nothing wrong with, from an intellectually honest standpoint, digging continuously to find more accurate data or models, and updating the body of information based on that. How else are we to truly learn about the universe around us?
I suspect that what you're thinking of is more about the popular media, and how horribly they interpret and disseminate scientific findings, leading to a rather inconsistent view of actual scientific findings.
It's curious, aside, how scientists are alternately criticised for being too rigid, or for changing their minds too much, by camps which have an ideology to promote or defend from scientific consensus. This fails to understand the scientific process.
You also fail to realise here that whilst scientific consensus relies on a huge body of work for an expert opinion, you are also relying on an "expert" opinion, but just from one man whose agenda you prefer, for whatever reason. You are then letting this expert tell you that you are more capable of making an intelligent judgement than those who dedicate their entire lives to furthering our understanding of any issue. This is, at least, an extremely arrogant belief. Your opinion is exactly that- an opinion. It does not carry anything like the weight of even a single genuine expert, MUCH less the accumulated findings of intellectually honest scientists who are searching for information, and not only that which furthers an ideology.
|
On April 24 2017 18:51 Arevall wrote: I'm just astonished this man managed to write a whole book. It's just blabber.
Edit: Also, what the hell is up with "think tanks" that don't disclose their funding. People need a way to accept the most bogus and ridiculous positions that can only be done through an extreme state of denial or cynicism while appearing intelligent unlike the other sheeple out there.
|
Germany1297 Posts
This "debate" is so ridiculous. I typed several attempts in this box to engage in a constructive manner, but it's simply not possible at this point. We are about to end this world and will probably do so no matter what, yet we are arguing if we should even try to stop, because not trying has upsides too and we don't trust the data?
|
On April 24 2017 05:14 KwarK wrote: Obviously if fossil fuels really were just free chemical energy spurting out of the ground in a dense, easy to use format then that would be fucking awesome. Nobody anywhere is disputing that. Nobody anywhere is disputing that our energy needs being completely solved as a civilization by just having energy pouring out of the ground without any side effects would basically be the best thing ever. An argument that explains how great oil is is missing the point of anyone opposing oil, the people opposing oil aren't opposing it because they don't think energy is good or that oil is a good form of energy. The problem is that unfortunately this fantastic thing has side effects which we need to start taking into account. It fucking sucks that apparently overusing fossil fuels is going to fuck up the planet in a way that outweighs the benefits. That's absolutely shit because now we have to find something to replace oil and oil was great. But all the smartest experts agree that after looking at the data fossil fuels have a negative side effect that makes them unsustainable. That doesn't mean that oil wouldn't be great if it didn't, it means that it does.
What you've presented here is a defence against a straw man. You seem to think that somewhere there are straw environmentalists who are against the idea of easily harvested energy powering our civilization and wish that we didn't have a civilization. It's nonsense. Explaining the benefits of oil is pointless, nobody doesn't get that what oil does is amazing. It sucks that we have to stop using it. But we still have to. Yea Kwark's hit the nail on the head of this one. The argument here makes zero sense.
|
The rapid rise of global temperature that began about 1975 continues at a mean rate of about 0.18 °C/decade, with the current annual temperature exceeding +1.25 °C relative to 1880–1920. Global temperature has just reached a level similar to the mean level in the prior interglacial (Eemian) period, when sea level was several meters higher than today, and, if it long remains at this level, slow amplifying feedbacks will lead to greater climate change and consequences. The growth rate of climate forcing due to human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) increased over 20 % in the past decade mainly due to resurging growth of atmospheric CH4, thus making it increasingly difficult to achieve targets such as limiting global warming to 1.5 °C or reducing atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. Such targets now require "negative emissions", i.e., extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere. If rapid phasedown of fossil fuel emissions begins soon, most of the necessary CO2 extraction can take place via improved agricultural and forestry practices, including reforestation and steps to improve soil fertility and increase its carbon content. In this case, the magnitude and duration of global temperature excursion above the natural range of the current interglacial (Holocene) could be limited and irreversible climate impacts could be minimized. In contrast, continued high fossil fuel emissions by the current generation would place a burden on young people to undertake massive technological CO2 extraction, if they are to limit climate change. Proposed methods of extraction such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) or air capture of CO2 imply minimal estimated costs of 104–570 trillion dollars this century, with large risks and uncertain feasibility. Continued high fossil fuel emissions unarguably sentences young people to either a massive, possibly implausible cleanup or growing deleterious climate impacts or both, scenarios that should provide both incentive and obligation for governments to alter energy policies without further delay.
Citation: Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., Beerling, D. J., Cao, J., Marcott, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Prather, M. J., Rohling, E. J., Shakun, J., and Smith, P.: Young People's Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., doi:10.5194/esd-2016-42, in review, 2016.
|
lol
that's like saying oh look, eating in a restaurant twice per day is awesome, I don't need to clean up the dishes, don't lose time on making the meals, and the food is better than I can make. I'm going to be eating there every day! it's awesome!
and then you run out of money in half a month, and starve to death.
what a moronic position. not to mention that you're ignoring so many things that my head spins even thinking about it, let alone writing it all down. I won't write it down since a lot has been covered by scientists, and the good people here, and I have better things to do.
|
|
|
|