Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I had stopped to enjoy for the jokes,
Because the topic is of much vital

0 Replies

okie wrote:

We will discover things to replace oil, for the most part, at some point, but to force ourselves off of it before something is proven to replace it is foolhardy.

When do you think this point would be reached?

Because apparently you don't think that decades of development, mass production or a vast number of renewable technology entering service have proven anything.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
We will discover things to replace oil, for the most part, at some point, but to force ourselves off of it before something is proven to replace it is foolhardy.

When do you think this point would be reached?

Because apparently you don't think that decades of development, mass production or a vast number of renewable technology entering service have proven anything.

I don't know when that point will be reached any more than you do, oe. As I have said numerous times, it will be a step by step process in different sectors of energy usage, and that process is already happening. Again, oil will be pertinent and very necessary for decades, just how pertinent for how long, nobody knows. If you have a crystal ball, clue us in will you?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't know when that point will be reached any more than you do, oe. As I have said numerous times, it will be a step by step process in different sectors of energy usage, and that process is already happening. Again, oil will be pertinent and very necessary for decades, just how pertinent for how long, nobody knows. If you have a crystal ball, clue us in will you?

Huh? Now you seem to be talking about the point when oil would actually be replaced.

Earlier, you were talking about the point when something will be discovered that has the potential to replace oil, when "something is proven to replace it".

Can you please decide what kind of argument you're making? It's kind of hard to have a discussion when you're constantly changing the point you're trying to make. Pretty please?

0 Replies

Is not the topic is about Global warming and environmentál pollution?
Why the hell the members wish to show their arrogance in A2k?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

okie wrote:
I don't know when that point will be reached any more than you do, oe. As I have said numerous times, it will be a step by step process in different sectors of energy usage, and that process is already happening. Again, oil will be pertinent and very necessary for decades, just how pertinent for how long, nobody knows. If you have a crystal ball, clue us in will you?

Huh? Now you seem to be talking about the point when oil would actually be replaced.

Earlier, you were talking about the point when something will be discovered that has the potential to replace oil, when "something is proven to replace it".

Can you please decide what kind of argument you're making? It's kind of hard to have a discussion when you're constantly changing the point you're trying to make. Pretty please?

Huh is right. I have no clue why you are claiming my argument has changed. My argument has been consistent throughout.

Again, I believe oil resources are finite, but I believe they will last probably centuries. As the resource becomes more and more difficult to extract and scarcer, more expensive, and thus less competitive with other sources, then the total contribution of oil will likely decline at some point.

Also, I do not believe there is a definite course of action or technology that can replace oil now, more than on just a limited basis. That does not preclude me from having an opinion that some technology will be discovered or refined to a point that it will replace oil in the future. There is some replacement on the margins today, but not across the board. Alternate energy supplements oil today, but has not replaced it. Replacement technologies are in the works, but are not yet available on a commercial scale, with sufficient scope to totally replace oil anytime soon. There is little doubt they will be at some point. It could occur in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, or 50 years or more, but even if a replacement design was invented right at this very hour that was more economical than what we have now, it would take probably 20 years or more to begin to mostly phase everything away from gasoline and diesel.

As I've said many times, and my stance remains consistent, I think it will be a step by step process, that will occur in various energy usage sectors at various times, and I do not have a crystal ball so I cannot predict the timetable or the end result. Therefore, I advocate full speed ahead on all cylinders within our economic framework, which includes the very logical and sensible drilling for more oil and gas reserves. This has always been my argument and I have no clue where you get any idea to the contrary.

0 Replies

That is something the religionist seem to have a difficult time grasping, Okie. They, mostly unrealistically, think we can just go right to wind and solar power and bypass the transition necessary to move beyond a mostly oil powered world.

But as I've said before, it took many millenia to go from foot power to the wheel and beasts of burden to ships powered by wind and/or oars to steam to the internal combustion engine. It isn't that nobody is working on new technologies. They are being developed at a breath taking rate and that will certainly continue. It is only a matter of time that such technology becomes superior to oil as a cheap and plentiful source of fuel. But technology that will replace oil for all or most of our needs isn't even clearly even on the drawing board right now. You can be sure that we have bright and capable people working on it though.

Right now the world runs on oil that powers its trucks and ships and planes and trains and military machines. That and coal provide light and heat and ability to make a living and freedom for billions of people. Without plentiful and affordable energy sources, progress toward a better world slows or grinds to a halt. We have plenty of oil to sustain us as we move toward the next transition. It is ridiculous to deny us the ability to use it.

Drill drill drill!

0 Replies

Right on in everything you said, Foxfyre, and all of what you said is totally common sense and obvious to anyone I would think. Yet, I have been castigated, as you have, for stating the obvious here. For some reason, there seems to be an emotional barrier to facing reality.

Cyclops has gone so far as to say the technology is here, right now to replace oil. And Parados thought he was supporting cyclops argument by triumphantly posting an article predicting 20% electrical contribution by wind in the U.S. by the year 2030! To all of this, oe and O'Bill chimed in and said, see, you are wrong, and as usual, Bill calls me a fool for stating the obvious! oe even compared oil to slavery, of all things. Bizarre indeed.

Technology is here on the margins of replacing oil, but nowhere near across the board, no way. The market economy, which by definition includes reality, will eventually trump all this dancing around reality / liberal idealistic reasoning, and we will drill for more oil in more places.

0 Replies

And we didn't even discuss the hundreds or thousands of critical products that are made from petroleum and for which there is no practical substitute.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Right on in everything you said, Foxfyre, and all of what you said is totally common sense and obvious to anyone I would think. Yet, I have been castigated, as you have, for stating the obvious here. For some reason, there seems to be an emotional barrier to facing reality.

Cyclops has gone so far as to say the technology is here, right now to replace oil. And Parados thought he was supporting cyclops argument by triumphantly posting an article predicting 20% electrical contribution by wind in the U.S. by the year 2030! To all of this, oe and O'Bill chimed in and said, see, you are wrong, and as usual, Bill calls me a fool for stating the obvious! oe even compared oil to slavery, of all things. Bizarre indeed.

Technology is here on the margins of replacing oil, but nowhere near across the board, no way. The market economy, which by definition includes reality, will eventually trump all this dancing around reality / liberal idealistic reasoning, and we will drill for more oil in more places.

The technology IS right here, right now. We know how to do it. We have solutions for it. It's just a matter of deciding to do it.

Now, there are those who are more concerned about pollution then others; they would like us to transition faster, to avoid furthering the damage that we have done with our short-sighted burning of fossil fuels to power everything. Others are less concerned about pollution (though I bet a strategic re-location of their domiciles to less removed locales would change that quick) and more heavily invested in the current method, so they resist change, which they fear. It's not surprising, really.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There is change and there is change. Some objective factors with respect to energy will require us all to alter our habits to some degree. However, many people wish to impose additional or more rapid changes on other people by force, through the action of government. They generally mask this authoritarian impulse with arguments that suggest that disaster will surely follow if they don't get their way. However, in one form or another, this has been the constant mantra of those who seek power over others.

Our society and economy have been build largely on the free choices of individuals and groups of people in their economic and personal lives, generally with minimal (compared to most of the rest of the world) interference from government. This dynamic has contributed to our great success, relative to other countries (which have increasingly moved towards imitation of our methods). Now we see a bright "new" class of folks who have bought into the old authoritarian impulses (notwithstanding their dismal historical track record) and who wish to accelerate the movement of the rest of us into their personal conceptions of the future. Theirs are simply old, shopworn Platonic ideas and governing principles, that have failed wherever they were applied.

We do need a transition period in our evolution towards energy independence. We can rely on the benefits of free choice and individual innovation - all based on natural market forces and individual freedom - to get us there. A sure way to uniform error and disaster is an authoritarian approach which supposes that the needed innovation, adaptability, flexibility and attendion to the needs of consumers can somehow be supplied by politicians on the make and a cadre of bureaucrats. This is a laughable recipe for folly that history has demonstrated numerous times - and without exception. It is a pity that those who suppose they know better than others are so ignorant if it.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Right on in everything you said, Foxfyre, and all of what you said is totally common sense and obvious to anyone I would think. Yet, I have been castigated, as you have, for stating the obvious here. For some reason, there seems to be an emotional barrier to facing reality.

Cyclops has gone so far as to say the technology is here, right now to replace oil. And Parados thought he was supporting cyclops argument by triumphantly posting an article predicting 20% electrical contribution by wind in the U.S. by the year 2030! To all of this, oe and O'Bill chimed in and said, see, you are wrong, and as usual, Bill calls me a fool for stating the obvious! oe even compared oil to slavery, of all things. Bizarre indeed.

Technology is here on the margins of replacing oil, but nowhere near across the board, no way. The market economy, which by definition includes reality, will eventually trump all this dancing around reality / liberal idealistic reasoning, and we will drill for more oil in more places.

The technology IS right here, right now. We know how to do it. We have solutions for it. It's just a matter of deciding to do it.

Now, there are those who are more concerned about pollution then others; they would like us to transition faster, to avoid furthering the damage that we have done with our short-sighted burning of fossil fuels to power everything. Others are less concerned about pollution (though I bet a strategic re-location of their domiciles to less removed locales would change that quick) and more heavily invested in the current method, so they resist change, which they fear. It's not surprising, really.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, the technology is here, but I dont think it is here on the level you do.
There is no way to generate enough wind or solar power to supply a city the size of LA with electricity, that isnt feasible.
Can we provide total electric power to smaller towns and rural areas?
Yes, I think we can.
Can we use solar, wind, and tidal power to light up a city like NY, or Chicago, or LA or any of the other major cities in this country?

No, we cant.
For you to insist that the technology is here now to do that is wrong and untrue.

0 Replies

The greatest potential for switching to alternatives or renewables like solar and wind, are in the electrical generation sector, but the practical conversion rate for the overall mix is not going to happen soon by any practical projections. As discussed, the percentage of electricity that can be produced by solar and wind are limited by electrical storage system technologies, which are far from being solved on a large scale.

Even if all electricity was produced by renewables, which is decades away, the oil and gas needed to fuel all the vehicles, planes, trains, ships, and other industrial usage is another huge problem. Even if all of those things were fueled with rechargeable electric motors, the demand for electrical generation would have a corresponding abrupt rise in demand.

The conversion will not happen soon. It will take decades, by any practical projection.

Cyclops lives in denial and in an idealistic world, as do some others here on this forum.

We need "all of the above," more drilling, nuclear, wind, solar, etc. And we need companies to make profits, not the government to rob them of their money, so that progress can continue.

What I have pointed out here, again, as has been pointed out numerous times, is obvious to the most casual observer, except I guess it is still hidden to the liberal mind, that is firmly stuck in the sand.

0 Replies

Pushing more drilling of oil doesn't start the process which will take 'decades.' You start that clock by actually making investments in the new system and new infrastructure.

As I said in the other thread - a compromise can be reached, but part of that compromise is going to be major spending on renewable energy, not just increased drilling...

But to address the question of the day, the technology IS there, it does exist, it is tried and proven. It will never work on a large scale until we try to make it work on a large scale. We should start that immediately.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pushing more drilling of oil doesn't start the process which will take 'decades.' You start that clock by actually making investments in the new system and new infrastructure.

As I said in the other thread - a compromise can be reached, but part of that compromise is going to be major spending on renewable energy, not just increased drilling...

But to address the question of the day, the technology IS there, it does exist, it is tried and proven. It will never work on a large scale until we try to make it work on a large scale. We should start that immediately.

Cycloptichorn

How big an area are you willing to give to energy companies to build enough solar panels to light NYC?
Where would they put those solar panels?
nd if you give them the land, wouldnt that constitute a "Tax Break" that you are so opposed to?
What about Chicago?
Are you going to force the farmers in Illinios to give up their land and their livelyhoods so Chicago can have electricity?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pushing more drilling of oil doesn't start the process which will take 'decades.' You start that clock by actually making investments in the new system and new infrastructure.

If we do not do more drilling we will lack the very resources we require to engineer and produce adequate, alternate energy, technology production facilities. Yes, there are several candidate technologies for supplementing oil technologies. But currently none of them--solar, wind, tide--have been engineered to that level required for them to be proven to be economic solutions.

As I said in the other thread - a compromise can be reached, but part of that compromise is going to be major spending on renewable energy, not just increased drilling...

That compromise was reached long ago. Proof of that is the production of various alternate prototype facilities that now exist to generate energy. That compromise continues and is expanding in magnitude every day. However, what is not adequately expanding is the drilling and lifting of enough crude oil to meet our requirements in the meantime. The length of that meantime is not yet knowable, so we must continue to do what we know works.

But to address the question of the day, the technology IS there, it does exist, it is tried and proven. It will never work on a large scale until we try to make it work on a large scale. We should start that immediately.

There are many already trying to make that current new technology work on a large scale. It has not yet been proven that that current technology can actually constitute an adequate economical substitute for oil. Currently the only proven technologies that are known to be capable of successfully competing with oil technologies are natural gas, coal, and nuclear. While nuclear technology is an excellent alternative--perhaps even the best--it is a technology that frightens too many Americans too much.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Pushing more drilling of oil doesn't start the process which will take 'decades.' You start that clock by actually making investments in the new system and new infrastructure.

As I said in the other thread - a compromise can be reached, but part of that compromise is going to be major spending on renewable energy, not just increased drilling...

But to address the question of the day, the technology IS there, it does exist, it is tried and proven. It will never work on a large scale until we try to make it work on a large scale. We should start that immediately.

Cycloptichorn

Who in your view should "make the investments"?? Private enterprise - (i.e. the thing that built our current energy infrastructure), or government?

Compromise between whom; over what?? Do you propose that government force private individuals and corporations to spend their money on "renewables", even if they don't want to do so??

Actually I have the impression that a good deal of investment is already going in to renewable energy - particularly wind and solar - and practical applications such as "green roofs" on industrial buildings and local installation of small wind turbines & solar collectors for in situ use. Wider scale application awaits only practical developments that would significantly lower cost. The government has a decidedly poor track record in making things work cheaply and effectively. Do you propose that the government should be given this task even though it has shown zero ability to do it well? If so, on what basis do you suppose that it will suddenly defy its past performance on this issue? (The Dept. of Energy Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden CO has been spending hundreds of millions for decades and has produced almost nothing. The available practical applications of wind and solar energy were all developed by private investment.)

I actually wouldn't mind an obvious "carbon tax" as an added incentive to new investment. However, I oppose the so-called cap and trade systems, simply because they are merely a disguised form of taxation that too often enables smart operators to outwit usually dull-witted legislators and bureaucrats and corrupt the process. (Enron vs. Grey Davis is a good example). However, putting research and management of energy production in the hands of government is a proven recipe for disaster. Independent, private economic development spurred by a motive for profit has a vastly superior track record - it build our present energy infrastructure, and it operates it now.

In any event I would not support any government incentive that would in effect force the use of renewable sources of power while they cost more than twice as much as available alternatives. That would cost far too much and would cripple our economy. No one would benefit from that.

0 Replies

mm wrote :

Quote:

There is no way to generate enough wind or solar power to supply a city the size of LA with electricity, that isnt feasible.

you are probably right , but enough medium sized wind/solar/whatever projects can be build to help shore up the supply .

today , installation of 86 wind turbines on wolfe island - the largest of the thousand islands - got underway .( they are situated about 3 to 5 miles from where we live ). they will go online in march 2009 and are expected to supply enough electricity for 75,000 homes - and more turbines are expected to go up near and in lake ontario after this project has been completed .

perhaps we are in a unique situation : two sizable (hydro) power generating stations are not that far away - niagara falls about 200 miles to the west and the st. lawrence river power station about 100 miles to the east .

there are also the churchill falls power stations in northern quebec - their power is fed into the grid of the north-eastern states and NY state .
btw there is still additional hydro power in the area that has not yet been harnessed .

when we cruised from montreal to boston this may , we were also reminded of the huge potential of the bay of fundy tidal power . this project has been sitting on the shelf for some years but - one hopes - will get underway next year .

Quote:

Twice a day, in accordance with nature's clock, the Atlantic Ocean pours through the Bay of Fundy with a controlled fury that is unmatched anywhere in the world.

By the time these waters reach their ultimate destination in Minas Basin, nearly 14 billion tonnes of seawater will have sloshed into that channel ?- equivalent to the combined flow, some have calculated, of every river on earth. Little wonder the Nova Scotia countryside sags slightly under the weight.

to add another one : a canadian/american company has started to explore tapping into some major natural gas reserves in the lower st. lawrence river region .

the bay of fundy and lower st. lawrence projects will no doubt need several years to show their full potential .
imo there is no reason why several projects of the 75,000 household project on our doorsteps cannot be multiplied right across canada and the united states - starting now .
these small projects seem to go pretty quickly from conception to completion - the one on our doorsteps has taken less than three years .
once more of these projects get underway , i would guess that the timespan can even be shortened .

the windturbines for the current installation had to be shipped from denmark : ten containership loads .
the final trip is by superbarges from oswego , ny , to the island .

i'm sure these turbines can also be built in canada and the united states .

my slogan is : (water) ACTION , GAS and BLOW , BLOW , BLOW !
hbg

0 Replies

How were those turbines shipped, HB? Sailing ship? Ox cart over the ice pack? Or were they transported via what is now the 'old fashioned way', i.e. cargo plane or petroleum powered ship?

That is the thing that some don't wish to factor into the equation. Is wind power providing all the energy needed to build them? Crate them? Ship them? Set them up? Or are we having to use more conventional forms of energy just to build them and get them set up in place?

How does the postman who drives a 200-mile route in rugged rural terrain deliver the mail? How does the freight train haul 500 truck trailers across country in order to deliver foodstuffs and critical products to thousands of people who need them? How do our European friends come calling and how do I get to my appointments in the morning without using at least some petroleum?

So yes, yes YES let's keep finding substitutes for petroleum where practical and efficient to do so. But let's keep the world moving toward a more free, prosperous, and democratic planet by acknowledging that in most ways, it still runs on oil.

Drill - drill - DRILL!

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That is the thing that some don't wish to factor into the equation. Is wind power providing all the energy needed to build them? Crate them? Ship them? Set them up? Or are we having to use more conventional forms of energy just to build them and get them set up in place?

So what? Even if conventional energy is needed to set them up, it will decrease the dependence on conventional energy.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know