|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: If we deploy enough solar panels worldwide, then the energy produced could relieve the world demand of energy so much that the cheapest to extract oil (essentially Persian gulf oil) could be all we need to supply demand. Gulf oil can "break-even" at slightly less than $1 a gallon. (its a lot cleaner than the tar sludge sands also) The same macro-dynamics applies to coal also. Coal has its cheap easy to remove types and the more expensive variety. So the environmental movement can claim to be attempting to reduce the price of the cherished energy commodities if a really big investment is proposed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Actually the newer, more dirty sources of petroleum that have been discovered aren't that expensive it seems. The Tar Sands of Alberta can break even at $47 a barrel (or $67 if it is the type obtained by scraping or something). And the Gulf states have been artificially decreasing production, so that has shot prices up a lot (albeit, not this very moment). (ironic that just a few percent less production can shoot prices up over 100%).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Actually the newer, more dirty sources of petroleum that have been discovered aren't that expensive it seems. The Tar Sands of Alberta ... ... have been known about for decades. They were talked about in the 70's when I was at uni (and a global warming activist then). What was missing was the technology to extract it, and a price that made it economical.
The Tar Sands of Alberta can break even at $47 a barrel (or $67 if it is the type obtained by scraping or something). ... ...by ignoring the cost to the environment, especially drinking water acquifers, and the cost to return that envionment to what it was like before. The true cost has not yet been paid. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Something that is a new discovery is the damage to the life in the oceans. Nobody saw the extinctions coming back in the 1990s. I think it very foolish for the environmental movement to spend so little time shouting all over and on (top of the issue of) the acidification of the oceans. I started a new thread to see if there are deniers on this issue too. (my guess is they will say that "higher carbon follows higher temperatures and since higher temperatures are just a cyclical thing, then we deny man caused it") EDIT then the next question is to find out if all climate-change skeptics hold this view because there are lots of varieties among the "denier" community. One shouldn't broad-brush the "denier" community, and I was just guilty of such in my parenthetical sentence. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be? Not to take any shit from the Martians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Things are confusing.
Saudi Arabia helped limit supply enough over the past decade - driving up prices - that it made investment in alternative energy (like solar) a viable option and a "worthy" enough goal among Americans. But it also made investment in new "unconventional" technology to extract dirty fossil fuels an urgent priority. Now Saudi Arabia is sinking the price of fossil fuels simply by removing most artificial production limits - the very thing that put renewable energy progress on the fast track. The solar panel revolution seems to be lifting off, and prices seem to be headed nowhere but down. It's the dirty unconventional fossil fuels producers that will have a hard time finding innovations to enable their filthy product to match the low current energy prices per barrel. But the newer, environmentally disastrous fossil fuel sources have managed to prove they can be viable at ever lower market prices for a barrel of oil. Environmentalist have 2 alternatives. Tax the dirty fuel sources or put them out of business by doing everything to make cleaner energy cheaper. The first is politically impossible in the USA. (especially by itself) The 2014 New York Gubernatorial race saw a Green candidate Howie Hawkins offer a plan to tax the wealthy (income tax) to fund renewable energy projects so that by 2030, 100% of energy in New York would be "clean" and electricity rates would be cut in half from the present bills the consumer pays. The plan also would have brought unemployment down to 0% because alternative energy costs are actually much to do with job intensive labor. And a Stanford professor peer reviewed the plan (Jacobson was his name I think). Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... What should our goal as a species be? To survive and reproduce, and adapt to the ecology around us ... or adapt it to to suit us. The later option has worked well for some time, but it could be reaching the point where we are no longer able to "terraform" (human-form?) it to our desired ecology\habitat. We do display a large variation in adaptations to different ecologies, so it may be a matter of shifting people from one less habitable ecology to one more habitable. This will of course result in political chaos, as we already see in Syria (unrest started with several years of extreme drought due to climate changes in that area). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
Jon writes: Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be? "Crwuash za enemy, see dem driven before you,und za lamentation of za wemen." "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
The Green party candidate, via a peer-reviewed plan, showed that, by 2030, short term taxes on "the big polluters and wall street" (in the New York ads for the plan) would lead to a 50% cut in energy bills later.
The way renewables work is that if the upfront costs are paid for, then prices drop after. Its sort of "free energy" after the initial cost. Imagine the "pro-growth" chants and chorus we would be hearing from (right-wing)talk radio if this was something that would come about from some piece of legislation the fossil fuel industry supported. I am so sick of hearing about that measly "Keystone pipeline" , you don't have a clue. The United States is full of little "know-it-alls" who listen to Rush Limbaugh, and then they seem programed to "think Keystone" anytime you hear about the energy issue. Keystone is the be all and end all issue for energy. The right-wing bought-and-paid-for talk radio echo chamber has seen some real payoff for certain industry at the expense of our economic growth. And the Republicans are claiming to be able to magically grow the economy "4%" or more if their rehashed voodoo can continue yet more. Put them in the white house so they can keep on keeping on I mean "change the direction of the nation". Never mind that they already have the status quo doing everything they brag about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1053 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined:
|
The Green party candidate, via a peer-reviewed plan, showed that, by 2030, short term taxes on "the big polluters and wall street" (in the New York ads for the plan) would lead to a 50% cut in energy bills later. The way renewables work is that if the upfront costs are paid for, then prices drop after. Its sort of "free energy" after the initial cost. The strategy used in Germany is to offer above market value prices for a fixed period of 15-20 years for anyone willing to sell power produced by renewable means to the national grid. It appears to have worked as well - it's encouraged both big energy producers and private individuals to set up solar and wind powered production since the startup costs are essentially taxpayer subsidised. Wind, solar, biofuels and hydroelecticity make up about a third of the German electricity supply now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
There is some very fortunate evaporation of warm waters that blow over Germany, which enables the northern-latitude region to have relatively warm weather.
The side-effect is the large cloud-cover which really does limit Germany. Some days the country gets nearly 80% of it's energy from renewables. Those days are fairly rare. The United States would be a much quicker (and more powerful) payoff than Germany. Germany, OPEC, and China have done the most to move solar technology forward. Germany was an early investor (when the costs were sky high back around early 2000s) in the technology and that helped create the market. OPEC lowered production over a half-dozen times over several decades, and the tightening this century has been noteworthy. China offered very very big subsidies to its solar producers and that made a monumental difference in making them affordable for anybody engaged in free trade with China. Solar would see further price drops simply by a big United States investment from the federal government ( say $200 billion per year). Producers wouldn't need to charge as much per unit if they sold many times the amount of panels. If 100 times the panels were sold, then the profit margin per panel sold could be about 1/100th. Plus a red hot market would encourage investment in price reducing innovations (not that some of this surely isn't happening already). But the current price of solar is low enough that a big U.S. government investment would not only pay for itself (at the micro-economical level) in less than a decade (or around a decade) but the macro-economical benefits would shine a light of prosperity on not only the U.S. economy but the entire world. Talk about "1000 points of light". The Republicans should make their economic policies match their endless claims.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
Jon writes: Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be? Short-term, abate and survive the immediate post-industrial environmental crisis. Medium-term, separate our species' destiny from this planet. Long-term, separate our species' destiny from that of this star system. Party throughout."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Okay. Another question: does this thread have a dedicated purpose or is it just a place for you to rant about pretty much anything that pisses you off?
Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2424 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
But, it is impossible to talk about global warming issues without proposing some solutions IMO.
Btw the 2015 average price of a gallon of gas was 94 cents less at-the-pump than it was for 2014. A $115 billion savings for American consumers. And it is all due to the supply verses demand match. The macroeconomics of increasing the supply of energy is dramatic. Nothing beats solar. The wonders of solar panels are only matched by the complete ineptitude of the environmental movement. I don't think these environmental groups and their spokespeople understand economics at all. And I'm not talking about political economy, though they are very ignorant of that too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024