Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 16 of 357 (775775)
01-04-2016 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by herebedragons
01-04-2016 8:08 AM


Macro-economics of a worldwide Solar "Marchall" Plan
quote:
A big part of the cost associated with coal is transportation. For plants that are close to the source, I think it is still an economic choice - Wyoming and West Virginia for example. But in most places, natural gas is much less costly to produce and deliver. The other big cost is the technology needed to clean the smoke from coal. However, since many plants are implementing those scrubbing systems, there must still be economic incentive to do so.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by herebedragons, posted 01-04-2016 8:08 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 17 of 357 (775776)
01-04-2016 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
01-03-2016 9:44 AM


Re: Nice "micro" return on investment
quote:
I believe the higher rates Gore and others are anticipating are due to higher costs to obtain fossil fuels as resources become used up.
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%).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2016 9:44 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:47 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 357 (775779)
01-04-2016 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by LamarkNewAge
01-04-2016 8:24 PM


Re: Nice "micro" return on investment
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 8:24 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-04-2016 9:06 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-05-2016 10:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 19 of 357 (775782)
01-04-2016 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-04-2016 8:47 PM


Speaking of things we knew verses what not.
quote:
The true cost has not yet been paid.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2016 10:18 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 357 (775797)
01-05-2016 6:04 AM


The Bigger Picture
Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2016 9:11 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2016 1:05 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 24 by 1.61803, posted 01-06-2016 2:49 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 01-06-2016 5:09 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 357 (775805)
01-05-2016 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
01-05-2016 6:04 AM


Re: The Bigger Picture
Looking at the bigger picture: What should our goal as a species be?
Not to take any shit from the Martians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-05-2016 6:04 AM Jon has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 22 of 357 (775864)
01-05-2016 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-04-2016 8:47 PM


Lets be clear of 1 thing.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2016 8:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 4:13 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 357 (775889)
01-06-2016 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
01-05-2016 6:04 AM


Re: The Bigger Picture
... 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).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-05-2016 6:04 AM Jon has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 24 of 357 (775906)
01-06-2016 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
01-05-2016 6:04 AM


Re: The Bigger Picture
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-05-2016 6:04 AM Jon has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 25 of 357 (775920)
01-06-2016 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by LamarkNewAge
01-05-2016 10:55 PM


Let me be very clear.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-05-2016 10:55 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by caffeine, posted 01-06-2016 4:31 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 5:43 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 357 (775922)
01-06-2016 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LamarkNewAge
01-06-2016 4:13 PM


Re: Let me be very clear.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 4:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 5:09 PM caffeine has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 27 of 357 (775924)
01-06-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by caffeine
01-06-2016 4:31 PM


Germany is blessed and cursed
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by caffeine, posted 01-06-2016 4:31 PM caffeine has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3977
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(4)
Message 28 of 357 (775925)
01-06-2016 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Jon
01-05-2016 6:04 AM


Re: The Bigger Picture
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Jon, posted 01-05-2016 6:04 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 357 (775927)
01-06-2016 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by LamarkNewAge
01-06-2016 4:13 PM


Re: Let me be very clear.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 4:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-06-2016 7:39 PM Jon has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 30 of 357 (775933)
01-06-2016 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Jon
01-06-2016 5:43 PM


Im waiting for the final 2015 data.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 5:43 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Jon, posted 01-06-2016 8:05 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024