|
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: 1.3 |
quote: Another PDF link is embedded the text.
quote: quote: And the increase in energy from the sun has indeed reduced the price of other energy sources (like oil) as it reduces demand. I wish that angle would get explored more often. Every gas-fired plant built ultimately increases prices. Every solar-panel purchased decreases the cost of both solar and natural-gas, oil, coal. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: The decline in the installed cost of solar should have slowed down two or more years ago, and the fact that it hasn't is surprising even the most experienced energy analysts. The production costs keep dropping and the efficiency of the panels keeps increasing as technological advances make improvements. This industry is still in it's infancy, and like computing power I would expect the trend to cheaper solar energy to continue for some time. Enjoy.by 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: 1.3 |
quote: quote: A found a really good (long) article, and I can try to get some parts of it here, but please read the entire article.
quote: It gets real interesting when one looks at the countries around the world, but I will only cover a small bit of what is said.
quote: When one reads the article, it is easy to see how oil & gas will owe much of their lower price to solar investments(not that the petroleum producers really want the price to be low, except when a self-serving predatory method is felt to call for more production). People really need to understand that the $33 per barrel that Saudi Arabia charges now (which is a drop from $115 a little more than a year ago) has come about from just increasing production a few percentage points. Conversely, a drop in production of a few percent could send prices up like 300%. People complain about the $200 billion (over the past 10 years or less) we have spent on the 30% tax deduction for solar panels, but solar has done so much to reduce demand for fossil fuels and coal that it is hard to imagine that it hasn't paid for itself. It's real ironic but a 10 cents reduction in the per gallon gas tax might not reduce the price per gallon even a penny, but it would cost the government about $12 billion in revenue per year. The price is demand driven and supply driven. The price would have to raise enough so that the market couldn't afford to buy more than the available supply. It would essentially go back up 10 cents so that prices would discourage purchases. Even more ironic is that a $12 billion government investment in solar panel deployment would indeed reduce gas prices because the increased solar energy would reduce demand for oil-energy and the supply (assuming the oil boys would maintain production as the same level and not decrease it) would become cheaper. It is a reality that is just so missed. Anyway, the article mentions technological issues as well.
quote: That and many other things should really have up optimistic about the possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Your statement is false no matter how you consider it because it presumes us doing more with less and that is crap.
The beauty of our technology is that it allows us to do more with more. How many more uses for petroleum have we found? Do you think discovering those uses had led to us using less or more petroleum? Our technologies - and especially the most revolutionary ones - have all been directed at finding ways for us to consume more and more of the earth's resources.
We can now circle the planet in an hour in small rockets made of advanced materials. In the 1800s, it took a much larger steel steamship two weeks to circumnavigate the planet. That's doing more with less: accomplishing the same task in less time with less material. This example is about efficiencies within industries. If we look at the whole picture, it becomes clear that we are doing more with more. In fact, efficiencies for certain processes almost always lead to us using more of whatever resource we've saved than what those efficiencies eliminated the need for. Our societies are prosperous not because of all the efficiencies developed within industries but because the cheap energy of fossil fuels has enabled us to cut, mine, and extract more resources to turn them into more stuff.
... there is no fundamental chemical or physical reason why we must have a reliance on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have so far been shown to do the job the best. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though, and that's the purpose of asking all the questions I've been asking here. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
What matters most is the cost-benefit analysis of the two situations. They both have their good and their bad, and we need to consider the good and bad about both of them. Agreed, as long as ALL the costs are included in the equations.
Burning fossil fuels has costs, but is also comes with huge benefits. ... And even larger hidden costs that are not included in your balance sheet: ecological disaster on a global scale. This is not something to be treated lightly. The lands where fracking is now being done to extract fossil fuel energy has laid the landscape as desolate and barren as 'Mordor,' causes earthquakes in surrounding areas and permanently poisons water aquifers that people rely on to live. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf is still wreaking havoc on the ecosystems there and poisoning the food supply. (and you can still find lingering effects of the Exxon Valdez spill). I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The number of explosions and oil spill from the Tar sands distributions have impacted ecologies and homes in a continuing pattern. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The massive methane gas leak has caused evacuation of all residential areas down-wind at great disturbance to homeowners lives. And they still don't know how to cap it (BP oil spill scenario played out again?) I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. Global climate change due to use of fossil fuels is causing increased extinction of species and alteration of livable areas, and has already caused civil unrest in Syria, with more to follow. The massive emigration from that area is impacting all of Europe. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. Then there are the Iraq wars fought to gain control of oil supplies at the cost of millions of lives and the disruption of whole societies not just families. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column.
... In fact, those benefits have more than out-paced the costs in societies that burn large quantities of fossil fuels ... And those hidden costs that outweigh those benefits are catching up to us now, and it is time to pay the piper. Starting with getting off fossil fuels and onto renewable energy. The technology is there. The resources are there. What is missing is political will from corporate controlled governments. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Genomicus writes:
But the steamship was much cheaper - and still is. Nor are circumnavigation and orbiting "the same task". Your example is actually "doing something completely different with way more resources". We can now circle the planet in an hour in small rockets made of advanced materials. In the 1800s, it took a much larger steel steamship two weeks to circumnavigate the planet. "Doing more with less" is, in fact, nonsense. It's political mumbo-jumbo, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
And even larger hidden costs that are not included in your balance sheet: ecological disaster on a global scale. This is not something to be treated lightly. The lands where fracking is now being done to extract fossil fuel energy has laid the landscape as desolate and barren as 'Mordor,' causes earthquakes in surrounding areas and permanently poisons water aquifers that people rely on to live. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf is still wreaking havoc on the ecosystems there and poisoning the food supply. (and you can still find lingering effects of the Exxon Valdez spill). I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The number of explosions and oil spill from the Tar sands distributions have impacted ecologies and homes in a continuing pattern. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. The massive methane gas leak has caused evacuation of all residential areas down-wind at great disturbance to homeowners lives. And they still don't know how to cap it (BP oil spill scenario played out again?) I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. Global climate change due to use of fossil fuels is causing increased extinction of species and alteration of livable areas, and has already caused civil unrest in Syria, with more to follow. The massive emigration from that area is impacting all of Europe. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. Then there are the Iraq wars fought to gain control of oil supplies at the cost of millions of lives and the disruption of whole societies not just families. I put that in the real costs outweigh the benefits column. So as I already said, all that's focused on re fossil fuels are the negatives. Included in that mix is the silly attempt to blame almost every ill on the things. Civil unrest in Syria from fossil fuels? Don't be ridiculous! So let's balance it out; let's discuss the benefits: Fossil fuels have given us advanced societies with access to impressive amounts of cheap and reliable energy for improving lives. That's energy to build schools, hospitals, shopping centers, grocery stores, and the roads to get people to them. That's energy to light laboratories where life-saving medications are developed - and power all the energy-hungry lab equipment. That's energy to grow more food than we know what to do with and energy to get it where the hungry people are. And on and on; cheap energy makes the wealth and well-being of modern civilizations possible. And that cheap energy has almost all come from fossil fuels. That's why despite all the doomsaying, quality of life and life expectancy have skyrocketed in every society that has made the decision to fuel itself on those ancient plants. Meanwhile nations like Kenya have more solar systems per person than anywhere else and yet they remain nations like Kenya.
And those hidden costs that outweigh those benefits are catching up to us now, and it is time to pay the piper. The costs aren't hidden in the sense that we don't see them at all. Even if we don't tabulate them separately, their impact still shows up on the final account. And the fact that people live longer, happier, more productive lives than they ever did without fossil fuels tells me - and should tell any rational and honest person - that the costs of fossil fuels absolutely do not outweigh their benefits.
Starting with getting off fossil fuels and onto renewable energy. The technology is there. The resources are there. What is missing is political will from corporate controlled governments. Yes, the technology is there, and that technology has its own risks and benefits associated with it. Some of the risks associated with renewables include their unreliable and low output of energy and the related inability to power the modern societies that make us so much happier, healthier, and more productive. The production of renewable energy technology is also ecologically devastating and when all the costs for that industry are accounted for has been estimated by some to be more environmentally damaging than producing energy with fossil fuels (potentially an overestimation, but a demonstration, nonetheless, of the very serious, and comparable, environmental impact of renewable energy). It's very unlikely - close to zero - that the costs outweigh the benefits for either fossil fuels or renewables. But as to which one is better requires an honest evaluation of both from the cost and benefit side - including all the costs and all the benefits.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You have your biases Jon and I have mine.
Included in that mix is the silly attempt to blame almost every ill on the things. Civil unrest in Syria from fossil fuels? Don't be ridiculous! Except that there actually is documentation of the cause -- several years of unnatural drought caused by global climate change caused by fossil fuel use caused collapse of agricultural farming and cattle raising. The farmers moved to the cities when they could no longer live on the farms and petitioned their government for assistance on the farms. Protests started and got larger as nothing was done to help them. Then the government started attacking and killing the protesters, and the rest you might know if you paid any attention. Yes -- fossil fuel overuse lead to the Syrian conflict. Look it up and educate yourself rather than blithely dismiss it. Here's some more hidden cost to balance against perceived benefit:
quote: Care to calculate the cost to repair the ocean ecosystems?
Fossil fuels have given us advanced societies with access to impressive amounts of cheap and reliable energy for improving lives. That's energy to build schools, hospitals, shopping centers, grocery stores, and the roads to get people to them. That's energy to light laboratories where life-saving medications are developed - and power all the energy-hungry lab equipment. That's energy to grow more food than we know what to do with and energy to get it where the hungry people are. And on and on; cheap energy makes the wealth and well-being of modern civilizations possible. And that cheap energy has almost all come from fossil fuels. And now we are paying the price for it. It was only "cheap" because not all the costs are included in your balance sheet. Look at the cost benefit of nuclear energy and include the cost to treat and dispose of the waste in a safe and sane manner. It should not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the cost of restoration of the extraction of energy costs more than you can realize from the fossil fuel and nuclear energy ... because entropy. The only way you beat that is with an external source of energy ... the sun.
So as I already said, all that's focused on re fossil fuels are the negatives. No Jon, it is balancing those negatives against what was borrowed in the past by NOT properly focusing on them at the time. But fossil fuels are no longer cheap either when those costs are still ignored. Every time I fill up my car and get giddy over prices under $2/gallon I remind myself that it used to cost $0.25/gal when I first started driving.
... That's energy to build schools, hospitals, shopping centers, grocery stores, and the roads to get people to them ... And the energy to advance technology like solar power generation and LED lights so that we can move forward to an even better society that doesn't have to destroy the earth to have those benefits. Look at India using solar panels to spread electricity to their rural areas and see that this is the future. Look at the tar sand wastelands and see that it is the past. The time has come to change, and the change that is available right now is better for us and for the planet, and it can only get better. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added oceans and nuclear to the listby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
You still haven't dealt with the fact that increased overall well-being proves the benefits from fossil fuels outweigh their costs.
As for droughts in the ME, you're forgetting that drought has always been a problem with history offering plenty of examples of droughts far more severe than what the ME is now facing - many at great loss of life and livelihood. Advanced, first-world societies have not successfully dealt with droughts by trying to keep the planet cool but by burning large amounts of fossil fuels taking steps to minimize their impact on human life. Fossil fuels or not there will always be droughts. It's just that with fossil fuels we can at least survive them. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 852 Joined: |
But the steamship was much cheaper - and still is. If you're talking about cheaper in a monetary sense, that's not exactly relevant to the "more with less" thesis. The price of goods, material, and labor is subject to the vicissitudes of the sociopolitical environment. Money is an industrial tool -- an artifact of human ingenuity -- which is only one way of measuring the total value/cost of an endeavor.
Nor are circumnavigation and orbiting "the same task". Sure it is. It's the task of getting a member of our species to begin at one point of the earth, circle around it, and arrive back at that approximate point. But, if this example doesn't do it for you, then the "more with less" narrative can be extended to aircraft instead of rockets.
Your example is actually "doing something completely different with way more resources". With way more resources as measured by mass? Do you have empirical evidence to validate the idea that more mass was required on the back-end to engineer the first rocket that orbited the planet than the mass required to engineer the first steel steamship to circumnavigate the earth? It doesn't even have to be empirical evidence; I'm just curious why you think that "more resources" (as measured by mass, 'cause that's what "more with less" is all about) were required for the rocket than for the ship.
It's political mumbo-jumbo, nothing more. It's not really political, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A simple illustration should suffice to discredit your thesis:
Newcomen's engine was highly inefficient. Watt improved its efficiency, enabling more water to be pumped with less coal ("more with less"). But at the larger level, did Watt's improvements in efficiency to Newcomen's engine increase or decrease the amount of coal England used? Did it really mean more with less or did it actually mean more with more?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Genomicus Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 852 Joined:
|
Newcomen's engine was highly inefficient. Watt improved its efficiency, enabling more water to be pumped with less coal ("more with less"). But at the larger level, did Watt's improvements in efficiency to Newcomen's engine increase or decrease the amount of coal England used? Did it really mean more with less or did it actually mean more with more? You don't understand the thesis. The thesis is that advancing technology has enabled us to do more with less per unit of mass. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether civilizations subsequently scale their use of some technology. It's still doing more per unit of mass than previous technologies allowed us to do. The key phrase here is "per unit of mass." So no. Your example only confirms the thesis. Watt's engine allowed the English to do more per unit of mass with arguably less energy. That the English subsequently used this technology to great extent has nothing whatsoever to do with the thesis. So I wonder, again, why you're harping on this. The point I was making was this: that this general technology-enabled trend of doing more (per unit of mass) has permitted the growth of civilization; it is not the paleobiological nature of the energy used that allowed this advance. Easy stuff. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given. Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
As I said, you have your biases and I have mine
You still haven't dealt with the fact that increased overall well-being proves the benefits from fossil fuels outweigh their costs. Curiously I see the pending extinction events and whole-sale destruction of ecosystems to be way more costly to life in general and human life in particular than the temporary benefits that have been rung from fossil fuels.
As for droughts in the ME, you're forgetting that drought has always been a problem with history offering plenty of examples of droughts far more severe than what the ME is now facing - many at great loss of life and livelihood. Pathetic. Obviously you did NOT look into the evidence, but are just another denialist apologist for the fossil fuel industry. Global warming helped trigger Syria's civil war | Mashable
quote: How Global Warming Helped Cause the Syrian War | WIRED
quote: Syria's civil war 'linked to global warming'
quote: That's the top 3 returns on Syria global warming search. So yes it is drought of unusual proportions as I said before that resulted in the social turmoil leading to the civil war.
Advanced, first-world societies have not successfully dealt with droughts by trying to keep the planet cool but by burning large amounts of fossil fuels taking steps to minimize their impact on human life. What did they do out west to alleviate their drought? Nothing. Then they spent a lot of time energy and tax dollars fighting the fires that raged in the tinder dry area -- another hidden cost?
Fossil fuels or not there will always be droughts. It's just that with fossil fuels we can at least survive them. Bull*hockey*pucks. Your logic stinks. Conditions are getting worse and worse, and more and more extreme effects are being realized every year. The ability to deal with them gets increasingly difficult, and the reliance on cozy brain dead patronizing live in the past statements do not really deal with the situation. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
There's no guarantee of a better world. Yeah, a wrathful denialist god could vengefully smite us rather than let us prove him wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The thesis is that advancing technology has enabled us to do more with less per unit of mass. Well why the fuck didn't you say that three posts ago? How is anyone supposed to understand something that you don't say? You are correct that technology has enabled us to output more units of goods per unit of input. But that increase in efficiency has only really been beneficial because it has, at every turn, fueled an overall increase in extraction and consumption - the rise in material wealth that distinguishes modern civilizations from all the others. We are only better off because on the whole we consume more (in total and per person) than we used to.Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024