Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[bush_cheney2004]

Why aren't we building renewable energy now? Oil is the resource of the dinosaurs.

Petroleum does not come from dead dinosaurs...this is a popular myth.

[Peanutbutter]

Why aren't we building renewable energy now? Oil is the resource of the dinosaurs.

I'm certain they are working on renewable resources as we speak here. It's impossible to switch from one widely available fuel source to another overnight around the world. It doesn't work that way. Oil is the best option we have right now until something else is widely and easily available.

What do you suggest the entire world change to instead of oil for all it's needs?

[shortlived]

Just a follow up on my bug sink --- all you'd need to do is just set up some sort of pendulum trap with a bubble pump,, with a high efficency high lumens LED at night.. this way the bugs would be attracted to the light, the pendulum trap captures the bugs near the light and the bubble pump will move the bugs to the trap area... that is one concept

It may seem pretty plan but for high bug areas, this is a massive source of free protein... .

plus it would get rid of pesky bugs.

This same concept can be ramped up to an industrial scale. such as mobile bug sink stations that can then be used to make "bug protein powder" With no feedstock or other initial inputs.

Although you could "plant" to environments to encourage bug growth, but really if controlling larva that is another product right there. These are untapped food sources. For boreal Canada it is a mechanism to enhance the carrying capacity of the land without any inputs other than this device.

Not only for survival but also for living - bugs.

http://www.fao.org/forestry/edibleinsects/65429/en/

The protein content is comparable to that of conventional meat. The essential amino acids are often present,

As much protien as beef, that little mosquat and blackflew. Hey and if you are just debugging, why not use it as feedstock! Yup its able to be fed into animals who you can then murder to get larger chunks in the slice.

Oh and if you are in the "I would never eat bugs" camp...

http://www.mun.ca/biology/bpromoters/edibleinsects.php

"...t the average North
American inadvertently ingests 1 to 2 pounds of insects each year."

This just had me question, perhaps the adena serpent mounds were actually worm mounds?

lest wasteful societies actually use the critters as food

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/6263/1/IJTK%208(4)%20485-494.pdf

"BIOPROSPECTING"

Edited February 20, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

I'm certain they are working on renewable resources as we speak here. It's impossible to switch from one widely available fuel source to another overnight around the world. It doesn't work that way. Oil is the best option we have right now until something else is widely and easily available.

That's what the oil companies have been saying for forty years, and they'll keep using that excuse as long as we let them.

Maybe now, with the real interference with the pipelines, they'll get serious about alternatives to fossil fuels.

[TimG]

That's what the oil companies have been saying for forty years, and they'll keep using that excuse as long as we let them.

Maybe now, with the real interference with the pipelines, they'll get serious about alternatives to fossil fuels.

Ah no. What will happen is they will import oil from other places and Canadians will be put out of work.

The only way to stop people from using oil is to provide alternatives that are CHEAPER and as convenient.

There has never been a time in human history when society "transitioned" to an energy source that is more expensive or less convenient. You are delusional if you think the government can change this fact of life.

Edited February 22, 2013 by TimG

[jbg]

There has never been a time in human history when society "transitioned" to an energy source that is more expensive or less convenient. You are delusional if you think the government can change this fact of life.

Maybe the hard working delegates to Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun can.

[shortlived]

Petroleum does not come from dead dinosaurs...this is a popular myth.

Some petrol does, it comes from "all organic matter" which under pressure forms into oil, unless you have another explanation such as it is the lube that the aliens put in earth to stop the tectonic plates from grinding.

And really the earth is just a giant spaceship...

It just so happens that dinosaurs lived around the time some oil started forming so not only are dinosaurs in the mix but all their dung, should we beleive the planet is older than 5000 years, not to offend the biblical creationists..

depending on how long they live, a dinosaur could still be in an oil reserve if it could take the pressure...

some would even claim they run the oil companies..

fact here all that oil that is coming out of that unclosable fault in the gulf of mexico, is coming from the remians of stuff that lived when dinosaurs were kicking in the gulf. Basically the dinosaurs swimming pool has sprung a leak into our time. Anyone drown in that thing back then could be in the mix, no doubt. Anyone burried could get out...

It'd make a cool B rate movie -- return of the dinosaurs... --- throw in their decendents the aliens who cleaned up everything before flying into outer space and you have a sequel.

Likewise those dinobones found in the tarpools and tarsands, well geuss what there was more than just bone on them before they became an additive in your rocket fuel.

I think intelligent dinos are a cooler model than dumb dinos.. you know maybe they had a tar pool cult, or it was like a hot spring pool for us? Perhaps a few drunk too much and drown in the tarpools? Only to be come methonol 250 million years later?

Of course land claims could be a pain in the ruuump.

Also supply and demand is a funny thing.. the more supply the less money brought in .. somehow alberta is running a deficit yet output has increased, figure that..

If you figure how far humans came in less than 5 million years think how far reptiles could have came in 200 million..

Edited February 22, 2013 by shortlived

[jacee]

There has never been a time in human history when society "transitioned" to an energy source that is more expensive or less convenient. You are delusional if you think the government can change this fact of life.

We've "transitioned" from a lot of things once we knew they were killing us.

[TimG]

We've "transitioned" from a lot of things once we knew they were killing us.

You are completely delusional if you think fossil fuels are 'killing us'. Fossil fuels save way more lives that they hurt.

We have never 'transitioned' from any technology unless there are cost effective alternatives.

For fossil fuels no such alternatives exist and all governments can do is funding R&D (which they are already doing).

But R&D comes with no timeline or any guarantees of success.

So we will be relying on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

[waldo]

So we will be relying on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

nice strawman! Who doesn't recognize that the time-frame to wean off of fossil-fuels, as the principal energy source, isn't multi-decades into the future? Your myopic position simply refuses to accept that alternative energy sources have a place today in working toward that significant scaling back on the fossil-fuel reliance.

[WIP]

You are completely delusional if you think fossil fuels are 'killing us'. Fossil fuels save way more lives that they hurt.

We have never 'transitioned' from any technology unless there are cost effective alternatives.

For fossil fuels no such alternatives exist and all governments can do is funding R&D (which they are already doing).

But R&D comes with no timeline or any guarantees of success.

So we will be relying on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and no amount of wishful thinking will change that.

What's delusional is not recognizing the connection between digging stored solar energy out of the ground and burning it and the resulting increases in greenhouse gas levels.

Or recognizing the connection between rising greenhouse gas levels and rising global average temperatures:

The average combined global land and ocean surface temperature for

January 2013 tied with 1995 as the ninth warmest January since records

began in 1880, at 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20^th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F).

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/1

Or recognizing that rising global average land and sea temperatures will precipitate a mass extinction that will likely take out the human race along with those presently on the endangered species lists.

p.s. Start leaving it in the ground now! it's not going anywhere, and future generations may have some needs for petroleum products also. Why use everything up now and nothing for the future?

Edited February 23, 2013 by WIP

[jacee]

You are completely delusional if you think fossil fuels are 'killing us'. Fossil fuels save way more lives that they hurt.

In case you haven't noticed, clean air, water and soil are necessary to human survival.

And of course the auto and oil industries collusion in suppressing alternatives:

Who killed the electric car?

It is ridiculous that we can't yet use electric cars in our cities. Should have happened decades ago.

Edited February 23, 2013 by jacee

[TimG]

In case you haven't noticed, clean air, water and soil are necessary to human survival.

In case you have not noticed, food and water transported over long distances to population centers are essential to human survival. Being able to eat has saved more people than have ever died from 'fossil fuel' pollution (which is extremely mild compared to the 'horse crap' pollution that plagued cities before the use of fossil fuels become common).

There are electric cars available on the market today. Have you or your family bought one? If not why not?

Your pathetic conspiracy theories don't really hold much water if won't spend your own money on them.

Electric cars will never replace liquid fuel based cars unless there is a major breakthrough in battery technology that allows them to be 'refilled' in 5 minutes an/or something which makes operating them without subsidies significantly cheaper than a liquid fueled car.

The latter is not likely to happen since the cost of electricity will rise as the cost of fossil fuel rises unless there is a massive shift to nuclear power.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[WIP]

In case you haven't noticed, clean air, water and soil are necessary to human survival.

And of course the auto and oil industries collusion in suppressing alternatives:

Who killed the electric car?

It is ridiculous that we can't yet use electric cars in our cities. Should have happened decades ago.

The movie mentioned part of the role that the oil and auto companies -- combined together as the Highway Lobby -- have had in forcing government policy to trash rail and transit systems and build highways for them (in the Eisenhower 50's, the interstate system was built under the pretense of "national defense") and pretty much established most of the changing pattern of life after WWII when the construction of highways enabled the modern urban lifestyle where people live miles away from where they work and drive the highway every day to and from work. And that gets to where I don't see huge advantages with this traditional liberal environmental solution of switching from gasoline to battery power!

Certainly on balance, I'm sure battery-powered cars would be an improvement, but those improvements would likely turn out to be marginal, and may even set us up for even larger back end costs of high tech that are mostly dumped on impoverished third world nations today....such as in West African countries, where desperate locals do the dirty job of handling and salvaging our computer devices for usable materials....and of course exposing themselves to toxic metals and chemicals in the process.

Depending on how automotive lithium-ion batteries are constructed -- remember -- they are not all the same! The ones I've heard proposed for new electric cars are lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide, or NMC batteries. These have longer life than lithium batteries used for cellphones and the like, but lower energy densities, and although they are considered safer, but it's hard to imagine a world with millions of discarded NMC batteries without exposure to cobalt poisoning!

And then there is the other problem associated with Big Green environmental solutions of using new technologies and materials to substitute our way out of having to change lifestyles in the coming decades....all of the batteries, and the new high-tech windmills and solar panels require high amounts of rare earth elements that are not only "rare" but also difficult to extract and refine without creating environmental disasters, because rare earths are usually combined with other, very toxic elements like mercury. Much of the reason why China almost corners the rare earths markets today is because....at least up till now, environment and poisoning locals hasn't been a top priority over there! This sort of "green" future may be a matter of choosing toxic metals poisoning over increased carbon levels.

Why not examine the option that will eventually have to be taken at some point in the future: start unwinding car culture, suburban culture, the disproportionate spending on highways, and start putting the money back into refurbishing the rail systems and urban transit now so that people living in the future without cars to drive them around, will still have access to transportation and not be stuck in their little villages as people were prior to the Industrial Era?

[bush_cheney2004]

...It is ridiculous that we can't yet use electric cars in our cities. Should have happened decades ago.

It did happen decades ago. Electric cars and trucks were popular over 100 years ago, like Detroit Electric (they would probably work in Canada too).

Edited February 23, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[shortlived]

old macdonald had a farm ei ei owe, and on that farm he had a pig droppings gas collector ei ei owe, with some methane here and some methane there, there an oink here an oink everywhere an oink oink

old macdonald had a farm ei ei owe, and on that farm he had some trees, ei ei owe, with a leaf leaf here and a branch branch there, here some carbon sequenstration there some carbon sequestration everywhere some carbon sequnestration

we don't need the crap we need fuel and food and water, got lots of that. but nooooo we still got a good century before the planet destroys us, lube up everyone weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

this is just testing the water while the tsunami approaches. or perhaps a better analogy the lava flow from the mountain above approaches.

1. it will be worth more later.

2. we don't need it now.

that is why more pipelines don't exist.

Canada could learn a lot from opec and their band of merry terrorists.

Edited February 23, 2013 by shortlived

[bush_cheney2004]

old macdonald had a farm....

...Canada could learn a lot from opec and their band of merry terrorists.

Sorry, but Old MacDonald was/is an American farmer, and he uses plenty of petroleum products.

[ReeferMadness]

And in order to make his mortgage payments, OM uses farming methods that will boost yields in the short term but ultimately undermine the productive value of his land.

[TimG]

And in order to make his mortgage payments, OM uses farming methods that will boost yields in the short term but ultimately undermine the productive value of his land.

In the long run we will all be dead....

Face it: the mortgage needs to be paid now. if it does not get paid OM is out of the farming business and it makes no difference what happens to his land in the future. That is why environmental awareness is a rich person's luxury and why it is not possible to look after the environment unless you have a robust economy that generates lots of surplus wealth.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

And in order to make his mortgage payments, OM uses farming methods that will boost yields in the short term but ultimately undermine the productive value of his land.

That's OK, because Old MacDonald can just sell his land to a developer for a handsome profit.

[jbg]

Canada could learn a lot from opec and their band of merry terrorists.

Not really. OPEC is splurging their gains on consumption. Fracking is already drying up their market something fierce. Then they'll eat camel turd.

[ReeferMadness]

In the long run we will all be dead....

Yes, we will. And if we keep on pursuing policies that force the OM's of the world to focus on short term profits instead of caring about the world their kids will inherit, a lot of people will be dead of starvation and disease and war, not of old age. and there will be a lot fewer of us around.

Face it: the mortgage needs to be paid now. if it does not get paid OM is out of the farming business and it makes no difference what happens to his land in the future. That is why environmental awareness is a rich person's luxury and why it is not possible to look after the environment unless you have a robust economy that generates lots of surplus wealth.

Which is why I don't blame the OM. Rather, I hold right wing governments and the people who vote them into power accountable. They would rather have bread that is a few cents cheaper than keep the land in good condition for future generations.

The money that OM uses to pay his mortgage is an abstraction. It's something that humans invented to exchange wealth. The rules that humans have put in place mean that OM is put in a position where he has to choose between what is good for the land and staying in business.

The land that OM is ruining is not an abstraction - it's real. It can't be invented or created out of thin air. If it is damaged, it can be damaged for decades, even centuries.

We have economic polices that favour abstraction over reality. That is not rational.

[ReeferMadness]

That's OK, because Old MacDonald can just sell his land to a developer for a handsome profit.

Which is fine for Old MacDonald. Less fine for future generations who might not have enough to eat. Your answer and that of TimG nicely illustrate the myopic greed that characterize conventional economic thinking. Focus on money - don't worry about the future. It's like chopping up your house for firewood in the summer because you can live in a tent while it's warm.

[ReeferMadness]

Not really. OPEC is splurging their gains on consumption. Fracking is already drying up their market something fierce. Then they'll eat camel turd.

Another brain-dead comment.

Production from fracking is short term. Oil companies are starting to find that the recoveries don't even last long enough to cover the cost of drilling. And it hasn't been around long enough to understand environmental effects on things like ground water. Fracking has to be the stupidest thing people have ever done.

[TimG]

Yes, we will. And if we keep on pursuing policies that force the OM's of the world to focus on short term profits instead of caring about the world their kids will inherit, a lot of people will be dead of starvation and disease and war, not of old age.

Let's see: where is the environment better protected? Under the "left wing" communist governments of Russia, China or North Korea? Or under the "right wing" capitalist democracies in NA and Europe?

It was a rhetorical question. As I said: environmental protection is a rich man's luxury. You cannot have environmental protection without wealth. You cannot have wealth without a free market.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TimG