Why aren't we building more pipelines right NOW?

[Guest]

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.

No, the stupidest thing people have ever done is fill the planet with 7 billion of themselves. When you come up with a way of keeping them all warm, fed and gainfully employed using oversized beanies to produce curly lightbulbs you can change things. Until then, the hydrocarbons are coming out of the ground by whatever means possible, and will do until you stop using them.

[bush_cheney2004]

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.

You can go back to horses and dung carts if you wish, but not many will follow you. You live and use all the modern conveniences of a hydrocarbon economy, while predicting doom for us all. And of course, you are wrong.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[ReeferMadness]

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?

Brilliant straw man argument. Are you so brain-washed as to believe there are only 2 choices?

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.

You may live in a world where safe drinking water and clean air are a "rich man's luxury". Please stay there and stop screwing up the planet where my children have to live.

[ReeferMadness]

No, the stupidest thing people have ever done is fill the planet with 7 billion of themselves. When you come up with a way of keeping them all warm, fed and gainfully employed using oversized beanies to produce curly lightbulbs you can change things. Until then, the hydrocarbons are coming out of the ground by whatever means possible, and will do until you stop using them.

I agree that 7 billion is a lot and that having that many people will produce a sizable impact on the planet no matter what. However, we could have much less impact than we currently do. I think it is feasible to keep them warm, clothed and fed in a sustainable fashion. We won't really know unless we seriously try. Gainful employment is a different matter. Capitalism is grossly inefficient in all ways but most notably in the way that it uses (and wastes) human effort. An efficiently run economic system could greatly lessen the amount of paid employment necessary to produce goods and services. Different topic.

Hydrocarbons are their own issue. We are dependent on them in the short term but are doing pathetically little to reduce our dependence. In fact, we reinforce our dependence by subsidizing fossil fuel producers. Also, hydrocarbons are used for a lot more than energy. Lack of imagination and vision are leaving us in a situation where we are putting our quality of life at risk because we aren't putting enough energy into looking for alternatives.

[Guest]

I agree that 7 billion is a lot and that having that many people will produce a sizable impact on the planet no matter what. However, we could have much less impact than we currently do. I think it is feasible to keep them warm, clothed and fed in a sustainable fashion. We won't really know unless we seriously try. Gainful employment is a different matter. Capitalism is grossly inefficient in all ways but most notably in the way that it uses (and wastes) human effort. An efficiently run economic system could greatly lessen the amount of paid employment necessary to produce goods and services. Different topic.

Hydrocarbons are their own issue. We are dependent on them in the short term but are doing pathetically little to reduce our dependence. In fact, we reinforce our dependence by subsidizing fossil fuel producers. Also, hydrocarbons are used for a lot more than energy. Lack of imagination and vision are leaving us in a situation where we are putting our quality of life at risk because we aren't putting enough energy into looking for alternatives.

I don't think we are doing pathetically little. That's the problem. We are doing quite a lot. It just won't work on a global scale. We can't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by any meaningful amount because the technology isn't there.

Also, how do you imagine the search for alternatives would go under any other system than a capitalist one? About the only thing that has produced more technological innovation than the quest for riches is war.

If you reduce the amount of paid employment necessary to produce goods and services what do you do with the unemployed?

Edited February 24, 2013 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Brilliant straw man argument. Are you so brain-washed as to believe there are only 2 choices?

You may live in a world where safe drinking water and clean air are a "rich man's luxury". Please stay there and stop screwing up the planet where my children have to live.

You are the one that blamed "right wing" governments. I pointed out that environmental degradation is much much worse under left wing governments. Don't generalize if you aren't prepared for obvious response.

Look at what parts of the world have the biggest problems accessing safe drinking water.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/human-conditions.php

Now compare that to the average GDP per capita.

As I said: environmental protection is a rich man's luxury.

Build the economy first and there will be money to pay for environmental protection.

Destroy the economy and you destroy the environment.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

You can go back to horses and dung carts if you wish, but not many will follow you. You live and use all the modern conveniences of a hydrocarbon economy, while predicting doom for us all. And of course, you are wrong.

So, those are my only choices? horse and dung carts or hydrocarbon economy?

[bush_cheney2004]

So, those are my only choices? horse and dung carts or hydrocarbon economy?

There are many choices, but few will follow you as the Pied Piper to a lower standard of living, driven by personal fears of what the future may hold. The collective choice of the masses has been to ignore self anointed environmental priests...and drill, baby, drill.

[ReeferMadness]

I don't think we are doing pathetically little. That's the problem. We are doing quite a lot. It just won't work on a global scale. We can't reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by any meaningful amount because the technology isn't there.

Your negative attitude isn't shared by the scientists who wrote this Scientific American article.

Also, how do you imagine the search for alternatives would go under any other system than a capitalist one? About the only thing that has produced more technological innovation than the quest for riches is war.

Propaganda.

If you reduce the amount of paid employment necessary to produce goods and services what do you do with the unemployed?

What an unimaginative question. I don't need to have somewhere to go every day at 8:00. I can easily fill my time.

[shortlived]

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

In Canada his name was John. He was more down with opium and Empress Victoria.

Go back to your corner.

Edited February 24, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest]

Your negative attitude isn't shared by the scientists who wrote this Scientific American article.

Propaganda.

What an unimaginative question. I don't need to have somewhere to go every day at 8:00. I can easily fill my time.

How are you going to eat?

Whcih bit of my propaganda is not true?

Regarding the SA Article. It's great until you get to the second to last sentence.

I have a video for you:

Edited February 24, 2013 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

In Canada his name was John. He was more down with opium and Empress Victoria.

Go back to your corner.

Ok...but whenever I do I always find Canadians there...looking for data and knowledge from NASA, NOAA, CIA, CDC, EIA, CAFE, and Scientific American ! I guess these kind of resources are not available from Canada.

[eyeball]

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).

Before and even during a lot the time it's been common to use fossil fuels people produced most of their food locally, often just outside most cities. Since globalization however the trend has been towards people exporting virtually everything they produce locally and importing virtually everything they consume from abroad.

[lovedCanadians]

I simply think that it's not a good idea.

[TimG]

Before and even during a lot the time it's been common to use fossil fuels people produced most of their food locally, often just outside most cities. Since globalization however the trend has been towards people exporting virtually everything they produce locally and importing virtually everything they consume from abroad.

And in the past when bad weather or disease destroyed the local crops you had mass starvation.

This is the basis for my claim that fossil fuels have saved many more lives than have been killed by pollution.

In fact, the main problem may be that fossil fuels have saved too many lives which creates other issues.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

How are you going to eat?

I believe that your real question is if less people are required to produce the required goods and services, how do you distribute money? I can imagine a number of possibilities for low work (everyone works but much fewer hours), work-optional or no-work worlds. The only they thing they have in common is dog-eat-dog laissez faire capitalism has to go.

Whcih bit of my propaganda is not true?

It's propaganda that technological progress is fostered by capitalism. Many (I would say most) of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists who were motivated by a thirst for knowledge, not greed.

Regarding the SA Article. It's great until you get to the second to last sentence.

Following is the last paragraph. What's not to like?

But with sensible policies, nations could set a goal of generating 25 percent of their new energy supply with WWS sources in 10 to 15 years and almost 100 percent of new supply in 20 to 30 years . With extremely aggressive policies, all existing fossil-fuel capacity could theoretically be retired and replaced in the same period, but with more modest and likely policies full replacement may take 40 to 50 years. Either way, clear leadership is needed, or else nations will keep trying technologies promoted by industries rather than vetted by scientists. A decade ago it was not clear that a global WWS system would be technically or economically feasible. Having shown that it is, we hope global leaders can figure out

how to make WWS power politically feasible as well. They can start by committing to meaningful climate and renewable energy goals now.

I have a video for you:

[ReeferMadness]

I simply think that it's not a good idea.

How can anyone argue with that logic?

[ReeferMadness]

And in the past when bad weather or disease destroyed the local crops you had mass starvation.

This is the basis for my claim that fossil fuels have saved many more lives than have been killed by pollution.

In fact, the main problem may be that fossil fuels have save too many lives which creates other issues.

Specious reasoning. Certainly, the use of fossil fuels has brought many benefits in the same way that replacing burning wood for heat with burning coal for heat brought benefits. However, it has also brought health concerns and risks. In the same way that we have evolved past coal fireplaces in peoples homes, it's now time to evolve past the usage of fossil fuels.

There seems to be some assumption that everyone who is in favour of evolving past fossil fuels wants to return to the stone age. We just need to be smarter and less greedy with energy and resource usage.

[Guest]

I believe that your real question is if less people are required to produce the required goods and services, how do you distribute money? I can imagine a number of possibilities for low work (everyone works but much fewer hours), work-optional or no-work worlds. The only they thing they have in common is dog-eat-dog laissez faire capitalism has to go.

It's propaganda that technological progress is fostered by capitalism. Many (I would say most) of the great scientific discoveries have been made by scientists who were motivated by a thirst for knowledge, not greed.

Following is the last paragraph. What's not to like?

Technological progress is not the same as scientific discovery. Electricity was discovered due to a thirst for knowledge, but the light bulb was developed due to a thirst for cash. Not greed, by the way.

The sentence I had in mind was:

"Having shown that it is, we hope global leaders can figure out how to make WWS power politically feasible as well."

Hence the video.

Edited February 24, 2013 by bcsapper

[TimG]

Specious reasoning. Certainly, the use of fossil fuels has brought many benefits...

I was responding to someone who claimed that fossil fuels were killing us. I responded by pointing out the fossil fuels save way more people than they kill.

There seems to be some assumption that everyone who is in favour of evolving past fossil fuels wants to return to the stone age. We just need to be smarter and less greedy with energy and resource usage.

Are you an engineer? Have you ever managed the installation of a power plant of any kind? If not you know nothing about what it will take to replace the existing energy systems. As bcsapper's video pointed out, you are telling people to do something when you have absolutely no idea how that objective could actually be accomplished.

The same goes for the SA article - the assumptions are laughable and render the so called 'plan' useless. Get back to me when SA publishes an article by people with practical experience building a power plant.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Technological progress is not the same as scientific discovery. Electricity was discovered due to a thirst for knowledge, but the light bulb was developed due to a thirst for cash. Not greed, by the way.

I see. cash, not greed. Thanks for illustrating the difference.

The sentence I had in mind was:

"Having shown that it is, we hope global leaders can figure out how to make WWS power politically feasible as well."

Hence the video.

Political will is always a problem whenever things need to change. That's why we need leaders who are not beholden to economic interests. However, we shouldn't let lack of political will get in the way when things need to change.

[Guest]

I see. cash, not greed. Thanks for illustrating the difference.

Political will is always a problem whenever things need to change. That's why we need leaders who are not beholden to economic interests. However, we shouldn't let lack of political will get in the way when things need to change.

There is an enormous difference between cash and greed Do you not think so?

As for your second paragraph, see the video.

[ReeferMadness]

Are you an engineer? Have you ever managed the installation of a power plant of any kind? If not you know nothing about what it will take to replace the existing energy systems. As bcsapper's video pointed out, you are telling people to do something when you have absolutely no idea how that objective could actually be accomplished.

The same goes for the SA article - the assumptions are laughable render the so called 'plan' useless. Get back to me when SA publishes an article by people with practical experience building a power plant.

If you have any actual issues with the SA issue, why don't you point them out? Otherwise, your post is nothing but a cheap drive-by smear. Get back to me when you have something to say.

In addition to the SA article, I've read multiple articles and reports that say some forms of alternative energy (solar and wind) are becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuel. I know that scares those of you fossils who are economically tied to the fossil fuel industry but suck it up.

[ReeferMadness]

There is an enormous difference between cash and greed Do you not think so?

As for your second paragraph, see the video.

A thirst for cash seems pretty similar to greed to me. As for the video, Monty Python is always good satire. What it has to do with the SA article is beyond me.

[TimG]

If you have any actual issues with the SA issue, why don't you point them out? Otherwise, your post is nothing but a cheap drive-by smear. Get back to me when you have something to say.

In addition to the SA article, I've read multiple articles and reports that say some forms of alternative energy (solar and wind) are becoming cost-competitive with fossil fuel. I know that scares those of you fossils who are economically tied to the fossil fuel industry but suck it up.

I just added a link with detailed critiques:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

Appendix: Further comments on WWS from Dr. Gene Preston of SCGI:

By profession I do transmission studies for wind and solar clients. My company name is TAC meaning Transmission Adequacy Consulting. I currently am doing studies all across the US. “A path to sustainable energy by 2030″ omits the transmission system needed by 2030. Because the wind and solar and water and geothermal projects are not in the locations of the existing power plants, new lines will be needed.

...

In sum, I do not believe this is achievable at all. Therefore the concept envisioned in the SA article is not a workable plan because the transmission problems have not been addressed. The lines aren’t going to get built. The wind is not going to interconnect. The SA article plan is not even a desirable plan. The environmental impact and cost would be horrendous. Lets get realistic.

The 'cost competitive' claims are also complete nonsense because they don't include all costs (transmission lines are just one of those issues).

For example, a 1GW coal plant will produce 1GW of power 85% of the time. A 1GW wind farm will produce and average of 200MW depending the wind conditions. The only way to make 1GW wind useful is to have 200MW gas plant as backup - the cost of the backup plant is always ignored by people making such claims.

IOW - 1W of installed fossil fuel power is equal 10W of installed renewable power. To be truly cost-competitive the nominal cost per watt of renewables needs to a fraction of the cost per watt of fossil fuels. We are a long way from that.

Edited February 24, 2013 by TimG