ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Only someone mad as a result of marijuana consumption could disagree with you. Or someone who might actually be paying attention. In the power sector, renewables accounted for almost half of the estimated 208 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity added globally during 2011. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) accounted for almost 40% and 30% of new renewable capacity, respectively, followed by hydropower (nearly 25%). By the end of 2011, total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1,360 GW, up 8% over 2010; renewables comprised more than 25% of total global power-generating capacity (estimated at 5,360 GW in 2011) and supplied an estimated 20.3% of global electricity. Non-hydropower renewables exceeded 390 GW, a 24% capacity increase over 2010. Link Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Agreed...making such arguments on "environmental grounds" is silly, yet you persist. Accordingly, I will meet your bet, and raise you hydro and wind as environmental disasters that will destroy the earth ! Spouting more mumbo jumbo from American sources does not help your cause. Start over and find more than just U.S. based data and speculation for "green energy", because the Americans sure as hell love them some HYDROCARBONS. Past experience shows that you rarely post links to support your views - you seem to prefer to just babble on. So, it's an open question as to whether you actually believe in reading things or not. Still, I'll take the chance that you do. Why don't you go back and read the National Academy of Sciences report. Or maybe just a few sections. Or even a page. Then come back and tell me what you don't get. Fossil fuel production, transmission, storage and usage are incredibly damaging and costly. And yes, the NAS is an American based source. And no, that doesn't automatically discredit it as a source. Because, you see, the USA is a big country with all kinds of people. Lots and lots of them can read and use information and understand important concepts. I'm sure if you ask around, you might be able to find one who can help you understand this stuff. Good luck with that. Edited February 25, 2013 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Past experience shows that you rarely post links to support your views - you seem to prefer to just babble on. So, it's an open question as to whether you actually believe in reading things or not. Still, I'll take the chance that you do. Why don't you go back and read the National Academy of Sciences report. Or maybe just a few sections. Or even a page. Then come back and tell me what you don't get. Fossil fuel production, transmission, storage and usage are incredibly damaging and costly. Energy production does not occur in an economic vacuum. The costs of hydrocarbon extraction, distribution, and consumption are factored into real markets and conditions that spur continued investment, with and without government subsidy. This will continue because of tangible economic benefits, not environmental equivocations or tree hugging remorse. Your position has not won the day where it counts, and it never will. And yes, the NAS is an American based source. And no, that doesn't automatically discredit it as a source. Because, you see, the USA is a big country with all kinds of people. Lots and lots of them can read and use information and understand important concepts. I'm sure if you ask around, you might be able to find one who can help you understand this stuff. Good luck with that. If all your solutions and references come from one of the largest hydrocarbon producing and consuming nations on the planet, only heartache shall ensue. Do you mean to imply that Canadians are incapable of providing such references and acting on grand schemes to displace the hydrocarbon economy? Is there no equivalent NAS, EIA, NASA, NOAA, or "Scientific Canada" to lead the way to a green nirvana ? I know I can find somebody to show me the way to Tarsands Heaven. Edited February 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Energy production does not occur in an economic vacuum. The costs of hydrocarbon extraction, distribution, and consumption are factored into real markets and conditions that spur continued investment, with and without government subsidy. This will continue because of tangible economic benefits, not environmental equivocations or tree hugging remorse. Your position has not won the day where it counts, and it never will. And so how do you account for the fact that renewable energy installations are the fast growing in percentage terms? If all your solutions and references come from one of the largest hydrocarbon producing and consuming nations on the planet, only heartache shall ensue. The reference didn't come from the nation. They came from a group of concerned scientists. Is it your contention that everyone in the USA thinks exactly the same? Did you sleep through the same logic class as TimG? Is there no equivalent NAS, EIA, NASA, NOAA, or "Scientific Canada" to lead the way to a green nirvana ? I know I can find somebody to show me the way to Tarsands Heaven. Sadly, Canada is currently governed by a gang of mental midgets who are as anti-science as they are pro-oil. Many Canadian scientists are finding themselves muzzled or out of work. However, I'm sure I could find some good stuff from Andrew Weaver given some time. I just don't see any point in spending that time since the work done by the National Academy of Sciences will do just fine. How much have you read? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 And so how do you account for the fact that renewable energy installations are the fast growing in percentage terms? Simple math....smaller installed base for 'renewables' will obviously show faster percentage growth with any new investment. The reference didn't come from the nation. They came from a group of concerned scientists. Is it your contention that everyone in the USA thinks exactly the same? Did you sleep through the same logic class as TimG? Yes it did....the 'nation' includes the education institutions that underwrite such research. Sadly, Canada is currently governed by a gang of mental midgets who are as anti-science as they are pro-oil. Many Canadian scientists are finding themselves muzzled or out of work. However, I'm sure I could find some good stuff from Andrew Weaver given some time. I just don't see any point in spending that time since the work done by the National Academy of Sciences will do just fine. I know....it's just always fun to point out how much your ilk relies on American R&D, market stats, industry employment, capital investment, etc., etc. How much have you read? Are you extolling me to read even more of your favorite American sources? The dumbed down SA article was quite enough already. It's more fun to read my monthly portfolio statement, which includes energy stocks. I lost a bit of money on a Canadian hydrogen pipe dream, but Exxon made up for it ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 bc, you're trolling - I'm not going to waste my time on an answer. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) bc, you're trolling - I'm not going to waste my time on an answer. More likely, you have no answers for the real world economics of the energy landscape. You may as well start reading equal measures of science fiction including dilithium crystals and warp drive. Your own nation has ramped up hydrocarbon production far more than "renewables". I have lost money on wind and hydrogen, and until they are economically viable, I shan't make that mistake again. Drill, baby, drill ! Edited February 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
shortlived Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) The idea that health care costs should be included in the costs of fossil fuels is completely absurd. Life spans are longer than they have ever been and it is all thanks to a fossil fuel driven economy. IOW - Fossil fuels are clearly a net benefit to human health. Trying to say that only the *negative* health effects should be added to the cost of fossil fuels is ideologically driven nonsense. You also completely ignored the point. The SA article is impractical nonsense because it failed to take into account the real cost of building a network supplied with renewables. Pumping out more people doesn't negate the vast majority of people who get cancer in their lifetime or respitory issues like asthma. The quality of life is not equal to length of life, you can live a long time and have a really crappy place to live, it doesn't make your life any better. People whose rivers and lakes have been polluted with toxic chemicals poisoning their wildlfe and land havn't benefited from the industry. We could have the same good stuff without a fossil fueled based economy. Your point is absurd and one with blinders on. As said there are alternatives to fossil fuels people just like making money off it because rich people like being rich, the poor get nothing but pain and misery at the hands of capitalist pigs who are all about themselves. Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
Peanutbutter Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Short lived. Do you propose that we leave the oil in the ground? What about minerals like gold silver copper zinc silicon? Should those also be left unharvested? How should we transition the whole of north America to.green fuels? Quote Ah la peanut butter sandwiches! - The Amazing Mumferd
shortlived Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Short lived. Do you propose that we leave the oil in the ground? What about minerals like gold silver copper zinc silicon? Should those also be left unharvested? How should we transition the whole of north America to.green fuels? I would set a priority on need and luxury. Then any luxury items we convert to renewable close system resources so they are sustainable. It isn't about oil being taken from the ground, it is about the destruction of the homeostatis of the environment, and risk to our health by petrochemicals, as well as the problem of petrochemicals for things like agriculture for plant growth. There are a lot of issues, but taking oil from the ground isn't the problem, except not really understanding if it does anything down there. It is what happens when it is taken from the ground from that point until the end of time. Oil isn't evil, the bad stuff oil does is, and oil ain't all bad, it just can't be abused. I would propose that government work with industry to provide alternatives by crown corporations that offer products that improve industrial practice or taxes to mitigate the damages to public health and space. If goods arn't within the need rationing in profitable industries than these industries should be expected to buy Canadian made alternatives, to mitigate and reduce the harm caused through industrial process, sold by the federal government, or be taxed for damages to health and environment. But this ain't about stopping oil it is about mitigating the damages that oil can cause if used simply for economic gain, the advantage of that gain at cost of all else is simply not acceptable. We need to transition from oil dependence, and to do this we must provide an alternative and to insure that abuse to society as a whole is not possible by environmental destruction and health damages at the hands of a small few who have tremendous gains while the rest are left to suffer at the hands of corporate greed directed toward pubic resources in the publics earth, and the publics collective resource legacy. The gain of those today at the hands of our future wellbeing is paramount of failure of the governments role as a social safety net that responsible government is suppose to be. Nothing less than greed and corruption by public figures living out partisan interests that amount to criminal conduct, that being directly harming the physical well being through pin pricks of environmental degredation. The key is infrastructure renewal, when infrastructure needs renewed it must be to enhance a transitioning to a new sustainabe economy based on Canadian self provisioning and regional supply on a renewable basis. I say put the unemployed to work, and have those who have benefited off corruption and abuse pay into that work from their proceeds of crime and economic greed. All business ain't bad but the business of facilitating unemployment and poverty in a system that is locked down on big oil is just plain diabolic, and should go down in infamy. It just ain't oil oil just has a bad rap, it is largely the military industrial complex, we need to transition that to renewable resource, and to do that we have to put the military to work on renewable resource development, especially in remote areas, and we need to put the exiles from our society to work in remote areas developing renewable resources rather than have them eat up tax payer funds in jail, and to give them a chance to earn money to support themselves once their restitution orders have been paid, rather than living off dokey. It is really the issue of pubic resource and public space destruction, that is what must be mitigated, and that is why environmental tax or investment into reducing environmental damages to public space and health are mitigated. We need to provide an impetus to change, not just take money from the industries to spend on more unneeded programs and lining the pockets of party allies. It is a paradigm shift that was needed before these problem began. It won't happen with a continuation of the past, destructive revolution will bring us no where other than destruction, we must stand united and educate and move soceity not to hardship but to badly needed change for a better tomorrow one where we are not dependent on destroying our environment, and one that oil industry is clean industry. Just like the rest when they get there too. To insure trade equality foreign corporations would have the same options on imports to Canada, either paying the tax or investing in industry in Canada to reduce harm the public space and health caused by the products introduced to Canada. some of that money, the remainder after lifetime damages within canada are assessed, can go to foreign aid for environmental improvement in the origin countries through direct investment in those programs by the government of Canada should the host country agree to it. The other part is suing industry who contributes to physical harm and indirect damages for communal benefit of public space. but that is much like suing tobacco companies, we aren't even smokers of industry and we are being harmed, that is far worse than lighting a cigarette and getting cancer imo. If we inplace protection to insure that industry isn't about making money but instead about need, but allowing luxury if it doesn't kill random people and lowe rtheir quality of life by pissing industrial waste into our water supply and food source. If industry functions for the public good, then there is no problem, but if we are being raped and abused for the purpose of greed and lust, they should burn. Corporations have a social responsibility, and the problem is a system of political corruption. We must get rid of the idiots and corrupt people in government. In democratic soceity that is the choice. I am no king by tryranny and my view is only my view. Change must come from many individuals as one. We all die. I'm not concerned. Life isn't about biology, but a principle and moral humanity is something that pervades in purpose in life. Its not what you do but why you do it, and if that is to help a good society that is moral, if it is about your own interests, without mind of the greater whole, then it is not. If we have that in mind, the question should only be to educate one another on the merits of a course of action. Life ain't all good. It is your choice what you do with the oil, it is your choice if you extract it. Just like I have that choice too. The big picture helps. I don't see all, I don't know all for I am only human, I do what I think is right, and that is all I expect from you. My prayer in life in communion with god is that my soul asks for atonement and for good to fullfill itself on earth. That is what my heart speaks even if consumed by my life's own endeavors. I'm not a martyr but I will balance the effects of my actions if they are shown to me. I can't see what I am not shown. My hope is that god guides me so that I can see it, and I have no doubt my conscience will rest on that. That doen't mean closing my eyes because I know the view is coming it means being ready to bring that into my being so I can do what good I can to help gods mission in improving life for humanity. I won't claim to see the big picture but I will claim to have seen the back of it. Edited February 25, 2013 by shortlived Quote My posts are sometimes edited to create spelling errors if you see one kindly notify me. These edits do not show up as edits as my own edits do, so it is either site moderation, or third party moderation. This includes changing words completely. If a word looks out of place in a message kindly contact me so I can correct it. These changes are not exclusive to this website, and is either a form of net stalking by a malicious hacker, or perhaps government, it has been ongoing for years now.
jbg Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Or someone who might actually be paying attention. Link Yes but that's not total new capacity, that is "new renewable capacity." Most capacity coming online is non-renewable. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 In the power sector, renewables accounted for almost half of the estimated 208 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity added globally during 2011. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) accounted for almost 40% and 30% of new renewable capacity, respectively, followed by hydropower (nearly 25%). By the end of 2011, total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1,360 GW, up 8% over 2010; renewables comprised more than 25% of total global power-generating capacity (estimated at 5,360 GW in 2011) and supplied an estimated 20.3% of global electricity. Non-hydropower renewables exceeded 390 GW, a 24% capacity increase over 2010. Link Yes but that's not total new capacity, that is "new renewable capacity." Most capacity coming online is non-renewable. no - per the UN Environmental Programme & Bloomberg New Energy Finance: In 2011, renewable power (excluding large hydro) accounted for 44% of new generation capacity worldwide in 2011, up from 34% in 2010. The $237 billion invested in building these green power plants compares with $223 billion of net new expenditure annually on building additional fossil-fueled power plants globally in 2011. Quote
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 While you're feeling emboldened over 'shale gas', you might want to do a bit of research on what's actually playing out in those shale fields; i.e., the reality of production costs versus results. But don't let that reality stop you... you... from presuming to play up the falsehood that the U.S. is proactively working to reduce emissions through policy/plan intent. further to the point of ever diminishing returns for shale gas wells, a related graphic showing declining production from the Marcellus Shale - Appalachian Basin area: overall, "since 1990, the number of operating wells in the U.S. has increased by 90 per cent while the average productivity of those wells has declined by 38 per cent." Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Maybe you guys figure things differently in Canada with that thar fancy metric system, but by my figurin' that would still be a whole lotta more gas. The demand for fracking sand has quadrupled in just the past two years. Americans working hard to produce energy for the present...and future, as well as the supporting data demanded by Canadians to win forum arguments. Edited February 25, 2013 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
waldo Posted February 25, 2013 Report Posted February 25, 2013 Maybe you guys figure things differently in Canada with that thar fancy metric system, but by my figurin' that would still be a whole lotta more gas. The demand for fracking sand has quadrupled in just the past two years. Americans working hard to produce energy for the present...and futureno - we probably figure the same as many Americans, thinking one's at least. And yes, it is new found gas, the basis for much of the talk of the holy grail - "American Energy Independence". Unfortunately, that talk, purposely or not, isn't factoring in the reality of what's actually showing within the shale fields - the returns are diminishing, quite quickly. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 no - we probably figure the same as many Americans, thinking one's at least. And yes, it is new found gas, the basis for much of the talk of the holy grail - "American Energy Independence". Unfortunately, that talk, purposely or not, isn't factoring in the reality of what's actually showing within the shale fields - the returns are diminishing, quite quickly. Exactly. People have assumed that shale well production would decline at the same historic rates as conventional production. It just ain't so. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
jbg Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Typical made-up figures for which Waldo/ReeferMadness are famous? no - we probably figure the same as many Americans, thinking one's at least. And yes, it is new found gas, the basis for much of the talk of the holy grail - "American Energy Independence". Unfortunately, that talk, purposely or not, isn't factoring in the reality of what's actually showing within the shale fields - the returns are diminishing, quite quickly. Exactly. People have assumed that shale well production would decline at thesame historic rates as conventional production. It just ain't so. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ReeferMadness Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Yes but that's not total new capacity, that is "new renewable capacity." Most capacity coming online is non-renewable. Depends on where you are. I was unable to find figures for the world but in 2011 (latest date figures available) in Europe, 70% of new capacity was renewable. And most of that was wind or solar. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Typical made-up figures for which Waldo/ReeferMadness are famous? What figures would those be? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
waldo Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Typical made-up figures for which Waldo/ReeferMadness are famous? nice drive-by! What figures are you saying are, "made up"? Quote
Guest Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 Actually, I think that, while shale gas wells do not produce at high rates, they are expected to produce over long time frames. Generally. Quote
waldo Posted February 26, 2013 Report Posted February 26, 2013 I happen to favor freewheeling fracking And yes, it is new found gas, the basis for much of the talk of the holy grail - "American Energy Independence". Unfortunately, that talk, purposely or not, isn't factoring in the reality of what's actually showing within the shale fields - the returns are diminishing, quite quickly. Typical made-up figures for which Waldo/ReeferMadness are famous? nice drive-by! What figures are you saying are, "made up"?hey 'jgb', here's a bit more of your described "made up" figures - enjoy! The U.S. EIA estimates there are 24 billion barrels of recoverable shale-oil reserves in the U.S. Lower 48 states. Using the 2011 U.S. rate of consumption of 6.9 billion barrels... that equates to 3.5 years worth of new supply. And this is before any dramatic U.S. economic recovery that will surely, once it comes, significantly increase consumption rates. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 27, 2013 Report Posted February 27, 2013 Actually, I think that, while shale gas wells do not produce at high rates, they are expected to produce over long time frames. Generally. Do you have a source to back that up? I've read in multiple places that shale gas wells decline rapidly and that recovery rates are quite low. For example: The other thing about extraction from shale is that it ends quickly. A conventional well’s production declines at about 5-8% per year, and it can remain productive for decades. By contrast, the first-year decline in shale wells is over 60%, and about 90% of a well’s production occurs in the first five years. That creates a “drilling treadmill,” as new wells are needed simply to replace production from wells drilled a few years before. link Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Report Posted February 27, 2013 Do you have a source to back that up? I've read in multiple places that shale gas wells decline rapidly and that recovery rates are quite low. For example: link No, this was from a chat I had with a geologist last year. That's why I said, "I think". If I had a link I would have posted it at the time. It might well have been shale plays, I have to admit. Although I do remember him speaking of wells that have been producing for over 50 years, down in the US. Quote
TimG Posted February 27, 2013 Report Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) No, this was from a chat I had with a geologist last year. That's why I said, "I think".Companies with a long history and lot of expertise are investing a lot of their own money in fracking. They are not getting government subsidies. One would have to be an idiot to assume that a single graph about decline in output tells the complete story. And even if they are wrong: it is still their own money. Edited February 27, 2013 by TimG Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.