...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online ...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with ...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost book.
Happy reading ...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF ...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF ...Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost Pocket Guide.
Hence, the use of bio-mass to displace use of fossil fuels could reduce CO2 emissions. Any such displacement would be small because energy is consumed by harvesting and transporting the bio-mass to its point of use. There is a net loss if the farming, harvest and transport consume as much energy as the use of the bio-mass provides. This sets a limit on the area of bio-mass which can be grown for profitable use in any one place. Other forms of bio-mass include synthetic chloroplasts with accelerated growth to improve yields and production of ethanol from plants for transport fuels.
The ethanol is usually blended with petroleum and its production from sugar cane is a major industry in Brazil. Indeed, governments would not need to subsidise bio-mass if it were an economically competitive fuel. Bio-mass is not likely to be an economic method to avoid reintroducing carbon to the carbon cycle for centuries to come. Synthetic oil made from coal for use as fuel with very expensive carbon dioxide sequestration would be cheaper than bio-mass.
Carbon dioxide sequestration captures carbon dioxide from combustion gases and stores it e. And coal will continue to be available for at least the next years. Nor did I advocate the use of biomass as a substitute for fossil fuels. Please re-read my comment more carefully. I was pointing out that biomass was available to, and used by humans, long before humans made use of fossil fuels.
Even in times as recent as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Great Britain, wood was used as the fuel source for smelting metal ores, as the techniques for producing coke from coal for smelting had not yet been developed. The devastation of forests from woodcutting for smelter fuel forced the smelters to turn to coal as their source of carbon for smelting. In referring to the use of wood, leaves, grass, peat and dried animal dung by early humans, I was referring to energy sources used by humans ever since the discovery of fire, which predated the steam engine by many thousands of years.
Charcoal left by early humans is prized by anthropologists for Carbon 12 dating of early human habitation sites. If you had bothered to cite your paper, and included biomass in your list, perhaps you would have avoided your oversight. If you wish to take your argument to its ultimate conclusion, you should state that all energy available on Earth is nuclear in origin, since all energy on Earth comes from nuclear activity within the Earth; or from the Sun, which is a nuclear reactor; or from nuclear sources in space.
All heat, light, and other forms of energy from the Sun come from nuclear processes. Biomass, including plants used by animals and sea creatures as food, grows as the result of sunlight and photosynthesis, or with the aid of nuclear heating in the deep oceans by chemosynthesis, at volcanic vents. Animals and slaves were available to humans only because the Sun provided the energy that made it possible for food to be available for them.
Gravity is now thought to result from the Sun, so even gravitational energy is thought to be nuclear in origin. And energy from volcanoes and from rocks raised into mountains by tectonic plate movements comes from nuclear heating of the interior of the Earth. At no point did I refer to bio-mass as a means of displacing of fossil fuels. Nor did I refer to bio-mass as a substitute for fossil fuels. I merely pointed out your omission of wood, leaves, grass, peat, and dried animal droppings now often referred to as biomass from your list of energy sources available to early humans. However, if you had done as I suggested and read Section 14 of the linked item then you would have read ,.
All energy flows capable of conducting work are stages in the process from that event to the heat death of the universe. Fuels are stores of energy. They are commodities which can be stored, transported when and where desired, and used as required. Thus, they can be used to provide energy which can be distributed as electricity when and where it is wanted. Electricity is a form of energy. It is not a commodity.
It cannot be stored in significant amounts and must be used at its existing distribution system when generated. Only three processes provide energy flows which can be sampled by humanity. Processes which initiated during the lives of ancient stars have generated radioactive substances notably uranium. Amounts of these substances were part of the material which accreted to form the Earth, and they may be utilised as fuel in nuclear power plants.
Residual energy from the formation of the solar system is observed in the power of the tides and geothermal forces. Indeed, it can be argued that the Earth and Moon system is still forming because these processes still continue.
- Uninvited Answers.
- Journal metrics.
- Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet?
- The People Talking in My Head?
- A Little Humor.
- Author Biography;
- Dont Adore Me, Just...: Laura and Sara Chronicles, Book 5;
Energy flowing from the sun consists of radiations and particles. To date, only sunlight and solar heat have been utilised as energy sources by humans. The remainder of that Section addresses all the existing and potential methods that have been suggested for those three sources and says which they each are. Stop trying to disrupt the discussion your falsehoods. Everybody who can read can see I made no mistake.
You would stop being disruptive and would state your case if you had one. I have twice attempted to provide a post in support of the post from William Astley. I suspected the first submitted post obtained an automatic rejection because it included a correctly spelled but unacceptable name and, therefore, I resubmitted it with an incorrect spelling of the name but the resubmission also disappeared. You assume static human population. Consider your statement against a global population of a hundred million people.
Richard Patton [or perhaps his sources? Power and energy are related but are not the same thing and are measured in different units. This conflation of the two terms is not only confusing, it detracts from the credibility of his posting although his basic point is valid. As does not even knowing how to write the units. Energy is power over a period of time. The mix of power sources changes from day to day and hour to hour and even minute to minute.
You vote for a boat anchor, you are not going anywhere, and it has the potential to drag you down with it. The smart money is getting out of New York. They can only augment it at an exorbitant cost and for no good reason. The diminishing returns being experienced with wind and solar were well known but ignored to appease the Green blob. Balancing loads between countries with interconnects by following the sun and wind is a fantasy…. Congratulations, this looks like a well-researched and written report. Looks to me like nuclear is the only way to go to satisfy all sides, both green and reality-based commercial.
How far into the future we have to wait before the bird carnage is called out? It is the part where it is easiest to replace fossil energy. If you have enough hydro of course. Again, the value is not that high, but still more cost effective than solar electric panels. So far a perfect 3 out of 3 fail score. Which Is already without any possible controversy the case in the Gulf of Mexico. Where underwater natural oil spills can form mountains hundreds of feet high. Are these people stupid? It is obvious to anyone with common sense that energy from wind, the Sun and tides cannot provide a reliable power supply.
The exception is hydro-electric, which is fairly stable unless the climate changes. Now there lies a paradox which should give the climateers many a sleepless night. They want to destroy the West by destroying its reliable power. That is the sole purpose of this farce, backed up by the propaganda of gently turning wind turbines, visible for miles.
Of course, it is not publicised that the rotors are either braked at higher wind speeds or powered to rotate when they are too low to prevent the bearings overheating and catching fire. In Texas? In Holland? In Denmark? You need mountains to provide all that potential energy from rainfall to be dammed greenies hate those and convert into electricity. Corrupt politicians and willfully uninformed voters.
The The number of power cuts was in the low voltage net and 23 in the high voltage net.
Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost
Of some interest will be how the state handles its contracts with the generation mix coming from Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, which are already including a high proportion of hydro, wind and Nuclear in what comes into the NE US grid. It is doubly fraudulent. One is in the way that suggesting that shopping there is saving the planet. This kind of thinking shuts down any rational public policy discussion on the subject, and public policy decisions are being made.
Thule was mentioned by Pytheas from Massilia who made an exploration voyage to northwestern Euope in the third century BC. The most likely candidate is the Shetlands, but it might conceivably have been Norway. Use of power is predictable as long as you have enough consumption. It may change slowly over time, but that allows production to evolve with it. The way you tackle intermittent power is through energy storage. There are all sorts of energy storage solutions out there.
The first problem is capacity — whether you talk of production or storage, you have to build so much capacity that the land use and capital needs become ridiculous. The third problem is cleanup — What do you do when they have to be replaced? And they have to be replaced a lot more often then typical power plants, so the waste they generate is higher than most people think.
Cost per unit of energy produced. People hear of a Mw facility and just do not understand its not going to produce MWh per hour.
Its likely going to average 20Mwh per hour or less under real conditions. Yeah, we can BUILD such energy storage but it will cause energy prices to be so high you might as well shut done the country. And using batteries means replacing them every 10 years or so… Without a major breakthrough in technology, energy storage just costs too much ignoring places where a niche technology can be made to work, like where water can be lifted into a reservoir. Are you trying to solve for real pollution?
You need to tackle how to recycle the materials in solar panels and wind turbines BEFORE you start standing them up…oh, wait, too late. Nuclear power plants solve for pollution much better, assuming you have reasonable policy on waste recycling and storage in place. Are you trying to make the environment better? Solar farms and wind farms are far more destructive to habitat then other energy production plants are. Besides being bird and bat swatters, wind mills need heavy duty roads to them to allow big cranes to service them.
That or use extremely expensive large lift helicopters and increase the costs of energy production even more. To your 1. Since there is always sun or wind somewhere on the planet, a very large worldwide grid could solve this. I think there was even a study on this. But as it seems impossible for a single highly developed country such as Germany to build this type of link from north to south, it falls in the same category as using batteries. But to say that this will always be the case is to suppose that technology will completely stop moving forward, which is not a good supposition.
To suppose that nobody will learn anything from the experience of other countries, or do everything just like them, is also a very poor assumption. Previous to when?
Was there a point when there were no power outages whatsoever? How extensive were they, and how long did they last? California has among the highest electricity prices in the contiguous U. It also imports about a 3rd of its electricity to support its green energy schemes. As this insanity spreads, prices will have to rise even more. The state is becoming ever more expensive to live in and indeed leads the country in homelessness, which is increasing at the highest rate for any state with a population over 1,, people.
There are those who would argue that affordable energy and housing is a higher priority. Others would be happy if the streets in it largest cities were free of human excrement, used syringes and needles. It might be possible that for a few minutes on a single day, the amount was that high.
Possible, but very unlikely. Renewables are not now, nor are they ever likely to be, competitive with fossil fuels. As far as technology goes, we are far more likely to be able to make advancements in the nuclear energy field. Nuclear energy is energy which can actually make sense. Renewable energy is just plain dumb. That will solve everything. The second figure in the post has no units on the Y-axis.
On such an honest and proper like for like cost comparison basis, there is no chance, whatsoever, of such renewable power can ever be cheaper than fossil fuelled power. Of course most of us love the luxury of having reliable electricity to serve our wants and needs at the time of our choosing. Lights at night,electric appliances at meal times,hot water on demand. Computer at will..
Let them be an example to us all. We need a special power grid run exclusively to the wise ones.. Cut them off from all the infrastructure systems that rely on baseload electric supply. Then broadcast their consternation. Add online mockery as desired.
A lot of fossil energy is consumed to build and maintain renewables. Renewable energy as currently identified is not sustainable. Drive a few miles to a store, purchase a shrink-wrapped bundle of firewood, drive back home, and the answer is no, even for firewood. That really becomes obvious when you consider the fuel required to go to the tree, cut it down with a gasoline-powered chainsaw, into pieces with a gasoline-powered log splitter, transport back to a facility for packaging, then transport it to the retail outlet.
Solar has had a positive EROEI ever since they started installing glass windows on the south side of buildings in cold climates. As you are well aware, nobody is talking about solar thermal. Once again, do you take delight in being anal? Or would you rather contribute to the conversation? IIRC, the latest, cheapest solar panels have a shorter lifetime. I will grant some improvement in panel productivity since the data in Figure 4 at the link were produced. Can you support this assertion? The dollar relation is a proxy for energy relation. Bottom line, the energy consumed to design, manufacture, install, maintain and administer renewables exceeds the energy they produce in their lifetime.
If this is about energy required to build vs energy produced, you should be able to do your calculations without money being involved. It makes me sick when you blame the Chinese for emissions at the same time that you take advantage of them for cheap labor. How hypocritical….
In fact, the West doing business with China is what has raised the atypical communist serf there out of poverty. Such is required within the trade agreements between the countries. China imports. If the government of the supplier country lafs at the contractual regulations and refuses to legally enforce them, how is that resulting the fault of the receiving company? Just thinking about the filthy authoritarian autocratic repressive regime that the CCP has in China maked my head swell. It is the poster child. Partially valid point. It is due mainly to having a massive population whose energy demands have grown with its economy over the past 40 years.
A majority of that energy comes from coal, and their coal is dirtier than what we burn in the US. In a similar vein to your comment about manufacturing, China is heavily involved in manufacturing solar panels for export t the West and in mining the earth for rare earth minerals used in wind turbines. Both processes due considerable environmental damage. How hypocritical is it to transfer blame from China to the US if any of our companies operate there?
This is the old lefty rhetoric that blames America first for any problem, anywhere. I agree that buyers of products are part responsible, in some indirect way, for the production and its externalities. Note that imports reduce U. China is building a large number of nuclear power plants i. We are not. The U. Our lakes, rivers and air are cleaner now than they were 25 years ago.
China, not so much. China has reaped massive rewards from dealing with Western countries, if they shit in their own backyard the blame is not on the West. We could lower your per capita volume by just bringing all of the Big Three automotive work back here to the USA Problem solved So even if we eliminated our emissions altogether an impossibility , the world would still have an issue. As developing countries develop, they are going to emit more CO2.
The difficulty with places like India and Brazil is that their growth rate will eventually lead them to outpace the US and China in emissions. Plus, it would be immoral to stop them from advancing themselves out of poverty. PaulRoundyt, India yes, Brazil no. Brazil does not have enough people to eventually pass the U. India does. India also has substantial coal resources whereas Brazil has essentially none.
India will pass the U. Might be a bit sooner. Might be a bit later. This was unexpected in the US at least at the time. Could a CO2 growth spurt occur in India? Unclear at least to me. Could the reverse happen? An Amerikan baby promises future pollution far greater than that of a Brazilian or even Indian baby. What we need to do is put a stop to all the Amerikan breeding, especially since it is the progeny of the breeders who stand to gain most from any sacrifices made by current populations, and especially by us non-breeders.
China or India. According to Wikipedia, the U. GHG debates in the U. S and Europe amount to conflicts about the number of angels on the head of a pin. Peter Schaeffer You either do not know how to read a table or you deliberately lie and hope we will not notice. You start talking about per capita emissions and when you are about to compare USA and China you switch to total emissions.
Alas, can you find any actual errors in my statistics? Probably not, because my numbers are correct. Wikipedia data. Of course, we could include non-fossil fuel CO2 emissions mostly from concrete production. Peter Schaeffer I see.. So the atmosphere does not care about the per capita emissions, but it cares about how big in size and population each country is which is the most important factor for the total emissions or what is the GDP of each country, right?
Oh please.. My ignorance was total. I am so ashamed. The US could ruin its economy adopting socialism as suggested by Democrats and that would indeed reduce its emissions. It would also create a worldwide economic crisis, and reduce emissions even more. But the world economy would not be able to afford the investment in new energy sources, so it would continue to burn coal, and of course the poverty caused by the economic ruin would lead to starvation in poor countries and huge refugee flows…caused by the adoption of socialism.
Actually, if history is a guide, socialism correlates very highly to degraded environment and health. We consume less energy per unit of productivity than these countries — so a rational analysis would say that all energy should be consumed by the US, for the good of the planet. The difference is that our emissions are decreasing faster than anywhere else in the world, whereas the two countries you cited are leading the world in emissions increases. Nothing the US can do would stop an increase in world CO2 emissions; nothing.
Not sure why per capita emissions matter, it is total emissions that matter. A two person country could theoretically lead the world in per capita emissions but rank last in total emissions. Misinformation about Fukishima is widespread, based largely on ignorance, fear mongering and the overreaction of politicians. An earthquake and a tsunami killed around 16, people. The nuclear reactor was not the cause of death.
Imagine what would happen if a similar scenario played out at say the Three Gorges Dam in China. I heard the ex prime minister of japan 3 days ago in a long interview, he was ultra pro nuclear before Fukushima accident. He has changed his mind when he understood what could have happen with a little less luck. Scholarly estimates are in the million range. AGW has been tested more than pretty much any other theory. Christopher Apart from scandalously flawed computer models, please inform us how AGW has been actually tested?
As I noted regarding your other comment below, so what? The question is not so much does a thing happen, but what is its magnitude, is it detrimental or beneficial, what would it cost to militate, etc? The evidence more CO2 causes higher temperatures is relatively strong. After that the science and our understanding of the climate system, its feedbacks and mechanisms are incomplete and rudimentary, often politically driven, often of appalling quality, often very difficult to even measure [hence the reliance on models rather than repeatable experiment and direct observation] and subject inevitably to margins of error so great that often no reasonable conclusion can even be drawn from what numbers they do churn out.
There is a great deal of evidence AGW is real. There is almost none that we are facing a catastrophe. But there is an entire planet full of arm waving, conjectures, politically and economically driven hysteria and propaganda and rent seeking. Until that changes the theory of AGW is interesting but of little to no concern to rational people.
Global warming is real in that the planet has clearly warmed some in the last years. However, how much of that is due to rebound from the Little Ice Age, and how much is due to a thirty-percent increase in the concentration of a rather minor greenhouse gas? IMO the former, not the latter is likely the dominant factor. That is because their agenda was largely written by the disinformation section of the KGB, way back in the Cold War.
Granting your assertions for the sake of argument, so what? So as an inevitable part of a renewable energy system we get the cost of non renewables and on top of that the cost of renewables. If solar and wind are actually that much cheaper they would be decommissioning all their old plants and putting up renewables. But in fact, everywhere on the planet renewables increase as a share of energy production energy prices skyrocket.
Brian B: In Australia the energy companies make more money out of renewables due to government subsidies. This has resulted in many coal fired generators being closed down or blown up as in one stupid South Australian piece of political madness.
Like Footprints in the Wind: A Generation Lost by Pamela Atherstone
Because the way we do nuclear in the U. See the French idea, above comments. Because weather is the result of a vast complex of interlocking feedback loops, it is not easy to correlate weather with climate. But to me the most convincing evidence for the greenhouse hypothesis is the melting of long-term ice. I have seen this happening in the far north, at Svinajokull, and in the deep south at Franz Josef Glacier. The US could lead in getting to zero net carbon emission by And the only way to do so in a country with large cities and heavy industries is to go nuclear.
Alan Gore: Have a read of some papers from the s talking about the loss of sea ice in the arctic. They are talking about a post modern world. I cannot keep them all straight. Snell: noted that article was written 30 years ago! The Greens are still banging the same drum today. Eventually they will be right but we may have to wait until our sun goes nova or a large meteor strikes and sends it out of orbit. Through the law of unintended consequences that results from the emotion inherent in years of unrestrained hyperbole.
One reason for that is that wood heating went from a commonplace to a niche over that period of time. Not just birds and bats as in the article but unprecedented destruction of rainforests has occured on the altar of global warming. Why are rainforests dwindling? In the Amazon, mainly because cattle owners are expanding and even get subsidies to plant grass instead of maintaining those rich forests, in SE Asia, it is the expansion of the oilpalm plantations.
These processes simply are going on and on, I wonder whether there is any influence of climate change programs or manifests, though, investments in oilpalm for biofuel could be a factor and this would be a big shame, unbelievable, unpardonable. Doctor Locketopus, Wow is that ever true. Without fossil fuels the environmental devastation from the cutting of trees would have been overwhelming. As early as AD, the UK was mining coal on a large scale to save its forests that was the practical effect of coal production, not the intent.
In Switzerland, the cutting of trees was moving to progressively steeper slopes in the 19th century. They knew that cutting trees on steep slopes would result in devastating erosion. As it turns out, the Swiss eco-catastrophe never happened. Switzerland found that it could import coal from Germany and the USA instead. The forests of Switzerland were saved. However, they were saved by fossil fuels later Switzerland dammed its rivers for power. The State of Vermont retired its only nuclear reactor several years ago. Bernie and the usual suspect cheered. The plan was to replace nuclear with wind.
It would take 59 wind farms to generate the same electricity as the retired nuclear plant once generated. And retiring the nuclear plant has resulted in higher CO2 emissions and higher electricity prices. So in the name of saving the planet, the citizens of Vermont are killing bears, emitting more CO2 and paying higher energy bills. Fly over the vast areas littered with windmills or solar cells and ask how that is possibly good for the environment. Australia could smarten up immediately by repealing the ban on nuclear energy and properly assess its low emissions options.
Most of the construction cost is due to government regulations over the fears they instilled in the citizenry. Maybe, but the fact that each U. The industry needs to focus on their small modular reactor technology, that will allow faster return on investment and more grid compatibility through flexible capacity and supply. The reason nuclear energy is so expensive is because of all the opposition from anti-nuclear environmentalists.
As a nuclear-trained engineer no longer working in the industry, I can attest that the majority of nuclear plant construction costs and operating costs are regulatory-driven. None of these regulations improve safety, but have been imposed through the years as a sacrifice to the anti-nuclear activists. Smarter regulation i. As a side note, nuclear waste is a problem in the US but not France or Switzerland because Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of spent fuel. This increases the volume of waste by orders of magnitude. Good article. There are downsides for sure.
But it is unclear how limited the author wants renewables to be. Clearly, there is no one solution and even with Nuclear energy. Saying no PV is as nonsensical as saying no nukes. I heard an interview with Mike. He noted that the best grid would be nuclear and hydro only. That would be a daft point of view for anyone who realizes that electricity consumption during daytime is much higher than at night.
The shale revolution is the best thing to happen to the US in decades. Cheap energy, economic growth and lower CO2 emissions. New York state sits on top of vast reserves that could be tapped. But the politicians say no. No to fracking, no to pipelines. Instead these green geniuses are encouraging freezing residents to stay warm by burning wood. He brings up good points. But the article is low in actual evidence. We have built massive amounts of infrastructure — so why is putting down solar farms all of a sudden such a massive no-no?
Imagine if you are in country near the equator where sun shows its face regularly… how is sticking solar panels to produce electricity is all that harmful to animals. US might not have such large-scale energy problems but many countries do. Sure, in some places like UK, wind farms can only go so far. Desserts are not good locations for solar farms. Too much dust, which has to be cleaned from the panels on a regular basis, which requires lots of water and energy. All energy technology has downsides. We need to do cost benefit analysis and chose the best options.
Nuclear is the best option. Solar and wind are wasteful distractions. I would not count batteries out. There has been great progress in reducing their cost, and there is no reason that this progress will not continue in the future. Every nuclear project runs into horrendous cost overruns.
There are two half built nuclear plants abandoned when their contractor, Westinghouse, went bankrupt over the overruns. This is not just an American problem, projects in Great Britain and Finland have run into the same issue. Further, look at how lithium is gathered for lithium-ion batteries. Argentina and Chile are the two other major producers of salt-flat produced lithium.
Australia is a top producer using conventional strip mining. The process requires the salt plain to be flooded, but this is an arid area with little water — mm 5. It takes approximately , gallons of water per tonne of lithium. Extraction vehicles cut horizontally through the salt crust to expose the lithium and other minerals found mixed in a salty mud sitting.
To extract it, mining equipment pump the brine into massive ponds, where it is left to evaporate for months. Then a series of chemical processes, for example using lime and hydrochloric acid, are performed to separate the minerals and refine the lithium. For export it needs to be transported miles to the nearest port. This is the next gotcha; Bolivia wants to be the centre of battery production too. Most batteries are presently manufactured in East Asia and the US. Two other key battery ingredients, cobalt and nickel, also pose a significant risk of creating a bottleneck in the move towards electrifying everything.
Cobalt is found almost exclusively in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is very toxic. Ironically, the environmentalists now complain about the destruction of the salt plain and the pollution created as well as how cobalt miners are poisoning themselves and their land. All these problems may be overcome, but will it happen in the 12 years before the climate irrecoverably changes and we, together with the planet, all die? Batteries also wear out. They have a limited life span, so after paying up hugely for them it needs to be spent again.
And again, And again…forever. And what to do with those batteries? Few have stopped to consider the scale that a battery reserve of grid-scale power would have to be. All of the batteries made in the world last year would not store enough to power a single state for a day. Cost is still not competitive for general purpose, but quite viable in many applications already.
There are many downsides for sure. It is unclear how limited the author wishes renewables to be. Clearly, there is no one solution to the world energy needs, even with Nuclear. I hope someone has by now corrected the disinformation that atomic powered is so many times more expensive that alternatives.
It is not more expensive. This price more than adequate to repay construction and investment costs and amortize the capital investment according to relevant acceptable accounting standards. My understanding is that molten-salt reactors may possibly hold the key to dissipating the arguments regarding cost, size, meltdown risk and storage of nuclear waste. Or false hopes, like solar and wind. Funny that none of these folk mention the FACT that even if the US switched to using renewables ONLY for the next 60 years, even their over-egged climate models predict it would make an unnoticeable 0.
S, Please show us the conspiracy ideation. I hear you saying that the current climate change discussion has an element of hysteria that is designed, not to solve the coming problems, but to push a specific political agenda. Alternative solutions are pushed out of the discussion. Even if nuclear power is a faster, cheaper, better, and safer source of carbon-neutral electricity than solar and wind, fission fails to solve all our problems.
For one thing the supply of uranium is limited—it may last till the end of the century at the present rate of consumption—less as we use more. And true, there are fixes for that too — breeder reactors, thorium reactors etc. But whether we use sun, wind, nuclear, coal, gas, bullshit, or nothing, there is LESS in our future than we will like. There is no magic energy supply. We will produce waste which will refuse to disappear, and no matter what, we can not supply any amount of goods to an ever-growing population. Less people, less energy, less production, less consumption, less waste.
Less is not more, and it will be all we will get. Stepping off the whizzy carousel of consumption will be a terribly jolting experience, but if we stay on it, the merry-go-round will eventually fly apart, and that will be worse than merely terrible. More resources are just awaiting to be found. Nobody knows what is all out there. Waste can be minimized and controlled. Safely and environmentally soundly. It turned out as expected.
We passed peak oil maybe… 2 or 3 decades ago. The curve of the trailing edge of oil extraction resembles the leading edge. We probably have a century of oil supply that is obtainable at less energy than the oil itself contains. After we have drawn that out of the earth, oil will remain in the ground but it will not be worth the energy expenditure to pull it up, because the extraction energy will exceed the energy of the oil obtained, never mind cost in dollars. The more difficult shale oil is extracted by fracking when the price of oil is high enough to justify the added cost. As for uranium, it has never been an abundant element, and it takes about 27 tons of refined uranium a year for a megawatt power plant.
The science is settled. I now kowtow. New hydrocarbon reserves are being found continually,all over the world. Screw, No, peak oil did not turn out as expected at all. Just like the gresg fraudster, Ehrlich, it was a false prediction. Your defending it by repearing the deceitful platitudes and claptrap of eventually blah blah does not make you look brighter. Uh huh, sure. So how did that declaration turn out?
It is working out the way they said it would when it was predicted about 30 or 40 years ago. The profile of oil production is more or less a normal distribution. The leading and trailing profile are similar. It took years to go from zero to peak production a couple decades ago , and it will take another years to go from peak production to zero. We will reach zero production when the oil left in the ground is too difficult to extract — that is, it will take more energy to get it out than the oil itself contains. In the post-peak meantime, oil production will decline over the coming century, everything else being equal.
Again, everything else being equal, the price of oil will tend to rise. You will not need a leader because the cliff will come to you. Material deprivation will not be optional…. Not sure that leads to the Malthusian scenario so many since him have long anticipated. Bill Gates reactor design uses urainium for start up, but can burn existing waste, weapons etc.
Thorium can also be used which is quite abundant. Get serious, if you want to have a reasonable discourse. Or geology. So your crystal ball has told you that all that can be found has been found. I conceed. You win. You should be able to become a millionaire in the market now. There are 4. No one bothers, because mined uranium is cheaper. But it will be there when we need it. Less energy. Billions of poor people live in energy poverty. Perhaps we should just exterminate them less they try to escape poverty and consume more energy. Helps out with question no. Less consumption.
Less consumption is a trojan horse for less freedom. Difficult to achieve other than by authoritarian means. Do you actually think reducing the population necessarily requires tyranny and mass murder, or do you just prefer silly strawmen arguments to reasonable debate? If the former, perhaps you should look into the trend towards reduced fertility in developed nations. Ellsd S Yawn.
They keep having kids even when they have no idea how to feed them. Let me guess. But, there is certainly no looming shortage in the next few centuries. And the supply is extractable at affordable prices.
No, I agree with you that fertility rates reduce when poor people get wealthier. A necessary condition for that to happen is cheap, abundant reliable energy. If you want to ban all the sources of energy that have been proven to work like the Green New Deal contemplates , you will get the opposite result — increased poverty and higher population growth. It is not going to be reduced in the lifetime of anyone reading this article. Moreover, some leading environmentalists are on record as saying the world should have no more than 2 billion people.
There is no way to get to that number without Pol Pot-like tactics. Less people. Who decides which of us gets to live. The enlightened ones like you I imagine. There are whole populations with no economic basis for their own survival, who live wholly off of foreign charity. Stop subsidizing them, and blam… a big chunk of the human population vanishes in a few years. Just stop giving them money. There are whole populations with no economic basis for their survival, who are wholly supported by foreign charity.
If you want fewer people, simply stop giving them money. Now they might not be the big polluters, but if you want fewer people just stop giving them money and a massive chunk of the human population will disappear in a few years. The poorest countries on earth have the highest birth rates. Whether or not foreign aid does more harm than good is open to debate, but the idea that you can starve off billions of people is ludicrous. Increased poverty will lead to higher birth rates. Perhaps you missed that there have been successful demonstrations of extracting uranium from seawater.
They have made yellowcake from seawater. The supply is many times that from land mining. Where there is a will there is a way. Human ingenuity is our greatest resource. Some reservoirs are considered as cost prohibitive and are not considered in oil supply calculations.
Coal gasification could become cost efficient. Fossil fuels are utilized not because oil companies are evil but because they are the most reliable, cost efficient energy source available. Nuclear power may supplant fossil fuels for electricity production. From any point in time it always looks like we are running out of something. Have you noticed that weird capacity humans have to figure out solutions to problems? Remember when we were going to run out of food?
The answer is to boldly move forward using the most cost effective fuels we can at the present time and adapt as needed. We must ignore false fears of running out of resources, of ruining the planet. The world is not full of evil people wanting to ruin the planet. It is full of people who want to live and live fuller lives and are willing to work hard for that possibility.
Sounds great! Now all we have to do bring them back to Earth and burn them! We can use this to refill all our hydrogen-powered cars! No one has mentioned the real solution to our energy problem. The answer in three words: Fusion, Fusion, Fusion. We need to be fast tracking the development of a workable fusion reactor. Fusion reactors have minimal nuclear waste and are fail safe in case of an earthquake. It is my understanding that the fusion reactor stops working if the plasma hits the reactor wall. Why is an industry safer than wind have high regulatory costs? And all that regulation focuses on solving to the regulation rather than improving performance.
A market never got established so competing ideas and novel solutions that only occur under liberty, not central planning. The tides. If the united states invested in the development of tidal power stations it could provide consistent renewable energy to its costal states. Incidentally California, Florida, Texas and new York, the 4 most populous states are coastal. The Central Valley of California is below sea level. Death Valley is feet below sea level. Oh, please.
Even the most extreme predictions by actual scientists, not by Internet communists estimate something like a six inch rise over the course of a century. As New York City drowns, …. As a result, long-planned low-elevation reservoirs, designed to store water during exceptionally wet years, were considered all but useless and thus were never built. Then, in and , California received record snow and rainfall — and the windfall of millions of acre-feet of runoff was mostly let out to sea.
Nothing since has been learned. They will be, by the way, to toss a fit when their electricity bills triple and demand other people pay it. Nor do they cause the press to show any skepticism about the latest doomsday predictions. Current worst case projections are for sea levels to rise around 10 feet in the next century. Mid level predictions are roughly 3 feet. Jwatts The average elevation of Florida is 6 feet, at a three foot increase that is roughly a quarter of the state underwater within the century. Not exactly an end to coasts but likely dangerous for a number of coastal cities.
Jimmy I agree. The the potential of energy from the ocean is enormous. Transportation of the energy is the problem. Most of the population of many countries is concentrated on the coasts. The ever-present love of the family members for one another, combined with the solid foundation of their faith in God, runs like a fine silk thread holding them together through the worst of situations, and yet doubt and disbelief often permeate their souls.
But this story is not all doom and gloom. There is hope and the promise of a better life for some of them. This is her first novel, and she is currently working on a continuation to this story.