Author Topic: Wreck of Saskatchewan  (Read 569 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2018, 10:50:37 am »
Sure thing, make me banker and I will create the rules. You don't seem to understand how artificial the system is, aand it has warped costs to further a certain agenda.

You donít seem to understand that our society canít function without a monetary system. Unless you think everyone can survive by producing their own food and goods or straight barter.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #31 on: May 09, 2018, 11:09:06 am »
You donít seem to understand that our society canít function without a monetary system. Unless you think everyone can survive by producing their own food and goods or straight barter.

I do understand that living your life bound by these rules has closed you mind.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #32 on: May 09, 2018, 11:20:28 am »
I do understand that living your life bound by these rules has closed you mind.

Closed it to what? How would your brave new world function?
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #33 on: May 09, 2018, 02:28:53 pm »
You  might want to add tautology to your list of logical fallacies that you like to throw around.
In the last 30 years the internet/wireless have fundamentally changed society. Entire industries have been wiped out (video rental, camera film) and many others have been forced to adapt (journalism). This was mostly financed by private money and faced little opposition from people who would have preferred the status quo. IOW, our society *will* embrace radical change when the change is economically viable. When it comes to CO2 policy the opposition stems entirely from the fact that there are no economically viable options that would make any difference. People who think the opposition is based on "resistance to change" or "big oil lobbies" are inventing conspiracy theories to avoid acknowledging the hard economic reality. If CO2 free options were economically viable they would be embraced just like the Internet was embraced.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 02:33:56 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #34 on: May 09, 2018, 02:47:25 pm »
In the last 30 years the internet/wireless have fundamentally changed society. Entire industries have been wiped out (video rental, camera film) and many others have been forced to adapt (journalism). This was mostly financed by private money and faced little opposition from people who would have preferred the status quo. IOW, our society *will* embrace radical change when the change is economically viable. When it comes to CO2 policy the opposition stems entirely from the fact that there are no economically viable options that would make any difference. People who think the opposition is based on "resistance to change" or "big oil lobbies" are inventing conspiracy theories to avoid acknowledging the hard economic reality. If CO2 free options were economically viable they would be embraced just like the Internet was embraced.

Little oil companies, you know such as Exxon-Mobil have been planning to adapt to renewable energy for some time now, (I know because I used to work for them) because they are smart enough to see the inevitability of having to do so and don't want to get caught with their pants down. You seem to be stuck in the ancient frame of mind that harks back to when people thought the horseless carriage would never be a serious alternative.
Agree Agree x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2018, 03:14:28 pm »
Little oil companies, you know such as Exxon-Mobil have been planning to adapt to renewable energy for some time now.
Yep. As I said: if CO2 free sources were economically viable there would be a mad rush to adopt them without requiring government subsidies and no proponent of the status quo could stop them. But that is not happening because (an only because) there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 03:16:28 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2018, 03:39:36 pm »
Yep. As I said: if CO2 free sources were economically viable there would be a mad rush to adopt them without requiring government subsidies and no proponent of the status quo could stop them. But that is not happening because (an only because) there are no real alternatives to fossil fuels at this time.

Apparently you're still in "the dark" as to how the world is moving toward renewables at an ever increasing rate to keep the lights on.

"It's a new milestone: Europe got more of its power from solar, wind and biomass than coal last year. But when it comes to investment, the European industry is in decline as China steals the title of renewables pioneer."


 http://www.dw.com/en/europe-breaks-own-renewables-record-but-cant-keep-up-with-china/a-42386502
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2018, 04:12:55 pm »
"It's a new milestone: Europe got more of its power from solar, wind and biomass than coal last year.
ROTFL. Renewable boosters are so desperate to claim progress that they engage in outright deception.

The stats in the article refer to nameplate capacity which means nothing since renewables don't produce all of the time and sometimes when they produce their power cannot be used. When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Production_of_primary_energy,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.

But go ahead - live in your world of delusions. The people behind the scenes that are actually responsible for keeping the lights on will quitely keep those fossil fuel plants running because those people know that renewables are a joke because it is their job to know.

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2018, 04:25:17 pm »
Interesting that just recently, BC Hydro said they want to stop paying for electricity residential solar systems put into the grid because they have no market for it. When the sun shines, electricity demand goes down. Who knew.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2018, 04:33:20 pm »
ROTFL. Renewable boosters are so desperate to claim progress that they engage in outright deception.

The stats in the article refer to nameplate capacity which means nothing since renewables don't produce all of the time and sometimes when they produce their power cannot be used. When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Production_of_primary_energy,_EU-28,_2015_(%25_of_total,_based_on_tonnes_of_oil_equivalent)_YB17.png

A mere 4% of european energy production comes from solar or wind despite the massive investment.

But go ahead - live in your world of delusions. The people behind the scenes that are actually responsible for keeping the lights on will quitely keep those fossil fuel plants running because those people know that renewables are a joke because it is their job to know.

ROTF once again you demonstrate you either don't read well or simply keep your blinders on. In any case, the people who are really in the dark don't quite get that there is a last barrel of junk fuel in the ground and that we will need to look elsewhere before we get to it or we will all be in the dark. Not to mention we should work toward not killing off large numbers of people annually with the garbage we put into the air.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2018, 04:43:46 pm »
Closed it to what? How would your brave new world function?

I wouldn't reward those who exploit the worlds resources and leave a mess for future generations. That is central to the current model, and any minor attempt to mitigate it (e.g. carbon tax, resource extraction tax) is met with hostility by those with entrenched position in the current system and supported by their ignorant followers.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2018, 04:50:40 pm »
When you look at actual energy production you see a very different picture:

The graph you linked to showed renewable producing 26.7%, and coal producing 18.9%. That seems exactly in line with the previous statement, what are you trying to say?

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2018, 04:51:39 pm »
I wouldn't reward those who exploit the worlds resources and leave a mess for future generations. That is central to the current model, and any minor attempt to mitigate it (e.g. carbon tax, resource extraction tax) is met with hostility by those with entrenched position in the current system and supported by their ignorant followers.

So you don't know. Didn't think so.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2018, 05:15:52 pm »
The graph you linked to showed renewable producing 26.7%, and coal producing 18.9%. That seems exactly in line with the previous statement, what are you trying to say?
Look at the breakdown for renewables. Renewables includes a lot of biomass which is not really CO2 emission free. It status depends on the assumption that CO2 emissions required to harvest the biomass are insignificant and that burned biomass will be replaced faster than it is burned. This is not necessarily true. Only ~15% is wind or solar. That makes solar/wind a mere 4% of the total yet the headline makes it sound like wind/solar are significant players.

That said, I will acknowledge misreading the original op. I missed the comparison to coal. I thought it was all fossil fuels. Does not change my point about solar/wind being insignificant players despite the trillions being wasted on building out the infrastructure.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 05:21:07 pm by TimG »

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2018, 06:05:53 pm »
Look at the breakdown for renewables. Renewables includes a lot of biomass which is not really CO2 emission free. It status depends on the assumption that CO2 emissions required to harvest the biomass are insignificant and that burned biomass will be replaced faster than it is burned. This is not necessarily true. Only ~15% is wind or solar. That makes solar/wind a mere 4% of the total yet the headline makes it sound like wind/solar are significant players.

Ok, lets look closely at the graph (I used a ruler in a graphics package) and converting to percent of total I get:

Geothermal - 0.9%
Solar - 1.8%
Wind - 3.3%
Hydro - 3.4%
Biomass/waste - 17.4%

That makes Solar & Wind 5.1%. Discounting the others however is ridiculous. Yes the assumption is that biomass & waste will regrow in a number of years, and that number is usually measured in decades where fossil fuels is measured in hundreds of millions of years. There is at least a million to one difference. Note also that the biomass and waste could of course just decompose and release its C02 anyway and we get no energy from it, although yes we might get other useful byproducts.