In the winter mine don't make it through the night, hope my solar powered plane doesn't run out of batteries mid flight. The batteries in a Tesla weigh 1,200 pounds, so enough to fly a plane would be crazy heavy.
Is Oil Dying?
- Thread starter Cock Throppled
- Start date
Not my statement, but google is your friend
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/03/w...s-to-build-new-coal-plant-every-week-in-2020/
No, they actually don't need to run on jet fuel (or JP3 JP4 or whatever else they call it) jet engines can run on a lot of different types of fuels.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/13042/why-do-jet-engines-use-kerosene-rather-than-gasoline
Last edited:
Ann Coulter's platform. The equivalent of quoting Brietbart news IMO.
From the right, she is a huge generator of fake news. Of course she would say something supportive of #45's platform on coal; true or not.
I realize you said 'not my statement'. It is what it is.
They are also deactivating older and less efficient ones.
I will look for sourcing but IIRC there are almost as many being taken offline as being built.
Not because China is going green, simply a pragmatic use of coal.
China is going to have a lot of problems as its population becomes more affluent. Imagine a huge population like that suddenly all wanting cars, air conditioners, flat screen tv's.
I think their push into the South China Sea may be motivated by oil.
They are building a blue water Navy as well.
The population in China is in the BILLIONS and the percentage of people who are "affluent" is less than 1% with the bulk of them living in Hong Kong.At the same time Canada's population is 36 MILLION and as a country has a lot more real estate(though much of it is uninhabitable) and Canada has a "middle class"....YET...China is the largest producer of those evil GHG's that are bad for the "Climate" and Canada is one of the smallest producers of those evil GHG's that are bad for the "Climate" and Canada will soon have a Nationally mandated Carbon Tax.Makes so much fucking sense to TAX Canadians who foolishly want to heat their homes in the winter and have hot water to have a shower before going to work each day.
On the last election hustings there was no mention of a Carbon Tax by the Lieberals and if somehow and hardworking and forward thinking Canadian tax payer had been able to pose the question to the shiney pony Justine Trudeau of "If you form government will you saddle Canadians with a Carbon Tax?" the answer would be something like this in Justine Trudeau's answer "I believe that the economy and the environment go hand in hand and um that the need for um a strong economy must be um balanced with the environment and um we as a government support all hard working um Canadians especially the um middle class and those working to join it"......if the guy then said "answer the fucking question with a YES or NO and not Lieberal doublespeak" that guy would have been DRAGGED out of the room and Trudeau would have gotten on with the "selfies".......so fucking sad that Canadians opted for style over substance and ate the Socialist gruel that was fed to them by the spoonfull via the Leftist media.
SR
i
Obviously the case. Don't think it's airline policy to fuel up passenger planes with whatever happens to be handy at the time.
Until we figure out what to do with spent nuclear fuel, there is nothing "clean" about nuclear.
Using nuclear energy signs us up for an eternity of maintenance.
They have spent billions on the Hanford nuclear facility clean up and it is still leaking into the ground water.
The permanent cost of nuclear energy is too high.
Actually SR, you are wrong as usual, Justin announced that if elected the Liberals would implement a national carbon tax to combat climate change in February 2015 at Calgary's Petroleum Club. Check out the Globe and Mail February 5, 2015 article 'Trudeau announces carbon-pricing plan if Liberals win election'.
China's population is estimated at 1.4 billion, not billions. Beijing, Shanghai and all the major cities have affluent residents - not just Hong Kong. In fact Hong Kong is only ranked 7th on the list of Chinese cities ranked by the number of residents with over $30 million. It has been affluent Mainland Chinese that have been buying luxury real estate around the world for the last 15+ years.
And why are you talking about GHGs being bad for the climate? You have been continuously spewing that climate change is a conspiracy.
and here's one on reality of what is actually happening
http://driving.ca/auto-news/news/mo...nt-truth-about-china-and-norways-ev-subsidies
just like Germany's supposed greening, where they got rid of their Springfield Power Plants as a knee jerk reaction to Japan's disaster, they are now back on Coal, for a large part of their needs
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-consumption-and-power-mix-charts
cause the sun don't shine all day, anymore than the wind blows 24hrs a day
now let's talk about what it takes to mine those metals used to make batteries, lol
Trudeau may have said at the Calgary Petroleum Club that he believed in the idea of a carbon tax but he sure as shit did not RUN on the HUSTINGS with a carbon tax as a platform plank of election policy.That pussy wimp Dion tried that with his "Green Shift" and lost ground to the NDP under Layton.
I have never said "climate change" is a conspiracy I have said it is a Socialist Sham that is being pushed by the UN and that is exactly what it is.GHG's are the evil that is driving "climate change" and more specifically the GHG's are Carbon Dioxide.Every creature on the planet with lungs exudes Carbon Dioxide as it breathes.They breath in Oxygen and the waste is Carbon DioxideAt the same time ALL plant life on the planet CONSUME Carbon Dioxide as a life source and then exude Oxygen as a waste product.They feed uss and we feed them.It is a pretty simple symbiotic relationship that is based on scientific fact.
The whole idea behind "Climate Change" is nothing but a Socialist wealth transfer from the developed societies to the undeveloped societies orchestrated by the UN and it has been brainwashed into the public eye by fear mongering.
SR
I guess you didn't read even the title of the article, let alone the article from February 2015 - because you are 100% wrong - let me remind you the Globe and Mail article's title is 'TRUDEAU ANNOUNCES CARBON-PRICING PLAN IF LIBERALS WIN ELECTION'.
My god, dude. Please do read up on GHG & Climate Change from reputable sources.
But let's start with the "oil is going away" thing, because that's easy: it isn't going away. Not unless a new, different power source (better, safer, more power dense than oil and WAY more power dense than batteries) comes along. I did the math a few years ago - a few minutes at the gas station "recharges" your fuel-tank with 5-6 MWh of energy. Tesla's biggest energy pack is ...100KwH? 5-6 MWh sounds like a lot (it is) but internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, while electric motors are 90-95% efficient, so that's how the Tesla approach a small car or inefficient truck's range.
When you pull up a graph from EIA or similar, the breakdown of energy use is roughly 30/30/40 for transportation, electricity, and industry/residential. As for the sources of this energy, this is a year old but it probably hasn't changed much:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30652.
To avoid risk of carpal tunnel syndrome from cut-and-paste the above, I'll summarize - ~80% of the US energy consumption comes from carbon-based fuels. (incl coal). Nuclear is ~10%, Renewable is ~10%. I expect nuclear to drop as US companies can't seem to re-learn how to make new nuclear power plants and old ones are falling apart. I expect renewables to continue to grow, but their inherent flux makes it difficult to provide baseload. STILL, renewables can provide a LOT of the electricity load because electricity fluctuates, sometimes by as much as 100% from night to day.
Transportation - cars & trucks are a big chunk, but theoretically MOST of those COULD be replaced by battery (battery swapouts instead of gas stations, looking into the future). Don't think it could happen? The US got populated by gas stations in a matter of decades as the horse & buggy got replaced (I don't hear too many people pining for those days....maybe Sybian? lol!). Airplanes will be a big challenge. Shipping will be the BIGGEST challenge - 80-90% of world trade goes by ship (have you seen Delta terminal empty...ever?) and its either oil-burning or NG (if they're an LNG carrier). I'm not saying it CAN'T happen (humans are pretty clever...sometimes too clever for their own good) but it'll take some kind of new power source to completely take oil out of the picture. As long as demand is there, quite a few clever humans will remain focused on getting it out of the ground and into fuel tanks.
Now to GHG/climate change. GHG is a no-brainer - its physics and chemistry that CO2 (and others like methane) reflect IR radiation back to the earth. Why are we so concerned over CO2 now and not in the pre-industrial age? Because earth is a system that seeks to be in balance, that 80% of energy usage emits CO2 that knocks the system WAY out of balance. You're right: we exhale CO2, plants "inhale"CO2 and everyone's happy. But the amount of CO2 additionally created by burning petroleum products goes HUGELY beyond what existing plant life requires and we're seeing effects on ocean life as well (absorbing CO2 results in acidification which can destroy coral life and affect sea life...). Ice core samples from eons back and solar activity research support that CO2 concentrations + solar activity today is greater than at any time in history. Some skeptics (and to be honest, we should all be 'skeptical' of science - don't believe what advertisers tell you, don't believe what politicians tell you, and don't believe what scientists tell you: make them all prove it to you) believe that higher CO2 concentrations and temps in the past mean that the future is OK. But are you willing to risk jumping into the unknown?
Climate change has been discussed and researched since the 70's, its nothing new. But it has gained greater and greater visibility thanks to people who, in my opinion, ACTUALLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR PLANET. Those who yell and rant about this are NOT oil executives or get-rich schemers. SOME billionaires shout about it too, just as some billionaires are very generous donors to various causes. Is Climate change GUARANTEED to ruin the planet and our lives? Well, its fair to say...nobody REALLY knows. But if given the choice between maintaining earth in status quo and allowing it to careen into an unknown future of weather, drought, floods, etc, it sorta makes sense to fight to keep "status quo", doesn't it? Any actions by the UN has only come about from sustained research by concerned people. I can assure you that the researchers at universities are NOT getting rich with this. I've done graduate work and while some researchers end up in start-ups, the vast majority I've seen plug along with grants (that pay for grad students, equipment & research) and their university income. You don't see a whole lot of luxury vehicles in university parking lots (outside of the president & top folks)!
Effect on wealth - for every challenge to society, there are winners and losers. As mentioned above, the horse-and-buggy industry never recovered once autos took over. Too bad, so sad. So it shall be when combating climate change - some current industries will suffer, but new industries will rise up to profit from it and innovation with proper guidance can overcome tremendous challenges. I don't see how wealth will be transferred to undeveloped societies except that I DO believe developed nations (which contributed horrendously to CO2 and pollution during their modernization) should speed-along under-developed nations more quickly into cleaner futures. Places like Indonesia and Brazil that burn 1000's of acres of forest every year need some help to get away from that else the planet isn't going to improve.
Most of what you said was well written but the above is false. CO2 levels were much higher during the age of Dinosaurs as found in ice core samples.
^^ Thanks and you're right - what I meant to say was that even tho CO2 was higher, there's evidence that solar activity was lower, so the total effect was less than what we're currently seeing.
I can see the logic that if the earth was OK during the age of dinosaurs, it'll probably be OK when its warmer over the next few decades. But the speed in which the climate is changing is more akin, I think, to an asteroid strike, which mass extinctions, then to the gradual flux between warm & cold periods. And dinosaurs and their supporting plant life developed over millions & millions of years, not a few decades. So everyone's way of life, where they live, what they eat, etc will likely be thrown into extreme turmoil (with sadly predictable results) unless the change is arrested, mitigations are put into place, or sustainable long-term choices are made. And, again sadly, the current leadership in 3 of the most powerful countries today is NOT going to get us there... (China does have a solid history of long-term strength that may surprise many; just don't expect them to look out for other countries too)
I can see the logic that if the earth was OK during the age of dinosaurs, it'll probably be OK when its warmer over the next few decades. But the speed in which the climate is changing is more akin, I think, to an asteroid strike, which mass extinctions, then to the gradual flux between warm & cold periods. And dinosaurs and their supporting plant life developed over millions & millions of years, not a few decades. So everyone's way of life, where they live, what they eat, etc will likely be thrown into extreme turmoil (with sadly predictable results) unless the change is arrested, mitigations are put into place, or sustainable long-term choices are made. And, again sadly, the current leadership in 3 of the most powerful countries today is NOT going to get us there... (China does have a solid history of long-term strength that may surprise many; just don't expect them to look out for other countries too)
I just picked up the book
American war, by omar something or other,
heard his interview on cbc, I was quite impressed.
its about civil war 50 years in the future brought about by the energy crises and or environmental issues.
I guess, it hints at the trump effect, though it was written before he announced he was running
should be an interesting read.
it seemed quite intelligent and thought out according to the interview any way
American war, by omar something or other,
heard his interview on cbc, I was quite impressed.
its about civil war 50 years in the future brought about by the energy crises and or environmental issues.
I guess, it hints at the trump effect, though it was written before he announced he was running
should be an interesting read.
it seemed quite intelligent and thought out according to the interview any way
Actually by FACT the highest concentration of CO2 levels recorded by the expert "climatologists" was during the warming period of the Middle Ages......this huge blip is of course not represented on Al Gore's fear mongering hockey stick graph as it does not suit his narrative.Call me Mr.Picky but I get skeptical when thousands of "climatologists" who are all making their bread and butter from the public dime hit me with fear mongering predictions which thus far have not come to pass.I also pretty much chuck those predictions in the garbage when thousands of emails get leaked (Climate Gate) that exposes those same experts doing the following.
1.Outright lies with regards to research
2.Falsification of research data to reach the outcome they desire
3.The collusion between scientists who are on the public teet to discredit/shame/slander any other scientist that offers conjecture
4.ALL Politicians that want to enact a Carbon Tax as it is just another form of Taxation for Socialists to Tax ans Spend...though it is a wealth transfer.
The 3rd rock from the sun has been around for BILLIONS of years and mankind is like a case of fleas to itself......at the same time Society has only been partially industrialized for the last 100 years.....suddenly we are CHANGING the CLIMATE......I dont think so.....Climate Change is another name for the Emperors New Clothes....as brainwashed into Society by the media and Socialist Governments.Try going to Thailand and asking people on the streets of Bankok about Climate Change and those people will look at you like you have 2 heads.
SR
I'd be interested to know where ice core samples were obtained that date back over 65 million years.
How can you ask something as frivilous as that?Dont the ice core samples that covered the EARTH 300,000 years ago dont get into your groove?.Oh snap.....Climatologists dont even have those because they dont exist since all of those GLACIERS that were 300 feet thick receded and went away after the end of the last ice age...which was a couple of hundred thousand years ago.......Climate Change is BS.....it was called "Global Warming" until it got debunked and exposed by Climate Gate.....now it has a new Socialist Moniker.....and if one of the founders of GreenPeace calls it a sham well....you cant take it to the bank.
SR
