Global Warming does not matter

[Darwin333]

You can still make biodiesel if petroleum becomes too expensive, but there's only so much cheap biodiesel feedstock to go around. So yes, reserve oil for things like planes. Things that don't need oil can use something else... cars can go electric, for instance. That electricity can come from renewables.

We can make gas from coal if necessary. Hell the Germans were doing that back in WW2.

 

[SparkyJJO]

You can still make biodiesel if petroleum becomes too expensive, but there's only so much cheap biodiesel feedstock to go around. So yes, reserve oil for things like planes. Things that don't need oil can use something else... cars can go electric, for instance. That electricity can come from renewables.

Side note on using electric for cars though, and I believe that a LOT of people forget about this, but a major downside to using electric cars is climate control, particularly in the winter. Heating the interior of your car with a regular gas or diesel engine is easy given the amount of waste heat you get from burning the fuel, and has zero impact on vehicle range. With an all electric vehicle simply turning on the heat in the winter will drastically impact your vehicle range, which is already decreased due to the cold anyway.

With today's high of barely 1 degree and having been subzero most of this morning I'd hate to see how poorly an all electric vehicle would do here at the moment...

Or, depending on where you live, AC in the summer could have a similar effect. I suspect running AC off an electric car would have a larger impact on range than it impacts your mpg on a regular fueled vehicle, though I don't know for sure.


For power... it is going to take a lot of time and gradual steps. This current shove by some groups to force "green" energy on us all at once partially by just hacking and slashing our current power grid setup is totally foolhardy and risks horrible destabilization of the power grid along with ridiculous price increases. Personally I don't care if we use coal (we can put scrubbers etc in the stacks as it is, if you ever see smoke from a coal plant stack then they're having issues), but getting more "green" stuff online and/or using natural gas as a stepping stone is fine as long as we're not talking about forcing costs up "just because" or causing stability issues. Nobody likes higher prices save for some freaks who just want to hurt others with them, but people tend to forget that higher costs impact the lower class far more than anyone else. You and I may just mutter and complain when costs go up, but for others it can be a huge hit to their already frail finances. No, government subsidies is NOT the answer to this either as you're just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, and now you're hurting the middle class as they have to pay the higher prices AND higher taxes.

Ramblings, maybe, but just throwing some stuff out there. Maybe TL;DR

 

[werepossum]

It's New Orleans bud, it's rather rare that roofs last that long between the high heat, absurdly high humidity (we gotta chew our air before we breathe it sometimes), amount of rain, old construction meaning very hot attics, hurricanes and the rare hail storm they just don't last. Now the roof under the panels will be ok but the rest of the roof that isn't applicable for solar will wear at a normal rate. If you are going to reroof a house its usually rather silly to only do a portion of it.

Commercial roofs are a bit different depending on the type. Tile or slate roofs are pretty much true "lifetime" roofs barring physical damage like a tree falling onto it or a huge storm. Modern flat roofs, especially the SBS roofs that are so popular around here come with 20 year NDL warranties but its a crapshoot if they will last a few days, few months or a few years after that.

Even if you get another decade out of it, you still would be throwing away perfectly good panels. The method of removing old flat roofs just doesn't lend very well to salvaging them. Even if the owner wants to upgrade to new and much more efficient panels (since we are talking 20+ years in the future), I still don't like the idea of putting the old, still working, panels in the dump. I highly doubt we would have covered all of the currently wasted rooftops/areas in 20-25 years.

Yeah, we've had tons of trouble getting good roofs, got one in Florida that still leaks like a sieve. When you're taking low bid in an area where no one knows the contractors, it's a true crap shoot on things like roofing and neon which are highly dependent on quality of installation.

Maybe tomorrow's niche industry is taking off old roofs for free to get the old solar installation and then selling it used. 50% pricing for DIY solar with 10% - 15% efficiency degradation seems like a good deal for everyone involved. However, even in New Orleans I'd like to see how long one could make a roof last with white or light premium shingles and a Chinese double roof to lower shingle temperature. Another idea for new construction would be a double shed roof, my favorite stylistically anyway. Cover the southern-facing shed roof completely with panels and you can more practically replace only the northern roof, which I'm assuming would age more slowly anyway.

Side note on using electric for cars though, and I believe that a LOT of people forget about this, but a major downside to using electric cars is climate control, particularly in the winter. Heating the interior of your car with a regular gas or diesel engine is easy given the amount of waste heat you get from burning the fuel, and has zero impact on vehicle range. With an all electric vehicle simply turning on the heat in the winter will drastically impact your vehicle range, which is already decreased due to the cold anyway.

With today's high of barely 1 degree and having been subzero most of this morning I'd hate to see how poorly an all electric vehicle would do here at the moment...

Or, depending on where you live, AC in the summer could have a similar effect. I suspect running AC off an electric car would have a larger impact on range than it impacts your mpg on a regular fueled vehicle, though I don't know for sure.

For power... it is going to take a lot of time and gradual steps. This current shove by some groups to force "green" energy on us all at once partially by just hacking and slashing our current power grid setup is totally foolhardy and risks horrible destabilization of the power grid along with ridiculous price increases. Personally I don't care if we use coal (we can put scrubbers etc in the stacks as it is, if you ever see smoke from a coal plant stack then they're having issues), but getting more "green" stuff online and/or using natural gas as a stepping stone is fine as long as we're not talking about forcing costs up "just because" or causing stability issues. Nobody likes higher prices save for some freaks who just want to hurt others with them, but people tend to forget that higher costs impact the lower class far more than anyone else. You and I may just mutter and complain when costs go up, but for others it can be a huge hit to their already frail finances. No, government subsidies is NOT the answer to this either as you're just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, and now you're hurting the middle class as they have to pay the higher prices AND higher taxes.

Ramblings, maybe, but just throwing some stuff out there. Maybe TL;DR

Good points. There's a lot to recommend hybrids in such circumstances, to get the benefits of IC when needed and the benefits of electric when needed. Such a hybrid could run off of a lower density fuel as its primary power would be battery.

 

[blastingcap]

We can make gas from coal if necessary. Hell the Germans were doing that back in WW2.

Please dig deeper before you repeat such things. The process of making synthethic from coal is inefficient/uneconomic. I don't know why people keep repeating this desperate wartime measure by Germany when it doesn't scale up, is not efficient, and isn't economic.

 

[blastingcap]

Side note on using electric for cars though, and I believe that a LOT of people forget about this, but a major downside

I don't see this is as a major downside, but I'm also too cheap to turn on such amenities in my car. Even if I were though, I'd much rather spend renewable electricity on that than hydrocarbons which are difficult to replace on a large scale economically.

 

[ralfy]

I can't tell if you're trying to summarize this thread or if you didn't read the OP.

I read the OP. My post is not a summary but a response to it.

As pointed out in my post, it's not just renewable energy that's involved but infrastructure and goods manufactured. These together with renewable energy components require not just fossil fuels but also fresh water, iron ore, copper, cement, and more.

Various sources of energy have not only low energy quantity but also quality.

Finally, one more point to consider:

The problem isn't just overpopulation but overconsumption. For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain middle class conveniences. If the rest of the world copied what few rich countries do we will need several more earths.

 

[blastingcap]

I read the OP. My post is not a summary but a response to it.

As pointed out in my post, it's not just renewable energy that's involved but infrastructure and goods manufactured. These together with renewable energy components require not just fossil fuels but also fresh water, iron ore, copper, cement, and more.

Various sources of energy have not only low energy quantity but also quality.

Finally, one more point to consider:

The problem isn't just overpopulation but overconsumption. For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world's population but has to consume up to a quarter of world oil production to maintain middle class conveniences. If the rest of the world copied what few rich countries do we will need several more earths.

The difference is that things like water and concrete are not destroyed. Let me put it this way: with sufficiently cheap energy, we could desalinate water.

Hydrocarbons on the other hand are effectively destroyed because it's so difficult to capture atmospheric carbon and cram them back into oil/coal/gas. There have been efforts to use things like solar or bacteria to do so, but I am not aware of anything that is economic and scalable.

As for conservation that is praiseworthy but insufficient. All the conservation in the world does not produce more hydrocarbons; it just delays the inevitable at best. At worst, you get Jevon's Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Therefore the switch to renewables is what should be focused on. If we can conserve to give ourselves more time to make the switch, that's great, but in practice what would likely happen is that whoever conserves lowers demand and thus prices, and other countries that are not conserving, eat up that supply, anyway. That's why you would need things like Cap and Trade mechanisms to be global, to prevent nonparticipants from eating the savings made by everyone else.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

However, it takes energy to produce concrete (cement, aggregate). Even with cheap energy, desalination of saltwater takes a large amount of energy to produce a small quantity potable water.

Pollution/destruction of the earth will be required to manufacture alternate sources of energy, copper mining, silicon production, plastics production, steel mining/production, etc...... As the components wear/deteriorate they will have to be replaced and the cycle starts over again.

Cap and trade/carbon taxes will not do anything other than transfer funds to governments that will waste the funds rather than put it back into clean energy initiatives.

 

[realibrad]

However, it takes energy to produce concrete (cement, aggregate). Even with cheap energy, desalination of saltwater takes a large amount of energy to produce a small quantity potable water.

Pollution/destruction of the earth will be required to manufacture alternate sources of energy, copper mining, silicon production, plastics production, steel mining/production, etc...... As the components wear/deteriorate they will have to be replaced and the cycle starts over again.

Cap and trade/carbon taxes will not do anything other than transfer funds to governments that will waste the funds rather than put it back into clean energy initiatives.

Well, there is one part I disagree with. Prices are not arbitrary and send signals to the market. If you raise the price, you get less consumption. Cap and trade is a way to raise the price. The logic behind this, is burning fossil fuels puts CO2 and other pollutants into the environment. Because the market has not internalized these factors into the cost of the product, it artificially decreases the price of the product. I would argue that there is a valid reason for taxing pollution. The taxes should be used to compensate those hurt by the pollution, and not pay for government activities though.

 

[ralfy]

The difference is that things like water and concrete are not destroyed. Let me put it this way: with sufficiently cheap energy, we could desalinate water.

Additional energy is needed to desalinate water. More water is needed given more manufacturing. Cement adds to carbon emissions.

Hydrocarbons on the other hand are effectively destroyed because it's so difficult to capture atmospheric carbon and cram them back into oil/coal/gas. There have been efforts to use things like solar or bacteria to do so, but I am not aware of anything that is economic and scalable.

Fossil fuels are also needed for renewable energy plus infrastructure plus consumer goods. Not only fossil fuels but various minerals, fresh water, cement, etc., are needed. These will face the same problems as fossil fuels.

As for conservation that is praiseworthy but insufficient. All the conservation in the world does not produce more hydrocarbons; it just delays the inevitable at best. At worst, you get Jevon's Paradox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

The issue isn't whether or not conservation is praiseworthy and insufficient but whether it is logical. Given a world with physical limitations, it is.

The purpose is not to produce more hydrocarbons but to adjust to a world with physical limitations.

It doesn't delay the inevitable. Rather, it takes place after one realizes that the inevitable (i.e., physical limitations catch up with increasing consumption) is delayed.

And the Jevons paradox takes place because the global economy is capitalist, and that requires increasing production and consumption of goods to ensure more profits, which in turn are churned back into the economy to produce and consume more. That global economy cannot continue due to physical limitations.

Therefore the switch to renewables is what should be focused on. If we can conserve to give ourselves more time to make the switch, that's great, but in practice what would likely happen is that whoever conserves lowers demand and thus prices, and other countries that are not conserving, eat up that supply, anyway. That's why you would need things like Cap and Trade mechanisms to be global, to prevent nonparticipants from eating the savings made by everyone else.

The switch to renewables is meant to address both peak oil and global warming. In which case, the point that the latter doesn't matter is illogical.

The problem is that it's assumed that renewables can be used to replace fossil fuels. They can only to a certain extent because fossil fuels are needed to mine resources, manufacture components for renewables, infrastructure, and consumer goods, and even ship them.

More important, renewables, new oil, and other resources have low energy returns and quantity:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

The catch is that the global economy, which is capitalist, requires increasing energy quality and quantity. According to the IEA:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

the world economy will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years just to maintain economic growth. At least 70 pct of the increased oil demand per annum must be replaced with renewables to deter the effects of global warming:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

but in the long term that will require (according to the report) oil producers going for maximum depletion rates, strong regulation by governments, and cooperation between economies. How likely is this given the fact that the complete opposite has been taking place for decades?

In addition, if more of the new oil consists of unconventional production, then even more oil will be needed:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...um-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession

and if more of the oil, minerals, water, cement, solar panels, etc., will be needed by a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

 

[blastingcap]

Additional energy is needed to desalinate water. More water is needed given more manufacturing. Cement adds to carbon emissions.

Fossil fuels are also needed for renewable energy plus infrastructure plus consumer goods. Not only fossil fuels but various minerals, fresh water, cement, etc., are needed. These will face the same problems as fossil fuels.

The issue isn't whether or not conservation is praiseworthy and insufficient but whether it is logical. Given a world with physical limitations, it is.

The purpose is not to produce more hydrocarbons but to adjust to a world with physical limitations.

It doesn't delay the inevitable. Rather, it takes place after one realizes that the inevitable (i.e., physical limitations catch up with increasing consumption) is delayed.

And the Jevons paradox takes place because the global economy is capitalist, and that requires increasing production and consumption of goods to ensure more profits, which in turn are churned back into the economy to produce and consume more. That global economy cannot continue due to physical limitations.



The switch to renewables is meant to address both peak oil and global warming. In which case, the point that the latter doesn't matter is illogical.

The problem is that it's assumed that renewables can be used to replace fossil fuels. They can only to a certain extent because fossil fuels are needed to mine resources, manufacture components for renewables, infrastructure, and consumer goods, and even ship them.

More important, renewables, new oil, and other resources have low energy returns and quantity:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3786

The catch is that the global economy, which is capitalist, requires increasing energy quality and quantity. According to the IEA:

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo-2010/

the world economy will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years just to maintain economic growth. At least 70 pct of the increased oil demand per annum must be replaced with renewables to deter the effects of global warming:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

but in the long term that will require (according to the report) oil producers going for maximum depletion rates, strong regulation by governments, and cooperation between economies. How likely is this given the fact that the complete opposite has been taking place for decades?

In addition, if more of the new oil consists of unconventional production, then even more oil will be needed:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...um-geologist-peak-oil-break-economy-recession

and if more of the oil, minerals, water, cement, solar panels, etc., will be needed by a growing global middle class:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

I think you are reading my post way too literally, and furthermore you aren't reading my desalinization example the way I intended. Let me be clearer. Let's say you have literally infinite energy, from fusion reactors or something. Would you still need hydrocarbons? No, you could actually synthesize hydrocarbons despite that being a net energy sink. A fusion reactor can't directly power a plane unless it's light enough, but it can synthesize jet fuel. Do you understand now?

You did the same when I mentioned Cap and Trade as an EXAMPLE. I am not (necessarily) advocating for global cap and trade, I gave it as an example of something that is doomed to fail due to non-signatories eating the gains that the signatories produce.

There are

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think you are reading my post way too literally, and furthermore you aren't reading my desalinization example the way I intended. Let me be clearer. Let's say you have literally infinite energy, from fusion reactors or something. Would you still need hydrocarbons? No, you could actually synthesize hydrocarbons despite that being a net energy sink. A fusion reactor can't directly power a plane unless it's light enough, but it can synthesize jet fuel. Do you understand now?

You did the same when I mentioned Cap and Trade as an EXAMPLE. I am not (necessarily) advocating for global cap and trade, I gave it as an example of something that is doomed to fail due to non-signatories eating the gains that the signatories produce.

There are

So how do you extract the resources from the ground with a fusion reactor? How do you create plastics, wire, or other items required to build solar cells, control circuitry/devices, or other items required for alternate energy?

The fact of the matter the use of hydrocarbons will be here for a long time before everything can be powered by alternate sources, to believe otherwise is ludicrous.

 

[ralfy]

I think you are reading my post way too literally, and furthermore you aren't reading my desalinization example the way I intended. Let me be clearer. Let's say you have literally infinite energy, from fusion reactors or something. Would you still need hydrocarbons? No, you could actually synthesize hydrocarbons despite that being a net energy sink. A fusion reactor can't directly power a plane unless it's light enough, but it can synthesize jet fuel. Do you understand now?

You did the same when I mentioned Cap and Trade as an EXAMPLE. I am not (necessarily) advocating for global cap and trade, I gave it as an example of something that is doomed to fail due to non-signatories eating the gains that the signatories produce.

There are

Speculating is not helpful. One should consider a realistic assessment of what we have, what it takes to transition to RE, etc. Try something like the study mentioned here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

In short, consider not just the economic but also the social and political costs of retooling much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture.

Next, assume that throughout the transition process, fossil fuels will still be used to mine, manufacture, and ship what is needed for RE components and consumer goods. If we're looking at a global capitalist system and a growing middle class, then a lot more fossil fuels will be needed for the transition process plus maintain growth.

If we follow what the IEA said in its 2010 report, we will need something like one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years or even shorter. The factors to consider include the threat of peak oil, a growing population, a growing middle class, increasing money supply, the need for increasing profits and returns on investment, environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

Given these, it becomes important to see that not only does global warming matter but that it should be seen together with these other issues.

 

[blastingcap]

So how do you extract the resources from the ground with a fusion reactor? How do you create plastics, wire, or other items required to build solar cells, control circuitry/devices, or other items required for alternate energy?

The fact of the matter the use of hydrocarbons will be here for a long time before everything can be powered by alternate sources, to believe otherwise is ludicrous.

It was a hypothetical example of what would be possible if you had cheap enough energy. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer. I mean if you had cheap enough energy you might be able to extract gold from seawater economically... before the price of gold crashes due to all the new supply. Yes, you can synthesize hydrocarbons out of freaking CO2 if necessary, if you have enough cheap energy. And from there you can make plastics. You can extract metals from ore for the control circuitry.

Now, in the foreseeable future, we don't have access to cheap fusion power, so we will have to do something else, and all of that I agree with. I have advocated for a more effective transition to renewables to preserve what hydrocarbons we have left, especially oil for things like jet fuel, since it's not easy to run a plane off a nuclear fission reactor or solar panels or even CNG.

I just wanted to draw a distinction between energy and water and concrete or whatever, that's all. Energy is indispensable, and with enough cheap energy you can actually solve things like water shortages by doing energy-intensive, inefficient things like desal.

 

[realibrad]

It was a hypothetical example of what would be possible if you had cheap enough energy. I used an extreme example to make the point clearer. I mean if you had cheap enough energy you might be able to extract gold from seawater economically... before the price of gold crashes due to all the new supply. Yes, you can synthesize hydrocarbons out of freaking CO2 if necessary, if you have enough cheap energy. And from there you can make plastics. You can extract metals from ore for the control circuitry.

Now, in the foreseeable future, we don't have access to cheap fusion power, so we will have to do something else, and all of that I agree with. I have advocated for a more effective transition to renewables to preserve what hydrocarbons we have left, especially oil for things like jet fuel, since it's not easy to run a plane off a nuclear fission reactor or solar panels or even CNG.

I just wanted to draw a distinction between energy and water and concrete or whatever, that's all. Energy is indispensable, and with enough cheap energy you can actually solve things like water shortages by doing energy-intensive, inefficient things like desal.

Agree with just about all of that too.

I should say though, desal also has the negative effect of salt waste. It makes the surrounding area super salty which can harm life around it. Still better than what we do now though.

 

[Jaskalas]

What do you think the environmental impact will be, of raising our population from 7 to 8 billion? If we simply aimed for stability instead of infinite growth, we'd do more to clean the planet than almost any other initiative.

 

[glenn1]

Speculating is not helpful. One should consider a realistic assessment of what we have, what it takes to transition to RE, etc. Try something like the study mentioned here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

In short, consider not just the economic but also the social and political costs of retooling much of manufacturing and mechanized agriculture.

Next, assume that throughout the transition process, fossil fuels will still be used to mine, manufacture, and ship what is needed for RE components and consumer goods. If we're looking at a global capitalist system and a growing middle class, then a lot more fossil fuels will be needed for the transition process plus maintain growth.

If we follow what the IEA said in its 2010 report, we will need something like one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years or even shorter. The factors to consider include the threat of peak oil, a growing population, a growing middle class, increasing money supply, the need for increasing profits and returns on investment, environmental damage, and the effects of global warming.

Given these, it becomes important to see that not only does global warming matter but that it should be seen together with these other issues.

Why do we always just keep arguing about the 'science' when we could skip to the fun part and start talking about who can't use fossil fuels anymore? The left never likes to talk about that part although it's the logical extension of the calamity they claim is coming. To raise prices and reduce demand like they want someone will need to go without. Or have the other aspects of their lifestyle severely compromised so they can afford stuff like, you know, heating their homes so they don't freeze to death.

So who will it be leftists - no oil for the poor or fuck over the middle class so the poor don't need to do without? I want to know who gets left holding the bag if you had your way. And don't reply with some bullshit like "alternative energy will create new jobs!" because we both know that's not true.

 

[blastingcap]

What do you think the environmental impact will be, of raising our population from 7 to 8 billion? If we simply aimed for stability instead of infinite growth, we'd do more to clean the planet than almost any other initiative.

I agree. I mentioned this in OP. Some people think we're already beyond the carrying capacity of the planet at 7 billion.

 

[ralfy]

Why do we always just keep arguing about the 'science' when we could skip to the fun part and start talking about who can't use fossil fuels anymore? The left never likes to talk about that part although it's the logical extension of the calamity they claim is coming. To raise prices and reduce demand like they want someone will need to go without. Or have the other aspects of their lifestyle severely compromised so they can afford stuff like, you know, heating their homes so they don't freeze to death.

So who will it be leftists - no oil for the poor or fuck over the middle class so the poor don't need to do without? I want to know who gets left holding the bag if you had your way. And don't reply with some bullshit like "alternative energy will create new jobs!" because we both know that's not true.

Interestingly enough, this has already been taking place for almost a decade:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

That is, rich countries have been cutting down on oil consumption due to rising debts while the rest of the world has been increasing consumption because oil is needed for necessities.