Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Dead wrong. It is absolutely certain that the world will run out of fossil fuels sometime in the near (in historical terms) future. That's just basic science and simple math: there's only a finite amount down there, the creation rate is infinitesimally slow, so eventually you get to zero. (Of course it will become economically impractical to use for fuel before then, as recovery costs rise.)
|
While I agree with the bold part ... I will disagree with actually getting to zero part.
To actually get to zero would be extremely difficult if not actually impossible ... at least as long as there is a non-zero production rate ... and it continues to happen in so many diverse locations all over the world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by t-vago
And it's strange that nobody has actually challenged the sheer number of abandoned wind turbines that currently exist. 14,000?
|
What I think is strange is why you think wind turbines would somehow be immune to human's historical liter / abandonment trend.
Humans abandon buildings and things all the time ... we've been doing this for thousands of years ... food , ships, houses, forts, tools, mines, clothes, roads, animals , fellow humans , etc ... etc.
The existence of 14,000 abandoned wind turbines doesn't effect the functionality of the non-abandoned wind turbines ... any more than if I went out and found 14,000 abandoned cars would effect the functionality of non-abandoned cars ... or if I found 14,000 abandoned houses would effect the functionality of the non-abandoned houses .... etc... etc.
I'll agree human historical trend for abandoning and littering is a negative thing ... negative weather it is done with wind turbines , houses, cars, or soda cans ... but it is not a function of the wind turbine itself ... it is a function of we humans , we do it all the time with all kinds of things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago
They're not alternatives to petroleum, which is what the EV crowd is dead-set against.
|
Well ... I can think of several alternatives modern science has come up with for just about every petroleum product ... so I wouldn't go along with their aren't any ... that goes too far.
I instead would say something like ... we use petroleum instead of other alternatives for various reasons ... be they cost, scalability , etc... the choice is intentional even if not deliberate.
I would also disagree with the overly inclusive comment about 'the EV crowd' ... I am part of the EV crowd ... and I don't share what I think you are suggesting.
I'm not looking for a zero fossil fuel use condition ... I am personally in favor of a more net energy efficient system ... and a more long term sustainable system ... sense fossil fuels are naturally replenished automatically in this world , it would actually be less net efficient to not use them at all ... But on the same token of energy efficiency and sustainability ... I don't think all of the methods and magnitudes that we currently use fossil fuels for , are correctly in line with net energy efficiency and long term sustainability.