Renewable Energy Is The Future

[redpoint5]

Yeah, but social cost is, just, like, your opinion, man (To quote The Big L, not to insult you). In other words, the cost is subjective, which opens it up to endless debate. It might anger some people more than others, so their "cost" is greater than to someone that isn't as angered by it.

Trying to determine cost will always be arbitrary because it will involve non-agreed upon assumptions about what constitutes a cost.

That said, it's perfectly reasonable to tax the consumption of things society views as harmful to achieve the lower rates of consumption they find acceptable. Fine, the US taxes petrol products to achieve x rate of consumption and suffers the associated economic loss, and demands that the other countries do the same. Do we then send nukes to China and India when they fail to meet our standards?

The problem is intractable without technology eventually providing markets with compelling solutions.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I like that Zack and Jessie are thought provoking; but they are not always right, by any stretch. In this video, I think their points about desalinization are not accurate - though there are solar powered systems, that are very promising. Traditional desalinization produces a LOT of super saturated brine, that is a BIG pollution problem; that pretty much eliminate any permanent installations.

If nothing else,the 'new' salt produces chlorine and bromine which attack atmospheric ozone,carried as aeolian dust by Earth's boundary layer,plus convective mixing in gaseous phase,all the way to the stratosphere,reacting chemically within the atmosphere all along the way.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

With China pumping double the CO2 the United States and showing no signs of slowing. Producing good locally and switching to green power won't even slow down the rate at which CO2 increases.

The United States mines hardly any Li, Ni or Co to keep up with battery demand and we're running out of Helium to make higher tech devices and metamaterials .
So still going to need the military to negotiate contracts.
200 years ago the US Navy and marines slaughtered pirates to ensure intercontinental trade routes stayed open, they still do that today. The notion that the US military is only out there for the oil is incredibly ignorant.

They say non renewables will run out.
Well fission power will eventually run out too, but there's something like 800 years worth of depleted uranium sitting above ground in storage in Idaho, left over from the cold war.

Wow! 1.4-billion Chinese,producing only double what 327-million Americans generate.No way we'll successfully compete against that.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Yeah, but social cost is, just, like, your opinion, man (To quote The Big L, not to insult you). In other words, the cost is subjective, which opens it up to endless debate. It might anger some people more than others, so their "cost" is greater than to someone that isn't as angered by it.

Trying to determine cost will always be arbitrary because it will involve non-agreed upon assumptions about what constitutes a cost.

That said, it's perfectly reasonable to tax the consumption of things society views as harmful to achieve the lower rates of consumption they find acceptable. Fine, the US taxes petrol products to achieve x rate of consumption and suffers the associated economic loss, and demands that the other countries do the same. Do we then send nukes to China and India when they fail to meet our standards?

The problem is intractable without technology eventually providing markets with compelling solutions.

It's been stated as fact by some who's careers follow that sort of thing.The UN recognizes India and China as 'developing' nations.They are not held to the same standards as 'developed' nations,as the USA.I've told you this at least three times that I can remember.
Only when lobbyists go the way of Red Dye#2 and the Dodo,will the market have any chance of functioning in any resemblance to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand.'

[Hersbird]

Hydoelectric is the renewable that should have been expanding continuously since it's inception. We will all die on the sword trying to save a couple strains of native fish populations. The potential energy of freshwater returning to the ocean would provide the whole world with a lifestyle of energy usage higher than what the US enjoys. It doesn't even actually use any of the precious water, just holds it and releases it while generating energy.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by Hersbird

Hydoelectric is the renewable that should have been expanding continuously since it's inception. We will all die on the sword trying to save a couple strains of native fish populations. The potential energy of freshwater returning to the ocean would provide the whole world with a lifestyle of energy usage higher than what the US enjoys. It doesn't even actually use any of the precious water, just holds it and releases it while generating energy.

I watched a 24-part lecture series on energy from 'Great Courses',and the PhD doing the series said that most locals,which are sited to take advantage of hydro are already tapped.
And presently,as mountain glaciers melt away,Earth is losing more and more streams,rivers,and reservoirs for hydro.You ought to look at Hoover Dam right now from the air.It will break your heart.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Wow! 1.4-billion Chinese,producing only double what 327-million Americans generate.No way we'll successfully compete against that.

To play devil's advocate, don't you think from the perspective of Mother Nature that the quantity of people places at least an equal weight of responsibility as the quantity of resources consumed per person? After all, choosing to have children is similar to choosing to consume. In fact, it's choosing to create another consumer.

Isn't it fascinating that when a few people have a lot, their numbers hold steady and even decline, but when a lot of people have little, their numbers multiply rapidly.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for state mandates to cap population growth at the individual level (watch One Child Nation on Amazon).

Originally Posted by aerohead

It's been stated as fact by some who's careers follow that sort of thing.The UN recognizes India and China as 'developing' nations.They are not held to the same standards as 'developed' nations,as the USA.I've told you this at least three times that I can remember.
Only when lobbyists go the way of Red Dye#2 and the Dodo,will the market have any chance of functioning in any resemblance to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand.'

What's been stated as fact?

Developed/developing does not matter to Mother Nature, as presumably that's what we're concerned with.

This is all besides the point. CO2 emissions will not be curtailed unless economic growth is curtailed, and then shrunk. Therein lies the problem; getting all people everywhere to agree that they are receiving a fair cap on economic prosperity, and enforcing this by threat of violence. Who's peeing more in the pool is a minor complaint when everyone is peeing in the pool.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

To play devil's advocate, don't you think from the perspective of Mother Nature that the quantity of people places at least an equal weight of responsibility as the quantity of resources consumed per person? After all, choosing to have children is similar to choosing to consume. In fact, it's choosing to create another consumer.

Isn't it fascinating that when a few people have a lot, their numbers hold steady and even decline, but when a lot of people have little, their numbers multiply rapidly.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating for state mandates to cap population growth at the individual level (watch One Child Nation on Amazon).



What's been stated as fact?

Developed/developing does not matter to Mother Nature, as presumably that's what we're concerned with.

This is all besides the point. CO2 emissions will not be curtailed unless economic growth is curtailed, and then shrunk. Therein lies the problem; getting all people everywhere to agree that they are receiving a fair cap on economic prosperity, and enforcing this by threat of violence. Who's peeing more in the pool is a minor complaint when everyone is peeing in the pool.

I don't recognize the existence of a Mother Nature.I'll frame an answer with respect to a natural carrying capacity for the planet,in the absence of technology.About 100-million some claim.
Some people don't think beyond the end of their genitalia.Sex isn't a 'thinking; activity.And as Kafka has said,'When you have food in your jaw,all questions are answered for the time being.' It's probably that way for billions.
Historically,large excess population was war materiel.For instance,to fight off rich white foreign invaders who wanted to steal your silk,gold,diamonds,oil,rubber,sugar,fiber,quano, etc.,while they shoved opium down your lungs,under threat of cannon fire.
Some who have the least,living in ghettos,exercise thrift,raise a single child,educate them at home,providing upward social mobility.
As to 'fact',this is in reference to non-Chicago School economists,whom actually research extant cost/externalities associated with fossil-fuels,which never make it to the ledger sheets,allowing their products to be 'dumped' on the market,as is currently practiced with natural gas,coal,and petroleum.You just follow the chain of custody and smokestacks,tailpipes,waste lagoons,mine tailings,Super Fund sites,etc..
I do not subscribe to the social fallacy of economic growth being tied to hydrocarbons.You may visit with Brian Deese,of BlackRock Investments if you want to understand the undergoing transition off fossil-fuels.
'Developing','Developed' are metrics the international community accepts as metrics for emissions targets.As a signatory to some UN agreements,the United States will have to hold its tongue,when thinking of criticizing others for their development.History is littered with millions of dead as a consequence of our industrialization and empire.
We're actually being eclipsed by other nations.They have higher standards of living at less cost,and don't send their offspring to fight and die for foreign resources.Polite,civilized cannibalism,practiced in the most elite circles.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I don't recognize the existence of a Mother Nature.

I'll frame an answer with respect to a natural carrying capacity for the planet,in the absence of technology.About 100-million some claim.

At what level of economic prosperity, and what is considered "sustainable"? There are zero things in the universe that are infinitely sustainable. Any notion of sustaining then must include the standard (per capita wealth, for instance) and the duration (x number of years).

Some people don't think beyond the end of their genitalia.Sex isn't a 'thinking; activity.

Sure, but then any behavior (including consumerism) at the core isn't a thinking activity. To dismiss reproduction as a special kind of non-thinking activity in comparison to all the others is arbitrary. It's a way to frame the conversation as group A good, group B bad.

Historically,large excess population was war materiel.For instance,to fight off rich white foreign invaders who wanted to steal your silk,gold,diamonds,oil,rubber,sugar,fiber,quano, etc.,while they shoved opium down your lungs,under threat of cannon fire.

Good thing we don't live in history. Instead we live now, in the most peaceful period of time known to humankind. War and the associated plunder were known by all peoples.

Some who have the least,living in ghettos,exercise thrift,raise a single child,educate them at home,providing upward social mobility.

The exception doesn't falsify the rule.

As to 'fact',this is in reference to non-Chicago School economists,whom actually research extant cost/externalities associated with fossil-fuels,which never make it to the ledger sheets,allowing their products to be 'dumped' on the market,as is currently practiced with natural gas,coal,and petroleum.

... and those facts are based on their subjective opinion of what a cost is. Any decision ever made carries with it infinite opportunity cost. It collapses an infinite universe of possibility down to a concrete reality.

I do not subscribe to the social fallacy of economic growth being tied to hydrocarbons.

Funny, there's a famous hockey stick chart that implies a relationship between 2 things based on how closely they track each other. I'll likewise provide these charts:





Not saying correlation = causation, but they seem to be very related.

You may visit with Brian Deese,of BlackRock Investments if you want to understand the undergoing transition off fossil-fuels.

The hope of decoupling wealth from fossil fuel consumption in the future is not the same as reality today. Dreams are not substitutes for reality.

'Developing','Developed' are metrics the international community accepts as metrics for emissions targets.As a signatory to some UN agreements,the United States will have to hold its tongue,when thinking of criticizing others for their development.

So some people in the world agree on an arbitrary definition of developed/developing, and I should respect that because? The UN is worse than garbage based on their constantly being wrong about most things, especially with regard to calling evil good, and good evil.

History is littered with millions of dead as a consequence of our industrialization and empire.

Now, is littered with billions of people who have never been better off than any other time in history. Seems to suggest some good decisions had been made.

We're actually being eclipsed by other nations.They have higher standards of living at less cost,and don't send their offspring to fight and die for foreign resources.Polite,civilized cannibalism,practiced in the most elite circles.

I'll ask for example nations. I wonder if any of that is facilitated by oil wealth, diminutive size, and relative homogeneity (to help filter out the potential landmine examples)?

My simplified understanding of this whole post is white = bad, all other colors = good, regardless of the impact to the environment.

[aerohead]

Gotta go for today.I'll catch up Saturday.