Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

IGNORED

Green Energy Sceptics Thread


sancho panza

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

This comment from the author to someone who asked a question is really quite astute when you think about it.

Q. 'Art, in your view what fundamental and painful shift has been made in the course of human history?'

A. 'The domestication of the horse. It unleashed unimaginable disruption, death and chaos on human subsistence society.'

Horseless carriages don't get a free pass either.  Just goes to show you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sancho panza
3 hours ago, BearyBear said:

Interesting read.Super find.

'A barrel of oil contains ~4.5 years of human labor in megawatt hours, joules or whatever unit you prefer. The value is about $117,000 using a median U.S. income of $26,000/year. Oil has the greatest energy density of any of the available sources today.

And that is the problem for renewable energy. It has a much lower energy density so it can never provide the same value regardless of its price or its cost. The only way to meet current energy needs with renewables is to greatly expand the number of units—solar panels or wind turbines—that provide the energy. To provide more energy output requires more energy input–pretty basic physics. That in turn creates more emissions and confounds the purpose of cleaner energy.

A 100% renewable economy is fine only if we are willing to accept a lower living standard and much smaller population than we have today.

Humans have never gone from a higher to a lower density energy source. A renewable energy world would have a smaller and less productive economy because of the lower energy density of its primary source.

I am an advocate for solar and wind, and I take climate change very seriously. It is, however, critical that people know the truth: the world will be much poorer when fossil energy is abandoned.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, sancho panza said:

Interesting read.Super find.

George Gammon interviewed this guy, that's how I've found this article :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 15/05/2020 at 13:22, gibbon said:

Even if the earth is warming up, we're still coming out of the last ice age

I think that's right. I don't think the ice age can be blamed on industry. Or the warm bit before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/05/2020 at 07:16, sancho panza said:

 

I am an advocate for solar and wind, and I take climate change very seriously. It is, however, critical that people know the truth: the world will be much poorer when fossil energy is abandoned.'

this is so mind-numbingly obvious to me, and has been since I was about 20, that I don't understand how stupid most green supporters must be.  Unless we invent a new energy form better than oil (cold fusion, for example), everything has to get worse for most people.  So - focus on reducing population growth globally, and minimising waste and excess, whilst pouring resources into alternative energy sources.

That's the only way to save the planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Hovis
32 minutes ago, wherebee said:

this is so mind-numbingly obvious to me, and has been since I was about 20, that I don't understand how stupid most green supporters must be.  Unless we invent a new energy form better than oil (cold fusion, for example), everything has to get worse for most people.  So - focus on reducing population growth globally, and minimising waste and excess, whilst pouring resources into alternative energy sources.

That's the only way to save the planet.

My preferred, and to my mind inevitable, alternative is to keep burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate so that we hit the point at which all easily extracted bulk resources have been burnt ASAP.

At that point energy and therefore food becomes rarer and more expensive and world population starts dropping.

I think the first indication that this process is well on the cards will be when Saudi coughs up that it has been massively overstating its oil reserves in around 2030.

Energy and food prices will then jump and keep running ahead of inflation from then on.

This will act as a localised brake upon population growth in poor countries whilst foreshadowing the real scarcity that will see big population drops though that is decades away.

I prefer this approach because by accelerating both the rise and fall of population it gives a greater chance that swathes of land will remain unfarmed allowing a greater number of wild species to survive what will be a lower peak human population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frank Hovis said:

My preferred, and to my mind inevitable, alternative is to keep burning fossil fuels at an increasing rate so that we hit the point at which all easily extracted bulk resources have been burnt ASAP.

At that point energy and therefore food becomes rarer and more expensive and world population starts dropping.

I think the first indication that this process is well on the cards will be when Saudi coughs up that it has been massively overstating its oil reserves in around 2030.

Energy and food prices will then jump and keep running ahead of inflation from then on.

This will act as a localised brake upon population growth in poor countries whilst foreshadowing the real scarcity that will see big population drops though that is decades away.

I prefer this approach because by accelerating both the rise and fall of population it gives a greater chance that swathes of land will remain unfarmed allowing a greater number of wild species to survive what will be a lower peak human population.

The problem is that the open door CUNTS in the west will take the starving hordes in, thereby sinking the lifeboats.

I hope, if I am still alive, Australia is sensible enough to allow pay per view automated machine gun turrets along the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank Hovis
35 minutes ago, wherebee said:

The problem is that the open door CUNTS in the west will take the starving hordes in, thereby sinking the lifeboats.

I hope, if I am still alive, Australia is sensible enough to allow pay per view automated machine gun turrets along the coast.

I have already seen on the BBC the phrase "climate change refugees".

As sure as night follows day every change, natural or otherwise, is a reason to nudge that open door wider still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 09/08/2020 at 08:54, wherebee said:

the west will take the starving hordes in

When oil runs out or becomes too expensive, the UK population might end up going a bit hungry even if no migrants turn up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...