Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 19, 2016
A 100% renewable world: is it possible? A poll among the experts
I am reporting here the results of a small survey that I carried out last week among the members of a discussion forum; mainly experts in renewable energy (*). It was a very informal poll; not meant to have statistical value. But some 70 people responded out of a total of 167 members; so I think these results have a certain value in telling us how the experts feel in this field. And I was surprised by the remarkable optimism that resulted from the poll.
This is what I asked the members of the list
The question is about the possibility of a society not too different from ours (**) but based 100% on renewable energy sources, and on the possibility of arriving there before it is too late to avoid the climate disaster. This said, what statement best describes your position?
1. It is impossible for technical reasons. (Renewables have too low EROEIs, need too large amounts of renewable resources, we’ll run out of fossil fuels first, climate change will destroy us first, etc.)
2. It is technically possible but so expensive to be unthinkable.
3. It is technically possible and not so expensive to be beyond our means. However, it is still expensive enough that most likely people will not want to pay the costs of the transition before it will be too late to achieve it, unless we move to a global emergency status.
4. It is technically possible and inexpensive enough that it can be done smoothly, by means of targeted government intervention, such as a carbon tax.
5. It is technically possible and technological progress will soon make it so inexpensive that normal market mechanisms will bring us there nearly effortlessly.
As I said, it was a very informal poll and these questions could have been phrased differently, and probably in a better way. And, indeed, many people thought that their position was best described by something intermediate, some saying, for instance, “I am between 4 and 5”. Because of this, it was rather difficult to make a precise counting of the results. But the trend was clear anyway.
Out of some 70 answers, the overwhelming majority was for option 4, that is, the transition is not only technologically possible, but within reach at a reasonable cost. The second best choice was option 3 (the transition is possible but very expensive). Only a few respondents say that the transition is technologically impossible without truly radical changes of society. Some opted for option 5, even suggesting an “option 6”, something like “it will be faster than anyone expects”.
I must confess that I was a little surprised by this diffuse optimism, being myself set on option 3. In part, it is because I tend to frequent “doomer” groups, but also on the basis of the quantitative calculations that I performed with some colleagues. But I think that these results are indicative of a trend that’s developing among energy experts. It is an attitude that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, but that’s now common as the results of such events as the explosive growth of the photovoltaic technology.
I understand that this is the opinion of just a tiny group of experts, I understand that experts may well be wrong, I know that there exist such things as the “bandwagon effect” and the “confirmation bias.” I know all this. Yet, I believe that, in the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, we can’t go anywhere if we keep telling people that we are doomed, no matter what we do. What we need in order to keep going and fight the climate crisis is a healthy dose of hope and of optimism. And these results show that there is hope, that there is reason for optimism. Whether the transition will turn out to be very difficult, or not so difficult, it seems to be within reach if we really want it.
(*) Note: the forum mentioned in this post is a private discussion group meant to be a tool for professionals in renewable energy. It is not a place to discuss whether renewable energy is a good thing or not, nor to discuss such thing as near term extinction and the like. Rather, the idea of the forum is to discuss how to make the renewable energy transition happen as fast as possible; hopefully fast enough to avoid a climate disaster. If you are interested in joining this forum, please write me privately at ugo.bardi(zingything)unifi.it telling me in a few lines who you are and why you would like to join. It is not necessary that you are a researcher or a professional. People of good will who think they have something to contribute to the discussion on this subject are welcome.
(**) The concept of a society “not too different from ours” is left purposefully vague, because it is, obviously subjected to many different interpretations.Personally, I would tend to define it in terms of what such a society would NOT be. A non-exhaustive list could be, in no particular order,
- Not a Mayan style theocracy, complete with human sacrifices
- Not a military dictatorship, Roman style, complete with a semi-divine imperial ruler
- Not a proletarian paradise, complete with a secret police sending dissenters to very cold places
- Not a hunting and gathering society, complete with hunting rituals and initiation rites
- Not a society where women are supposed to be the property of men
- Not a society where you are hanged upside down if you say what you think about the dear leader
- Not a society where if you can’t afford health care, you are left to die in the street.
- Not a society where you are worried every day about whether you and your children will have something to eat
- Not a society where you are either a slave or a member of the wealthy elite
- Not a society where most people spend most of their life tilling the fields.
- Not a society where you are burned at the stake if you belong to a different sect than the dominant one
Cassandra’s legacy by Ugo Bardi
78 Comments on "A 100% renewable world: is it possible? A poll among the experts"
MD on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:20 am
100% renewable is not only possible, it’s inevitable. The only question is: what will it look like?
JuanP on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:23 am
We are doomed! All these experts are one of the reasons why. I have met very few experts who knew shit in my life. It seems that for most people, the more formally educated they, the more incoherent and idiotic they become. A college education is wasted on most people because they lack the intelligence to put it to good use. Only a very small minority of humans are smart enough to benefit from a “higher” education.
Kevin Cobley on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:34 am
Yes it is possible to build a society based on renewable energy at an affordable cost.
However “living standards” will need to be much lower to reduce the overall energy requirements of society.
Use of Automobiles will need to be restricted to emergency vehicles and trades only. All provision of car based transport infrastructure ended.
Society will need to become a public transit/walk and bike based. Housing will have to be regulated to built to proper standards and sizes of houses restricted to around 25sqm per person.
dave thompson on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:41 am
According to this poll, either you are a doomer or an eternal optimist. Or just plain nuts depending on how you view the “other”.
rockman on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:44 am
Kevin – “Use of Automobiles will need to be restricted to emergency vehicles and trades only. All provision of car based transport infrastructure ended.”
And there you go: not even remotely possible unless by lower living standards you mean tens of millions of newly unemployed sitting at home (more likely living in their car at this point)starving because they’re no longer being able to drive to work. And no: given your supposition of being affordable there isn’t enough capex on the planet to replace all those US vehicles with public transportation.
makati1 on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:51 am
Renewable? Sure! When there are only a few million of us scattered around the few areas of the world still livable and living like nomads with our camels/donkeys/shoe leather for transport. If anyone believes there will be any resemblance to BAU, you are smoking some good stuff.
We seem to have hit the hockey stick part of the climate change chart. If temps continue in the direction that we have started this year with, we may not even make it to 2020. Not to mention the ever increasing likelihood of a world war that could end it all sooner.
Where did he find his “experts”? The local bar? No mention of credentials. Was this a group of investors in “renewable” tech companies? Biologists? Engineers? Physicists? Book authors? No mention. Waste of time to read.
makati1 on Thu, 19th May 2016 8:55 am
Right on JuanP. Expert = A drip under pressure.
Kenz300 on Thu, 19th May 2016 9:19 am
The transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources continues…………
Germany Achieves Milestone – Renewables Supply Nearly 100 Percent Energy for a Day
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2016/05/germany-achieves-milestone-renewables-supply-nearly-100-percent-energy-for-a-day.html
Portugal ran entirely on renewable energy for 4 consecutive days last week
http://electrek.co/2016/05/16/portugal-ran-entirely-on-renewable-energy-for-4-consecutive-days-last-week/
100% electric transportation and 100% solar by 2030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBkND76J91k
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 9:35 am
There are two distinct classifications of resources available to the human ape species on it’s one and only finite little planet. Renewable, and non-renewable. Renewable resources are those which are self replicated through naturally occurring processes, and non-renewable resources are those which are used up in industrial processes most often subjected to high temperatures and/or chemical reactions. Any product that requires non-renewable resources to be extracted, refined, manufactured, distributed, or maintained, is by it’s very definition, non-renewable. Hope and optimism do not trump reality. This crap is getting beyond ridiculous.
Davy on Thu, 19th May 2016 9:47 am
I second Juan’s view. This greenwashing is the last of the modern narrative of growth and progress. It is hopium and denial of consequences that must be paid for 100 years of destructive modern life. There is no “get out of jail free card”
Most educated greens do not believe in the end of modern life via peak oil dynamics and a failing market economy. Educated greens do understand the end is coming via climate change. It is this ending they are fighting. It is the other collapse variables they disregard, discount, and or dismiss. Most greens have little true understanding of systematic collapse from peak oil dynamics and a failing economy. It is the combination of all the above collapse variables mentioned that spell the end of modern life. They must all be understood together. They are not exclusive and they are reinforcing each other.
These greens believe in technology and markets will innovate our way out of this crisis. They even believe we can manage population down without pain and at the same time have a green society. This is a scientific farce and societal denial at the highest levels. There is no such thing as carbonless energy. Renewables must be produced by a modern carbon society. There is no renewable technology or energy it is all based on nonrenewable resources.
Our society is built on oil and will die on oil. The sooner we begin the acceptance of a cascading collapse ahead the sooner we can make it less horrible. Being green is being in denial. Technology and modern is not green. Green is the the opposite. It is who and what we used to be pre-modern and with a population bellow 1BIL.
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 9:48 am
A 100% renewable world: is it possible?
The world has been renewing itself for billions of years before the human ape appeared, and in all likelihood will continue to renew itself for billions of years after the human ape has gone extinct. No human technologies are necessary. However, if the human ape doesn’t stop fucking up the natural processes that it relies upon for it’s very survival, the world will continue on renewing itself without the parasitic human ape species, much sooner than later.
basil on Thu, 19th May 2016 9:52 am
of course it is possible to transition to a renewable-dominant culture. the only real obstacle-and it is a huge one-is humanity’s stubborn resistance to change. until the early 20th century, most of the world, America included, was third world agrarian. a few new technologies, such as the private automobile, electricity, petrochemicals, and a maniacally busy populace, changed the world quickly. now there are layers upon layers of infrastructure, technology, and associated culture that cannot be reversed quickly. sadly, it probably will take a major catastrophe to implement the widespread use of renewables. along with that, though, would be a major reduction in human population, and most likely, the end of fast, easy private transportation.
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:04 am
“of course it is possible to transition to a renewable-dominant culture. the only real obstacle-and it is a huge one-is humanity’s stubborn resistance to change.”
The only real obstacle is the human beings’ stubborn resistance to face reality. Horses are renewable. Trains, planes, and automobiles are not, no matter what human technologies are used to manufacture, or to power them.
makati1 on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:20 am
basil, and resistance to logic and irrefutable fact.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:29 am
Wood windmills are renewable, so are solar cookers and other solar devices made from recycled material. If we re-priorities and re-purpose our infrastructure and society, I think we would handle peak oil quite well. It is the clock against climate change that is our ultimate constraint and will limit our ability to mitigate huge losses in lives and standards of living.
Trains may not be renewable but in the scheme of how durable every portion of it is, we probably don’t really need too many more if society got its head out of its ass. All those freight trains rusting in the dessert, what a waste.
basil on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:30 am
absolutely
makati1 on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:39 am
Practical. How will a wooden windmill power your PC? Don’t they require metals? I never saw a totally wooden one. What holds them together? How long will it take to make one using hand tools? Do you know how? What will it do? I’ve seen them on old farms pumping water but they required gears and grease and other constant maintenance to keep them working.
Solar cookers? To cook what, veggies? Meat will be luxury. And they too require metals for reflectors. You are talking about extenders, not replacements for electric/oil. Hard to cook on one if it is cloudy all the time.
Ditto for windmills if there is no wind or too much. But, good luck with your ideas.
ghung on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:41 am
1B. It is impossible for sociological reasons. Humans have too low a sense of duty to their species and discount the future. They are reactionaries who will defer to their own selfish desires and needs and will refuse to make the large amounts of sacrifices required. Further, a vast segment of humanity has no wiggle room to respond in any way. We’ll run out of fossil fuels first, destroy ourselves by other means, or climate change will destroy us first, etc.)…
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:47 am
“All those freight trains rusting in the dessert, what a waste.”
All of those freight trains rusting in the desert, will eventually be joined by everything else that human beings have ever manufactured. Things are either sustainable, or they are not. Modern industrial society, and all of the stuff that it has created, is not sustainable. The longer that we continue to pursue modern industrialism, the more dire the consequences will be from climate change, the larger the loss of human life, and the further the reduction in standards of living. We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
penury on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:48 am
The world will be fine, it is humans who are going away. Advanced tech has assured that most U.S. residents do not remember how to perform the simplest task to remain alive. Climate change is reducing our knowledge of which food crops will grow, and when planting time is, people are forgetting how to communicate with out devices. The world will be fine,
Michael Byron on Thu, 19th May 2016 10:56 am
What I don’t see here is reality, as I understand it. Yes, it is both possible and imperative if we are to survive. HOWEVER, this transition would cost immensely powerful financial and corporate interests TRILLIONS of dollars. Therefore, they ARE doing everything in their power to block the transition. The question therefore needs to address whether it is POLITICALLY possible. This is where, for the US Presidential election, Sanders Political Revolution is relevant. Without it, it will be blocked, even if technologically feasible.
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 11:12 am
“What I don’t see here is reality, as I understand it.”
If you believe that human technology will save us from the consequences of human technology, then you would be correct. You don’t see, or understand reality.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 11:16 am
I did a survey where I asked three top experts (me, myself & I) what they thought.
They thought it was hilarious that the humans were totally obsessed with preserving a set of living arrangements, that’s driving them to extinction, above any other concerns. Scaling back and preparing for mother nature to lay the boots to humanity does not provide any juicy dopamine squirts and therefore was never contemplated.
The experts predict that your cities, towns and infrastructure will soon be rendered dysfunctional and abandoned by the consequences of AGW. The experts claim you cannot afford to keep repairing and rebuilding.
Climate change, runaway development worsen Houston floods
“Now the nation’s fourth-largest city is being overwhelmed with more frequent and more destructive floods. The latest calamity occurred April 18, killing eight people and causing tens of millions of dollars in damage. The worsening floods aren’t simple acts of nature or just costly local concerns. Federal taxpayers get soaked too.
Extreme downpours have doubled in frequency over the past three decades, climatologists say, in part because of global warming. The other main culprit is unrestrained development in the only major U.S. city without zoning rules. That combination means more pavement and deeper floodwaters. Critics blame cozy relations between developers and local leaders for inadequate flood-protection measures.
An Associated Press analysis of government data found that if Harris County, which includes Houston, were a state it would rank in the top five or six in every category of repeat federal flood losses — defined as any property with two or more losses in a 10-year period amounting to at least $1,000 each.
Since 1998, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has paid more than $3 billion in today’s dollars for flood losses in metropolitan Houston”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5b28b342061344d7ad6e7395a56e7cce/climate-change-runaway-development-worsen-houston-floods
Red state people don’t seem to have a problem with “Big Government” when it cuts them a FEMA cheque and/or subsidizes up to a third of their flood insurance premiums. One day it won’t be there. One day there will be no rebuilding efforts.
Hawkcreek on Thu, 19th May 2016 11:19 am
100% renewable is impossible if you want to continue BAU. You can’t continue to have the same type of electronic industry by recycling the old computer junk. Some mining of rare earths will be required. By definition, mining of limited non-renewable ores is not a renewable process.
Near 100% is possible if people were willing to change their lifestyle in a massive way, and we started emphasizing recycling, beginning from the design stage of every product.
But it ain’t gonna happen.
PeterEV on Thu, 19th May 2016 11:38 am
As the energy density for batteries goes up there is a corresponding increase in range in EVs. The switch to EVs and away from crude oil is inevitable. There are predictions that we will be “energy independent in 5 years”. But we’ll see…
A barrel of oil produces about 20 gallons of gasoline. If we use an average of a gallon a day, 100 million EVs on the road, will reduce our oil consumption by about 5 million barrels a day.
The other biggie not mentioned is the use of solar to heat homes. This could save a lot on natural gas and fuel oil consumption. I read some place that 30% of fossil fuel usage goes toward transportation and 40% goes toward heating and cooling homes. I have not found a verification of this data but it is something to work with.
In the meantime, advances are being made in solar efficiency and cost. The same for storage batteries. I expect that as oil consumption goes down, adaptation of solar and other renewables will increase.
By decreasing our oil and natural gas consumption (along with coal), the amount of CO2 emitted will go down which may have a significant effect on the Global Warming debate and direction.
But everything is a forecast. We’ll eventually see who got what right and where prognosticators missed significant variables or chose to ignore facts to substantiate their position(s) or belief(s).
Meantime, we are part of the problem(s) if we are not part of the solution(s) however, we define them. Me, I’m working on and rooting for solar and battery based solutions and our societies’ ability to overcome problems. But we’ll see…
Speculawyer on Thu, 19th May 2016 12:16 pm
Yeah, it is definitely 4 if I had to pick between those choices . . . but it will NOT be easy. I’d say 3.75 would be the right area.
Richard Sittel on Thu, 19th May 2016 12:34 pm
Solar will be half the price of grid electricity in 7 years and will continue falling in price. Buying a solar system for your home will become commonplace, a good investment. There will be small appliances you can buy to make things from your excess electricity for profit. We will have huge surpluses of electricity in the future.
oracle on Thu, 19th May 2016 1:02 pm
Not sure we’d want to keep a society “not too different from ours”, if that means commuter traffic jams like the one I managed to get caught in yesterday.
penury on Thu, 19th May 2016 1:23 pm
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, what a merry Christmas we would have.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 1:50 pm
Folks are forgetting that electricity is only 18-20% of total world energy demand. So lets say the humans manage that with solar, wind, hydro; what y’all gonna do about the rest? What replaces bunker fuel (one of the worst) for global shipping? What about all that kerosene for aviation? What about happy motoring? Scale. Scale is everything. If one does not understand that then one does not understand. Obviously many don’t get scale. None of this shit matters anyway since we have already gone too far. We’ll never change as a species. I know many around here have tried and are well intentioned, but we are powerless in the face of the system. Commenter, Michael Byron has it right regarding the entrenched elites and their managerial class. It’s not in the nature of power to give itself up or make ant significant changes that will weaken it. Death or a very real threat of it is the only thing that would make them change. Can anyone provide a historical example of elites giving up power when major challenges and the threat of collapse was looming? The only historical example I know (Tainter) of is 7th century Byzantium when they were under threat from the Muslims. They simplified for about two centuries and survived until the Ottomans took Constantinople in 1453. In most every other collapse the elites did everything they could to hang on for as long as they could – consequences be dammed. Which is exactly what is happening now and almost everyone is pretending everything is perfectly normal. This is what human societies do. Houston gets a biblical flood and they all claim it’s from over development and poor planning – very little mention of a new jacked and whacked hydrologic cycle. Fort Mack has a 90,000 person evacuation, 2500 burnt down building/houses, work camps burnt and ongoing threats to oil industry infrastructure and what do I hear – oh we’ve always had fires and now is not the time to discuss it (AGW) cause of peoples emotions N stuff. Entire societies in complete denial. Same thing with the major fail economic system/religion. All the same thing really. It seems surreal and one might be prone to think the next disaster or crash will cause some kind of awaking and sweeping changes. Nope, there is no upper limit on denial and rationalization. It will go on like this until revolt and/or collapse. Assuming you want to live as long as possible with the least amount of suffering for you and yours, preparing is about all that one can do. That’s no guarantee, but there never really was one was there? Birth is lethal and the only meaning of life is that which you give it IMO. Stay frosty and stick close to your people.
“We’re here to get each other through this thing, whatever it is.”
― Mark Vonnegut
pinkdotR on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:17 pm
@Kevin Cobley – this is pretty much my case:
Living with a family of 3 in a 72sqm apartment and using as little as 0.3 – 0.5 GJ of energy per month to heat it in winter. Not owning a car. Using bike all year round to commute to work and take my daughter to school. Walking to buy all my groceries. Riding a tram to the city centre. Taking a train for holidays or to visit my relatives. Trying not to buy unnecessary things and to use what I have as long as possible.
This is no kind of challenge or sacrifice – just my way of living. I have a good job, a lot of savings and could afford much more wasteful lifestyle but I don’t want and don’t need that. Yet it is hard for me to imagine people around me to live like that if they are not forced by circumstances.
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:21 pm
“Commenter, Michael Byron has it right regarding the entrenched elites and their managerial class. It’s not in the nature of power to give itself up or make ant significant changes that will weaken it”
Elites are not to blame anymore than doomers and preppers. You can quote me. I give you permission.
PracticalMaina on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:26 pm
Why quote nonsense? Of course an elite has more influence and responsibility and blame. Without elites to profit from it, the global capitalism that exist today would be vastly different, and better.
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:26 pm
ape,
“Houston gets a biblical flood and they all claim it’s from over development and poor planning”
I think you made that shyt up. Show me the link.
sunweb on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:46 pm
For the poll: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair
sunweb on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:49 pm
All the things in our world have an industrial history. Behind the computer, the T-shirt, the vacuum cleaner is an industrial infrastructure fired by energy (fossil fuels mainly). Each component of our car or refrigerator has an industrial history. Mainly unseen and out of mind, this global industrial infrastructure touches every aspect of our lives. It pervades our daily living from the articles it produces, to its effect on the economy and employment, as well as its effects on the environment.
The whole picture needs to be included not just the installed devices. I am not a supporter of fossil fuels or nuclear. I am concerned about continuing business as usual and its devastation of the earth and humanities future.
Solar and wind energy collecting devices and their auxiliary equipment have an industrial history. They are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system and the global industrial infrastructure. It is important to understand the industrial infrastructure and the environmental results for the components of the solar energy collecting devices so we don’t designate them with false labels such as green, renewable or sustainable.
This is a challenge to ‘business as usual’. If we teach people that these solar devices are the future of energy without teaching the whole system, we mislead, misinform and create false hopes and beliefs. They are not made with magic wands.
These videos are primarily concerning solar energy collecting devices. These videos and charts are provided by the various industries themselves. I have posted both charts and videos for the solar cells, modules, aluminum from ore, aluminum from recycling, aluminum extrusion, inverters, batteries and copper.
Please note each piece of machinery you see in each of the videos has its own industrial interconnection and history.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2015/04/solar-devices-industrial-infrastructure.html
This is about wind:
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/11/prove-this-wrong.html
Is this more elitist technology for the few. It seems to me all this promotion of solar and wind energy collecting devices are either envisioned as worldwide or it is simply more imperial colonizing of countries with resources and no power. Then think of the resources and energy required to meet global need for the global population.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 2:52 pm
Boat
Is Houston Sustainable?: A Flood Postmortem
There are lot of big questions, but no definitive solution.
“So Houston’s undergoing kidney failure just in time for heavier downpours brought on, some believe, by climate change.”
– See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/houston-sustainable-flood-postmortem/#sthash.YEOCkUPz.dpuf
That lame assed quote “some believe,”.
Yeah, “some” like the entire scientific community and only because they have as much or more evidence for AGW as for Gravity and evolution. Our 1C increase (so far) has resulted in at least 7% more moisture in the atmosphere. Which also explains the record breaking sized hail in Texas this year. Other than that lame brush off of climate change the rest of the article is all about development and local politics. Yes city planning and all that counts, but it is not responsible for global warming and the new jacked and whacked hydrologic cycle.
Is that sufficient for you boat?
I can give you many other local articles. I have no problem embarrassing you all day. Say the word.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 3:15 pm
Boat, so on the one hand according to your capitalistic religion, elites are entitled to all their rewards because they are responsible for “innovation” and “job creation” and “putting food on your table”(Davy) and everything else including the very air we breath. Yet when things go bad – oh it’s not them. They was trying their best and never lie and cheat and steal and dump billions in externalities off on the taxpayer every year. Sounds like a typical one way street argument to me boat. When you make comments and arguments like those boat, you leave me no choice but to call you a brainwashed retard. I’ve been trying to play nice with you lately, but you’re fucking hopelessly mired in your cultural story. You’re story is dying and you know it. The deluges are just gonna keep on coming and will eventually turn Houston into a giant dysfunctional chemical cesspool. Boaty after the next one you can take a good long look around at the destruction and suffering and then shrug your shoulder and say “it’s just capitalism” Duhhhhhhh. You’ll be right for once.
energy investor on Thu, 19th May 2016 4:11 pm
Kenz300,
It is most impressive that Germany and Portugal stopped all freight movement by land sea and air, public transport, air travel and did not use any ICE vehicles for that day/s. Yeah, right!
The fact is that EVs are not yet economically viable on a large scale, nor will they be in the foreseeable future until cost and energy density improve by orders of magnitude. Either that or the price of oil goes over USD250/bbl.
The assembled “experts” all had a bias and simply – and predictably – were “talking their own book”.
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 4:19 pm
ape,
Houston knows about floods, have experianced many large floods. There is no information that you could pass on that would change the minds of those who choose to remodle or rebuild in a flood plane.
“Boat, so on the one hand according to your capitalistic religion, elites are entitled to all their rewards because they are responsible for “innovation” and “job creation””
Not true. Never said anything like that. If I had power, the tax structure, regulation for thousands of issues, foreign policy etc would be vastly different. But since very few have individual power, no since dreaming.
Capitalism is the only game in town. Positive changes have to come with a profit to achieve scale. No need for blame because it is useless and achieves nothing. My story is just reality. It is what it is.
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 4:40 pm
ape,
You have been around me for 2 years and are clueless to what I believe. You paint with a spray gun in gale strength winds when a windless shop, magnifieing glass, tweezers and 1 horse hair are needed for the job. Loll
rdberg1957 on Thu, 19th May 2016 5:43 pm
I don’t believe 100% renewable is possible, but perhaps 60-80% with some continued use of fossil fuels at a much lower level. This would extend their availability while reducing markedly C02 and CH4 emissions. I have no idea how these targets could be reached, but it seems more feasible to use renewables wherever possible and to use fossil fuels on a limited basis for the most important functions. Our political and economic systems are not helpful; I’m not sure what would be.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 5:44 pm
Boat, you asked for proof of Houston’s denial and dismissal of AGW as the main reason for the new and improved floods. I gave it to you. It wasn’t about whether the rednecks acknowledged that there WAS a flood, it was about the reasons WHY. You don’t get to change the subject halfway through the argument cause I smoked your ass. Those lame assed kindergarten debating tactics might work in Texas, but when you come at me you’re shitting with the big dog. Woof woof!
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 5:45 pm
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 1:50 pm
Folks are forgetting that electricity is only 18-20% of total world energy demand.
Link please. Or do I need to find you one.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 5:47 pm
Boat I agree that it (capatlisim) is the only game in town. It won.
It’s Russian roulette with 5 1/2 bullets.
We all taking turns.
Apneaman on Thu, 19th May 2016 6:09 pm
http://www.boatisafuckingretard.com
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 7:03 pm
“Link please. Or do I need to find you one.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
Boat on Thu, 19th May 2016 7:07 pm
ape,
Renewables is close to 18-20% of total world energy demand, not electricity. Think closer to 50 and growing. Take it like a man. You will get over being corrected by a retard. Lol
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 7:14 pm
“The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s recently released International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 48% between 2012 and 2040. Most of this growth will come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia. Non-OECD Asia, including China and India, accounts for more than half of the world’s total increase in energy consumption over the projection period.”
“Even though nonfossil fuels are expected to grow faster than fossil fuels (petroleum and other liquid fuels, natural gas, and coal), fossil fuels still account for more than three-quarters of world energy consumption through 2040.”
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=26212
GregT on Thu, 19th May 2016 7:19 pm
For the intellectually challenged (Boat), three-quarters equals 75%. Which means that even with increases in alternate energy production for generating electricity, the EIA expects that only 25% of world wide energy production by 2040 will come from sources other than fossil fuels.
Fucking retard.