Alternative Energy: Do you?

[Albion]

Wow, is that ever the truth! Could there be bigger 'climate phonies' than Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Robert Redford?

What that should cause any observant citizen to ask is whether there is some other, underlying reason for their campaigns. It made Gore, whose house uses over 30 times the electricity of the rest of us (and his own neighbors), very rich and acclaimed, to be sure, and that may have salved his feelings after losing the 2000 election. As for the others, it may be nothing more than the fun of taking on a new role playing an intellectual after a lifetime of playing other characters on screen.

Having said that, I will easily give credit where it's due, as in the case of the actor Ed Begley Jr., who is a family man but bicycles whenever possible, owns a Prius, became a vegan, got himself a composting toilet, and on and on. His politics are, IMO, far Left, but he does at least live out his stated ecological beliefs unlike so many other celebs.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Even if the climate didn't change in any unusual way people are still going to face energy supply difficulties in the coming years. Even if coal and oil last for a century or more their prices will very likely rise unless some easy to extract sources are found and are also abundant enough to meet growing needs.

 

[Albion]

Bear in mind that ever since petroleum was discovered, scientists have insisted that the world's supply would run out in ten years. I even heard that said myself only a couple of decades ago when the North Sea discoveries were big news. Then we found more locations, and more, and then we figured out how to do fracking. So now the world is literally awash in oversupply.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Since the Earth is finite it follows that there is not an infinite supply of oil and coal and natural gas. Some time in the future fossil fuels will be too rare to use for burning in power stations.

 

[Albion]

Since the Earth is finite it follows that there is not an infinite supply of oil and coal and natural gas. Some time in the future fossil fuels will be too rare to use for burning in power stations.

Oh, "infinite." No, that's a safe bet, but neither did I take it that this was what you were saying in the previous post.

For myself, if the supply lasts only another or 300 or 500 years, I'm satisfied that the climate hysterics are not to be taken too seriously. Meanwhile, cheap natural gas--not wind farms--has become a big supplier in recent years, and it is technically "non-renewable" and was simply burned off not so long ago.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Oh, "infinite." No, that's a safe bet, but neither did I take it that this was what you were saying in the previous post.

For myself, if the supply lasts only another or 300 or 500 years, I'm satisfied that the climate hysterics are not to be taken too seriously. Meanwhile, cheap natural gas--not wind farms--has become a big supplier in recent years, and it is technically "non-renewable" and was simply burned off not so long ago.

I'd be interested to see molten salt nuclear reactors using abundant fuels like thorium taken seriously enough to run some significant sized test reactors. There was such a reactor in California in the 1960s-1970s.

I am inclined to think that I shall not outlive coal and probably not oil either. I like the idea of environmentally safe industry but I am not so sure that there is a need to shut down all the oil and coal (and natural gas) burning we use for energy ... there is too much smoke in the current political debate about climate change and it is hindering calm appraisal of the risks and benefits of moving to "renewable sources" of energy. Some kinds of nuclear energy generation may be safe and sufficient to meet projected needs and even though nuclear fuels may not be renewable they may be abundant enough to justifiably say why not use it as well as other sources.

 

[Josiah]

I'd be interested to see molten salt nuclear reactors using abundant fuels like thorium taken seriously enough to run some significant sized test reactors. There was such a reactor in California in the 1960s-1970s.

I am inclined to think that I shall not outlive coal and probably not oil either. I like the idea of environmentally safe industry but I am not so sure that there is a need to shut down all the oil and coal (and natural gas) burning we use for energy ... there is too much smoke in the current political debate about climate change and it is hindering calm appraisal of the risks and benefits of moving to "renewable sources" of energy. Some kinds of nuclear energy generation may be safe and sufficient to meet projected needs and even though nuclear fuels may not be renewable they may be abundant enough to justifiably say why not use it as well as other sources.

PERSONALLY, I feel very confident that the 21st Century will see profound, fundamental changes in how consumer energy is produced; first in "developed" countries/economies but by late century, everywhere. LONG, LONG before hydocarbon natural resources run out. The "switch" will happen, I suspect, in small part because of government regulations and incentives but primarily because it will be cheaper. I think even in the past 20 years, in spite of enormous increases in demand, "alternative" sources have become increasingly important. Where I live, the power company made a goal of providing 50% plus of the power via alternative energy by 2030 but they reached it in HALF the time as their goal and we're now working on 75%. Little of this is because of the government. I personally agree with you, Arthur, I think that new forms of nuclear energy may well be the SHORT TERM form - perhaps dominating in the mid century, the single source that may place coal/gas into the history books (at least as a major energy source.)

 

[MoreCoffee]

Who is Arthur?

 

[tango]

Wow, is that ever the truth! Could there be bigger 'climate phonies' than Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Robert Redford?

What that should cause any observant citizen to ask is whether there is some other, underlying reason for their campaigns. It made Gore, whose house uses over 30 times the electricity of the rest of us (and his own neighbors), very rich and acclaimed, to be sure, and that may have salved his feelings after losing the 2000 election. As for the others, it may be nothing more than the fun of taking on a new role playing an intellectual after a lifetime of playing other characters on screen.

One interesting theory I read, which sounds at least broadly plausible, is that if the powers behind the curtains are to introduce a global government and a global currency they need a global crisis that requires global governance. Enter climate change, something that doesn't respect national boundaries and provides a handy excuse for a one-world government.

Having said that, I will easily give credit where it's due, as in the case of the actor Ed Begley Jr., who is a family man but bicycles whenever possible, owns a Prius, became a vegan, got himself a composting toilet, and on and on. His politics are, IMO, far Left, but he does at least live out his stated ecological beliefs unlike so many other celebs.

In many ways I care little what someone's politics are, it's hard to disrespect someone when they clearly act in accordance with their stated beliefs. It's hard to respect someone who clearly lives as if they don't believe a word of the message they preach.

 

[tango]

Even if the climate didn't change in any unusual way people are still going to face energy supply difficulties in the coming years. Even if coal and oil last for a century or more their prices will very likely rise unless some easy to extract sources are found and are also abundant enough to meet growing needs.

Part of the problem is that so much of the discussion around a solution is based on the question of how we meet a growing demand for power. Perhaps a better question to ask would be whether we need to use as much power as we do.

One thing that I find quite ironic, as one who doesn't believe the hype regarding man-made climate change, is that often I'm more environmentally aware than those who claim to believe in the hype. Most of the time the things I do that are environmentally friendly are also friendly to my wallet. I turn the thermostat down in the winter because it means I spend less on heating fuel. I don't keep the air conditioning at Arctic levels in the summer because that costs me more. I look to reuse things rather than buying new, because it saves me money. At the same time I won't use endless drinking-quality water to wash out a single glass jar with moldy mayonnaise in it - I'll just throw it in the trash. When things don't need a lot of cleaning I take them to the recycling center because it saves me money on my garbage collections.

If only the ecomentalists could get people to do the things that cause their interests and environmental interests to align they would probably have more success. When their message is little more than hysteric ranting about all the things we're going to have to give up it's not surprising people are less inclined to listen.

 

[Albion]

One interesting theory I read, which sounds at least broadly plausible, is that if the powers behind the curtains are to introduce a global government and a global currency they need a global crisis that requires global governance. Enter climate change, something that doesn't respect national boundaries and provides a handy excuse for a one-world government.

...and is not based upon anything definite. Yes, I am inclined to agree that there is something to this idea that you refer to, minus the conspiracy theory that some people attach to it.

People in government (and others) have the idea that if only everyone were to do the right thing--what's good for them--the world would be without any more suffering or injustice...so the world needs smart people (themselves) to make them (the populace) do what they should do. There certainly is a controlling mindset at work with these kinds of campaigns.

 

[tango]

...and is not based upon anything definite. Yes, I am inclined to agree that there is something to this idea that you refer to, minus the conspiracy theory that some people attach to it.

People in government (and others) have the idea that if only everyone were to do the right thing--what's good for them--the world would be without any more suffering or injustice...so the world needs smart people (themselves) to make them (the populace) do what they should do. There certainly is a controlling mindset at work with these kinds of campaigns.

Conspiracy theories aside, we can see the natural push for people to group with those who are at least somewhat like them and break away from superstates (as evidenced by the former Yugoslavia, the former USSR, the former Czechoslovakia etc), while governments seem to be pushing people in the exact opposite direction (as evidenced by things like the EU).

When governments try and push people into acting against their own interests "for the common good" (or some other worthy-sounding goal) they really shouldn't be surprised if people resist. One recurring theme I find when talking to people, regardless of political leanings, is the sheer number of people who just want to get on with their lives without Nanny State getting involved at every stage. I find it quite curious how many people who would not identify as libertarian overall have a surprisingly strong libertarian leaning, at least insofar as wanting government to back off and leave them alone.

It's curious to see what kind of reasons might be used to justify restrictions on the use of solar panels and the like. I must admit I rather like the idea of a cabin that's powered by a combination of solar and hydroelectric power, with maybe geothermal heating and cooling for when the natural temperature strays too far outside comfortable bounds.