Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Oil spills are good for wildlife and people…
- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 4 months ago by bnw.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 17, 2016 at 2:55 pm #48902nittany ramModerator
It’s sad that we live in a world where oil companies can get away with making such outrageously stupid and obviously self-serving statements.
July 17, 2016 at 3:47 pm #48904znModeratorIt’s sad that we live in a world where oil companies can get away with making such outrageously stupid and obviously self-serving statements.
So I have to weigh what you say against this huge successful, prestigous business that has done so much good for all of us.
If oil spills are so bad, why is no one ever arrested for them. Hmm?
If you hate america so much why don’t you just move to vermont.
.
July 17, 2016 at 6:48 pm #48907bnwBlockedTransportation of crude should be by pipeline.
The duck saving logic is sound. Not so sure the extent of fish kill can be adequately ascertained. Nice thing about professionals is that you can always buy the testimony you need.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 17, 2016 at 7:12 pm #48908wvParticipantTransportation of crude should be by pipeline.
The duck saving logic is sound. Not so sure the extent of fish kill can be adequately ascertained. Nice thing about professionals is that you can always buy the testimony you need.
——————-
What do you think about the future of alternative energies? Solar, Wave, Geothermal, etc?
What do you think of Nuclear power?w
vJuly 17, 2016 at 7:58 pm #48911bnwBlockedTransportation of crude should be by pipeline.
The duck saving logic is sound. Not so sure the extent of fish kill can be adequately ascertained. Nice thing about professionals is that you can always buy the testimony you need.
——————-
What do you think about the future of alternative energies? Solar, Wave, Geothermal, etc?
What do you think of Nuclear power?w
vI think alternative energies are fine for those that wish to pay the exorbitant costs thereof. As much as I love geothermal it remains limited geographically and costs due to fouling raises the cost. If it can be cost effective compared to coal then I say do it. Those other forms of alternative energy are too expensive compared to coal, never mind oil or natural gas. There are intriguing technologies in the pipeline and if they prove to be economically feasible then great. Having options is always a good thing. Regarding nuclear power the research should be focused upon bringing thorium based nuclear power to fruition to bridge the effort towards fusion somewhere in the (distant?) future.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 18, 2016 at 8:11 am #48932Billy_TParticipantI think alternative energies are fine for those that wish to pay the exorbitant costs thereof.
There are no “exorbitant costs.” They’re actually cheaper than fossil fuels. If it weren’t for capitalism’s stranglehold on the world, and Big Oil’s stranglehold on the energy sector, individual citizens could actually have net minuses for their home energy costs, and our cars and all modes of transportation could run for free.
Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy
As the world gathers in Paris for the daunting task of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, one small country on the other side of the Atlantic is making that transition look childishly simple and affordable.
In less than 10 years, Uruguay has slashed its carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs, according to the country’s head of climate change policy, Ramón Méndez.
In fact, he says that now that renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts.
It was a very different story just 15 years ago. Back at the turn of the century oil accounted for 27% of Uruguay’s imports and a new pipeline was just about to begin supplying gas from Argentina.
Which countries are doing the most to stop dangerous global warming?
Read moreNow the biggest item on import balance sheet is wind turbines, which fill the country’s ports on their way to installation.
Biomass and solar power have also been ramped up. Adding to existing hydropower, this means that renewables now account for 55% of the country’s overall energy mix (including transport fuel) compared with a global average share of 12%.
Despite its relatively small population of just 3.4 million, Uruguay has earned a remarkable amount of global kudos in recent years. It enacted groundbreaking marijuana legalisation, pioneered stringent tobacco control, and introduced some of the most liberal policies in Latin America on abortion and same-sex marriage.
Now, it is being recognised for progress on decarbonising its economy. It has been praised by the World Bank and the Economic commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the WWF last year named Uruguay among its “Green Energy Leaders”, proclaiming: “The country is defining global trends in renewable energy investment.”
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
July 18, 2016 at 8:14 am #48934Billy_TParticipantSome more from the article:
Along with reliable wind – at an average of about 8mph – the main attraction for foreign investors like Enercon is a fixed price for 20 years that is guaranteed by the state utility. Because maintenance costs are low (just 10 staff) and stable, this guarantees a profit.
As a result, foreign firms are lining up to secure windfarm contracts. The competition is pushing down bids, cutting electricity generating costs by more than 30% over the past three years. Christian Schaefer, supervising technician at Enercon said his company was hoping to expand and another German company Nordex is already building an even bigger plant further north along route five. Trucks carrying turbines, towers and blades are now a common sight on the country’s roads.
Compared to most other small countries with high proportions of renewables, the mix is diverse. While Paraguay, Bhutan and Lesotho rely almost solely on hydro and Iceland on geothermal, Uruguay has a spread that makes it more resilient to changes in the climate.
Windfarms such as Peralta now feed into hydropower plants so that dams can maintain their reservoirs longer after rainy seasons. According to Méndez, this has reduced vulnerability to drought by 70% – no small benefit considering a dry year used to cost the country nearly 2% of GDP.
This is not the only benefit for the economy. “For three years we haven’t imported a single kilowatt hour,” Méndez says. “We used to be reliant on electricity imports from Argentina, but now we export to them. Last summer, we sold a third of our power generation to them.”
There is still a lot to do. The transport sector still depends on oil (which accounts for 45% of the total energy mix). But industry – mostly agricultural processing – is now powered predominantly by biomass cogeneration plants.
July 18, 2016 at 8:15 am #48935Billy_TParticipantIf Uruguay can do this, we can. And better, because we’re richer, with far more resources. And if we can do it, and we can, then we can help the entire world do this.
July 18, 2016 at 8:16 am #48936Billy_TParticipantGermany has made huge strides, too:
Germany Just Got Almost All of Its Power From Renewable Energy
Clean power supplied almost all of Germany’s power demand for the first time on Sunday, marking a milestone for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “Energiewende” policy to boost renewables while phasing out nuclear and fossil fuels.
Solar and wind power peaked at 2 p.m. local time on Sunday, allowing renewables to supply 45.5 gigawatts as demand was 45.8 gigawatts, according to provisional data by Agora Energiewende, a research institute in Berlin. Power prices turned negative during several 15-minute periods yesterday, dropping as low as minus 50 euros ($57) a megawatt-hour, according to data from Epex Spot.
July 18, 2016 at 8:24 am #48938Billy_TParticipantIt’s sheer capitalist propaganda, from the fossil fuel industry, to say renewables cost too much, or that “Well, it’s nice technology. But it’s not practical for now. Maybe in twenty years.”
Nawwww. It’s here now. It’s cheap now. It’s doable now. And it has been for years and years. Big Oil and Big Coal see it as a major threat, so they’ve been busy dismissing it for decades. They can’t do this anymore. Too many countries are using it with success — to lower costs for government and private citizens and improve environmental conditions.
Imagine your car using the sun to power up while you’re at work. Imagine the same for trains and planes and ships. The only reason this isn’t commonplace right now is because Big Oil and its allies have successfully crushed or bought up enough start ups, and purchased enough political power, to block this from happening. We could have had solar-powered transport decades ago if there had been the political will and the strength to say hell no to Big Oil and Big Coal.
July 18, 2016 at 6:38 pm #48953bnwBlockedNo it isn’t economical now. I’ve been to wind farms on three continents and none are economical . It is always a government boondoggle to dupe the easily duped. The maintenance costs are high over time. Nothing compares to coal.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 18, 2016 at 7:26 pm #48956wvParticipantNo it isn’t economical now. I’ve been to wind farms on three continents and none are economical . It is always a government boondoggle to dupe the easily duped. The maintenance costs are high over time. Nothing compares to coal.
————-
Why were you visiting wind farms?w
vJuly 18, 2016 at 7:39 pm #48958Billy_TParticipantNo it isn’t economical now. I’ve been to wind farms on three continents and none are economical . It is always a government boondoggle to dupe the easily duped. The maintenance costs are high over time. Nothing compares to coal.
Yes, they’re economical, and I provided proof of that. Wind, solar and other renewables all are cheap now, and getting cheaper. They are already — and have been for years — cheaper than coal, from the user and the producer end. And they don’t kill workers or make them deathly ill like coal has done for centuries.
And if we add the massive costs due to environmental damage, and damage to human health, the “value” of renewables skyrockets even more. Backing coal or any fossil fuel is madness. It’s a death sentence of the planet, which means a death sentence for us.
July 18, 2016 at 7:53 pm #48960Billy_TParticipantMore proof of the economic benefits of wind power, from the Guardian:
Companies want to reduce their emissions and they want access to reliable, inexpensive power. Companies want to know how to achieve these two goals in a way that is quick and efficient. For many of them, wind is the answer. It’s inexpensive and emissions-free (aside from initial manufacturing and installation and service) and it gives the companies control over their energy supply.
Globally, the average cost of wind is $83 per megawatt-hour. This is the levelized cost of electrical delivery. How does it compare to other energy sources? Well the averages for coal and gas are $84 and $98, respectively. In the USA, gas is slightly cheaper than wind but this is the only large economy where that is the case. As a comparison, solar photovoltaic energy averages $122 globally for each MW-hour.
The above, in its comparisons, does not take into account the massive add-on costs for fossil fuels, via their pollution and waste. Those costs are externalized and paid by taxpayers and nature — paid for not just in money, but in planet destruction, sickness, death and species extinctions.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by Billy_T.
July 18, 2016 at 8:01 pm #48962Billy_TParticipantSome other relevant links:
George Monbiot is one of the best writers around, when it comes to the environment. Truly worth bookmarking and following:
This is also a great site.
From it’s About page:
About/Contact
CLIMATE & CAPITALISM is an ecosocialist journal, reflecting the viewpoint of environmental Marxism. It has three goals:
To provide news and analysis to inform, educate and develop the green left;
To contribute to building an international movement against capitalist destruction of the environment and for ecosocialism;
To encourage and facilitate collaboration and exchanges of views among socialists and ecology activists.Very good, concise book in the topic of enviromentalism:
July 18, 2016 at 10:06 pm #48966bnwBlockedNo it isn’t economical now. I’ve been to wind farms on three continents and none are economical . It is always a government boondoggle to dupe the easily duped. The maintenance costs are high over time. Nothing compares to coal.
————-
Why were you visiting wind farms?w
vMy wife and I have always been interested in energy and have raised our kids with what we hope is an appreciation of what it takes to power our culture. We will always work in a side trip when invited to tour something of interest. From Pain Mounds and corn stoves to wind farms and nuclear reactors we’re interested in it all.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
July 18, 2016 at 10:25 pm #48968TSRFParticipantWhy burn coal? It is carbon already locked up, and lots of nasty chemicals are released when it is burned.
One alternative that isn’t discussed much is charcoal. Basically, biomass that takes in CO2 while it grows, releases it when burned, and reabsorbed by the next generation.
Best choice for the biomass crop? Hemp. Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass in about 4 months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood is 60% cellulose. Hemp is drought resistant, which is important given what’s going on out west.
I’d even take it a step further and bioengineer hemp to make even more cellulose and grow faster.
Why? Because we can.
July 18, 2016 at 10:54 pm #48969bnwBlockedWhy burn coal? It is carbon already locked up, and lots of nasty chemicals are released when it is burned.
One alternative that isn’t discussed much is charcoal. Basically, biomass that takes in CO2 while it grows, releases it when burned, and reabsorbed by the next generation.
Best choice for the biomass crop? Hemp. Hemp can produce 10 tons of biomass in about 4 months. It is a woody plant containing 77% cellulose. Wood is 60% cellulose. Hemp is drought resistant, which is important given what’s going on out west.
I’d even take it a step further and bioengineer hemp to make even more cellulose and grow faster.
Why? Because we can.
1 lb coal contains 12,500 BTUs. 1 lb of hemp contains almost 8000 BTUs. The hemp would have to be processed into pellets which would require additional energy as well as 50% more volume.
Switchgrass is being evaluated as biomass since it doesn’t require planting each year and grows on otherwise marginal land. 1 lb of switchgrass contains 7500 BTUs.
- This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.