Hi Desumaiden,
DesuMaiden wrote:So it is basically impossible for anything but fossil fuels to power our current level of consumption...there is no way wind and solar energy can provide the same quality and quantity of energy as coal, oil and natural gas. Just accept this fact and stop hyping renewable energies as the savior of industrial civilization...it is a stupid myth promoted by liberals.
Without fossil fuels, we will have to use far less energy. Just accept this fact and let's move on.
I've read that article, and it provides absolutely no valid evidence or reasoning to support its position. Instead, it relies on the usual mix of pop psychoanalysis, name-calling, and so on, which the author wrongly interprets as evidence.
Let's take a look at a few things from the article:
" Denial is the biggest game in town. Denial, as well as a misunderstanding about some fundamental features of energy, is.."
That's ad hominem pop-psychoanalysis.
"...flies in the face of nearly all the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves."
Again, ad hominem pop-psychoanalysis.
"Consider this for a moment: a single $3 gallon of gasoline provides the equivalent of about 80 days of hard manual labor."
That's just totally beside the point, because the alternative here is solar panels, etc, not human labor. Even if it would take 80 days of hard manual labor, that says nothing about whether or not it would be possible to transition to renewables.
"but then compare them to our current energy appetite, and you quickly see that we still run out of space, vital minerals and other raw materials,"
That's just factually wrong and trivially refutable. We are not running out of space or materials for solar panels. The author should have looked that up.
"Murphy calculates that a battery capable of storing this electricity in the U.S. alone (otherwise no electricity at night or during cloudy or windless spells) would require about three times as much lead as geologists estimate may exist in all reserves, most of which remain unknown."
This is the best point in the entire article, and it's still wrong. There are grid storage batteries which do not require any uncommon elements such as lead. There is even a company (Aquion Energy) which now has a commercial product.
Without fossil fuels, we will have to use far less energy. Just accept this fact and let's move on.
Desumaiden, it's not sufficient just to label something a "fact" and say "let's move on". You would need to demonstrate the point, not just declare it a fact. If that were a valid form of reasoning, then the singularity-is-near crowd could just label it a "fact" and say "let's move on".
It's not just a matter of re-stating your conclusions.
The article you referred to is nowhere near to providing the evidence or reasoning needed to demonstrate its thesis. As a result, its conclusions are not factual. Its conclusions might be right for other reasons, but you or someone else would have to provide some kind of valid evidence (not pop psychoanalysis or name-calling) to demonstrate that.
-Tom S