Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Environment and Energy

Environment and Energy

Unread postby Devil » Fri 30 Dec 2005, 10:34:33

As most of you know, I've been heavily involved in the environment, how our use of energy affects it and how we are destroying nature, for many years, on both a high-level professional basis and one of personal conviction. I'm quite aware that many of you do not agree with my views and we must agree to differ. I've been attempting for some time to gel my views into something fairly concrete and the result of this can be found in My Credo along with a linked discussion forum. Please feel free to look at this document and, if you feel like it, comment.
Devil
User avatar
Devil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue 06 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Cyprus

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 30 Dec 2005, 21:00:29

Cant say I agree with most of it. I'm probably one of the few on this board that think that climate change is essentially a non-issue thats been hyped into some preventable slow-motion catastrophe, where I think its neither preventable or a catastrophe. Given that I'd be howling against the whirlwind here, I'm not going to take up the issue further.

But that aside my biggest criticism is your boosting of MOX fuels. I used to like them but the problem with MOX fuel is that it doesnt really save you that much on fuel and produces far more low level waste given the most common practice for MOX processing is a variant of PUREX which produces loads of medium level waste and a giant mess to clean up (a la sellafield) which I suppose is fine if you want cover for doing plutonium extraction for your weapons program. We've got so much uranium and so much empty space that we might as well just burn it in once through reactors as an ordinary once through cycle or burn the wastes in molten salt incinerator reactors, and not do half-hearted steps that exacerbate the situtation.

Really I expect that solar will be cheap enough to compete directly with nuclear long before we have to worry about uranium pricing or waste location to justify any breeder reactor regime.
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby JustinFrankl » Sat 31 Dec 2005, 11:04:52

In the face of the choices all of civilization makes, there is only one we must give up in order to maintain it. The choice for unending growth. Civilization may well continue past this bump in the road, but it won't be at this level of population or technology. Not that the population won't be regenerated, nor that technology won't be re-invented, but if we want to grow, we must accept that periods of civilizational growth (population) will be followed by periods of decline (population reduction).

Do you believe that civilization will grow unendingly?
JustinFrankl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 623
Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 30 Jan 2010, 14:52:03

This thread seems like the logical place to me to put this Youtube link, it is about 16 minutes long to watch and covers Peak Oil from a Economist POV. Not the Uberdoomer the end is nie!!! type I usually see so I found refreshingly different from most of what I have seen in video format on Peak Oil and its implications.

VIDEO
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14658
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby pablonite » Sat 30 Jan 2010, 18:11:23

This was from your site...
These graphs were published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which instigated this research.

Just curious is you're sure of the integrity of the data, computer modeling and predictions or do you still believe the evidence is overwhelming with regards to AGW?
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sat 30 Jan 2010, 19:07:15

If "energy is neither created nor destroyed", then there's no free lunch.

We're extracting energy from the ground, and converting and re-storing it in McMansions, wind turbines, human beings, the air, the oceans, back into the ground, etc. Whereas there's lots of energy left in the planet, the choice of storage places is dubious. And people think it's OK, or worse, they believe there's a free lunch.

The pursuit of a clean energy economy will create as much havoc with the environment, then the current mess. Somehow people think that clean energy ships will fish less salmon.

My 2 cents.
On 9/29/08, cube wrote: "The Dow will drop to 4,000 within 2 years". The current tally is 239 bold predictions, 9 right, 96 wrong, 134 open. If you've heard here, it's probably wrong.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sat 30 Jan 2010, 19:19:59

pablonite wrote:This was from your site...
These graphs were published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which instigated this research.
Just curious is you're sure of the integrity of the data, computer modeling and predictions or do you still believe the evidence is overwhelming with regards to AGW?
Now PabloNuts is going to go on ranting rampage against the IPCC. Never mind a 10-year old can conclude something is happening with the planet just by looking at photos, what matters is there are dubious sentences here and there in the IPCC reports, and that invalids everything.

How's the bubble, Pablo? Looking shinny today?
On 9/29/08, cube wrote: "The Dow will drop to 4,000 within 2 years". The current tally is 239 bold predictions, 9 right, 96 wrong, 134 open. If you've heard here, it's probably wrong.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby pablonite » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 10:45:52

VMarcHart wrote:
pablonite wrote:This was from your site...
These graphs were published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), which instigated this research.
Just curious is you're sure of the integrity of the data, computer modeling and predictions or do you still believe the evidence is overwhelming with regards to AGW?
Now PabloNuts is going to go on ranting rampage against the IPCC. Never mind a 10-year old can conclude something is happening with the planet just by looking at photos, what matters is there are dubious sentences here and there in the IPCC reports, and that invalids everything.

How's the bubble, Pablo? Looking shinny today?

:lol:
It was just a question?

Uh, shinny is a game we play up here in Canada. Come on up for a game and we show you what shiny eyes look like :)

VMarcHart wrote:The pursuit of a clean energy economy will create as much havoc with the environment, then the current mess. Somehow people think that clean energy ships will fish less salmon.

Yes, I think what you are trying to say is it's Jevons paradox? Besides, good luck running an American lifestyle on solar panels and wind turbines. That is the joke we sell to third world countries through political organizations like the UN's IPCC.

The sales pitch is being exposed for what it is. If you can sell green energy and make cash then do it. Standing around trying to convince other people to jump onto your boat makes you look like a fraud.
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby pablonite » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 12:09:30

Devil, you might want to consider this...
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/01/i ... -own-risk/
IPCC “Consensus”—Warning: Use at Your Own Risk

by Chip Knappenberger
January 29, 2010

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often held up as representing “the consensus of scientists”—a pretty grandiose and presumptuous claim. And one that in recent days, weeks, and months, has been unraveling. So too, therefore, must all of the secondary assessments that are based on the IPCC findings...

Should products produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carry the following warning label:

The findings of the IPCC reports were developed in advance and furthered by a careful selection from whatever material could be found to support them. In some cases, supporting material was developed or fabricated where none could otherwise be located. As such, these findings may not necessarily reflect the true state of scientific understanding. Use at your own risk.

Obviously it doesn't matter when referring to it in a blog or some type of green communist manifesto, but in legal terms, corporations and small businesses...? It will probably depend on some key trial involving Mr Jones et al. that will drag on for the duration of global warming.
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby VMarcHart » Sun 31 Jan 2010, 15:44:26

pablonite wrote:
VMarcHart wrote:The pursuit of a clean energy economy will create as much havoc with the environment, then the current mess. Somehow people think that clean energy ships will fish less salmon.
I think what you are trying to say is it's Jevons paradox?
Not really. Jevons paradox is "the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a given resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that given resource". The greatest example is coal; the highest the efficiency of coal use, the more we use it.

What I was saying is that the clean energy talk is a fantasy. Somehow people think that installing 4M wind turbines from coast to coast and switching our fleet of 300M ICE vehicles 300M EVs to will clean the air and the waters, rid us of trash hips, poverty, hunger and injustice, and we'll see a renaissance of all endangered species.

But I don't blame you for not getting Jevons paradox. By the things you say about gays, poor people, and the UN, you're VERY immature, or just plain mean.
pablonite wrote:...good luck running an American lifestyle on solar panels and wind turbines.
That's the first smart thing you said in this website.

VMarcHart wrote:Now PabloNuts is going to go on a ranting rampage against the IPCC. Never mind a 10-year old can conclude something is happening with the planet just by looking at photos, what matters is there are dubious sentences here and there in the IPCC reports, and that invalids everything.
pablonite wrote:That is the joke we sell to third world countries through political organizations like the UN's IPCC.
Like I said…
On 9/29/08, cube wrote: "The Dow will drop to 4,000 within 2 years". The current tally is 239 bold predictions, 9 right, 96 wrong, 134 open. If you've heard here, it's probably wrong.
User avatar
VMarcHart
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1644
Joined: Mon 26 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Now overpopulating California

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Wed 03 Feb 2010, 12:55:56

>1.Stopping all fossil fuel power stations throughout the world:
That would quickly cause loss of life.
Why do you want to stop greenhouse gas increases anyway? They are very good for the biosphere. The clue is in the name. Greenhouse gases. CO2 warms the planet, and feeds the starving plants. It's no coincidence the rainforrests are in the tropics, - most heat, most water ( greenhouse agent ). And no coincidence that the most lifeless place on earths are the poles.
Pump the stuff out the best we can, every extra ppm is a godsend.

>4.Implementing nuclear fission power stations:
The world no.1 nuclear state, france, has an excellent track record in cheap power, human health, living standards and low pollution. Other 1st world states without nuclear power lag behind france. When you consider the french spend all there time having extra marital affairs while getting through 40 cigs a day, that's makes their nuclear plant benifits all the more impressive. Also, thorium reactors are known to be better than uranium, with 100s of years of world supply in reserve.
If experience is anything to go on ( yes it is ), then the more nuclear power plants, the better.

>7.Encouraging biofuel production
It's a shocking joke of a waste of farm land and fuel. To get 1 barrel of bio fuel out of a farm, 2 barrels of mineral fuel are needed.

>12.Stopping short-haul air travel:
Yes, lets get those intercontinental magnetic levitation trains going. It would be far more efficient.

>21.Encouraging energy research:
The technology for a cheap and plentiful source of energy for all is already here. It's the powers that be, who're preventing the installation of power outlets and who don't want to set energy free. They prefer it when they've got a monopoly with which they can ration out energy as suits them.

Watch this devil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby pablonite » Fri 05 Feb 2010, 11:24:49

meemoe_uk wrote:CO2 warms the planet, and feeds the starving plants. It's no coincidence the rainforrests are in the tropics, - most heat, most water ( greenhouse agent ). And no coincidence that the most lifeless place on earths are the poles.
Pump the stuff out the best we can, every extra ppm is a godsend.

Not sure what the point of sequestering CO2 is either other than a very unique business opportunity for well connected green business revolutionary types.

Some farmers find it worthwhile to pump it into the greenhouses where it gets trapped and absorbed by the growing seedlings.
meemoe_uk wrote:7.Encouraging biofuel production

This has got to be one of the biggest waste of resources in the history of mankind committed under the guise of "science" and "technology".

meemoe_uk wrote:Encouraging energy research:

Yup, any threat to "energy security" is a threat to the current control structure, but we still haven't come up with anything that comes close to oil and gas when it comes to ready made, portable energy on demand. Until this fact changes not much else will, most of the science is finding more of it.
User avatar
pablonite
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun 28 Sep 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby dohboi » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 14:04:01

Devil, this looks like a thoughful, carefully developed set of positions. Unfortunately this is no longer a forum for such reasonable discussions, as any attempt at such is quickly overwhelmed by the usual hordes of know-nothings that are allowed to drown out all sensible discussion in these threads. May I suggest The Oil Drum, realclimate, or Malthusia as more congenial fora for useful discussions of your interesting ideas.

(To Tanada: Not sure whether you intended to make a multi-lingual pun, but nie means 'never' in German. I believe you intended 'nigh.')
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17193
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby Frank » Sat 06 Feb 2010, 21:39:04

You folks did look at the date of Devil's original post, didn't you? He hasn't been around here for years.....
User avatar
Frank
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed 15 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

A Unifying Theory of Energy

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 17 Jan 2018, 10:25:03


A unifying theory of energy is the second installment of an energy trilogy beginning with The Energy/Environment Algorithm. Investopedia describes a ‘Tragedy of The Commons’ as an economic problem in which every individual tries to reap the greatest benefit from a given resource. As demand exceeds supply consumers directly harm others who are no longer able to benefit from a given resource. The Osgoode Hall Law School paper of Maebh O’Gorman titled, Global Warming: A Tragedy of the Commons says the climate crisis is an example of ‘the tragedy’ on a global scale but that need not be the case. The energy glass, in reality, is overflowing. We can effectively process warming heat, a resource readily available to all of society, and that converted energy can be a windfall of the commons. In the alternative, the pessimist’s view of global warming is singularly through a


A Unifying Theory of Energy
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

The Changing Face of Energy and Environment

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 11:12:14


Having followed the energy scene in the UK for many years, it is sometimes difficult to pinpoint certain events that one remembers. Some years ago, I suggested to a civil servant that, with environmental concerns building up, perhaps energy and environment should come together. The response was that energy and environment couldn’t be in the same room! Therefore, I was amused later to hear of the formation of DECC – the Department of Energy and Climate Change. DECC came to an end in July 2016 even though its website is still up and seemingly running, when it was then rebadged as BEIS – The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, where it still is, with the same Minister, the Rt Hon Greg Clark, doing more or less the same role. Last month, Richard Harrington was Minister responsible for Energy, but this month it’s


The Changing Face of Energy and Environment
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4291
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Mar 2018, 20:57:01

Apparently Mother Earth is not a "sacred" to tribes north of the Canadian border as she is to tribes to the south. From https://www.rigzone.com/news/wire/canad ... 8-article/

"Reuters - Canada's First Nations are boosting investments and leveraging their clout with regulators to gain stakes in oil and gas projects as they seek greater returns on energy produced or transported across their territory. Aboriginal groups in Canada have traditionally played a more passive role in the energy industry, collecting royalties from oil and gas output. That model is changing as some indigenous groups buy oil wells and negotiate ownership stakes in proposed pipelines and storage projects. "It's assets that create cash flow," said Joe Dion, Chief Executive of First Nations-owned Frog Lake Energy Resources Corp, which produces 2,000 barrels of oil per day. "We get a piece of the action."

First Nations, also called bands, play a pivotal role in Canada's oil industry because governments and companies have a legal duty to consult and accommodate them before proceeding with resource projects affecting their territories. The law gives bands "pretty close to an effective veto," said University of Saskatchewan professor Ken Coates."

As I pointed out during the Dakota Access Pipe Line protests had the tribe been given a piece of the pie as it had originally demanded there would have been no uproar. Just as the other tribes that were going to have oil from their leases pumped down the DAPL didn't protest.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10973
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 15 Mar 2018, 22:22:02

First Nations, also called bands, play a pivotal role in Canada's oil industry because governments and companies have a legal duty to consult and accommodate them before proceeding with resource projects affecting their territories. The law gives bands "pretty close to an effective veto," said University of Saskatchewan professor Ken Coates."

As I pointed out during the Dakota Access Pipe Line protests had the tribe been given a piece of the pie as it had originally demanded there would have been no uproar. Just as the other tribes that were going to have oil from their leases pumped down the DAPL didn't protest.


In Canada First Nations own the mineral rights to tribal lands granted to them. They also have the right to see income via fees for access for pipelines which transect their lands. The whole thing has become mired to some extent because certain First Nations groups argue that traditional hunting grounds (which aren't contained in the granted tribal lands) should have the same treatment. Basically arguing for something beyond which the law grants them. I believe the same was the issue with the Dakota pipe line as the tribe/band in question did not have the legal right to either mineral rights or access fees but were claiming the lands were traditional grounds (not an expert on the Dakota situation that is just what I seem to remember).

In BC the NDP government has been arguing that all First Nations groups are dead set against the Trans Mountain pipeline. In actual fact there were several bands in NW BC that were supportive as they saw it as a means to create jobs and income.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5853
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Environment and Energy

Unread postby ozcad » Thu 15 Mar 2018, 22:33:08

There was a time when it was all theirs. Hard to fault them for wanting a fraction of a per cent of it back.
User avatar
ozcad
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri 03 Jul 2015, 12:26:35
Location: Australia

Next

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests