• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Save Some Fossil Fuels for Future Generations

Harshaw said:
It was said that Lockheed may have a cold fusion reactor within a decade (a few years ago), which could power a small city from the equivalent of a tractor trailer.

If so, the upside of THAT cannot be exaggerated.
Click to expand...

I believed 20 years ago we would already have cold fusion by now. At this point, I have become doubtful it will become a reality. Not without it being so huge, that it also becomes a potential bomb.
 
[h=1]“Hard Lessons From the Great Algae Biofuel Bubble”[/h]Guest post by David Middleton From 2005 to 2012, dozens of companies managed to extract hundreds of millions in cash from VCs in hopes of ultimately extracting fuel oil from algae. CEOs, entrepreneurs and investors were making huge claims about the promise of algae-based biofuels; the U.S. Department of Energy was also making big bets…
Continue reading →
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]“Hard Lessons From the Great Algae Biofuel Bubble”[/h]Guest post by David Middleton From 2005 to 2012, dozens of companies managed to extract hundreds of millions in cash from VCs in hopes of ultimately extracting fuel oil from algae. CEOs, entrepreneurs and investors were making huge claims about the promise of algae-based biofuels; the U.S. Department of Energy was also making big bets…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...
Just plane old photovoltaic solar can generate about 357,000 Kwh per acre per year, which could make about 7140 gallons of finished gasoline.
This could be done with mostly existing infrastructure, so no need to build out expensive plants.
If we can get the energy directly from the sun, and make fuel that way, why add in the extra steps?
 
longview said:
Just plane old photovoltaic solar can generate about 357,000 Kwh per acre per year, which could make about 7140 gallons of finished gasoline.
This could be done with mostly existing infrastructure, so no need to build out expensive plants.
If we can get the energy directly from the sun, and make fuel that way, why add in the extra steps?
Click to expand...

Why, indeed?
 
longview said:
Just plane old photovoltaic solar can generate about 357,000 Kwh per acre per year, which could make about 7140 gallons of finished gasoline.
This could be done with mostly existing infrastructure, so no need to build out expensive plants.
If we can get the energy directly from the sun, and make fuel that way, why add in the extra steps?
Click to expand...

FACT - Someday, the only energy will be renewable energy.
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]“Hard Lessons From the Great Algae Biofuel Bubble”[/h]Guest post by David Middleton From 2005 to 2012, dozens of companies managed to extract hundreds of millions in cash from VCs in hopes of ultimately extracting fuel oil from algae. CEOs, entrepreneurs and investors were making huge claims about the promise of algae-based biofuels; the U.S. Department of Energy was also making big bets…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Addendum

After re-reading the GTM article, I think the author may have actually learned at least part of this lesson:

So is there some lesson here other than that disrupting the global fossil fuel market is not for the fainthearted and entrepreneurs are irrationally optimistic?
Click to expand...

I find it utterly irrational in the opposite direction;

If there are 10 possible ways in which a new feul can happen each with a 5% chance then investing in all of them gives you a 50% chance of being part of the next new aristocracy. Don't put all of your pension into it but if you think going to Vagas and throwing $5,000 across the tables is lite beer then how about a much more productive flutter?

One day one of these new unlikely ideas will work. Do you want to be left behind?
 
Tim the plumber said:
I find it utterly irrational in the opposite direction;

If there are 10 possible ways in which a new feul can happen each with a 5% chance then investing in all of them gives you a 50% chance of being part of the next new aristocracy. Don't put all of your pension into it but if you think going to Vagas and throwing $5,000 across the tables is lite beer then how about a much more productive flutter?

One day one of these new unlikely ideas will work. Do you want to be left behind?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. Statistics is a little more complicated than that. With your logic, 20 possibilities would be a 100% chance. In reality, your 10 possibilities of 5% each give a 40.1% chance, whereas 20 possibilities of 5% each gives a 64.2% chance.

With your reasoning,
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not exactly. Statistics is a little more complicated than that. With your logic, 20 possibilities would be a 100% chance. In reality, your 10 possibilities of 5% each give a 40.1% chance, whereas 20 possibilities of 5% each gives a 64.2% chance.

With your reasoning,
Click to expand...

Yes, but i was keeping it simple.

There is also the chance that one of these ventures spits out something unexpected.
 
Media_Truth said:
FACT - Someday, the only energy will be renewable energy.
Click to expand...
FACT - Everything we have today is from renewable energy, the question is how long it takes it to renew.
What I am talking about is skipping the million plus year step between biomass and oil.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I find it utterly irrational in the opposite direction;

If there are 10 possible ways in which a new feul can happen each with a 5% chance then investing in all of them gives you a 50% chance of being part of the next new aristocracy. Don't put all of your pension into it but if you think going to Vagas and throwing $5,000 across the tables is lite beer then how about a much more productive flutter?

One day one of these new unlikely ideas will work. Do you want to be left behind?
Click to expand...

I'm happy with my Exxon-Mobil stock.
 
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Yes.

So why make the poor of the world die loads now to not alter that date by more than 6 months?
Click to expand...

Media_Truth said:
Renewables = More jobs. Fossil fuel industry = More lobbying.
Click to expand...

You have half the picture in view.

It is the renewables which require all the subsidy and thus use all that lobbying.

That is why it is so difficult to get the ones with those jobs in the renewable-not-actually-producing-anything-of-any-use-industry to understand that they are wrong. Bit like you, unable to actually look at the situation with an open mind.
 
Tim the plumber said:
It is the renewables which require all the subsidy and thus use all that lobbying.
Click to expand...

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies#Allocation_of_subsidies_in_the_United_States
 
Tim the plumber said:
You have half the picture in view.

It is the renewables which require all the subsidy and thus use all that lobbying.

That is why it is so difficult to get the ones with those jobs in the renewable-not-actually-producing-anything-of-any-use-industry to understand that they are wrong. Bit like you, unable to actually look at the situation with an open mind.
Click to expand...

Subsidies? Historically, the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed much more in subsidies than renewables. The more telling tale is the hidden costs.

First of all, gas taxes don't even come close to paying for the roads you drive on. Secondly, I can post link after link of cleanup costs that the fossil fuel companies never paid for. Just look up Exxon-Valdez for one example. Third, who is paying for the military escorts of International oil tankers? Fourth, Coal ash tailing ponds all over the US, are constantly found leaking toxic wastes into waterways? Cheney's Oil War in Iraq cost $6 Trillion. Pales in comparison to a few tax credits for renewables.
 
Media_Truth said:
Subsidies? Historically, the fossil fuel industry has enjoyed much more in subsidies than renewables. The more telling tale is the hidden costs.

First of all, gas taxes don't even come close to paying for the roads you drive on. Secondly, I can post link after link of cleanup costs that the fossil fuel companies never paid for. Just look up Exxon-Valdez for one example. Third, who is paying for the military escorts of International oil tankers? Fourth, Coal ash tailing ponds all over the US, are constantly found leaking toxic wastes into waterways? Cheney's Oil War in Iraq cost $6 Trillion. Pales in comparison to a few tax credits for renewables.
Click to expand...

How about we just get rid of all these subsidies?
 
Tim the plumber said:
How about we just get rid of all these subsidies?
Click to expand...

Good by me. I would suggest you write your Congressman. There are some fairly powerful Corporate lobbies that they'll have to convince.

Gas prices will probably rise to over $10 per gallon, if they have to pay for the roads. Or I guess they could tax automobiles and trucks, which would add substantially to the sticker price. Might be just what the rail industry needs to make passenger rail more viable.
 
Media_Truth said:
Good by me. I would suggest you write your Congressman. There are some fairly powerful Corporate lobbies that they'll have to convince.

Gas prices will probably rise to over $10 per gallon, if they have to pay for the roads. Or I guess they could tax automobiles and trucks, which would add substantially to the sticker price. Might be just what the rail industry needs to make passenger rail more viable.
Click to expand...

I live in the UK.

Economics
Source: Spring Budget 2017

A15) The taxes that are most directly linked to motoring are Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) and Fuel Duty. Latest figures show that VED generated around £6 billion in 2015, down 1 per cent from 2014 and Fuel Duty about £27 billion. Revenue from Fuel Duty more than tripled between 1987 and 2010 but has remained at £27 billion since then.

Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2016 and DfT Table TSGB1310

In addition to specific road user taxes, some transport expenditure is liable to VAT. In 2012, for private households, a total of £12.2 billion in VAT was raised through motorists buying, running and using their vehicles. (VAT on vehicle purchases raised £3.84 billion; VAT on fuel raised £5.64 billion; and £2.72 billion of VAT was also raised through road users buying other motoring-related goods and services).

Motorists are also taxed for the use of company cars as a benefit in kind. The Road Users’ Alliance estimated the proceeds of this tax to have been £3.7 billion in 2011/12. Motorists also pay an insurance premium tax when they insure their vehicle and it is estimated in 2012 vehicle insurance premium tax costs road users about £560 million a year.

Motorists also pay for driving tests, MOT vehicle tests, and parking and other fees and fines. As these are associated with either a service or penalty, they are not treated as taxes in the analysis undertaken by the RAC Foundation.

Source: Public Expenditure, Taxes and Subsidies: Land Transport in Great Britain



A16) Latest figures show that in 2015/16, £9.3 billion was spent on roads in Great Britain.

Source: Transport Statistics Great Britain 2016 and DfT Table TSGB1303
- See more at: Economics
Click to expand...

So here the ratio is about £40 billion raised in taxes and £9.3 billion spent on roads.

I have no clue where you get the $10 a barrel figure from and I think you do not understand that if all subsidies were eliminated then the train would not run at all, at least not here in the UK.
 
Media_Truth said:
Good by me. I would suggest you write your Congressman. There are some fairly powerful Corporate lobbies that they'll have to convince.

Gas prices will probably rise to over $10 per gallon, if they have to pay for the roads. Or I guess they could tax automobiles and trucks, which would add substantially to the sticker price. Might be just what the rail industry needs to make passenger rail more viable.
Click to expand...

Well, then federal gas tax is still only $0.184/gallon which was the last increase in 1993. I think we should raise it by 1 cent per gallon per quarter until we reach about $0.30/gallon and then index it to inflation quarterly. Then we can maintain the roads better. Different states and even some cities tax gas as well, at their own rates. As much as I hate taxation in general, I accept it as a necessary evil.
 
Science Marchers, Secretary Perry’s Memo and Bill Nye’s Optimism

Posted on April 24, 2017 | 18 comments
By Planning Engineer
On April 14th, 2017 Rick Perry wrote a memo headed “STUDY EXAMINING ELECTRICITY MARKETS AND RELAIBILITY” calling for study to investigate how long term energy trends my impact the grid.
Continue reading →

My “sciencey” friends on social media are linking to this article, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry Wants to Know if Solar is Eroding the Electricity Supply” and reacting with incredulity and derision. Overall the comments mostly are insults such as wondering if this is really an article from the Onion, to questioning if he were dropped on his head as a baby. As far a substance I have not seen much that has gone beyond asserting that various places with more solar and/or wind resources have better reliability and lower outage rates. If the later sort of comments were the start of a dialogue, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately they seem to be a way to emphasize the discussion is over and dismiss any concerns around renewables. Why does any potentially critical examination around the capabilities of renewable energy engender such outrage? . . .

 
Jack Hays said:
Science Marchers, Secretary Perry’s Memo and Bill Nye’s Optimism

[FONT=&]Posted on April 24, 2017 | 18 comments[/FONT]
By Planning Engineer
On April 14th, 2017 Rick Perry wrote a memo headed “STUDY EXAMINING ELECTRICITY MARKETS AND RELAIBILITY” calling for study to investigate how long term energy trends my impact the grid.
Continue reading →

My “sciencey” friends on social media are linking to this article, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry Wants to Know if Solar is Eroding the Electricity Supply” and reacting with incredulity and derision. Overall the comments mostly are insults such as wondering if this is really an article from the Onion, to questioning if he were dropped on his head as a baby. As far a substance I have not seen much that has gone beyond asserting that various places with more solar and/or wind resources have better reliability and lower outage rates. If the later sort of comments were the start of a dialogue, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately they seem to be a way to emphasize the discussion is over and dismiss any concerns around renewables. Why does any potentially critical examination around the capabilities of renewable energy engender such outrage? . . .

Click to expand...

Is this the same Rick Perry who was appointed the Energy Secretary, and couldn't remember the Department of Energy in a Republican Primary debate?
 
Jack Hays said:
Science Marchers, Secretary Perry’s Memo and Bill Nye’s Optimism

[FONT=&]Posted on April 24, 2017 | 18 comments[/FONT]
By Planning Engineer
On April 14th, 2017 Rick Perry wrote a memo headed “STUDY EXAMINING ELECTRICITY MARKETS AND RELAIBILITY” calling for study to investigate how long term energy trends my impact the grid.
Continue reading →

My “sciencey” friends on social media are linking to this article, “Energy Secretary Rick Perry Wants to Know if Solar is Eroding the Electricity Supply” and reacting with incredulity and derision. Overall the comments mostly are insults such as wondering if this is really an article from the Onion, to questioning if he were dropped on his head as a baby. As far a substance I have not seen much that has gone beyond asserting that various places with more solar and/or wind resources have better reliability and lower outage rates. If the later sort of comments were the start of a dialogue, that would be a good thing. Unfortunately they seem to be a way to emphasize the discussion is over and dismiss any concerns around renewables. Why does any potentially critical examination around the capabilities of renewable energy engender such outrage? . . .

Click to expand...
Perry's questions are very real and viable questions.
As we add solar users to the grid, the base load of the grid could swing wildly.
During the Spring and Fall, we can have periods where the temperatures are moderate (No A/C or Heat) and the sun is shinning,
over a large area. There will be periods if solar users exceed 30% or so, that no base supply is needed.
The problem will be that the supply can swing wildly, as a line of cloud cover, could alter the Solar supply for an entire area quickly,
and the grid base supplies take time to start.
I think the problems are solvable, but they are very real problems that do need to be addressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom