• 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!

The Historic Decline in Renewable Energy

Still, they claim to be a corporation representing intentional interests, but chose a mile instead of kilometer. We are one of the few counties not on the metric system. Seems to me they are "yes men" to the rich Americans rather than being true to science.

But then I hated that in the semiconductor industry. I could not break people from calling a 150mm wafer, a 6" wafer, 200 mm 8", and 300 mm 12". Wafers were originally US standard, until they were 3" or maybe 3.5". Then they went metric.

We Americans are so stupid as a whole compared to other countries.

It's not too much of a big deal, so long as you get the conversions right. That appears to be Terryj's weak point.
 
Still, they claim to be a corporation representing intentional interests, but chose a mile instead of kilometer. We are one of the few counties not on the metric system. Seems to me they are "yes men" to the rich Americans rather than being true to science.

But then I hated that in the semiconductor industry. I could not break people from calling a 150mm wafer, a 6" wafer, 200 mm 8", and 300 mm 12". Wafers were originally US standard, until they were 3" or maybe 3.5". Then they went metric.

We Americans are so stupid as a whole compared to other countries.

I cannot comprehend that we are still not completely changed over to the metric system. Just moving decimal points is so much easier in a base 10 system.
 
It's not too much of a big deal, so long as you get the conversions right. That appears to be Terryj's weak point.

Why doesn't your response surprise me?

A mile is not part of the International System of Units, used in science. The nautical mile is, but not the mile.

Do you know any science at all?
 
I agree, oil supplies the most bang for the bucks, when solar panels become more efficient and the price comes down then we will most likely see a huge conversion to solar. Then next task will be how to store the energy without having to replace batteries every few years.

I favor storing the surplus from solar as hydrocarbon fuel for vehicles.
Power to liquids and power to gas: closing the carbon cycle - EE Publishers
The process is similar to what is already being done in a modern cracking refinery.
The fuel produces can last for years, and can be made carbon neutral.
Stated efficiencies are between 60 and 70%, (The Navy says 60%, and Sunfire says 70%)
I expect to see some refineries converting when oil get about $90 a barrel,
because the greatest profit would be from making their own feedstock.
That they can market it as green fuel, is just icing on the cake.
 
Why doesn't your response surprise me?

A mile is not part of the International System of Units, used in science. The nautical mile is, but not the mile.

Do you know any science at all?

I'm British and have a PhD in Physics, so I'm obviously quite comfortable working with the metric system. However, I'm aware that my American colleagues sometimes prefer to use imperial units and am quite capable of converting if needed. Now, why don't you correct Terryj and tell us how many cubic kilometres are in a cubic mile?
 
I'm British and have a PhD in Physics, so I'm obviously quite comfortable working with the metric system. However, I'm aware that my American colleagues sometimes prefer to use imperial units and am quite capable of converting if needed. Now, why don't you correct Terryj and tell us how many cubic kilometres are in a cubic mile?

Roughly 4.17 :prof
 
Five thousand years ago 100% of energy was from renewable sources.

But it's been known for the last couple hundred years that renewables aren't the wave of the future but a relic of the past.

Wind, solar, hydro, and biomass couldn't compete then and they still can't.

Hence the notion persists among renewable advocates that in order to make renewables compete, so called non renewables must be made more expensive. Either by subsidizing renewables, taxing other sources of energy at a higher rate, or limiting production or increasing production costs. Obama advocated $10/gallon gas. Teslas pay no road tax.
 
Last edited:
Hence the notion persists among renewable advocates that in order to make renewables compete, so called non renewables must be made more expensive. Either by subsidizing renewables, taxing other sources of energy at a higher rate, or limiting production or increasing production costs. Obama advocated $10/gallon gas. Teslas pay no road tax.

Most economists advocate a simple carbon tax at source. This would allow the market to take account of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, thus making less polluting alternatives more competitive. It would also be a source of revenue rather than a cost, and it would require little bureaucracy.
 
Most economists advocate a simple carbon tax at source. This would allow the market to take account of the negative externalities of fossil fuels, thus making less polluting alternatives more competitive. It would also be a source of revenue rather than a cost, and it would require little bureaucracy.

Which doesn't change the fact that the purpose would be to penalize petroleum based energy and give alternatives a helping hand. At the same time creating another tax. Both liberal core causes.

There is little evidence that alternatives pollute less. Alcohol energy costs more to produce than it generates and takes prime habitat out of production. Electricity doesn't just jump into the Tesla. It must be produced somehow. We hold up petroleum production for decades to protect a grouse, but it is OK for windmills to kill endangered birds or move or destroy desert tortoises and their habitat.
 
Which doesn't change the fact that the purpose would be to penalize petroleum based energy and give alternatives a helping hand. At the same time creating another tax. Both liberal core causes.

There is little evidence that alternatives pollute less. Alcohol energy costs more to produce than it generates and takes prime habitat out of production. Electricity doesn't just jump into the Tesla. It must be produced somehow. We hold up petroleum production for decades to protect a grouse, but it is OK for windmills to kill endangered birds or move or destroy desert tortoises and their habitat.

Every government in the world has to raise taxes somehow. It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to raise those taxes on things that are socially undesirable, such as pollution, rather than desirable things like labour. Scrap the subsidies, reduce income tax, and tax polluters instead. Assuming that the consensus is correct, and CO2 emissions need to be reduced, can anyone suggest a more market-friendly way of doing so?
 
Every government in the world has to raise taxes somehow. It seems to me that it makes a lot more sense to raise those taxes on things that are socially undesirable, such as pollution, rather than desirable things like labour. Scrap the subsidies, reduce income tax, and tax polluters instead. Assuming that the consensus is correct, and CO2 emissions need to be reduced, can anyone suggest a more market-friendly way of doing so?

I don't assume the consensus is correct.
 
Then ignore my comment. It is directed at those who are not blinded by political ideology.

Political ideology has nothing to do with it.

But you do bring up an interesting point.
 

Does Air Pollution Really Shorten Life Spans?

Guest essay by Dr. Indur M. Goklany Periodically we are flooded with reports of air pollution episodes in various developing countries, and claims of their staggering death toll, and consequent reductions in life spans. The Economic Times (India), for example, recently claimed: If you are in NCR [National Capital Region, i.e. Delhi] right now, you may…
Continue reading →

. . . To recap, the death toll from air pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion — and the resulting decline in life expectancy — are, to quote Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. In fact, for whatever reason, life expectancy increases in association with fossil fuel use. . . .

 

Does Air Pollution Really Shorten Life Spans?

Guest essay by Dr. Indur M. Goklany Periodically we are flooded with reports of air pollution episodes in various developing countries, and claims of their staggering death toll, and consequent reductions in life spans. The Economic Times (India), for example, recently claimed: If you are in NCR [National Capital Region, i.e. Delhi] right now, you may…
Continue reading →

. . . To recap, the death toll from air pollution caused by fossil fuel combustion — and the resulting decline in life expectancy — are, to quote Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated. In fact, for whatever reason, life expectancy increases in association with fossil fuel use. . . .


Well, I was going to illustrate my point with the ideologically-driven rejection of the consensus that smoking causes cancer, but you've been kind enough to give a current example. Thank you! A fossil fuel promoter rejects the consensus that the inhalation of particulates affects health. Not in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, mind, but in a blog post. It's another excellent illustration of rejection of the consensus based on ideology!
 
Well, I was going to illustrate my point with the ideologically-driven rejection of the consensus that smoking causes cancer, but you've been kind enough to give a current example. Thank you! A fossil fuel promoter rejects the consensus that the inhalation of particulates affects health. Not in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, mind, but in a blog post. It's another excellent illustration of rejection of the consensus based on ideology!

I fear you are using the claim of "ideology" as a substitute for thought. The author is a serious, published thinker and researcher who makes a logical case based on the evidence.

Indur M. Goklany - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Indur_M._Goklany


Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.
 
I fear you are using the claim of "ideology" as a substitute for thought. The author is a serious, published thinker and researcher who makes a logical case based on the evidence.

Indur M. Goklany - Wikipedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Indur_M._Goklany


Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and Technology Policy.

No, he doesn't make a logical case at all. He simply implies causation from rough correlation but gives no basis for causation. It's nonsense that would never pass peer review, but is clearly convincing enough to fool scientifically naive folk. Unfortunately, Goklany is yet another illustration that intelligence does not necessarily imply honesty. You'd do well to stick to using peer-reviewed material.
 
No, he doesn't make a logical case at all. He simply implies causation from rough correlation but gives no basis for causation. It's nonsense that would never pass peer review, but is clearly convincing enough to fool scientifically naive folk. Unfortunately, Goklany is yet another illustration that intelligence does not necessarily imply honesty. You'd do well to stick to using peer-reviewed material.

I don't think he "implies" anything except correlation. I suggest you might want to indulge in a little introspection on the subject of honesty.

His words: ". . . for whatever reason, life expectancy increases in association with fossil fuel use. . . ."




 
I don't think he "implies" anything except correlation. I suggest you might want to indulge in a little introspection on the subject of honesty.

His words: ". . . for whatever reason, life expectancy increases in association with fossil fuel use. . . ."





Wealth increase with fossil fuel use. Life expectancy increases with wealth. Pollution will do a good job of dragging it back though.

See London smogs for a prime example;


The Great Smog of 1952. A fog so thick and polluted it left thousands dead wreaked havoc on London in 1952. The smoke-like pollution was so toxic it was even reported to have choked cows to death in the fields. It was so thick it brought road, air and rail transport to a virtual standstill.20 Apr 2015
 
Wealth increase with fossil fuel use. Life expectancy increases with wealth. Pollution will do a good job of dragging it back though.

See London smogs for a prime example;

Reminds me of a saying,
" Mankind occasionally stumbles over the truth, but generally he picks himself up and carries on!"
 
Back
Top Bottom