Head shaped hole in the wall

[Tenka]

So Chris "lord" Monckton is coming to my little town (in NSW Australia) to tell a bunch of right leaning, Green hating country folk exactly what they want to hear regarding climate change I.E, you can ignore it because scientists and people on the left are Nazis and communists.

SO I expect to take a lot more hostility in the future being that I am a rural greenie.

I thought that I might be able to avoid arguing the complex climate issue and simply point out that fossil fuels are a non renewable resource for which an alternative does not exist and therefore major changes must be made to our consumer habits and lifestyles to survive.

But I now find that there are people who believe that oil is some magically replenishing substance which we'll never ever ever have to stop using.

 

[Hespera]

You only just recently found that out? aww, wasnt ignorance so much more blissful?

The petroleum geologist in my family just shakes his head at that lunacy, he doesnt use it to punch holes in the wall. But then he's German, not Aussie. and maybe they are a more restrained race.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I went through a mass of Global Warming calculations a few years back and the result was inconclusive really. Basically the opening of IR windows due to declining CFCs and related banned substances should about offset any further closing of the CO2 window.



BUT



I concluded there is a very real problem and it is exactly the one you pointed out - the exhaustion of fossil fuels.

The two are completely related, the CO2 entering the air is from the fossil fuels burnt, the only way to avoid the CO2 production is to leave the fuel in the ground. You might also notice that people are taxed (here) on CO2 per km but draining a marsh which produces far more CO2 is ignored. And quite rightly so. Those in the know are aware it is about running out of non renewable fuels.


It is possible to get very depressed about the fossil fuel issue especially the petroleum one, so it seems a lot nicer to pretend to be saving the World by combating Global Warming instead.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

There is a lot of coal around. We can convert coal into oil. By the time we will of run out of oil tecnology will have long ago moved on. Don't worry.

 

[Tenka]

There is a lot of coal around. We can convert coal into oil. By the time we will of run out of oil tecnology will have long ago moved on. Don't worry.

This is the kind of thing I'm used to dealing with.

Don't like solar, don't like wind, don't like using less and think science is going to come up with some magic bullet that will seamlessly replace cheap, energy dense oil if we just sit around and wait for it.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Don't like solar, don't like wind, don't like using less and think science is going to come up with some magic bullet that will seamlessly replace cheap, energy dense oil if we just sit around and wait for it.

I love the idea of solar energy.

I don't like wind generation. You have either to put power into the things when there is no wind or have too much of the stuff when it blows on a low energy demand day.

Solar pannels are predicted to be more ecconomical than coal for sunny countries such as Spain in 10 years and for places like Britian in 20 years. Once we reach this point we will stop digging up coal. Fantastic!

So why destroy the world ecconomy in the mean time?

 

[bigbadwilf]

Solar pannels are predicted to be more ecconomical than coal for sunny countries such as Spain in 10 years and for places like Britian in 20 years.

Nuclear fusion has been about 30 years away from being a practical energy source for most of my life, going by the optimism of the journalistic community (although tremendous strides have been made in the meantime, and we're now building the reactor from which the first practical power plant will be developed from (ITER)).

It's all very well having predictions that technology will solve all of the world's problems Real Soon Now, but I'd rather not be reliant on them.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

^ Fair comment, especially about fusion power. However in the next 100 years we will invent new power sources.

 

[MorkandMindy]

^ Fair comment, especially about fusion power. However in the next 100 years we will invent new power sources.

I really don't think oil will last anything remotely like that long. The World's total reserves - why are we talking about 'the World's total reserves' unless we think they really belong to us?

Iraq has more oil than any other country in the World, and at it's own domestic consumption rate at present would last 150 years. If the US 'develops' the oil reserves then they will supply a few percent of the US's consumption for 20 years.

There is no continue as we are for 100 years, the oil will not last that long no way no how



even if we could steal everyone else's

 

[Non sequitur]

Iraq has more oil than any other country in the World, and at it's own domestic consumption rate at present would last 150 years. If the US 'develops' the oil reserves then they will supply a few percent of the US's consumption for 20 years.

I thought Saudi Arabia had more oil and Venezuela and Canada had more years, as far as reserves/production.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I thought Saudi Arabia had more oil and Venezuela and Canada had more years, as far as reserves/production.

No Iraq has more in reserves and at it's own rate of domestic consumption Iraq had 150 years supply, are you saying Canada or Venezuela has more years?

Anyway 'years' is pretty irrelevant if you don't have the military power to hold on to it.

 

[Non sequitur]

No Iraq has more in reserves and at it's own rate of domestic consumption Iraq had 150 years supply, are you saying Canada or Venezuela has more years?

Anyway 'years' is pretty irrelevant if you don't have the military power to hold on to it.

This seems to disagree.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Interesting,

My information came from a few contacts in the industry which supplied the insight that Saudi reserves were over estimated to get higher quotas with OPEC, and that many others were underestimated. Other snippets were that there is more in Alaska than has been included in the figures and a lot in the Dakotas.

But how accurate my information was is one question. Another is what category of reserves it relates to. A lot of Canada's oil reserves are oil sands and Venezuela's are tar sands. Also oil extraction now is often more viscous oils which is a slow process or as with the oil under New Orleans and throughout that region, the oil is borne by a large quantity of water and the extraction unfortunately means the land sinks.

But my information was just bits and not comprehensive, many thanks for pointing out the wiki on the topic.

 

[MorkandMindy]

SO I expect to take a lot more hostility in the future being that I am a rural greenie.

I've been emailed by the most religious right-wing commie hating gun toting environmentalists = the devil fundamentalists anyone is likely to find.


But one said we should recycle everything
And another installed a wood-burning stove and is doing his best to be self-sufficient.


Neither believes it is good to waste

Both believe in 'traditional values' which are at least logically consistent.

Both believe in charity and that family members should care for family members. This is contrary to nationally provided care but

also contrary to the selfishness which is the core value of capitalism.

 

[MorkandMindy]

You should find there is no one who believes in true capitalism, everyone has something else in mind. Either it is traditional values or socialism. The first is anti capitalist on a, well, tribal basis really, and the second is anti capitalist on a national basis.


The only people in favor of over production and waste are the capitalists, who in turn have to trick either of the other groups into supporting them, often by demonising the opposition to both motivate them and also to avoid having to explain their own evil goals.


The message has to be one of waste and nothing else. Either 'traditional' values or 'modern' values can often work and it has to be acknowledged that both have serious flaws.


For example in care of the elderly the modern one where resources come from a national pool the resources appear to be infinite and therefore the elderly will impose totally on the system for every need, whereas in a traditional one they will have to do as much as they can at all times. But some people in a traditional system will get no care of any sort.

Oddly where social concerns are met, the traditional system may be better, but in productive industry the hierarchical management system throws away at least 90% of the brains in a company in favor of stability and the command system whereas the socialist team work approach is more productive.


But it is best to avoid the traditional values vs modern values issue where farming folk clearly benefit from traditional values more than modern ones

and address only the issue of waste

should we take a ton and a half of metal every where we go, accelerating it up to 70 and braking back down to zero at each stop sign?

should people work in glass fronted offices with huge air-conditioners when an awning out front and a desk fan are every bit as good? some offices are more efficient than others

about 3/4 of Australia's oil needs are met by oilfields in Western Australia but buying in the other 1/4 means sending a lot of money over seas, shouldn't it be possible to use a bit less fuel and not need to import any?