More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[PMZ]

Todd,

have you noticed that folks don't often care to respond to your posts?

I read every one of them.. I don't respond because it only takes 1/10 of a Todd to refute a troll... And he's doing just fine tying up the troll and containing the forum damage..

A troll being someone who refuses to goose step.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It's certainly odd to believe that growing demand for fossil fuels, which has been predicted for decades to feed China and India and other developing countries, is good news. All that means is that we'll run out sooner, AGW extreme weather and rising sea levels will happen quicker, and supply and demand will drive prices up at a greater rate.

The more the world relies on it = the harder we will fall when we run out. The sad part of it all is the fact that renewables will allow for a much more stable economic system....Prices won't go up or down like we're seeing today.

What does the right wing do? Whine and hate them. Do they really want us defending all the oil, coal and natural gas fields on this plant????

Co2 is only a small reason to move over to renewables. Renewables take advantage of a resource that we don't have to worry about, 1. finding, 2. protecting or 3. going up or down economically.

One day we will all see this as soon.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So, when fossil fuels are gone, or we can't adapt to the new climate, whichever comes first, what happens next?

So, when fossil fuels are gone

Yeah, that'll be bad, in 2420.

There is no expert in the world who would agree with your dream.

Many think oil is peaking now
Natural gas another 30-40 years
Coal around 2030???

Peaking means not increasing in scale. So of course we will not see them totally run out.

http://www.afterpeakoil.com/poster2.gif

discoveries

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Hubbert_world_2004.svg

 

[ScienceRocks]

Oil climbs peak, economies plumb depressions and the future will not imitate the past | ZDNet

Just goes to show you that they're finite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, when fossil fuels are gone, or we can't adapt to the new climate, whichever comes first, what happens next?

So, when fossil fuels are gone

Yeah, that'll be bad, in 2420.

There is no expert in the world who would agree with your dream.

Did those experts predict 20 years ago that the US would be the largest oil producer in the world?

 

[PMZ]

Let's assume that your references have correctly assumed that oil is supply limited. People in America will pay whatever they have to to get what we need. We outbid China and India.

That means that we have 80 years or so to replace every car, truck, and plane with things that don't run on liquid fuel.

Let's assume that the majority of those things move to the electrical grid. That means in those years we are going to have to add to our electrical generation capability all of the energy that we now consume in liquid fuels as well as meeting the ever growing demand for current electric uses.

I think that we are already screwed.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

 

[PMZ]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Of course a good question is what do we need if we stop foolish waste.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

 

[westwall]

Todd,

have you noticed that folks don't often care to respond to your posts?

I read every one of them.. I don't respond because it only takes 1/10 of a Todd to refute a troll... And he's doing just fine tying up the troll and containing the forum damage..

A troll being someone who refuses to goose step.

Says the fucking goosestepper! Everything you guys want would have given Hitler a massive hard-on.

 

[PMZ]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit. Why not put combination windmill and solar concentrators on shallow ocean platforms around a molten salt tower.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit. Why not put combination windmill and solar concentrators on shallow ocean platforms around a molten salt tower.

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit.

But once they're there, they work 24/7.
We can build them on the Moon, plenty of aluminum and silicon there.

Of course we'd need to cut the idiotic welfare spending to afford it, the libs would never be on board.

 

[PMZ]

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit. Why not put combination windmill and solar concentrators on shallow ocean platforms around a molten salt tower.

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit.

But once they're there, they work 24/7.
We can build them on the Moon, plenty of aluminum and silicon there.

Of course we'd need to cut the idiotic welfare spending to afford it, the libs would never be on board.

It would take a long wire to reach the moon.

 

[westwall]

The alternative being?

Not wasting trillions on unreliable "green energy".
CO2, a tiny bit higher.
Temperatures 0.1 degrees warmer.

So, when fossil fuels are gone, or we can't adapt to the new climate, whichever comes first, what happens next?

Man has adapted to live in the Arctic and the Qattara Depression... you seriously think man can't adapt to pithy one degree of warmth? You're fucking stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Wireless energy transfer

 

[westwall]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Seriously? You would cover 5 million square kilometers of the Earth in this silliness? You too are a fucking loon. You complain about the footprint of a strip mine and you want to do orders of magnitude more.

Wow, just wow.

 

[PMZ]

Not wasting trillions on unreliable "green energy".
CO2, a tiny bit higher.
Temperatures 0.1 degrees warmer.

So, when fossil fuels are gone, or we can't adapt to the new climate, whichever comes first, what happens next?

Man has adapted to live in the Arctic and the Qattara Depression... you seriously think man can't adapt to pithy one degree of warmth? You're fucking stupid.

We can. What will it cost us?

It's always been envisioned that we could live on the moon or Mars, but nobody worried about the cost.

How much farmland would need to be relocated or how many coastal cities?

 

[westwall]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

Because these Luddites have no imagination that's why. They claim to be all sciency but they truly are locked in the 1890's. Laughable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit. Why not put combination windmill and solar concentrators on shallow ocean platforms around a molten salt tower.

Takes a lot of energy to put them in orbit.

But once they're there, they work 24/7.
We can build them on the Moon, plenty of aluminum and silicon there.

Of course we'd need to cut the idiotic welfare spending to afford it, the libs would never be on board.

It would take a long wire to reach the moon.

Since we'd put them in Earth orbit, the wire would be shorter.

 

[PMZ]

Solar alone(23,000twh/endless) you could cover 1% of the surface of this planet could run our civilization.

I'd put up around 500 gw of wind...This is sucking from 25-70twh.


http://i2.wp.com/cleantechnica.com/files/2011/08/energy-resources-renewables-fossil-fuel-uranium.png

We could use a mixture of wave, bio-mass, etc for the rest.

Why would you cover the planet when you can put them in orbit?

Because these Luddites have no imagination that's why. They claim to be all sciency but they truly are locked in the 1890's. Laughable.

Well, we know the problem and are imagining solutions. You can't even imagine that there is a problem.