Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Here's the Reality We Face

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 07:15 PM
Original message
Here's the Reality We Face


The trend doesn't look very good. Obviously, we have a lot of work to do if we want to get serious about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sasha031 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. with all the new drilling that was announced this weekend
well it made me discouraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. The reality is we will never get off fossil fuels without
a new energy technology emerging.

What we need to do is to use our energy sources wisely until that happens

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. That isn't true. Existing renewable technologies are completely capable of doing the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Really?
I'm rsther skeptical of that claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eqfan592 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. It's not the capabilities of the existing tech that's the problem...
...it's the willingness to actually push forward and implement them, which is something our government currently doesn't have on a large scale.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
3. Anyone compute the effect in job creation.
And energy creation if every house had solar or wind power on the roof, and if there were wind/solar farms on much of the unused areas of the ocean?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Energy made locally, wind farms and turbines generate $$ for local economies not just power.
Edited on Sun May-15-11 07:50 PM by Fledermaus
Costs and Economic Impacts:

Will Cedar Ridge Wind Farm help the economy in Eden and Empire or Fond du Lac County?
“Shared Revenue” payments are made each year to the city, village, or township and the county in which the facility is located. We estimate that the Shared Revenue payment from Cedar Ridge Wind Farm could generate as much as $400,000 per year.

Per Wisconsin law, shared revenue would be divided in the following way: one-third of the money would go to the towns of Eden and Empire, and two-thirds to Fond du Lac County.

There are also anticipated increased revenues to local businesses (hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc.) during the construction phase of the project.

http://www.alliantenergy.com/Extras/015392
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yikes !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. A daunting task.
What's the source of the graphic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Wikipedia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-15-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. We're getting more dependent on fossils with each passing year - disgusting
Fossil usage is growing way faster than any other source. We need to step up the pace of renewable energy growth. And I mean yesterday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
10. That's why we need to start with a drive for conservation...
...while going ahead full bore on a Manhattan-project-style effort to bring renewables online.

When we put our minds to it, we can do it.

Right now fossil fuels have a stranglehold on policy makers (cough / $$$ / cough). Once that is taken care of the rest will fall into place. If we want it to.

Just because of where we are NOW, does not mean that's where we must be 5 years from now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Throckmorton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. I have felt for a long time that the course is unsustainable.
Even with large scale investment in renewables, our energy hungry species may just not be able to sustain this course for much longer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
12. It's almost enough to make one realize...
...that "renewables" are a fucking joke.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Of course they're a joke...
Edited on Mon May-16-11 10:55 AM by GliderGuider
... at least to anyone whose paycheck doesn't depend on them. Unfortunately the impact of fossil fuels on the planet turns it into a bit of a macabre joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Actually...

what is a joke, is the USA and Canada's efforts in abiding Kyoto and reducing dependency on non-renewables. Can somebody post an similar chart for a country that isn't imploding from corruption and greed and a bunch of useless wars, pls?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Sure. No problem.
Can somebody post an similar chart for a country that isn't imploding from corruption and greed and a bunch of useless wars, pls?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Ouch!
That kind of drives the point home, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. How many tens of millions of lives would have been saved...
...if the rest of the world had been as far-sighted as the French?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. No, I can't go there. The point that was driven home for me was this:
Edited on Tue May-17-11 04:13 PM by GliderGuider
The French are just as locked into an unsustainable electricity system as the USA is. Neither country is going to be able to unseat their dominant energy source quickly or easily.

FWIW, I've concluded that the system fragility risks (the "system" of civilization, that is) posed by nuclear power are every bit as dangerous as those posed by fossil fuels. The threats from each are different, but both pose a clear and present danger to the continuation of modern industrial civilization.

While threats to civilization don't bother me too much (this one is just about worn out and needs replacing) I'd just as soon not make matters worse by relying on large, centralized, technically baroque, polluting energy sources - and all those descriptors apply to both fossil fuels and nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CJvR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Sweden...
...scrapped fossile in favor of nuclear power. It should be added though that the chart only shows electrical power generation, the transport (road) sector is naturally oil dependent.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. Hahaha

I deduce you're from the USA so you probably don't watch very much world news but uh... France fails on the corruption and greed criteria by kilometers (oh wait right, miles). Try again. Peut-etre apres le manifestation?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. And Sweden too?
By this standard of "greed and corruption" is there a country left to compare?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpoonFed Donating Member (801 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Oh wait
I just explained the massive investment in nuclear power, didn't I?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
13. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
14thColony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-16-11 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. We're building ourselves an ever higher cliff of red
That we're going to go hurtling over when those limitless fossil reserves finally run out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. Here's a look at the world picture


Over the 40 years or so:

- The share of fossil fuels has remained approximately constant, with natural gas replacing oil.
- The development of nuclear power has outpaced hydro.
- "Other" has increased its share from 0.7% to 2.6%.

Renewables amount to a rounding error in our fossil fuel use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Yes but...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yay! Dueling graphs...
I'm happy to wait until the price translates into serious volume. It doesn't matter how little it costs - until it starts actually displacing nukes and FF it's just wind...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. There is no conflict so I'm not sure what you mean by "dueling"
Wind and solar ARE starting to replace f&ff (fission and fossil fuels). You do realize that the goal of the IPCC and other planners is to build the manufacturing infrastructure for renewables by meeting new demand until about 2030; by then the expectation is that we can start phasing out existing fossil fuel generation that is otherwise still economically viable.

The price trends are a bit more favorable than has been predicted to make that timeline possible.

BTW, the same pattern is what the nuclear industry claims for their tech. Due to the need to build up a supporting infrastructure and workforce as well as the time required to plan and build, they do not think they could do much more than maybe tread water (re global capacity) for at least 15 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. By "meet new demand"
Do you mean that until 2030 we'll be stuck using the same amount of coal and gas as we do today? For the next 20 years? That we'll be emitting 30 gigatonnes of CO2 every year for 20 years until we see any relief? That's an extremely uncomfortable thought, but if it's the best you guys can do, I guess we'll have to live with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. We could do better if people would stop screwing around trying to win market share.
Edited on Tue May-17-11 05:42 PM by kristopher
The f&ff/utility lobby is what is controlling the pace of change, not technology. We could be almost completely off fossil fuels by 2030 if we were willing to strip property rights from owners of current generating assets and fuel resources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. So all we have to do is strip property rights?
Edited on Tue May-17-11 06:20 PM by FBaggins
Tell me again how power generation is NOT a quasi-governmental role. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-17-11 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. I saw hydro, solar, and wind projects this weekend
Not a fan of any of them, especially the LADWP projects in Owens.

The Avenal project and whatever they're doing in Merced rounded out the tour de suck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC