|
|
|
|
| [VN
Boards Archive] |
Welcome to the Vault Network
forum archive.
This is not a complete archive, time didn't allot us the
opportunity to properly backup the majority of the boards
deemed "expendable". Most boards on this list have at least
20-40 pages archived (non-logged in pages, 15 topics per
page).
Popular boards may have as many as 250 pages archived at 50
topics per page, while others deemed of historical
signifigance may be archived in their entirety.
We may not agree with how the board shutdown was managed, but
we've done what we could to preserve some of its history in
lieu of that.
Please enjoy the archive.
~
Managers, Moderators, VIP's, and regular posters.
|
| Author |
Topic: Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Eternal_Midnight
Posts:
19,580
Registered:
May 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,756
User ID: 24,262
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Seperating these two things is pointless, because they are inextricably linked together. Whatever path of energy generation you choose to do, your climate policy will follow, because how we create and use energy will lead to either a polluted or a clean environment.
Advocating for fossil fuels means you are advocating for dirty air, polluted water, and blighted landscaped. You cannot extract and burn fossil fuels without polluting the environment at every step of the process.
Extracting fossil fuels is costly, and will only become more costly over time and resources become harder to extract. It also damages landscapes: strip mining coal, fracking natural gas wells, levelling mountaintops for resources. It also costs more over time in myriad ways, from long-term health effects, to higher costs for fuel, to unpredictable climate change.
Advocating for renewable energy will naturally lead to a clean environment. There is no resource to extract once a renewable power source is installed... it just happens over time, for free. Why pay for something that nature already does for us?  Because there is no resource extraction, there is no fuel, and no pollution at any step, except when creating the solar panel or wind turbine, for example.
There is also minimal costs over time, to maintain the equipment. There are no associated fuel costs to run the generator. There are minimal health effects due to operation of RE power sources.
Which do you want, then? Costly fossil fuel extraction, paying increasingly higher costs (both monetary and environmental) for continued use, and a degraded, dirty landscape that is unhealthy to live in, or a clean, cheap, easy to maintain system that doesn't damage the environment?
___________
Perhaps you don't care about the environment. Who gives a crap, right? Most of us posting here will be dead before climate change, as forcasted, gets really bad. Unless they find out how to make us live for a thousand years in that time.
That's fine. Maybe you care about democratic, free market ideals, though? Supporting a fossil fuel-powered economy means you support centralized, monopolistic generators that have vested interests in ensuring you use more and more energy. The more energy you use, the more money they make. This has been the method of energy generation for most of the world for 150 years and more. It's understandable why you would believe this to be the best method, because it's the only one you've ever known.
But there is now another way, in which you, yourself, are a power producer and you earn money from your house because it actually generates more power than it uses. This creates a positive feedback, where you are encouraged to save energy through efficiency and conservation. The more energy you save, the more money you make. This is possible now; there are jurisdictions that have already done it.
Germany generates almost 20% of it's total power usage from renewable sources, primarily solar. They are on track for at least 35% by 2020, eight short years from now. This will drive their GHG emissions well below 1990 levels. You know Germany, right? The saviour of Europe, the last, most sturdy partner in the Eurozone, with it's massive economy?
But you believe in the free market. You don't support any kind of government support for RE, because it has to stand on it's own first! (Even though fossil fuels are subsidized at a rate of 10 times that of RE.)
Not to worry. A simple feed-in tariff requires no government subsidy whatsoever. Indeed, in locations where subsidies were involved, it actually hampered the functioning of the marketplace, restricting it's growth and burdening the government with debts. The cost of the tariff is borne by every electricity user. In Germany, this has added approximately 50 Euros a year to the cost of their electricity bills, or approximately one cent per kilowatt-hour.
-----signature-----
We have not inherited the Earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.
|
|
Link to this post
|
paulg_68
Posts:
30,961
Registered:
Jul 27, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 30,669
User ID: 1,364,918
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Ambulances run on fossil fuels. When kids get run over by Hummers they are taken to the hospital in ambulances.
Without fossil fuels, those kids would die.
Why do you hate children?
-----signature-----
If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc "Everyone has a chance to become rich." - Groucho48 "Most of the human wealth on earth exists between the ears of live human beings." - theredkay1
|
|
Link to this post
|
__Bonk__
Posts:
53,947
Registered:
Jul 25, '09
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 53,339
User ID: 1,364,654
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
No its not. Energy is the fuel that runs modern civilization. Its not liberals jobs to manage the climate. They cant even manage the country and the economy let alone the climate
Talk about delusions of godhood
-----signature-----
I keep my eyes fixed on the sun!
A change in feeling is a change in destiny.
|
|
Link to this post
|
NuEM
Posts:
15,394
Registered:
Mar 2, '04
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 13,662
User ID: 900,449
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Germany is moving itself into a dangerous position. Renewable energy is all fine and dandy, until the wind stops blowing and clouds cover the sun, while you need lots of power. Or when the wind is blowing strongly while you don't actually need that much energy.
Also in Germany most of the renewable energy is produced in the north, while it's actually needed in the south. The grid infrastructure that is needed to get an ever increasing amount of energy from the north to the south simply isn't there.
And finally, now that we decided to get rid of all nuclear energy in Germany after 3 people died in an accident in Japan, we may soon lose the ability to provide the necessary base load into the grid, and are dependent on importing energy from neighboring countries (mostly nuclear, ironically) and occasionally exporting energy at a negative price.
To fix this we need to do two (very expensive of course) things:
1) Expand and update the electrical grid.
2) Create massive amounts of storage capability for electric energy.
That will cost billions, and the latter may actually be physically impossible.
Both of these are constantly being stalled by the same eco-dumbasses who got us into this in the first place, the Greens, the NIMBYs and other enviro-whackos. They want wind energy, but please put the wind mills someplace else. Nuclear energy is evil, but we can't build that new pumped storage power station because some trees would die. They want to get us off fossil energy, but ZOMG don't build power lines near our house because it's ugly and gives us teh cancer!
People here are short sighted heart bleeding idiots who will end up getting us all killed, but at least they will die sitting on the high horse.
-----signature-----
|
|
Link to this post
|
Brother_Tempus
Title: Patriot
Posts:
48,624
Registered:
Jan 9, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 48,310
User ID: 61,868
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Eternal_Midnight posted:
Seperating these two things is pointless, because they are inextricably linked together. Whatever path of energy generation you choose to do, your climate policy will follow, because how we create and use energy will lead to either a polluted or a clean environment.
The problem with that is government does not have the authority to set either items as policy
Eternal_Midnight posted:
Advocating for fossil fuels means you are advocating for dirty air, polluted water, and blighted landscaped. You cannot extract and burn fossil fuels without polluting the environment at every step of the process.
All fuel sources come with a price to the economy and the environment, that's why you must let the market choose freely what is the best not government pushing policies based on political donations and flawed ideological points-of-view
Eternal_Midnight posted:
Extracting fossil fuels is costly,
Not as costly as solar, wind, geo-thermal and alternative fuels .. hence the reason we are still using them.
Eternal_Midnight posted:
Advocating for renewable energy will naturally lead to a clean environment.
Nothing wrong with avocation it when you cross the line an immorally impose it upon people without their consent is when it becomes a problem
[quote=Eternal_Midnight There is no resource to extract once a renewable power source is installed.[/quote]
Well there are the materials that must be extracted , refined and processed that build the infrastructure for the energy system .. those are not free or clean
-----signature-----
You win ACF, dude - Osmenthe
BT is usually right - Onslaught
i think we need more BT on page 1 - FighterUSAF
Yep, BT is right - Aerlinthian
Got guns & ammo? Food? Precious metals?
|
|
Link to this post
|
Clackdor
Posts:
14,305
Registered:
Sep 21, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,860
User ID: 407,233
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
|
I had forgotten how stupid EM was, then I read this post.
-----signature-----
If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.
|
|
Link to this post
|
ZigmundZag
Title: Grammar Nazi
Posts:
25,948
Registered:
Mar 25, '02
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 22,707
User ID: 661,552
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
|
If you mean they're equivalent in that the US has neither, you are correct.
-----signature-----
"Take the cheese to sickbay!"
|
|
Link to this post
|
Tych2
Title: Obama Appointed Outpost Czar
Posts:
40,411
Registered:
Mar 1, '05
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 33,378
User ID: 1,032,223
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
|
I won't support anything that raises my bill again. I pay too much as it is.
-----signature-----
We have enough youth. What we need is a fountain of smart.
Drill Anwar!
Kapie
Drevid in Tanks
|
|
Link to this post
|
BubbleDude
Title: Perma-N00b
Posts:
16,792
Registered:
Feb 27, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 14,490
User ID: 774,875
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
I've got a pile of old tires out back that I burn for heat. Once in a while I'll go out and hack down some old-growth redwoods, but I only take the tops of them because I can only fit the top four feet into the car. The rest I just leave there.
-----signature-----
"It's much easier to just bitch on the internet than actually do something." - Altra_Shadowstalker
It probably came here in the first place because it did a search for "pedo forum." - Yukishiro
|
|
Link to this post
|
_Enkidu_
Title: Zen Badger
Posts:
11,159
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,462
User ID: 572,873
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
The OP is right about the two being connected, but who do you expect to change the policy? In a democracy, politicians do what those who got them elected want. There is very little money in renewables because there is no ongoing need for fuel. Wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, and hydro power have no fuel costs. After you build the power unit, you basically get free power. If we received all our energy from renewable sources, your energy bills would be about 1/4 what they are now. People don't see it, though. Too much interference being run by those who have money.
Fossil fuels on the other hand create piles of cash and create thousands of jobs just to produce the fuel needed to run them. All of which leads to political influence. So, fossil fuels will continue to be used until they are gone and our climate policy will be dictated by reacting and addressing those changes it creates instead of stopping the changes in the first place.
You get what you want, folks. 
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
|
Link to this post
|
Eternal_Midnight
Posts:
19,580
Registered:
May 11, '00
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 15,756
User ID: 24,262
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
@ BT: You of all people should support renewables. Aren't you the one that rails against government intervention, and the perils of allowing others to have control over your own finances and life, etc? A power grid based on RE would involve thousands, millions of individual power producers.
Furthermore, pretty much every non-renewable fuel source is heavily subsidized by the government, so why then must RE be forced to compete on the same level with 10x less funding?? Don't you support the free market? For RE to actually compete on the same level, one of several things would have to happen: remove government subsidies for non-renewables; add subsidies for RE; implement some kind of carbon tax; implement some form of feed-in tariff.
Of those options, the feed-in tariff requires no government money whatsoever except to create the system and enforce it. The increased costs paid out for renewables is borne by the utility companies, who then pass on the costs to the consumer. Ideally, you would couple a FIT with the implementation of smart metering and time-of-use pricing (rather than pricing by volume of energy used).
Aren't all those things you support in some form? Decentralized, market-based, clean energy that encourages innovation as a means to further improve profit margins. Innovation can come in two forms: improving the technology itself, and also improving efficiencies of devices using energy. All of this innovation and investment, generated by the market itself, can only lead to one things: jobs.
Right?
___
@NuEM: It has been shown through real-world, though admittedly smaller scale modelling that communities on the scale of several thousands can exist purely on wind and solar. I don't think it needs to be restricted solely to those two technologies. A robust, resiliant energy grid needs a lot of different options. Biofuels have a place, but it should be minimal - we will need most of the shrinking arable land for food production.
I personally support nuclear power as a kind of stopgap, medium-term solution. Nuclear power generation is safe (with the exception of 9.0 earthquakes and huge tsunamis...) and the actual 'burning' of the fuel doesn't produce any emissions. There are problems with the disposal of the nuclear waste, of which we have not yet found an adequate solution. But nuclear power could feed us for hundreds of years, on current, proven reserves.
In the longer term, nuclear power should be phased out, on the 50-100 year scale. I really believe in the decentralized model that renewables offer, and I can't see any downside to the consumers of power also being the producers of power.
In Ontario, which has a FIT very similar to Germany, we have also experienced problems with expansion of the transmission grid, with a lot of power producers coming online, but lacking the infrastructure to take the power to the people. This is natural, as the paradigm shifts to decentralization. Ontario has had a love affair with power mega-projects for over a century, and now suddenly thousands of small scale producers are coming on to the grid, and it takes time to reorient the system to handle the new loads.
We are fortunate, in that over 50% of our baseload comes from nuclear, and we will phase out the last coal plants in 2 years.
As for storage, I think there is tantilizing potential in Electric Vehicles not named Volt, which again supports a decentralized, distributed model for power.
-----signature-----
We have not inherited the Earth from our parents, we have borrowed it from our children.
|
|
Link to this post
|
Elkad
Title: aka Ebenezer
Posts:
8,058
Registered:
Sep 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,478
User ID: 837,586
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Fossil. Dirty and cheap.
Renewable. Clean and expensive.
Once again no mention of nuclear. Clean and cheap.
-----signature-----
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Link to this post
|
_Enkidu_
Title: Zen Badger
Posts:
11,159
Registered:
Dec 24, '01
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 10,462
User ID: 572,873
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Nuclear fission reactors are very expensive to build and operate, don't kid yourself.
Now nuclear fusion on the otherhand... 
-----signature-----
(( )) ......Portrait
o.O ..........of
|||| ....Muhammad
|
|
Link to this post
|
Elkad
Title: aka Ebenezer
Posts:
8,058
Registered:
Sep 11, '03
Extended Info (if available)
Real Post Cnt: 7,478
User ID: 837,586
|
Subject:
Energy Policy == Climate Policy
|
Expensive? Not really.
Sure, the plant costs a bit more than a gas turbine. But fuel is under a penny/kwh for conventional uranium plants.
A more modern design (Thorium Salt, etc) can actually generate more fuel than it uses. So fuel is free, leaving only maintenance.
-----signature-----
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Link to this post
|
|
|
| © 2012. All
Rights Reserved. |
|
|
|
|
