Independence (Day) from fossil fuels

[Samson]

Who cares. CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you. It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.

Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.

Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.

Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.

Call me a liberal-thinker.

Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.

"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.

 

[toxicmedia]

Who cares. CO2 is not an enemy contrary to what the alarmists will tell you. It is an essential trace gas that the worlds plants need to grow.

It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at current consumption"?

Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat.

Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.

The US has allready reached peak gas consumption. That was reached in 2006. Since that time US consumption has been in decline. The alarmists never bother to mention that either.

I don't believe I called you a liberal either! I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts. As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place. More plants, more animals, bigger, etc. Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.


"Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?

Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.

At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.

Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.

Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."


U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future

Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?

Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.

I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.

 

[toxicmedia]

Well I care, and by golly, I want to make sure the USA doesn't use ANY coal.

Then I expect the price of coal to plumet, allowing China to import a cheap energy source to fuel its ecomomy.

Then I expect all the CO2 in China to remain there.

Call me a liberal-thinker.

Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.

"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

The real problem I have, and I'm not saying you're one of these people, is folks who hear somebody even utter the words C02, solar, or electric car, and imediatly launch off into "you're a liberal!" "there is plenty of oil and coal!!" "oil and coal don't really pollute!!!" "global warming is a hoax!!!!" "no need to even examine the subject!!!!!"

 

[Samson]

Wow....1997 just called and wants their worn out anti Kyoto talking points back.

"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

 

[toxicmedia]

"Worn Out?"

Gee, I didn't realise Common Sense had an Expiration Date.

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wonder if the conservatives realize that the U.S. only has @ 4% of the worlds oil resrves? You can only "drill baby drill" for so long. Why do they "cling" to oil at the expense of seeking out alternative sources?

How is that an argument against drilling for our own oil?

 

[Dot Com]

Samson's right!!! Coal is great!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Environmental_impacts

U.S. government scientists tested fish in 291 streams around the country for mercury contamination. They found mercury in every fish tested, according to the study by the U.S. Department of the Interior. They found mercury even in fish of isolated rural waterways. Twenty five percent of the fish tested had mercury levels above the safety levels determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for people who eat the fish regularly. The largest source of mercury contamination in the United States is coal-fueled power plant emissions

 

[westwall]

It's not just the controversial question of C02...did you notice the part of that coal to oil stat that stated "125 years worth at current consumption"?

Who on Earth thinks that current consumption will stay where it is?....it's that kind of stuff that makes me skeptical of the bias of the source for that stat.

Having said that...Claiming that C02 will never have a negative effect is just as bad as saying it definitly will. Being undecided on C02 doesn't make someone a liberal....and I'm not a liberal...but....automatically assuming that I am is one of the kinds of sloppy parrott behavior that those exposed to toxic media are exhibiting these days.

The US has allready reached peak gas consumption. That was reached in 2006. Since that time US consumption has been in decline. The alarmists never bother to mention that either.

I don't believe I called you a liberal either! I could care less what political affiliation someone is, all that matters is that they have all of the facts. As regards CO2 we have ample empirical evidence that when the planets CO2 concentrations were 20 times higher then they currently are that the world was a much better place. More plants, more animals, bigger, etc. Every bit of evidence we have says that it was a paradise when CO2 levels were significantly higher.


"Even if you may not have heard of the Peak Oil theory, everyone knows that we'll continue to use more and more gasoline in years to come. Right?

Well, errrrr, no. Maybe not.

At least, that's the conclusion of both industry analysts and the oil companies themselves. The peak year for U.S. gasoline consumption to date was 2006, when we collectively used 374 million gallons every single day.

Since then, a combination of factors--some temporary, like the recent recession, but others permanent--has cut demand and will continue to do so in future years. This year's use fell 8 percent from that 2006 figure.

Even with as many as 27 million more vehicles on the road in 10 years and a resumption of economic growth, says the experts, gasoline consumption will never again hit that 2006 high. In fact, 20 years hence, it may have fallen as much as 20 percent from today's levels."


U.S. Gasoline Usage Peaked In 2006, Will Plummet In Future

Humans weren't around when C02 levels were 20 times as high as they are now. According to UCLA scientists...the last time carbon dioxide levels were as high as they were in 2009 was 15 million years ago.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report / UCLA Newsroom

What's your source for the C02 20 times as high/paradise thing?

Also...there are many factors that go into the green car thing about consumption dropping off, which include alot of things Americans may not be willing to do if someone comes up with another 200 years worth of cheap coal gas for cars.

I apologize for thinking you were accusing me of being a liberal...which wouldn't be a bad thing anyways if I was.

Paleo records show how nice things were back then. Also many, many critters evolved back then that are abundant today. The ocean acidification fraud is the most recent attempt to frighten the savages. Corals (so we are told) won't be able to grow if the CO2 levels get too much higher. Well they EVOLVED when the CO2 levels were 20 times higher........they seem to thrive in a high CO2 environment. Experiments have been conducted with much higher levels of acidic water then will ever be found in the real world and the corals thrived, they actually grew BETTER then at the lower levels predicted.

 

[westwall]

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels. None. Cost wise they are also significantly higher. The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.

 

[Dot Com]

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels. None. Cost wise they are also significantly higher. The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.

If they're "so efficient" why do they need tax loop-holes

 

[westwall]

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels. None. Cost wise they are also significantly higher. The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.

If they're "so efficient" why do they need tax loop-holes

They don't. They get them because they have bought off the politicians involved. I am all in favour of ending subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies. So long as they get to drill here and no longer have to compete against government controlled oil companies like the vast majority of oil companies are.

 

[Moonglow]

the Air Force is starting to use non-edible aviation bio fuel.

Also in development by the military is liquid coal synthetic fuel

 

[chikenwing]

I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?

Try opening up those ears,cons have been blubbering about that for years.But when you cant hear the rest of the world over one's own shrillness,what do you expect.

 

[mike beev]

We have written history going back some 6,000 years; let's hope for and work toward our civilization lasting another 6,000. So, having a few hundred years on fossil fuels means that we will have to go to sustainable energy some day. We will not run out of either sunshine or wind, and you cannot say that for anything you have to dig out of the ground.

Being the Saudi Arabia of Coal is hardly a good thing when the pollution we put out using it is acidifying the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[mike beev]

I think we can agree on cutting subsidies and tax loopholes to ethanol producers and to fossil fuel producers. Growing industries have traditionally gotten gov't help in the past, and I would like to see solar roofs, solar farms and wind farms get some.

Our founding fathers had tarriffs on imported manufactured goods, remember from middle school history the South and North fighting over this one? Also, remember the huge land grants to the railroads building across the country.

 

[westwall]

We have written history going back some 6,000 years; let's hope for and work toward our civilization lasting another 6,000. So, having a few hundred years on fossil fuels means that we will have to go to sustainable energy some day. We will not run out of either sunshine or wind, and you cannot say that for anything you have to dig out of the ground.

Being the Saudi Arabia of Coal is hardly a good thing when the pollution we put out using it is acidifying the Atlantic Ocean.

Ocean acidification is the latest fraud perpetrated by trhe alarmist crowd in an effort to seperate you from your money. The ocean is alkaline at an average pH of 8.1. If you burned every thing on the planet capable of adding CO2 to the atmosphere the pH would drop to a paltry 8.0. In other words still alkaline. Even if you could get the pH level to drop below 7 it wouldn't matter. The corals that the alarmists are bleating about EVOLVED in a atmosphere with 20 TIMES the CO2 level we have today.

 

[Dot Com]

I notice how none of the conservative posters have addressed the national security issues associated w/ relying on importing oil from the Middle East. This action, by proxy, also enriches people like Wahabbist's in Saudi. Of course the Repubs have no problem w/ Islam?

Try opening up those ears,cons have been blubbering about that for years.But when you cant hear the rest of the world over one's own shrillness,what do you expect.

Like when Reagan came to office and promptly removed the solar panels? Where do conservatives stand now on seeking out alternatives to oil/coal? "Drill baby drill" ring a bell?

 

[chikenwing]

The thing is we don't havean available alternative energy source or sources,to meet demand,use what we have and work on the future ,it can be done at the same time,its not just one way or the other.We have a large amount of oil and gas in the US why we don't use them more is beyond reason.

 

[Samson]

I think you're just oversimplying. If the US developed cost effective green energy sources, the Chinese would follow suit. That old notion that the Chinese will be burning coal and gas no matter what happens isn't really all that sound.

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

You seem to be under the impression that a magic wand can make this mythical resource appear to instantaneously replace coal.

First, I'm not the one advancing YOUR ridiculous notions regarding the use of coal. If you're going to defend your absurdity, then YOU should be able to answer a few simple questions.

Second, I'm not sure which of your idiotic notions should be addressed:

1. A cheaper resource will be found while coal is a cheap resource
2. That the Chinese will automatically adopt this resource
3. That the cheaper resource could be utilized in exactly the same ways that coal can be used, with no by-product.

I'll simplify this for you: Just pick ONE.

 

[Samson]

Why?

Economically it makes perfect sense: If the US stopped using coal, then the price of coal would decline dramatically, encouraging developing nations to use more of it as a cheap source of energy.

Do you have anything to substantiate the notion that the Chinese, or anyone else, would "follow suit" if the US developed "cost effective green energy sources?"

Why would these energy sources remain "cost effective" as the price of coal declined?

What is a "cost effective energy source" that can be used to produce steel in China?

What I don't hear you figuring into the premises for these questions...is how the answers to them would be affected by the development of green/renewable energy sources that were more cost effective than oil or coal.

No green source of energy comes close to the efficiencies of fossil fuels. None. Cost wise they are also significantly higher. The only way green energy companies survive is by massive governmental support where they take our tax dollars and give it to them.

I wonder how much the Chinese spend on developing "green" energy?

Well, I'm certain that since the USA is doing it, then the Chinese are doing it also.