U.S. Embassy Bagdhad is under attack

[Broncojohnny]

I'm sure the parliament is full of Shiite shitbags. They'd love to hand the country to Iran.

[Strychnine]

On the original topic:

[Strychnine]

This is exactly right. For all the bullshit you see about electric cars no one is projecting a decrease in the usage of oil, the only thing up for debate is the increase in the growth rate of usage.

This is the big point.
Renewables will take most of the marginal growth (outside of China and other fast developers) and slowly chip away at the bulk, especially when looking at the power grid. It will still take decades for electricity have a majority share of transportation (just 1% of the 1 billion vehicles globally). One recent prediction was that 30% of new car sales in 2030 might be EV, but that doesn't address the existing fleet. Global energy needs will grow every year, and the fossil baseload will be steady for decades (and this is without even considering petrochemical needs).


Also, remember that the real push against fossil fuels is to drive carbon reduction. The European Environmental Bureau published a study earlier this year basically saying that plans like the Green New Deal just can not work because economic growth and carbon emissions can't be decoupled. Seems like with the current system, to hit these huge carbon reduction goals, someone's going to have to put their ass on the line and say, "Sorry, all this prosperity and growth has to stop."

Good luck getting that to happen.


Full 80 page paper here: https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/, but here's a short summary:

There are at least seven reasons to be sceptical about the occurrence of sufficient decoupling in the future. Each of them taken individually casts doubt on the possibility for sufficient decoupling and, thus, the feasibility of “green growth.” Considered all together, the hypothesis that decoupling will allow economic growth to continue without a rise in environmental pressures appears highly compromised, if not clearly unrealistic.


1 Rising energy expenditures.
When extracting a resource, cheaper options are generally used first, the extraction of remaining stocks then becoming a more resource- and energy-intensive process resulting in an increase in total environmental degradation per unit of resource extracted.

2 Rebound effects.
Efficiency improvements are often partly or totally compensated by a reallocation of saved resources and money to either more of the same consumption (e.g. using a fuel-efficient car more often), or other impactful consumptions (e.g. buying plane tickets for remote holidays with the money saved from fuel economies). It can also generate structural changes in the economy that induce higher consumption (e.g. more fuel-efficient cars reinforce a car-based transport system at the expense of greener alternatives, such as public transport and cycling).

3 Problem shifting.
Technological solutions to one environmental problem can create new ones and/or exacerbate others. For example, the production of private electric vehicles puts pressure on lithium, copper, and cobalt resources; the production of biofuel raises concerns about land use; while nuclear power generation produces nuclear risks and logistic concerns regarding nuclear waste disposal.

4 The underestimated impact of services.
The service economy can only exist on top of the material economy, not instead of it. Services have a significant footprint that often adds to, rather than substitute, that of goods.

5 Limited potential of recycling.
Recycling rates are currently low and only slowly increasing, and recycling processes generally still require a significant amount of energy and virgin raw materials. Most importantly, recycling is strictly limited in its ability to provide resources for an expanding material economy.

6 Insufficient and inappropriate technological change.
Technological progress is not targeting the factors of production that matter for ecological sustainability and not leading to the type of innovations that reduce environmental pressures; it is not disruptive enough as it fails to displace other undesirable technologies; and it is not in itself fast enough to enable a sufficient decoupling.

7 Cost shifting.
What has been observed and termed as decoupling in some local cases was generally only apparent decoupling resulting mostly from an externalisation of environmental impact from high-consumption to low-consumption countries enabled by international trade. Accounting on a footprint basis reveals a much less optimistic picture and casts further doubt on the possibility of a consistent decoupling in the future.

[svauto-erotic855]

Your timeline is way too short, you're only looking at the end of the year?



Again, that's right now. That's not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Fossil fuels have been in use in our industrialized civilization for well over 100 years. Their heyday is most definitely over. Look at all the coal plants that were shut down, those businesses gone under. Their stated reason? They aren't selling enough.



Well at this point it's pretty clear you don't really follow this stuff. But I'll just leave this here. And I'll try to preempt what you'll say, by asking you to please look at more than 1 year's time. While simultaneously considering that these technologies are most definitely not going to remain in the exact same state they are in right this minute. 10 years from now, they'll be much farther along. 20 years from now, they'll be a lot farther than that.

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/35-stran-stroyat-samyj-bolshoj-v-mire-termoyadernyj-reaktor-zachem-eto-nuzhno-foto/

I don't think they mention it there but the working time is increasing. The ratio is something like 50Mw in, 500Mw comes out. They've been able to have that work for... I forget but you can easily search and find out exactly. It was something like 4 min, then 16 min, then later 1 hr, then later still 4 hours. Do you really think they're just going to stop? Be realistic man: They all want this so bad they can taste it, and that run time is just going to keep increasing and increasing, until it stays on all the time. When that finally does happen, the rigs are going to stop drilling.

I mean even if you don't want to talk about fusion because "It took too long!!!" Then you've still got thorium, and the germans taking it up the ass from their government, which resulted in that massive price drop we saw in solar. (years ago) If solar drops yet another 10x... that's it. It's over, everyone (when building new) is going to install that system for roughly the same price as a new Hvac, and then not have to pay an electric bill and not have to worry nearly as much about power outages. I would mention ol Elon and how he'll come up with a better battery, but we know how much you hate that guy.


Again, I'm not talking about something that will happen this year, or 5 years from now. I'm just saying the chapter is closing. That's pretty evident if you just look at what's going on.

The time line for food production I gave is correct. Without fossil fuels this years crop will not get planted in the northern hemisphere and not harvested in the southern. By late summer of this year more than half of the world's population would have died and by this time next year about 80 percent of the world's population would have starved.

Coal plants closed and gas fired plants opened up. FYI, natural gas is still considered a fossil fuel. Gas is replacing coal in the US because it is cheaper. Wind and solar power are barely a blip of energy production even in the countries with the most production of it. That is very clear once you take a look at their hard data and not the manipulated data they put out to look good. We will never see a decrease in oil and gas consumption until the last of it is gone. Believing otherwise is pure fantasy.

The last nuclear plant built in the US was completed in 1990 and started production in 1996. It took 17 years to build. If you think that young people hate fossil fuels you should just see how much they hate nuclear power.

I have been listening to people talking like you are since the early 90s; they were completely wrong then just like you are wrong now. Exxon was even talking like you are and they spent 90,000,000,000 dollars trying to come up with a replacement for using fossil fuels under the theory that they are an energy company and not an oil company. Hard reality showed them that the only real practical energy is fossil fuels. I never hear a single person mention what Exxon tried to do and their research simply got swept under the rug because it (I like stealing this line) it showed "An Inconvenient Truth".

[Trip McNeely]

We wont run out of it, but like everything else the left wingers get their hands on, they will tax it out of existence or make it a pain in the ass to consume. That's what happens and will continue to happen if they get more power.

[bubbaearl]

there will always be a need for crude oil . it may decrease some but the need for it will still be there .

[Gasser64]

by the end of the year

Your timeline is way too short, you're only looking at the end of the year?

if fossil fuels disappeared today

Again, that's right now. That's not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Fossil fuels have been in use in our industrialized civilization for well over 100 years. Their heyday is most definitely over. Look at all the coal plants that were shut down, those businesses gone under. Their stated reason? They aren't selling enough.

... nothing even on the drawing board ...

Well at this point it's pretty clear you don't really follow this stuff. But I'll just leave this here. And I'll try to preempt what you'll say, by asking you to please look at more than 1 year's time. While simultaneously considering that these technologies are most definitely not going to remain in the exact same state they are in right this minute. 10 years from now, they'll be much farther along. 20 years from now, they'll be a lot farther than that.

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/35-stran-stroyat-samyj-bolshoj-v-mire-termoyadernyj-reaktor-zachem-eto-nuzhno-foto/

I don't think they mention it there but the working time is increasing. The ratio is something like 50Mw in, 500Mw comes out. They've been able to have that work for... I forget but you can easily search and find out exactly. It was something like 4 min, then 16 min, then later 1 hr, then later still 4 hours. Do you really think they're just going to stop? Be realistic man: They all want this so bad they can taste it, and that run time is just going to keep increasing and increasing, until it stays on all the time. When that finally does happen, the rigs are going to stop drilling.

I mean even if you don't want to talk about fusion because "It took too long!!!" Then you've still got thorium, and the germans taking it up the ass from their government, which resulted in that massive price drop we saw in solar. (years ago) If solar drops yet another 10x... that's it. It's over, everyone (when building new) is going to install that system for roughly the same price as a new Hvac, and then not have to pay an electric bill and not have to worry nearly as much about power outages. I would mention ol Elon and how he'll come up with a better battery, but we know how much you hate that guy.


Again, I'm not talking about something that will happen this year, or 5 years from now. I'm just saying the chapter is closing. That's pretty evident if you just look at what's going on.

[Broncojohnny]

It doesn't matter if they think that fossil fuels are evil; none of them are willing to starve to death and without fossil fuels that is exactly what would happen to nearly 80 percent of the worlds population by the end of the year if fossil fuels disappeared today. Their heyday is far from over and there is absolutely nothing even on the drawing board to replace them with.

This is exactly right. For all the bullshit you see about electric cars no one is projecting a decrease in the usage of oil, the only thing up for debate is the increase in the growth rate of usage.

[svauto-erotic855]

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a metic shit ton of people out there who have all been conditioned (for decades) to think that fossil fuels are evil. This whole green indoctrination thing was being taught to me in grade school, and it's only ramping up just like everything else. Some of you guys are waaay behind times I know, but just look at the political winds. I know you think we'll be using them forever, (for some reason) but their heyday is definitely over. Nothing ever stays the same man. And we're entering an era of very rapid change, more rapid than you've ever seen or even thought possible. That 1990's rate of progression that you're used to went away a long time ago, and it's never coming back.

It doesn't matter if they think that fossil fuels are evil; none of them are willing to starve to death and without fossil fuels that is exactly what would happen to nearly 80 percent of the worlds population by the end of the year if fossil fuels disappeared today. Their heyday is far from over and there is absolutely nothing even on the drawing board to replace them with.

[Gasser64]

If you think we're going to use less fossil fuels as time progresses your nuts.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a metic shit ton of people out there who have all been conditioned (for decades) to think that fossil fuels are evil. This whole green indoctrination thing was being taught to me in grade school, and it's only ramping up just like everything else. Some of you guys are waaay behind times I know, but just look at the political winds. I know you think we'll be using them forever, (for some reason) but their heyday is definitely over. Nothing ever stays the same man. And we're entering an era of very rapid change, more rapid than you've ever seen or even thought possible. That 1990's rate of progression that you're used to went away a long time ago, and it's never coming back.

[The King]

You have to remember that Saddam was our boy until he asked permission from us to invade Kuwait and when we didn't reply he took that as permission to do it. It's sort of sad that we used the man (who was extremely loyal to the US) the way that we did and once we were done cast him aside. In the end though he has had the last laugh because his fall from power has caused us more problems than he could have ever caused even if he wanted to.

Same manner in which Jimmy Carter threw the Shah under the bus, ultimately giving us the Iran we have today. Good times though when Iraq and Iran duked it out for most of the 1980’s, especially when the Iranians used human wave attacks in desperation. Another failure was given to us by Obama, who took out Colonel Khadafi and gave us the Libyan mess today. Khadafi was doing nothing to us, and had renounced his old terrorist ways and quest for nuclear weapons long beforehand. Obama just had to stick his nose into it though as part of his BS Arab Spring campaign, which of course was a total failure everywhere it was pushed.

[svauto-erotic855]

If you think we're going to use less fossil fuels as time progresses your nuts. We're going to use more every single year until there is no more of it.

People in that part of the world were batshit crazy before Islam came along. Basically they're defective and need to be eliminated. If we can profit off of them in the meantime then all the better.

[Gasser64]

They were terrified under Ol Sadaam, he would kill someone, their entire family, and everyone they've ever met in their entire life if they stepped out of line.

Part of why those people are crazy is because they have been marrying their first cousins for the past 1600 years, the inbreeding has resulted in some unusual behavior. Throw a fucked-up religion into that mix and it gets even stranger.

... his fall from power has caused us more problems than he could have ever caused even if he wanted to.There are squalid shithole countries all over the world and nothing that happens in them matters to anyone.

You just listed several reasons that further my point. They're nutty by our standards. That religion they seem to love so much, is why they want a boot on their necks. Well good for them I guess, let their have their boot. If they really got fed up, they'd throw him out and institute "freedom". Revolutions happen. But they're clearly not interested, and I don't really see it as our responsibility (or our right) to force it on them.

In the end they're just going to get a fake democracy that is pretty close to what they had under sadaam. As our consumption of fossil fuels just dips lower and lower over the coming decades, like you said we'll care what happens there less and less. As long as no actual WMD's happen, nobody cares. And they shouldn't, they should be left to set up the government that best suits them. Dictatorship is really all they've ever known and it seems like it's what they want.

[svauto-erotic855]

So by god they needed our invading army, right? I'm with Ron Paul on this one. We never should've been there.

There are squalid shithole countries all over the world and nothing that happens in them matters to anyone. That was the case with the Middle East until we discovered oil there. If they didn't have oil no one would care about anything that happens there but the oil is there and until it's gone the world will have to deal with these inbred religious fanatics.

[svauto-erotic855]

That's the easy explanation, and sometimes it's true. Sometimes. But you still have to ask, what made them crazy? They seemed perfectly happy under ol sadaam.

They were terrified under Ol Sadaam, he would kill someone, their entire family, and everyone they've ever met in their entire life if they stepped out of line.

Part of why those people are crazy is because they have been marrying their first cousins for the past 1600 years, the inbreeding has resulted in some unusual behavior. Throw a fucked-up religion into that mix and it gets even stranger.

Look at how Tito kept order in Yugoslavia and what happened after he died.

Edit: You have to remember that Saddam was our boy until he asked permission from us to invade Kuwait and when we didn't reply he took that as permission to do it. It's sort of sad that we used the man (who was extremely loyal to the US) the way that we did and once we were done cast him aside. In the end though he has had the last laugh because his fall from power has caused us more problems than he could have ever caused even if he wanted to.