|
|
Post by ratty on May 30, 2022 4:52:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 30, 2022 5:42:08 GMT
So be careful what you say because should the world start cooling and CO2 emission prices fall to a negative value you may end up in the proverbial.
Just be an unquantitative pleased.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on May 30, 2022 11:43:19 GMT
So be careful what you say because should the world start cooling and CO2 emission prices fall to a negative value you may end up in the proverbial. Just be an unquantitative pleased. Can you short a carbon credit?  |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on May 30, 2022 21:02:11 GMT
you mean ENRON sort of.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jun 12, 2022 19:51:19 GMT
Not sure if this has been posted before:
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 13, 2022 5:04:21 GMT
Not sure if this has been posted before: I think that fossil fuels being finite in quantity is a very sobering fact. We are probably burning through earth's stock at a very fast rate, certainly in geologic time. |
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jun 13, 2022 7:35:19 GMT
[ Snip ] I think that fossil fuels being finite in quantity is a very sobering fact. We are probably burning through earth's stock at a very fast rate, certainly in geologic time. Agree but there is still plenty in reserve while a genuine replacement for fossil fuels is found. Known reserves are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. IMNSHO, the best solution is still nuclear but some minds will need to be changed. |
|
|
|
Post by gridley on Jun 13, 2022 12:12:44 GMT
Minor rant: one difficulty is that people keep mixing up the uses of "fossil fuels".
There are, fundamentally, three entirely different things we do with "fossil fuels": 1. We burn them for primary power generation. 2. We burn them for fuel. 3. We use them for industrial processing in ways OTHER than burning them.
Use #1 is still a major consumer of coal in the US, and of course elsewhere in the world (hi China!). This is a place where nuclear power can indeed take all the load easily, and if we started reprocessing fuel could keep us going for a LONG time. More than enough to figure out fusion. We solved this problem in the 1960's... we just haven't implemented it yet.
Use #2 is primarily oil at this point. The electric vehicle fad has some serious limitations with no technological fixes in sight. Absent some sort of breakthrough (probably more than one, actually) the only promising alternative is hydrogen fuel cells... which need some major work to be economical and some non-trivial work to be viable overall. The good news is that there's a lot more oil out there than the peak oil doomsayers want to admit, and modern engines are quite efficient and could be more efficient if we could chuck the "CO2 is poison" nonsense.
Use #3 is, however, the real kicker. Everything from lubricants to fertilizer to most plastics... I don't even claim to know the whole list. Completely cut off fossil fuels and the industrial world dies. The amount you need for a given product may be tiny, but often there ISN'T an alternative. For those things where there is an alternative the economic consequences are often massive. People tend to forget the problem of scale; something that works in a lab often DOESN'T work when you try to scale it up to a production line.
|
|
|
|
Post by nemesis on Jun 13, 2022 12:30:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by youngjasper on Jun 13, 2022 13:59:44 GMT
[ Snip ] I think that fossil fuels being finite in quantity is a very sobering fact. We are probably burning through earth's stock at a very fast rate, certainly in geologic time. Agree but there is still plenty in reserve while a genuine replacement for fossil fuels is found. Known reserves are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. IMNSHO, the best solution is still nuclear but some minds will need to be changed. Technology and experience access new formations and allow old formations to produce again. The Barnett Shale is an example. It was known that the Barnett Shale (and other shale formations) had oil and natural gas. What was not know at the time was how to get the oil and natural gas out of the formations in a commercially economic manner. Mitchell Energy cracked to code and a whole new frontier in oil and gas was unleashed. And the long-produced Permian Basin, which was believed to well past its prime came back to life. Even after the secret to producing the Barnett and unlocking the hydrocarbons from the shale, Mitchell Energy improved on it even more by using less expensive and more effective frac techniques. Subsequent to that, advances in horizontal drilling push the production even further.
People arguing against hydrocarbons have no idea how entrenched hydrocarbons are in our daily lives. They may THINK that they do, but far from it. See gridley's post.
And how much more natural can one get by producing energy from natural resources?
I agree with Ratty (for electricity), nuclear is tough to beat. But the minerals, etc. necessary for batteries is a whole different ball game, and NOT one that many environmentalist would care for if they saw what it actually looks like to get those minerals vs. a hole in the ground to extract oil and gas.
|
|
|
|
Post by walnut on Jun 13, 2022 15:12:29 GMT
Agree but there is still plenty in reserve while a genuine replacement for fossil fuels is found. Known reserves are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. IMNSHO, the best solution is still nuclear but some minds will need to be changed. Technology and experience access new formations and allow old formations to produce again. The Barnett Shale is an example. It was known that the Barnett Shale (and other shale formations) had oil and natural gas. What was not know at the time was how to get the oil and natural gas out of the formations in a commercially economic manner. Mitchell Energy cracked to code and a whole new frontier in oil and gas was unleashed. And the long-produced Permian Basin, which was believed to well past its prime came back to life. Even after the secret to producing the Barnett and unlocking the hydrocarbons from the shale, Mitchell Energy improved on it even more by using less expensive and more effective frac techniques. Subsequent to that, advances in horizontal drilling push the production even further.
People arguing against hydrocarbons have no idea how entrenched hydrocarbons are in our daily lives. They may THINK that they do, but far from it. See gridley's post.
And how much more natural can one get by producing energy from natural resources?
I agree with Ratty (for electricity), nuclear is tough to beat. But the minerals, etc. necessary for batteries is a whole different ball game, and NOT one that many environmentalist would care for if they saw what it actually looks like to get those minerals vs. a hole in the ground to extract oil and gas.
I'm not arguing against hydrocarbons at all. But even with new technologies, they are very finite. I live and work in Oklahoma in the mining business. Oil and even nat gas are finite. They are a gift from god, but we had better develop a plan B in the next few decades.
As an aside, Bitcoin mining burned a mountain of fossil fuels about equal to Venezuela's usage last year. That shit needs to stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Jun 13, 2022 17:22:10 GMT
So be careful what you say because should the world start cooling and CO2 emission prices fall to a negative value you may end up in the proverbial. Just be an unquantitative pleased. Can you short a carbon credit?  Carbon credit shorts? Might catch on ... designer fashion. Would have to bury them on a regular basis as they'd get kind of grungy.  Ok Ratty. Let's patent a couple of catchy names and go into production. Carbon Sink Briefs?
|
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jun 13, 2022 17:31:19 GMT
we basically need a new power source .. ?? i vote for dilithium .....wind and solar just an't going to do it. nuclear is way to much hassle the clean up sucks donkey balls. so whats new on the horizon ??
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 13, 2022 20:53:07 GMT
The whole point about capitalism as against socialism is that we need not worry about what next, price and enterprise will do it.
Socialist will stuff it up and poverty will see to it that they will be shot. remember the saying socialists are voted in but shot out.
Regarding reserves in the 1970's we had 20 years of oil we have since then used twice that amount and we still have 20 years maybe more and usage is more than doubled.
You can make plastic out of grass if you want its just technology and price.
The amount of gas contained in the gas hydrates is limitless in context of current usage and as yet untouched. Coal is limitless nearly every oil well I have looked at has coal in it some are massive there are people who will fill the tech gaps when prices say go.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratty on Jun 13, 2022 21:10:06 GMT
Can you short a carbon credit? Carbon credit shorts? Might catch on ... designer fashion. Would have to bury them on a regular basis as they'd get kind of grungy. Ok Ratty. Let's patent a couple of catchy names and go into production. Carbon Sink Briefs?
Cheeky! |
|
