81–89 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is that?
Imagine running trucks 24 hours a day. With no sleep constraints, you can move almost twice as much stuff with the same # of cars. Increase utilization and speed which would have great impacts on efficiency.
> The risk is asymmetric: starting a crash program toward replacement of finite fossil fuels too early has great up-sides and marginal downsides (opportunity cost); but failure to act has enormous downside for marginal upside. - See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/peak-oil-perspec... This is a more intelligent way of stating something I've been saying for years. I always explain my position on pe…
Sure, but that assumes we already know how to build the fire escape, how much it costs, how long it takes, and what it's supposed to look like.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where I would say that peak oil is about exactly the points you raised, and has nothing to do with running out of oil. The "peak" refers to the point where oil becomes so expensive that demand wanes and production starts to decline.
"Peak" in peak oil, at least as I understand it, refers to "peak rate of extraction." Or at least that's what Wikipedia says. Re: "peak price" -- the punchline is that demand is almost inelastic!
> The risk is asymmetric: starting a crash program toward replacement of finite fossil fuels too early has great up-sides and marginal downsides (opportunity cost); but failure to act has enormous downside for marginal upside. - See more at: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/peak-oil-perspec... This is a more intelligent way of stating something I've been saying for years. I always explain my position on pe…
The problem is, the United States is tying its own hands by not allowing the development of newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants. If we could, we would be able to retire the older, not-as-safe, less-efficient nuclear power plants - and the price of electricity would go down making it more affordable to use electric cars all while using less fossil fuels! I'm all for having a cleaner, safer environment. B…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, the United States is tying its own hands by not allowing the development of newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants. If we could, we would be able to retire the older, not-as-safe, less-efficient nuclear power plants - and the price of electricity would go down making it more affordable to use electric cars all while using less fossil fuels! I'm all for having a cleaner, safer environment. B…
What "harmful environmental regulations" are you speaking of?
If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.
(On a side note, I find this humorous because almost all environmentalists I've met are atheists, and atheists claim they don't believe in a god because of logic than a belief. Thus I've concluded, people will almost always rationalize whatever they want to make themselves feel good.)
(People generally want the same thing - to be happy, safe, free, etc. Even people with extremely opposing viewpoints. Instead of discovering the real reason, they go with "well they're just a Democrat/Republican/religious/atheist/whatever" - the reason is usually much simpler/basic, it's just that most people don't want to the take the time to work to discover the root difference. Every Republican and Democrat I know both want everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and safe. Every atheist and religious person I know wants peace, goodwill, and to feel good about themselves. Every tree-hugger and gas-guzzler I know wants cleaner air, cleaner water, and not to kill polar bears. They all just disagree on how to get there.)
Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice. Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "harmful environmental regulations" are you speaking of?
Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs. If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather th…
If you ever have a rational discussion with a human (or, for that matter, anything else that has a belief about what should be done), you'll find that -- its not limited to environmentalists. You can't get to a conclusion about what should be done without starting from an a priori belief about the criteria for what should be done, no matter how much logic gets used between the root belief and the conclusion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Large evolutionary jumps in mankind's history have always been associated with use of more energy per capita. The stabilization of oil consumption, visible since 2000, means one of two things: a) Humanity has plateaued in its energy usage; or b) Some other energy source is increasing. Any of these means oil has hit a peak (there'll be no cliff, though, as you explained). The alternatives are not acceptable (evolution…
Large evolutionary jumps in mankind's history have always been associated with use of more energy per capita. This is typical of the hand-wavy peak oil arguments. An increased richness of culture or an increased scientific knowledge clearly don't require ever-increasing energy consumption. Oppositely, the reason previous evolutionary jumps involved more energy per capita has been that ... cheaper energy has always pr…
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/world-ener...
It rather looks quite the opposite...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "harmful environmental regulations" are you speaking of?
Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs. If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather th…
Wow, that is defensive and ignorant - my question was short (or 'cute') because it didn't need extraneous lexicon. I'm simply curious about which environmental regulations are considered harmful so I could research them and educate myself. So no, I wasn't adding anything, but it was a serious question. Conversely, you went off on a huge tangent about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats and still somehow did not answer my question. So I'll assume you don't know.
> Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.
Well sailor Casseres, if you want to have a rational discussion without distracting yourself, how about you just genuinely answer the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs. If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather th…
> If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard ... >Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice. Wow, that is defensive and ignorant - my question was short (or 'cute') because it didn't need extraneous lexicon. I'm simply curious about whi…
The tangent was not about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats. They were examples of "people with extremely opposing viewpoints."
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a sailor. In my profile it does mention that I am a mariner. There is a difference in the maritime industry between the two terms. A sailor is an enlisted person or commissioned officer in the Navy. A mariner is not.
