Anti-Energy = Anti-Human

[LowDown]

The existance of a modern society is entirely dependent upon the availability of cheap energy. It cannot exist without it.

Cities become unliveable if buildings can't be heated and cooled, if there is no lighting and no transportation.
Food, water and other goods and supplies can't be delivered from where they are produced to the people who need them.
The available land will not grow enough food for the world's population without modern, high energy farming methods.

Environmentalists are anti-energy. And for what? Some vague and questionable benefit.

European Union environmental laws have brought Great Britain, Spain, Germany and other European countries nearly to the point of having regularly scheduled power outages so many fossil fuel generating plants have been closed. Such energy planning might be acceptable for a third world country but a modern society can't exist like that. Environmentalists are anti-modern society, they are anti-human. They ought to be rebuked and proscribed.

Kudos to Australia, where the voters threw the crazy environmentals out on their ears and are in the process of killing the carbon tax and other idiotic laws they set up. The voters there finally got to see what the enviornmental agenda really is and what it would do and reacted appropriately.

 

[flogger]

I have often said this was principally anti human in nature but lets take a look at some of the direct quotes from these fruitloops that should make us very worried indeed.

Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth. — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. — David Foreman, Earth First

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. — Pentti Linkola

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world — John Shuttleworth

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight — David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. — Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem — Lamont Cole

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official

Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong,

.... and sadly there are many more

As an afterthought though try finding a single project by any environmental group in the third world over the last 30 years that has proactively set out to benefit the welfare of humans living there given they always claim to be so concerned about their futures ?

 

[sookster]

I'm an environmentalist! I am not anti-energy. I am all for providing energy at a fraction of the cost, which we have the know how and capacity to do. It is completely feasible to build a Space Based Solar Power network that would be able to provide the entire world energy three times over while providing power at half the cost. The excess energy could be used for the hydrolysis of water, which could provide liquid fuel to various transportation outlets. Engineers have designed maglev transportation systems that would fully automate the transportation sector, making it more efficient, safer, and with less pollution.

You have this assumption that current methodologies with current technologies can not provide the world with it's energy demands. This is simply not true. The sun is going to die out in billions of years, so why not harness that energy? This would save other resources from being consumed and could fuel other projects, like space travel.

What is keeping us from transitioning to these better forms of energy are the lobbying interests of our society. With their big influence, they obviously have bias over new and conflicting ideas to keep their earnings. To me this is a failure of our system, but that is another discussion entirely.

Environmentalist are not anti-human. It is anti-human to disregard this planet. We are a part of this planet and its processes whether you like it or not, and it is in humanity's best interest to keep a healthy Earth.

 

[flogger]

I'm an environmentalist! I am not anti-energy. I am all for providing energy at a fraction of the cost, which we have the know how and capacity to do.

That is simply not the case. The current renewables require massive taxpayer subsidy per MWH generated to even exist.

It is completely feasible to build a Space Based Solar Power network that would be able to provide the entire world energy three times over while providing power at half the cost.

This would require a multi trillion dollar project far in excess of what the ISS cost to put into space. It would most certainly require new space shuttles to facilitate the many astronaut EVAs in its construction

The excess energy could be used for the hydrolysis of water, which could provide liquid fuel to various transportation outlets

This sounds somewhat similar to the arguments used to go back to the moon in order to mine its resources. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits

Engineers have designed maglev transportation systems that would fully automate the transportation sector, making it more efficient, safer, and with less pollution.

The Maglev is currently by far the most expensive transportation per mile of any ground based alternative

You have this assumption that current methodologies with current technologies can not provide the world with it's energy demands. This is simply not true.

I suspect the new gas fracking technologies to do that for us for at least the next century and cheaper than todays other fossil fuels too

The sun is going to die out in billions of years, so why not harness that energy? This would save other resources from being consumed and could fuel other projects, like space travel.

Solar power is perhaps the most expensive renewable to date so thats a non starter frankly

What is keeping us from transitioning to these better forms of energy are the lobbying interests of our society.

No what is doing so is that they are less efficient and far more expensive

With their big influence, they obviously have bias over new and conflicting ideas to keep their earnings.

Market forces control their interests and if renewables were worth it and really worked they would already be controlling those

To me this is a failure of our system, but that is another discussion entirely.

Or perhaps the system is a good deal more pragmatic here and fails to share your utopian view

Environmentalist are not anti-human. It is anti-human to disregard this planet. We are a part of this planet and its processes whether you like it or not, and it is in humanity's best interest to keep a healthy Earth

Environmentalists see us as a plague and that the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to 'contaminate' it in the numbers we currrently do. Obviously plunging most of us into energy poverty by unecessarily forcing us to utilise costly and inefficient renewable alternatives suits that agenda very well indeed.

 

[longview]

I'm an environmentalist! I am not anti-energy. I am all for providing energy at a fraction of the cost, which we have the know how and capacity to do. It is completely feasible to build a Space Based Solar Power network that would be able to provide the entire world energy three times over while providing power at half the cost. The excess energy could be used for the hydrolysis of water, which could provide liquid fuel to various transportation outlets. Engineers have designed maglev transportation systems that would fully automate the transportation sector, making it more efficient, safer, and with less pollution.

You have this assumption that current methodologies with current technologies can not provide the world with it's energy demands. This is simply not true. The sun is going to die out in billions of years, so why not harness that energy? This would save other resources from being consumed and could fuel other projects, like space travel.

What is keeping us from transitioning to these better forms of energy are the lobbying interests of our society. With their big influence, they obviously have bias over new and conflicting ideas to keep their earnings. To me this is a failure of our system, but that is another discussion entirely.

Environmentalist are not anti-human. It is anti-human to disregard this planet. We are a part of this planet and its processes whether you like it or not, and it is in humanity's best interest to keep a healthy Earth.

A week or so ago, I ran through the calculations to see how many solar panels it would take
to run the average car.
I thought you might find it interesting.

I have been playing around with an idea, and now might be a good time to work out the framework.
The Navy now has a process to make hydrocarbon based fuels.

Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
NRL has developed a two-step process in the laboratory to convert the CO2 and H2 gathered from the seawater to liquid hydrocarbons. In the first step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production from 97 percent to 25 percent in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins).

So at 60 % efficiency, How much gasoline could a modern solar panel produce in a month?
Astronergy CHSM 6610P 255-watt solar panel
A 255 watt panel, based on the companies estimation from the off grid systems,
a single panel could produce about 33 kwh per month.
33 kwh X 3.6 MJ/kwh= 118.8 MJ
118.8MJ X 60%= 71.28MJ
1 US gallon of Gasoline has about 120 MJ of energy.
So 71.28MJ /120 MJ per gallon = .594 gallons of Gasoline.
The average US household uses about 60 gallons of gasoline per month,
So would need over 100 panels on their roof to make that much gasoline.
This is before any home power.
Average Home power usage is 920 kwh.
Average Electric Bills
So a Household would need an extra 30 panels for home electricity.

 

[sookster]

That is simply not the case. The current renewables require massive taxpayer subsidy per MWH generated to even exist.



This would require a multi trillion dollar project far in excess of what the ISS cost to put into space. It would most certainly require new space shuttles to facilitate the many astronaut EVAs in its construction



This sounds somewhat similar to the arguments used to go back to the moon in order to mine its resources. The costs vastly outweigh the benefits



The Maglev is currently by far the most expensive transportation per mile of any ground based alternative



I suspect the new gas fracking technologies to do that for us for at least the next century and cheaper than todays other fossil fuels too



Solar power is perhaps the most expensive renewable to date so thats a non starter frankly



No what is doing so is that they are less efficient and far more expensive



Market forces control their interests and if renewables were worth it and really worked they would already be controlling those



Or perhaps the system is a good deal more pragmatic here and fails to share your utopian view



Environmentalists see us as a plague and that the Earth is too precious and fragile for us to be allowed to 'contaminate' it in the numbers we currently do. Obviously plunging most of us into energy poverty by unnecessarily forcing us to utilise costly and inefficient renewable alternatives suits that agenda very well indeed.

First, a Space Based Solar Network, with double to required budged for safety, would be about 200 billion dollars over 10 years. That is 20 billion a year. Our defense budget to put into perspective is 526 billion for 2014.

It may cost more to implement a new energy grid, but the fuel of the grid is always going to be there! The processes of the Earth use energy from the sun, ranging from water, wind, and solar. With a SBSN (space based solar network), as well as renewables to power individual homes, we would have an excess of energy. And, since the fuel is never going to run out, it is guaranteed that the project would pay for itself plus some over time. Also, if we have all this energy, we would have excess energy like thorium to be used for other projects besides powering a grid.

Again, the maglev system is powered by renewables. It would be more efficient, cars and trucks would get to their destination at a fraction of the time with safety guaranteed, while there would be no wear and tear on the vehicle itself. Simply because there would be no friction. With more efficient transportation and less money having to be used to pay for repairs, more time would be spent with the flow of the economy, resulting in higher GDP, which would be able to pay for the taxes required to maintain a network as well as costs to pay its workers, resulting in a profit.

No matter what project you are going to progress to, there is going to always be a cost. With the mentality that it is going to cost too much money, there will be no change. A maglev network would make an entire economy more efficient, speeding up the velocity of money. This innately would reduce the rate of inflation, which would increase the value to everybody's money.

Efficiency of these technologies is just going to improve. Frankly, the efficiency really doesn't matter, because the sheer amount of energy the sun provides is asinine. It is going to go away billions of years into the future.

Why is it that when people talk about the future, it is automatically declared utopian? I didn't say that this future society would be perfect! We could keep the same economy and government even, which we know is not perfect. I think it stems from an unconscious fear about change. People are content with the lives they are living now, and will reject any idea that will shake their control over their lives.

Environmentalist think we should put more priority to mother nature. Environmentalists thinks that humanity is a part of nature, not separated from it. I believe in The Gaia Hypothesis. The planet is a super organism and needs life to sustain the inanimate processes, and life needs the inanimate processes to live. The Earth needs us, and we need the Earth. If conditions are put into place to threaten the life on this planet, it will induce conditions to protect life to survive. Humanity isn't the only species on this planet. And so, as with any climactic event that has happened in Earth's history, the majority of life will probably be eliminated, but not all. The new conditions will promote a certain path of evolution, and life flourishes because it sustains the super organism of the planet.

You see, our survivability depends upon how we treat this planet. If we disregard it, Gaia will enact consequences that will make our existence exponentially more difficult.

 

[sookster]

A week or so ago, I ran through the calculations to see how many solar panels it would take
to run the average car.
I thought you might find it interesting.

Well, I looked up the dimensions for a typical solar panel.

~230 Watt (230W) polycrystalline panels – 60 cell modules made from 6 inch cells
215W-260W poly+mono 1.65m (l)x 0.992m(w)

The area of this would be....1.65m * .992m = 1.64m^2
The are of a typical roof would be....1000ft^2 This correlates to 1000ft^2 * .096m^2/ft^2 = 96m^2

The percentage of area the solar panels would take of the roof...1.64m^2/96m^2 = 2 percent

Therefore, 215-260 W would take up 2 percent of the roof.

So what's your point?

 

[flogger]

First, a Space Based Solar Network, with double to required budged for safety, would be about 200 billion dollars over 10 years. That is 20 billion a year. Our defense budget to put into perspective is 526 billion for 2014.

Given the ISS has cost 150 billion to date and that your project would require vastly greater amounts of orbiting hardware plus the development of new space shuttle delivery systems too. I suspect your figures are ridiculously optimistic.

It may cost more to implement a new energy grid, but the fuel of the grid is always going to be there!

But why do so when vastly cheaper methods like synthetic coal/oil and gas fracking can supply all our needs at a fraction of the cost for centuries to come ?

Again, the maglev system is powered by renewables. It would be more efficient, cars and trucks would get to their destination at a fraction of the time with safety guaranteed, while there would be no wear and tear on the vehicle itself. Simply because there would be no friction. With more efficient transportation and less money having to be used to pay for repairs, more time would be spent with the flow of the economy, resulting in higher GDP, which would be able to pay for the taxes required to maintain a network as well as costs to pay its workers, resulting in a profit

I've actually ridden on the one from Shanghai airport to Pudong and there is no way it is powered by renewables or ever could be given its power requirements ! Only the Chinese can afford to experiment like this and they are having reservations about its economic viability already based on dwindling passenger numbers because of the necessarily expensive fares.

No matter what project you are going to progress to, there is going to always be a cost. With the mentality that it is going to cost too much money, there will be no change

Environmentalists never have had any concept of the term 'economic viability' when they come up with these schemes

A maglev network would make an entire economy more efficient, speeding up the velocity of money. This innately would reduce the rate of inflation, which would increase the value to everybody's money.

Nonsense. It would be an expensive white elephant

Efficiency of these technologies is just going to improve. Frankly, the efficiency really doesn't matter, because the sheer amount of energy the sun provides is asinine. It is going to go away billions of years into the future.

If your sums really added up then it would be being done already

Why is it that when people talk about the future, it is automatically declared utopian? I didn't say that this future society would be perfect! We could keep the same economy and government even, which we know is not perfect. I think it stems from an unconscious fear about change. People are content with the lives they are living now, and will reject any idea that will shake their control over their lives.

Or maybe people are afraid to be involuntarily impoverished on the alter of environmentalist pipe dreams and want to check the figures first.

Environmentalists thinks that humanity is a part of nature, not separated from it.

The evidence and statements made by some of its leading lights in recent decades tend to suggest the opposite

I believe in The Gaia Hypothesis. The planet is a super organism and needs life to sustain the inanimate processes, and life needs the inanimate processes to live. The Earth needs us, and we need the Earth. If conditions are put into place to threaten the life on this planet, it will induce conditions to protect life to survive. Humanity isn't the only species on this planet. And so, as with any climactic event that has happened in Earth's history, the majority of life will probably be eliminated, but not all. The new conditions will promote a certain path of evolution, and life flourishes because it sustains the super organism of the planet.


You see, our survivability depends upon how we treat this planet. If we disregard it, Gaia will enact consequences that will make our existence exponentially more difficult.

Whos to say mankinds current path is not the natural evolutionary way of things anyway ? Maybe it is

 

[Rainman05]

Whether you like it or not, we cannot continue to rely on fossil fuels.

Green energy needs to take the front stage as the main way of energy production. Ofc, not all together, but in time.
Hydro, solar,wind and geothermal.

 

[sookster]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...t/171701-future-program-deficit-spending.html

Here is a post summarizing as well as stating the business plan proposal that I was referring to. Including R and D which includes laser based propulsion systems in space planes, the projected cost was 100 billion over 10 years. He stated that there was some costs that he did not include. So, I always double the amount to get an estimate of what it would cost.

There are two things that I want to say about why we should transition to renewables over other methods with hydrocarbons. For one, if we were to power our grid using renewable energy, this would free the hydrocarbons to be used for other projects rather than powering our communities. Another reason, as I have stated before I am an environmentalist, I refuse to believe burning all of these hydrocarbons will not have consequences to our environment. We may or may not know what it is, but I feel the Earth is a super organism and keeps everything in balance. Pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is putting processes out of balance. But I understand people interpret data vastly different when it comes to this issue.

As the link says, a SBSN could provide all the projected world's energy demands three times over. This includes everything on the planet. Maglev systems could easily be powered with a SBSN. The true reason why this is not done is because of the powerful financial interests that are into play.

A maglev train would be a huge benefit to our economy. Think of the reverse! If we used horses to get around, there would be less we could get done in a day and limit what we could transport, which would affect GDP.

What makes you think we would be in poverty because we would switch to renewables?

The whole concept that humanity is separated from nature what a philosophical stance that was first talked about with the Father of Philosophy, De Cartes. If you were to take the time and read The Gaia Hypothesis, the scientific evidence shows that humanity is a part of nature. Just use common logic! We all inhabit this planet. We are a part of the food pyramid. We are a part of evolution, and the flow of energy. We are a part of nature, we aren't separated from it!

The evolutionary path is to transfer energy more efficiently. That is the direction of evolution itself. We will be forced to transition to methodologies that further facilitate energy flow (The Constructal Law). However, if we are contributing to consequences that we do not fully understand, we would force conditions on this planet to restabilize itself with everything, ranging from CO2 concentrations to temperature itself, and all the other processes that get out of wack. Pumping CO2 is inevitably going to affect the carbon cycle because there is carbon in it. And the planet, being a perfect super organism, will induce conditions to restabilize to equilibrium even if it has to eliminate most of life, or humanity completely. Per following The Constructal Law, humanity's use of energy is creating such a resistance to the facilitate of energy flow, the majority would be eliminated.

 

[Wiseone]

The existance of a modern society is entirely dependent upon the availability of cheap energy. It cannot exist without it.

Cities become unliveable if buildings can't be heated and cooled, if there is no lighting and no transportation.
Food, water and other goods and supplies can't be delivered from where they are produced to the people who need them.
The available land will not grow enough food for the world's population without modern, high energy farming methods.

Environmentalists are anti-energy. And for what? Some vague and questionable benefit.

European Union environmental laws have brought Great Britain, Spain, Germany and other European countries nearly to the point of having regularly scheduled power outages so many fossil fuel generating plants have been closed. Such energy planning might be acceptable for a third world country but a modern society can't exist like that. Environmentalists are anti-modern society, they are anti-human. They ought to be rebuked and proscribed.

Kudos to Australia, where the voters threw the crazy environmentals out on their ears and are in the process of killing the carbon tax and other idiotic laws they set up. The voters there finally got to see what the enviornmental agenda really is and what it would do and reacted appropriately.

That's not true just FYI.

Also there's a middle ground where we can reduce energy usage while not impacting the standard of living, energy efficiency is something everyone can agree upon it reduces both energy cost as well as environmental impact. It is NOT realistic to say that any reduction in energy use means a reduction in the standard of living.

 

[Wiseone]

I have often said this was principally anti human in nature but lets take a look at some of the direct quotes from these fruitloops that should make us very worried indeed.

Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process . . . Capitalism is destroying the earth. — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land. — David Foreman, Earth First

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. — Pentti Linkola

The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world — John Shuttleworth

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. — John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight — David Foreman, Earth First!

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. — Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. — Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

Every time you turn on an electric light, you are making another brainless baby — Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists

To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem — Lamont Cole

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official

Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong,

.... and sadly there are many more

As an afterthought though try finding a single project by any environmental group in the third world over the last 30 years that has proactively set out to benefit the welfare of humans living there given they always claim to be so concerned about their futures ?

Don't try to apply the opinion's of the fringe to the mainstream. This are opinions which only wackos hold and the vast majority of all people will disagree with them.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The existance of a modern society is entirely dependent upon the availability of cheap energy. It cannot exist without it.

Cities become unliveable if buildings can't be heated and cooled, if there is no lighting and no transportation.
Food, water and other goods and supplies can't be delivered from where they are produced to the people who need them.
The available land will not grow enough food for the world's population without modern, high energy farming methods.

Environmentalists are anti-energy. And for what? Some vague and questionable benefit.

European Union environmental laws have brought Great Britain, Spain, Germany and other European countries nearly to the point of having regularly scheduled power outages so many fossil fuel generating plants have been closed. Such energy planning might be acceptable for a third world country but a modern society can't exist like that. Environmentalists are anti-modern society, they are anti-human. They ought to be rebuked and proscribed.

Kudos to Australia, where the voters threw the crazy environmentals out on their ears and are in the process of killing the carbon tax and other idiotic laws they set up. The voters there finally got to see what the enviornmental agenda really is and what it would do and reacted appropriately.

Environmentalists are not anti-energy. Your entire post falls down at the very beginning of the premise.

They are simply against continuing to rely on energy that is known to be not only unsustainable, but harmful to human beings.

People who support alternative energy support a sustainable and livable future for your children. People who don't, support momentary convenience at the expense of humans of the future.

Environmentalists support comfortable human life indefinitely, whereas people who support current energy sources support human suffering in the future.

 

[longview]

Well, I looked up the dimensions for a typical solar panel.

~230 Watt (230W) polycrystalline panels – 60 cell modules made from 6 inch cells
215W-260W poly+mono 1.65m (l)x 0.992m(w)

The area of this would be....1.65m * .992m = 1.64m^2
The are of a typical roof would be....1000ft^2 This correlates to 1000ft^2 * .096m^2/ft^2 = 96m^2

The percentage of area the solar panels would take of the roof...1.64m^2/96m^2 = 2 percent

Therefore, 215-260 W would take up 2 percent of the roof.

So what's your point?

I was not expressing a negative, the fact that you tried some calculations says you found it
interesting. Each panel would take about 2% of the roof, but you would need 130 panels
to meet the current household energy requirements for transport and home.
There are two basic curves going on here, Home and transport efficiencies are improving,
and prices on Solar Panels are dropping.
At some point the two lines will cross, and photovoltaic will not only be viable but desirable.
There is also an economic curve Solar is fighting, as home efficiencies improve,
the payback time for an installed Solar system increases.

 

[flogger]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gover...t/171701-future-program-deficit-spending.html

Here is a post summarizing as well as stating the business plan proposal that I was referring to. Including R and D which includes laser based propulsion systems in space planes, the projected cost was 100 billion over 10 years.

And those figures are quite ludicrous frankly given what the ISS has cost to date . Itself a much smaller scale project than the one being propsed here. Factor in the development of new shuttles and the tearing up and replacing of the surface based power transmission grids then it really represents the economics of the madhouse

He stated that there was some costs that he did not include. So, I always double the amount to get an estimate of what it would cost.

I think it would be rather more than double ! :shock:

There are two things that I want to say about why we should transition to renewables over other methods with hydrocarbons. For one, if we were to power our grid using renewable energy, this would free the hydrocarbons to be used for other projects rather than powering our communities.

Why do that at all though given the current fossil fuel alternatives are much more affordable and are likely to last for centuries yet based on current estimates

Another reason, as I have stated before I am an environmentalist, I refuse to believe burning all of these hydrocarbons will not have consequences to our environment.

That may or may not be the case but what we do know is the vastly greater energy costs you propose will certainly impact the poorest on our planet with far greater severity than any such environmental impact. Poverty tends to do that

We may or may not know what it is, but I feel the Earth is a super organism and keeps everything in balance. Pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is putting processes out of balance. But I understand people interpret data vastly different when it comes to this issue.

I disagree. In fact I think the increase in CO 2 fraction from 0.028% to 0.04% of our atmosphere will be mostly beneficial in terms of increased plant growth and crop yields for our growing population

As the link says, a SBSN could provide all the projected world's energy demands three times over. This includes everything on the planet. Maglev systems could easily be powered with a SBSN. The true reason why this is not done is because of the powerful financial interests that are into play.

Nonsense . If it was remotely viable it would be being done already. I dont buy this demonic 'big oil is satan' argument and never have frankly. Its a very tired cliche

A maglev train would be a huge benefit to our economy. Think of the reverse! If we used horses to get around, there would be less we could get done in a day and limit what we could transport, which would affect GDP.

The Maglev is not remotely affordable for the bulk of the worlds economies . This is a pipedream

What makes you think we would be in poverty because we would switch to renewables?

Because they are vastly more expensive than the current methods of power generation. Without huge subsidies (often costing more than the value of the power they generate) , they simply would cease to exist. They have been trying to get them to work for decades now and the plain fact is they dont and never will. They are a technological cul de sac

The whole concept that humanity is separated from nature what a philosophical stance that was first talked about with the Father of Philosophy, De Cartes. If you were to take the time and read The Gaia Hypothesis, the scientific evidence shows that humanity is a part of nature. Just use common logic! We all inhabit this planet. We are a part of the food pyramid. We are a part of evolution, and the flow of energy. We are a part of nature, we aren't separated from it!

So why do modern environmentalists disagree ? Most of them want us culled

The evolutionary path is to transfer energy more efficiently. That is the direction of evolution itself. We will be forced to transition to methodologies that further facilitate energy flow (The Constructal Law). However, if we are contributing to consequences that we do not fully understand, we would force conditions on this planet to restabilize itself with everything, ranging from CO2 concentrations to temperature itself, and all the other processes that get out of wack. Pumping CO2 is inevitably going to affect the carbon cycle because there is carbon in it. And the planet, being a perfect super organism, will induce conditions to restabilize to equilibrium even if it has to eliminate most of life, or humanity completely. Per following The Constructal Law, humanity's use of energy is creating such a resistance to the facilitate of energy flow, the majority would be eliminated

Thats your opinion and I fundamentally disagree with it. There is no empirical evidence that an increase in 0.012% atmospheric volume of CO 2 will do any of these things this is just catastrophism . It may even represent a net benefit in terms of increased crop yields

 

[flogger]

Don't try to apply the opinion's of the fringe to the mainstream. This are opinions which only wackos hold and the vast majority of all people will disagree with them.

OK lets approach this question from a different angle then . What projects have any environmentalist group initiated in the last 30 years that have actually benefitted rather than impeded the welfare of people in the third world ? They claim to care so much about the impacts that our modern societies have on the poorest there so where is the actual physical evidence of that care. What have they actually done about it ?

 

[Wiseone]

OK lets approach this question from a different angle then . What projects have any environmentalist group initiated in the last 30 years that have actually benefitted rather than impeded the welfare of people in the third world ? They claim to care so much about the impacts that our modern societies have on the poorest there so where is the actual physical evidence of that care. What have they actually done about it ?

Seriously?

Clean Water Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that's the United States lets find something third world.

Aral Sea Reborn - Earthrise - Al Jazeera English

That was easy.

Environmentalism and environmental science is not always opposed to economic growth, sometimes its the one thing that makes long term use of a natural resource possible because it wasn't destroyed by short term economic desires. Other times like the Great Lakes it gives us something worth more than any economic growth that was "lost" by not allowing industry to dump its waste straight into the lake.

 

[flogger]

QUOTE]Seriously?

Clean Water Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seriously ....The U.S 40 years ago ?

Now that's the United States lets find something third world.

Aral Sea Reborn - Earthrise - Al Jazeera English

That was easy.

The Aral Sea is the third world ! Since when ? The Kazakh government and the world bank are not environmental organisations either so wheres their input in all this ?

Environmentalism and environmental science is not always opposed to economic growth,

Of course it is. Its one of the fundamental reasons for its existence

sometimes its the one thing that makes long term use of a natural resource possible because it wasn't destroyed by short term economic desires. Other times like the Great Lakes it gives us something worth more than any economic growth that was "lost" by not allowing industry to dump its waste straight into the lake

Or sometimes they can be responsible for tens of millions of preventable deaths on the alter of its dubious evangelism

DDT

On just the DDT issue alone it can be seen to have been responsible for far more easily preventable deaths than any benefit it has ever had. Once you throw in the impacts on mortality caused by its opposition to electrification projects and pesticides worldwide (and especially in the third world) we are talking probably hundreds of millions. Modern environmentalisms dubious aims are perhaps the greatest threat we face for all our futures today. Indeed environmentalism has been responsible either directly or indirectly for more preventable deaths than probably all the wars in human history to date sadly .

 

[LowDown]

Environmentalists are not anti-energy. Your entire post falls down at the very beginning of the premise.

They are simply against continuing to rely on energy that is known to be not only unsustainable, but harmful to human beings.

People who support alternative energy support a sustainable and livable future for your children. People who don't, support momentary convenience at the expense of humans of the future.

Environmentalists support comfortable human life indefinitely, whereas people who support current energy sources support human suffering in the future.

No, any effective and cheap source of energy comes under fire from environmentalists. Windmills are criticized for killing birds and their placement any area, environmentally sensitive or not, is resisted. Putting wind farms in deserts is protested because it spoils the pristine view. Same with solar plants. Whether fossil or nuclear or wind or solar or whatever, environmentalists are against it. Their solution is to get rid of people so that energy isn't needed.

 

[Deuce]

Environmentalists are anti-energy.

Stopped reading there.

Fossil fuel worshipers are pro-lung cancer!

 

[Deuce]

No, any effective and cheap source of energy comes under fire from environmentalists. Windmills are criticized for killing birds and their placement any area, environmentally sensitive or not, is resisted. Putting wind farms in deserts is protested because it spoils the pristine view. Same with solar plants. Whether fossil or nuclear or wind or solar or whatever, environmentalists are against it. Their solution is to get rid of people so that energy isn't needed.

Your mistake is treating environmentalists as a singular group. Different people have different "favorite" and "least favorite" power sources, for different reasons. I'm an environmentalist, right? Well, I think we should build a crapload of modern nuclear plants. That doesn't seem to fit your profile!

Not that you'd actually change your thinking here. You have your conspiracy theory.

 

[flogger]

No, any effective and cheap source of energy comes under fire from environmentalists. Windmills are criticized for killing birds and their placement any area, environmentally sensitive or not, is resisted. Putting wind farms in deserts is protested because it spoils the pristine view. Same with solar plants. Whether fossil or nuclear or wind or solar or whatever, environmentalists are against it. Their solution is to get rid of people so that energy isn't needed.

Its more simple than that even. Anything that may benefit the welfare lifestyle and aspirations of humanity in any way shape or form will be resisted by environmentalists tooth and nail because for them our species is 'the enemy' plain and simple

 

[Deuce]

Its more simple than that even. Anything that may benefit the welfare lifestyle and aspirations of humanity in any way shape or form will be resisted by environmentalists tooth and nail because for them our species is 'the enemy' plain and simple

You're the one who wants everyone in the world to have lung cancer at the same time.

 

[flogger]

You're the one who wants everyone in the world to have lung cancer at the same time.

I'm sure in some alternate universe that response must make sense to someone somewhere ??? :shock:

 

[Wiseone]

Seriously ....The U.S 40 years ago ?



The Aral Sea is the third world ! Since when ? The Kazakh government and the world bank are not environmental organisations either so wheres their input in all this ?



Of course it is. Its one of the fundamental reasons for its existence



Or sometimes they can be responsible for tens of millions of preventable deaths on the alter of its dubious evangelism

DDT

On just the DDT issue alone it can be seen to have been responsible for far more easily preventable deaths than any benefit it has ever had. Once you throw in the impacts on mortality caused by its opposition to electrification projects and pesticides worldwide (and especially in the third world) we are talking probably hundreds of millions. Modern environmentalisms dubious aims are perhaps the greatest threat we face for all our futures today. Indeed environmentalism has been responsible either directly or indirectly for more preventable deaths than probably all the wars in human history to date sadly .

Just because its old it doesn't count? Hey man the wheel is getting up there in years but its still an important invention. I'd call Kazakhstan third world just based on the standard of living for most people, anyway where I was going with the Aral Sea was that it was an enviromental undertaking meant and preserving an economic resource that had suffered from extreme over-use for too long.

I'm not saying the results of enviromental efforts are always good but its way too extreme to say that enviromentalism has caused more deaths than all human wars combined you'd have to demonstrate that enviromentalism has caused the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.