• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Enough of the fossil fuels!

Peter said:
NASA managed to innovate its way to the moon in a decade.
If renewables had had even a half decent investment from 40 years ago I don't think it's all that whacky a concept to think we'd be way ahead now.

The US could now be a world leader in an important energy field.
Click to expand...
I do not think you understand, we had the pieces in place in 1962 to conceive of going to the moon with great effort,
but the technology to mass produce low cost Solar Panels did not exists until much later.
Regan and Bush put the pieces in place for low cost solar panels today, it likely was not the intent,
but low cost solar panels was one of the results.
 
Peter said:
NASA managed to innovate its way to the moon in a decade.
Click to expand...
And the moon provides us with what "renewable energy"? Pray tell ...
Peter said:
If renewables had had even a half decent investment from 40 years ago I don't think it's all that whacky a concept to think we'd be way ahead now.

The US could now be a world leader in an important energy field.
Click to expand...

Just WHAT do you believe is a "renewable" source of energy. Because these are some of the most difficult of energy-sources to obtain and develop and thus exploit.

Oil is a "renewable". Oh? It is! Do you ever need a dictionary!!!!

The sun is indeed a renewable given the fact that it is (for the moment) a continued element providing means of generating "heat". Oil, on the other hand, is depleting as a source gracefully but continuously. What's left? The sun.

What else is there? Frankly, I've got a feeling that the sun is about all we got as truly renewable energy-source - and when there is no more of it we'd best get the hell out of this planetary-system. And quick !!!!
 
cost of electric is going to soar because it costs so much to create it using wind/solar

unless we keep using fossil fuel burn to create it

it'll cost way more, and crush the lower income people
 
Lafayette said:
And the moon provides us with what "renewable energy"? Pray tell ...


Just WHAT do you believe is a "renewable" source of energy. Because these are some of the most difficult of energy-sources to obtain and develop and thus exploit.

Oil is a "renewable". Oh? It is! Do you ever need a dictionary!!!!

The sun is indeed a renewable given the fact that it is (for the moment) a continued element providing means of generating "heat". Oil, on the other hand, is depleting as a source gracefully but continuously. What's left? The sun.

What else is there? Frankly, I've got a feeling that the sun is about all we got as truly renewable energy-source - and when there is no more of it we'd best get the hell out of this planetary-system. And quick !!!!
Click to expand...

The UK is going all in for wind power as we have a lot of windy seas that are not going to suddenly become tropical paradices any time soon.
We're also building at least 2 vast new nuclear stations and with plans for a load of new small reactors as well built by Rolls Royce.

The money being invested by global companies is insane and they obviously think it's going to work out.

The UK is soon to shut the last coal power station and we'll then start closing other fosil fuel stations.

I'm not sure if you could consider it renewable as such but the UK also has quite a few (there's a large one near me) waste incinerator to electric stations to incinerate rubbish instead of sending it to landfil.
The nearby station was built on a former brickyard and has a lovely nature walk on site.
 
Peter said:
NASA managed to innovate its way to the moon in a decade.
If renewables had had even a half decent investment from 40 years ago I don't think it's all that whacky a concept to think we'd be way ahead now.

The US could now be a world leader in an important energy field.
Click to expand...
The moon was a doable goal. They went to the moon, the did stuff there, and they came back. Mission accomplished.

Renewables is not a doable goal. Nobody is willing to say how much renewing is doing all of the renewing we want. Same w/ green energy --how green is green? There's no end in sight now and there never will be --this means that we should hold off until we got a goal that we can define and decide whether it's feasible or not.
 
expat_panama said:
The moon was a doable goal. They went to the moon, the did stuff there, and they came back. Mission accomplished.

Renewables is not a doable goal. Nobody is willing to say how much renewing is doing all of the renewing we want. Same w/ green energy --how green is green? There's no end in sight now and there never will be --this means that we should hold off until we got a goal that we can define and decide whether it's feasible or not.
Click to expand...

Renewables has an obvious end goal of supplying all our power needs.
I believe that will be achieved in the next 50 years if we just try.

We even have the rather outlandish option of beaming power down from solar farms in space that won't have to worry about weather and will be active at all times.

I'm not claiming going 100% renewable will be easy or cheap just that it should be possible with even mild advancements from now.
Given how many large fosil fuel companies and others are now rushing to fund new research there seems to be no shortage of cash for development.
 
Peter said:
I'm not sure if you could consider it renewable as such but the UK also has quite a few (there's a large one near me) waste incinerator to electric stations to incinerate rubbish instead of sending it to landfil.
The nearby station was built on a former brickyard and has a lovely nature walk on site.
Click to expand...

A waste-incinerator of any large magnitude is a damn fine air-polluter!

When is the UK going to do a "Wakey! Wakey!" regarding the matter in which it burns its rubbish? Admittedly, I am no one to tell you (supposing that you liove in the UK) that GB is making a grievous air-pollution mistake!

What I can say is that France buries its rubbish and no longer burns it ... !
 
Peter said:
I'm not sure if you could consider it renewable as such but the UK also has quite a few (there's a large one near me) waste incinerator to electric stations to incinerate rubbish instead of sending it to landfil.
The nearby station was built on a former brickyard and has a lovely nature walk on site.
Click to expand...

That problem as you site above was and still is rather common throughout Europe.

Still, the European Union is getting together to consider and resolve the problem. And, of course, it seems that the Brits are still looking at the EU from the outside and not the inside!

Why you-plural ever decided to leave the EU is beyond logic of any kind except one: You-plural may think you are a "better-people" and don't need the EU? Or the Rabid-Right tripped itself into power and wronged-the-right?

Have you ever gone to the south of France or Spain or Portugal to see the number of Brits who live there PERMANENTLY for the sunshine?!? My count off the Internet puts the number at around 360K - which, frankly, across that 3-country geography of 122M people is not much at all ...
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
A waste-incinerator of any large magnitude is a damn fine air-polluter!

When is the UK going to do a "Wakey! Wakey!" regarding the matter in which it burns its rubbish? Admittedly, I am no one to tell you (supposing that you liove in the UK) that GB is making a grievous air-pollution mistake!

What I can say is that France buries its rubbish and no longer burns it ... !
Click to expand...

This is a brand new facility that was only opened a few years ago and is under strict emmisions control.

https://www.rookerysouth.co.uk/about-the-facility/emissions-information

In the UK landfil is seen as a much worse solution than recycling and then burning anything that can't be recycled which is how that plant works.
 
Peter said:
Renewables has an obvious end goal of supplying all our power needs.
I believe that will be achieved in the next 50 years if we just try.

We even have the rather outlandish option of beaming power down from solar farms in space that won't have to worry about weather and will be active at all times.

I'm not claiming going 100% renewable will be easy or cheap just that it should be possible with even mild advancements from now.
Given how many large fosil fuel companies and others are now rushing to fund new research there seems to be no shortage of cash for development.
Click to expand...
You are proposing a goal of supplying 100% of our energy needs w/ "renewables", defined as what, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal? How about biomass fuels? Those are not "green" because they make a lot of CO2/soot/smoke/noise --but they're "renewable"? How about nuclear plants? They're clean, non-fossil, feasible, but they're not blessed by various political groups. Of course, the sun is not renewable either --once it's used up there's no more-- but let's go along --but I hope u understand how difficult defining clearly the goal is. Remember the moon goal was just human -> moon -> back. Simple.

Any way, the renewable thing is still leaving us w/ two big questions. The first is whether it will really be reasonable to convert every single semi truck, every chain saw, every emergency generator, every remote construction cement mixer, every power plant --all to renewable. This is a huge personal sacrifice that virtually everyone's going to endure. Permanently. Contrast that to a one time tax increase buried somewhere in all the military spending.

The second big question is for us to understand that we're arguably reducing our carbon by what, a third? Please remember that most of our greenhouse gas comes also from forestry, agriculture, non-energy industrial processes, etc. and we need to decide if we're addressing this concern if we want to define our goal.
 
Peter said:
In the UK landfil is seen as a much worse solution than recycling and then burning anything that can't be recycled which is how that plant works.
Click to expand...

It would also help if people thought FIRST about what they are buying/saying and ONLY THEN should they be buying/saying it over-the-Internet.

One helluva-lotta "junk" is being floated on the market in that fashion both in Europe and the US. Those employing junk-mailing should be tasked for doing so. But, and it's a BIG-BUT, what is junk-mail?

A legal definition is needed badly for it to be stopped over the Internet .... !
 
Peter said:
Fosil fuels will eventually stop being used no matter what happens as cheaper alternatives will be used.
The UK is in the middle of an offshore windfarm building boom that will see then worlds largest farms opening up in the next 5 years or so.
That and a couple of new nuclear power stations should mean the use of fossil fuels for power tumbles in the UK which is a good thing.

The UK is fortunate to have extremely windy but shallow seas all around us which is perfect for wind generation and we also have some of the strongest tidal surges on the planet so that's a bonus as well.

Sometimes having depressing weather is a good thing.
Click to expand...

The problem is not necessarily the power generation technology, but the battery technology. From everything I am given to understand, with our current battery technology, in order to get off of fossil fuels and replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles with battery-powered vehicles, we need Russia for the sheer amount of nickel.
 
Lafayette said:
Patient how? Until one dies?

From here: How do fossil fuels affect human life?


Fossil-fuels are killing people TODAY! Not tomorrow, but TODAY ... !
Click to expand...
You've really bought into the climate change hysteria, haven't you? You and John Kerry, Greta Thunberg, and AOC must blog together.
What about statistics that show fewer people are going to die from the cold than from the heat? Of course, you don't believe those stats because you need to believe fossil fuels are evil and alternative energy is good, right?
That is, until you realize how the environment is going to be damaged because of what is takes to build EV batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels.
 
Felis Leo said:
The problem is not necessarily the power generation technology, but the battery technology. From everything I am given to understand, with our current battery technology, in order to get off of fossil fuels and replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles with battery-powered vehicles, we need Russia for the sheer amount of nickel.
Click to expand...

Luckily there are new versions of old technologies that could help solve the energy storage problem.
Sand batteries for example.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20221102-how-a-sand-battery-could-transform-clean-energy
 
TIME WILL TELL

Felis Leo said:
The problem is not necessarily the power generation technology, but the battery technology. From everything I am given to understand, with our current battery technology, in order to get off of fossil fuels and replace fossil fuel-powered vehicles with battery-powered vehicles, we need Russia for the sheer amount of nickel.
Click to expand...

We'll be running out of battery-production capacity within 20-years.

From here:

The Lithium Supply Challenge

The supply crunch won’t hit immediately. Even though the price of lithium has surged more than tenfold over the past two years, there’s enough capacity to meet anticipated demand until around 2025—and potentially through 2030 if enough recycling operations come online. After that, chronic shortages are expected. Even assuming that all the new lithium-mining projects that the industry currently regards as probable or possible go into operation, as well as a significant expansion of lithium-recycling projects, lithium supply in 2030 is expected to fall around 4% short of projected demand, or by around 100,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate equivalent (the processed form of raw lithium). (See Exhibit 1.) By 2035, that supply gap is projected to be acute—at least 1.1 million metric tons, or 24% less than demand.
Click to expand...

Why wait around for 2035? Because we are lazy.

From here: This Electric Car Is Proof That Batteries Are Old Technology

Excerpt:

The electric car revolution is underway and as the trend evolves, it is demonstrating that batteries are no longer the primary source of power for EVs. The fact that there are now more reliable and efficient ways to power an EV is demonstrated by the nanoFlowcell QUANTiNO twentyfive. This vehicle serves as a constant reminder that there are alternatives to battery-powered vehicles.

Let's face it, battery technology may have come a long way in the past decade, but it can still be considered an evolving area because of aspects like safety, cost, and weight. Although BEV's don't require regular maintenance, like traditional gas-powered vehicles, range and charge times continue to be a challenge for them. Solid-state batteries which are more energy dense can address this issue.

Vehicles that use alternative forms of energy, such as Hydrogen fuel cells or solar power, are starting to also gain traction. But once again, the infrastructure surrounding such technologies, is still a long way from being feasible for mass-scale adoption. One of the more significant advancements in the EV space is the nanoFlowcell. Enter the QUANTiNO twentyfive Electric Car, an EV that doesn't use batteries. The technology itself isn't new and we first saw a concept car nearly a decade ago.
Click to expand...

Changing the propulsion source of a car is key to doing away with toxic gas-engines. And it is obviously the Only-Way-to-Go. Which is why electric-batteries for today's electric-cars are key to our driving future.

If there were another alternative, better and bolder, then it is beyond today's technology by about 20-years. Time will tell - it always does so ....
 
longview said:
I do not think you understand, we had the pieces in place in 1962 to conceive of going to the moon with great effort,
but the technology to mass produce low cost Solar Panels did not exists until much later.
Regan and Bush put the pieces in place for low cost solar panels today, it likely was not the intent,
but low cost solar panels was one of the results.
Click to expand...
And now China is using solar panel technology as a trade weapon just as the U.S. is using semiconductor technology as a trade weapon against China.
 
jaypatriot said:
And now China is using solar panel technology as a trade weapon just as the U.S. is using semiconductor technology as a trade weapon against China.
Click to expand...
China is subsidizing panel manufacturing to attempt to control the market.
 
longview said:
China is subsidizing panel manufacturing to attempt to control the market.
Click to expand...
I believe Biden wants to do the same if we intend become independent from China's solar panels.
And China does control the solar panel market.
And we let them just like we became dependent on China for so many products they build for the world, like TVs, cameras, microwaves, and phones.
 
jaypatriot said:
I believe Biden wants to do the same if we intend become independent from China's solar panels.
And China does control the solar panel market.
And we let them just like we became dependent on China for so many products they build for the world, like TVs, cameras, microwaves, and phones.
Click to expand...
You don't honestly believe that the Chinese are more wealthy than Americans do you?
 
expat_panama said:
You don't honestly believe that the Chinese are more wealthy than Americans do you?
Click to expand...

Mean net financial-assets per capita (Euros) from here:
US: 259,780
Sweden: 146,530
France: 72,320
Germany: 69,290
China: 15,400
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
Mean net financial-assets per capita (Euros) from here:
US: 259,780
Sweden: 146,530
France: 72,320
Germany: 69,290
China: 15,400
Click to expand...
Right. of course what ur listing are the assets & I find net worth more useful, something else is wikipedia has its own set of problems w/ their adgenda driven "facts", but what u got corresponds to what I've seen elsewhere.

Something else is that we've got to understand that size matters. Luxembourg has a greater percapita net worth than the U.S. but hey, it's a tiny speck. Then again the Chinese might say that about Americans...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom