3 ms·

The use of plastics and other oil based products is nothing to do with oil as a fossil fuel, but with oil as a complex hydrocarbon. I'm not sure anyone is argu

The use of plastics and other oil based products is nothing to do with oil as a fossil fuel, but with oil as a complex hydrocarbon. I'm not sure anyone is arguing against using oil for plastics, lubrication and medicine productions. Your comment was about energy production, and while I accept that you can burn oil at night and when the wind isn't blowing, the existence of a national grid linking different parts of a country pretty much means that isn't an issue any more. The more we preserve oil for these essential purposes and avoid burning the stuff, the better. Even if you insist that we need fossil fuel cover for days with no light or wind, that isn't an argument against building wind or solar power stations. It is an argument for keeping some mothballed gas power stations as a backup (not oil or coal though — gas is a lot cleaner and easier to start up at short notice). In the UK we still burn some coal, but the renewable capacity we have built up has allowed us to turn off all the coal stations for periods during the Summer. And building more nukes will let us close those remaining ones down for good eventually.

ThomPete 8y ago
The use of oil-based products is important because it's part of the entire logistical/shipping system. Oil "won" because of its multifaceted abilities and thus could be embedded into the larger market whether nation-states and private businesses and for private usage. I don't see anyone arguing against wind and solar. I am just saying that they are by no metrics able to cover the energy usage we have not even close. Currently, we are talking around 1% of global energy needs and the places that rely on it heavily need support both from oil, coal and nuclear as we saw this summer where Denmark needed the Germans to fire up their coal to support as there was no wind because of the amazing summer they had. The point I am really making is that nuclear as a base clean form of energy is where we should be focusing our efforts and then use wind, solar, gas and oil as supporting in various situations. Unfortunately, the current political environment pushed by the environmentalist who claims to be against CO2 emissions yet are against nuclear, makes it an absurd and fruitless discussion. Focusing all this effort and money on wind and solar when they will not be able to actually support our current or future energy needs is exactly the wrong way to go and is my primary issue with this whole discussion.

ThomPete 8y ago

The use of oil-based products is important because it's part of the entire logistical/shipping system. Oil "won" because of its multifaceted abilities and thus could be embedded into the larger market whether nation-states and private businesses and for private usage. I don't see anyone arguing against wind and solar. I am just saying that they are by no metrics able to cover the energy usage we have not even close. Currently, we are talking around 1% of global energy needs and the places that rely on it heavily need support both from oil, coal and nuclear as we saw this summer where Denmark needed the Germans to fire up their coal to support as there was no wind because of the amazing summer they had. The point I am really making is that nuclear as a base clean form of energy is where we should be focusing our efforts and then use wind, solar, gas and oil as supporting in various situations. Unfortunately, the current political environment pushed by the environmentalist who claims to be against CO2 emissions yet are against nuclear, makes it an absurd and fruitless discussion. Focusing all this effort and money on wind and solar when they will not be able to actually support our current or future energy needs is exactly the wrong way to go and is my primary issue with this whole discussion.