6 ms·

Houstonite here that works in the energy industry. Im not sure you are talking to the right people. Im not anti fossil fuels, but Im not really "pro" fossil fue

by S_A_P 8y ago

Houstonite here that works in the energy industry. Im not sure you are talking to the right people. Im not anti fossil fuels, but Im not really "pro" fossil fuels either. If you look at the oil and gas business, there really just isn't any viable alternatives available on a large scale at this moment. I would echo some other comments in that Texas has a lot of solar and wind farms. My father in law has a ranch out in west Texas and every surrounding property has wind or solar generation on it. I am encouraged by this, and while I don't really like looking out at the landscape to see a bunch of windmills, I think it is important to try and reduce our fossil fuel use. The fact of the matter though is that until we give up plastic, and figure out how to store electricity, we need nat gas or nuclear for electricity. Ive read conflicting data about the worlds lithium supply, but it may or may not be able to replace crude for transportation. Electric planes still seem a decade off or more. If crude went away tomorrow, I would still work in the energy industry so I don't care if that were to happen. I can say that I have been encouraged by some of the internal projects some "big oil" companies are taking on. I wish it could be a case of just stop using oil. Life as we know it would cease if we did that.

johnwyles 8y ago
To be fair a lot of West Texas if you're not looking at a bunch of windmills you're looking at about as many derricks - neither are very pleasing to the eye.
- benj111 8y ago
  I find turbines quite beautiful. A small glimpse of that 1950s future that never came to be. We don't have jet packs, or flying cars, but we have immense white towers, slowly, steadily generating clean electricity. Just as steam engines sum up the industrial revolution, wind turbines sum up the green revolution, that is/I hope will be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. I remember people complaining about 2 massive cooling towers in the centre of Sheffield being torn down. I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly.
  - crumpets 8y ago
    >I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly. It depends on the density. Once they clutter everything visible below 100 ft, it's pretty hard to see beauty: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/212820-travel-palm-springs-windmills.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/2128...
    - benj111 8y ago
      I would say its the black ones that make it look ugly? And the lack of uniformity? I did a google image search for that location and the other images didn't seem so bad (to me). Is the uglyness an inherent feature of the scale. Or a feature of poor design?
      - war1025 8y ago
        The black ones are actually under a cloud. In Iowa, we have quite a few wind farms. I think for most people they are a source of pride. Maybe I just haven't met the grumps.
        benj111 8y ago
        Might be shadow rather than cloud? Some appear to have white nacelles and black towers.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      That's an extreme telephoto shot, I don't think it's representative of what you'd see when you look at the landscape as a human. Unless it's from a very specific spot.
      - Rapzid 8y ago
        That picture doesn't do it justice. Driving through Palm Springs is pretty cool. There are a LOT of windmills.
  - 8y ago
eigenvector 8y ago
I don't think anyone is seriously proposing to stop all use of petroleum products overnight. The most commonly proposed policy, which is actively being implemented elsewhere in the world, is to tax fossil fuels - which currently carry major unpriced externalities - to incentivize the use of lower-carbon alternatives. For instance, only 4% of global oil output is used in plastics. The vast majority is used in transportation and heating. Plastics, unlike transportation fuels, can also be recycled. It's not oil or no oil. It's putting in place the systems and policies to responsibly end our reliance on oil and coal before we cause even more damage to our climate.
- CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
  Well, a bunch of countries have more or less agreed on aiming for no more than 1.5 degrees warmer. IPCC made a report on what that would entail stating basically that even with an overnight abolishment it cannot be reached. But that if we assume it feasible to use afforestation and other techniques to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in the future we might have chance to reach that target for 2100 given we stop using fossil fuels by 2030. Given the scale of the transition necessary, overnight or 11-years is more or less the same time frame Edit: Great TED-talk on the scale of what’s needed https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o
DeonPenny 8y ago
Your right the current battery technology is 29 times less efficient when it comes to storage compacity as fossil fuels. An electric plan has no hopes at flying so until solid state batteries are made this is all we have.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
diafygi 8y ago
Former Houston old-energy chemical engineer here (also grew up in west Texas). I switched careers to cleantech, and I see now something I didn't see back when I was in old-energy: being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as being pro fossil fuels. First, that attitude makes you, your family, and your friends more susceptible to propaganda from pro-fossil fuel interests. You're more apt to believe crazy stuff like we'd have to stop using plastic or that nuclear would have to also go away. You're more apt to doubt the science behind climate change. You're more apt to be mislead on the economics or feasibility of renewables. Second, that attitude makes you think we're not in a rush, so we can afford to wait until things are figured out more. It makes you think that we have to figure out storage for wind and solar and airplanes, even though we don't have to worry about that until we reach much higher levels of penetration than we currently have (and we're already making good progress nonetheless). It makes you think that we'd fall into chaos if we use less natural gas and oil, even though it's going to be a gradual transition and will be replaced with equal or better alternatives. Unfortunately, because of previous neutral attitudes like yours, we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate change are starting to happen (how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires? etc.). Nature doesn't give a fuck. It's too late to be neutral anymore. So from one Texas energy worker to another, I beg you to stop being neutral. Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise to have a substantial impact fighting climate change. Remaining neutral when you work in energy is just making everyone else's lives worse.
- autokad 8y ago
  > "I switched careers to cleantech" can pretty much expect something completely biased coming, but will wait and see. > "being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as being pro fossil fuels" Yup, here is you sure are about to spout off nothing but propaganda now. > "nuclear would have to also go away" liberals hate nuclear. In fact one of the primary purposes of the Simpsons was to raise awareness (propaganda) about how bad nuclear is. > "we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate " no we are not. 8.2 feet by the end of 2100 is it? the end of the ice age saw sea levels rise almost a thousand feet. Australia use to be connected to Papua New Guinea. its not ideal, but its not a race for our lives nightmare. I have pretty bad nightmares. The vast majority of all human beings will have died of old age by then. Open google maps, look outside your city limits. Earth is alive. This is not ideal, but saying things like race for our lives nightmare only makes it hard to take you seriously. > "how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires?" California has ALWAYS HAD WILDFIRES. Red Wood trees have EVOLVED to only be able to reproduce with them - so they kinda probably happened. a lot. In fact, the west is so dry, its the only place on the planet cactus evolved. its that dry. it always has been that dry. > "It's too late to be neutral anymore." Again alarmest attitude. but not surprised coming from someone who's job depends upon it. > "Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise" Then maybe you should respect that they have opinions founded in fact, instead of assuming they must be crazy-brainwashed for not believing what you believe.

by S_A_P 8y ago

johnwyles 8y ago

To be fair a lot of West Texas if you're not looking at a bunch of windmills you're looking at about as many derricks - neither are very pleasing to the eye.

benj111 8y ago
I find turbines quite beautiful. A small glimpse of that 1950s future that never came to be. We don't have jet packs, or flying cars, but we have immense white towers, slowly, steadily generating clean electricity. Just as steam engines sum up the industrial revolution, wind turbines sum up the green revolution, that is/I hope will be. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. I remember people complaining about 2 massive cooling towers in the centre of Sheffield being torn down. I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly.
- crumpets 8y ago
  >I'd be interested in what wind turbines say to you that lead you to call them ugly. It depends on the density. Once they clutter everything visible below 100 ft, it's pretty hard to see beauty: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/212820-travel-palm-springs-windmills.html https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/2128...
  - benj111 8y ago
    I would say its the black ones that make it look ugly? And the lack of uniformity? I did a google image search for that location and the other images didn't seem so bad (to me). Is the uglyness an inherent feature of the scale. Or a feature of poor design?
    - war1025 8y ago
      The black ones are actually under a cloud. In Iowa, we have quite a few wind farms. I think for most people they are a source of pride. Maybe I just haven't met the grumps.
      - benj111 8y ago
        Might be shadow rather than cloud? Some appear to have white nacelles and black towers.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    That's an extreme telephoto shot, I don't think it's representative of what you'd see when you look at the landscape as a human. Unless it's from a very specific spot.
    - Rapzid 8y ago
      That picture doesn't do it justice. Driving through Palm Springs is pretty cool. There are a LOT of windmills.
- 8y ago

eigenvector 8y ago

I don't think anyone is seriously proposing to stop all use of petroleum products overnight. The most commonly proposed policy, which is actively being implemented elsewhere in the world, is to tax fossil fuels - which currently carry major unpriced externalities - to incentivize the use of lower-carbon alternatives. For instance, only 4% of global oil output is used in plastics. The vast majority is used in transportation and heating. Plastics, unlike transportation fuels, can also be recycled. It's not oil or no oil. It's putting in place the systems and policies to responsibly end our reliance on oil and coal before we cause even more damage to our climate.

CuriousSkeptic 8y ago
Well, a bunch of countries have more or less agreed on aiming for no more than 1.5 degrees warmer. IPCC made a report on what that would entail stating basically that even with an overnight abolishment it cannot be reached. But that if we assume it feasible to use afforestation and other techniques to extract CO2 from the atmosphere in the future we might have chance to reach that target for 2100 given we stop using fossil fuels by 2030. Given the scale of the transition necessary, overnight or 11-years is more or less the same time frame Edit: Great TED-talk on the scale of what’s needed https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o https://youtu.be/E0W1ZZYIV8o

DeonPenny 8y ago

Your right the current battery technology is 29 times less efficient when it comes to storage compacity as fossil fuels. An electric plan has no hopes at flying so until solid state batteries are made this is all we have.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

diafygi 8y ago

Former Houston old-energy chemical engineer here (also grew up in west Texas). I switched careers to cleantech, and I see now something I didn't see back when I was in old-energy: being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as being pro fossil fuels. First, that attitude makes you, your family, and your friends more susceptible to propaganda from pro-fossil fuel interests. You're more apt to believe crazy stuff like we'd have to stop using plastic or that nuclear would have to also go away. You're more apt to doubt the science behind climate change. You're more apt to be mislead on the economics or feasibility of renewables. Second, that attitude makes you think we're not in a rush, so we can afford to wait until things are figured out more. It makes you think that we have to figure out storage for wind and solar and airplanes, even though we don't have to worry about that until we reach much higher levels of penetration than we currently have (and we're already making good progress nonetheless). It makes you think that we'd fall into chaos if we use less natural gas and oil, even though it's going to be a gradual transition and will be replaced with equal or better alternatives. Unfortunately, because of previous neutral attitudes like yours, we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate change are starting to happen (how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires? etc.). Nature doesn't give a fuck. It's too late to be neutral anymore. So from one Texas energy worker to another, I beg you to stop being neutral. Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise to have a substantial impact fighting climate change. Remaining neutral when you work in energy is just making everyone else's lives worse.

autokad 8y ago
> "I switched careers to cleantech" can pretty much expect something completely biased coming, but will wait and see. > "being neutral about fossil fuels is just as bad as being pro fossil fuels" Yup, here is you sure are about to spout off nothing but propaganda now. > "nuclear would have to also go away" liberals hate nuclear. In fact one of the primary purposes of the Simpsons was to raise awareness (propaganda) about how bad nuclear is. > "we're now in a goddamn race for our lives as the nightmares of climate " no we are not. 8.2 feet by the end of 2100 is it? the end of the ice age saw sea levels rise almost a thousand feet. Australia use to be connected to Papua New Guinea. its not ideal, but its not a race for our lives nightmare. I have pretty bad nightmares. The vast majority of all human beings will have died of old age by then. Open google maps, look outside your city limits. Earth is alive. This is not ideal, but saying things like race for our lives nightmare only makes it hard to take you seriously. > "how many Americans died in Puerto Rico? California's wildfires?" California has ALWAYS HAD WILDFIRES. Red Wood trees have EVOLVED to only be able to reproduce with them - so they kinda probably happened. a lot. In fact, the west is so dry, its the only place on the planet cactus evolved. its that dry. it always has been that dry. > "It's too late to be neutral anymore." Again alarmest attitude. but not surprised coming from someone who's job depends upon it. > "Unlike most other people, you actually have domain expertise" Then maybe you should respect that they have opinions founded in fact, instead of assuming they must be crazy-brainwashed for not believing what you believe.