5 ms·

No. There is no honesty anywhere, that is my point. > the need to displace fossil fuels really is very important. Why? I don't necessarily disagree. But re

No. There is no honesty anywhere, that is my point. > the need to displace fossil fuels really is very important. Why? I don't necessarily disagree. But reality isn't a problem managed through a single variable. The things you list are not singularly caused by fossil fuels. In fact, a very solid argument could be put forth about just how much uglier things might be without fossil fuels. Here's the basic math someone would have to do before making the assertion that the elimination of fossil fuels --as a single causally-connected variable-- would make things better: The simplest (well, not so simple) calculation is that, while we might eliminate fossil fuels we do not eliminate the need for the energy they provide. In other words, in rough terms, you still have to explain how we would generate, harness, create, transport and distribute a certain amount of energy per unit time (hour, day, week, month, year, whatever). In fact, I think we can, in historical terms, state that energy requirements increase over time, they do not decrease. The next element of the story is how we are going to replace the massive number of byproducts of fossil fuels that modern life pretty much depends on. We know that making complex hydrocarbons any other way is in a range between highly inefficient (which would increase the aforementioned energy requirement) and impossible. My point --in stressing that reality is a rather complex multivariate problem-- is that, while it would be nice to think of a desirable reality without fossil fuels, in the real reality (just go with it) this is much more of an aspirational thing than an attainable objective. The same is the case with electric vehicles. I have yet to see someone do the math on the total daily energy requirement of the installed fossil-fuel based vehicle fleet and explain how on earth (literally) we are going to generate that much energy without causing even more problems. Our current electrical grid is designed for current energy requirements (and power requirement, which is equally important). The current system, in any country I know of, doesn't magically have an extra 100% in power/energy generation capacity to support every vehicle going electric. Reality: A multivariate problem. You push here and it pulls there. Not so simple. > For instance, air pollution from fossil fuels kills tens of thousands of people every year. Fair enough. Containerships, as a simple example, burn bunker fuel, one of the nastiest things you can burn. They are singularly responsible for more pollution along certain vectors than the entirety of the ground transportation industry. And yet we do nothing about it. Why? I can only guess. Part of it has got to be a case of "well, what we have works". The other issue --which I think is very real-- is that bunker fuel is, quite literally, the bottom of the barrel. It is what is left after you extract everything else from petroleum. So, next Monday we stop using bunker fuel everywhere in the world. No problem. Right? Wrong. You see, all the other oil byproducts are still needed. Which means that the bottom of the barrel...the bunker fuel...would still be produced in absolutely massive quantities. Except now we are not using it, because we want to clean-up the planet. Wait a minute. What do we do with it? Well, we likely have to bury the stuff, dump it somewhere, make huge mountain-sized piles out of it. We would now use massive amounts of fuel (yes, everything is "massive") to run the machines that have to haul and manipulate this stuff. We also have to devote massive (sorry) resources, land and ecosystems to burying what we are not using. Where it goes from there I cannot even guess. Once again, reality isn't a single variable problem. Bunker fuel == bad? Yes, no, maybe, hard to say. Because the alternative could be worse, far worse. This is precisely what I don't see treated fairly these days. Imagine a politician taking the time and making the effort to fully analyze and understand the bunker fuel ecosystem and also taking the time to present this analysis to the voting public. Good luck. It is far easier to say "bunker fuel == bad", get votes, stay in office and move on. It's easy to show how horrible the stuff is (and it is!). It is impossible to show how much worse things could be if we don't fully understand what reality looks without it. I'll overstay my welcome and give another example from real life. A number of years ago a well-intentioned yet mathematically-challenged "science" teacher at my kid's school showed the kids this gut wrenching video animation that pretty much says humans are a pile of shit destroying the planet. The thing is a close as you can get to an ignorant politically-motivated pile of lies. She was receptive to having a conversation. I asked if we could go through a simple exercise where we would try to understand what our small town would look like if we did not use the products of evil industrialized society. Petroleum is a favorite, of course. I won't bore you with the details. Before we got done we had destroyed every forest in sight, had piles of human excrement the size of mountains, all possible fields where you could grow something in the region were dead, sources of water were polluted (human waste and other by products of inefficient source for everything) and more. At the extreme we were using horses to get around, etc. A town of a few tens of thousands of people relying on horses has a serious manure problem. We would burn trees for heat and cooking, etc. As we extrapolated this from a town of tens of thousands to cities with millions and regions with tens to hundreds of millions of people, it became very obvious that modern life (or more accurately, modern population levels) would quickly become unsustainable if we demanded that humanity abandon how we got here and embrace everything "natural" an "sustainable". She was certainly surprised to understand the scale of the problem. Once you start thinking at scale --planetary scale-- "natural" and "sustainable" quickly end-up with razed forests, depleted marine life, polluted water sources and a sky blackened with thick pollution. Not to end on a depressing note. Yes, we are doing better, have been so for decades. We just have to be careful that we don't reduce reality to single variable problems, because that isn't reality, it's a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that. Climate change is one of those. It is hard to find truth that is being discussed with honesty in the mainstream.

naasking 5y ago
> In fact, I think we can, in historical terms, state that energy requirements increase over time, they do not decrease. They do, and all energy needs can be met with solar, wind and grid energy storage. Or nuclear if you don't want to invest in energy storage for whatever reason. > The next element of the story is how we are going to replace the massive number of byproducts of fossil fuels that modern life pretty much depends on. We know that making complex hydrocarbons any other way is in a range between highly inefficient (which would increase the aforementioned energy requirement) and impossible. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest immediate problem. Other fossil fuel products may or may not be a problem. But you don't ignore the heart attack because you just noticed a rash that may be flesh eating bacteria. Triage is key. > You see, all the other oil byproducts are still needed. "All" is overselling. Some are arguably useful, but for example, most product packaging is likely superfluous and a product of our current economic incentives. For instance, why do we have disposable containers for each unit of cleaning product we buy rather than reusing containers that you get refilled at the store? These choices are driven by market incentives that prioritize convenience over sustainability. Some products may never get rid of their plastic packaging, perhaps something like sterilized vacuum packed needles that hospitals use. Those would be the exceptions but not the rule. > We just have to be careful that we don't reduce reality to single variable problems, because that isn't reality, it's a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that. Climate change is one of those. Climate change isn't a single variable problem, and I don't think anyone serious is pushing it as such. If you look into the IPCC report on climate change, you'll see all sorts of factors being accounted for including cloud cover, contrails, methane, water vapour, CO2 and more. We only have so much influence over some of these factors, but the biggest and most obvious factor for which we have alternatives, is CO2 emissions. Do you deny that? > Once you start thinking at scale --planetary scale-- "natural" and "sustainable" quickly end-up with razed forests, depleted marine life, polluted water sources and a sky blackened with thick pollution. You and I clearly have different understanding of what "sustainable" means.
- robomartin 5y ago
  > They do, and all energy needs can be met with solar, wind and grid energy storage. Not true. Not even close. Particularly if you move away from optimal solar regions. In addition to that, manufacturing the grid energy storage capacity required to service planetary scale requirements will result in unspeakable consumption of natural resources (mining), pollution and environmental challenges. Not to speak of the amount of energy required to produce, ship and install such storage systems. > Or nuclear Nuclear is the ONLY viable solution. It makes excellent use of the existing infrastructure and we pretty much know how to do it right. > if you don't want to invest in energy storage for whatever reason. You are confusing things here. It isn't about me, or someone like me, not wanting to "invest in energy storage for whatever reason". Such loaded words too, "not wanting to", implying negative intent and "invest", implying a benefit that clearly might not be there. In other words, fabricating a conclusion while, at the same time, attempting to diminish the other persons standing. I must repeat myself here. Too much of what we discuss these days boils down to the magical waving of a single variable that will solve all of our problems (or cause all the harm). "Energy storage", this case. Well, this single variable solution to all of our problems isn't, in fact, a solution to all of our problems. At all. Start digging into what "investing" in this stuff actually means and you might come out of it thinking that coal and natural gas look pretty good in the comparison. If we are going to invest in anything it should be nuclear plants. Manufacturing batteries with ten to twenty year useful lifespan at a global scale is bound to cause more harm than good. Of course, some prefer to look the other way and think it is "green" because it seems clean at the application level. Here's an example of how not "green" these things can be. Do you know what you'd have to do to grid scale battery-based storage in the winter in Nebraska or Alaska in order not to lose capacity like crazy (or, even worse, have the plant shut down)? Heat up the batteries and keep them warm. If you think this is going to happen with solar energy...in the dead of winter...with snow and blizzards. Well. > Burning fossil fuels are the biggest immediate problem. Other fossil fuel products may or may not be a problem. But you don't ignore the heart attack because you just noticed a rash that may be flesh eating bacteria. Triage is key. Well, the analogy is nonsensical to begin with. Setting that aside, you don't get the petroleum byproducts without making fuel. This is a highly optimized production system. Every layer of it, almost literally, extracts a different useful substance. So, you can't say let's stop producing diesel and gasoline and keep producing the myriad industrial and commercial products that share that manufacturing pipeline. I mean, if you want plastic tubing, syringes, equipment and almost everything you find in a modern hospital, you have to start with oil and derive everything else. A modern hospital would be reduced to medieval times without the outputs of this process. Manufacturing a modern home, car, food, clothing would also be impossible. It is critical to understand this fact before continuing to push this fantastical idea that we can magically stop using petroleum. We cannot. It isn't that simple. Here's a review of how fuels and lubricants are made: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/470 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/470 https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28960/mineral-oil-refining https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28960/mineral-oil-... If you don't understand this, you are missing a key element of the perspective you have to have in order to have this discussion. Facts do matter. From the article: "By pulling the condensing liquid from the column at different heights, you can essentially separate the crude oil based on molecular size. The smallest of the hydrocarbons (5 to 10 carbon atoms) will rise to the very top of the column. They will be processed into products like gasoline. Condensing just before reaching the top, the compounds containing 11 to 13 carbon atoms will be processed into kerosene and jet fuel. Larger still at 14 to 25 carbon atoms in the molecular chain, diesel and gas oils are pulled out. Those compounds with 26 to 40 carbon atoms are a tribologist’s main concern. This is the material used for the creation of lubricating oil. At the bottom of the column, the heaviest and largest of the hydrocarbons (40-plus carbon atoms) are taken and used in asphaltic-based products." Translation: You don't make lubricants and a bunch of other critically-needed oil byproducts without making gasoline and the lighter hydrocarbons first. Or, put a different way: You can stop using the lighter hydrocarbons but you still need the other stuff, which means that you are going to fill entire lakes with gasoline-type hydrocarbons that you are going to choose not to use, which makes no sense at all. > "All" is overselling. Some are arguably useful, but for example, most product packaging is likely superfluous and a product of our current economic incentives. I am sorry, it is clear you don't know much about the industrial production of, well, anything. Plastic bags is the last thing anyone with this knowledge would even remotely mention. Factories would come to a grinding halt (in some cases literally) without oil byproducts. To continue with my medical example, none of the equipment, drugs and supplies a hospital needs to save lives can be made without myriad oil byproducts. > Climate change isn't a single variable problem, and I don't think anyone serious is pushing it as such. If you look into the IPCC report on climate change, you'll see all sorts of factors being accounted for including cloud cover, contrails, methane, water vapour, CO2 and more. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about things like us "saving the planet" by reducing CO2 emissions. Single variable. Complete bullshit. And when I say that, it isn't an opinion. This is supported by 800K years of atmospheric data. If you have an honest interest in truly understanding what's going on I'll point you in the direction of the data. This assumes you have a modicum of scientific training, high school science and math is enough. No need to have a PhD at all. This is actually very simple and easy to understand, but you have have to be willing to leave the bullshit you've been told behind and honestly consider the data and nothing else. When you do that it is very difficult to find support for what we are being told. This isn't about what I say. This is about what the data says. I know of only one paper --reputable paper, by a major organization-- that finally admitted the unavoidable conclusion, that, in effect, we are being sold a pile of bullshit. Again, if you are honestly interested in digging deeper and are able to leave preconceived notions behind, I'd be happy to provide you with a link to this paper. > You and I clearly have different understanding of what "sustainable" means. Of course, you are thinking "sustainable" at the utopic local level. I have taken the time to have a look at these problems at a planetary scale. You can make "sustainable" work at a local level in selected areas with very careful design and management. It almost never pays off, but we still do it. The reasons are sometimes good, we should clean-up our act, no question about that. Once you look at this as a "solution" that must address the needs of over seven billion people at a planetary scale it is hard to impossible for "sustainable" to actually be sustainable. In a lot of cases you create more damage than benefits in order to create the illusion of being "green". One example of this is that case of not using fuels, such as gasoline, while still having a need for the massive number of heavier hydrocarbons that come out of the distillation process. Great, no gasoline. Now, where to you put that shit while you only, literally, use the bottom of the barrel? Ah, you destroy the planet. Got it. BTW, I don't have the answers other than to warn that we really need to start reducing reality to single variables for each problem. That is simply not the way we are going to solve anything at all.

naasking 5y ago

> In fact, I think we can, in historical terms, state that energy requirements increase over time, they do not decrease. They do, and all energy needs can be met with solar, wind and grid energy storage. Or nuclear if you don't want to invest in energy storage for whatever reason. > The next element of the story is how we are going to replace the massive number of byproducts of fossil fuels that modern life pretty much depends on. We know that making complex hydrocarbons any other way is in a range between highly inefficient (which would increase the aforementioned energy requirement) and impossible. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest immediate problem. Other fossil fuel products may or may not be a problem. But you don't ignore the heart attack because you just noticed a rash that may be flesh eating bacteria. Triage is key. > You see, all the other oil byproducts are still needed. "All" is overselling. Some are arguably useful, but for example, most product packaging is likely superfluous and a product of our current economic incentives. For instance, why do we have disposable containers for each unit of cleaning product we buy rather than reusing containers that you get refilled at the store? These choices are driven by market incentives that prioritize convenience over sustainability. Some products may never get rid of their plastic packaging, perhaps something like sterilized vacuum packed needles that hospitals use. Those would be the exceptions but not the rule. > We just have to be careful that we don't reduce reality to single variable problems, because that isn't reality, it's a fantasy, and a dangerous one at that. Climate change is one of those. Climate change isn't a single variable problem, and I don't think anyone serious is pushing it as such. If you look into the IPCC report on climate change, you'll see all sorts of factors being accounted for including cloud cover, contrails, methane, water vapour, CO2 and more. We only have so much influence over some of these factors, but the biggest and most obvious factor for which we have alternatives, is CO2 emissions. Do you deny that? > Once you start thinking at scale --planetary scale-- "natural" and "sustainable" quickly end-up with razed forests, depleted marine life, polluted water sources and a sky blackened with thick pollution. You and I clearly have different understanding of what "sustainable" means.

robomartin 5y ago
> They do, and all energy needs can be met with solar, wind and grid energy storage. Not true. Not even close. Particularly if you move away from optimal solar regions. In addition to that, manufacturing the grid energy storage capacity required to service planetary scale requirements will result in unspeakable consumption of natural resources (mining), pollution and environmental challenges. Not to speak of the amount of energy required to produce, ship and install such storage systems. > Or nuclear Nuclear is the ONLY viable solution. It makes excellent use of the existing infrastructure and we pretty much know how to do it right. > if you don't want to invest in energy storage for whatever reason. You are confusing things here. It isn't about me, or someone like me, not wanting to "invest in energy storage for whatever reason". Such loaded words too, "not wanting to", implying negative intent and "invest", implying a benefit that clearly might not be there. In other words, fabricating a conclusion while, at the same time, attempting to diminish the other persons standing. I must repeat myself here. Too much of what we discuss these days boils down to the magical waving of a single variable that will solve all of our problems (or cause all the harm). "Energy storage", this case. Well, this single variable solution to all of our problems isn't, in fact, a solution to all of our problems. At all. Start digging into what "investing" in this stuff actually means and you might come out of it thinking that coal and natural gas look pretty good in the comparison. If we are going to invest in anything it should be nuclear plants. Manufacturing batteries with ten to twenty year useful lifespan at a global scale is bound to cause more harm than good. Of course, some prefer to look the other way and think it is "green" because it seems clean at the application level. Here's an example of how not "green" these things can be. Do you know what you'd have to do to grid scale battery-based storage in the winter in Nebraska or Alaska in order not to lose capacity like crazy (or, even worse, have the plant shut down)? Heat up the batteries and keep them warm. If you think this is going to happen with solar energy...in the dead of winter...with snow and blizzards. Well. > Burning fossil fuels are the biggest immediate problem. Other fossil fuel products may or may not be a problem. But you don't ignore the heart attack because you just noticed a rash that may be flesh eating bacteria. Triage is key. Well, the analogy is nonsensical to begin with. Setting that aside, you don't get the petroleum byproducts without making fuel. This is a highly optimized production system. Every layer of it, almost literally, extracts a different useful substance. So, you can't say let's stop producing diesel and gasoline and keep producing the myriad industrial and commercial products that share that manufacturing pipeline. I mean, if you want plastic tubing, syringes, equipment and almost everything you find in a modern hospital, you have to start with oil and derive everything else. A modern hospital would be reduced to medieval times without the outputs of this process. Manufacturing a modern home, car, food, clothing would also be impossible. It is critical to understand this fact before continuing to push this fantastical idea that we can magically stop using petroleum. We cannot. It isn't that simple. Here's a review of how fuels and lubricants are made: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/470 https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme801/node/470 https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28960/mineral-oil-refining https://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/28960/mineral-oil-... If you don't understand this, you are missing a key element of the perspective you have to have in order to have this discussion. Facts do matter. From the article: "By pulling the condensing liquid from the column at different heights, you can essentially separate the crude oil based on molecular size. The smallest of the hydrocarbons (5 to 10 carbon atoms) will rise to the very top of the column. They will be processed into products like gasoline. Condensing just before reaching the top, the compounds containing 11 to 13 carbon atoms will be processed into kerosene and jet fuel. Larger still at 14 to 25 carbon atoms in the molecular chain, diesel and gas oils are pulled out. Those compounds with 26 to 40 carbon atoms are a tribologist’s main concern. This is the material used for the creation of lubricating oil. At the bottom of the column, the heaviest and largest of the hydrocarbons (40-plus carbon atoms) are taken and used in asphaltic-based products." Translation: You don't make lubricants and a bunch of other critically-needed oil byproducts without making gasoline and the lighter hydrocarbons first. Or, put a different way: You can stop using the lighter hydrocarbons but you still need the other stuff, which means that you are going to fill entire lakes with gasoline-type hydrocarbons that you are going to choose not to use, which makes no sense at all. > "All" is overselling. Some are arguably useful, but for example, most product packaging is likely superfluous and a product of our current economic incentives. I am sorry, it is clear you don't know much about the industrial production of, well, anything. Plastic bags is the last thing anyone with this knowledge would even remotely mention. Factories would come to a grinding halt (in some cases literally) without oil byproducts. To continue with my medical example, none of the equipment, drugs and supplies a hospital needs to save lives can be made without myriad oil byproducts. > Climate change isn't a single variable problem, and I don't think anyone serious is pushing it as such. If you look into the IPCC report on climate change, you'll see all sorts of factors being accounted for including cloud cover, contrails, methane, water vapour, CO2 and more. That is not what I am talking about. I am talking about things like us "saving the planet" by reducing CO2 emissions. Single variable. Complete bullshit. And when I say that, it isn't an opinion. This is supported by 800K years of atmospheric data. If you have an honest interest in truly understanding what's going on I'll point you in the direction of the data. This assumes you have a modicum of scientific training, high school science and math is enough. No need to have a PhD at all. This is actually very simple and easy to understand, but you have have to be willing to leave the bullshit you've been told behind and honestly consider the data and nothing else. When you do that it is very difficult to find support for what we are being told. This isn't about what I say. This is about what the data says. I know of only one paper --reputable paper, by a major organization-- that finally admitted the unavoidable conclusion, that, in effect, we are being sold a pile of bullshit. Again, if you are honestly interested in digging deeper and are able to leave preconceived notions behind, I'd be happy to provide you with a link to this paper. > You and I clearly have different understanding of what "sustainable" means. Of course, you are thinking "sustainable" at the utopic local level. I have taken the time to have a look at these problems at a planetary scale. You can make "sustainable" work at a local level in selected areas with very careful design and management. It almost never pays off, but we still do it. The reasons are sometimes good, we should clean-up our act, no question about that. Once you look at this as a "solution" that must address the needs of over seven billion people at a planetary scale it is hard to impossible for "sustainable" to actually be sustainable. In a lot of cases you create more damage than benefits in order to create the illusion of being "green". One example of this is that case of not using fuels, such as gasoline, while still having a need for the massive number of heavier hydrocarbons that come out of the distillation process. Great, no gasoline. Now, where to you put that shit while you only, literally, use the bottom of the barrel? Ah, you destroy the planet. Got it. BTW, I don't have the answers other than to warn that we really need to start reducing reality to single variables for each problem. That is simply not the way we are going to solve anything at all.