6 ms·

Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just to

Not true. At all. Fossil fuels represents the accumulation of green energy reserves over millions of years. We cannot beat that with the green energy of just today or tomorrow. Whatever green future awaits us, it will be much less convenient then the days of the past.

ncmncm 5y ago
Is that you, Exxon? It is a public fact that renewables cost less than fossil fuels. They cost less than anything in history, no matter how you measure. Clearly you wish this were not so. But reality does not tailor itself to what you wish.
- deltaonefour 5y ago
  No I'm not exxon. Why would you accuse me of that just because I have a different opinion? Are you a complete ass hole of a human being? Renewables don't deliver the energy density of fossil fuels. When you factor in storage and density renewables costs more. A good way to illustrate the extremes is air planes which basically can't run on renewables. When I say the future is bleak I don't mean that we should continue to burn oil. I think we have to stop burning oil. What I'm saying is that we have to stop, and the result of stopping is a future that is much less convenient then it is now but way better then the future of continuing to burn. The problem with you and your ass hole comment about Exxon, is that you view it as a team based thing. You're on team environment so anyone else not on your side is team Exxon. Why don't you take a step back and look at is dispassionately. I'm not on ANYONES side so I'm not fucking blind to the fact that oil is a critical part of our civilizations infrastructure and removing it completely will change many things, including your ability to fly to another country. You have to be next level stupid if you can't see the downsides of green energy. Stop playing teams.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Except, renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded, because besides being the cheaper fuel, per joule, LH2's extreme mass-energy density leaves much more of rated lifting capacity for paying cargo. I.e., the LH2 craft will drive prices below the base operating cost of kerosene craft. Retrofitted and new NH3-tanked shipping will similarly drive out the still bunker-oil driven as NH3 price falls, accelerated by dockage for polluting craft becoming increasingly restricted. Plastics might still be made from the cheapest of pumped oil, but that is not certain.
    - deltaonefour 5y ago
      >renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Except they don't because you can't even get that level of storage without a huge downside. >Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Only because the supply of fossil fuels is dwindling. Using renewables to make this stuff will NEVER be as efficient as the way fossil fuels have been used in the past century. Free fuel out of the ground vs. making it? Free fuel is way more efficient then either biofuels or hydrogen that has to be made. Ethanol and biodiesel are the two main types of biofuels, derived from organic matter (obtained directly from plants, or indirectly from agricultural, commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes). To be a viable alternative for petroleum, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, offer clear environmental and economic benefits, and not reduce food supplies and/or increase their costs. Biofuels fall short of these requirements and should therefore stay a niche market, used moderately and optionally instead of mandated at wide-scale public use. Environmental groups themselves have found that between 2008 and 2022, biofuels will receive more than $400 billion in subsidies. >Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded Unlikely. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen. If planes use hydrogen getting on one will cost astronomically more than it does today. The business incentive and R&D on such things will be infinitely less. Planes will be running on oil for as long as the industry can. You also still haven't apologized for being an ass. Please do that.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        OK, flagged.
        deltaonefour 5y ago
        Because I asked for an apology after you accused me of being from Exxon? Flagging you. When you discuss things with people please refrain from offensive statements like "are you Exxon?" It's offensive and akin to like "Are you kkk?" There's really no need for that. Although I shouldn't have called you an ass. Dang I want to bring to your attention that although the word "ass" is more explicit, this person essentially started the waterfall and is saying things that are much more offensive but sort of more stealthy. The Exxon thing was a deliberate and targeted jab.

ncmncm 5y ago

Is that you, Exxon? It is a public fact that renewables cost less than fossil fuels. They cost less than anything in history, no matter how you measure. Clearly you wish this were not so. But reality does not tailor itself to what you wish.

deltaonefour 5y ago
No I'm not exxon. Why would you accuse me of that just because I have a different opinion? Are you a complete ass hole of a human being? Renewables don't deliver the energy density of fossil fuels. When you factor in storage and density renewables costs more. A good way to illustrate the extremes is air planes which basically can't run on renewables. When I say the future is bleak I don't mean that we should continue to burn oil. I think we have to stop burning oil. What I'm saying is that we have to stop, and the result of stopping is a future that is much less convenient then it is now but way better then the future of continuing to burn. The problem with you and your ass hole comment about Exxon, is that you view it as a team based thing. You're on team environment so anyone else not on your side is team Exxon. Why don't you take a step back and look at is dispassionately. I'm not on ANYONES side so I'm not fucking blind to the fact that oil is a critical part of our civilizations infrastructure and removing it completely will change many things, including your ability to fly to another country. You have to be next level stupid if you can't see the downsides of green energy. Stop playing teams.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Except, renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded, because besides being the cheaper fuel, per joule, LH2's extreme mass-energy density leaves much more of rated lifting capacity for paying cargo. I.e., the LH2 craft will drive prices below the base operating cost of kerosene craft. Retrofitted and new NH3-tanked shipping will similarly drive out the still bunker-oil driven as NH3 price falls, accelerated by dockage for polluting craft becoming increasingly restricted. Plastics might still be made from the cheapest of pumped oil, but that is not certain.
  - deltaonefour 5y ago
    >renewables+storage also cost less; and cost is still in free fall. Except they don't because you can't even get that level of storage without a huge downside. >Soon, synthetic hydrocarbons will be cheaper than most mined/refined/shipped, where that stuff is still needed at all. Only because the supply of fossil fuels is dwindling. Using renewables to make this stuff will NEVER be as efficient as the way fossil fuels have been used in the past century. Free fuel out of the ground vs. making it? Free fuel is way more efficient then either biofuels or hydrogen that has to be made. Ethanol and biodiesel are the two main types of biofuels, derived from organic matter (obtained directly from plants, or indirectly from agricultural, commercial, domestic, and/or industrial wastes). To be a viable alternative for petroleum, a biofuel should provide a net energy gain, offer clear environmental and economic benefits, and not reduce food supplies and/or increase their costs. Biofuels fall short of these requirements and should therefore stay a niche market, used moderately and optionally instead of mandated at wide-scale public use. Environmental groups themselves have found that between 2008 and 2022, biofuels will receive more than $400 billion in subsidies. >Aircraft using LH2 will drive kerosene-driven out of all high-profit routes as quickly as they can be built and fielded Unlikely. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen. If planes use hydrogen getting on one will cost astronomically more than it does today. The business incentive and R&D on such things will be infinitely less. Planes will be running on oil for as long as the industry can. You also still haven't apologized for being an ass. Please do that.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      OK, flagged.
      - deltaonefour 5y ago
        Because I asked for an apology after you accused me of being from Exxon? Flagging you. When you discuss things with people please refrain from offensive statements like "are you Exxon?" It's offensive and akin to like "Are you kkk?" There's really no need for that. Although I shouldn't have called you an ass. Dang I want to bring to your attention that although the word "ass" is more explicit, this person essentially started the waterfall and is saying things that are much more offensive but sort of more stealthy. The Exxon thing was a deliberate and targeted jab.