3 ms·

It looks like we've hit global peak, yes, but it's hard to be sure. I went with the phrasing "long before then" just to be on the safe side. Sadly? We're in no

by Towle 17y ago

It looks like we've hit global peak, yes, but it's hard to be sure. I went with the phrasing "long before then" just to be on the safe side. Sadly? We're in no position to be picky about where we get our energy. We currently have no viable alternatives to oil. Combine all the different renewable energy sources you want; they'll never fill the hole left by oil.

sleepingbot 17y ago
I completely disagree with you. I don't think your explanation needs even a response. Oil needs to have alternatives this century. Oil is bad and doesn't make sense. It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath, while in 6 hours we get as much energy from the sun as we do need for 1 year. Anyway. Go burn some gasoline, my friend.
- Towle 17y ago
  You can't just demand that technology advance at the pace you want it to. You can try your best, certainly, but to simply expect the alternatives to be there waiting is ridiculous. Don't depend on what you don't have.
- sleepingbot 17y ago
  Towle: alternatives are not ridiculous. Are you from ExxonMobil or something? I feel you are getting a bit defensive here, and don't know why. I bring some facts: France generates almost all its electricity from nuclear power. It's not "green" if you want (your response will bring that) but it doesn't emit CO2 and it's there. Read Stewart Brand. As said in another comment, Spain procudes 15%-50% energy from wind (I repeat, from wind, today).
- lionhearted 17y ago
  > It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath, Mate, we don't need that kind of rah-rah emotional imagery here at HN. Penicillin is putting living fungus into your body - but we usually just call it antibiotics. Anyway, I agree with your other comment about nuclear power being a positive solution to oil. If we can improve batteries, nuclear/better batteries can probably hold us over to hydrogen, fusion, or whatever's post-oil/gas.
  - sleepingbot 17y ago
    ?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by Towle 17y ago

sleepingbot 17y ago

I completely disagree with you. I don't think your explanation needs even a response. Oil needs to have alternatives this century. Oil is bad and doesn't make sense. It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath, while in 6 hours we get as much energy from the sun as we do need for 1 year. Anyway. Go burn some gasoline, my friend.

Towle 17y ago
You can't just demand that technology advance at the pace you want it to. You can try your best, certainly, but to simply expect the alternatives to be there waiting is ridiculous. Don't depend on what you don't have.
sleepingbot 17y ago
Towle: alternatives are not ridiculous. Are you from ExxonMobil or something? I feel you are getting a bit defensive here, and don't know why. I bring some facts: France generates almost all its electricity from nuclear power. It's not "green" if you want (your response will bring that) but it doesn't emit CO2 and it's there. Read Stewart Brand. As said in another comment, Spain procudes 15%-50% energy from wind (I repeat, from wind, today).
lionhearted 17y ago
> It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath, Mate, we don't need that kind of rah-rah emotional imagery here at HN. Penicillin is putting living fungus into your body - but we usually just call it antibiotics. Anyway, I agree with your other comment about nuclear power being a positive solution to oil. If we can improve batteries, nuclear/better batteries can probably hold us over to hydrogen, fusion, or whatever's post-oil/gas.
- sleepingbot 17y ago
  ?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]