Yeah, wood burning furnace to produce energy. There's a fucking solution.
And the weak minded show their true colors.
Don't understand the biomass process at all.
Don't seem to want to.
Lightweights.
I understand biomass fine. I know that there is a fuel that needs to be grown, which takes energy, removes carbon removing plants from the environment, takes land away from food prduction to be used for fuel production, and yet "heating" the woodchips takes energy and produces pollution.
Yet compared to No. 6 oil it has reduced fossil fuel emissions by 60% and the impact on the environment has been negligible
What you don't seem to understand or want to understand is the unintended consequences of what you preach. Economic and environmental. You seem content to sit in you first world bubble and really don't seem to care about the real and immediate impacts on those who are at the bottom of the economic chain. But that's what I would expect from a young college student who is still in his indoctrination phase.
The economic and environmental consequences of continuing to rely on carbon based fuels is far greater than any move towards renewables would be. Hth.
When yo drive to the slopes make sure to fill your car with potential energy. I clearly allowed that when potential energy is real energy we'll have it. You act like no one is working on alternatives. And you act like your side isn't trying to make what we have more expensive when they clearly are. Carbon taxes and the like don't reduce the cost. Do you really think energy producers are going to just run out of energy and go out of business?
The point about your little local wood burner versus global demand was made clear by Damone. If it doesn't scale global it doesn't work. If it costs more energy and warming to produce it isn't viable. That's why we don't have it
It makes you feel good about yourself, that's about it. That's the conceit of youth. We've been there, we just grew up. Someday you will too
This is now the 24th time. You really should stop.
The economic and environmental consequences of continuing to rely on carbon based fuels is far greater than any move towards renewables would be. Hth.
It depends how you get there.
We won't be running out of oil or gas in your lifetime, or your grandkids lifetime...and by then the market and technology will get the cost of other sources or energy down to a point that they are viable. Again, you're sitting in a first world socialist bubble. The market will always adapt and inexpensive energy will always be developed. There are those that will profit greatly from getting the taxpayers to buy into and finance their fantasy. If the government gets out of the way, we will get to where you envision, and it won't bankrupt us.
Yet compared to No. 6 oil it has reduced fossil fuel emissions by 60% and the impact on the environment has been negligible
That's because it's not being done on any meaningful scale. It's much less efficient that oil or gas. Ever heard of black carbon? DO you realize how much carbon would be released if biomass was a widespread use of energy? In the meantime, the government will pump billions into it and those who are well connected will get rich. All for nothing.
When yo drive to the slopes make sure to fill your car with potential energy. I clearly allowed that when potential energy is real energy we'll have it. You act like no one is working on alternatives. And you act like your side isn't trying to make what we have more expensive when they clearly are. Carbon taxes and the like don't reduce the cost. Do you really think energy producers are going to just run out of energy and go out of business?
Energy producers are on that path right now. Why do they spend millions on lobbying Washington for tax breaks and restricting emissions legislation? As long as fossil fuels are massively profitable they aren't going to look for alternatives
Exxon Mobil's Quarterly Revenue
The point about your little local wood burner versus global demand was made clear by Damone. If it doesn't scale global it doesn't work. If it costs more energy and warming to produce it isn't viable. That's why we don't have it
It doesn't cost more energy and warming to produce. In fact it's saved roughly a million in energy costs since introduced. Not surprised you didn't see that.
It makes you feel good about yourself, that's about it. That's the conceit of youth. We've been there, we just grew up. Someday you will too
No, it's an example that sustainable energy is tangible and cost effective. It's the future. Fuck off
This is now the 24th time. You really should stop.
The economic and environmental consequences of continuing to rely on carbon based fuels is far greater than any move towards renewables would be. Hth.
It depends how you get there.
We won't be running out of oil or gas in your lifetime, or your grandkids lifetime...and by then the market and technology will get the cost of other sources or energy down to a point that they are viable.
That's the most irresponsible argument in this whole mess. And everyone calls my generation the "me generation". LOL
Again, you're sitting in a first world socialist bubble. The market will always adapt and inexpensive energy will always be developed.
Energy has done nothing but become more expensive. Still waiting for the inexpensive alternatives to be developed. In the long term, the market can't rely on finite energy resources. You tout supply and demand, what happens when the carbon based supply begins to greatly decrease. Skyrocketing energy costs.
There are those that will profit greatly from getting the taxpayers to buy into and finance their fantasy. If the government gets out of the way, we will get to where you envision, and it won't bankrupt us.
No, carbon based resources need to be de-incentivized and renewable sources encouraged. If there were no tax credits much fewer people would be attempting to find clean alternatives.
Yet compared to No. 6 oil it has reduced fossil fuel emissions by 60% and the impact on the environment has been negligible
That's because it's not being done on any meaningful scale.
That's because the infrastructure is still developing for fucks sake. Oil production wasn't done on a meaningful scale in the 1880's and look where we are now.
It's much less efficient that oil or gas.
Actually it's efficient because it's sustainable. Hth
Ever heard of black carbon?
LOL get the fuck out. Black carbon has a max atmospheric life of a couple weeks whereas CO2's ~100 years. Why do all biomass operations emit less fossil fuels than your standard oil, coal, natural gas operations?
DO you realize how much carbon would be released if biomass was a widespread use of energy?
In the meantime, the government will pump billions into it and those who are well connected will get rich.
Collegedoog wants poor and middle class people to pay high energy prices now using "alternative" sources so that some day, if the oil runs out, they still get to pay high energy prices. Selfish asshole.
It would be awesome if we could all use the government/taxpayers as our venture capitalist so that bureaucrats with no skin in the game can make stupid investments on our behalf. So when the investment doesn't pay off, it's oh well! And when the company is successful, the government rarely, if ever gets a return that is even close to the commensurate risk. The owners of the company make billions on an uncompensated risk taken by the government. If it's a good idea and will be viable, the market will invest in it. period.
Collegedoog wants poor and middle class people to pay high energy prices now using "alternative" sources so that some day, if the oil runs out, they still get to pay high energy prices. Selfish asshole.
You haven't been able to follow my argument. I said we need to "ease" off of it. That doesn't mean pulling the plug
It would be awesome if we could all use the government/taxpayers as our venture capitalist so that bureaucrats with no skin in the game can make stupid investments on our behalf. So when the investment doesn't pay off, it's oh well! And when the company is successful, the government rarely, if ever gets a return that is even close to the commensurate risk. The owners of the company make billions on an uncompensated risk taken by the government. If it's a good idea and will be viable, the market will invest in it. period.
That's not what I said. Incentives for finding sustainable energy should be encouraged.
Not surprised you missed that while clouded in your anti-statist world view
BTW wouldn't an anti-statist hate the idea of mandating photo ID's for voting purposes. It's amazing you never see the irony in your positions.
Good. I trust the guys that have skin in the game and have succeeded in life over some moron screaming Koch brothers. CollegeDoog is d2d all the way
For every Solyndra there's a Tesla. You have to buy a ticket to win the raffle.
The tropical regions of the oceans swallow the equivalent of 170 billion barrels of oil in solar megajoules daily, more than enough to power the United States for years. Solar is by far the biggest potential resource we could tap into, and it is imperative that we find ways to make the sun > energy process more efficient.
Oh Doogie, Your professors steer you so wrong, Remember they are there for their talent of grant writing and reading curriculum from a syllabus. Not because they actually know how the real world works.
First of all there is only one Tesla. And for the one Tesla there is over 30 other multimillion dollar failures in clean tech. It's dead especially in America for a reason I will list later.
You speak of all the energy that is absorbed by the oceans from the sun. Well as I'm sure you know, the Oceans are 3/4 of the earth and will not allow for solar panels.
Also this Obama clean tech stimilus allowed Chinese companies to scoop up Billions worth of R & D for free and have made it so clean tech , especially solar will not have a domestic infrastructure that will generate profit. Obama sold it out to the Chinese directly or indirectly. So if you want to increase and maybe double the costs of energy than we'll go the route you describe.
Your woodchip energy plant at your school is also much more expensive than natural gas or oil. So if the rest of the world is spewing more co2 than We are and clean tech is double the price and not really economically sustainable, Why other than idealism should the government or private investors continue throw their money in that rat hole?
I've heard Finance is your wheelhouse so I'm looking to be educated here.
Comments
Devs?
Clendon?
The point about your little local wood burner versus global demand was made clear by Damone. If it doesn't scale global it doesn't work. If it costs more energy and warming to produce it isn't viable. That's why we don't have it
It makes you feel good about yourself, that's about it. That's the conceit of youth. We've been there, we just grew up. Someday you will too
This is now the 24th time. You really should stop.
We won't be running out of oil or gas in your lifetime, or your grandkids lifetime...and by then the market and technology will get the cost of other sources or energy down to a point that they are viable. Again, you're sitting in a first world socialist bubble. The market will always adapt and inexpensive energy will always be developed. There are those that will profit greatly from getting the taxpayers to buy into and finance their fantasy. If the government gets out of the way, we will get to where you envision, and it won't bankrupt us.
HTH
Great soundbite
Damone wins the thread overwhelmingly
I just found Race's Obama donation e-mail
We won't be running out of oil or gas in your lifetime, or your grandkids lifetime...and by then the market and technology will get the cost of other sources or energy down to a point that they are viable.
That's the most irresponsible argument in this whole mess. And everyone calls my generation the "me generation". LOL
Again, you're sitting in a first world socialist bubble. The market will always adapt and inexpensive energy will always be developed.
Energy has done nothing but become more expensive. Still waiting for the inexpensive alternatives to be developed. In the long term, the market can't rely on finite energy resources. You tout supply and demand, what happens when the carbon based supply begins to greatly decrease. Skyrocketing energy costs.
There are those that will profit greatly from getting the taxpayers to buy into and finance their fantasy. If the government gets out of the way, we will get to where you envision, and it won't bankrupt us.
No, carbon based resources need to be de-incentivized and renewable sources encouraged. If there were no tax credits much fewer people would be attempting to find clean alternatives.
HTH
That's because the infrastructure is still developing for fucks sake. Oil production wasn't done on a meaningful scale in the 1880's and look where we are now.
It's much less efficient that oil or gas.
Actually it's efficient because it's sustainable. Hth
Ever heard of black carbon?
LOL get the fuck out. Black carbon has a max atmospheric life of a couple weeks whereas CO2's ~100 years. Why do all biomass operations emit less fossil fuels than your standard oil, coal, natural gas operations?
DO you realize how much carbon would be released if biomass was a widespread use of energy?
In the meantime, the government will pump billions into it and those who are well connected will get rich.
You mean the big oil companies? Yes.
All for nothing.
Why would I make that shit up?
Fuck off.
It would be awesome if we could all use the government/taxpayers as our venture capitalist so that bureaucrats with no skin in the game can make stupid investments on our behalf. So when the investment doesn't pay off, it's oh well! And when the company is successful, the government rarely, if ever gets a return that is even close to the commensurate risk. The owners of the company make billions on an uncompensated risk taken by the government. If it's a good idea and will be viable, the market will invest in it. period.