Top Green admits it.

[Dr.Who]

This from a leader of the green movement:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/05/03/top-green-admits-we-are-lost/


Greens like to have it both ways. They warn darkly about “peak oil” and global resource shortages that will destroy our industrial economy in its tracks — but also warn that runaway economic growth will destroy the planet through the uncontrolled effects of mass industrial productions. Both doomsday scenarios cannot be true; one cannot simultaneously die of both starvation and gluttony.

Monbiot gets it, and furthermore concedes one of the main arguments of the anti-green case. The ‘problem’ is not a shortage of carbon rich non-renewable futures. The problem is the abundance of these fuels. We are not running out of hydrocarbons; shale natural gas, tar sands and coal offer enormous reserves that can cover our needs for the foreseeable future. We have an abundance of fossil fuel. Moreover, it seems likely that for a very long time to come, fossil fuels will be substantially cheaper and more abundant that expensive renewables.

 

[Dr.Who]

A related article:

"The world’s projected natural gas supplies jumped 40 percent last year. How is such a thing possible? Until a decade ago, experts believed that it would be technically infeasible to exploit the potential resource base of natural gas locked in 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world. Then horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, was perfected."

Environmentalists Were For Fracking Before They Were Against It

http://reason.com/archives/2011/05/10/environmentalists-were-for-fr

It is quite forseable that the same thing will happen with oil. As we get better and better at getting it the predictions about it running out will die. Then the green movement will (reasonably) shift but will (unreasonably) find new excuses as to why we must switch to more expensive renewables.

The greens need to be honest and make their case that oil is killing the planet and that we must all switch despite the fact that it is more expensive. So far they have not made the case well. They have failed to show that oil is killing the planet and they have failed to convince, let alone even suggest, that we need to spend more on renewables.

 

[Stalin]

this is my "washroom" reading

http://www.amazon.com/Heat-George-Monbiot/dp/0141026626/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpi_2

it has been there for quite some time.

what point are you trying to make ?

Comrade Stalin

 

[Dr.Who]

what point are you trying to make ?

Comrade Stalin

We all cannot have an accurate and productive debate if we don't debate the truth. And the truth is that we will not run out of oil for a very very long time if ever.

 

[PLC1]

We all cannot have an accurate and productive debate if we don't debate the truth. And the truth is that we will not run out of oil for a very very long time if ever.

True, but oil is increasingly from either (a) the politically unstable Middle East, or (b) sources that may cost more to exploit than the oil is worth (tar sands, oil shale).

So, why is it we don't run our cars on natural gas, or diesel made from coal? It seems to me that is the best short term solution to soaring energy costs.

Why don't we build more nuclear plants while cheap solar panels are being developed?

I know, I know. That would be the practical solution to energy problems. No one seems to want to be practical, just ideological.

 

[TruthSeeker]

True, but oil is increasingly from either (a) the politically unstable Middle East, or (b) sources that may cost more to exploit than the oil is worth (tar sands, oil shale).

So, why is it we don't run our cars on natural gas, or diesel made from coal? It seems to me that is the best short term solution to soaring energy costs.

Why don't we build more nuclear plants while cheap solar panels are being developed?

I know, I know. That would be the practical solution to energy problems. No one seems to want to be practical, just ideological.

First of all, only ONE of our top five oil importers are from the middle east.

Secondly, the biggest scam around is the ethanol subsidy program in the United States, and then there are the inefficient and expensive wind turbines and solar panels that we are all supposed to embrace as an "alternative" to fossil fuel energy.

 

[TruthSeeker]

True, but oil is increasingly from either (a) the politically unstable Middle East, or (b) sources that may cost more to exploit than the oil is worth (tar sands, oil shale).

So, why is it we don't run our cars on natural gas, or diesel made from coal? It seems to me that is the best short term solution to soaring energy costs.

Why don't we build more nuclear plants while cheap solar panels are being developed?

I know, I know. That would be the practical solution to energy problems. No one seems to want to be practical, just ideological.

First of all, only ONE of our top five oil importers are from the middle east.

Secondly, the biggest scam around is the ethanol subsidy program in the United States, and then there are the inefficient and expensive wind turbines and solar panels that we are all supposed to embrace as an "alternative" to fossil fuel energy.

So why don't we build more nuclear power plants? Because nuke plants are still a political football, and the enviro-nazis are still around.

 

[Dr.Who]

True, but oil is increasingly from either (a) the politically unstable Middle East, or (b) sources that may cost more to exploit than the oil is worth (tar sands, oil shale).

So, why is it we don't run our cars on natural gas, or diesel made from coal? It seems to me that is the best short term solution to soaring energy costs.

Why don't we build more nuclear plants while cheap solar panels are being developed?

I know, I know. That would be the practical solution to energy problems. No one seems to want to be practical, just ideological.

I agree completely and will add that as long as no one stops people from getting oil or natural gas or from building nuclear plants or developing cheap solar panels then the market will encourage all of them. As soon as someone tries to punish the development of one or to subsidize the development of one then that is when it becomes ideological.

 

[Dr.Who]

First of all, only ONE of our top five oil importers are from the middle east.

PLC was correct that we are increasingly buying oil from the ME. We are also increasingly buying oil from Canada and others.

Of course what we need to do is increasingly use our own. I would also be in favor of reducing the amount we buy from countries we don't like.

 

[PLC1]

First of all, only ONE of our top five oil importers are from the middle east.

Secondly, the biggest scam around is the ethanol subsidy program in the United States, and then there are the inefficient and expensive wind turbines and solar panels that we are all supposed to embrace as an "alternative" to fossil fuel energy.
So why don't we build more nuclear power plants? Because nuke plants are still a political football, and the enviro-nazis are still around.

Correct, the US buys most of its oil from Canada and Mexico. Oil, however, is a commodity traded on the world market, and the global supply and demand is what sets the price.

And, correct that the ethanol subsidy is one of the biggest scams around. Talk to the corn lobby about that.

Of course, that has nothing to do with running cars on natural gas or diesel made from coal.

Which nation do you think has the greatest nuclear capacity?

Check out this link and find out.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Correct, the US buys most of its oil from Canada and Mexico. Oil, however, is a commodity traded on the world market, and the global supply and demand is what sets the price.

And, correct that the ethanol subsidy is one of the biggest scams around. Talk to the corn lobby about that.

Of course, that has nothing to do with running cars on natural gas or diesel made from coal.

Which nation do you think has the greatest nuclear capacity?

Check out this link and find out.

Megawatt capacity, or "nuclear capacity" as you called it, is pretty much a meaningless number.

The number that matters is the percentage of electricity that is produced by nuclear power, and there are MANY countries that derive a higher percentage from nuclear power than the United States does.

 

[PLC1]

Megawatt capacity, or "nuclear capacity" as you called it, is pretty much a meaningless number.

The number that matters is the percentage of electricity that is produced by nuclear power, and there are MANY countries that derive a higher percentage from nuclear power than the United States does.

and many that derive a lesser percentage. We're above average by some 6%.

You are correct that building a nuclear plant is unnecessarily difficult, however we've managed to build quite a few of them.

The question of who has the most nuclear plants was on Jeopardy. I was sure that the answer was either China, or France. So were two of the contestants. We were all wrong, much to my surprise.