U.S. Embassy Bagdhad is under attack

[Gasser64]

If you think we're going to use less fossil fuels as time progresses your nuts.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a metic shit ton of people out there who have all been conditioned (for decades) to think that fossil fuels are evil. This whole green indoctrination thing was being taught to me in grade school, and it's only ramping up just like everything else. Some of you guys are waaay behind times I know, but just look at the political winds. I know you think we'll be using them forever, (for some reason) but their heyday is definitely over. Nothing ever stays the same man. And we're entering an era of very rapid change, more rapid than you've ever seen or even thought possible. That 1990's rate of progression that you're used to went away a long time ago, and it's never coming back.

[svauto-erotic855]

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's a metic shit ton of people out there who have all been conditioned (for decades) to think that fossil fuels are evil. This whole green indoctrination thing was being taught to me in grade school, and it's only ramping up just like everything else. Some of you guys are waaay behind times I know, but just look at the political winds. I know you think we'll be using them forever, (for some reason) but their heyday is definitely over. Nothing ever stays the same man. And we're entering an era of very rapid change, more rapid than you've ever seen or even thought possible. That 1990's rate of progression that you're used to went away a long time ago, and it's never coming back.

It doesn't matter if they think that fossil fuels are evil; none of them are willing to starve to death and without fossil fuels that is exactly what would happen to nearly 80 percent of the worlds population by the end of the year if fossil fuels disappeared today. Their heyday is far from over and there is absolutely nothing even on the drawing board to replace them with.

[Broncojohnny]

It doesn't matter if they think that fossil fuels are evil; none of them are willing to starve to death and without fossil fuels that is exactly what would happen to nearly 80 percent of the worlds population by the end of the year if fossil fuels disappeared today. Their heyday is far from over and there is absolutely nothing even on the drawing board to replace them with.

This is exactly right. For all the bullshit you see about electric cars no one is projecting a decrease in the usage of oil, the only thing up for debate is the increase in the growth rate of usage.

[Gasser64]

by the end of the year

Your timeline is way too short, you're only looking at the end of the year?

if fossil fuels disappeared today

Again, that's right now. That's not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Fossil fuels have been in use in our industrialized civilization for well over 100 years. Their heyday is most definitely over. Look at all the coal plants that were shut down, those businesses gone under. Their stated reason? They aren't selling enough.

... nothing even on the drawing board ...

Well at this point it's pretty clear you don't really follow this stuff. But I'll just leave this here. And I'll try to preempt what you'll say, by asking you to please look at more than 1 year's time. While simultaneously considering that these technologies are most definitely not going to remain in the exact same state they are in right this minute. 10 years from now, they'll be much farther along. 20 years from now, they'll be a lot farther than that.

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/35-stran-stroyat-samyj-bolshoj-v-mire-termoyadernyj-reaktor-zachem-eto-nuzhno-foto/

I don't think they mention it there but the working time is increasing. The ratio is something like 50Mw in, 500Mw comes out. They've been able to have that work for... I forget but you can easily search and find out exactly. It was something like 4 min, then 16 min, then later 1 hr, then later still 4 hours. Do you really think they're just going to stop? Be realistic man: They all want this so bad they can taste it, and that run time is just going to keep increasing and increasing, until it stays on all the time. When that finally does happen, the rigs are going to stop drilling.

I mean even if you don't want to talk about fusion because "It took too long!!!" Then you've still got thorium, and the germans taking it up the ass from their government, which resulted in that massive price drop we saw in solar. (years ago) If solar drops yet another 10x... that's it. It's over, everyone (when building new) is going to install that system for roughly the same price as a new Hvac, and then not have to pay an electric bill and not have to worry nearly as much about power outages. I would mention ol Elon and how he'll come up with a better battery, but we know how much you hate that guy.


Again, I'm not talking about something that will happen this year, or 5 years from now. I'm just saying the chapter is closing. That's pretty evident if you just look at what's going on.

[bubbaearl]

there will always be a need for crude oil . it may decrease some but the need for it will still be there .

[Trip McNeely]

We wont run out of it, but like everything else the left wingers get their hands on, they will tax it out of existence or make it a pain in the ass to consume. That's what happens and will continue to happen if they get more power.

[svauto-erotic855]

Your timeline is way too short, you're only looking at the end of the year?



Again, that's right now. That's not 10 years from now, or 20 years from now. Fossil fuels have been in use in our industrialized civilization for well over 100 years. Their heyday is most definitely over. Look at all the coal plants that were shut down, those businesses gone under. Their stated reason? They aren't selling enough.



Well at this point it's pretty clear you don't really follow this stuff. But I'll just leave this here. And I'll try to preempt what you'll say, by asking you to please look at more than 1 year's time. While simultaneously considering that these technologies are most definitely not going to remain in the exact same state they are in right this minute. 10 years from now, they'll be much farther along. 20 years from now, they'll be a lot farther than that.

https://www.forumdaily.com/en/35-stran-stroyat-samyj-bolshoj-v-mire-termoyadernyj-reaktor-zachem-eto-nuzhno-foto/

I don't think they mention it there but the working time is increasing. The ratio is something like 50Mw in, 500Mw comes out. They've been able to have that work for... I forget but you can easily search and find out exactly. It was something like 4 min, then 16 min, then later 1 hr, then later still 4 hours. Do you really think they're just going to stop? Be realistic man: They all want this so bad they can taste it, and that run time is just going to keep increasing and increasing, until it stays on all the time. When that finally does happen, the rigs are going to stop drilling.

I mean even if you don't want to talk about fusion because "It took too long!!!" Then you've still got thorium, and the germans taking it up the ass from their government, which resulted in that massive price drop we saw in solar. (years ago) If solar drops yet another 10x... that's it. It's over, everyone (when building new) is going to install that system for roughly the same price as a new Hvac, and then not have to pay an electric bill and not have to worry nearly as much about power outages. I would mention ol Elon and how he'll come up with a better battery, but we know how much you hate that guy.


Again, I'm not talking about something that will happen this year, or 5 years from now. I'm just saying the chapter is closing. That's pretty evident if you just look at what's going on.

The time line for food production I gave is correct. Without fossil fuels this years crop will not get planted in the northern hemisphere and not harvested in the southern. By late summer of this year more than half of the world's population would have died and by this time next year about 80 percent of the world's population would have starved.

Coal plants closed and gas fired plants opened up. FYI, natural gas is still considered a fossil fuel. Gas is replacing coal in the US because it is cheaper. Wind and solar power are barely a blip of energy production even in the countries with the most production of it. That is very clear once you take a look at their hard data and not the manipulated data they put out to look good. We will never see a decrease in oil and gas consumption until the last of it is gone. Believing otherwise is pure fantasy.

The last nuclear plant built in the US was completed in 1990 and started production in 1996. It took 17 years to build. If you think that young people hate fossil fuels you should just see how much they hate nuclear power.

I have been listening to people talking like you are since the early 90s; they were completely wrong then just like you are wrong now. Exxon was even talking like you are and they spent 90,000,000,000 dollars trying to come up with a replacement for using fossil fuels under the theory that they are an energy company and not an oil company. Hard reality showed them that the only real practical energy is fossil fuels. I never hear a single person mention what Exxon tried to do and their research simply got swept under the rug because it (I like stealing this line) it showed "An Inconvenient Truth".

[Strychnine]

This is exactly right. For all the bullshit you see about electric cars no one is projecting a decrease in the usage of oil, the only thing up for debate is the increase in the growth rate of usage.

This is the big point.
Renewables will take most of the marginal growth (outside of China and other fast developers) and slowly chip away at the bulk, especially when looking at the power grid. It will still take decades for electricity have a majority share of transportation (just 1% of the 1 billion vehicles globally). One recent prediction was that 30% of new car sales in 2030 might be EV, but that doesn't address the existing fleet. Global energy needs will grow every year, and the fossil baseload will be steady for decades (and this is without even considering petrochemical needs).


Also, remember that the real push against fossil fuels is to drive carbon reduction. The European Environmental Bureau published a study earlier this year basically saying that plans like the Green New Deal just can not work because economic growth and carbon emissions can't be decoupled. Seems like with the current system, to hit these huge carbon reduction goals, someone's going to have to put their ass on the line and say, "Sorry, all this prosperity and growth has to stop."

Good luck getting that to happen.


Full 80 page paper here: https://eeb.org/library/decoupling-debunked/, but here's a short summary:

There are at least seven reasons to be sceptical about the occurrence of sufficient decoupling in the future. Each of them taken individually casts doubt on the possibility for sufficient decoupling and, thus, the feasibility of “green growth.” Considered all together, the hypothesis that decoupling will allow economic growth to continue without a rise in environmental pressures appears highly compromised, if not clearly unrealistic.


1 Rising energy expenditures.
When extracting a resource, cheaper options are generally used first, the extraction of remaining stocks then becoming a more resource- and energy-intensive process resulting in an increase in total environmental degradation per unit of resource extracted.

2 Rebound effects.
Efficiency improvements are often partly or totally compensated by a reallocation of saved resources and money to either more of the same consumption (e.g. using a fuel-efficient car more often), or other impactful consumptions (e.g. buying plane tickets for remote holidays with the money saved from fuel economies). It can also generate structural changes in the economy that induce higher consumption (e.g. more fuel-efficient cars reinforce a car-based transport system at the expense of greener alternatives, such as public transport and cycling).

3 Problem shifting.
Technological solutions to one environmental problem can create new ones and/or exacerbate others. For example, the production of private electric vehicles puts pressure on lithium, copper, and cobalt resources; the production of biofuel raises concerns about land use; while nuclear power generation produces nuclear risks and logistic concerns regarding nuclear waste disposal.

4 The underestimated impact of services.
The service economy can only exist on top of the material economy, not instead of it. Services have a significant footprint that often adds to, rather than substitute, that of goods.

5 Limited potential of recycling.
Recycling rates are currently low and only slowly increasing, and recycling processes generally still require a significant amount of energy and virgin raw materials. Most importantly, recycling is strictly limited in its ability to provide resources for an expanding material economy.

6 Insufficient and inappropriate technological change.
Technological progress is not targeting the factors of production that matter for ecological sustainability and not leading to the type of innovations that reduce environmental pressures; it is not disruptive enough as it fails to displace other undesirable technologies; and it is not in itself fast enough to enable a sufficient decoupling.

7 Cost shifting.
What has been observed and termed as decoupling in some local cases was generally only apparent decoupling resulting mostly from an externalisation of environmental impact from high-consumption to low-consumption countries enabled by international trade. Accounting on a footprint basis reveals a much less optimistic picture and casts further doubt on the possibility of a consistent decoupling in the future.

[Strychnine]

On the original topic:

[Broncojohnny]

I'm sure the parliament is full of Shiite shitbags. They'd love to hand the country to Iran.

[Strychnine]

I follow some Peshmerga guys on social shit and 20 minutes ago one posted that more rockets were just fired at the embassy in Baghdad.

https://mobile.twitter.com/peshmergaswe

[Gasser64]

there will always be a need for crude oil . it may decrease some but the need for it will still be there .

I'd replace "some" with "dramatically". If it goes so far as to become "some", it will definitely keep going in that direction until it's "dramatically".

... this year's ...

late summer of this year ...

next year ...

Well I tried.

You're going to have to accept that it does work whether you like it or not. There's a big giant blob of it out there that we call the sun. If they observe it in nature, it's only a matter of time before they copy it.

So I say again, that run time is just going to keep increasing and increasing, until it stays on all the time. I'd really like to hear you address that. Or maybe not.

I mean... do you just not believe that actually happened? I guess they're all lying? Oh well. Also I'm offering no personal opinion on what's good, bad, or ugly. I just like to keep up with all the latest and greatest as some kind of a hobby.

You should also know that you're definitely not alone when "You've heard about it for years". They also "heard about it for years" before they landed on the moon. There were die hards back then that thought the exact same way you do. Saying it was just impossible, or for one reason or another it would just never happen, or they'd simply die when they got there. All proven wrong just as you will be. Fighting against inevitable change like some kind of ancient dinosaur won't stop it. It's also futile.

It's better to be nimble and adapt. When you're too old, they're going to take your license away and give you an electric car that you can't control manually.

[bubbaearl]

use all the electric cars you want you still have the petrochemical industry and plastics . i first heard these pipe dreams in the 60's and very little has come to pass .

[svauto-erotic855]

^^^ You are yammering on about something that doesn't exist yet and we are not even entirely sure that it ever will. I have no problem with change but I am an engineer by schooling and I am a very practical one. As of yet there is no replacement for fossil fuels and none of the stuff being discussed will be able to replace them.

Going to the moon was easy by comparison, you just had to figure out how to not die doing it. Point A to point B issues are pretty tame but the budgets need to be really big for some task.

[Strychnine]

The ratio is something like 50Mw in, 500Mw comes out. They've been able to have that work for... I forget but you can easily search and find out exactly. It was something like 4 min, then 16 min, then later 1 hr, then later still 4 hours.

That's not what your article said.

The best result is with the British JET, which returns up to 67% of the energy spent. Due to the scale of the ITER design (it will be a huge one about the height of a nine-story building, and about the same diameter), the creators expect that the reactor will be able to emit ten times more energy than is spent on plasma heating (give 500 MW with 50 MW)

50 in 500 out is some future expectation. 67% is a far cry from 1000%.

To makes it clear to everyone, we're now talking about fusion and have strayed far from an embassy and fossil fuels...

You're going to have to accept that it does work whether you like it or not. There's a big giant blob of it out there that we call the sun. If they observe it in nature, it's only a matter of time before they copy it.

And you just might have to accept that "It exists in nature" is not the same as "we can control it." When you build new chemistry into refining there are three steps - lab bench-top, test unit, and production. Tokamak fusion tech is still early lab stages.

Going to the moon was easy by comparison, you just had to figure out how to not die doing it. Point A to point B issues are pretty tame but the budgets need to be really big for some task.

True. Earth : Moon via space :: Midwest : west coast via Oregon Trail. Infrastructure was lacking, but knowledge and technology was there. Just keep fighting until someone makes it. Newtonian mechanics + engineering + money + people willing to die = moon. There was no "Fuck, we need new materials to handle this" or "Fuck, we don't even have the money to start playing with this." Throw bodies at it until you get there.



FWIF, I'm certainly not against any of this fusion tech, but to sit here and act like its just around the corner and fossil fuels are going to die tomorrow is asinine. At best, the worlds first tokamak reactor will come online in 2025 and will take at least another 10 years past that to fully power up. Then you have one running... adoption and expansion will take decades more because of the cost. And you'll still have to rebuild powergrids to implement HVDC transmission and eliminate interconnect issues (could cost nearly $5 TRILLION just to do the US)...

It's fun to be a futurist, but to pretend the staus quo is going to change next week is disingenuous.