No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Oil will last for some finite amount of time. I'm not sure one can entirely predict how long, since consumption patterns change over time. Maybe we all get more conservation minded and/or efficient, or maybe the chinese hog all the oil and burn it faster than we ever did.

I'm not married to solar power myself, I was just commenting that that article wasn't making a very good case against it. It didn't stick to the wall.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

But it did make a good case against funding it with $billions or $trillions. The govt. wouldn't be so financially upside down if they'd saved all that money instead of blowing it on a losing proposition all these decades.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

No, actually it did not make a good case for that at all. All it made a case for is that it isn't financially competitive with today's other energy choices. It tried but failed to make the case that it won't be competitive in the future.

As far as saving all that money, here's an amusing perspective:



barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Nice try. R&D is one thing and is a strawman, the govt. subsidies for deploying is another, and regulation requiring us all to pay higher energy bills to meet the mandated amounts of alternative energy sources is yet another.

Methinks you choose sources that lie or are deliberately deceptive.

The strawman:

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

A nice article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html

Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Ok, so you are in favor of spending R&D money on solar energy? Because really I didn't get that from your statement. It sounded to me like you were saying you were against spending R&D money on solar energy, but in favor of spending it on other types of energy sources.

Maybe you should make your statement a little clearer next time. If you were trying to say
"I'm not suggesting we shouldn't invest in solar energy research, I just don't think we should spend money on subsides for deployment, regulations..." maybe you should have said that.

methinks you are throwing more shit at the wall hoping something sticks.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Methinks you throw out deceptive material that is also a strawman.

It's really basic money management to realize that if it costs you $2 to make a widget and you can only sell it for $1, you can't make up the difference by selling in volume. And that's what throwing $trillions at deploying money losing technologies is exactly doing.

There is no manhattan style project for alternative energy. If they can make and deploy efficient alternative energy sources, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize it.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

It was a strawman relative to the point you thought you had made, but hadn't actually articulated. It was not a strawman relative to my perfectly reasonable (if incorrect) interpretation of what you meant.

Trillions? Really? Please show me evidence we've spent trillions on solar energy.

Correct. Are you happy about that, or sad? Or is this just a random observation?

And if the moon was cheese, we could eat it.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Another strawman.

I urge that we stop subsidizing money losing propositions and spend a reasonable amount of money on research.

As for $trillions, it's what your ilk proposed for much of the Bush years. Now your guys are in control, and the costs are certain to be there, be they in the form of carbon taxes, higher CAFE standards, or regulations requiring X% of energy to be "green" by (pick a year).

We don't have to spend $1 trillion in one year for the spending to add up to that kind of figure. $100B a year for 10 years does the trick, and is insanity.

As it stands right now, electricity and gas and oil account for well over $1T of our GDP. At 10% of that as mandated alternative energy, then we're foolishly spending $100B / year on a money losing proposition.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Don't know what you are talking about. What strawman?

Ok.

That doesn't seem highly relevant. One might even call it a strawman.

Ok, so basically we haven't spent trillions, we aren't spending trillions, but you are afraid we might spend trillions. Ok. At least now I know what we are talking about.

For that matter, spending $1 a year for a trillion years would also add up to that kind of figure. We certainly can't afford that kind of spending.

Y'know, there is more to life than money. Sometimes buying the cheapest item available isn't the best choice.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

But buying the cheapest item that's identical to the more expensive one is common sense.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Energy from oil and energy from sunshine aren't identical. We don't have to fight wars for sunshine. Wars cost money.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

We don't have to, but we do.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I like.

barfo

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

As of Dec. 9, there were 44 bidders for production in 15 Iraqi oil fields. Yet before the war, we were the only country buying their oil in the oil for food scam.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6762303.html iraq oil sales&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

A total of 44 companies will make their pitch this week, vying for the 15 fields — the largest of the reserves located in Iraq's relatively calm Shiite-dominated south.

They include Exxon Mobil, Britain's BP, Conoco Phillips, Chevron and Total, plus state-backed companies from such countries as Russia, India, Kazakhstan and Angola.

While they represent the best — if not only — option for Iraq's hope to rebuild an oil sector suffering alternately from decades of neglect, war and sabotage, what remains to be seen is whether these firms are willing to accept less lucrative contract provisions to stake their claim to a piece of the Middle East's last major oil and gas bonanza.

 

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

When I said we fought wars for oil, I didn't mean in the simple sense of "let's take over the oil fields and keep it all for ourselves". We are, for better or for worse, slightly more sophisticated than that. Keeping the oil flowing is the goal, who pumps it and pipes it is not a major concern as long as it keeps flowing. Having multiple parties involved is a good thing.

barfo