As I posted on another forum-northern Canada will turn to geothermal and nuclear both-kind of an unholy combination but there is no alternative that makes sense for the poor blighted bastards who live in the frozen bush.
"Our dependency on oil should be broken by 2020."
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Part of why we will be slower than many European countries in becoming oil-free is that we do have a much more abundant supply of it, thus there is less urgency in becoming so. Its simple economics: why spend money to replace something we don't have to?
Fossil fuels and Santa Claus are mutually supporting delusions. There is no evidence for either. Oil is abiotic every ****ing drop of it and it can't be stopped from renewing itself, ever.
Because any politician that tries this here isn't going to be elected to act as government. We're pigs and we don't like change. Unless it's disguised as change without really changing anything.
Point taken-we have a lot of petroleum and it's making the whole economy a lotta dough.
Come on MF, you don't really expect Canada to engage in such a mundane and practical action as actually planning its economy. Canada is all about copying as many failed market economy policies from south of the border as possible. Canada will continue to bumble along while nations with more enlightened governments continue to pull ahead.
Good for the Swedes - they have shown that a country with a horrible climate and relatively few resources can surpass other nations who are possessed of far less vision.
Ultimately all nations get equal amounts of sunlight. Take a good look at where Sweden is located and try to figure out how that nation is going to become energy self-sufficient. If I remember correctly Stockholm is over 700 kilometers north of Edmonton. If the Swedes can do it, Canda with its much greater wealth of natural resources, should also be able to do it.
I do agree that Canada is tied to oil for the foreseeable future, but that does not mean that something could not be done to diversify Canada's energy sources and cut down on the country's dependence on an energy source that has been shown to fluctuate wildly in price. And I agree as well with your comment on nuclear power. That is a non-starter given its rather unpleasant side-effects if anything goes wrong and the fact that it is not nearly so environmentally friendly as its proponents maintain.
This is that green myth that is perpetuated by the environmental mental midgets who can't or
won't see the realities that confront us. They constantly believe that they can just change the
course of everything and we will just have to accept that. The problem is they appear to know
nothing about human nature. If they tried that without taking people and their aspirations into
account that would be the undoing of their movement if not society itself.
Of course we can't cut dependency on oil, second we can't go back to using horses for farming
and Good God, we are not going to suddenly all embrace the world of green. What cars are now
selling and who is buying the muscle cars, Mustangs the Challengers and Chargers Corvettes and
the like? People from their mid twenties to mid forties, and they don't give a damn about horse
power or fuel. That is merely an example, its about lifestyle, and short of a major depression
economically that won't change for a long time.
Green is a concept in the mind it has nothing to do with reality in the mainstream and the reason is
we as a society, pay lip service to the concept, but in private we do nothing. Business chimes in
about Green and the new way for the planet. In reality, they can increase their profit margins by
claiming organic, or environmentally friendly. Its all lip service.
These examples are merely a taste of the reality out there, so we will be dependent on energy and
water, food policy, and other things. The reason I say other things is we are interdependent on this
planet. The world is made up of various economic systems and states of progress. You can be as
green as you like, but if the third world is polluting we are no better off. The idea is so simplistic
and full of holes its hard to believe some people think we can do this this century let alone within the
time frame laid out here.
won't see the realities that confront us. They constantly believe that they can just change the
course of everything and we will just have to accept that. The problem is they appear to know
nothing about human nature. If they tried that without taking people and their aspirations into
account that would be the undoing of their movement if not society itself.
Of course we can't cut dependency on oil, second we can't go back to using horses for farming
and Good God, we are not going to suddenly all embrace the world of green. What cars are now
selling and who is buying the muscle cars, Mustangs the Challengers and Chargers Corvettes and
the like? People from their mid twenties to mid forties, and they don't give a damn about horse
power or fuel. That is merely an example, its about lifestyle, and short of a major depression
economically that won't change for a long time.
Green is a concept in the mind it has nothing to do with reality in the mainstream and the reason is
we as a society, pay lip service to the concept, but in private we do nothing. Business chimes in
about Green and the new way for the planet. In reality, they can increase their profit margins by
claiming organic, or environmentally friendly. Its all lip service.
These examples are merely a taste of the reality out there, so we will be dependent on energy and
water, food policy, and other things. The reason I say other things is we are interdependent on this
planet. The world is made up of various economic systems and states of progress. You can be as
green as you like, but if the third world is polluting we are no better off. The idea is so simplistic
and full of holes its hard to believe some people think we can do this this century let alone within the
time frame laid out here.
A number of places, James Hansen and Mark Bowen to name a couple of sources.
Ever hear of hemp, cotton, etc...?
There are many natural fibers and sources of raw material that can replace oil and I'm not even saying we need to phase out oil production completely, just use some sanity in how we treat resource exploitation that takes into account long term consequences. Largely basing our economy on fossil fuels because it's cheap and easy in the short term while ignoring the true cost makes no sense at all. It's lazy and ignorant.
The fossil fuel sector spends millions a year to spin the facts to keep the industry alive, so yes the die-hard advocates for coal/oil/gas do have a tremendous amount of responsibility for what's going on.
I've already pointed out alternatives that we could be developing right now.
I'm pretty sure human nature is going to be trumped by mother nature and when you consider the consequences of altering the global enviornment to the extent we are, then who is really living in a dream world. It's not environmental ideology that impresses me, it's the physics involved in fundamentally changing the radiative equilibrium of the global system. People are already dying in significant numbers due to climate change and that's going to increase.
Who's talking about going back to horses. Power is power, if you can build an electric vehicle that does away with many of the negative consequences of internal combustion vehicles while driving economical development in a sustainable direction, who would want to stick with a technology that has such serious side effects. It's like a drunk claiming he just can't get off the hotch because it kills the pain of day-to-day living. Maybe that's true, but the chances are good it's also going to kill him. Even Bush jr. admitted the US was addicted to oil. The innovation, new employment and investment oportunities that changing to renewable energy resources would create a brand new and much more robust economy.
The fossil fuel sector spends over $100 million a year in the US lobbying lawmakers to make sure their interests are protected, what do you think would happen if there was a level playing field there. Green isn't a concept of the mind, it's a response to facts that should be motivating us all to change. Do we want to go back to the kind of mentality that would lock up the pioneers like Galileo for daring to challenge the status quo.
The third world follows the first and in many cases is controlled by the first. We ignore water quality, species diversity, greenhouse gas emissions, over fishing, et al. at our own risk.
Grump - they're making a pretty definitive statement in a fairly short timeframe (2020). Either they are b.s'ing and will have a huge egg on their face, or maybe there is some legitimate merit to the idea.
And if they are able to give up such dependency on oil, they will be swimming in a sea of green, both economically and environmentally, while we continue to sap our own resources and cause unnecessary harm.
And if they are able to give up such dependency on oil, they will be swimming in a sea of green, both economically and environmentally, while we continue to sap our own resources and cause unnecessary harm.
Below is a large solar field being constructed in Sarnia Ontario by people who embrace the word "can".
Can'tservatives are unfamiliar with that word.
Solar energy can be stored in many ways as well, one method is molten salt......can.
Nuclear is a good option as well and advances in technology in facilities and waste management is always getting better.....can.
Good, now the west can stop shipping it's oil down east.
Make sure you store that energy or you might freeze in the dark !! Lol!
People who believe oil is going to stop being consumed in vast quantities are equal to those in early 70s who thought we'd all be living on the moon by now.
I really wonder about people who think paying $1.40 or more and eventually over $2 for a litre of gas is desirable. The claims that we're wedded to oil is bogus, right now there's an average of about 160 watts/ metre^2 in energy hitting the Earth from the sun. Times that by four for the part of the Earth receiving sunshine, and most of that is either reflected back into space or heats the Earth and is radiated in longwave form and eventually makes the same trip. With technology like roll-to-print solar cells and high performance electrical vehicles why aren't we demanding cars with durable photovoltaic skins that refuel themselves as they operate or are parked. Even if you live in a climate with limited sunlight for part of the year, hybreds provide a ready alternative. The problem with solar is as far as industry is concerned, once you sell the product you've pretty much lost the customer and it makes it hard to keep people trapped in energy dependency with as source of energy as abundant as sunlight.
For needs which solar, wind, biomass, etc.. can't meet then there are processes like thermal depolymerization that can take long chain carbon molecules and break them down into products that can be reprocessed to fill many needs. It uses a series of reaction chambers and heat and pressure to recreate in hours the geological processes that take millions of years naturally. Some of the products include, methane (some of which is used to power the process), naptha, solids like pure carbon which can be used for toner and the end product is a light crude. It can convert sewage, woodchips, animal waste and by-products, like the turkey offal at the Carthage plant. It's also carbon neutral as you're not pumping or digging ancient plant or animal life from underground to provide the material.
Plasma drilling now allows us to reach depths of as much as 30,000 ft. below the Earth's surface and in areas where hot material from the interior nears the surface like around the Pacific it's possible to drill down and tap into this almost unlimited source of power producing electricity.
People who keep advocating oil are really advocating for a monopoly that creates less economic and political freedom. In 2008 it was in part the steep rise in oil and gas prices that helped create the financial meltdown, as massive amounts of funds that would have gone into more productive areas ended up in oil company coffers. ExxonMobil alone made $18 billion in the first quarter of that year.
For needs which solar, wind, biomass, etc.. can't meet then there are processes like thermal depolymerization that can take long chain carbon molecules and break them down into products that can be reprocessed to fill many needs. It uses a series of reaction chambers and heat and pressure to recreate in hours the geological processes that take millions of years naturally. Some of the products include, methane (some of which is used to power the process), naptha, solids like pure carbon which can be used for toner and the end product is a light crude. It can convert sewage, woodchips, animal waste and by-products, like the turkey offal at the Carthage plant. It's also carbon neutral as you're not pumping or digging ancient plant or animal life from underground to provide the material.
Plasma drilling now allows us to reach depths of as much as 30,000 ft. below the Earth's surface and in areas where hot material from the interior nears the surface like around the Pacific it's possible to drill down and tap into this almost unlimited source of power producing electricity.
People who keep advocating oil are really advocating for a monopoly that creates less economic and political freedom. In 2008 it was in part the steep rise in oil and gas prices that helped create the financial meltdown, as massive amounts of funds that would have gone into more productive areas ended up in oil company coffers. ExxonMobil alone made $18 billion in the first quarter of that year.
A funny thread title considering we’re using more oil than ever before. Lefties and their predictions of Utopia.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/271823/daily-global-crude-oil-demand-since-2006/