Interesting piece on the rejection of shared science

[Emo EMAW]

I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil.  As it is now, the technology being developed to extract these "non-renewable" resources from the ground is growing faster than our ability to deplete them.  It could be along time before our ability to produce begins to decrease.

[steve dave]

I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil. 

why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?

[Emo EMAW]

I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil. 

why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?

CapEx

[catastrophe]

There are tons of reasons to get away from fossil fuels, and at least one should be persuasive to each ideological group. The whole global warming debate has just turned into a counterproductive partisan pissing contest.

[sonofdaxjones]

When you say dumb things that are completely contrary to the current economic climate you get called out on it whackadoodle

[ednksu]

If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting.  Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana.  I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.

If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility.  Why don't you want that?  We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure.  What is not to like about that?  *waits for oil company talking points*

Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.

This doesn't make sense.  Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.

Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil


Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica

Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.

You are TOTALLY missing the point. 

Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here.  The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years.  They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution.  Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.

[EMAWican]

I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.

Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.

[ednksu]

When you say dumb things that are completely contrary to the current economic climate you get called out on it whackadoodle

You are totally wrong yet again. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Nope.  You don't even remember what you post apparently.

[ednksu]

I'm all for renewable, but only if they are economically superior (cheaper) and we are for sure beyond peak oil. 

why on earth would you have the second required qualifier?

CapEx

The problem is that if you add in all the costs of petro, including defense spending to protect the regions of extraction, health and environment concerns, and not just the price per barrel it's not that different.  You examine the whole balance sheet and it's almost a no brainer.

[ednksu]

Nope.  You don't even remember what you post apparently.

that's because the post went over your head. please see yourself out before you continue to make yourself look anymore ignorant.

[sonofdaxjones]

I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.

Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.

Yep, there was a concentrated effort by OPEC countries particularly Saudi Arabia to flood the markets with oil in order to make US non traditional operations unprofitable.   This had limited success.   The Saudi's did recently seek $10 billion in bonds to shore up cash holdings. 

It had virtually nothing to do with alternative energy production.

[sonofdaxjones]

Nope.  You don't even remember what you post apparently.

that's because the post went over your head. please see yourself out before you continue to make yourself look anymore ignorant.

Quiet, sane smart adults talking now.

[ednksu]

I didn't read any of Edna's articles, but don't the problems in the OPEC countries stem from the glut of oil being produced from nontraditional oil extraction methods around the world? I can't' believe that renewable energy has any affect on oil revenue at all.

Yepper. Traditional oil rig counts are the lowest since pre-1900, while nontraditional rig counts are steady and are still projected to increase in the near future.

Yep, there was a concentrated effort by OPEC countries particularly Saudi Arabia to flood the markets with oil in order to make US non traditional operations unprofitable.   This had limited success.   The Saudi's did recently seek $10 billion in bonds to shore up cash holdings. 

It had virtually nothing to do with alternative energy production.

Surprise, you're totally wrong about my post and this post continues to show your inability to grasp simple concepts that involve long term planning and basic economics.  I guess all those links I posted from these governments that back my point are totally wrong too?  Keep it up Dax, it's great to watch you flail. 

[ednksu]

God Dax is just the worst.

[EMAWican]

If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting.  Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana.  I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.

If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility.  Why don't you want that?  We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure.  What is not to like about that?  *waits for oil company talking points*

Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.

This doesn't make sense.  Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.

Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil


Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica

Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.

You are TOTALLY missing the point. 

Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here.  The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years.  They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution.  Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.

They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.

[sonofdaxjones]

lol the Saudi moves are about control of liquidity Whackadoodle, done for perception reasons.  They'll still be pumping oil for decades to come.

[ednksu]

If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting.  Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana.  I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.

If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility.  Why don't you want that?  We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure.  What is not to like about that?  *waits for oil company talking points*

Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.

This doesn't make sense.  Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.

Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil


Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica

Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.

You are TOTALLY missing the point. 

Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here.  The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years.  They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution.  Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.

They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.

Yeah....Did you read my posts?
The point is that even the hydro carbon energy producers are recognizing the need to move on.  The US is inventing new, awful ways, to keep the addiction, if not growing it.  My entire posts was about the need to past this dependence because it will have numerous benefits.

[ednksu]

lol the Saudi moves are about control of liquidity Whackadoodle, done for perception reasons.  They'll still be pumping oil for decades to come.

You are so rough ridin' basic.  You think a generation long plan is about liquidity now. 

[sonofdaxjones]

It's about having the liquid assets to invest in that plan, how can you develop the infrastructure without cash? 

ARAMCO will still be producing oil for decades. 

[EMAWican]

If science wasn't being mated to wild environmental earther first religion, people might be more accepting.  Why the hell do we have to destroy the real to try to achieve some unattainable Pollyanna nirvana.  I will be damn if I am going to live in some earth hole shelter, crap on a compost pile, and.eat.goat cheese.

If we made the switch to renewable we would live in a world that is cleaner, more secure, and less prone to economic volatility.  Why don't you want that?  We're talking short term job issues of less than 20 years at worst, or a handful if we fully fund renewables and rebuilding our infrastructure.  What is not to like about that?  *waits for oil company talking points*

Making the switch to 100% renewable energy would make us far more prone to economic volatility. Just look at what drought has done to Venezuela. I would also consider job issues lasting 20 years as more of a long-term problem.

This doesn't make sense.  Also the job issues would be 20 years tops, that is why you see Saudi Arabia and Qatar trying to move away from oil revenues.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are moving away from oil because they don't have enough cash to run their countries thanks to $50 oil.

Wrong in this conversation.
Saudi, ironically, 2025 plan
http://vision.cer.uz/Data/lib/vision_texts/Saudi_Arabia/SAUD_Long_Term_Strategy_2025_October_2007.pdf
And longer
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/25/saudi-arabia-approves-ambitious-plan-to-move-economy-beyond-oil


Qatar’s plan
http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/gsdp_vision/docs/NDS_EN.pdf
http://m.gulf-times.com/story/420522/Private-sector-key-to-Qatar-s-economic-diversifica

Using counties where like 97% of their revenue comes from oil as the reverse example of why making a switch to 100% renewables is economically viable is dumb. Saudi Arabia is projecting to run out of cash in less than 5 years and Qatar is hanging by a thread.

You are TOTALLY missing the point. 

Without question political volatility in the middle east has spawned massive instability in energy markets and political and economic instability here.  The entire point of that post was that we need to get away from our dependency on these nations when they themselves are looking to be diversified away from petro within 20 to 30 years.  They know the industry is dying and not a long term solution.  Yes the market being mumped right now is exacerbating this, but these countries have been seriously talking about this for almost a decade.

They know they need to get away from oil because they don't have other countries by the balls as much anymore. That 25 year plan coincides with U.S. proclaiming a path to foreign energy independence in 2006 and massive investment in nontraditional oil liquid extraction methods in 2006-2007. Russia and the U.S. are currently at all-time record production levels, with U.S. energy still being hovering around 10% green during this same timeframe.

Yeah....Did you read my posts?
The point is that even the hydro carbon energy producers are recognizing the need to move on.  The US is inventing new, awful ways, to keep the addiction, if not growing it.  My entire posts was about the need to past this dependence because it will have numerous benefits.

And I'm saying that their need to move on was because of the U.S. proclaiming and eventually reaching energy independence. We're there, bud. Green energy is still hovering around that 11% total energy mark since 2010, even with the green energy standards and record investments.

[ednksu]

Emawican

A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks.  They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment).  Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy.  The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out.  That is the reason we've stalled growth.  Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources. 

Thanks for a real post. 

[EMAWican]

Emawican

A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks.  They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment).  Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy.  The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out.  That is the reason we've stalled growth.  Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources. 

Thanks for a real post.

These are good discussions, boyo. The US gets only like 25% of our energy from oil and have for several years. We're a net exporter of oil now for Christ's sake. We're diversified, Saudi Arabia isn't and they realized that. Are you familiar with the renewable portfolio standards? Record investment is being forced in renewables that are more costly than coal or natty. What you're saying is and has been happening for several years.

[ednksu]

Emawican

A few issues. First exemplified by Sheikh Al Maktoum's quote "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel," that these nations aren't planning 5 years out like Dax thinks.  They know they need to diversify. The problem is that we aren't investing in our own energy independence in the ways we need to to make our nation secure (economically/politically/environment).  Second, IMO, you're creating a total false correlation between the 10% point and our investment in green energy.  The biggest reason we haven't pushed further is because of the cheap oil that has been pointed out.  That is the reason we've stalled growth.  Look at India's push for solar and how costs are dropping like a rock and will be within a decade cheaper than petro sources. 

Thanks for a real post.

These are good discussions, boyo. The US gets only like 25% of our energy from oil and have for several years. We're a net exporter of oil now for Christ's sake. We're diversified, Saudi Arabia isn't and they realized that. Are you familiar with the renewable portfolio standards? Record investment is being forced in renewables that are more costly than coal or natty. What you're saying is and has been happening for several years.

The problem is that we've only scratched the surface of what we need to do to reinvent our energy economy. 

Bloomberg had this a bit ago on solar costs.1

It's an important lesson as idiots, like Dax, talk about Solyndra because most people leave out the massive subsidies China is pushing into solar, basically making it a no risk investment domestically.  Yes I know we're making strides, but nowhere where we need to be to switch off petrol.  And you can see this in other places, see VW and Shell being accused of blocking electric cars in Europe.2 My point is that to truly transform we need to also take hard looks at carrier lines, grids, and beginning point infrastructure (ie one of wind's biggest problems is getting the power from the wind farm to the grid).  Now so of this is needed simply because of again infrastructure which we desperately need, and also to handle new "types" of power to ensure better distribution and storage.  It's great we're seeing private investment in end user items, like Tesla's battery units for homes and small offices.  But we need to do more to build capacity and storage.  The only way to do that is through concerted investment.  But if we do with a Marshall Plan domestic infrastructure rebuild, that will ensure America's independence and hegemony 20 years down the line for generations to come.




1.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/first-solar-making-panels-more-cheaply-than-china-s-top-supplier
2. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/28/vw-and-shell-try-to-block-eu-push-for-cleaner-cars

[EMAWican]

So what is the reason for your point of going more green? We're already energy dependent. We're exporting oil. We're exceeding our energy needs. There's been massive investments and standards implemented for green energy. Power plants can't burn cheap ass natty as much anymore now because 25% or whatever State threshold of the energy has to come from renewable sources, which the cost is passed onto the consumer. That's not really energy independence, but green energy dependence.