Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 04:22:44 UTC No. 16432361

>>16432357
Because you're ignoring the consequences in your post. I can make anything sound good if I post the positives only and ignore the negatives.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:25:16 UTC No. 16432403

>>16432357
You got your causality mixed up, people use energy because they are rich, they aren't rich because they use energy which should be fairly obvious from the fact that nearly every oil producing country is incredibly energy rich yet a shithole. The point is largely moot anyways, you are just looking at history, saying car can't work because previously horse was the fastest way of moving around, in many places energy is already fossil fuel free or light. Chinese will build solar in Somalia when they finish powering their own country as well.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:32:31 UTC No. 16432409

>>16432357
99% of electricity in norway is made with renewables. iceland is more like 99.8%

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 05:53:46 UTC No. 16432421

>>16432357
Yes all alternatives are hopium and a farce that exists to comfort people psychologically, it instills the belief that "oh we know what we're doing and we'll figure this out, one day!" This allows the status quo to be maintained. Obviously they have some practicality, but oil is king.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:16:28 UTC No. 16432456

>>16432403
>from the fact that nearly every oil producing country is incredibly energy rich yet a shithole.
Because they export that oil. Obviously the point is using the energy, not extracting the oil. Oil is useless unless you actually use it. This is obvious for anyone with an IQ over 20

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:21:11 UTC No. 16432462

>>16432357
No point in worrying about it, we're fucked

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 06:23:00 UTC No. 16432465

>>16432409
>99% of electricity in norway is made with renewables. iceland is more like 99.8%
bla bla bla not everyone has such combination of a small population and huge hydropower potential. Besides, electricity is only part of the energy mix. Something like a third of all global energy comes from oil, its for vehicles

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:08:05 UTC No. 16432501

>>16432421
Proof?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 07:58:27 UTC No. 16432542

>>16432357
most of the electricity used in norway is produced by water turbines and relatively cheap
in this case i think you’re confusing export and usage

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:02:07 UTC No. 16432651

Wealth is basically real estate. Two thirds of wealth are properties. Houses. Office towers, commercial complexes. The streets and roads.
Its all built of cement, steel and petrochemicals. And transported on trucks that burn oil.
One sixth of the wealth is electrc power plants.
The other sixth is a mix of airplanes, trucks, cars and general purpose industrial machinery like forklifts.
Thats what wealth means, to a large degree. Rich people just own those things, because thats what the physical capital is. Either buildins that take a lot of energy to make (cement, steel) or electric plants that burn coal and gas or vehicles that burn oil.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:49:56 UTC No. 16432694

>>16432421
Disagree. In terms of power generation, coal has been dropping for more than a decade and will continue to do so. Diesel is rarely used (it’s about 3x cost of natural gas). Natural gas will continue to have a large market share, but will eventually fall when renewables become more cost effective and supply runs dry. Current trends in PV show that in the next decade material cost will reduce ~50% and panel efficiency is set to rise another ~10%-20%. Wind is a gimmick. Nuclear has a big future ahead. Battery storage will also greatly improve cost-wise.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 10:51:04 UTC No. 16432696

>>16432694
>and will continue to do so.
source?

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 11:01:46 UTC No. 16432704

>>16432696
See the graph on p. 8.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/AEO_Narrative_2021.pdf
Also see this webpage;
https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 12:23:38 UTC No. 16432779

>>16432361
>>16432403
These

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 18:44:12 UTC No. 16433298

>>16432357
>I am completely aware that things will get worse ecologically and climate-wise
Air's cleaner now in the US than it was in the '80s. Much cleaner, despite increased energy usage. The real problem is getting the developing nations to use clean tech and stop littering.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:43:09 UTC No. 16433376

>>16433298
That depends on your metric and ignores many other factors.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:54:12 UTC No. 16433382

>>16432357
Here my son

Fossil fuel dependant economy who only spells a future of misery oil debt and pollution

Or anything else

Choose wisely

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 21:47:18 UTC No. 16433479

>they don't know
Hydrocarbons are a great way to store, transport, and use energy. Luckily for the climate, they won't need to come out of the ground in the near future

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:00:52 UTC No. 16433497

>>16433479
You could just use algae to make it, but the issue is the energy it takes to turn algae into oil is more than the energy you can get from burning the oil afterwards.
But all energy storage is lossy, so whatever.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:05:34 UTC No. 16433502

>>16432357

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:08:09 UTC No. 16433504

>>16432704

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:10:39 UTC No. 16433506

>>16432357
So what they know this? I seen litature from 2003 talking about the crisis showing in 2020 then start in 2025. They don't care. Lol.

They will run this system to the ground. Literally makes no difference to them.

We will fight till the last drop of oil I hope your ready.

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:20:37 UTC No. 16433845

>>16432357
>I am completely aware that things will get worse ecologically and climate-wise,
no they won't, co2 doesn't cause global warming, there is no evidence that it does.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:32:27 UTC No. 16433862

>>16432357
>Nuclear Reactors (which I really wish were more widely used)
Check out the Thorium fuel cycle. In molten salt reactors, Thorium reactors can completely burn up (and breed new fuel), leaving only 300-yr radwaste. LFTRs can also burn PWR and LWR waste streams, putting the transuranics back to work. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRavif1NuR8

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:39:25 UTC No. 16433867

>>16432409
>99% of electricity in norway is made with renewables.
95% of that 99 is hydropower, you twit.
Are you literally going to pretend we're about to discover thousands of new large rivers to dam that we never knew about before?
That absolute cluelessness of people like you just astounds me.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:41:39 UTC No. 16433869

>>16432403
>I'm 120% sure that it's you who has cause and effect reversed and not me!
>Also we need to help third-world countries live better lives by giving them our shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 03:50:32 UTC No. 16433875

>>16432694
>when renewables become cost effective
TWO MOAR WEEKS!

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 04:29:36 UTC No. 16433909

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 07:40:45 UTC No. 16434051

>>16433875
Just bury them underground.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:31:06 UTC No. 16434075

>>16433867
>Are you literally going to pretend we're about to discover thousands of new large rivers to dam that we never knew about before?
>>16433867
Its possible to build more dams on rivers that are already known, in poor regions of the world. Basically in Africa and South America.
Like that new ethiopian dam on the Nile, theres a lot of untapped potential down at the Belgian Congo. It is a known resource, but the investment was never done

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:28:04 UTC No. 16434213

>>16432403
they export the oil

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:29:44 UTC No. 16434217

>>16432462
banger artwork

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:30:50 UTC No. 16434218

>>16433479
this looks like a textbook ponzi scheme opportunity

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:34:29 UTC No. 16434222

>>16432357
Wealthy nations don't want to share space at the table. Simple as.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:34:51 UTC No. 16434224

>>16434222
Make a good gaem

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:35:57 UTC No. 16434225

>>16434222
understandable honestly

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 11:48:50 UTC No. 16434242

>>16432357
OP realises that we are the carbon they want to reduce

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:17:39 UTC No. 16435530

>straight line plotted where inverse log would be a better fit
facepalm.exe

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 00:23:31 UTC No. 16435541

>>16433867
Hi!
I just want to let you know that you can phrase this to be much friendlier!


>99% of electricity in norway is made with renewables.
95% of that 99 is hydropower
This limits how well this works in other countries.


See how much nicer this is? Hope this helps and happy posting!

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:05:55 UTC No. 16435658

>>16432357
You are correct. Energy is the aster resource and the prosperity we have seen since the 19th century is thanks largely to an extremely favorable ERoEI from easily accessible mineral fuel inputs. As those become more energy intensive to harvest, prosperity will shrink. I do not believe we could even sustain the current economy on renewables only. The energy density and ROI of gasoline etc is just lightyears better. Anyway, it has been a nice little sojourn into mass opulence, be happy you got to see part of it.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 03:45:14 UTC No. 16435698

>>16435541
>I just want to let you know that you can phrase this to be much friendlier!
Sorry, it's just hard for me to tolerate someone who is basically arguing that the world would be better if we were all impoverished serfs and his "proof" is a country that, per capita, exports more oil than the US does.
His argument is insultingly dishonest, and both aspects of that seem to be intentional.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 04:40:24 UTC No. 16435763

>>16433909
False, racist garbage. The pollution they're talking about there, "fine particle matter", isn't CO2 pollution which is the relevant cause of global warming, it's stuff like sulfur dioxide from burning coal that just makes air shit quality to breathe. First world countries now can afford the luxury of not using coal anymore, but we still put out tons of CO2. This is a more accurate map, for the actually relevant "pollution"
Also, the whole "burden of feeding the nonwhites" thing, is rich, coming from some soft middle class dork. In America, like 1% of the population is involved in agriculture, everything is highly specialized and they heavily rely on migrant labor to feed people like this guy. This guy would break mentally and physically from a day of farm work

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:48:41 UTC No. 16435819

>>16435763
Ban 3rd wolders now!

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 05:50:26 UTC No. 16435821

>>16435763
Ban 3rd wolders now!

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 06:15:51 UTC No. 16435838

>>16435821
The country that manufactures everything in the West and also has 300 million more people emits more (barely). Whoa.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:44:14 UTC No. 16436013

>>16435658
>an extremely favorable ERoEI f
EROEI is a garbage metric that cant be measured and isnt used by anyone outside of internet activist circles. All decisions in investment are based on ROI, plain old return on investment.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:45:17 UTC No. 16436014

>>16435821
>per capita

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 09:54:57 UTC No. 16436022

>oh shit oil is actually not as free as we thought
>our entire economy already runs on it
>tech will save us
>still hasnt saved us and its no longer feasible to swap the entire world economy without causing famine on a global scale
>deadline of CO2 ppm fast approaching

we finna cooked bros

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 10:08:41 UTC No. 16436038

>>16436022
May I propose, a bold solution

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:39:54 UTC No. 16436168

>>16436013
>cant be measured
Lol ok, retard.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 15:50:01 UTC No. 16436480

>>16436022
Theres no reason oil cant be replaced as an energy source. Half of it is burned in cars. Just making cars electric would double the time we have left to fix the problem

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:01:53 UTC No. 16436490

>>16433504
What does that prove? China has basically zero energy inside its borders except for coal. Thats why its using it, because thats literally all they can do other than renewables which are already displacing coal there now. Its because of national security concerns not economics.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:03:56 UTC No. 16436495

>>16436480
Bro the energy density of fossil fuels is no match for electric. When will we see the next electric farm equipment? What about heavy machines for construction? What about ships? The engine for a container ship is the size of a 3 story building. It takes $450k dollars to fill up a container ship worth of fuel.
What about planes? The power of the jet engine cannot be powered by batteries.

The green technology revolution sounds good in the abstract. But in practice doesn't hold together.

There is no replacement for the fossil fuel superman. Keep living in a dream.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:21:02 UTC No. 16436511

>>16436495
Fortunately the energy density of fossil fuels isnt as big of a hurdle to overcome as it seems. Only 30% of that energy is used to turn the engine, the rest is released as waste heat. Thats why an EV costs 1/4 as much to operate per mile as a gas car. Its as cheap to charge a tesla as it was to fill up a 57 chevy for a boomer and it still achieves the same amount of work while using much less energy over all. Electric tractors and heavy equipment already exist and are starting to take off due to this. They use a fraction of the energy, require nearly no maintenance and are much quieter. Heres where you can buy one.
https://gethevi.com/
Aerospace is probably the only one that cant be decarbonized, hell even jet fuel isnt energy dense enough for a fighter jet thats why they all fly with tankers in tow. The news isnt all bad either, aerospace is only responsible for 7% of global oil production. Same with container ships but they can use nuclear reactors. Fossil fuels only trump everything else but nuclear when it comes to making heat. A gallon of diesel can heat your house for a week

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:29:01 UTC No. 16436523

>>16436511
Bro are you and abstract on paper nerd?

Have you used electric powered vehicles?

And electric powered scooter can go less distance and speed then a gas powered scooter. Over 100 miles on 1 gallon vs 30 miles MAX on full charge.

If you try to tow with an electric car the battery will drain quickly especially going uphill.

The fossil fuel superman cannot be defeated try again.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:39:24 UTC No. 16436531

>>16436523
My new electric scooter is faster than my old gas goped and goes about as far. Range is only a big deal if there arent enough chargers along the way. If every gas station had chargers it wouldnt be more than a minor inconvenience and it would still be cheaper than diesel

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:52:20 UTC No. 16436542

>>16436531
>>16436523
Electric vehicles are always more efficient than gas and diesel vehicles. E-bikes are more efficient even than walking. It takes more calories to walk a distance than the e-bike consumes over the same distance.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 16:58:21 UTC No. 16436550

>>16436542
Lithium silicon batteries have 50% the energy density of gasoline and charge way faster than NMC or LFP. Electric vehicles are still in their brass era. Imagine how cool theyll be in 20 years

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:25:04 UTC No. 16436599

>>16436550
They're already way cooler than gas and diesel

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:39:30 UTC No. 16436731

Techno-optimist on full cope mode ITT.
>Bro we will have super batteries in two weeks bro just wait
>Yes we can continue to grow the economy with absolutely abysmal Energy Cost of Energy Production and energy density, bro, trust me and my motivated reasoning
It would be much more honest to just say
1) we need to get off fossil fuels
2) we will all be much less prosperous for it
This is fine. We are probably too prosperous now anyway, given how faggy and retarded people are anymore.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:43:01 UTC No. 16436742

>>16436731
Solar and batteries are cheap as fuck already and electric cars will be even cheaper than gas ones in ten years, they already are 1/4 as expensive to run. Solar lasts longer than 20 years btw, that lifespan is only to 80% of the original capacity. Even at 50% it would still significantly reduce your electricity bill

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:49:28 UTC No. 16436761

>>16436742
Sure, bro
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/see-introduction-175.pdf

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:54:46 UTC No. 16436773

>>16436599
>They're already way cooler than gas and diesel
Except when they spontaneously burst into flames, of course.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:56:55 UTC No. 16436780

>>16436542
>It takes more calories to walk and I'm trying to put on even more excess weight!

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 18:57:10 UTC No. 16436781

>>16436761
>we cant build a solar panel with solar power
That is fucking retarded. A solar panel is just glass and silicon, its not much different than a window and those have existed for thousands of years. It is absolutely possible to melt glass with solar energy

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 02:13:09 UTC No. 16439135

>>16433479
This sounds like a good idea on paper but the actual revenue would probably be shit. There's no way you could capture 120 tons of atmospheric carbon with 1 MW let alone turn it all into hydrocarbons. I think they did something similar in Germany with burning crops for the carbon and it really didn't work out.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 10:27:14 UTC No. 16439515

>>16436761
>ECOE
A new rebranding of EROEI?
That shit cannot be measured and isnt an economic metric. Only Return on investment matters. Dollars out for dollars in.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:32:09 UTC No. 16439563

>>16439135
its easy enough to take out seawater while generating fresh water

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:41:46 UTC No. 16439622

>>16432403
No, people are rich because energy is cheap and therefore products and services are cheap.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:51:49 UTC No. 16439642

>>16436731
This! We'll just live in 15 minute smart cities with social credit to buy bug burgers!

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 12:55:57 UTC No. 16439647

>>16432403
Lady i work at a factory and we have machines with 30 KW electric motors making all kinds of valuable products. Each machine operator is probably 3000 times more productive than some pre-industrial craftman.

Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 13:18:32 UTC No. 16439665

>>16439515
but they keep changing what a dollar's worth

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:04:32 UTC No. 16439971

>>16432357
If those fuels are really of fossil origin then how come there is massive amounts of them on Pluto? Did there used to be dinosaurs on Pluto?

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 19 Oct 2024 17:10:02 UTC No. 16439979

>>16439647
And burundi niggers aren't buying what you are making because they aren't rich. If you moved your factory to burundi and stated burning energy it wouldn't make burundi rich, just make you bankrupt.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 03:12:40 UTC No. 16440709

>>16439979
the n word is racist

Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:53:42 UTC No. 16440776

>>16435838
>It's fine when non-Whites do it.

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:08:55 UTC No. 16441930

>>16436773
how come they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening? are they too greedy so spend shekels working on the issue or are they too low IQ to develop a solution?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:06:39 UTC No. 16442356

>>16433875
Do you want to give failed states access to nuclear technology to power themselves?

Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:23:37 UTC No. 16443307

>>16440776

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 03:59:04 UTC No. 16445272

this is what a billionaire's home energy bill looks like

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:20:38 UTC No. 16446439

>>16432357

Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:50:28 UTC No. 16446471

>>16439665
dollar=dollar
it never changes

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 03:14:37 UTC No. 16446735

>>16446471
the purchasing power of it has dropped by over 95%.
>dollar=dollar
>it never changes
That's like saying that a shrinking meter-stick is a valid way to measure things because
>meter-stick = meter-stick, it never changes relative to itself

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 10:20:35 UTC No. 16446982

>>16446735
>the purchasing power of it has dropped by over 95%.
Sorry but the purchasing power of a dollar is one dollar

Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:07:41 UTC No. 16447349

>>16441930
>how come they haven't figured out how to prevent that from happening?
They have, cases like this that are incredibly rare, think of the hundreds of smartphones, laptops, power tools, electric/hybrid cars that have lithium batteries there are. Basically they put a microchip and thermal couples in the battery packs to prevent thermal runaway of the cells by ceasing charging or discharge if a cell exceeds a temperature threshold.

>>16442356
The answer is obviously no, and increasing nuclear opens up new risks of destroying massive tracts of land from a terrorist or nuclear attack.

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:43:41 UTC No. 16448175

>>16432357
>>50% of the nitrogen in your body is from the Haber-Bosch process, which converts natural gas into food.
interadasting

Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 01:54:09 UTC No. 16448204

Yes the formula is basically “Energy in, economy out” and its always been this way. It’s always been a function of energy even going back to the days of teams of oxen pulling wooden carts around.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:55:48 UTC No. 16449976

>>16447349
>destroying massive tracts of land from a terrorist attack.
maybe don't let terrorists immigrate to your country if you don't want terrorist attacks

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:22:30 UTC No. 16450080

>>16433875
recycling has made pretty big jumps for panels. I find it weird people assume we can't find ways to recycle anything considering we have done so with Nuclear byproducts.

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:24:52 UTC No. 16450083

>>16440776
Moving that manufacturing back to Europe/NA will merely move that pollution around retard. Even then they've manged to make good progress on their nuclear and renewables

Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 05:25:52 UTC No. 16450084

>>16433869
>>Also we need to help third-world countries live better lives by giving them our shit.
Not sure selling products to them is "giving them out shit".

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 03:53:58 UTC No. 16451667

>>16450083
It won't because Europeans and North Americans have the type of strict environmental standards which third worlders lack. The whole reason Wall Street uses China as their offshore industrial park is to escape the environmental and labor regulations of western nations.

🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:04:45 UTC No. 16453180

>>16451667
And the lack of tariffs on imported good is what allows them to do that.
Thats why electing Trump will be so good for the environment, he will create massive tariffs which will force Wall Street to bring their manufacturing operations back to the USA where they'll be required to operated by America's clean environmental standards.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:26:24 UTC No. 16453191

>>16451667
>which third worlders lack
Depends on which country. Costa Rica has been a pioneer in ecotourism and environmental standards way before it became the vogue thing. Latin American nations aren't perfect when it comes to the environment, but again, at least they democratic countries that are close to the US and have labor laws and safeguards.

But American corporations and politicians chose to associate with China precisely to take advantage of the lack of environmental safeguards, pesky labor laws, democracy, and so on... as opposed to associating with poor but democratic countries, they went for the one where they could abuse the population the most and turned a bunch of commies that hate the West into an industrial powerhouse in the process.

So instead of your reductionist >le brown pypo bad you should look deeper and also closer to home. China was given Most Favoured Nation Status as it was massacring people in Tiananmen and was given WTO status as it was putting Uyghurs in concentration camps.

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:45:38 UTC No. 16453201

>>16436038
Now that's a precocious proposition

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 06:19:11 UTC No. 16453261

>>16436168
>Lol ok, retard.
It just cant be measured and even if it could its an useless metric. Everything gets decided by return on investment, money for money

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 16:36:48 UTC No. 16453695

This seems like a good thread to ask what might be a stupid question about fuel: we have a natural gas boiler we use in the winter. I've seen many web sites say one of the downsides is using such a boiler is that it dries out the air. I get that the air in the winter naturally contains less moisture as cold air isn't capable of holding as much moisture as warm air, but I don't get how a NG boiler would cause the air to become even drier. Doesn't burning NG produce water as a side effect?

Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 17:11:56 UTC No. 16453742

>>16450083
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 05:40:12 UTC No. 16454486

>>16432694
Gas and renewables tend to be best freinds because gas plants are so cheap to build and throttle, its cost effective to have wind or solar or whatever supply demand as much as possible to avoid paying for fuel and then use the gas plants to guarantee supply if the weather takes a shit.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:09:55 UTC No. 16454505

>>16453695
I used to have a gas boiler and it had open flames over a mesh of water pipes, i guess it produced a bit of steam in the room where it was

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 06:38:04 UTC No. 16454524

>>16433298

No, the real problem is to get the human population well below pre-industrial levels and then keep it there in perpetuity. Ideally we would teleport fertile women's ova (the chokepoint of procreation) out of their wombs on a regular, slow and random basis, thereby slowly forcing the change over a few generations, and without need of some war, disease or other especially brutal method of culling. If everyone can have at least one or two kids (sub-replacement level), they can still find meaning to life and won't despair. The major problem of course is the top-heavy inverted pyramid, but on no account is this a valid excuse to continue the obscene proliferation of human life which has obtained in the past two hundred years. It's very depressing how China just completely gave up on its (rightheaded) One Child Policy and recently we've had various wonks arguing for huge population growth. Growth for the sake of growth, growth as an end in itself. Cancer.

>>16434242

"They" aren't the least bit wrong about this.

Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:47:05 UTC No. 16454587

>>16454524
Population is crashing anyway. Though some argue its a blip.
Society is weird and in unchartered territory, everything we are doing is literally the first time ever in recorded history

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 02:13:20 UTC No. 16455484

>>16454587
>some argue

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 02:20:26 UTC No. 16455495

>>16432357
At some point in hunan development heat just seemed like the solution for everything cold energy wasn't thing and am curios due to it's relation to electricity

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 02:43:14 UTC No. 16455514

>>16432357
>Fossil Fuels ARE the Economy

My vaguely 'intelligent' comment in this old thread is: we've historically gone through several fundamental energy transitions (wood/charcoal, coal, whale oil, petroleum, and now possibly nuclear). I think it's somewhat unfounded and inherently nihilistic to just carte blanche state that we can't undergo another one because "blank" is so fundamental to our current economy. We used to rely on a fuel source, we found another one, and then we didn't need the other one. Simple as.

With that said:
>The material needs to be mined, which needs more oil.

I resent this specific talking point because it assumes the 'energy transition' needs to be all or nothing. Which it doesn't. Most people don't *need* a wood-burning stove to heat their homes, nor do they *need* to rely on horse-drawn carriages for transportation, but we still have those things. We didn't execute all the horses the moment cars became available.
Lets say we hypothetically completely switch over to nuclear and renewables as our primary source of energy source and it's all on a universal accessible grid (so charging stations instead of gas station). It's disingenuous to immediately jump to the conclusion that that would imply oil is now illegal. As you've said before: there'd still be industrial applications, products made from petroleum, and niche domestic demand. IF ANYTHING: the shift from fossil fuels, to nuclear, would create less competition and insure resource supply for those industries - because we wouldn't have to literally burn it to keep warm or make car go.

Honestly, this all stinks of, "we shouldn't go to space because it'll ruin the economy", "we can't cure that disease, prescription drugs generate more revenue", or "if we automate coal mining all these miners will be out of the job".

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 03:05:46 UTC No. 16455529

>>16432357
Why wouldn’t any country want to be solely reliable on renewable energy? Think of all the wars and relationships that must be balanced with shithole retard countries for the sake of energy security. Seems like a good enough reason to me to want 100% renewable in-house energy production. “The environment” is just a midwit sales pitch.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 03:06:49 UTC No. 16455530

>>16455514
Coal isn't dead.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 03:31:56 UTC No. 16456624

>>16455530
Coal is the best energy source, its no coincidence the countries that use the most coal have the fastest growing economies

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 06:13:57 UTC No. 16456701

>>16455484
>some argue
Edward Dutton and his acolytes do

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 06:15:41 UTC No. 16456702

>>16455514
>whale oil,
Great lubricant for steam engines, dunno why iy was wasted in lamps. Was gasoline really a waste product as often said? It would be so easy to use it for lamps, or just to burn it as generic boiler fuel.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:41:27 UTC No. 16456721

>>16456702
Gasoline is kinda volatile and explosive, so for lamps or as a generic fuel oil its not that good because its more dangerous.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:46:06 UTC No. 16456780

>>16432361
>of course the chinese and the indians will GLADLY cripple their own economies for the sake of people who live on other continents!
>of course they wouldn't defect!
>of course we can trust their numbers!
>of course the people in charge of solar shades would NEVER weaponize a tool for PEACE!
>of course there's nothing wrong with spending a significant fraction of metal production on energy sources that are too unreliable for making more metal!
>of course spending trillions of dollars conditioning the atmosphere of the entire globe is worthwhile if it reduces the average temperature by a tenth of a degree!

>>16434075
>Building infrastructure that defaults to catastrophic failure in countries that can't even maintain the electrical grid it would be powering.
That'll make for some kekin' kinorino after four decades. Popcorn on stand-by.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 03:50:14 UTC No. 16457744

>>16456624
They probably also have the fastest growing forests. The fact that coal can be used as fuel and the exhaust gasses enrich the atmosphere with valuable plant food is like a dream come true, only an idiot would want to end the practice of using coal for fuel

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 04:47:03 UTC No. 16457786

>>16456624
>cheaper =\= best

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 00:54:11 UTC No. 16459117

>>16457786
This, coal is $30/ton which is nothing compared to oil or gas. Coal is less than 10% of americas energy mix

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:01:24 UTC No. 16459121

>>16455529
Kenya, china and ethiopia are leaning hard into renewables for that exact reason

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 01:07:53 UTC No. 16459129

>>16432357
>"Low carbon" dreams don't build industries, cities, or modern economies.
>Renewable energy is a luxury for nations that have already powered up their economies with fossil fuels. No oil, no wealth.
bullshit.
low carbon ways cant be followed as long as the economy is free to use the cheapest solution which is still fossils.
this is the same as saying CFCs are still legal and you expect fridge manufacturer to change for themselfes.
they will check what is cheaper to built and would use CFCs up to this day as coolant.
suprise they dont after laws made them stop and you can still afford a fridge up to this day.
politicians are obliged to create the legal framework conditions and this is simply failing due to global trade.
if the use of coal for the power plant is stopped, the coal is exported and used for steel construction, for example.
we are only being led to believe that something has changed.
nothing has changed.

https://oeco.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Ripple-et-al.-2024.pdf

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 07:40:29 UTC No. 16459404

Importing people from low carbon foot print countries into high carbon foot print countries worsens climate change. Why do leftist and liberal freaks deny this?

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 09:10:02 UTC No. 16459466

>>16455514
Good post.

Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 11:31:37 UTC No. 16459550

>>16459404
>Importing people
who imports people? they have feet you know.

lack of food sources and violence imports people.
so climate change imports people.

no one wants to leave their home. anywhere.

crop failure and you cant feed your kids? you need to go away.
will you visit your neighbor that is also starving? no, you go to where people still have the most food.
an army comes to your village and kills people? you need to go away.
will you visit your neighbor that is also shot at? no, you go to where people still are the most save.

>we will kill them at the border
those people now see two options.
staying where they are and get shot or starve.
or probably get shot while trying to enter your country where there is food and savety.

you have literally no chance to end this.
no walls or weapons will help.
not now and surely not in the future.

why do you deny this?
because leftists and liberals dont deny this. they face reality for what it is and dont come up with fairy tales.
>importing people

you lack empathy and therefore do not understand a simple connection.
that is all.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 04:43:30 UTC No. 16460547

>>16459550
>oy vey muh imaginary crop failures
those are all a bunch of lies, people become immigrants because they're lured in with gibes. there hasn't been famine due to crop failure anywhere in the world going back decades, even the ethiopian famine of the 1980s wasn't of natural origin, the communist government just decided to stop allowing food to be shipped to the afflicted region

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:34:44 UTC No. 16460590

>>16459550
You shouldn't waste time trying to argue with right wing retards. They're objects to be exploited and/or avoided, not people. Debate is a waste of time

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 05:39:02 UTC No. 16460592

>>16432357
Yes this is correct. All the oil that is available will be burned up, unless humanity dies out first. All the alternative energies are unserious, all the climate change solutions are unserious

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 06:00:15 UTC No. 16460602

>>16432421
One word. Nuclear.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 06:09:55 UTC No. 16460606

>>16459404
The early green movement, like the Sierra club, was anti-immigration.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 06:32:09 UTC No. 16460614

>>16460602
Spent fuel

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 07:22:37 UTC No. 16460641

>>16460614
out of sight out of mind. do you know how much of Australia is empty?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:41:16 UTC No. 16461699

>>16460606
just more proof of how idiotic those movements or and how they stand for nothing

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:36:08 UTC No. 16462716

>>16461699
Those organizations were all taken over and subverted by the people they were trying to hamstring. Former Bush Jr Treasury secretary Henry Paulson is a bigshot at The Nature Conservancy.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 21:44:56 UTC No. 16462728

>>16460590
I write it for the others.
I always write it for the others if I write something.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 23:49:38 UTC No. 16462890

>>16432357
This has been widely discussed in France for quite a few years now, mainly because of Jean-Marc Jancovici (a prof in prestigious schools/unis) who regularly intervenes in media and makes videos and conferences on the subject. Most of his material is in french but he has a few english videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYLKtz5A5pA

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 00:13:23 UTC No. 16462919

>>16432462
I dont get it

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 6 Nov 2024 05:20:50 UTC No. 16464454

>"""""Fossil"""" fuels
pluto has a methane ice cap, was it made out of dinosaurs?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 03:28:47 UTC No. 16465672

>>16464454
relevant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:14:26 UTC No. 16466784

>>16436495
>There is no replacement for the fossil fuel superman
This is why I've come to the conclusion that globalization is dead once we run out

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:18:54 UTC No. 16466786

>>16466784
>once we run out
So in a few centuries?

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:19:52 UTC No. 16466787

>>16466786
Yeah, 30-40 years for oil, 150 for coal? We'll ride that shit right up to the line until it's uneconomical and then we'll ride it even harder.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:50:23 UTC No. 16466812

>>16466786
We're never going to run out. "Fossil fuels" are not of organic origin. Do you really think there were dinosaurs on Pluto which eventually created the methane ice cap? There isn't a single oil field anywhere on the planet thats ever run dry, every field thats ever been tapped is still producing robustly. The oldest of these has been producing for over 150 years without letup. It isn't going to run out in 'two weeks'

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 21:14:14 UTC No. 16467565

>>16466812
Abiotic oil does not imply "faster than we're using it" oil.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 00:59:35 UTC No. 16469041

>>16467565
oil isn't running out

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 22:47:33 UTC No. 16470059

>>16469041
The "peak oil" meme has been shilled since the late 1800s, its just a meme that was invented in order to justify restricting supply so the producers can make even bigger profits that they already do

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:03:21 UTC No. 16471002

>>16470059
>be 1820s
>oil spurts out of ground
>be 1920s
>oil requires pumping
>be 2020s
>oil requires fracking

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:06:55 UTC No. 16471009

>>16470059
>The "peak oil" meme has been shilled since the late 1800s,
Does it mean its a lie?
Seems like a very simple concept, oil runs out unless you discover new fields, more oil is available with better technology (latest being fracking). Still doesnt mean it will last forever.
If oil is abiotic and fields recharge slowly, it still means theres going to be a peak and a production reduction to some stable rate (rate of field recharge, which will be lower than a production rate of an untapped field)

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:47:10 UTC No. 16471073

>>16471009
This isn't the precise concern. Crust anomalies are going to result in certain "first producers" in the future. These reserves fill prior to others filling. I have an algorithm for which ones and where. Suffice to say, TPTB have a clueless geopolitical strategy.

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:16:17 UTC No. 16471099

>>16471073
>Crust anomalies

Anonymous at Mon, 11 Nov 2024 18:25:34 UTC No. 16471104

>>16432357
>Fossil Fuels
i never seen a chicken bones fossil in my gas

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 02:23:08 UTC No. 16471537

So to put it bluntly. We are fucked.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:06:59 UTC No. 16471649

>>16471537
yes. The Siberian Traps full of methane are already melting and releasing methane into the air. If humanity doesn't find a way off the planet in the next century or 2 it's probably going to devolve into a grueling war over who gets to colonize Antarctica as it ends up being one of the only hospitable place on earth. The ocean at the equator will be 40 degrees.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 05:56:59 UTC No. 16471686

>>16471649
Are the siberian traps in the room with us right now?

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 18:59:39 UTC No. 16473710

>>16471009
>oil runs out unless you discover new fields
it doesn't. there are no oil fields anywhere on the planet that have ever run dry. the western pennsylvania fields that have exploited since the 1870s are still producing as robustly as ever

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:25:54 UTC No. 16473732

>>16473710
>there are no oil fields anywhere on the planet that have ever run dry
But there are many that have significantly reduced production. For example Indonesia's oil production has decreased 25% since 2016 and thats the country as a whole, some individual fields within Indonesia have greater declines, others less

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:27:49 UTC No. 16473734

>>16473710
>the western pennsylvania fields that have exploited since the 1870s are still producing as robustly as ever

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 21:58:24 UTC No. 16473905

>oil production became more expensive in pennsylvania when the state instituted 'progressive' labor laws that put working class people out of work so the industry decided to extract their oil in oklahoma instead
its like arguing that germany is running out coal because its cheaper to mine the stuff in china

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:00:43 UTC No. 16475158

>>16471009

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:10:47 UTC No. 16477001

>>16475158
The peak oil meme goes back way further than 1960, it was started off in the 1890s, less than 30 years after the oil industry itself came into being. They can justify charging higher prices for oil when they create an artificial scarcity.
In the 1880s the price of oil was over 90¢ a barrel, but during the 1890s the priced dropped to under 60¢ due to competition as well as increasing efficiency in extraction and transport technology. The producers already knew they could sell it at over 90¢, so they created the perception of scarcity via media rumor and then made massive profits jacking the price back up to 90¢

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 00:10:21 UTC No. 16477143

>>16477001
>They can justify charging higher prices for oil when they create an artificial scarcity.
Why does a private company need to justify prices? Welp i guess its a primal fear of torches and pitchforks. All of these "Its my property!" people still get uneasy, most learn to lay low and to be wealthy discreetly

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 00:46:06 UTC No. 16477224

>>16475158
Oil production has dropped in many countries, countries without wars or economic snafus

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:07:29 UTC No. 16477271

>>16432357
People are afraid. Once the masses know of "Earth Overshoot Day", it is only a matter of time before someone figures out what the lower EROI on fossil fuels mean for our wallets

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:08:29 UTC No. 16477274

>>16477271
>EROI
https://www.stuartmcmillen.com/comic/energy-slaves/

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:14:29 UTC No. 16477286

>>16477271
>t what the lower EROI on fossil fuels
EROEI isnt real

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:20:45 UTC No. 16477295

>>16477286
Isn't shale oil more energy-intensive to get than oil just spurting out of the ground? idk, maybe it is all a scam, I wouldn't be surprised lol

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:21:29 UTC No. 16477296

>>16477295
>sn't shale oil more energy-intensive to get than oil just spurting out of the ground?
I know it takes more money to take it out, i dont know what "nergy" you are talking about

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:23:53 UTC No. 16477299

>>16477296
Putting the water into the ground, separating the oil from the water, purifying the water so it doesn't pollute the environment, etc.

It's much more complex than a simple pipeline

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:25:24 UTC No. 16477306

>>16477299
Put it on the tab
How much it adds up?

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:28:57 UTC No. 16477311

>>16477306
Well, the Energy Slaves comic states we are drilling deeper and deeper for the oil

Shale oil involves pumping water deep into the ground and taking it back out

Energy-wise, compared to the old days where oil just came out of the ground (0 energy input from us), we must now put in (mgh) amount of energy to take it out of the ground.

If the wells are getting deeper, the (h) term in (mgh) increases. Then, we are spending more energy.

It's probably an exaggeration (it's very propaganda), but if the depth of oil drilling did go from 20 meters to 4000, that's a lot of lost energy

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:29:57 UTC No. 16477314

>>16477311

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:30:12 UTC No. 16477315

>>16432361
>inch of sea level rise a year
It's over.

Jefferson01 at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:34:41 UTC No. 16477321

>>16477315
It's over for "them", not us. I can't wait for the chicom's plains and the chicom spawning place called "Shanghai" to be submerged lol

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:37:23 UTC No. 16477323

>>16432361
>you're ignoring the consequences in your post
>fruit will ripen sooner
You're right, we must enslave ourselves to the government to prevent more trees growing and fruit ripening sooner.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:39:07 UTC No. 16477326

>>16432361
>ignore the negatives.
Clearly climate change is to blame for increased malaria cases, not because there's more people to get infected and people building on swampland.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:48:55 UTC No. 16477346

>>16432361
We must allow the climate oracles/scientists to commune with the holy state; lest we have a bountiful corn harvest.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:51:27 UTC No. 16477351

>>16457786
Says the man who wants the highest wage for the least work.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 01:58:21 UTC No. 16477357

>>16459129
>low carbon ways cant be followed as long as the economy is free to use
You are a moron.
The people who make up the market do not want to use low carbon ways. Their choice defines what the market supplies. Oil companies make oil because you buy it. Waterbottle merchants use plastic because you buy it.

What's your moronic solution? To demand that the government takes away your ability to choose to buy the plastic bottle of oil.
Why not cut the middleman out and just stop buying these fucking things? Are you really that impulsive?

Then there's the question of why you expect the government to act in good faith. If you've given it the power to deprive you of that choice, why would it stop there? Why don't you expect it to (carry on doing what it's been doing through a good century of ballooning regulations) deprive you of every choice you have?

Are you a mouth-breathing statist fuckwit? Pic related shows results of a government being put in charge of the environment.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 02:01:06 UTC No. 16477361

>>16459129
>would use CFCs up to this day as coolant.
CFCs are safe & effective. Ozone goatse is a myth made up by DuPont in order to regulate it's competitors out of the market, as their patent was about to expire, threatening their monopoly on refrigerant gasses.

Yet another government made problem (patent laws) creating an even bigger government problem (environmental regulations).

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 02:20:01 UTC No. 16477374

>>16459129
>https://oeco.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Ripple-et-al.-2024.pdf
Load of leftist bullshit:

>Conclusions
>... We recognize the profound urgency of addressing this global challenge, especially the horrific outlook for the world’s poor.
Pick one: fix climate, or fix poverty. Not both at once.
>We feel the courage and determination to seek transformative science-based solutions across all aspects of society (table S4).

From table S4:
>Energy:
>The world must quickly implement massive energy efficiency and conservation
practices
>pursue effective negative
emissions using technology such as carbon extraction from the source and
capture from the air
>Wealthier countries need to support poorer nations in transitioning away
from fossil fuels.
(Increase taxes not even to waste on your own welfare queens, instead for people you have zero relation to whatsoever.)

>Food:
>Eating mostly plant-based foods while reducing the global consumption of
animal products

>Economy:
>Excessive extraction of materials and overexploitation of ecosystems, driven by
economic growth, must be quickly curtailed
Translation: "we are economically retarded". Cart before the horse, the economy grows because we make shit, not the economy grows, then demands we make shit.
How do these subhuman leftist/communist scum expect economic growth to stop, when theres 4 billion thirdworlders who want the lifestyle of a western European/American?
As always, communists want everyone to drop to the level of slaves, because leftwing people are ontologically evil.
>We need a carbon-free economy that explicitly
addresses human dependence on the biosphere and policies that guide economic
decisions accordingly.
Explicitly stating they want the government to force this shit.
>Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit
of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by
prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality
These retards have no understanding of reality.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 02:24:40 UTC No. 16477378

>>16477311
>It's probably an exaggeration (it's very propaganda),
Ok so you cant put a price tag on it. I see you are handwaving and talking out of your ass

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 05:55:57 UTC No. 16477523

>>16477357
>Why not cut the middleman out and just stop buying these fucking things?
You say that as if this is easy to achieve when most people are unaware of or unconcerned about the issue. If a short sighted majority don’t care because it doesn’t immediately impact their way of life but will have major consequences in the future then this is near impossible to achieve realistically. Even if most people would make the positive choice if given the chance they can’t necessarily do so easily since alternatives are limited. Trying to find certain products that don’t have plastic for example can be very difficult.
>Pic related shows results of a government being put in charge of the environment
And pic rel shows what happens when a handful of people are left to their own devices to ruin things for everyone else

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 06:03:55 UTC No. 16477529

>>16477357
>What's your moronic solution? To demand that the government takes away your ability to choose to buy the plastic bottle of oil.
I dont particularly care much about plastics or the topic of this thread but sure, for many problems the solution is just to have the government solve it.
By passing a series of laws.
And then creating an agency/ordering an existing agency to enforce them
And top chip in some money from the budget to pay for it all
>Why not volunteer action
Because you can solve collective issues with voluntary action. I'll give you an example you are more likely to agree: Its illegal to blast rap music at 140 decibels at 2 am in residential zones.
This isnt something that you leave to volunteers. If one single person in a community of 1000 people blasts Rap at 140 decibels at 2 am, everyone suffers. So we need regulations for noise and for the police to show up to shut these parties off.
Simple concept

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:36:30 UTC No. 16478201

>>16477523
>when most people are unaware of or unconcerned about the issue.
But that's it isn't it? People are unconcerned, they don't actually WANT you to TAKE AWAY their rights. Reality is this climate change nonsense is all about you controlling other people. Additionally you want to fulfill a hero complex by taking on the role of the oracle, riding down to the the "unaware" masses, giving unto them your divine knowledge.

The issue with this ideology of "the masses don't know what's best for them, so I must become dictator" is flawed not necessarily because you think the masses are stupid or wrong, but because if we play the by the rule of "listen to the oracles, the dictator knows best" there's little in the way to stop cynical psychopaths taking control and using things to their advantage. In fact government encourages exactly the worst people into power.

>majority don’t care ... it doesn’t immediately impact ... major consequences
Then allow natural selection to occur. The kid will touch the hot pan and learn by trial and error. The alternative is install 1984 and hope The Party not only has good will, but acts intelligently too.
>the positive choice ... can’t necessarily do so easily since alternatives are limited.
You don't understand free markets. Once a demand for vegan food is established, new and established companies begin to supply that demand, not out of good will, but to make money. If you make a demand for something, the market will provide.
> don’t have plastic for example can be very difficult.
If you can't find a supply, do some market research and find out of you're just the odd one out, or if there's a significant number of people who want non-plastic products: You've discovered a market niche which you can make a company to supply that demand. You supply people's demand for non-plastic stuff, you get rich. Win-win.
1/2

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:39:18 UTC No. 16478208

>>16477523
>a handful of people are left to their own devices to ruin things for everyone else
Ignoring that the US government subsidized the bison culls. You forget those bison and the land they're on aren't anyone's property, therefore nobody can make the rules on what happens to it and them. This is solved by respecting property rights.
Nothing stops you from buying up some land, then growing herds of bison on it to replicate the environment that red indians cultivated 1000 years ago.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 21:48:16 UTC No. 16478225

>>16477529
>for many problems the solution is just to have the government solve it.
I'm afraid that's not the case for many problems at all. It's the polar opposite for the vast, overwhelming majority.
>Its illegal to blast rap music at 140 decibels at 2 am in residential zones.
You're an adult, you can solve this problem without deferring it to the government. This is not a problem solved best by government.
>If one single person in a community of 1000 people blasts Rap at 140 decibels at 2 am, everyone suffers.
This single person will be ostracized by a thousand people, how will this man go about his day being cut off from all those people? The baker will refuse to sell him food, he starves or quits playing the music.
>but he'll get bread elsewhere!
Then just a handful of those thousand follow him about explaining to everyone how much a cunt he is. Report him in the press, etc.
>but! but!
Or the just park their cars to block his driveway off. Etc. Countless ways that such an idiot's behavior would be curtailed, without the use of government, or even violence.
>So we need regulations for noise and for the police to show
Wrong. Just explained why. You are a statist cuck, and very low IQ. Horrifically many cases.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 22:04:25 UTC No. 16478239

>>16478225
>You're an adult, you can solve this problem without deferring it to the government. This is not a problem solved best by government.
I disagree, the adult solution is to defer this problem to the government and it is in fact the way it gets solved. I challenge you to offer a better way to shut Rap at 140 decibels at 2 am than by calling the police.
>>16478225
>This single person will be ostracized
Asocial criminals dont care
>>16478225
>The baker will refuse to sell him food,
There are explicit laws that ban discrimination in stores plus the baker doesnt have to live in the rap blast radius
>>16478225
>Then just a handful of those thousand follow him
Doesnt happen, most people are afraid to even call the police, the "brave" ones simply call the police.
>>16478225
>Or the just park their cars to block his driveway off.
Again its easier to just call the police. Everything you say can be done by the police. Every confrontation, shout out, giving of evil looks, physical blocking, can be done by the police
>>16478225
>You are a statist cuck,
In places where theres no law people immediately self organize to create community patrols that become the police.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 00:54:43 UTC No. 16478410

>>16478208
>therefore nobody can make the rules on what happens to it and them
Except they can, and did
>Nothing stops you from buying up some land, then growing herds of bison on it to replicate the environment that red indians cultivated 1000 years ago
This isn’t possible in a fragmented landscape
>>16478201
>The kid will touch the hot pan and learn by trial and error. The alternative is install 1984 and hope The Party not only has good will, but acts intelligently too
You have far too much faith in people
>You don't understand free markets
You don’t understand free markets if you think they’re a smoking gun that’ll happily self manage without pesky government overreach when there’s a million cases that show otherwise. You also don’t understand people if you think they have the foresight to come to a conclusion that benefits the use of a resource for everyone
>If you make a demand for something, the market will provide
And it will overprovide to the detriment of the resource’s stability. Hence why the demand for dick pills that don’t work is making rhinos extinct or whatever other example you want to look at

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:40:07 UTC No. 16478986

>>16478239
>I challenge you to offer a better way
Did in the post.
>Asocial criminals dont care
Ostracization doesn't require their care or not. People refuse to interact with the criminal, the criminal starves to death.
>There are explicit laws that ban discrimination in stores
Right, so your government helps the criminals. I agree, but this is not a flaw with my system, it's entirely yours.
>the baker doesnt have to live in the rap blast radius
Which I addressed in my post >>16478225: ">but he'll get bread elsewhere!" "Report him in the press, etc."
>Doesnt happen
Does happen.
>Again its easier to just call the police.
If you had a fragment of intellect you'd realize my scenario is explaining the actions you can take without resorting to the police, government, or even violence.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:52:00 UTC No. 16479000

>>16478410
>Except they can, and did
And if a man is strong enough, he can pin down and rape a woman. We're discussing morality, statist moron.
>This isn’t possible in a fragmented landscape
Don't believe that claim, regardless, tough, you might not be rich enough to buy enough land.
Just because you can't afford to do something doesn't give you the right to steal from other people. You are evil.
>You have far too much faith in people
You want to enslave people. I don't. You are evidently a worse person than me.

>You don’t understand free markets if you think they’re a smoking gun that’ll happily self manage without pesky government overreach
You don’t understand free markets if you think they'll function with government interference.
>there’s a million cases that show otherwise
You've misidentified those million cases as being dysfunctional because of the free market, instead it's the government interfering which causes the dysfunction.

>if you think they have the foresight to come to a conclusion that benefits the use of a resource for everyone
I'm not saying that at all. My ideology recognizes that people act selfishly; the free market judo moves this selfishness into benefiting the wider population (e.g you see a demand for non-plastic products, make a company to supply the demand: benefits the population by supplying the demand, benefits you by getting rich.)
That's a big sticking point. You're ideology is the opposite, you REQUIRE people work out of the goodness of their heart for the benefit of everyone: All the people working in government must act like this to make the laws that benefit everyone.
The fact you can't see this is one of the multiple things that makes me hate statists like you. You accuse me of what you are doing.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 14:59:50 UTC No. 16479004

>>16478410
>And it will overprovide to the detriment of the resource’s stability.
You are using the term "overprovide" incorrectly. Instead you mean something akin to
"the market ""overuses"" resources"
Firstly, markets don't overprovide: Supply and demand affecting price act in a feedback loop.
If I make loads more widgets than the the market demands, the price of widgets drops. I respond by supplying less widgets.

So where's this nonsense term "overprovide" coming from, what is "overuses" relative to? The actors in a market cannot "overprovide as I've just explained, because of supply/demand/price feedback loop.

Instead "overprovide" is what you've made up. You've made it up as a tool to reach your end goal of forcing your will on everyone else. This tool is an excuse; you appeal to some fake "overuse" of resources, claiming humanity will end if we chop "too many" trees down. You seem to think there is such a thing as a negative externality. There is no such thing: Taking us back to your problem of a man blasting music at 2AM, I explained how that problem is solved through means without government or violence (how adults are meant to act), all so called "negative externalities" can be solved this way.

Again I repeat: Your savior complex is an excuse to control other people. You are an evil narcissist who wants to enslave everyone to the state, because you think you will be the state. This is what the climate debate is about.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 18:36:33 UTC No. 16479537

>>16479004
You can't explain to a narcissist that they are a narcissist because they consider themselves to be perfect and without flaw

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 02:30:04 UTC No. 16480125

>>16453695
The produced water goes up the chimney and also the condensate drain if it's newish. If it has a duct to burn it with outside air, it won't dry any more than electric heat. But if that duct is mixing, the combustion air steals warm humid air from inside which gets replaced by a draft of cold dry outdoor air.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 03:53:50 UTC No. 16480185

>>16479000
>We're discussing morality
I didn’t know it was moral to exploit a natural resource to the point of irrecoverable depletion
>Just because you can't afford to do something doesn't give you the right to steal from other people
It has nothing to do with price dipshit. There are towns, farms, highways and so on that prevent it. These things are necessary for us, but that doesn’t mean they’re not a barrier to restoring bison to pre-settlement numbers
>You want to enslave people. I don't. You are evidently a worse person than me
“EVERYONE WHO CALLS MY RETARDED LIBERTARIAN WORLDVIEW UNREALISTIC IS EVIL!!!”
You are living in a fantasy
>You don’t understand free markets if you think they'll function with government interference
If that is the case then free markets do not exist, have never existed and will never exist
>instead it's the government interfering which causes the dysfunction
Even when a government doesn’t intervene in the situation? What about when the government doesn’t exist? Is the government responsible for the Easter islanders destroying the island’s natural resources to the point they had to leave or die?
>My ideology recognizes that people act selfishly; the free market judo moves this selfishness into benefiting the wider population
And yet your system would fall apart the moment anyone decides to abuse it for personal gain

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 05:57:35 UTC No. 16480240

>>16480185
>>16480185
NTA but
> >My ideology recognizes that people act selfishly; the free market judo moves this selfishness into benefiting the wider population
And yet your system would fall apart the moment anyone decides to abuse it for personal gain
This is the exact reason why we're having this conversation instead of 90% of the human population living outside of Earth at this point in time.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 06:04:55 UTC No. 16480246

>>16478986
You are jewish

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:44:33 UTC No. 16480679

>>16480185
>I didn’t know it was moral to exploit a natural resource to the point of irrecoverable depletion
A natural resource is not a person moron. If you own a patch of land with a body of iron ore beneath it and you decide to extract all of the iron that is currently economically feasible to do so, you've not committed any wrong. The trees and dirt do not have feelings.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:45:35 UTC No. 16480682

>>16480185
>“EVERYONE WHO CALLS MY RETARDED LIBERTARIAN WORLDVIEW UNREALISTIC IS EVIL!!!”
>You are living in a fantasy
No, people who want to enslave us to the state are evil. You want to enslave us to the state. You are evil.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 13:59:21 UTC No. 16480695

>>16480185
>There are towns, farms, highways and so on that prevent it.
You are suggesting the environment must be restored to how it was thousands of years ago. This necessitates destroying human civilization. I'm not strawmanning: you admit that your plans for Earth require towns, farms and highways don't exist.

Personally I don't think that's the case if you wanted to have some herds of bison. Instead of them migrating hundreds of miles along continuous plains, you could engineer your land to be suitable for a sort of semi-natural mob grazing and still have health bison.

But again we're returning to "what are you goals?", similar to the market "overproviding". These are artificial metrics that you make up. You say my bison safari park is "no good" because it doesn't fit your criteria. These criteria are fundamentally made up by you. Perhaps you'll attempt to excuse your criteria by referencing an Oracle of The Climate and their Holy peer reviewed works. Issue with that is the bulk of people you'll have to tyranize to get your way won't have the time to understand these works; to them a tyrant just turned up and said "someone you should trust told me to". With your system, any conman could take control by the same means.

So for an example of your abitary threshold for "overuse"
>restoring bison to pre-settlement numbers
What's the point of that? The market doesn't want that. Even the "common man" won't care a great deal about it. He might agree that if there were no cost he'd be happy to see herds of bison, but if you showed him the costs of your plan, which seem demand leveling 90% of the settlements in the country, removing all roads, banning agriculture etc, he'll make the choice not to purchase your product.

This means that the only way you can get your way, is by tyrannizing the population. You're some breed of socialist who thinks he knows better than the market. Like all the rest before you you're wrong lethally.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:07:03 UTC No. 16480702

>>16480185
>If that is the case then free markets do not exist
Strictly speaking that's true, currently we only have degrees of free market. China's market is generally freer than North Korea, Germany's market is generally freer than China, the USA's market is generally freer than Germany's. But they've all got mob bosses presiding over them which dress themselves up in pomp and circumstance to give themselves an air of authority, and occasionally throw the wider public a bone (of "free" money they previously had taken from them) keep themselves in power.

These governments are the source of dysfunction in these markets.
e.g. US insulin prices:
Government patents mandate only 3 native companies are permitted to make insulin.
Government import laws prohibit you hopping over to Canada or even flying to Germany to buy insulin at a tenth the cost, then come back and distribute it at a third of the price and double your money.
Government "safety" regulations ensure competitors struggle to finance innovating insulin production methods that subvert existing patents.

Obviously the established inslin companies want this state of affairs, and lobby to continue it, I agree.
But at each step, laws enforce this situation. Only the government has the power to create and enforce laws. The blame lies wholly with the state.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:08:58 UTC No. 16480705

>>16480185
>Even when a government doesn’t intervene in the situation? What about when the government doesn’t exist?
Which we've agreed hasn't happened yet.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 14:11:39 UTC No. 16480708

>>16480185
>And yet your system would fall apart the moment anyone decides to abuse it for personal gain
No it wouldn't. It would function far better than the current system.
>abuse it for personal gain
What is happening in your system currently? What prevents people abusing it for their gain? Ignoring standard government inefficiency and distortion, an enormous amount of dysfunction in the market today results from people abusing your government to their personal gain. We both know there's nothing there to stop them abusing, because they're doing it right now and have been for centuries!

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:16:37 UTC No. 16480827

The truth is that no human would willingly give up modern luxuries because of "muh climate".

You can build all the wind and solar, even all the nuclear power you want, but people need power and nothing but fossil fuels can cut it, not even nuclear. That and nobody wants electric cars. You seriously think humans can replace the billions of gasoline cars on the planet with retarded electric vehicles? Get real. Not only that but electric vehicles put further strain on electricity generation.

I would say the very idea of "unlimited energy" is retarded within itself. Unlimited electricity creates perverse incentive, it essentially encourages companies and people to consume as much as they possibly want, no matter if what they're using it for is actually beneficial or useful. How much is enough? Are humans gonna have to burn through every piece of fissile material on Earth, every accessible fossil fuel, etc. just to learn their lesson? Would you want to live on a planet where humans have exhausted every bit of hydrogen on the planet in fusion reactors just to fuel their ever expanding need for more electricity?

The only solution is to simply let climate change get so bad that it permanently kneecaps modern society. Just let it go, so we can finally discard these silly notions of a "technological singularity".

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:19:56 UTC No. 16480992

>>16480827
You sound like someone in 1910 saying cars will never replace horses because theyre too expensive, theres nowhere to buy gas and nobody can fix them

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 18:42:31 UTC No. 16481040

>>16480827
>Unlimited electricity creates perverse incentive, it essentially encourages companies and people to consume as much as they possibly want

I want a sub-arctic home with no walls that grow coconuts palms all year around, I demand free power to realize my dream

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:02:47 UTC No. 16481073

>>16480827
>The truth is that no human would willingly give up modern luxuries because of "muh climate".
Yep. That's why you need to let the market deal with climate change.
If we assume climate change is significantly bad. As the climate creates problems, people with be willing to pay for a solution to each problem as they personally encounter it.
This way might be theroetically more costly than if we had some "eye of Ra" that showed us the future and world all at once perfectly, and we could Spock-mindmeld with everyone and have them do as the fuhrer says. But reality is we'll never have such capabilities, so using a free market will always be the most efficient means.
A government will never have an eye of Ra nor perfect mind control, so don't put it in power thinking it will do better.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:07:34 UTC No. 16481081

>>16480827
People want what their culture demands they want. We live in a consumerist culture so of course people consume as much as possible, but this isn't universal or intractable.

>>16480992
Cope. Electric vehicles are fundamentally worse than gas vehicles purely because of specific energy in batteries. This is not a solvable problem, you simply can't win if you have to store both reactants to a chemical reaction instead of just the lighter one.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 19:32:48 UTC No. 16481130

>>16481081
>We live in a consumerist culture so of course people consume as much as possible, but this isn't universal or intractable.
People always want profit because profit is an energy saving strategy. A worker demands the most wage for the least work: So he can work harder and get more in times of scarce employment.
An employer demands the most work for the least wage: So he can pay his employees more in times of scarce labor.

Demand for profit is universal. You might see people buy less chinesium depending on their culture, but they always want more for less.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 20:58:36 UTC No. 16481241

>>16481081
Gas and diesel engines only convert 30% of their stored energy to useful work. Electric motors convert 95% of their stored energy into work. Batteries only need to be 25-30% as energy dense to outperform ICE. Its possible to make lithium batteries 50% as dense as gasoline so its more than possible. Even now they cost 1/4 as much per mile in "fuel" and if you divide the cost of a new battery pack by the amount of years its expected to last its still the same or less than the maintenance costs of a gas car on an annual basis. Once they cost the same as a gas car the low operating costs will make it worth putting up with their minor downsides. It doesnt matter if its not the best anyway, gold would be better than copper for wiring your house with but nobody does because thats expensive. Electric cars are more economical which is why they will win eventually in spite of their problems. Same reason most wiring and electric motor windings are aluminum now. Its not as expensive as copper and its good enough. Soon evs will be cheaper to buy and operate than gas cars so people will buy them. Even if the market forces them to because gas is $20/gallon

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:40:09 UTC No. 16481295

>>16481073
>That's why you need to let the market deal with climate change.
Well I would say it's probably more like climate change will deal with the market, but yeah.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:48:05 UTC No. 16481303

>>16480708
>It would function far better than the current system
>Ah thank you Mr anon. I’m sure this system you invented while sitting on your ass with no experience of running a state, legal systems, etc or managing large groups of people would definitely function better than current systems of government that have been upheld for hundreds of years.
Please tell another

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:49:15 UTC No. 16481306

>>16480695
>You are suggesting the environment must be restored to how it was thousands of years ago. This necessitates destroying human civilization. I'm not strawmanning: you admit that your plans for Earth require towns, farms and highways don't exist.
No I'm not. I literally just said these things are necessary for us you illiterate retard

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 21:59:42 UTC No. 16481315

>>16480992
False equivalence. It's a common narrative that technology somehow "improves", when that's not really true. Sure, ICE vehicles are better at getting you from point A to point B than horses, but that comes with the tradeoff of pollution and requires access to petroleum/manufacturing capabilities.

Think about it like this: Electric vehicles are just about as far away from ICE vehicles as ICE vehicles are from horses. Now, I believe the entirety of human transportation can be electrified, but I don't believe that electric cars can do it. The only possible way we could ever, and I mean EVER, hope to fully electrify transport is if we forgot about all this "car" bullshit and replaced everything with trains/trolleys. Try convincing Americans to do this though.

Anonymous at Mon, 18 Nov 2024 22:18:41 UTC No. 16481340

>>16481315
If you dont think batteries have dramatically improved in the last 10 years you are retarded. EVs are like digital cameras. It took decades for them to get better than film but when they did film died overnight.

Anonymous at Tue, 19 Nov 2024 03:55:21 UTC No. 16481685

>>16481315
>Try convincing Americans to do this though.
If theres oil available you dont need to do any change, if theres no more oil you dont need to convince anyone