Monday, April 21, 2014

On the Assertion that Fossil Fuels are Bad

It makes me sick in that if it wasn't for cheap and abundant fossil fuels we'd still all be living in squalor and dying off before the age of 40. The fact of the matter here is that electricity = modernity = prosperity and the sight of all of these radical environmentalists who are literally against anything that works (fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro) but who themselves have benefited handsomely not simply from fossil fuels (preaching from the confines of their air-conditioned offices) but from minerals (they apparently think that all of these cell-phones and computers simply drop out of the sky) taken from the very mines that they're also against makes it even more nauseating. I mean, talk about a virulent, spoiled bunch of lunatics.

9 comments:

BB-Idaho said...

Fossil fuels are neither good nor
bad, just finite.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

We've just scratched the surface. According to Robert Bryce's book, "Power Hungry", there are some 30,000 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas and that doesn't even take into account the vast increases in technology that are undoubtedly on the way.......And I would say that they've been exceedingly good to the tune that we wouldn't even be having this conversation if it weren't for them.

BB-Idaho said...

Well, I guess its not not our worry , but the great grandchildren may argue over whether no fossil fuels left, or
overwhelming government accrued debt is worse. It seems reasonable that ALL fuel is sun derived, whether growing a tree,
or compressing fossils a few million years. Seems sensible to
interdict that sun-to-energy process, which we can predict will
accelerate when the cost of extraction becomes prohibitive,
unless some business decides to become proactive. Certainly not in my lifetime, but a couple generations out.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Solar and wind will probably never be more than bit players in this whole game in that they simply cannot measure up to scale and cost. The only sensible approach is the N to N plan of natural gas leading to nuclear (look for thorium as a safer alternative to uranium and plutonium) but in the present time the rest of the planet is going to be burning a hell of a lot more coal (just as we did in our evolution) whether we like it out not because they need the energy and coal is by far the cheapest source.......And I think that you're discounting technology when it comes to fossil fuels. I mean, just 20 years ago, if a person had said anything about fracking or horizontal drilling, they probably would have been laughed at and look who's laughing now.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And didn't Jimmy Carter say that we only had 10 more years of oil back in 1979?

BB-Idaho said...

Technology seems to have its fracking deniers for one reason or another. Back in the Midwest, in
my home state, plain old sand has become a valuable commodity;
dug up and shipped by rail to OK and TX. It is pumped down to replace the void and stabilize
the under-terrain..but they still
seem to be getting frequent earthquakes. IMO, increased costs
to get at the fossil gas and oil
will in the near (or far) future
make solar more viable. Conversely, the fossil folks may
improve their deep drilling to the extent that the magma core of the planet can be tapped..should last quite awhile...and of course
some folks will complain about the
big cold magma piles in their neighbor hood. (come to think of
it, magma is very high in Iron and
other steel making elements..might
be a twofer)

dmarks said...

Will said: "And didn't Jimmy Carter say that we only had 10 more years of oil back in 1979?"

I have a strong familiarity with the various versions of the "Peak Oil" hoaxers.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Mr. Tillerson is to fracking what the Kennedys are to windmills, apparently.............And despite the fact that we've been heavily subsidizing solar, it still only provides about 2 tenths of 1% of our total energy. That is a terrible return on investment.......And it isn't entirely green, either. While, yes, it may have more power density and lower resource intensity than windmills (which are a total boondoggle worse than damned ethanol) do, a typical PV farm takes up 8-9 times as much space as a typical natural gas well or nuclear facility and so it would have a much bigger impact on wildlife and that doesn't even take into consideration all of the new transmission lines that it would necessitate. Green isn't necessarily green, dude.

Rational Nation USA said...

Excellent way to state the issue BB Idaho.