- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Exxon Report on Climate Change Risks
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:45 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:45 am
This is a pretty good read, and I think both sides of the debate would benefit from reading it. I think the most important consideration for both sides is to make sure you're not arguing what essentially amounts to dogma. The fact is, we can't pull the plug on fossil fuels tomorrow, or the entire global economy would collapse. We also couldn't do it in the U.S. alone, as we'd quickly drop to one of the least productive developed nations on the planet, assuming all others continued to burn.
What we can do is be realistic in that we can continue to use traditional sources while also researching in and (this one's important in that many of the people arguing against fossil fuels were also some of the Occupy crowd) investing in alternative energies.
Exxon seems to recognize the necessity of that mixed approach. I can't say I'm hearing the same from the environmentalists, most of whom have probably never picked up an economics textbook.
LINK
What we can do is be realistic in that we can continue to use traditional sources while also researching in and (this one's important in that many of the people arguing against fossil fuels were also some of the Occupy crowd) investing in alternative energies.
Exxon seems to recognize the necessity of that mixed approach. I can't say I'm hearing the same from the environmentalists, most of whom have probably never picked up an economics textbook.
LINK
6
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:47 am to RedStickBR
quote:
What we can do is be realistic
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:48 am to RedStickBR
TL DR
bookmarked for later, got a gross anatomy exam tom, so back to studying the female pelvis region.
not nearly as
as it sounds
bookmarked for later, got a gross anatomy exam tom, so back to studying the female pelvis region.
not nearly as
as it sounds
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:48 am to RedStickBR
Thanks for posting. Bookmarked.
I'm typically skeptical of Exxon's stance since they are responsible for a major competitive product to coal, which is pretty dirty and often the subject of attacks from the global warming crowd.
I'm typically skeptical of Exxon's stance since they are responsible for a major competitive product to coal, which is pretty dirty and often the subject of attacks from the global warming crowd.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 7:49 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 7:53 am to dewster
Yeah, they have coal growing at a zero percent rate through 2040, even though coal use has increased as a percentage of global energy mix in recent years and some Asian countries are beginning to experiment with "clean coal."
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:09 am to RedStickBR
quote:
I can't say I'm hearing the same from the environmentalists, most of whom have probably never picked up an economics textbook.
You expect an environmentalist to care about anything more than the environment?
I'd fully expect an environmentalist to support outright renewable energy and nothing less.
quote:
The fact is, we can't pull the plug on fossil fuels tomorrow, or the entire global economy would collapse. We also couldn't do it in the U.S. alone, as we'd quickly drop to one of the least productive developed nations on the planet, assuming all others continued to burn.
I'm not so sure the global economy would collapse, because it's not something that could be done overnight anyway. We'd have to wean people off of gas or convert their cars somehow. We definitely would need more/new infrastructure to harness any renewable energy, not to mention install it in the first place.
BUT - if we were all set up and ready to go...needing none of our oil based energy resources to supply US energy needs...I'm 10000000% in favor of that.
For one, when the rest of the world sees the US doing it, I'm positive they'll join the rank and file. It helps that the technology has gotten so much cheaper, of course.
Regardless, if we can be energy independent then I'm all for trying to have the cleanest air, cleanest water, etc. I don't really care if we do it now or later. But I wouldn't worry about a global collapse at all. I'm sure the oil companies would continue to drill, drill, drill...all over the world. But the smart companies will also be investing heavily into their renewables (such as Exxon). It's just a matter of time before that's the more viable option (Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind). Adapt, move, or die.
North America is a beautiful piece of land, so I'm glad we don't have the kinds of problems that China does.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:18 am to RedStickBR
We purchase entire unit trains of coal almost every day for some of our plants.....and as production increases, so does our demand for coal as a fuel.
It costs a lot to switch over to natural gas. There will be a switch, but it won't be overnight.....a strong push from the Feds will almost certainly involving phasing out old plants, leaving some pretty devastated communities behind- many of them in the southeastern US.
It costs a lot to switch over to natural gas. There will be a switch, but it won't be overnight.....a strong push from the Feds will almost certainly involving phasing out old plants, leaving some pretty devastated communities behind- many of them in the southeastern US.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 8:24 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:19 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
I'd fully expect an environmentalist to support outright renewable energy and nothing less.
Then they shouldn't try to impact policy, because environmental policy cannot and should not take place in a vacuum.
quote:
I'm not so sure the global economy would collapse, because it's not something that could be done overnight anyway. We'd have to wean people off of gas or convert their cars somehow. We definitely would need more/new infrastructure to harness any renewable energy, not to mention install it in the first place.
Lots of unknowns in here. That's a big part of the problem.
quote:
But the smart companies will also be investing heavily into their renewables (such as Exxon). It's just a matter of time before that's the more viable option
Now you're getting closer to where I am. This is the constructive part of the debate, in my view.
quote:
(Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind). Adapt, move, or die.
I think you mean 30% of all incremental energy. Wind energy is still under 10% of Texas' total mix.
Alternative energies work fine in so far as they're able to address peak load. But base load capacity will likely continue to be from fossil fuels and nuclear for some time to come.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:20 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind).
That's phenomenal!!!
30 percent of all their energy from the wind.
That's quite an achievement considering how many people live in Texas, how man cars Texans drive, how much power it takes to run air conditioning equipment, etc.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:30 am to doubleb
quote:
That's phenomenal!!!
Except it's not true ...
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:30 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind
Yea, you are going to need to link that...
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:32 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
I'm not so sure the global economy would collapse, because it's not something that could be done overnight anyway. We'd have to wean people off of gas or convert their cars somehow. We definitely would need more/new infrastructure to harness any renewable energy, not to mention install it in the first place. BUT - if we were all set up and ready to go...needing none of our oil based energy resources to supply US energy needs...I'm 10000000% in favor of that. For one, when the rest of the world sees the US doing it, I'm positive they'll join the rank and file. It helps that the technology has gotten so much cheaper, of course. Regardless, if we can be energy independent then I'm all for trying to have the cleanest air, cleanest water, etc. I don't really care if we do it now or later. But I wouldn't worry about a global collapse at all. I'm sure the oil companies would continue to drill, drill, drill...all over the world. But the smart companies will also be investing heavily into their renewables (such as Exxon). It's just a matter of time before that's the more viable option (Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind). Adapt, move, or die. North America is a beautiful piece of land, so I'm glad we don't have the kinds of problems that China does.
"not so sure the global economy would collapse" is a tad unrealistic, O. Even with the traditional carbon-based techno economy...they'll be damn lucky to keep things afloat. You really don't think there was a problem of systematic shutdown and utter chaos back in '08? I reckon you weren't on the outskirts when Katrina blew threw. We had about another week of relative civility slack; there were lines of cars miles long who had run out of gas, parked on the side of the road...filled with desperate folk, many of who would jack you for your shoes when times are good.
This single-minded oblivion from the Greens, focused on the love of the Natural World Beauty (which I utterly worship, but not without proper context) may well be the straw that breaks the economic camel's back and prevents us from having the economic resources and societal civility/cohesion to make the high-tech leap into another civilizational paradigm.
Greens should take a walk through the Urban centers of America before they push the voting button to roll the die with techno and economic based that underpins civil society. And 'civil society'...is being generous.
Playin with fire.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:45 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
"not so sure the global economy would collapse" is a tad unrealistic, O. Even with the traditional carbon-based techno economy...they'll be damn lucky to keep things afloat.
It just depends on the time frame. I don't think we're incapable of on-boarding renewable energy on a mass scale. We just have to do it over the course of a decade(s) instead of a couple of years. Slow and steady should make for a stable transition, hopefully?
Regardless, I bet every single person on this board will be happy once we're off of fossil fuels. Not only will the debate stop, but we have kids. We want clean air, globally. And nothing is cleaner than the wind (unless you're in china I guess) or the sun. I can't imagine that won't help our future generations.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:46 am to ocelot4ark
30% of incremental is still impressive. And it's nearing 10% of total, which is also impressive. Iowa is approaching 30% of their total in wind, I believe.
But this is not baseload capacity. We will still need a hell of a lot of fossil fuels and nuclear for primary energy.
But this is not baseload capacity. We will still need a hell of a lot of fossil fuels and nuclear for primary energy.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:52 am to RedStickBR
But it's 10% of electricity, not 10% of their energy as originally stated.
Huge difference.
Huge difference.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:52 am to ocelot4ark
quote:
Texas already gets 30% of their energy from Wind)
Texas, the state with the largest electricity load and the most installed wind capacity, also generated the most electricity from wind energy – over 35.9 million megawatt-hours, or enough to power 3.3 million homes. ERCOT, the main electric grid in Texas, received 9.9% of its electrical generation from wind energy during 2013 and is on track to top 10% in the coming years considering the 7,000 MW of new capacity now under construction in Texas.
LINK
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:52 am to RedStickBR
quote:
But this is not baseload capacity. We will still need a hell of a lot of fossil fuels and nuclear for primary energy.
Yeah, I'm really not at all intelligent about this stuff. I'm more, "pie in the sky," it'd be neat if we could get out of the ME, and badass if I could run down to Lowe's and buy enough solar panels to power up an off-the-grid lifestyle, eventually.
This post was edited on 4/1/14 at 8:53 am
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:53 am to RedStickBR
the future will be a mix of renewable, natural gas, and nuclear fusion (based on the recent advancements, we're not that far off).
As usual it will be a mixed bag.
As usual it will be a mixed bag.
Posted on 4/1/14 at 8:55 am to RedStickBR
quote:
Exxon seems to recognize the necessity of that mixed approach.
Clearly Exxon has fallen victim to the IPPC and the repeated lies of global warming alarmists. - vast majority of politards
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News