I wonder how much rainforest Brazil had to cut down to grow all the feedstock for that ethanol. Citing them as a bastion of environmentalism is hilariouQuote:
Originally Posted by 01RedDX
Printable View
I wonder how much rainforest Brazil had to cut down to grow all the feedstock for that ethanol. Citing them as a bastion of environmentalism is hilariouQuote:
Originally Posted by 01RedDX
Is this the same China that just got caught using banned CFCs and was creating detectable harm to the ozone layer?Quote:
Originally Posted by 01RedDX
.
So should places like Canada help places like China when the goal is global reduction? At the end of the day, no one is saying a change in the energy we use is needed, but it's so mind boggling I want to cry that people are spouting off about the wold ending within a decade or 2 of we don't stop using fossil fuels. How much clean tech comes from the OG industry? How much money to help further a cleaner future comes from the current demand of OG? "The world needs more Canadian oil and gas" truer words have never been spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by 01RedDX
So by this logic, we have also been funding the activists against the Canadian OG sector up until a few months ago? That's a funny way to look at it, but I can see the correlation.
Also, I'm no more involved in oil and gas than anyone has to be by living in Calgary. But it's clear as day to me how to view all the facts and make an educated decision. That's what I have done and will continue to do as new information/actual science comes out.
You certainly enjoy your ivory tower of childish Naïveté, where everything new or different is better without any consideration of depth or consequence. Your shallow view of the world reflect your clear lack of understanding of reality, spend a bit less time in your own internet social echo chamber reading over and over again what you want to hear and with people who actually know what they are talking about and you might inject your mentality with a semblance of depth. But that’s fine be a contrarian for the sake of being contrary just don’t pretend it makes you smarter or more interesting for it, bit of a glass house to be running around calling people Edgelord :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by 01RedDX
QUOTE=01RedDX;4818179] Moving on, I am really just interested in the future of technological disruptions, especially as they pertain to how we produce and consume energy. I think the future is exciting and don't mean to come across as negative or disparaging of the oil industry but some people seem to take it very personally or turn it into a political discussion. Just to give you a small example, I work for an major oil co and we recently lost a back end app that runs some kind of data consolidation once a month, something that used to take a team of production accountants a month of work. I found the server, an ancient G5 DL380 that failed and chucked it out, within a couple of hours the app was moved to a VM and now there's one less server to take care of, meaning less need for people like me in the future. This is happening on a large scale on in all facets of the industry today, so I'm taking the idiom "learn to code" very seriously. Just a small example of how new tech is creating uncertainties and we should be able to have honest discussions without resorting to petulant tantrums.[/QUOTE]
that we agree on. New tech is coming faster every day. Who knows what the future holds, but until the day is here, tested, verified, I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face. We can move in tandem, design, build, testing new tech with advancing fossil fuel tech can't we? Why is it one or the other? That's the way the "green" " world ending in a decade if thing don't change" side is making it.
Regarding energy usage, renewables are expected to continue to accelerate (projected to 2050 anyways). However, that total usage from the total energy pie of the world still remains incredibly small -- less than 10%. What's quite disheartening to me is that coal usage doesn't change one bit. I can only assume it is because for developing nations it still remains to the cheapest means of energy.
As for the whole climate change business, this forum is by and large 'woke, bro' about it, incredibly open-minded and also hold PhDs in multiple fields. Waste of everyone's time to bother "discussing" it further.
Back to the topic at hand, Canada should be the shining star of the world for what up/downstream oil and gas should look like. But instead we're the laughing stock on the world stage. Hell even Norway is probably busting a gut of how dumb our government is.
.
I love technology and cool stuff. We've hit a wall with the old stuff. It's dirty, and we can't seem to improve much. The new stuff is advancing by leaps and bounds. That's exciting to me. I was reading about the newest generation of wind turbines on my Seattle flight and the progress from just years ago is staggering. They are now building turbines that can run at a 65% capacity factor. And they are already designing the next gen turbines that will dwarf the 850 foot mega turbines being built today Imagine a single turbine powering 30,000 homes. Now that's something.
As for pollutions and particulates. We are already seeing tremendous cost increases to Canada's health care as a result. Who is subsidizing that?
Jesus dude, are you seriously a climate change denier? Were you not around when humans ripped mother nature a new asshole in the ozone layer with 30 years of CFC use? Or how about all that lead we used to burn in ICE engines? Yeah, we kind of have an affect on the planet's ecosystem.Quote:
Originally Posted by killramos
What because I don’t believe the hysteria around the impending climate apocalypse if we don’t stop emitting CO2 by next week? Because I don’t believe the climate models that have never been correct? Because I am not so myopic as to realize that we have been coming out of an ice age for the entirety of humanities written history? Because a single geophysical event has a greater emissions and climate impact than our entire society? Because documented evidence of our planets history demonstrates that we have been at far higher, and far lower temperatures as well as far higher and far lower levels of atmospheric CO2? Or that the same records confirm that solar activity is the direct cause of such swings in temperature and CO2?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tik-Tok
Anthropromorphic climate change IS hubris. I don’t believe in bankrupting our society over virtue signalling parlour tricks when no real economically viable alternatives exist.
As for your examples, last time I checked lead was in gas was mostly killing ourselves not the planet. The hole in the ozone is a great example of hysteria and horror stories, I remember when it was permanent and was going to kill us all within a decade or 2, turns out it was far more resilient and regenerative than any of the experts thought and is essentially a non issue. Claimed global warming via CO2 isn’t even a similar or comparable mechanism.
I’ll leave it with a wonderful quote on the situation you are so eager to get behind from our dear environment minister:Quote:
But you know, I actually gave them some real advice. I said that if you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.
What Kill is saying isn't wrong....the climate is changing, but what effect mankind has is debatable.
I’m just more sick of all the bullshit than most.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticcat522
Actually, Lithium is significantly better than carbon in one gigantic way.
You don't burn lithium, it does not oxidize and go up into the upper atmosphere. When the battery loses capacity in about 5 years or so, you simply melt it back down, rearrange the molecules back to a "non-dendrite" formation and you can use it again just like a fresh battery. Arguably, once you have about maybe 5,000 "18650" battery cells per person - that will be enough lithium to last them a lifetime. Lithium low melting point basically makes it nearly free to recycle (unlike silicon needed for solar panels)
Carbon on the other hand is a constantly losing race, where combusted materials and resources are literally burning money, if oil is money. This is also what has historically made Alberta rich, the USA burning money.
The whole idea of carbon emissions destroying the planet does actually have an endpoint according to some. By the time we have burned another 100+ years of carbons - we should be at 0.08% carbon in the atmosphere, its actually quite difficult to achieve anything higher than that just due to the limitation of available oil on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
Jeebus birth (0 AD) had a 0.025% carbon and it took 2,000 years to get to 0.04%. We will literally run out of "realistically pumpable oil" before it can hit 0.08%. To say humanity has enjoyed burning carbon to improve their life really only "greatly" benefitted ONE generation - the generation born in 1960's, where its ok to spend hundreds of millions of kilograms of combustible material for one man to play one round of golf on the moon. Lets not forget that if Robert Falcon Scott actually had a vehicle and a few tanks of gasoline back in 1912, the trip to the South Pole would have been trivial. And don't say the industrial revolution, because you could have generated heat to make steam in a number of different ways.
Did they corner the future generations to electric scooters that burn the equivalent of 1/10th a litre of gas? Sure seems like it to me. Damn selfish boomers, damn you NASA, lol.
Psssh, PHD. Scientists nowadays are worse that the NASA scamsters of the previous generation.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...fired-by-whom/Quote:
Originally Posted by Mitsu3000gt
Quote:
The propeller-driven UAVs use a Chinese-built two-cylinder gasoline engine, and they have a one-way range of up to 250 kilometers (155 miles). The Qaseth-1 can carry a payload of roughly 30 kilograms (66 pounds)—equivalent to a small-diameter bomb or small air-to-ground missile, which is effective mostly against smaller targets.
The effect mankind is quantifiable and far from debatable. Only dumbass North Americans seem to think otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by killramos
FFS, the Pentagon is making plans due to climate change.
But yea: human effect on our environment is minimal and also debatable.
Aside from nuclear disasters.
Also massive environmental change.
Also pollution.
Also ozone layer.
Also fucked up waterways, soil, etc.
Also climate change, which is a thing that is broadly accepted by the global scientific community.
But yea, fuck all that: human impact on the environment is debatable. The ignorance of some people is so fucking astounding that it's almost hilarious. But then they stand there defiantly as if they have a valid point or even a scientific leg to stand on. Mind boggling.
Yeah, even small explosive warheads will do sufficient damage to industrial facilities. It doesn't take a big hole to render a pressurized vessel useless and incredibly difficult to repair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrema
The pics show that the hits were very well targeted too. High precision, small but effective damage.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49718975
It became a non-issue because we severely curbed it's usage to the point of banning it, giving the ozone time to regenerate. But I mean hey, I guess if you're wrong, you won't care because you'll be dead like 99% of the planet. Then the environment can start to regenerate itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by killramos
"Remember that problem that was globally recognized and actioned to fix? Well its not a problem anymore, therefore climate change isn't real."Quote:
Originally Posted by Tik-Tok
Can't argue with stupid, mate.
Lol people were making hysterical claims about the ozone long after the CFCs were banned, people said it was going to kill us all well into the late 90’s. And people ate it up just the you morons are with the current climate hysteria, everyone is afraid of the invisible boogeyman they don’t understand. Turns out that problem was nowhere near as drastic or permanent than all the experts predicted either.
It’s funny, I find most people who have the most passionate positions on this have absolutely no background in such or any real knowledge (myself included).
However, my opinion stands from that I have seen more than enough bullshit on the topic and plenty of healthy contrary points to many of the “100% definitive” claims to be healthily skeptical of the politically motivated crap that seems to be so easily accepted as fact by the uncritical sheep of the world who are only interested in hearing what they want. Seriously, the level of certainty that is Carved in stone in your guys heads is astounding.
But that’s fine if you want to run around being a mouthpiece for the morally corrupt IPCC. No way we hit any of their targets anyways and 20 years down the road big shocker the world will not end as the biased “climate scientists” around the world are claiming.
Worlds going to get warmer, nothing we can do will change that. We would be far better off investing money in dealing with that problem ( hint energy infrastructure ) than the childish gambit of trying to stop the sun from setting. Because we are no more capable of preventing the planet from warming than we are stopping the earth from turning.
But yea. Stupid is as stupid does.