AuthorTopic: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money  (Read 8614 times)

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2014, 01:25:41 PM »
Ka,
Quote
Quote from: agelbert on December 30, 2014, 04:36:51 PM

You support Fracking for the same reason Nicole Foss does (MONEY!).

When (where) did Foss support fracking?

I'm getting rather tired of your willfully obtrusive behavior.

You're the scholar and super erudite analytic brainiac here, are you not?

But we aren't talking about Shakespeare now, pal.

Here's a search clue for you on the Doomstead Diner: "Open Letter to Nicole Foss". Also check out the Energy thread back in 2012. Also, check out MY comments at TAE on Stoneleigh's no-conventional (LOL!) gas EROEI BULLSHIT back in 2012 (if they haven't deep sixed them :evil4:).

Or just keep pretending Nicole Foss knows her ASS from a hole in the ground about energy return on energy invested when the SCC (social cost of carbon) is computed (something she NEVER does beyond pretending she "isn't happy with it" while she says, out of the other side of her mouth, that "There's money to be made").

Have a nice day. 
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline Ka

  • Global Moderator
  • Waitstaff
  • *****
  • Posts: 887
    • View Profile
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2014, 07:26:32 PM »
Ka,
Quote
Quote from: agelbert on December 30, 2014, 04:36:51 PM

You support Fracking for the same reason Nicole Foss does (MONEY!).

When (where) did Foss support fracking?

I'm getting rather tired of your willfully obtrusive behavior.

You're the scholar and super erudite analytic brainiac here, are you not?

But we aren't talking about Shakespeare now, pal.

Here's a search clue for you on the Doomstead Diner: "Open Letter to Nicole Foss". Also check out the Energy thread back in 2012. Also, check out MY comments at TAE on Stoneleigh's no-conventional (LOL!) gas EROEI BULLSHIT back in 2012 (if they haven't deep sixed them :evil4:).

Or just keep pretending Nicole Foss knows her ASS from a hole in the ground about energy return on energy invested when the SCC (social cost of carbon) is computed (something she NEVER does beyond pretending she "isn't happy with it" while she says, out of the other side of her mouth, that "There's money to be made").

Have a nice day. 

I am well aware you disagree with NF about calculating EROEI and the viability of renewables, but that does not mean she supports fracking. I know Ilargi doesn't, so I was surprised to hear that she does. So all I asked was when she said she supports fracking.

But I dutifully looked up your "Open Letter", and I assume this is what you call "supporting fracking":

Quote
Well, it DOES HELP the frackers in attracting investment capital to have energy experts publish EROEI numbers above 1:1, does it not? A real world EROEI woud remind these planet poisoners of the repercussions of their actions AND make it HARDER for them to get investment capital.

I guess you could construe it that way, but I wouldn't have.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2014, 10:36:47 PM »
Ka,
I have gone in to somewhat more detail because I suspected you would resort to hair splitting. A Credentialed Energy Expert that publishes an EROEI number of e.g. 1:0.9 is telling investors they will NOT profit from the technology. She gave numbers ABOVE 1:1 for BOTH tar sands AND fracked gas. If she was NOT credentialed (like me), then your logic would hold water. There is NO WAY she can, like your other pal Ilargi, piss and moan about how bad and nasty these technologies are (as she has done out of one side of her mouth) but turn around and say you can make money off of them.

Two sides of Nicole Foss's mouth:
The "I'm not happy with this" side showing much concern for humanity after paragraph after paragraph of IGNORING global warming and GLOSSING OVER the enormous environmental damage the fracking causes:
Snippet From "Fracking Our Future" by Nicole Foss (crocodile tears are in evidence).
Quote
Given the poor economics and low EROEI of shale gas in general. It is very difficult to argue that fracking, particularly in areas like the Marcellus Shale, makes sense. Unconventional gas is far from being a clean fuel when the whole lifecycle is considered. In fact considering the substantial potential for releases of fugitive methane emissions, one cannot even argue that unconventional gas is an improvement in comparison with burning coal when it comes to climate impact, let alone an improvement on other environmental fronts.

Shale gas is simply another Faustian bargain that humanity should not be making. We run substantial long term risks, which we socialize, for the sake of short term private profits.

This is the typical human modus operandi, but it is high time we learned from our mistakes.
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-19-2011-fracking-our-future.html

HELLO? Who is "TRYING TO ARGUE" that Fracking makes sense? The ARGUMENT is not about "sense", dear. The ARGUMENT is about ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE COSTS. You just FLAT REFUSE to QUANTIFY THAT!  :emthdown:

Some compassionate words about  fracked gas not being an improvement over the damage of coal to the climate (without COST NUMBERS) DOESN'T CUT IT.

Now for the other side of her mouth.  THAT IS, whenever a Credentialed Energy Expert SAYS the EROEI of WHATEVER is ABOVE 1:1, they are engaging in DE FACTO support of said technology. They are TELLING investors that the technology is PROFITABLE. If Ka does not define that as support, it is due to his hairsplititis, an occupational hazard of self described scholars everywhere.  :evil4:

In 2012 she wrote an article with lots of graphs showing the EROEI of Fracked gas to be ABOVE 1:1. I wrote and told her that fracking was an obscenity. I cannot find the article or my comment. If anyone can find it, please post it HERE. I will not hold my breath waiting for Ka to do it.

I went back to comment on another article in the hopes of getting that "energy" expert to understand that pushing fossil fuels as "cheap" was inaccurate (i.e. the energy RETURN is LESS than that INVESTED so the number must be, for example 1: 0.1) when the climate costs are figured. The whole point (that she has ALWAYS danced around) was to tell her that externalized costs are real and they MUST be figured in the EROEI.
Ilargi, another one of Ka's pals(?),  took care of THAT:
Quote
July 9, 2012 at 3:48 am #4515 
Raúl Ilargi Meijer
Agelbert,
I deleted your obviously far too lengthy comment from this thread. Left it on the other thread for now. I thought I had been clear before. Apparently not. Any additional comments like this will be deleted. This is a forum for everyone, and it’s not to be bogarted.
http://www.theautomaticearth.com/peak-oil-a-dialogue-with-george-monbiot/#ixzz20DL0Ft2s

I wrote the Open Letter in 2013 (a year later). I showed conclusively how her predictions had NOT panned out and how her SUPPORT of technologies like tar sands and fracking (by ASSIGNING them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1 was bad for the  climate and beneath her as an "Energy" expert. I was polite, as Ashvin had requested me to be in PM's when we discussed it. She never answered.  :emthdown:

When I posted the letter HERE on the Doomstead Diner, the SILENCE was DEAFENING. Ka was not interested in talking about it. Neither was anybody else. And Foss was CERTAINLY NOT interested in eating crow. So it goes.

SNIPPET from the letter hi-lighting the OTHER side of Nicole Foss's mouth:
What does propaganda fostered by the fossil fuel industry for the purpose of denying Global Climate Change have to do with the subject of this letter to you?

A lot. I'll get to that but now I wish to remind you of a response you wrote to me in a comment forum about a year ago when I complained that you had not figured in the cost of poisoned aquifers from fracking gas drilling in the EROEI of fracked gas. I further said that, given the fact that Renewable Energy does not pollute, it actually is more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Why wait a year to answer you? Because I ran into exactly the same talking points in several other comment forums when the subject of fossil fuels versus renewable energy came up. So I set about to research your claims and predictions.

I have answered the statements and predictions you made. Nearly 100% of your predictions have not come about. In fact, in some cases the exact reverse of what you predicted has happened.

Also, some of your statements were factually incorrect at the time you made them, not just a year after you made them. Please read them and tell me if you have revised your views in these matters.

I have included your statements in exactly the same sequence as you made them without any alterations whatsoever.

Your statements are in brown color

My response in blue


Quote
Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.


(Phase 1)
Quote
  Energy from renewable resources—wind, water, the sun, biomass and geothermal energy—is inexhaustible and clean. Renewable energy currently constitutes 15% of the global energy mix.

http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/objectives/renewable-energy


Quote
They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.


(Phase 2) So the huge demand destruction in fossil fuels this past year was ONLY related to the depression we have been in since 2008!!? Why then, didn't said demand destruction occur THEN? Why did that demand destruction DOVETAIL with the explosive growth of energy and wind in the USA in 2011 and 2012?


Quote
Charts: The Smart Money Is on Renewable Energy
—By Tim McDonnell
Mon Apr. 22, 2013

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/04/charts-renewable-energy-fossil-fuels


Quote
IEA Predicts Wind to Double and Solar Solar to Triple in 6 Years

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/wind-and-solar-energy-rush-goes-global-130712.htm


Quote
The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.


http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables?cmpid=rss



Quote
They are more expensive than fossil fuels


(phase 3)

Quote
  When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
In the July 2011 PE magazine article “Why We Need Rational Selection of Energy Projects,” the author stated that “photovoltaic electricity generation cannot be an energy source for the future” because photovoltaics require more energy than they produce
(during their lifetime), thus their “Energy Return Ratio (ERR) is less than 1:1.”

Statements to this effect were not uncommon in the 1980s, based on some early PV prototypes. However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.
 

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf



Quote
because of their very low EROEI


(phase 3) See above. The EROEI of fossil fuels is lower than Renewable energy EROEI.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm


Quote
However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.

Quote
Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) / (Eagen–Eaoper)
where,
Emat: Primary energy demand to produce materials comprising PV system
Emanuf: Primary energy demand to manufacture PV system
Etrans: Primary energy demand to transport materials used during the life cycle
Einst: Primary energy demand to install the system
EEOL: Primary energy demand for end-of-life management
Eagen: Annual electricity generation in primary energy terms
Eaoper: Annual energy demand for operation and maintenance in primary energy terms

The traditional way of calculating the EROI of PV is EROI = lifetime/EPBT, thus an EPBT of one year and life expectancy of 30  years corresponds to an EROI of 1:30..

http://www.clca.columbia.edu/236_PE_Magazine_Fthenakis_2_10_12.pdf







Quote
and very large fossil fuel dependency.


(phase 3) Maybe that was true in 1980 but NOW it is only partially true. Norway has about 100% penetration of renewable energy in their electric grid. Other highly industrialized countries have high penetration as well. This mean the electric arc furnaces for smelting steel and other high temperature thermal processes dependent on electricity are using very little fossil fuels to make renewable energy machines in these places.

Also Nuclear power plants, something neither you nor I favor, have always been made with fossil fuels but that never stopped our government from making or heavily subsidizing that new energy technology. Why should it be different for renewable energy machines?
Observe below the Renewable Energy penetration of the electric grid in various industrialized countries



Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets

Although we technically do not have PV manufacturing plants or Wind turbine manufacturers driving EV trucks or mining with EV machines as well as powering their factories with wind and PV or some other renewable energy, it's just a matter of time.

WHY? Because of the HIGH EROEI of Renewable Energy devices. They pay for themselves in a few years and then, as long as they are properly maintained, last a number of decades while using ZERO fossil fuels throughout the entire period.

The fossil fuel powered internal combustion machine is not competitive with Renewable Energy technolgies UNLESS fossil fuels retain their massive subsidies and continue to limit the market penetration of renewable energy systems in the USA and elseware with the threadbare excuse, and untrue allegation, that they are "too intermittent".

Quote
The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
Lester R. Brown

http://www.earth-policy.org/plan_b_updates/2012/update107



Quote
In fact renewables is a minomer. The sun will continue to shine and the wind to blow, but steel is not renewable and neither are many other essential components.


Six Terrawat hours a year of energy is expended each year in the USA just to make the internal combustion engines and spare parts. How come you never complained of this massive amount of energy involving "non-renewable" steel used in manufacturing internal combustion machines?

Renewable Energy devices terminology refers to the FACT, that once they are constructed, they don't USE fossil fuels to output energy. And the metal used in Renewables is not high temperature alloy metal like that required for internal combustion engines which makes it recyclable with LESS energy than that required for internal combustion engine metals.

In fact, we need far less steel and other metals to replace the entire internal combustion independent infrastructure with renewable energy WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MINING by just cannibalizing the internal combustion machines for Renewable Energy machine metals as we make the transition.

Yes, I know about the rare earth metals mining pollution. I can only remind you of that phrase, "drop in the bucket" compared with the benefits of doing away with fossil fuels altogether.


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg25945#msg25945


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable development,


Prices have gone up for fossil fuels even as demand has gone down. This has actually spurred the switch to renewables , not dampened it.

Quote
Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013

http://www.eia.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp


Quote
Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/fossil-fuel-prices-renewable-energy-attractive



Quote
especially at a large scale.


(phase 3)

Quote
To date, we've committed over $1 billion to renewable energy project investments, signed ... It may also be more feasible to build larger power installations .... and match their demand with utility-scale solution

http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/www.google.com/en/us/green/pdf/renewable-energy-options.pdf



Quote
You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy sources with low EROEI.

The Renewable energy blend eliminates intermittency and the low EROEI claim has been proven, not just inaccurate, but the exact reverse.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/renewable-energy-is-too-expensive.htm

Quote
CSP technology can also be coupled with energy storage, one of the hottest topics in the renewable energy industry this year. Plants that include energy storage with molten salt can store solar power and dispatch it in the early evening and into the night. Tex Wilkins from the CSP Alliance thinks this application could make PV, which is often viewed as a threat to CSP, a complimentary technology. "The ability of CSP with storage to dispatch its power to the grid in the early morning and evening can combine with daytime PV to spread out the use of solar power from the time people get up early in the morning until they go to bed late at night," he explained. Wilkins said that in five years most CSP plants will include energy storage. Van Scoter from eSolar said in five years he expects that most CSP projects will include molten salt or ISCC technology. "There is also a high potential for projects involving industrial process heat, EOR and desalination," he said.
All CSP experts said that utilities are just beginning to recognize CSP's value - a renewable energy able to provide base load, dispatchable power. According to SkyFuel's Mason, "This attribute of CSP is its main differentiator from PV and wind, and will ensure its increasing uptake in the power market."


Quote
Intermittency Of Renewables?… Not So Much

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/21/intermittency-of-renewable-energy/


Quote
For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability

http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2013_06_26_For_As_Long_As_The_Sun_Shines



Quote
Feed in tariffs are already being cut worldwide, and without them renewable power is not competitive.


This is a generalization and is inaccurate as well.
It is also a faulty comparison. The MASSIVE subsidies fossil and nuclear fules get dwarf any feed in tariff "advantage" for Renewable energy.

If all fossil and nuclear fuel subsidies were removed, the ridiculously tiny Renewable Energy subsidies in the form of feed in tariffs and other paltry incentives would be even less significant than they are now.

I know you are adverse to feed in tariffs. It is not logical for you to be adverse to FIT and not ALSO be adverse to fossil fuel subsidies like THESE:

Expensing of Intangible Drilling Costs

Percentage Depletion Allowance

Deduction for Tertiary Injectants

Geological and Geophysical Expenditures

Exception for passive loss limitations for oil and gas

Enhanced oil recovery credit

Marginal oil well credit

You eliminate ALL THE ABOVE and the pittance that FIT represents can be eliminated quite easily, thank you very much. Just google fossil fuel and nuclear power subsidies to date in the USA alone and then look at the tiny sliver of a percentage of subsidies for renewables to date.

Of course, fossil fuel industries want renewable enrgy to go away and are doing everything possible to make that happen. Eliminating FIT would be one step to that goal while keeping fossil fuel subsidies intact.



Quote
Said Brian Jennings, ACE executive vice president, in a release, “If oil companies cannot stand on their own two feet after 100 years of clinging to certain taxpayer subsidies, Congress shouldn’t hurt American consumers by repealing the RFS, a policy that helps level the playing field with oil a little bit by giving people affordable and renewable fuel choices.”

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/03/big-oils-100-year-incentive-birthday-bash-hosted-by-biofuels



Quote
Since we cannot run this society on renewables, our society will have to change.


A logical conclusion based on the low EROEI incorrect premise and the intermittency incorrect premise.

With an incorrect premise, you will always come to the wrong conclusion.

The fact that renewable energy has grown in leaps and bounds for over three years now is proof that it is a more profitable energy source, as well as being non-polluting after manufacture, than the poisonous fossil fuels.

The renewable energy percentage use targets are INCREASING, not decreasing as you incorrectly believe. Here's just one example:


Quote
Vermont may have more foresight than other states it its ambitious 90% renewable energy target by 2050, but it’s really the sign of a paradigm shift in energy, says Dave.

http://www.ilsr.org/vermonts-standard-offer-renewable-energy-program-episode-10-local-energy-rules-podcast/


Quote
Prepare For Disruptive Solar Technology

Quote
In 2013, the landscape is drastically different. Solar power is here to stay, and the major manufacturers should be motivated to make big moves.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1504552-prepare-for-disruptive-solar-technology



Quote
We will have to learn to live within our means.

Most people in the world already do. It's people with giant carbon footprints that don't.

I think what you are doing in lowering your carbon footprint is laudable but be aware that every time you board an aircraft, you have just used up about 6 months worth of the carbon footprint of a person in the third world. That doesn't help.




Quote
This article was not about poisoned aquifers. I have written about that before though. I cannot cover everything in every article or there would be no focus. Of course fracking is obscene, the environmental risks are huge and a few well connected individuals are making a killing from the ponzi scheme. The price collapse will eventually prevent it, just not right now when there is still money to be made.

Yes, the environmental risks, and damages as well, are already huge. Fracking adds insult to injury. It's time to stop supporting this biosphere killing technology, regardless of the fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on governments and policy.

Quote
The country is in the midst of an unprecedented oil and gas drilling rush—brought on by a controversial technology called hydraulic fracturing or fracking.
Along with this fracking-enabled oil and gas rush have come troubling reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air, mysterious animal deaths, industrial disasters and explosions. We call them Fraccidents.

http://earthjustice.org/features/campaigns/fracking-across-the-united-states



Quote
The numbers are bad even with externalities excluded, and are of course much worse with them. Some of these things are very difficult to quantify, and over-quantification doesn't really help anyway.

Well, it DOES HELP the frackers in attracting investment capital to have energy experts publish EROEI numbers above 1:1, does it not?  A real world EROEI woud remind these planet poisoners of the repercussions of their actions AND make it HARDER for them to get investment capital.

The less happy the EROEI numbers, the less inclined they will be to engage in criminal and toxic activity. If energy experts don't do it, who is, besides the scientific community which is getting drowned out by the bought and paid for media?

I can show you a Buffalo University study about three years old (not the snow job that came later falsely claiming it was peer reviewed and forced to recant) that proved conclusively that Uranium traces would come up in the process of fracking and invade the aquifers, not at radiactive dose danger levels but as heavy metal pollutants.

There's a LOT more bad stuff going on out there. If you don't know about it, you should.

Gas fracking corruption posts:


http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5905#msg5905
http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=478.msg5923#msg5923


Quote
'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale, UB Research Finds

http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2010/10/11885.html



Quote
This is real politik - the way the world really works.

You mean that's the way the POLITICAL WORLD works.
The planet and the biosphere, according to serious, objective, proven environmental science,  will become uninhabitable if we do not stop burning fossil fuels within a couple of decades (See video above in this document of panel of scientists where one British Scientist actually says that the REAL, "real world" is about to overwhelm the perception managed "real politik, real world" the fossil fuel industry and most of mankind falsely believe they live in. Note: Part 2 of that video is extremely informative as well.).

The intransigence of the fossil fuel industry in this matter is a given. They wish to avoid liability for the damage they have casued so they have, for several decades, (See the George C. Marshal Institute) launched a campaign of disinformation to claim there is NO climate threat whatsoever.

The disinformation has used the scare tactic that we are running out of fossil fuels. Sure, according to latest estimates, we have about 37 years left of oil and slightly over 100 years of coal.

I certainly think those numbers don't translate into an imminent collapse UNLESS the fossil fuel fascists (that isn't hyperbole) engineer one as an additional scare tactic.

Don't tell me the industry famous for contrived price shocks and oil resource wars is not capable of that.

Here's a PRIME example of what the fossil fuel industry has done to the USA and the world:

A quote from the following Peer Reviewed book:


Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.

Quote
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.

In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.

So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "

Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.


Consequently, all extrapolated future scenarios the Peak Oil people come up with must have their premises scrutinized to see how much of that is fossil fuel propaganda.

I have. The collapse scenario does not add up.

In that video above, the scientific community makes it crystal clear that there is easily another 100 years of coal, a much more polluting fossil fuel than oil, available regardless of the state of petroleum depletion.

So it is not realistic to say everything is just going stop one day from a chain of collapses in economies. The available fossil fuels are still TOO available.

The worsening weather will be the ONLY thing that will spur change unless the 1% performs a coup d'état on the fossil fuel world power structure and even then we already passed the point a couple of decades ago when bioremediation was going to be fairly straight forward.

So the Peak Oil people and preppers, like you, are doing themselves a world of good by preparing for a lower carbon footprint and learning many low tech survival skills because, even in the best of the three scenarios I envisioned (no die off), we will still have to reduce our carbon footprint until we get all the bugs out of the 100% renewable energy PLUS 20-40% carbon sequestering economy implemented to GET BACK to below 350 ppm.

You are wrong to think it will all collapse but you are right to prepare for hard times and horrible weather. Hansen said the atmospheric and oceanic inertia is nearly 100 years. I had thought it was only about 30 years.  :P

That means we are experiencing NOW the effects of our generated pollutants (if you say the incubation inertia is 50 years or so) as of 1963!

Consider all the pollutants that have poured in to the biosphere since then and you start to understand why brilliant people like Guy McPherson are so despondent. There is NO WAY we can stop the pollution/bad weather clock from CONTINUING to deteriorate for another 50 years (or 100 if Hansen is right) even if we STOPPED using all fossil fuels today. :(

I'm not in charge and neither are you. But clinging to this fossil fuel fantasyland of cheap power and all we "owe" it for our civilization is not going to do anything but make things deteriorate faster.

If enough people reach the 1%, maybe they will wake up. It's all we can do in addition to trying to foster community.

The system, as defined by the fossil fuel fascist dystopia that currently runs most of the human affairs among the 1 billion population in the developed world that are saddling the other 6 billion, who are totally free of guilt for causing it, with this climate horror we are beginning to experience, IS quite stubborn and does not wish to change the status quo.

Mother nature will force it to do so.

Whether it is done within the next two decades or not (i.e. a swtch to 100% PLUS bioremediation Renewable Energy steady state economy) will dictate the size of the die off, not only of humans but thousands of other species as well.

We are now in a climate cake that has been baked for about 1,000 years according to atmospheric, objective, proven with experimental data, science.

My somewhat quixotic hope as fleshed out in the following article is that the 1% will respond to the crisis with a crash program to bioremediate the biosphere as a matter of enlightened self interest.



http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2012/08/13/sexual-dimorphism-powerstructures-and-environmental-consequences-of-human-behaviors/

If the crash program to switch to renewable energy is to begin soon, I expect the trigger for the crash program will be the first ice free arctic summer (according to my estimates  :icon_mrgreen:) in 2017.

So I would use that future melting now as a rallying point to wake people up and join in the effort to ban fossil fuels from planet earth. Expect the fossil fuelers to counter that polar ice melting catastrophic reality with propaganda about what a "wonderful" thing it is to have a new ocean to shorten ship traveling (i.e. TANKERS) distances. So it goes.

But if things go well for humanity and the 1% galvanize to save the biosphere and their stuff  :icon_mrgreen:, we will witness the dismantelling of the centralized fossil fuel infrastructure, it's use and, more importantly, the relinquishing of political power worldwide by big oil.



Quote

15 April 2013
James Hansen

1. Exaggeration?

I have been told of specific well-respected people who have asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would be happy.
"Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate story.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf



Quote
It's about money and power.


Correct. It has ALWAYS been about POWER (which always brings easy money).

It has NEVER been about ENERGY beyond CONTROLLING the spigot to we-the-people.

That's why the fossil fuel industry simply didn't switch to the much more profitable and economical renewable energy technologies long ago (they certainly have the money to do so); they simply could not figure out a way to retain POWER and CONTROL with a distributed, rather than a centralized energy system.




Quote
The expansion phase of the bubble concealed that for a while by floating many boats temporarily.

No comment except that the forces of nature will overwhelm any bubble mechanics that corrupt central bankers or Wall Street can come up with.

The importance of financial activity pales in the face of climate change.




Quote
I wish that wasn't the way it worked, but it does, whether we like it or not. All we can do is to understand our situation and make the best of it.


Renewable Energy is making life and profits more and more difficult for the fossil fuel corporations.

But you are right that they run the corrupt system and do not want to cede their power (even if it kills all of us).


Quote
Robert F. Kennedy Jr: In the next decade there will be an epic battle for survival for humanity against the forces of ignorance and greed. It’s going to be Armageddon, represented by the oil industry on one side, versus the renewable industry on the other.

And people are going to have to choose sides – including politically. They will have to choose sides because oil and coal, they will not be able to survive – they are not going to be able to burn their proven reserves.

If they do, then we are all dead. And they are quite willing to burn it. We’re all going to be part of that battle. We are going to watch governments being buffeted by the whims of money and greed on one side, and idealism and hope on the other.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/06/interview-with-robert-f-kennedy-jr-on-environmental-activism-democratization-of-energy-more/

This ends my response and rebuttal of your statements and predicitons.

<------------------------------------------------------>

Do you now recognize that what you told me, wittingly or unwittingly, was fossil fuel anti-renewable energy propaganda?

I have shown the error in your statements and request you reconsider your position on everything you said to me.

The fossil fuel industry and those who side with it, regardless of appearing to take a pro-environment position in their personal lives, are hurting our chances for a viable biosphere.

Those who, instead, simply stand their ground on the settled climate science and state unequivocally that fossil fuels must be BANNED from human use forever and the fossil fuel industries dismantled while a massive transition to a lower carbon footprint and 100% plus renewable energy economy takes place, are the only hope Homo sapiens has.

The question is, which side are you on?


Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
 
 Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)


A word about political power and real politik living in a fossil fuel fascist dystopia.

IT simply DOES NOT MATTER what the 'real world", "real politik" geopolitical power structure mankind has now is. IT DOES NOT MATTER how powerful the fossil fuel industry is in human affairs. The ICE and fossil fuels have to go or Mother Nature will kill us, PERIOD.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 10:55:23 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2014, 11:05:17 PM »
NICOLE FOSS, is, and always has been, a stalking horse for Fossil Fuel Energy.

She, like Gail Tverberg and Charles Hall (and MANY other bought and paid for energy "experts" out there) is the EMBODIMENT of the following in EVERYTHING she has written in regard to ENERGY for several years:


Typical phases of resistance to renewable energy, as descriped by Dr. Herman Scheer are as follows:
 
 Phase 1 – Belittle & Deny the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 2 – Denounce & Mobilize Against the Renewable Energy Option

 Phase 3 - Spread Doubt & Misrepresent the Challenges in the Disguise of General Support (Nicole Foss SPECIALTY!)

(Note: reaching Phase 3 doesn’t mean that Phase 1 & 2 will disappear.)
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 11:07:03 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41858
    • View Profile
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2015, 02:00:36 AM »
John Lounsbury just published this one on GEI.

http://econintersect.com/a/blogs/blog1.php/a-thermodynamic-view-of-money

I wonder if I will get any more feedback from Per Kurowski from the World Bank from this one?  :icon_sunny:

Diner firing on all cylinders as we start the New Year!  8)

RE
Save As Many As You Can

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41858
    • View Profile
Credit Anstalt Deja Vu All over Again
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2015, 03:21:07 AM »
The Titanic is GOING DOWN.

re

"Spectacular Developments" In Austria: Bail-In Arrives After €7.6 Billion Bad Bank Capital Hole "Discovered"

Tyler Durden's picture



 

Slowly, all the lies of the "recovery", all the skeletons in the closet, and all the bodies swept under the rug are emerging.

Moments ago, Austrian ORF reported that there have been "spectacular developments" in the case of the Hypo Alpe Adria bad bank, also known as the Heta Asset Resolution, where an outside audit of Heta's balance sheet exposed a capital hole of up to 7.6 billion euros ($8.51 billion) which the government was not prepared to fill, the Austrian Financial Market Authority said.

As a result, according to Reuters, the bad bank that was created in the aftermath of the Hypo collapse, is itself about to be unwound, as the bad bank itself goes bad!

 
 

"Austria's Financial Market Authority stepped in on Sunday to wind down "bad bank" Heta Asset Resolution and imposed a moratorium on debt repayments by the vehicle set up last year from the remnants of defunct lender Hypo Alpe Adria."

In short: Austria just cut off state support of what was until this moment a state-backed, wind-down vehicle and a key pillar of trust in what was already a shaky financial system.

Not surprisingly, today's shock announcement comes a week after Austria's Standard reported that up to a five billion euro impairment at Heta would take place, a report which the Finance Ministry called "pure speculation" and noted that the Bank was in good health. According to Standard, among the reasons for the massive capital shortfall was the plunge in collateral as a result of the continuing crisis in South East Europe which meant that the value of "real estate in South East Europe, shopping centers and tourism projects, deteriorated massively" driven largely by the appreciation of the Swiss Franc. "As a result, the volume of bad loans has increased significantly."

Everyone was wondering who the first big casualty of the SNB's currency peg failure would be. We now know the answer.

Further from Reuters, the finance ministry confirmed this in a statement, adding Heta was not insolvent and that debt guarantees by Hypo's home province of Carinthia and the federal government were unaffected by the move.

The problem is that going forward that nobody knows who insures what, what various other state and quasi-state guarantors suddenly unclear as to who is responsible for what: the province of Carinthia guarantees back €10.7 billion worth of Heta debt. The federal government backs a 1 billion euro bond issued in 2012 that the ministry said would be honored in full.

As a result of the "sudden" capital deficiency, there will be a moratorium on repayment of principal and capital lasts until May 31, 2016, giving the FMA time to work out a detailed plan to ensure equal treatment of all creditors, the FMA said in a decree published on its website.

Perhaps a badder bank to rescue the bad bank?

According to Reuters calculations, More than 9.8 billion euros worth of debt is affected, including senior notes worth 450 million due on March 6 and 500 million on March 20.

But the punchline, is that while the world was waiting for Greece to announce capital controls, or a bail-in over the past week, it was none other than one of the Europe's most pristeen credits (one which until recently was rated AAA/Aaa) that informed creditors a bail-in is imminent: "The finance ministry noted that creditors can be forced to contribute to the costs of winding down Heta - or "bailed in" - under new European legislation that Austria adopted this year so that taxpayers do not have to shoulder the entire burden."

Bloomberg confirms that the ministry announced that under new EU rules means creditors can be forced to share losses.

Of course, this being Austria, and the Creditanstalt, aka the bank which failed in 1931 under almost identical circumstances and set off the dominos that led to a global financial crisis which in turn bank fanned the flames of the Great Depression, also being Austrian, suddenly everyone is asking: "what just happened and what happens next?

Save As Many As You Can

Offline Palloy

  • Sous Chef
  • ****
  • Posts: 3751
    • View Profile
    • https://palloy.wordpress.com
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2015, 09:03:38 PM »
An observation on this thread: the kinds of arguments being used here are not the kinds of arguments that can produce an answer that everyone will accept - it guarantees going round in circles.

A few factoids:
The thermodynamic efficiency of photosynthetic organisms is very low - about 1% of solar energy is captured by photosynthesis.
Between 50 and 90% of that energy collected is lost in living processes.
What's left, Net Primary Productivity, over the whole planet amounts to 170 billion tonnes per year,
(115 Gt/y from land, 55 Gt/y from oceans, 37 GT/y from tropical rainforests, 41 Gt/y from deep oceans).
Campbell's "Biology" 2nd Ed.
The thing that distinguishes photosynthetic organisms from industrial energy sources is that they are self-reproducing.

The energy source for early civilisations, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome were largely WOOD (not people, and not animals), and those civilisations died out when the local wood supply ran out.  Even at that meagre level of energy comfort, sustainability was impossible, and led to unsustainability and environmental destruction.  You might have thought they would have been smarter than that, but they weren't.

Carry on.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 09:07:23 PM by Palloy »
The State is a body of armed men

Offline RE

  • Administrator
  • Chief Cook & Bottlewasher
  • *****
  • Posts: 41858
    • View Profile
Re: Of Heat Sinks & Debt Sinks: A Thermodynamic View of Money
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2015, 09:43:49 PM »
An observation on this thread: the kinds of arguments being used here are not the kinds of arguments that can produce an answer that everyone will accept - it guarantees going round in circles.

A few factoids:
The thermodynamic efficiency of photosynthetic organisms is very low - about 1% of solar energy is captured by photosynthesis.
Between 50 and 90% of that energy collected is lost in living processes.
What's left, Net Primary Productivity, over the whole planet amounts to 170 billion tonnes per year,
(115 Gt/y from land, 55 Gt/y from oceans, 37 GT/y from tropical rainforests, 41 Gt/y from deep oceans).
Campbell's "Biology" 2nd Ed.
The thing that distinguishes photosynthetic organisms from industrial energy sources is that they are self-reproducing.

The energy source for early civilisations, Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome were largely WOOD (not people, and not animals), and those civilisations died out when the local wood supply ran out.  Even at that meagre level of energy comfort, sustainability was impossible, and led to unsustainability and environmental destruction.  You might have thought they would have been smarter than that, but they weren't.

Carry on.

The only thing wood was used for was Heat, Cooking, making Ceramics and smelting Metal.  They didn't have Machines that could convert Heat--->Work.

The only way to convert Heat to Work was through Human and Animal labor, with a small contribution from Windmills and Water Wheels later on.

It was the latter 2 processes of Ceramics and Metal working that used up the available Forests.  With just heat and cooking, you had a sustainable system.  When they depleted the local Ag Land and couldn't ship enough food inward to maintain the large army and slave population that made Rome a going concern, the civilization collapsed.

RE
Save As Many As You Can

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
5201 Views
Last post October 21, 2012, 07:05:03 AM
by RE
72 Replies
27373 Views
Last post November 19, 2013, 03:13:53 AM
by Petty Tyrant
1 Replies
151 Views
Last post December 04, 2018, 01:46:47 PM
by Surly1