Leaderboard

That book emphasizes that so much of our economy is dependent on oil - not as a fuel but as a raw material. We make fertilzer, plastics, clothing, rope, paint, asphalt, lubricants, medicines, solvents etc etc from oil and gas. Which is the best argument that we should not burn it all as fast as we can.

Classic Brent….random chart posted, mike dropped

Hi Joe, You are in the ball park. In this book, the author's say that the life-span of Earth is 12 billion years and that we have used up 4 1/2 billion of those years: The Life and Death of Planet Earth: How the New Science of Astrobiology Charts the Ultimate Fate of Our World: Ward, Peter: 9780805075120: Amazon.com: Books I found this book to be a very interesting read; it is not a dry, scientific tome. Jerry Baumchen

Hi mbohu, One of the best posts ever on this subject. Bravo!!!! Jerry Baumchen

Yes, that's a question we'll have to come to terms with sooner or later--independent of the current distractions and divisions (not that they aren't serious as well.) No matter what the ultimate quantity limit of fossil fuels on the planet is, fact is: 1) They took millions of years to be created and we are burning them down tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of times more quickly (i.e.: they will run out) 2) The energy they are supplying (as well as the materials) are completely at the base of almost everything we do right now; our entire way of life is completely impossible without that amount of energy 3) There is no great incentive to reduce their use, because we are only paying for the cost of extraction, not the real cost of what it would take us (or nature) to recreate them, or the costs to the environment for generations to come, etc. So they are extremely underpriced and we only do not notice that, because the real costs are (or have been) very much projected into the future, or otherwise externalized 4) It's not even really a question of when we run out completely of fossil fuels, but when we run out of fossil fuels, that can be extracted with less energy use, than they will provide after extraction. Original oil was best in that way, fracking already has a much smaller payoff (even ignoring all the other issues that it may have). Eventually we may come to a point where there may very well still be significant untapped sources of fossil fuels in the ground, but getting them out of the ground would take more energy than the extracted resources can provide. 5) We have a worldwide economic system that depends on constant growth for its very existence. On the other hand, it seems that--on a worldwide scale--there is an almost exact one-to-one relationship between total energy usage and total GDP (so if GDP goes up, energy use goes up by the same percentage) This means, if we want to preserve this system without changes, not only do we need to continue to use the amount of energy we use now, we need to increase our energy use exponentially--and in fact, we have been doing this, which is why all this new sustainable energy creation we have recently added, has not helped us to reduce our fossil fuel use, and has instead just added additional capacity to our system, and been used up in addition to the fossil fuels. The following is not meant to be a realistic scenario that we'll ever have to deal with, because other things will (have to) happen long before that happens, but mathematically speaking, this is a very sobering (and interesting) thought exercise: • Most economists would think that a GDP growth of 2.3% is quite conservative and required to keep an economy healthy. • If we applied that growth worldwide, it means that about every 30 years GDP doubles and every 100 years it grows tenfold • If the relation to GDP and energy use remains constant (as many argue it must), energy use (and therefore energy-production/extraction) has to grow tenfold every 100 years. • Therefore, looking at this in even tiny time periods as far as the evolution of humanity is concerned: > within a few hundred years we would have to cover the entire surface of the earth with solar panels, even if we could get solar panels to 100% efficiency (right now we seem to be at 15%-20%) just to get all the energy we need > even if we built a sphere around the sun and captured all of its radiated energy (rather than just what hits the earth) that would give us about 1,000 years at that growth rate > Even if it was physically possible to transfer energy at speeds faster than light, so we could capture energy from suns other than our own, in 2,000 years, we'd need more energy than the output of all suns in our galaxy combined. Sure, it's ridiculous...but then again: No economist is called out for being ridiculous when they demand (constant and exponential) growth of GDP

No, rockets don't emit a lot of carbon, just because there are so few of them. They're a rounding error. well, in an enclosed space, you REALLY don't want to be running any gasoline or diesel engines. Electric is definitely the way to go.

I have no idea why anyone persists in the idea that we should be putting humans in space with todays technology. Besides the current infeasibility of it the arrogance is just stunning. Just look around at humanity. Do you really think we're fit to be showing up unannounced anywhere? Unless it's a sticks and knives WWIII I think we're best avoiding that as a team building exercise but that's probably just the liberal in me. Lastly, please do trim the fat off of that rib eye. It's marbled enough and you were probably told to look after your heart.

Backed into a corner. I thought one of the worst things done during the Iraq war was to tell Americans to go about their business like it didn’t affect them. Took the “together” away from it. Yes, it was a bullshit war, and one of our worst national ideas ever, but taking the together away made it even worse. Wendy P.

And Tandems out of tall trees. Students might need to do their own hand cam, I suppose.

Are we talking about the fate of the species, or just ‘Murica?

From the USPA Instructional Rating Manual Section 1.A.2 2. A USPA Coach may— a. conduct training in the non- method-specific portions of the skydiving ground school. (1) equipment familiarization as it pertains to the first jump (2) basic canopy control (3) parachute emergency procedures (4) landings and landing emergencies (obstacles)

The past decade has seen more than 50 US coal companies fall into bankruptcy and over 100 gigawatts (GW) of coal capacity either retired or slated for closure. Over the past seven years,(to 2021) "there have been 274 oil and gas producer bankruptcies. In the same period, 330 oilfield services and midstream companies have filed for bankruptcy, bringing the combined North American industry total to more than 600 industry bankruptcies involving over $321 billion in secured and unsecured debt. "That is about a third of a trillion for those with a MBA. Why does Brent always pick the worst performing option?

Sorry to hear you got screwed over. I've reviewed many solar proposals and none of them used accurate data and projections to calculate the savings. or provided full disclosure on critical issues. The proposals had other significant issues that put all the risk on the homeowner with no mechanism to recover when the system underperformed. I'm aware of the company that recently filed bankruptcy. I suspect that it's the beginning of many. At the lower end of energy prices which is where the SE is, the economics just don't work. In a case where ist does work (on paper), IMO, the equipment and performance risks are too high. It's a sad situation when the consumer can be lied to and they have no recourse. Yes, the consumer signed the contract so it's their fault but the "fraud" that occurs to get to the signing is crazy. And yes, solar does work in some situations. I'm not anti-solar but am anti-fraud. There are plenty of folks that are hating they signed those contracts.

REMCRU

What khamul will 'Erik of Portland' manufacture next? A breakthrough in Yeti research?

I suspect that if it ever got to the point where Trump was not on the front page of all the major news outlets he really would shoot someone on 5th avenue just to get back in the headlines.

And I hope Labour would immediately tell them to fuck off and stand as an Independent. None of these arseholes should be allowed to get away with pretending they've suddenly found a conscience when the only thing they're really concerned about is their own majority.