By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Climate change is inconsequential (because Peak Oil is a bigger issue)

o_O.Q on 01 April 2019
the-pi-guy said:
fatslob-:O said:

It's actually a huge intractable problem to replace fossil fuels with solar energy because of the fact that the former by itself is an extremely good medium for storing energy but we have no viable solution for the latter. If we mined all of the lithium in this world, we'd only have enough to create roughly 1 billion mid-sized cars with similar mileage so North America and Europe would buy all of the lithium if they could leaving nothing else in the process for the rest of the world or other appliances/utilities ... 

Most estimates on the numbers of cars in the world are only in the 1 to 1.2 billion range.  

There are only about 570 million cars in the European Union and the US combined.

There are other ways to make batteries that don't use Lithium.  This also ignores possible future innovations with batteries.   

fatslob-:O said:

If being green comes at the cost of deindustrialization which inevitable leads to austerity then it's going to be a very harsh future like we observe now with how the gilet juanes in France reacts to a price increase in gas ... 

Well, long term we are also going to have to do something about gas.  There is only so much oil and coal to go around.  

o_O.Q said:

"But the climate has been consistent for the past 10,000 years.  "

yes since the last ice age, how many more years do you wager that would have been the case?

That's actually not true.  We're actually still in an ice age.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age

and what are we going to do when this ice age ends?



Around the Network
o_O.Q on 01 April 2019
the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

" Climate change is caused by humans."

it is? how did the cavemen cause the last ice age to stop?

The current trend of climate change is driven by humans.  

o_O.Q said:

"all of the evidence points to the current trend as being man driven."

so the climate wasn't going to ever warm up again at some point in the future by your reckoning?

No.  But when most of humanity's progress has been done because of the climate's consistency, we should make sure the future is also optimal for progress.  

o_O.Q said:

"Climate change will also have an adverse effect on the economy.  "

not necessarily, someone may come up with technology to reverse the trends that are supposed to be occurring

its odd how people unilaterally accept that technology can cause climate change in one direction... but its not possible for technology to cause it in the other

Of course it's possible. Just because someone doesn't mention something, doesn't mean they don't accept it.  

o_O.Q said:
something that i've been wondering about for some time now is that it is known that the planet has gone through repeated cycles of cooling and heating over time
causing various degrees of flooding and ice formation over that time
is the current climate science suggesting that we humans are somehow going to keep the state of he planet constant going forwards?
because obviously at some point in the future the planet will warm up regardless of our impact on it since we've been coming out of an ice age... i'd like to hear some discussion on that

Natural cycles are expected.  
Everyone knows there are natural cycles of warming and cooling.  

You're basically arguing that "things were going to go bad anyway some time in the future, so why does it matter?"  

You could basically legalize murder with the same type of logic.  "Did you think he was going to be alive forever?  It's obvious he was going to die sometime regardless of my actions."  

"No.  But when most of humanity's progress has been done because of the climate's consistency, we should make sure the future is also optimal for progress. "

isn't the idea to hinder humanity's progress to reduce climate change?

"Of course it's possible."

well seems to me like climate change is being used to push the argument that capitalism needs to end and we need to hinder what people can experiment with and invest in on their own

and obviously this precludes the idea that people privately can come up with solutions for these problems 

but if the motivation among many was to end that to begin with... well.. its not really surprising is it?

"Everyone knows there are natural cycles of warming and cooling.  "

no not everyone

"You're basically arguing that "things were going to go bad anyway some time in the future, so why does it matter?"  "

no that was not my argument, i'm asking when do we expect the "natural" warming to occur and what are we going to do about it

i've honestly never heard that discussed in all of this

"You could basically legalize murder with the same type of logic.  "Did you think he was going to be alive forever?  It's obvious he was going to die sometime regardless of my actions."

with what logic? i was asking a question?



fatslob-:O on 01 April 2019
the-pi-guy said:

Most estimates on the numbers of cars in the world are only in the 1 to 1.2 billion range.  

There are only about 570 million cars in the European Union and the US combined.

There are other ways to make batteries that don't use Lithium.  This also ignores possible future innovations with batteries.   

I wish I had shared the same amount of optimism as you did if it were not for the fact that material science has reached a limit on battery technology ... :/ 

Lithium's physical properties for storing charge are as ideal as it gets for energy per volumetric density. Particularly, Lithium is a very light metal which makes it a very good anode material. There's very little chance that we'll be able to make a breakthrough within the next two decades on battery technology ... (lithium is nearly 3 decades old from it's commercial production at this point) 

Lithium also has a limited charge cycle making it very expensive to maintain as well ... 

the-pi-guy said:

Well, long term we are also going to have to do something about gas.  There is only so much oil and coal to go around.  

Well we have another 70 or so years to think about it so let's not rush things by forcing austerity upon the people because even a dictator won't stay very long in power once they squeeze the public out of their very own livelihoods to the point of staging a revolt ... 

If we're forced to ween ourselves off of hydrocarbons then the least worst candidates among them is arguably nuclear fission but there needs to be a big political change for the public to accept this source of energy despite constant fears of Chernobyl or Fukushima ... (maybe 4th generation reactors are the panacea that'll give us safe nuclear fission energy source)



fatslob-:O on 01 April 2019
SpokenTruth said:

Lithium is getting its ass kicked in the battery research department.

Not really ... 

Hydrocarbons are still very much the king with nuclear fission being second and lithium batteries at a distant third. All the replacement solutions to energy storage either have issues such as low energy per volumetric density, whether their rechargeable/expendable, safety, material problems, and etc ... 

It's hard enough for the world to make ends meet on hydrocarbons but can you imagine sustaining the many industries created in the modern world with just lithium batteries ? 

Nobody is going to stand for austerity if it means worse living conditions. Heck, the likes of China would rather take their chances on lung cancer, smog, acid rain, or tons of sources of other air pollution if it means not facing the pre-industrial age ... 

It's not the best life but using hydrocarbons shouldn't be socially stigmatized since over the decades it's proven itself to be very fruitful like we see in combating world wide poverty ... 

The entire world's way of life is monopolized by the very precious black golds that are extracted. Could you imagine the look on people's faces here when they when your gaming time is limited because you're forced to ration as much electricity as possible ? 



Mnementh on 01 April 2019
epicurean said:

I don't know about global warming, I'm not qualified - but I am gaining steam in believing Google is filtering its results to not show dissenting opinions. I could find none of them using Google, a few more using Edge, and the most using DuckDuckGo. Feel free to experiment by typing anything about a study going against the consensus of global warming among the different search engines and you'll see it too. Basically Google just pulled up articles confirming Global Warming and one about how Americans deny it because they're dumb. Never really believed they were filtering (I guess) conservative content till now.

Google shows links that matches your searches and visited sites. So it does not show you dissenting opinions from the ones it guesses you have. Every person gets different Google-results. This also means, climate change deniers most likely find sites denying climate change. DuckDuckGo doesn't collect these personal information and therefore show you all.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network
Mnementh on 01 April 2019
fatslob-:O said:
Mnementh said:

People need to realize that coal and oil is just stored past solar energy, while we could actually use current solar energy. That's why I always have to chuckle at the notion that solar power cannot replace fossil fuels.

It's actually a huge intractable problem to replace fossil fuels with solar energy because of the fact that the former by itself is an extremely good medium for storing energy but we have no viable solution for the latter. If we mined all of the lithium in this world, we'd only have enough to create roughly 1 billion mid-sized cars with similar mileage so North America and Europe would buy all of the lithium if they could leaving nothing else in the process for the rest of the world or other appliances/utilities ... 

Honestly, I'd bet nuclear fission taking off before seeing either solar or wind energy take off because of logistical reasons ... 

Wind energy is probably doomed to only be able to meet 30% of the total energy capacity and solar is even more doomed accounting for no more than 10% in the distant future ... 

If being green comes at the cost of deindustrialization which inevitable leads to austerity then it's going to be a very harsh future like we observe now with how the gilet juanes in France reacts to a price increase in gas ... 

Well, germany is certainly not deindustrialized and had 35% of electric power generated by renewable sources in 2018: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20181214_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2018.pdf



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

fatslob-:O on 01 April 2019
SpokenTruth said:

I think you missed it the first time so I'll try again.

Lithium is getting its ass kicked in the battery research department.

That's not even remotely true. Lithium dominates 95%+ of the battery market ...

No other solutions in research can ever hope to match it's capabilities within at least 2 decades ...

research =/= irrelevant

results = relevant



kirby007 on 01 April 2019
Mnementh said:
fatslob-:O said:

It's actually a huge intractable problem to replace fossil fuels with solar energy because of the fact that the former by itself is an extremely good medium for storing energy but we have no viable solution for the latter. If we mined all of the lithium in this world, we'd only have enough to create roughly 1 billion mid-sized cars with similar mileage so North America and Europe would buy all of the lithium if they could leaving nothing else in the process for the rest of the world or other appliances/utilities ... 

Honestly, I'd bet nuclear fission taking off before seeing either solar or wind energy take off because of logistical reasons ... 

Wind energy is probably doomed to only be able to meet 30% of the total energy capacity and solar is even more doomed accounting for no more than 10% in the distant future ... 

If being green comes at the cost of deindustrialization which inevitable leads to austerity then it's going to be a very harsh future like we observe now with how the gilet juanes in France reacts to a price increase in gas ... 

Well, germany is certainly not deindustrialized and had 35% of electric power generated by renewable sources in 2018: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20181214_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2018.pdf

After a certain while you are going to get deminishing returns on waterpowerplants and locations for those, just like windmills and solarscreens



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Mnementh on 01 April 2019
kirby007 said:
Mnementh said:

Well, germany is certainly not deindustrialized and had 35% of electric power generated by renewable sources in 2018: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/index.php?article_id=29&fileName=20181214_brd_stromerzeugung1990-2018.pdf

After a certain while you are going to get deminishing returns on waterpowerplants and locations for those, just like windmills and solarscreens

Maybe. We aren't there yet.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

kirby007 on 01 April 2019
Mnementh said:
kirby007 said:

After a certain while you are going to get deminishing returns on waterpowerplants and locations for those, just like windmills and solarscreens

Maybe. We aren't there yet.

We dont have natural locations for waterpower so we have to create them. We lack the space germany has for massive windmill parks aside from places with moaning people about spacial polution



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.