The steam powered car was never supposed to be the car of the future. It was supposed to be the horseless carriage of the future and when the internal combustion engine was developed its offshoot all but wiped out horses as a mode of transport.

Maybe it wont be solar as its currently being captured, maybe we will crack the photosynthesis cell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis
and photo-voltaic will die off as the steam car did.

Who knows where the breakthroughs will come.

But its certainly true your analogy is apt as for you to stand on the sidelines saying fossil fuel systems will never be surpassed is just like the guys pointing and laughing at the steam powered cars saying horses will be around forever.

True...

Good point...

Agreed...
But if look at the history of dead-end technologies versus tech breakthoughs, the smart money is with the pessmists.
Afterall we still haven't found a way to develop a nuclear powered plane but after WW2 this was.

So true...
This simple concept is one that seems to elude the more ethusiastic solarheads/windheads.

The creaters of the Stanley Steamer disagree with you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Steamer

Fossil fuels is the current state-of-the-art technology for most of our power needs.
Someday fossil fuels will be knocked off their perch but I say it is unlikley that it will come from wind/solar.
Why do I say this? Solar/wind power have been around a long, long, long time and little progress has been made to make these options economically viable...
That does not mean it is impossible but the longer it goes the more likely it will never happen...

Curious, are we factoring indirect subsidies into this equation? You know, like the Pentagon budget and veterans' lifelong medical bills, which are direct functions of our quest to secure global oil flow rates?

Also, are we recognizing that light crude oil is a finite resource that is not keeping up with demand? Or are we still in denial about that fact?

No one said renewables could supplant fossil fuels. No one said light crude oil isn't the most efficient and versatile natural resource we've ever found. Some people in the thread are being typically dishonest about the platform they're arguing against. It's a common ploy, and that's why we can't stand them.

But, make no mistake about it: A day will come, in their lifetime, when they'll wish they had that renewable infrastructure in place already to soften the blow for what's coming. They'll kick themselves for constantly raising petty, irrelevant obstructions to basic steps toward a cleaner, more sustainable planet.

But then, no one really said it would, oh great straw man champion. You should try and actually follow the argument being conducted, rather than pretending your opponents said anything about wind/solar surpassing oil. Dishonest much?

Well done shifting the goalposts earlier, as I knew you would after being called on your dumb statement. Shocking that you're from Texas, when you go so far to defend sweet crude as to unnecessarily chide renewable development with exaggeration and long-debunked talking points.

I especially love when soulless cons start getting all concerned for wildlife when it suits them, as if they give a crap about birds dying in wind turbines. LOL. To hell with those mammals in harm's way up at ANWR though. "Drill!!"

I think you're lying. Mainly because of the precedent you've set.

I have little doubt you hate the idea. I can tell in the cheap shots you take at the prospect of buoying (even slightly) the industries in question.

You guys are all for dumping exponentially more money into the dirty stuff, not to mention the defense budget and the collateral damage that comes with that, but outraged over any spending toward a cleaner planet. This is the main reason I can't stand fossil fuel zombies who won't give an inch.

You want to compare apples-to-apples? Regarding energy efficiency? And be honest about it? Fine. Then lets remember to add all the bull**** costs associated with keeping the global oil flow rates up to speed, not just direct federal subsidies. Let's add that annual Pentagon budget, and stop pretending it's actually "defense" at all. Let's acknowledge what it really is: an apparatus to secure world oil trade (and has been for decades). How much do you think CENTCOM costs to maintain? I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, and won't even add on medical costs for wounded returning veterans to securing that oil paradigm, but rest assured it's in the hundreds of billions of dollars. But just for perspective, who was the last soldier severed from the waist down and forced to **** in a bag for the rest of his life because he was protecting a wind or solar farm?

Yes, you keep saying this over and over, in all your smarmy tone. But when you're reminded that all energy industries receive federal subsidies, you go on the irrelevant "yeah but" tangent about which source is "more efficient" per dollar spent. Of course, you make no mention of which source is finite and dying. That never factors into your equation. Tax payers can't afford the oil age either, and it gets worse with every passing month - from your gas tank to your small business profit margin to your grocery bill.

I'll say this again, for like the 48th time, so that people like you can ignore it again and arrogantly pretend I've advocated something else entirely:

I'm FULLY aware that light crude oil is the greatest natural resource mankind has ever discovered. I'm fully aware that it returns, by far, the greatest EROEI we've yet harnessed (and likely ever will harness). I'm fully aware of it's mind-boggling versatility, used in everything from fuel to plastics to pesticides to computer chips. Why on God's Green Earth do you think the subject is so dear to my heart in making people understand that a reduction in global oil production by as little as 1% is devastating to our way of life?

The point is, no matter how stridently you spin it, all the low-hanging fruit has been picked. The planet has been scoured over for decades, using technology that would make our heads spin in its complexity. There are no new Ghawars, and there won't be. It is NOT being found in the capacity needed to keep up with dying existing fields + exponential demand growth. Period. End of story.

We are buoying the industry more and more with 1) investment in unconventional crap -- heavy oils deep under the sea, strip mined from mountain ranges, or shaken loose from bedrock by mini-earthquakes, under U.S. communities -- and 2) hegemony for what's left of the good stuff.

THAT is how desperate we are to maintain the oil age, and our gluttony.

Coal can be converted to natural gas.
Coal can be converted to gasoline.
SASOL of S.Africa has proven this can be done economically...
This is WW2 technology...

And if I remember correctly the breakeven point for doing so is about $30/barrel....
The economics of wind/solar do not work. And it is not even close.
Your cheer leading will not change this fact. No one is going to pay $2000/month in electric bills so they can be "green"...

LOL @ coal.

How much coal do you think there is? Where? What grade? Try not to rely solely on whether or not you 'remember correctly.' ... Actually link to something, for once.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#Economics

That's not what I asked, kidd.

There is a lot of coal. No one thinks coal production will peak in the next 25 years. And electrical generation can be shifted to nuclear if a large fraction mined coal is needed for liquids production.

Typically vague. If you're going to carry water for your pal Felix, do what he apparently can't. If I ask how much coal, give me a ball-park estimate. You know, something better than "a lot." ... Fail.

It's interesting that you can assert "no one thinks coal production will peak in the next 25 years." Shall I link (again) to several who do?

Proven coal reserves are something like a trillion tons. Around 7 billion tons of coal was burned last year, so there are around 140 years worth of coal left. According to wiki that is 4100 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Proven oil reserves are around 1200 billion barrels. So there's a lot of coal that can be turned into liquids if the need arises.

Sure, link to some peeeeeeeeeeeeeek coooooooooooooool scaremongers. I could use a laugh.

My gawd, do you ever suck at this. I asked you to link a source supporting your laughable claim. Not throw up a bunch of vague figures and type "wiki".

Do you even know what constitutes efficient coal? Are you aware of the differences between anthracite and peat? Scramble off to the Google land now and act like you're informed.

Do better.

Those figures are not vague. Proven coal reserves are almost exactly a trillion tons. 4100 billion barrels of oil equivalent. Which is enough for 140 years of 2010 consumption.

Dude, are you unable to provide a link to back your claim? Stop stammering and answer the f****** question.

I answered your question. I got that information from the wikipedia article on coal.

Err, BP's report that you have pulled your figures from says it will peak at around 2025.

Also you seem to be assuming in another post that barrels of oil equivalent means they can just convert it to barrels of oil. Its merely a measure of energy from burning them.

Obviously they cannot convert coal to oil with 100% efficiency. But the point is that potentially large amounts of coal could be converted to gasoline and diesel. And unlike liquid fuels there are good proven alternatives to coal electricity generation in nuclear power and wind.

And of course apart from coal reserves there are absolutely massive amounts of oil shale that can profitably be converted to oil if oil prices are in the $70-100 range. Wiki says recoverable oil shale reserves are something like 3 trillion barrels of oil.

Success...
We got him speaking of coal rather than crappy windmills and anemic solar panels.

Well, Germany just scrapped all their Nuclear power plans.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110323/...VybWFueXNldHRv


We'll see what happens when a country goes with renewables.

fallout (pun intended) from nuke crisis in japan

I've read varying sources and estimates, some saying it'll take 30 years and trillions of dollars to clean up this mess. I'm guessing the energy company doesn't have trillions of dollars to spend to clean this up. Should companies be willing to operate with something that can cause so much damage that the money they make could never cover the cleanup costs?

You must surely mean "should companies be allowed to operate with something that can cause so much damage"

its scary to even think about it...

Yeah, thats what I meant

Looked up Banqiao, found this:

Ringdijk Groot-Mijdrecht
2003
Wilnis, Netherlands
Peat dam became lighter than water during droughts and floated away

This sounds wildly inflated. Trillions?