When will we ever get serious about saying NO to fossil fuels?

[Hugabear]

Fossil fuels are killing the planet - this has been well documented numerous times. For crying out loud, we're actually managing to raise the temperature of the planet with our non-stop emissions. We're basically terraforming the planet, but not to our advantage. Not only that, but we're poisoning the air, water, and land.

There is no such thing as clean fossil fuels. The corporate industrialists are spending millions of dollars on propaganda to try and push their "clean" fuel sources - such as "clean" coal, "clean" natural gas - but it's all a goddamned lie. What they don't tell people are the studies that show that their actions will actually make things worse, not better.

We have the technology to transfer over to renewable energy sources. But it won't happen as long as we're kowtowing to the corporate fossil fuel industry, allowing them to expand their drilling operations, construct environment-killing pipelines, etc.

What we need is a fossil fuel BAN. This couldn't happen overnight, but if you set a target of, say, 2025, that would give us 15 years to transition over.

It may already be too late, but if we don't make serious and immediate changes, we won't stand a chance.

[msongs]

1. some of "we" are already serious and taking action nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. In what way?

[bluestate10]

50. I do renewable energy research and I have instructed my utility

to buy 25% of my power from ONLY green, renewable sources. As those sources become more economical, I will have that percentage increased.

Banning sounds sexy, but it is as foolish as the Right wanting to ban family planning, a woman's right to choose, energy efficient lightbulbs, ect.

[Hugabear]

17. By "we", I mean a collective "we" - as in the United States and the world

It's all well and good that many of us make an effort to be as environmentally conscious as possible. But until the United States and the rest of the world shifts away from fossil fuels, it's a bit like putting a band-aid on a gaping head wound.

[Shoe Horn]

31. Probably when it's too late to change anything.

The human race isn't smart enough to unify and change direction before the results are obvious.
And with such a slow moving catastrophe. So, we'll just eat and eat and eat and eat like the parasites we are. Hoping nothing catastrophic starts to develop. Like a feedback that drastically exceeds out wildest, most dire predictions. (Even though that's pretty much what's been happening already for some time)

[image][/image]

And, no one's even talking about how on Earth we could 'bend the curve' of population growth.

[Javaman]

2. When the powers that be find another resource to control us with. nt

[kestrel91316]

3. [phone]

[randome]

5. They can't control us if they poison the atmosphere.

But I'm afraid nothing will change until it HAS to. A good portion of the planet will become uninhabitable due to pollution and THEN we'll start transitioning to something better.

It's human nature in the macro, I'm sorry to say.

[Zalatix]

29. They can charge for air. n/t

.

[Shoe Horn]

32. They're already charging for rain. nt

[Gregorian]

4. When we decrease the population.

Population is what is killing the planet. We haven't been able to live in these numbers without fossil fuel. Now, even if we do completely eliminate our need for combustive energy generation, we still have enough waste and consumption that the planet cannot sustain us all.

100 years ago we were living off of the land.

This shouldn't be a controversial subject. It should be an understood fact. Only then can we finally begin to address ways to stabilize the mess we've made.

The bottom line is, if it's not in natural equilibrium it can't be sustained forever.

Since 1992 we have created 1 billion new humans. That translates to 1000 cities of 1 million people each. Think about what they need. Shoes, cars, housing, medical and all of the waste it produces, food, heating...

[kwolf68]

15. This is the cold hard facts

Overpopulation IS the crux of the problem. So few want to admit it.

No species can populate perpetually. Not even humans. The cull will be had at some point rest assured.

[Zalatix]

30. So where will the cull start? It'll start with the working class.

You do realize that when you start talking about overpopulation, the first ones to go are the workers and the poor... right?

Consider the consequences...

[Gregorian]

57. It always starts with those who deserve it the least. Global warming included.

This is exactly why I've been so concerned about world population. It's the poor masses who will be hit first. And those who are the most comfortable will not suffer. It goes further, though. It is already happening. Those who can't afford medical.

There is a lot to this subject. It's worthy of it's own forum. But ultimately it boils down to consciousness, intelligence, personal responsibility. We're operating on a personal level. But now that we are so large in comparison to the resources that support us, we are in essence operating as a single mass. If everyone has three children, the growth is phenomenal.

I was looking at a bicycling map from 1895. It is stunning how we've gone from almost no roads, no airplanes, no cars, to massive destruction of the planet, in only 50,000 days or so.

[99Forever]

6. I share you frustration...

... and worry that we've already crossed the tipping point. It's as though we prefer a slow painful suicide of our one and only Planet to making even a real attempt to mitigate the damage we are doing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. When there is a viable and affordable alternative

Consider this: All heavy transportation (planes/ships/trains/trucks) use fossil fuels of some sort. No alternative is available at an affordable cost, adequate quantities or both.

[WingDinger]

9. Libertarians, who now dominate the debate say:

Use it till it runs out, then, the miracle of the free market will switch.

[ThomWV]

21. And economists say that it will never run out because the miracle comes early

Its not like the fossil fuels have to run out for the invisible hand to magically appear. As the resource becomes more scarce its price goes up and the utility of suitable replacements become feasible. So in the end you never actually run out of a resource, it just becomes too expensive to use and is replaced by something else before the last iota of it is extracted and used.

[karynnj]

37. But as Senator Kerry said, the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones

If you depend JUST on the market, the point where people will switch is when the cleaner sources are cheaper and or more dependable. That could come with a technology breakthough - and there have been big improvements - or it can come as the price of fossil fuels becomes higher as they become scarcer. One problem is that I think we may deplete oil before we deplete coal - and coal is dirtier. This is why funding research is one of the ways to help if there politically can be no way to "tax" dirtier energy sources to compensate for their pollution

[The2ndWheel]

42. The stone age also didn't end because

we were specifically looking for ways to progress forward to where billions of people have more access to greater amounts of energy in a short period of time.

[karynnj]

64. The stone age ended when better ways of doing things were found

[FSogol]

10. Sorry to laugh, but we can't even ban incandescent light bulbs.

[Iggo]

11. When we're all out. (nt)

[immoderate]

12. Solar power is approaching (passing) grid parity. Prominent in 5 years, dominant in 10.

So this is my guess. Consider the rapidly falling production prices of PV panels, the increasing efficiency, other tech improvements like micro inverters.

Crazy as it seems, the market may override the oil companies.

--imm

[ThomWV]

22. I hope you're right, but baring that we have to find a safe way to use nuclear energy.

Which is the same thing in a way.

[immoderate]

24. I don't think there is a safe way.

Solar is already cheaper than nuclear.

It's really not the same thing in most ways.

--imm

[RC]

13. We need more new technology nuclear power to replace coal for our main power source.

Nothing else even come close. Renewable are not robust enough for the task. Wind and solar are only part time. Ethanol take too much energy in the form of oil to be reasonably efficient.

[spanone]

14. when the last drop goes into the last gas tank....probably not a second before

[ourbluenation]

16. exactly. sad, but true. n/t

[Throd]

18. Under this ban, would I be able to drive a '57 Chevy?

[badtoworse]

19. There is currently no economically viable alternative to fossil fuels.

For that reason, we will continue to use them. There is a great deal of work being done with renewables, but they still have a long way to go. The projections I have seen in the electric power business still have us getting about 25 percent of our electricity from coal in 2030. Currently, we only get about 6 - 7 percent of our electricity from renewables. Like I said, there is a long way to go.

[immoderate]

25. Solar industry is ready to go. What is preventing it?

They've already got grid parity. Increased demand will drive prices down. Can't say that for oil or nuclear.

In a few years, you will see solar arrays and maybe contractors will come knocking at your door. You will wonder what happened. (Remember this moment.)


--imm

[badtoworse]

26. Cost is only one consideration

It's an important one to be sure, but there are other issues associated with large scale integration of solar energy. The grid is not ready to accept large amounts of uncontrolled generation without potentially becoming unstable. To maintain grid stability, the generation must match the load in real time. Up until now, the power grid has had generation that can be controlled and load that cannot be controlled. System operators managed the grid by adjusting the output of the generation as the load changed and stability was maintained.

Solar power and wind power cannot be controlled in the same way. When the sun goes behind a cloud or the wind stops blowing, the output of the generation drops and sometimes it drops very quickly. If the solar or wind power is small compared to the total load, the effect is minimal and system operators can easily compensate for it. It gets a lot more complicated if the solar or wind makes up a substantial part of the generation - say 20 or 30 percent. If you lose that much generation on the grid in a short period of time, the conventional generation (spinning reserve) may not be able to pick up the shortfall quickly enough and the system will have to shed load (black areas out) to remain stable. Lesser variations in the output of the wind or solar can cause problems as the frequency of the AC may vary more rapidly than system operators can respond and make corrections.

On the plus side, there is a substantial amount of work that is being done with large scale batteries and flywheels to address these problems and I believe effective technical solutions will be developed. It will take time and there will be a substantial cost factor that the owners of solar generation and wind generation will likely have share in.

Another factor to consider is the cost of natural gas, which is becoming the fuel of choice as an alternative to coal. The price forecasts I've seen have natural gas prices remaining low and stable for at least the next ten years. This is largely due to the emormous amounts of shale gas that are being produced. There is so much shale gas that facilities that were once planned to import LNG are being redesigned to both import AND export gas. A modern, efficient gas fired combined cycle can make electricity at a pretty low cost.

I agree with you that solar is set to become a lot cheaper and a lot more common, but it will not come close to supplying the amounts of electricity we will need over the next 20 years or so.

[DCKit]

27. Here's an idea: Create a spinning reserve using solar and wind power.

The gyroscopic storage devices are already in use in NY state... commercially.

'Cause, y'know, batteries suck (until we get better batteries).

[badtoworse]

34. You don't need solar or wind for that

Flywheels take their energy off the grid, regardless of how it is produced. The technology is pretty expensive, though and Beacon Power, the NY project has gone bankrupt because the prices being paid for frequency regulation (the product they are actually selling) have dropped significantly. The main reason prices are low is that gas fired generation is so cheap.

Battery technology is making substantial progress and utility scale projects (in the 20 MW - 100 MW range) have already been announced.

[DCKit]

38. OK, but if you're concerned with the variability of solar and wind power...

you would find a way to do load leveling using the base power of solar and wind and take the CO2 OUT of the equation.

[badtoworse]

39. You're missing the point

Wind and solar cannot provide base load power without efficient, cost effective storage. We don't have nearly enough on the grid to support large scale integration of wind and solar resources. There is a lot of work ongoing, but there is a long way to go.

[DCKit]

40. The OP asked the question "When will we get OFF fossil fuels".

I think it is you who are missing the point.

[badtoworse]

46. I already answered the OP's question; the short answer is not anytime soon.

See Post No. 19

[Pigheaded]

45. I disagree

Solar is in no way as cheap as the grid!

[immoderate]

51. Life goes on without you.

Take your pick. We are at or near parity depending on who you read.
https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=solar+grid+parity+&pbx=1&oq=solar+grid+parity+&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=0l0l1l38721l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=9616a4a0f3c0cb68&biw=1067&bih=672


--imm

[badtoworse]

52. So you are comfortable with the Section 1603 Grants and ITC's for renewables going away?

[immoderate]

53. Inasmuch as these are incentives to preserve the environment...

I see them as investments.

--imm

[badtoworse]

54. You're dodging the question

Either they can compete, one on one, with conventional generation or they can't. If they can, then we don't to spend money incentivizing them; there are other areas that desparately need funding.

[immoderate]

56. If you want to overlook that petroleum is a filthy poison that doesn't belong in the environment.

Those grants are a contribution to staving off entropy, the eventual energy death of the planet. We should be able to attain energy equilibrium with renewable resources.

You are too enamored of "free market" type science fiction.


--imm

[badtoworse]

58. I'll take that as a negative - nt

[immoderate]

60. Should I add I'm in favor of things that preserve the environment and prolong life?

Consider that solar installations, once installed, provide free energy with no further entropic cost to the environment. No mining or drilling, no refining, no transportation, handling, security, no burning, no waste products, and no reforestation or land reclamation. These are all the externalized costs that civilization absorbs so that oil companies can continue to destroy the planet. It's our subsidy to them.

I would support the government buying everybody a solar rooftop. How about that?

--imm

[badtoworse]

62. Sounds great, but the reality is that we are decades away from being able to do that...

even if cost was not an issue.

I suggest you do some research on how power grids work and the technical challenges associated with integrating large amounts of renewable generation. It's a lot more complicated than just installing panels on every roof in the neighborhood. The entire grid will need to be redesigned and that will take time as well as money. Keep in mind too that not everyone sees fossil fueled generation the same way you do. A lot of people will object when the cost starts showing up in their electric bill.

[immoderate]

63. I'm aware of the problems. I think there are solutions.

I think those solutions are more accessible than what to do about CO2 in the atmosphere, or nuclear waste.

Whole industries can grow in the time it takes to construct a nuclear plant.



--imm

[raouldukelives]

20. Not before it's too late

Which it may already be. People, even many who know and are aware of the dangers, still choose to fly in airliners, invest in Wall St, drive suv's etc. They just don't give a shit about the planet or the lives of people in the future. At least, not enough to offer up a little personal sacrifice for them now. /

[McCamy Taylor]

23. When we run out.

[The2ndWheel]

28. Concentrated humanity is killing the planet

That is what has allowed us to exploit the fossil fuels. The problem with saying no to fossil fuels is that we were doing plenty of damage for many years prior to fossil fuels. There is no reason to think we won't continue to do so after fossil fuels. If anything, if our renewable energy hopes actually allow us to use even more energy, do even more, and X amount of more people have access to such energy, we'll do even more damage. We'll monopolize even more of the planet for a single species. We'll privatize even more profits of the planet, and socialize the costs to even more of the other life on the planet. The top 1%(humanity) will control even more wealth in few hands, while the 99%(the rest of life) will be left in zoos, and a few scavengers running around trying to eek out some poverty stricken existence.

[Zalatix]

33. "There is no such thing as clean fossil fuels."

This should be stickied.

[LeftinOH]

35. When there are no more fossil fuels --that's when.

[karynnj]

36. Not likely - the Republicans have suceeded in confusing enough people on climate change

and are now trying to convince people that green energy, itself, is a hoax.

Just consider how many times you have heard "Solyndra" mentioned - and consider how they are trying to make that into a scandal.

Then consider how few articles were written from this statement by Kerry, Boxer, Sanders and Whitehouse making the case for clean energy. http://www.grist.org/energy-policy/2011-12-16-america-must-not-back-down-on-sustainable-energy (hint - other than their web sites and environmental sites like Grist - it is nowhere. Yet Boxer is the chair of the environment and Public Works Committee and Kerry is the Chair of Senate Foreign Relations - two very senior, powerful Senators. Consider how much coverage junior Republican tea party Freshmen get for their comments on things like jobs created by Keystone. (even though nonpartisan experts say few permanent jobs would be created - mostly temporary construction jobs.

I wish I could be positive about this - but that was easier in 2006/2007 when it looked like Bush was pushed to be somewhat useful at Bali and it was clear we were favored to take the Presidency. It is amazing what the Koch brothers and others accomplished with lies

[Romulox]

41. There's a finite amount of oil; it will ALL be burnt, the question is by whom.

I don't see much case for arguing that we must reduce our burning of said oil, when China, India will happily burn anything we don't.

[Zorra]

43. As soon as Occupy brings about the changes necessary to make it possible.

Until then, nothing will change in respect to fossil fuel usage.

The 1%, in their current position as owners of the government, will not permit anything to stand in the way of corporate profits.

[closeupready]

44. No.

Next question?

[bluestate10]

47. When alternatives become economical.

All of us can take small and large steps to make that possible. Not all of use are involved with alternative energy research. But do you know that you can instruct your utility to buy a specific percentage of your power from "green" sources? If you have not already done so, instruct your utility to buy some of your power from green sources. Increase the percentage as those sources find technologies that make them more economical.

[bluestate10]

48. Banning fossil feul use won't work and won't happen.

A smarter route is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by making alternatives more economical. Like everything else, that means each of us must be willing to sacrifice something.

Your penchant for "banning" is telling. Banning means that there is no choice to be made and no need for sacrifice because some absolute authority makes the choice for us. How often have we heard similar stuff from the religious right, teabaggers and outright far rightwing wachos. The difference is in what THEY want to ban. Is their banning any less obnoxious than yours?

[badtoworse]

49. That is a very good question - nt

[Hugabear]

61. You have a problem with banning dangerous things?

Perhaps you'd be okay if we started allowing Chinese manufacturers to use lead in the products they send to us. After all, we should have the choice if we want to buy lead-free items, no?

[Orsino]

55. Sometime between Mad Max and The Road Warrior. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

59. Apparently, after they are depleted or the extraction industry has a bullet proof

replacement as a revenue stream that they have a monopoly over.

That or we re-boot or maybe even fully re-load the government.