JayR
OSU
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Alternately, perhaps the need for a reliable power supply may get people to reconsider their environmental concerns.
There are reliable alternatives though. You seem to think nuclear is the only non-fossil fuel alternative that's stable.
rus said:
Give people a choice between the lights on, air conditioning, etc. and a pristine environment.Good Luck.
Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? Energy efficient lighting such as LED bulbs and properly designed and built structures that are naturally cooler mean that being Eco-conscious doesn't have to be hard.
rus
Login to Send PM
We've gone around on this before ( see previous notes about per kwh cost per source ) ... but let me add something:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world
rus
Login to Send PM
Guess this is related...
On green jobs ( think here they mean solar ) there's two items of interest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/19/us/19bcgreen.html?scp=1&sq=green%20jobs&st=cse
In the Bay Area as in much of the country, the green economy is not proving to be the job-creation engine that many politicians envisioned. President Obama once pledged to create five million green jobs over 10 years. Gov. Jerry Brown promised 500,000 clean-technology jobs statewide by the end of the decade. But the results so far suggest such numbers are a pipe dream.“I won’t say I’m not frustrated,” said Van Jones, an Oakland activist who served briefly as Mr. Obama’s green-jobs czar before resigning under fire after conservative critics said he had signed a petition accusing the Bush administration of deliberately allowing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a claim Mr. Jones denies.
A study released in July by the non-partisan Brookings Institution found clean-technology jobs accounted for just 2 percent of employment nationwide and only slightly more — 2.2 percent — in Silicon Valley. Rather than adding jobs, the study found, the sector actually lost 492 positions from 2003 to 2010 in the South Bay, where the unemployment rate in June was 10.5 percent.
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.
And this from freakonomics:
The temptation to attribute Evergreen’s demise, as well as the struggles of another stimulus-backed solar manufacturer in California, to the general economic malaise is wrong for at least two reasons. First, demand for solar should be relatively strong, propped up by government and rate-payer funded rebates and by renewable energy generation requirements across at least 29 states. Second, Evergreen’s spokesman conceded that the source of the company’s problems is price competition from China, not demand at home: “Make a couple of phone calls and see in the solar projects around the state, where the panels are coming from. They’re not coming from a U.S. supplier.’’And there’s the rub: The green technologies that Californians will demand under cap and trade don’t need to be made in California. They could be produced outside the confines of California’s carbon policy in nearby Arizona, Nevada, or Texas—or across the Pacific. Indeed, if American firms cannot compete with foreign firms before carbon prices raise the cost of production at home, how will they compete after the policies are imposed? Explaining how a policy that raises production costs can be expected to reverse a pervasive decline in American manufacturing is a job better suited for a contortionist than an economist.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Give people a choice between the lights on, air conditioning, etc. and a pristine environment.Good Luck.
Is that really the choice ? To what extent have you read about loss of topsoil, loss of biodiversity, the draw-down of aquifers, the spreading of deserts, salinization of soil...etc ?
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
rus
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike said:
no, it's not. Some folks just love to paint things entirely black and white. *sigh*
Right now, alt. energy doesn't seem a viable alternative to fossil fuels on a cost basis. If the argument is we need to stop using all fossil fuels now for the sake of the environment... well, feel free to try to sell that idea.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Right now, alt. energy doesn't seem a viable alternative to fossil fuels on a cost basis. If the argument is we need to stop using all fossil fuels now for the sake of the environment... well, feel free to try to sell that idea.
VERY very few are arguing that as a near term or even fairly long term possibility and I think even those arguing such a point probably realize how unrealistic it is. From what I can tell not even TomOver is seriously arguing such a point. So why even bring it up?
rus
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike said:
VERY very few are arguing that as a near term or even fairly long term possibility and I think even those arguing such a point probably realize how unrealistic it is. From what I can tell not even TomOver is seriously arguing such a point. So why even bring it up?
You and I may be reading different posts. From reading TomOver, et. al., the idea seems to be peak oil requires great societal shifts to a more "sustainable" lifestyle, where "sustainable" seems to mean an agrarian commune.
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM
rus said:
You and I may be reading different posts. From reading TomOver, et. al., the idea seems to be peak oil requires great societal shifts to a more "sustainable" lifestyle, where "sustainable" seems to mean an agrarian commune.
Not really. Unless there is some huge misunderstanding of the way things work in the real world, the idea of peak oil (as originally proposed) is that it *forces* adaptation due to market forces as production fails to rise to meet demand (not counting market distorting subsidies).
The argument most serious people make is that if such a thing can be predicted (as it has been, the real argument now is one of timescale) and anticipated with slow migration to other things the 'shock cost' to society can be minimized. The timescales involved are the sticky point.
Also, anyone serious about this knows that at current population levels an agrarian society would be an ecological/humanitarian disaster. Most serious environmental people are actually arguing for a denser city model, not the other way around.
rus
Login to Send PM
Rockmastermike said:
Not really. Unless there is some huge misunderstanding of the way things work in the real world, the idea of peak oil (as originally proposed) is that it *forces* adaptation due to market forces as production fails to rise to meet demand (not counting market distorting subsidies).The argument most serious people make is that if such a thing can be predicted (as it has been, the real argument now is one of timescale) and anticipated with slow migration to other things the 'shock cost' to society can be minimized. The timescales involved are the sticky point.
Also, anyone serious about this knows that at current population levels an agrarian society would be an ecological/humanitarian disaster. Most serious environmental people are actually arguing for a denser city model, not the other way around.
Peak oil has been predicted a few times, sure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html
And you realize "anyone serious" reads like "no true scotsman", right?
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube