Fossil fuels vs. renewable energy

[brennan]

If you want to argue whether condition 2 IS IN FACT fulfilled, then I could present lots and lots of evidence and arguments for Christian religion.

I dare you to. Again. You declined last time. Try a new thread.

 

[wit>trope]

I won't start a new thread since I don't have any interest in talking about it further. It was Perfection who asked me about it and initiated the discussion. If HE wants to start a new thread, I'm fine with talking about it with him or if YOU want to start a new thread, I'm happy to talk about it there too. Otherwise, I consider the discussion closed

 

[Urederra]

That theory sounds interesting and plausible, but where does it claim that we are using less than is being replenished? Even if there are "vast, deep pools of oil" the article still notes that these have to undergo some process which causes the oil reservoirs to "replenish" ... so there's still the issue of the rate of use being higher than the rate of replenishing ... it's not like we can wait around for the reservoirs to replenish ... do you see what I mean? It's not like we can use it until we run out (due to higher use versus replenishing) and then wait 10 or 20 etc years for it to replenish again

Sorry, maybe I didn't made myself clear. I should have stated that the article was about a different theory on how fossil fuels are formed, not about the rate they are already formed.


I posted it because I think It is interesting although I don't have any formed opinion about the veracity of it.

 

[Mountain-God]

We can probably agree that fossil fuels are being used faster than they're being formed, can't we?

I vote YES, by the way.

It's simply a case of working smarter.

I hear so many business people complaining about economic cost of environmentalism - it's such a joke - if only because they lack the ability and intelligence to profit and so in a sound environmental manner.

Thank goodness for evolution as a biological and economic factor.

 

[Hakim]

It doesn't matter whether people take it into account on a pump by pump basis or on a car purchase by car purchase basis. It doesn't matter whether the tax premium is being paid IN ADVANCE when there is a car purchase or DAY TO DAY when people by gasoline. In both cases, the societal cost of high use of gasoline is being made up for by taxes. I think you are getting confused because you are thinking that since the SUV buyer has ALREADY paid the high tax that he is not being penalized for his high gas usage ... that's not true, he has ALREADY been penalized for his high gas usage by paying the high SUV tax. It doesn't matter whether his penalization comes before or after the car purchase. It will affect his decision in both cases.

Both methods works, but my point was that the gas tax probably works better.

However I'm seeing it from the CO2 emission perspective. From an oil shortage POV gas tax is kind of pointless because the rising prices is part of the problem.

In both cases the potential for reducing gasoline usage is the same, provided the tax is high enough. However with the vehicle fuel inefficieny based tax you would be more easily able to reduce to a bare mininum the presence of fuel inefficient vehicles whereas with the gas tax you would be more likely to just reduce to a mininum the USE of these vehicles and not their numbers ... which is a problem since you are wasting resources in just manufacturing these vehicles. Resources that all require energy.

That's true, but when taxing gas and energy consumption it's best to be as specific as possible and leave the methods to the market/consumer.

With a car tax (fuel inefficiancy based), the owner is penalized also when the car is unused and doesn't consume any gas. Furthermore, the car tax takes away the possibility for the user to reduce the gas consumption by driving less or learn eco-driving. OTOH, the incentive to buy a fuel efficient car will still be there with a gas tax, and that means that car makers will get the incentive as well. By taxing as specific as possible, more opportunities are left for the owner, and less possibilities to "cheat" (eg three person using the same car).

Similarily, the energy consumption of the car producer is best adressed with an energy tax. Or you could take it further and note that using energy isn't bad for the environment, only some of the ways to produce it or consume it. Then you come up with some even more precise taxes to target those specific factors.

 

[wit>trope]

Both methods works, but my point was that the gas tax probably works better.

Maybe you could use both systems at the same time? It's not an either or thing.

With a car tax (fuel inefficiancy based), the owner is penalized also when the car is unused and doesn't consume any gas.

I think what you are saying is that someone who buys -- say a SUV -- and uses it only a little is penalized the same as someone who buys the same SUV and uses it a lot. But in my view, that is about as it should be ... since we don't want people to buy things that they would rarely ever use! Because that too wastes resources and energy as already pointed out. My system would also present a disincentive for the wealthy to have like 10+ cars in their garages ... so that only the very wealthy could afford it and in doing so pay a high premium for it.

Furthermore, the car tax takes away the possibility for the user to reduce the gas consumption by driving less or learn eco-driving.

Yes, but the incentive to do that is already there even without the gas tax. Gas tax just applies a simple multiplier to the price of gas. It doesn't change the incentive structure on a fundamental level. I think eco-driving could be promoted just through education and marketing. People should do it whether they have significant financial incentive to do it or not. Eco-driving is probably also better for the car itself.

OTOH, the incentive to buy a fuel efficient car will still be there with a gas tax, and that means that car makers will get the incentive as well.

But with a vehicle based tax you have more room to "mold" the tax to achieve the best results. With a gas tax, like I said, you just make the gas for all cars X-times more expensive. But with vehicle tax, you can have it so that given a standard -- let's normalize it as value of 1 -- that how much tax you pay is exponentially related to the difference below that standard. So for example, if the fuel inefficiency is 0.5 -- 2 times lower -- the tax could be 2^2 higher -- 4 times as high. If the fuel inefficiency is 0.33 -- 3 times lower -- the tax could be 3^3 higher -- 9 times as high. Do you see what I mean? Using a system like this, where the premium rises exponentially with higher inefficiency, you can dramatically reduce the more fuel inefficient cars -- something not possible with a gas tax, practically speaking.

By taxing as specific as possible, more opportunities are left for the owner, and less possibilities to "cheat" (eg three person using the same car).

Three persons using the same car is something to be encouraged from environmental, energy and economic points of view so that's not a problem! In addition, car pooling is to be encouraged as well.

 

[Narz]

Anyone imagine flying a plane on vegatable oil?

Sure, why not? People drive cars on vegetable oil. GreaseCar.com

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Yep, I think the sun is scheduled to blow up in 5 billion years or so...

Anyway, I didn't vote on this thread because I see nuclear as the only efficient source of fuel for at least the near future (next century or two?). And yes, fusion is considered nuclear power, too.

Naah, Sol's barely on the main sequence, pitiful little yellow dwarf. That's when it'll shed the outer layer (consequentially blasting the atmosphere's off everything out to Mar's orbit, and slowly expand to a size that will engulf the orbits of the first three planets while it burns off its helium. Once that runs out, it'll shrink rapidly and finish out as a brown dwarf.

Well, that's what I heard...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

On topic, it's very easy to do.

If you want to dispute the point I'm about to make, do it silently, because no one is going to take you seriously. This is a point that applies to every economic, social, and moral problem in the world today.

Government and business are the two entities with the power to enact the most change, for good or ill, in the world today. The first is motivated by power, maintaining it and increasing its scope; the second by money, both maintaining its flow in to personal accounts of investors and increasing that flow. These are the only carrots the rabbits in question will respond to, power and money. To manipulate either entity to do what you want, you must affect its supply of power or money accordingly. When government does as you please, you allow it to retain its power, when it acts against your interests, you take that power away. Ditto business and money.

Indvidually, we are limited in the affect we can have on either entity. We can cast a vote, we can choose a brand. As a group, we can profoundly impact either entity; we can join a campaign, we can campaign against a candidate, we can spread the word about good companies, we can start a boycott against a company.

Insurrection and property destruction are the most extreme examples of this, and it is neither legal nor moral for me to reccommend either one. So don't. Tyler Durden and George Washington need not apply.

So how do we, as a group, manipulate business and government into reducing our dependancy on oil? By making its continued use diminish their power and wealth. Stop buying SUVs, stop driving short distances, stop voting for the same-old same-old. Buy a bicycle, throw your vote away on a third party candidate, choose gasohol over gas, public transportation over private, carpooling over solo trips. If I do it, no one cares. If WE do it, they will sit up and take notice.

 

[BasketCase]

This is really funny. One one side you have Basket criticizing you for taking a too NARROW view of what constitutes renewable energy and on the OTHER side you have Perfection criticizing you for taking too BROAD a view of what constitutes renewable energy

In a world where everybody sees things differently, this is actually to be expected.

I personally have no problem with changing the use of the word "renewable" in here--right now it's commonly taken to mean "solar, geothermal, tidal, wind" and in general your basic set of non-polluting, self-renewing energy sources.

Oil isn't exactly one of these, because once one deposit empties out you gotta go find another--but more oil is being generated underground at an unknown rate. And, in the end, the sun will in fact explode, and that will be the end of THAT renewable resource.

I don't think solar, wind, geothermal, or tidal energy sources will do it, however. In two parts of California, I saw massive efforts to do so--gigantic windmill farms, spanning hundreds of square miles (one a couple hours southeast of Los Angeles, and the other up in the hills south of the Bay Area). In both fields, a huge percentage of windmills weren't turning at all when the wind blew.

Large fields of solar panels or wind generators take a lot of work, both in construction and maintenance costs. I'll betcha that's the reason why everybody on Earth hasn't yet put solar panels on our roofs (actually, I take that back--my grandparents DID have panels on their roof. It did help with the energy bills--but not by much)

 

[carlosMM]

BasketCase, this *is* getting scary - I don't agree with you, but I can see your points

As for solar panels: here in germany they are becoming more and more common, and they have become quite good. I know a few people who ahve all the hot water they need and quite a lower heating bill because of a roof plastered with solar panels. True, without government incentives, they would not have been willing to pay for them, but now that everyone sees it working and number soar, prices drop - and they ARE by now commercially well viable!

It is as it always is: new methods are at first clumsy, ineffective and people mistrust them. But given some time and funding (more funding = shorter time), they come off age and work quite well.

Interesting side note. i know a guy who accidently upped the output of the solar panels his institue was developing by a whopping 7% in one simple sstep - that even saved costs! They were expeimenting with the active layer vaccum deposited on glass instead of silicium wafers. Works well, considering the much lower costs. They used highly pure glass.
He accidently put a NORMAL window glass pane they used to demostrate the process to visiotrs into the vacuum deposit machine.

To the utter surprise of all the cheaper, NA+-rich window glass performed BETTER thent he pure one! way to go!

Lesson: do not judge things by the feeble beginnings - you never know what a few years may bring with something so new and hardly researched!

 

[Hakim]

Maybe you could use both systems at the same time? It's not an either or thing.

Of course, or you could use the system that people dislike the least. That's why I found your idea interesting, it could get the voters acceptance if gas tax don't.

I think what you are saying is that someone who buys -- say a SUV -- and uses it only a little is penalized the same as someone who buys the same SUV and uses it a lot.

Exactly.

But in my view, that is about as it should be ... since we don't want people to buy things that they would rarely ever use! Because that too wastes resources and energy as already pointed out. My system would also present a disincentive for the wealthy to have like 10+ cars in their garages ... so that only the very wealthy could afford it and in doing so pay a high premium for it.

I recognise those other benefits, but prefer dealing with them seperately.

Furthermore, the car tax takes away the possibility for the user to reduce the gas consumption by driving less or learn eco-driving.

Yes, but the incentive to do that is already there even without the gas tax. Gas tax just applies a simple multiplier to the price of gas. It doesn't change the incentive structure on a fundamental level. I think eco-driving could be promoted just through education and marketing. People should do it whether they have significant financial incentive to do it or not. Eco-driving is probably also better for the car itself.

Of course, the gas already costs something without the gas tax. And the more it costs the higher the incentive is. A fundamental change will surely come if you have a fundamentally high gas tax .

But with a vehicle based tax you have more room to "mold" the tax to achieve the best results. With a gas tax, like I said, you just make the gas for all cars X-times more expensive. But with vehicle tax, you can have it so that given a standard -- let's normalize it as value of 1 -- that how much tax you pay is exponentially related to the difference below that standard. So for example, if the fuel inefficiency is 0.5 -- 2 times lower -- the tax could be 2^2 higher -- 4 times as high. If the fuel inefficiency is 0.33 -- 3 times lower -- the tax could be 3^3 higher -- 9 times as high. Do you see what I mean? Using a system like this, where the premium rises exponentially with higher inefficiency, you can dramatically reduce the more fuel inefficient cars -- something not possible with a gas tax, practically speaking.

Well, I can see that the nof fuel inefficient cars will decrease so if that's one of the goals: ok. I'd prefer if that's left for the owner to decide though.

Three persons using the same car is something to be encouraged from environmental, energy and economic points of view so that's not a problem! In addition, car pooling is to be encouraged as well.

Car pooling is great but in this case it would defeat the primary goal: reducing gas consumption.

 

[farting bob]

Yes, but not if it had to suddenly happen soon. Give it a few decades and i think wind, solar and tidal could be used to meet most energy requirements, and things like hydrogen and electric engines could solve most transport problems. It'll be a very big problem while things switch over, but after the bumpy start, i think we'll recover back to normal levels.

 

[GenMarshall]

With the current technology, its not fesable to maintain our level of comfort with just renewable energy. Solar power is to unreliable due to weather factors, same with wind. The only exception is hydroelectric.

 

[Narz]

With the current technology, its not fesable to maintain our level of comfort with just renewable energy. Solar power is to unreliable due to weather factors, same with wind. The only exception is hydroelectric.

That's not fact. You're just stating your opinion with no backup.

 

[{|}$~\]

With the current technology, its[sic] not fesable[sic] to maintain our level of comfort with just renewable energy. Solar power is to[sic] unreliable due to weather factors, same with wind. The only exception is hydroelectric.

What if you used solar, wind and hydroelectric AND made more efficient appliances and vehicles?

 

[wit>trope]

Car pooling is great but in this case it would defeat the primary goal: reducing gas consumption

"car pooling" means more than one person or party using the same car at the same time. So it would be like if you used your car and picked up a friend and together went to the same destination instead of each of you going in separate cars. Car pooling thus does reduce gas consumption. It can reduce it by a whole lot. In some cities they have special lanes for car poolers.

 

[Hakim]

That's right, I forgot about that.