Bob D + 562 RD November 19, 2020 On 11/3/2020 at 6:19 PM, Meredith Poor said: Are you Mr Shellenberger? He's the one I suspect is either being sponsored or blackmailed. But you have no idea if he is being sponsored or blackmailed, correct?? The only reason you type that nonsense is because you have the opposite opinion regarding renewables. If you agreed with Shellenburger you wouldn't question his motives. Extremely disappointing commentary and logic Mr Poor. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meredith Poor + 895 MP November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Bob D said: But you have no idea if he is being sponsored or blackmailed, correct?? The only reason you type that nonsense is because you have the opposite opinion regarding renewables. If you agreed with Shellenburger you wouldn't question his motives. Extremely disappointing commentary and logic Mr Poor. If Mr. Shellenburger's Ted talk shows the concentrating solar project in California as his example of 'solar', then the entire presentation is intellectually dishonest. This raises questions as to why he leaves out material facts. If he doesn't provide explanations for those omissions, then one can only assume some motivation he doesn't wish to expose. I don't know what they are or who is behind them, but until there is clarity we can only assume we are being kept in the dark. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ronwagn + 6,290 November 22, 2020 (edited) On 11/3/2020 at 5:22 PM, markslawson said: I was horrified to read the last sentence which I did not until someone pointed it out. This is unworthy and completely unjustified by your attempts to critique it. The comments about nuclear are besides the point. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this but nuclear is the only way to go if you want to eliminate emissions.. and I'm not sponsored by anyone.. where do I sign up for these mythical sponsors? That way I'd be paid to put up with nonsense, rather than having to do it for free.. You are in company with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Two powerful individuals with great influence. They want micro reactors. Anathema to me though. Show me safe storage first and low cost power as in petrol or natural gas. Not only safe storage for the radioactive material but also for the security of the micro reactors! Edited November 22, 2020 by ronwagn 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markslawson + 1,058 ML November 23, 2020 21 hours ago, ronwagn said: You are in company with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Two powerful individuals with great influence. They want micro reactors. Anathema to me though. Show me safe storage first and low cost power as in petrol or natural gas. Not only safe storage for the radioactive material but also for the security of the micro reactors! I really wasn't going to get into a discussion about nuclear although I will say that the reaction even the tangential mention of it has been extraordinary. However, if you're really serious about NO EMISSIONS while still retaining a power supply then nuclear is about the only solution you have at the moment. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM ADVOCATING IT. I'm not saying a shift to nuclear is likely or even possible at the moment, or that it is economical compared to natural gas. In fact, I would regard gas as the most likely as you can get away with building gas plants to firm up renewables, but not coal plants. In other words the basic consideration is a political one rather than technology or economics. There are other points I could make but as people seem to have become so hung up over basically a tangential point in the original post I'll leave it at that. Interested to be compared to Gates and Buffet. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eyes Wide Open + 3,555 November 23, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, ronwagn said: You are in company with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Two powerful individuals with great influence. They want micro reactors. Anathema to me though. Show me safe storage first and low cost power as in petrol or natural gas. Not only safe storage for the radioactive material but also for the security of the micro reactors! Interesting your thought on Bill Gates, powerful yes and perhaps thee most ruthless man in high tech. Make no mistake here he was a tyrant...perhaps a few other things that should not be mentioned.. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS925US925&sxsrf=ALeKk00Z6kfUD4xthmIIGLIzALcUTNXCBA%3A1606099832033&ei=eCO7X7W6AfHP0PEPl62bsAw&q=bill+gates+ruthless+technology+grab&oq=bill+gates+ruthless+technology+grab&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCCEQoAEyBQghEKABOgQIIxAnOgUIIRCrAlClDVi3HGCSIWgAcAB4AIABvwGIAc4EkgEDNC4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpesABAQ&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi11tiP1JftAhXxJzQIHZfWBsYQ4dUDCA0&uact=5 https://www.wired.com/2000/11/microsoft-7/ Edited November 23, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open 2 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG November 23, 2020 On 11/5/2020 at 3:13 PM, 0R0 said: That is happening naturally in the bulk of the high GDP (high resource consumption) economies, including China as it and Europe as well as SE Asia (except Phil and Indo) Their demographic decline is assured and their consumption decline starts as they cross the age of 45-50 depending on country, earlier in China. That was Japan 30 years ago, Europe 15 years ago, China Now, SE Asia 5 years ago. It is only a handful of countries with a growing consumption age population. India, Indonesia Philippines Nigeria Angola. India is a decade past "peak babies". Consumption of resources is being artificially inflated by the transition to renewable energy in developed countries as the new infrastructure consumes resources well ahead of it producing anything. Had there not been renewable energy investment, the world's oil consumption would have peaked 5 years ago. NG would still have expanded since it is just plain cheaper to produce and there is plenty of it. As we are, oil consumption peaked in 2019 and it will be falling steadily because of aging demographics and displacement by NG and to a much smaller extent, EVs. Coal is being displaced rapidly by NG and slowly by Wind and Solar. The economics of renewables no longer require subsidies. The problem is the extreme cost of storage to take out surge capacity provided by leaving in place or adding CCGT generation. In Europe, it is low quality coal that is increasingly providing the fill in. Which is why Germany is way off track from hitting Paris accord reductions that would have been hit had it not pursued new energy policies but just continued on NG and nuclear and displaced coal, letting the market figure out how to supply Germany with Wind from Denmark Norway etc. and Solar from S. Europe and the Sahara. The UN keeps worrying about a demographic explosion that has stopped in the developed world several decades ago and ended or is ending in the emerging economies where it has slowed down and only a handful of countries still have fertility rates greater than replacement. India, like the other big ones, doesn't have birthrate growth but a decline. The bottom line is that demographically driven consumption growth is long gone. The peak of consumer draws on resources has passed in China recently, long ago in Europe and Japan, a decade ago in industrialized SE Asia, similarly in S. and central America. N. America still has some consumption growth ahead, but it is not on the scale of the decline elsewhere. investment demand for resources is driven by China's pointless capital accumulation and large scale renewables in Europe etc. And for EV substitution. A new surge is going on in duplicate capital installation to shorten supply chains and regionalize them. That makes this the last surge of resource consumption I expect. The possibility of growth in India Pacific Islands and Africa requires overcoming enormous hurdles to development, as ROI is generally 0 or less for that capital/infrastructure. The countries are notorious for national and local government corruption that stands in the way of addressing the capital deficit problem. Thus there is no reasonable expectation these countries will provide a large scale demand on resources beyond what exists today, though it will grow over time for another 20 years. That will not offset the decline in developed world consumption. Consumption growth is long gone? Population growth is not a problem? Is this Trump speaking? Stick with hookers and the mob, they might believe. Like the dead believing Covid is a hoax, a new comet will come, beware of riding the tail. 🙏 1 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boat + 1,324 RG November 23, 2020 Brother Keebler, https://www.worldometers.info/world- http://euanmearns.com/global-energy-forecast-to-2100/ https://ourworldindata.org/region-population-2100 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites