They were built slowly, population was much lower. It took 200,000 years for us to reach 1 billion, 200 years to get to 7.5 billion. Guess why?
More people copulating and having children?
The vast majority of population growth has taken place in the developing or 3rd world where energy reliance has been based on traditional means (wood, biomass, and coal). Population growth is a really poor example of the contribution of fossil fuels to the world, as those countries and cultures that become more dependent on fossil fuels, and the economics it takes to be a consumer of those fuels, has actually proven to be an effective drag on population growth. Same with technology in general. Population growth is something unrelated to fossil fuel dependence.
Perspective on what? Talk about unrelated statistics. Is there any explanation to this? Can you think of why all of these things might be affected so as to see the statistics drop like a rock? Could advanced in technology impact the death rates of each data point? Technology gives us advance warning of possible events. Technology allows us to escape from areas affected. Technology allows us to control certain things that would cause some of the death associated with these statistics. Advances in medicine also allow us to prevent death of those injured in such events. This may be one of the worst arguments imaginable in defense of climate science denial.
Quote:
Wow, this might be the single dumbest thing posted in this thread.
Above the linked graph, I referred to the fact I had watched a presentation by Alex Epstein and he explains the relevance much better than I could. I suppose I should have just linked that presentation. First off, I'm not in denial or refute available climate science. The climate is changing and I believe humans are responsible for part, if not all, of that change. I mean, burning 100,000,000 barrels of oil each and every day isn't a sustainable way of going about our business. I also believe we do need to transition away from generating our energy from burning fossil fuels to solar, wind, hydro, nuclear (my preference), and whatever other new technologies will be developed. I believe this transition will take +100 years. That belief is based on our inability to transition away from coal in this time frame.
Why I found that graph interesting and relevant? One of the talking points for those suggesting we need to immediately abandon fossil fuels is the potential impact on human lives if we don't. Data is telling us the climate is changing. Data is also telling there has not been any kind of increase to loss of human lives due to this climate change.
Does that mean I'm suggesting we produce and burn fossil fuels at our current rate. No. Read above. Sometimes I feel there's a panic setting in amongst the general public. Maybe, that's not necessary is all.
Last edited by Leeman4Gilmour; 10-05-2019 at 11:49 PM.
Population growth is something unrelated to fossil fuel dependence.
How can you begin to believe this? Food production has increased exponentially because of technology can you honestly say nothing would change if suddenly we used zero oil for fertilizer, machinery, and industrial food production in general?
Food production has increased exponentially because of technology
I don't disagree with that but want to emphasis a point. TECHNOLOGY has advanced our ability to cultivate and harvest crops. OIL is not synonymous with TECHNOLOGY. Oil is not responsible for much of the improvement in agriculture and farming. Oil is a means by which certain machinery is driven, but not responsible for the advances made in agriculture itself.
Quote:
can you honestly say nothing would change if suddenly we used zero oil for fertilizer, machinery, and industrial food production in general?
First of all you're lumping three complex issues together under the banner of a single argument and incorrectly tying those things together to one unrelated product. You're also making a specious argument that something would "suddenly" happen, like Thanos snaps his fingers and half of all life in the universe disappears. This won't happen. I have said multiple times that the hydro carbon molecule will not disappear overnight, it will just be used in better and more efficient ways. So now that balloon is officially popped we can move on to the three unrelated issues.
Oil is irrelevant to fertilizer production. Fertilizers are composed of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium. The hydro carbon molecule is irrelevant when it comes to fertilizers as they are organic molecules found in natural sources. Where the hydro carbon molecule is used is in the extraction of ammonia for the use in nitrogen fertilizers. This is done predominantly with natural gas because of availability and cost. But there are many other sources of ammonia that we could collect and eliminate the need for the use of natural gas in the process. More importantly, there are a number of ways to naturally get nitrogen back into the soil and not need to use a spray fertilizer at all. Crop rotation has long been that solution in the vast majority of the world.
Machinery is red herring. Fossil fuels are NOT required for the operation of machinery. There are other ways to drive machinery. If there was an application where electric motors makes the most sense it is actually in farming. The high torque and greatly efficient motors are a natural for the conditions farmers use their equipment. A solar and wind array could charge the equipment and not require any fuel period. Benefits would also be that pollutants were not spread across the land and the crops themselves. This is an easy solution to implement but we don't do it because it would require change, and people are change averse. We continue to use the same dirty process because it's the way it's been done for a couple generations... and because farmers are subsidized to do so.
Industrial food production is also a red herring. Production systems are machines driven by electricity. The major part of the industrial food production process where fossil fuels are important is in transportation of the products. We solve the transportation issue, we solve the fossil fuel issue.
Quote:
And that's scratching the surface.
There is the problem with your arguments. They are superficial examinations of an issue and don't delve into the depth and complexity of what is being discussed. They are cast through a very narrow lens and really only focused on western culture, ignoring a massive component to the larger problem. Worse, western standards and values are injected into the problem (see population growth as an example) and an incorrect assumption is made. In the larger global situation we have many solutions to problems that can be used, many from other parts of the world that make us change the way we do things. Sometimes the best way to solve a problem is to look into the past, understand how it was done when we didn't have the advantages we have today, and then adopt it at a larger scale using our technological advantage.
Everything you present is tied to one solution, and you continue to look for a non-existent silver bullet to solve complex problems. Complex problems usually require complex solutions, which we have the ability to put together.
Having stated that, even this silver bullet solution (oil) is grossly overblown and wrong in many ways, being attributed to the increases in areas where it had no part what so ever. Oil has been very beneficial in a lot of ways, but it is extremely damaging in others. We need to use oil the best ways possible and channel it to products that have the least environmental impact. Oil is an important product, but it needs to become a niche product more so than the foundation of an economy. We have the technology and the capacity to make the shift, we just need the resolve to do so.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The problem with that million mile battery is the necessary chemistry to make it last that long compromises energy density which is king in an electric car.
Do you think that mining for lithium, cobalt and other precious metals is any better for the environment and climate change than oil and gas?
Yes. Ecological damage is more isolated and restricted to one site making it much easier to remediate and reclaim. We have this argument quite a bit in Arizona thanks to copper mining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler
The problem with that million mile battery is the necessary chemistry to make it last that long compromises energy density which is king in an electric car.
That's not what the article says.
"The cells’ ratio of energy storage ability to weight is 20% higher than that of the cathodes used in lithium-ion batteries used in electronic devices."
Do you think that mining for lithium, cobalt and other precious metals is any better for the environment and climate change than oil and gas?
Conversely, do you think that current lithium-ion batteries are better than ones that could have usage stretched far more given the same mining techniques? And do you think that more efficiently-designed batteries that last longer will have an impact on the amount of lithium mining in the future?
I can't tell if you're whining about developing better batteries or if you are just poo-pooing alternate energy sources to convention fossil fuels.
Do you think that mining for lithium, cobalt and other precious metals is any better for the environment and climate change than oil and gas?
Are you sure that's the case?
I would think the net benefit of doing so would outweigh the costs, yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be being seriously considered as a realistic alternative energy source. Vehicles are a major contributor to air pollution, even moreso for heavy duty vehicles (even as a lower percentage of vehicles on the road). I think all alternative options should be seriously considered and researched.
I would think the net benefit of doing so would outweigh the costs, yes. Otherwise it wouldn't be being seriously considered as a realistic alternative energy source. Vehicles are a major contributor to air pollution, even moreso for heavy duty vehicles (even as a lower percentage of vehicles on the road). I think all alternative options should be seriously considered and researched.
I thought this was cool: there is a lithium extraction process from oilfield brine, and there is a couple of operations in Alberta:
Maybe we can utilize existing oilfield operations and techniques to also capture lithium during the process. No need to pick just one or the other, although battery metals are already highly in demand.
"The cells’ ratio of energy storage ability to weight is 20% higher than that of the cathodes used in lithium-ion batteries used in electronic devices."
Not the same as cells used in for example the Model 3. Also the cells are cobalt heavy the mining of which is not only dirty but has ethical issues as well. Cobalt is also $$$$ this is a major problem for a BEV since the high cost is almost all due to the battery.
Not the same as cells used in for example the Model 3. Also the cells are cobalt heavy the mining of which is not only dirty but has ethical issues as well. Cobalt is also $$$$ this is a major problem for a BEV since the high cost is almost all due to the battery.
Nice attempt at shifting of the goal posts by trying to suggest that the claim was for electronic devices, and they differ from EVs. I guess you missed the point that the research was conducted by an interest that works with Tesla on battery technology and they even focused their research on the "million mile battery." This research is directly focused on EVs and battery development for EVs. And yes, EVs are classified as electric device.
The video does not provide a negative view or negate support. Mr. Ferrell's argument is that the tech is not designed for the consumer vehicle, but ultimately for commercial and industrial purposes. He points out some of the limitations, like cost of cobalt, but then explains that a battery of this type is not for a general vehicle, but has very specific applications. He even pointed to an industrial Australian application that was directly related and how this tech would be a game changer. His focus is that this tech can be used for industrial and commercial applications, and that the technology leaps this provides will then be used to make similar advances in consumer applications. So while you think this video is some negative selling point, it actually is just the opposite. It shows that a lot of the limitations the naysayers have been crowing about are being challenged and surpassed. Science is a wonderful thing and can solve all problems. It just takes time and resolve.
To expand, and so people understand what an EV battery is, this link will explain more.
Nice attempt at shifting of the goal posts by trying to suggest that the claim was for electronic devices, and they differ from EVs. I guess you missed the point that the research was conducted by an interest that works with Tesla on battery technology and they even focused their research on the "million mile battery." This research is directly focused on EVs and battery development for EVs. And yes, EVs are classified as electric device.
Conversely, do you think that current lithium-ion batteries are better than ones that could have usage stretched far more given the same mining techniques? And do you think that more efficiently-designed batteries that last longer will have an impact on the amount of lithium mining in the future?
I can't tell if you're whining about developing better batteries or if you are just poo-pooing alternate energy sources to convention fossil fuels.
You seem to be making the argument that if the batteries last longer, then there will be a reduced amount of mining.
But the benefit, the point, of having more efficient batteries is that they can be a larger part of the solution for cleaner energy. That means more mining, not less. Much more.
So I guess bridges in Edmonton, Halifax, and Vancouver were "protested" today causing major backups and people being late for work.
I suspect this isn't the best way to gain traction for your cause. Inconveniencing the average person who is trying to get to work isn't going to help you.
