Slashdot Mirror
The Shale Boom Won't Stop Climate Change; It Could Make It Worse
Lasrick writes Energy expert H-Holger Rogner walks through the realities of the shale-gas boom, the 'game-changer' that has brought about a drop in energy prices and greatly reduced carbon emissions. But despite the positive impact on carbon emissions, Rogner points out that the cheap gas brought about by fracking shale may already be affecting investments into renewable energy, nuclear energy, and energy efficiency by offering more attractive investment opportunities: 'At today's prices of $4 to $5 per million British thermal units, gas-fired electricity holds a definite competitive advantage over new nuclear construction and unsubsidized renewables.' But natural gas is still a fossil fuel that emits carbon dioxide. 'A much higher share of natural gas in the energy mix would eventually raise emissions again, especially if gas not only displaces coal but also non-fossil energy sources. Moreover, methane, the chief component of natural gas, is itself a heat-trapping greenhouse gas with 25 times the warming effect of carbon dioxide. If total methane leakage—from drilling through end use—is greater than about 4 percent, that could negate any climate benefits of switching from coal and oil to gas.'
On the basis of a could, we are supposed to drop everything and choose the most expensive options. No, thanks.
Unless one's goal is to diminish the Western society, only a fool would fall for the "global warming" rhetoric these many years after none of the dire predictions materialized.
Troll my behind — respond giving examples to the contrary: a link to a dire prediction made 10-15-20 years ago, and a link showing it materializing within 10% of the predicted "bad"...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
... to the abyss. I emit personal methane in the general direction of anybody that didn't recognize this many moons ago. The solution to climate change isn't finding ever-more-exotic carbon to extact and burn - it's to stop burning carbon as soon as possible.
Bwak bwak
The sky is falling.
Bwak bwak
The ground is burning.
Bwak bwak
The North Pole is melting.
Bwak bwak
Al Gore is coming.
Bwak bwak
( OK the last one is really scary. )
Switching from oil and coal to natural gas is a positive step in reducing both carbon emissions and other pollutants. We should celebrate progress rather than grumbling that it doesn't solve humanity's problems forever and ever, because nothing ever will. If carbon tax is implemented, natural gas will be more economical than oil and eventually other technologies will be more economical than natural gas.
Heretic! Only solar-electric is good. Only solar-electric can be praised. To get hot water, we must build huge solar-electric panels and use them to charge big banks of batteries made from toxic chemicals, then electrically heat the water! Simply the water through a black pipe outdoors and allowing the sun to heat it naturally will not do.
Nuclear may be a thousand times safer than any currently available alternative, but it's not solar-electric, so we'll just have to stick with coal until we can figure out which combination of noxious chemicals will make a magic battery for solar-electric. We've only been seriously investing in solar-electric for 60 years - any day now that magic battery will appear, and with it magic components like 100% efficient inverters. Until then, we must burn coal.
What really killed nuclear power wasn't "The China Syndrome" or Greenpeace - it was that the price of fossil fuels didn't continue to increase as expected. That's unfortunate, as while I like inexpensive energy I also believe that we should make ALL of our electricity with nukes (or hydro) and save fossil fuels for applications where nothing else will do (e.g. aircraft). And here's a litmus test: if you're serious about global warming, you've pretty much got to be pro-nuke. No other technology - not solar, not wind, not whatever green scheme you dream up - can produce electricity on a large scale. Wanna save the planet? Push for nukes and plug-in electric cars.
... some idiot try to grab water like he's picking up a ball or something. Every time they squeeze, it just shoots through their fingers and they get nothing.
Capitalist economies are dynamic. They respond. Squeeze in one place and you create pressure that causes the system to adapt to restore equilibrium.
Listen to Bruce Lee... Understand what it is to be water. To flow.
The issue with trying to control fossil fuel consumption is that it fills a need. That need exists. It is a sucking vacuum that will draw solutions to it and will do so in the most cost efficient manner it can find.
For example... that might mean off shoring all production to Asia if you make it too expensive to make things in the West. Very simple to do that. Totally bypasses all the environmental laws instantly. Anything that makes production in the US more expensive then somewhere else will just result in off shoring.
That principle carries over to everything else. A major mistake environmental activists keep making is fucking with prices and expecting the system to not change the way it does things to reduce costs. They think the system will just choose the path they decide rather then keep looking.
Listen to Jeff Goldblum from Jurassic Park:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Life will find a way. It will not be contained.
Your solutions must be cost neutral or very nearly cost neutral or must be cheaper then existing models.
Or you will have set yourself up as an obstacle. And life will find a way.
You might not like that anymore then the people liked getting eaten by dinosaurs in that movie. But the dinosaurs don't care what you want. They want what they want and you can't really stop them without destroying everything.
If you want to keep the system active and you really have no choice here... then you're going to have to play the game. Learn the rules or lose.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I hear what you're saying but here in Norway we have stone age settlements that are 100-200 meters above the current sea level - glaciers depressed the whole country. Current coastal settlements may suffer, but even if you assume 100% of the ice melting it's not 2012 and we don't need a new Noah's ark. People live in temperatures from Sahara to Siberia and in weather patterns from rain forest to to desert. "Save us" makes it sound like we're heading towards some kind of extinction level event and clearly we're not.
The real threat to our environment is not our lifestyle, it's that we've been multiplying like rabbits. In 1900 the world population was 1650 million, they could all be polluting like Americans of 2014 and they'd still emit less CO2 in total than the world does today. If we double the population we need to cut the pollution in half to stay constant, it's not higher math. That's a very touch subject of personal freedom, but condoms, birth control and China's one child policy is probably the best long term action for the environment.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The far right runs around screaming that there is no climate change, while ignoring the science (real bad).
The far left runs around screaming that climate change is an issue due to science (good), but then ignores all of the solutions (just as bad).
So, how can the far left take advantage of the shale boom? Well, right now, the far right wants keystone pipeline.
If keystone goes in, will it lower or increase emission from tar sands? The answer is NO.
If keystone is blocked, will it lower or increase emissions from tar sands? Again the answer is NO.
Basically, keystone pipeline does not help nor hurt emissions.
So, what CAN happen is that the far left can use it to trade to lower REAL emissions. Transportation accounts for a large chunk of the global emissions, esp. in North America. That is very true for commercial vehicles such as semi-trucks, that burn diesel fuel.
BUT, by trading keystone for subsidies for commercial vehicles and large passenger vehicles (suburbans come to mind), that use nat gas at first, and then within 3 years, make it ONLY for Serial Hybrids that use Nat gas. With this trade, it will move large vehicles off diesel and over to nat gas. BUT, within 3 years, the move to serial hybrids allows makers to be using real electric vehicles and being able to switch to say hydrogen fuel cells, or perhaps wireless charging to run these vehicles. With this approach, then the far right gets their keystone, while the far left gets actual emission DOWNWARDS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and China's one child policy is probably the best long term action for the environment.
And yet, in most developed first world countries, birth rates have pretty much plateaued, or are on the way there. The US, China, Japan, Singapore, Russia, most of Europe - all currently below population sustaining birth rates at the moment. Check out this chart, sorted by fertility rates from lowest to highest. You can likely notice a clear trend between the upper portions of the chart and the lower regions.
Economics and education (especially of women) is the key, not police state policies that encroach on more of our personal liberties. We need to get everyone to first-world economic status as fast as we can, because then:
1) People will stop pumping out kids en mass, since at that point they're an economic liability, not an advantage, and
2) People will start caring more about the environment when they're not trying to figure out where they'll get they're next meal, or if they will have a roof over their heads tomorrow.
Seriously, exploding population was the boogieman twenty or thirty years ago. If we forecast using today's trends, it seems pretty likely that the world's population will most likely peak and then decline. Take a look at the actual data trends (the recent ones - and don't extrapolate linearly), then draw your own conclusions.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
If we double the population we need to cut the pollution in half to stay constant, it's not higher math. That's a very touch subject of personal freedom, but condoms, birth control and China's one child policy is probably the best long term action for the environment.
It's not higher math, but it's also not correct. ;-)
There is not a fixed amount of CO2 produced per person so doubling the population doesn't necessarily double the pollution. Further there are often serious issues that result from population decline. Just look at Japan. Besides, most of the Western world has near zero population growth and that trend is moving into Asia. My guess Africa won't be THAT far behind. Yes, birth control should be provided and encouraged in developing countries but I don't think we really need to be draconian about it.
Population does matter but it's not everything. Take a look at the Mayans. Many folks feel that the Mayan empire collapsed because they weren't living sustainably. Certainly population growth played a role but so did slashing and burning the rain forest.
Except when it benefits Big Oil, then that fascism (actually, dirigism, which is close enough) comes from the right. Unless you can name one right wing politician who opposes minimum parking requirements?
I use this example because such requirements take away our freedom and property rights while benefiting Big Oil by inducing people to drive everywhere.
It's interesting how the left errs on the side of the poor while the right errs on the side of the wealthy.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
I agree. There is no-one thinking 50 to 100, or even 200 years ahead. Short term is the order of the day. It will be the future generations that suffer.
I don't have children, but if I did I would be intensely concerned with the environment I would be leaving them - and their children in turn. Yet as far as I can tell, those I know who do have children seem unconcerned. It is the immediate future that interests them ("new shiny") rather than the long term.
It didn't used to be like this. The old European cathedrals were planned and built over decades, if not centuries (Cathedral Building in the Middle Ages).
In 50 to 100 years time when fossil fuel resources start to run out, our children's children will have to do what we should be doing now, and develop renewable resources. They will have to do so with a (most likely) more hostile environment (due to climate change) and without the reserves of fossil fuel to help kick-start the change.
Maybe using all these fossil fuels won't cause catastrophic climate change, and the naysayers are wrong. However, it seems to me to be a gamble, the stakes of which are the future lives of our children and their children. Unfortunately it seems to be a gamble many are willing to make.
I would rather we didn't make this gamble. I would rather we "bite the bullet" now. Take the hit, make sacrifices to our lifestyle and go hell-bent for long-term sustainable renewables. For the sake of our children (and their children).
We won't, which I find heartbreakingly sad. The only consolation I have - and it is an empty consolation at that - is that my descendants won't be affected, as I don't have any children.
You never know what is enough unless you know what is more than enough. - Blake
The NAZI party was the NATIONAL Socialist GERMAN Workers PARTY. So per your argument, that's as right wing as it gets. All the NATIONAL parties of the history have been right wing. Left wing parties are typically INTERNATIONAL (their war-song is even called the "Internationale"), as their ideology is about class, not about nation.
So the name of the Nazis both appeal to extreme left wing, as well as extreme right wing. This is not a coincidence.
The rest of the AC's argument is as stupid and ill-informed.
Your argument doesn't hold water. You state roughly that the Nazis are leftist because all totalitarians are leftist. And as Nazis are totalitarians they must be leftist.
You mix terms: you draw an opposite between 'totalitarian' and 'liberal', and you equate them to 'left' and 'right'. That doesn't work: the traditional 'left' versus 'right' divide is about those who believe in 'class equality' and those that believe in 'private property'. Both have totalitarian as well as liberal factions. Where the left have communists that are as totalitarian as it gets, the right have fascists and authoritarian factions that drive towards a totalitarian state. The US "democrat and republican party" being one example of such an authoritarian right wing faction.
Your argument doesn't hold water. You state roughly that the Nazis are leftist because all totalitarians are leftist. And as Nazis are totalitarians they must be leftist.
Actually if you read his post you'll see that he placed the Nazi's on the left not by simply equating totalitarianism with leftism, but by listing four Nazi policies: universal health care, minimum wage, social security, and a 102% tax on certain corporations. His argument is more like "These policies are leftist and therefore mark the party implementing them as being on the left."
Note that I'm not taking any position is this argument; I can certainly see problems with his argument. This is simply a 'meta' comment on your discussion to point out that your characterization of his argument is incorrect.
People live in temperatures from Sahara to Siberia and in weather patterns from rain forest to to desert.
Sure, but how much do you think it will cost you to adapt? Do you think that if much of our ability to grow certain crops goes away we will still have cheap food and easily feed everyone?
I'm sure we can survive no matter what happens, it's a question of a little pain now or massive pain in the future.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The Nazis were also strongly opposed to abortion* and homosexuality, and frequently spoke of the richness of German Christian heritage and declared themselves a Christian party. Sound a lot like the American right-wing?
Or - and here is a notion that many may find strange - could it be that the left-vs-right divide is rather artificial, and not all political parties can be neatly fitted into one of two buckets?
*Though they did make exceptions for their eugenics programs, abortion was otherwise strictly prohibited.
The left is about central control
So, you're implying that large corporations, like Oracle, IBM, Microsoft (or Redhat for that matter), are basically a bunch of commies? And the different churches, they are of course too? I think, maybe you have a different way of navigating through space from the rest of us.
Out here, in the real world, words like '(political) left', 'communism' and 'socialism', are about the idea that we might all be better off if we shared more of the burdens of life; that in order to protect essential freedoms, such as freedom of speech and self-determination, we need to agree on the rules, and because there are selfish bullies in the world, we also need to be able to enforce the rules. And the words '(political) right', 'capitalism' and 'free market' are about the idea that it is best to allow the individual to seek their own fortune in the way they believe is right.
We have had ample demonstration over the last century or so, that taken to the extreme, both of these ideas produce monsters, which ironically end up looking very alike, as fascism. An insightful person will realize that society, in order to be stable and functional, needs both of those ingredients to some extent.It is also not hard to see that the balance is not right in the US at the moment, which is why you are becoming more and more unstable.
The problem is not carbon, nor climate, nor coal, nor natural gas, nor fracking
The problem is human
I have read the (almost the) same discussions since the late 1980's, first on fidonet, then The Well, then AOL, then the newsgroups, then net forums all over --- same old arguments repeated ad nauseum, while everybody and their old grandma keep depending on fossil fuel to survive
From driving cars (even if you do not have a car, you still take buses/trains, don't you?) to electricity to cooking to heating up the house during winter, we are burning fossil fuel
Heck, even the act of posting this message on /. fossil fuels have been burned to generate electricity to power my computer and all the servers that keep the Net alive
On one side there are people who pooh pooh the idea that the world is going down the drain because of our unsatiated appetite for more fossil fuel
On the other side people running scared like headless chicken bawking, but still, these people oppose Nuclear. Germany is a case in point
The country of Germany gobbled up so much electricity and yet they have closed down all their nuclear power plant. They do so because of political correctness doctrine that nuclear is bad, but by closing down their nuke plants, they burn fossil fuel, more of it
I do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, I simply don't
We humans are turning this planet into a hellhole, and the only thing we can do is talk, and then, talk some more
The Nazi Party was organized crime masquerading as a cult, not a political party in the modern sense, and it was neither (consistently) left-wing or right-wing in its politics. Much like the Communist Party.
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?
Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).
Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.
I have yet to see studies seriously listing benefits of a warmer climate and actually comparing that to any negatives.
http://web.stanford.edu/~moore...
I found that in 30 seconds. Why couldn't you?
I have little doubt that if I spent more time, I could find many more.
The actual fact is that for all of history, more deaths attributable to climate have been due to cold rather than warm. This is a statistic that is also just about as easy to find.
Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable [nationalacademies.org]"?
I wrote "evidence", doofus. You do know what "evidence" means, yes? A public statement by an organization is not evidence. It's an opinion.
I am well aware that organizations have been making such public statements. But that isn't evidence. If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? But then I know why you didn't: you have shown yourself to be the Prince of straw-man arguments.
I am not in a position to answer "why" they might have done so. But the fact that they did is not itself evidence of anything. Consensus is not science.
I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.
While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:
I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).
As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.
Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:
net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out
But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:
net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"
However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:
Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?