Fair point, I was arguing against the longevity of fossil fuel dependency being a good thing, but my wording absolutely included a flagrant factual error.
The thing is... we aren't actually ready to make that gradual transition. Infrastructure takes years to decades, and markets can crash in hours. The stress we will face can be mitigated by top-level planning for early transition.
No one likes central planning, but a little bit can be a good thing.
Population growth isn't the big deal we make it out to be. Sort of. The first world has very slow-to-negative population growth. The third world shows signs of slowing down, and, currently, at least, much lower per capital energy usage.
I'd say that you're right, except that trains as infrastructure continue to serve a purpose when you're not shipping oil anymore, whereas pipelines do not. Thus they can form a perverse incentive.
It already kind of kicked the commuter society in the balls through gas prices. "Peak oil" happened, and we all just kinda grinned and bore it through extremely rapid commodity inflation.
We didn't listen, when it would have been cheap to do so, so now it's a little more expensive to address(and we're still not doing anything about it).
Nuclear is absolutely fantastic, because when done correctly, you create your next generation of fuel using this generation. Potentially thousands of years of energy supply.
Solar and wind are superior outside of financial constraints, because they don't have any catastrophic failures possible from poor maintenance.
Properly disincentivize fossil fuels gradually over the course of a couple decades, through taxes, tariffs, and regulations, and let the slack get picked up in whatever way is most market friendly.
There is enough material on the planet, and enough insolation on the planet to provide well over 100% of our energy needs by means of solar. That's a bit of a pipe dream, so reasonable migration steps with nuclear and slowly diminishing fossil fuel dependency is entirely doable. And it would cost us a fraction of our GDP.
Of all major industries, energy is the field with the lowest ratio of research funding to revenue(most are about 5%, medicine is about 15%, energy is like 1-2%). It's entirely clear we're just not trying much.
Our civilization is built on oil-derived products, we do not have a choice of not shipping it.
In the short term. We should construct incentive networks that slowly migrate off fossil fuels while the costs are reasonable. We are not doing that, and it's going to be hazardous to our entire system.
Building pipelines, while occasionally useful and necessary, should be done with due attention for the long term economic incentives it creates.
You know what, I don't feel the compelling need to argue against people who say "it's communism", because that's not any sort of invalidation of something.
This poor, virginal loser didn't try to create the internet's most purposefully asinine userbase. He just got it. Anyone can make an anonymous forum. And if 4chan ever goes away, someone else will.
And those disconnected from "the hive" would have reliability problems and maintenance costs associated with having just a local school board's IT staff taking care of it.
I wasn't actually agitating for the thing I mentioned, I was drawing a parallel to another naive attitude.
It's too bad the way Google shot their credibility to hell. A decade ago, there was boundless enthusiasm for everything google did, and now they've made it clear that they're trying to funnel you into their advertising-revenue-maximizing subsystems, regardless of what you actually want.
Well, you could read the basic science. It's not actually beyond anyone who can grapple with calculus based statistics or the basic principals of thermodynamics.
Slashdot Mirror
Without being needlessly antagonistic, that's your reading comprehension failure, not mine.
Fair point, I was arguing against the longevity of fossil fuel dependency being a good thing, but my wording absolutely included a flagrant factual error.
No, I got the joke. Christ, can't I take a topical side-discussion without being trying to argue against you?
The thing is... we aren't actually ready to make that gradual transition. Infrastructure takes years to decades, and markets can crash in hours. The stress we will face can be mitigated by top-level planning for early transition.
No one likes central planning, but a little bit can be a good thing.
Population growth isn't the big deal we make it out to be. Sort of. The first world has very slow-to-negative population growth. The third world shows signs of slowing down, and, currently, at least, much lower per capital energy usage.
I was being facetious.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/09/09/business/energy-environment/pipeline-spills.html
Yay, someone actually responded reasonably. Thanks.
I'd say that you're right, except that trains as infrastructure continue to serve a purpose when you're not shipping oil anymore, whereas pipelines do not. Thus they can form a perverse incentive.
It already kind of kicked the commuter society in the balls through gas prices. "Peak oil" happened, and we all just kinda grinned and bore it through extremely rapid commodity inflation.
We didn't listen, when it would have been cheap to do so, so now it's a little more expensive to address(and we're still not doing anything about it).
Nuclear is absolutely fantastic, because when done correctly, you create your next generation of fuel using this generation. Potentially thousands of years of energy supply.
Solar and wind are superior outside of financial constraints, because they don't have any catastrophic failures possible from poor maintenance.
Properly disincentivize fossil fuels gradually over the course of a couple decades, through taxes, tariffs, and regulations, and let the slack get picked up in whatever way is most market friendly.
There is enough material on the planet, and enough insolation on the planet to provide well over 100% of our energy needs by means of solar. That's a bit of a pipe dream, so reasonable migration steps with nuclear and slowly diminishing fossil fuel dependency is entirely doable. And it would cost us a fraction of our GDP.
Of all major industries, energy is the field with the lowest ratio of research funding to revenue(most are about 5%, medicine is about 15%, energy is like 1-2%). It's entirely clear we're just not trying much.
Our civilization is built on oil-derived products, we do not have a choice of not shipping it.
In the short term. We should construct incentive networks that slowly migrate off fossil fuels while the costs are reasonable. We are not doing that, and it's going to be hazardous to our entire system.
Building pipelines, while occasionally useful and necessary, should be done with due attention for the long term economic incentives it creates.
Yeah, we've obviously never had major pipeline spills.
You know what, I don't feel the compelling need to argue against people who say "it's communism", because that's not any sort of invalidation of something.
Since they aren't incredibly wasteful for a false sense of "freedom" that only enables stress and accidental deaths?
Or public transit, like a really civilized country.
Google wasn't a public company 10 years ago, FYI.
I was just being facetious. Didn't take, though. I thought half the point of moot was to mock him.
This poor, virginal loser didn't try to create the internet's most purposefully asinine userbase. He just got it. Anyone can make an anonymous forum. And if 4chan ever goes away, someone else will.
And those disconnected from "the hive" would have reliability problems and maintenance costs associated with having just a local school board's IT staff taking care of it.
I wasn't actually agitating for the thing I mentioned, I was drawing a parallel to another naive attitude.
It's too bad the way Google shot their credibility to hell. A decade ago, there was boundless enthusiasm for everything google did, and now they've made it clear that they're trying to funnel you into their advertising-revenue-maximizing subsystems, regardless of what you actually want.
Yeah, and I'd like to see volunteer teachers, so that I have some confidence it's separated from greed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that completely reasonable pragmatic constraints happen within the confines of education all the time.
Where's the evidence for this claim?
take the citations if you hate wikipedia for whatever reason.
Does everything have to be an argument from personal incredulity with you people?
Well, you could read the basic science. It's not actually beyond anyone who can grapple with calculus based statistics or the basic principals of thermodynamics.
Review literature is actually quite plentiful.
If they were outside the noise levels, they would be uncontroversial and there would be no problem.
Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that failure in regression analysis. What specific hypothesis failed the p-test?
Jesus christ. 6 downmods, and zero answers?
Is it?
"Moderating up stupid facile statements and downmodding simple questions will totally cement support for my scientifically incorrect opinions"
What is going on here?