Fossil Fuels are a Hell of a Lot More Sustainable Than Wind and Solar

[Breakfall]

This whole thread has been a bit of a let-down actually. A few individuals thinking that they know it all. Week in and week out.

It is pretty obvious that replacing reliable concentrated sources of energy like oil and natural gas with diffuse antiquated sources of energy like wind and solar that gobble up resources we don't have enough of, including land is an expensive fantasy at best.

What a load of shit man! How did you even come to that conclusion...in the bigger scheme of things?

[Breakfall]

Do you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

[Breakfall]

I want change. I am sick and tired of seeing mouthpieces try and dupe the world that they know best. Oil is unstainable...it doesn't take the slightest of mind to realise that. Sustainable energies are the way forward and the practical solution for generations to come. Try and instil some positive energy into your mindset and make the difference the world needs. It's never too late!

[Anonymous]

Do you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

Seoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

[Anonymous]

I want change. I am sick and tired of seeing mouthpieces try and dupe the world that they know best. Oil is unstainable...it doesn't take the slightest of mind to realise that. Sustainable energies are the way forward and the practical solution for generations to come. Try and instil some positive energy into your mindset and make the difference the world needs. It's never too late!

Page after page in this thread proves oil is far more sustainable than almost any other resource on the planet..



It has lifted billions people out of poverty and has thousands of applications..



What we seem to be doing in the West is deleiberate returning to primitive technologies and lower living standards by lying to the people that rare earth metal energy can replace petroleum technology.

[Breakfall]

Do you you even consider long-term benifets seoulbro? Are you some financial guru that sees only immediate value in unsustainable energies?

Seoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

Seoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

[Breakfall]

"Fossil fuels are a hell of a lot more sustainable than wind and solar?"



Wrong, wrong and wrong again!

[Breakfall]

What imbecilic rationale!

[Breakfall]

Canada holds 77 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of proven gas reserves as of 2017, ranking 18th in the world and accounting for about 1% of the world's total natural gas reserves of 6,923 Tcf. Canada has proven reserves equivalent to 17.5 times its annual consumption.

[Breakfall]

Goddamn I love it when I can shit all over the naysayers!

[Anonymous]

Seoul knows wind and solar are unsustainable and they offer no immediate or future benefit.

Seoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

You have seventeen pages to prove that the progtard narrative are superior to fossils, but you haven't. Do you know why you can't do that? Because wind and solar are less sustainable than fossils.

[Anonymous]

Arable? In what sense? How does that correlate with solar or wind at all.

California is a major agricultural state. Wind and solar require massive amounts of land and water. Both of which are in short supply in the Golden state. Natural gas power plants, being concentrated require much less of both resources to produce much more energy. Wind and and solar compete with food production and cause food shortages.

California doesn't have enough water needed for all that hydroelectricity. Only places like Northern Ontario, Manitoba, Quebec & BC do...which could satisfy California's & the needs of large population like the US.



So whether the environmentalists in America it or not, they'd better build more dams or connectors to the States to make their electric only transportion system viable.

[Anonymous]

Seoul knows fuck all in my opinion. He's a parrot that gleans credit through a community forum. That is all. He regurgitates irrelevant information that you people lap up. Some of that information doesn't even paint the whole picture. How old is the kid?

You have seventeen pages to prove that the progtard narrative are superior to fossils, but you haven't. Do you know why you can't do that? Because wind and solar are less sustainable than fossils.

I kind of understand Breakfall..



It's drilled into our minds that old technologies like turbines and solar panels have improved and don't finite resources......one page of this thread shows that's not true..



There are massive amounts of government money for people and corporations to spend on wind and solar..



So corporations say it's environmentally virtuous when they know it isn't.

[Anonymous]

3 irrefutable principles for thinking about fossil fuels, which no opponent has ever challenged:



1. Factor in fossil fuels' benefits



2. Factor in fossil fuels' "climate mastery benefits"



3. Factor in fossil fuels' negative and positive climate side-effects with precision



Irrefutable principle 1: Factor in fossil fuels' benefits



When we're evaluating what to do about any technology we must factor in not only its negative side-effects but also its benefits.



E.g., oil-powered equipment and natural gas fertilizer are crucial to feeding 8 billion people.



Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' benefits, not just their negative side-effects, most designated experts totally fail to do this.



E.g., "expert" Michael Mann 100% ignores fossil fuels' unique agricultural benefits in his book on fossil fuels and climate.



Irrefutable principle 2: Factor in fossil fuels' "climate mastery benefits"



One huge benefit we get from fossil fuels is the ability to master climate danger—e.g., fossil fueled cooling, heating, irrigation—which can potentially neutralize fossil fuels' negative climate impacts.



Even though we obviously need to factor in fossil fuels' climate mastery benefits, our designated experts totally fail to do this.



E.g., the UN IPCC's multi-thousand page reports totally omit fossil fueled climate mastery! That's like a polio report omitting the polio vaccine.



Irrefutable principle 3: Factor in fossil fuels' negative and positive climate side-effects with precision



With rising CO2 we must consider both negatives (more heatwaves) and positives (fewer cold deaths). And we must be precise, not equating some impact with huge impact.



Even though we obviously need to factor in both negative and positive impacts of rising CO2 with precision, most designated experts ignore big positives (e.g., global greening) while catastrophizing negatives (e.g., Gore portrays 20 ft sea level rise as imminent when extreme UN projections are 3ft/100yrs).

[Anonymous]

5 undeniable facts about fossil fuels' benefits



1. Human flourishing requires cost-effective energy



2. Far more energy is needed



3. Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective



4. Unreliable solar and wind are failing to replace fossil fuels



5. Fossil fuels give us an incredible climate mastery ability



Undeniable energy fact 1: Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing



Cost-effective energy—affordable, reliable, versatile, scalable energy—is essential to human flourishing because gives us the ability to use machines to become productive and prosperous.



Thanks to today's unprecedented availability of cost-effective energy (mostly fossil fuel) the world has never been a better place for human life. Life expectancy and income have been skyrocketing, with extreme poverty (<$2/day) plummeting from 42% in 1980 to <10% today.



Undeniable energy fact 2: The world needs much more energy



Billions of people lack the cost-effective energy they need to flourish. 3 billion use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. 1/3 of the world uses wood/dung for heating/cooking. Much more energy is needed.



The desperate lack of life-giving, cost-effective energy means that any replacement for fossil fuels must not only provide energy to the 2B who use significant amounts of energy today but to the 6B who use far less. Restricting fossil fuels without incredible alternatives is mass-murder.



Undeniable energy fact 3: Fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective



Despite 100+ years of aggressive competition, fossil fuels provide 80%+ of the world's energy and they are still growing fast—especially in the countries most concerned with cost-effective energy. E.g., China.³



Fossil fuels are uniquely able to provide energy that's low-cost, reliable, and versatile on a scale of billions of people. This is due to fossil fuels' combo of remarkable attributes—fossil fuels are naturally stored, concentrated, and abundant energy—and generations of innovation by industry.



There is currently only one energy tech that can match (actually exceed) fossil fuels' combo of naturally stored, concentrated, abundant energy: nuclear. Nuclear may one day outcompete all uses of fossil fuels, but this will take radical policy reform and generations of innovation + work.



Recent price spikes in fossil fuels do not reflect some new lack of cost-effectiveness on the part of fossil fuels, but rather the devastating effects of "green energy" efforts to artificially restrict the supply of fossil fuels on the false promise that unreliable solar/wind can replace them.



Undeniable energy fact 4: Unreliable solar/wind are failing to replace fossil fuels



Despite claims that solar + wind are rapidly replacing fossil fuels, they provide < 5% of world energy—only electricity, ⅕ of energy—and even that depends on huge subsidies and reliable (mostly fossil-fueled) power plants.⁴



Solar and wind's basic problem is unreliability, to the point they can go near-0 at any time. Thus they don't replace reliable power, they parasite on it. This is why they need huge subsidies and why no grid is near 50% solar/wind without huge parasitism on reliable neighbors.⁵



The popular idea that we can use mostly or all solar/wind with sufficient battery backup is not being tried anywhere because it's economically absurd. Batteries are so expensive that just 3 days of global backup using Elon Musk's Megapacks would cost $400T, >4X global GDP.⁶



For solar/wind to rapidly replace fossil fuels would require magically, immediately fixing their intractable problems providing electricity, then providing the 4/5 of world energy that isn't electricity, then doing that for the world's far greater energy needs going forward.



Unfortunately, there are opportunistic anti-fossil-fuel activist academics who have been feeding the absurd fantasy of rapid global replacement of fossil fuels via unreliable solar and wind. These academics are squarely responsible for today's global crisis of insufficient fossil fuel supply.



All academic schemes to replace fossil fuels with mostly solar/wind share 3 absurd assumptions:



1) schemes never tried anywhere will cheaply work everywhere the 1st time



2) a crash program of unprecedented mining will be cheap



3) today's anti-development politics won't slow anything down



Bottom line: If we recognize the undeniable facts about energy, we must conclude that if 8 billion people are going to have the cost-effective energy they need to flourish, in the far greater quantities needed, fossil fuel use needs to increase. Rapidly restricting it is deadly, period.



The life-or-death benefits of fossil fuels to the ability of 8 billion people to flourish are true regardless of how severe the negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels are. Those who think fossil fuels' CO2 emissions are apocalyptic still should acknowledge that rapid fossil fuel elimination is apocalyptic.



Those of us who recognize the benefits of fossil fuels should be open to evidence of extremely negative climate side-effects of fossil fuels. But once we learn certain undeniable facts about fossil fuels' climate benefits and side-effects the idea of climate apocalypse is totally refuted.





Undeniable energy fact 5: Fossil fuel energy gives us an incredible climate mastery ability



Fossil fuels have helped drive down climate disaster deaths by 98% over the last century by powering the amazing machines that protect us against storms, extreme temperatures, and drought.