U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2019, 12:55 PM
 
7,069 posts, read 14,162,635 times
Reputation: 4685

Advertisements

Hear me out. What happens when oil and coal are totally depleted? Even if global warming isn't worsened by humans. Even if we can't jump straight to an energy system reliant on solar/wind/hydro power. Wouldn't you like to leave a solid energy system based on renewable energy for the future generations? Fossil fuels will become nonexistent one day. I don't see an issue preparing ourselves now when we have time.

I'm not getting involved in anything actually politically charged because none of you can ever address my points like grown adults. But I'm genuinely asking if any of you have ever thought about what we will do the day the last fossil fuels are used and there is nothing left to run the world's energy systems. I, for one, would like a back up that we can rely on one day. And in the meantime, I don't see anything wrong with solar/wind/hydro power supplementing our fossil fuel usage. You win because you get to keep using fossil fuels. I win because at least a little less pollution is going into the environment. I'd like a zero-emissions world, and I'm shocked that a zero-emissions is a political stance rather than a stance for the future of our planet. But I guess for now I'm okay compromising on building a system that can replace fossil fuels when they're depleted, but one in which we can use today and lessen our carbon footprints. Then, when climate change deniers are no longer in political power, we can rely much more strongly on the renewable energy sources. But until then, don't you want to set something up for the future when fossil fuels are entirely depleted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-30-2019, 01:17 PM
 
203 posts, read 45,348 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
Hear me out. What happens when oil and coal are totally depleted? Even if global warming isn't worsened by humans. Even if we can't jump straight to an energy system reliant on solar/wind/hydro power. Wouldn't you like to leave a solid energy system based on renewable energy for the future generations? Fossil fuels will become nonexistent one day. I don't see an issue preparing ourselves now when we have time.
I don't think anybody would argue that fossil fuels will some day be depleted. It's a long way off still and we are still discovering new pockets of fossil fuels all the time. I think the point is that there's no immediate need to punitively tax ourselves into oblivion in order to facilitate the new discoveries of sustainable energy. There's no reason to add trillions of dollars to our deficit while diminishing the quality of life for the entire population. There are brilliant people working on renewable energy and when someone hits with the right idea that person will become a BILLIONAIRE over night. Thats all the incentive that scientists and engineers in the free world need to get there quickly. They will do it far more quickly under this system than they will with their necks under the hovering axe of AOC and her crew.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2019, 01:59 PM
 
Location: New York, NY
2,742 posts, read 2,302,332 times
Reputation: 1655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope of Greenwich Village View Post
I don't think anybody would argue that fossil fuels will some day be depleted. It's a long way off still and we are still discovering new pockets of fossil fuels all the time. I think the point is that there's no immediate need to punitively tax ourselves into oblivion in order to facilitate the new discoveries of sustainable energy. There's no reason to add trillions of dollars to our deficit while diminishing the quality of life for the entire population. There are brilliant people working on renewable energy and when someone hits with the right idea that person will become a BILLIONAIRE over night. Thats all the incentive that scientists and engineers in the free world need to get there quickly. They will do it far more quickly under this system than they will with their necks under the hovering axe of AOC and her crew.
Very well said! The incentive should be to make money over taxing everyone into poverty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2019, 02:29 PM
 
203 posts, read 45,348 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by stormgal View Post
Very well said! The incentive should be to make money over taxing everyone into poverty.
You said it better with one sentence. Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2019, 02:56 PM
 
7,069 posts, read 14,162,635 times
Reputation: 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope of Greenwich Village View Post
I don't think anybody would argue that fossil fuels will some day be depleted. It's a long way off still and we are still discovering new pockets of fossil fuels all the time. I think the point is that there's no immediate need to punitively tax ourselves into oblivion in order to facilitate the new discoveries of sustainable energy. There's no reason to add trillions of dollars to our deficit while diminishing the quality of life for the entire population. There are brilliant people working on renewable energy and when someone hits with the right idea that person will become a BILLIONAIRE over night. Thats all the incentive that scientists and engineers in the free world need to get there quickly. They will do it far more quickly under this system than they will with their necks under the hovering axe of AOC and her crew.
Some estimates have oil and natural gas lasting only another 50-60 years. Coal reserves will last around 100 years. However, I believe we can all agree that using coal is an absolutely terrible option and should be a last resort. Therefore, I don't find 50-60 years to be all that far into the future. AOC is in my generation. Our generation will hopefully be alive and thriving in our early retirement years if all goes well in the functionings of our society and planet. That time frame isn't too far into the future and I think it would be very beneficial to start investing heavily in renewable energy sources.

We spend limitless amounts of money drilling for and producing energy based on fossil fuels. I'm sure there is a good chunk of money that could be used for scientists to research alternative energy sources. Furthermore, transferring some of those subsidies or dollars spent on the fossil fuel industry into subsidizing renewable energies like solar/wind/hydro would allow our fossil fuels to last longer. If we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, there is no reason we cannot also subsidize the renewable energy so it becomes more readily available and affordable to the masses. It would give us a longer time to research alternatives before fossil fuels are completely depleted. Even if we keep finding more oil reserves, they are still a finite source that will, some day, run out entirely. Personally, I would like to be ready for another system to entirely take over when that day arrives.

You can believe that AOC's policies are too far left on climate change, but it's impossible to deny that the basis of her claims are wrong. Fossil fuels will run out one day. Sea levels are rising. Pollution is sickening humans worldwide. Whether or not that humans are the sole cause or a minuted contributing factor is irrelevant. The fact is that we play some part in this and it's happening. The Green New Deal has some very reasonable proposals, including repairing and updating existing infrastructure (our tunnels and rail tracks are in terrible shape around NYC), upgrading existing buildings to be more energy efficient (again, this would let current fossil fuel reserves last longer), improving public transit accessibility nationwide (public transit produces less pollution than driving), etc. Also, I'm strongly in favor of investing in research that could save our coastal cities from being underwater. Whether or not we agree on the cause of global warming, it's a fact that flooding is becoming more extreme and cities like Miami Beach and NYC will be partially or entirely underwater if we don't do something about it. That could be better pump drainage, levee systems, dikes like the Dutch built, etc. Again, I don't find it a political issue to care about cities ending up underwater. I would think everyone would favor some type of increased tax if it meant that our air and water remained clean/breathable/potable, our cities remained above water, we use less energy, etc. Importantly, there is no reason individuals like you and me should carry this tax burden, when the fossil fuel industry pays little to no federal taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2019, 03:13 PM
 
203 posts, read 45,348 times
Reputation: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post

We spend limitless amounts of money drilling for and producing energy based on fossil fuels. I'm sure there is a good chunk of money that could be used for scientists to research alternative energy sources. .
What makes you think we haven't been investing millions upon millions into private R&D over the last few decades? There are thousands of scientists all over the world looking for the magic bullet. It's going to make Vanderbilts look like paupers when there is a breakthrough.

My problem with AOC is her disingenuousness. She knows she's feeding 100 other agendas by pandering to people who think the sky is falling.

No, the seas are not rising the ice caps and polar bears are doing just fine. Lets keep our heads screwed on properly for a few more years before we start panicking, and when we do start panicking let us keep calm and do it right.

Politics and government won't solve this. Ingenious people with financial incentive will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 04:11 PM
 
11,010 posts, read 9,414,723 times
Reputation: 6701
You can't ask the question of how much fossil fuel is left without specifying at what price. We may (or may not) be running out of light, easy to recover petroleum. But there are vast amounts of harder to recover hydrocarbons out there. Thing tar sands, oil shale, etc. If oil is $30-45/bbl, it isn't worth trying to produce this stuff. Get oil over $60/bbl, and it very much is. Let oil get to $100/bbl, and it'll be coming out of every orifice. And there may a nearly unlimited amount of natgas in there, depending on how deep they're willing to drill.

Most of the alternative sources don't really become economically viable until well past when fossil fuels get to prices where it become viable to pull out the more difficult stuff, and that floods the market, bringing prices back down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
Some estimates have oil and natural gas lasting only another 50-60 years. Coal reserves will last around 100 years. However, I believe we can all agree that using coal is an absolutely terrible option and should be a last resort. Therefore, I don't find 50-60 years to be all that far into the future. AOC is in my generation. Our generation will hopefully be alive and thriving in our early retirement years if all goes well in the functionings of our society and planet. That time frame isn't too far into the future and I think it would be very beneficial to start investing heavily in renewable energy sources.

We spend limitless amounts of money drilling for and producing energy based on fossil fuels. I'm sure there is a good chunk of money that could be used for scientists to research alternative energy sources. Furthermore, transferring some of those subsidies or dollars spent on the fossil fuel industry into subsidizing renewable energies like solar/wind/hydro would allow our fossil fuels to last longer. If we subsidize the fossil fuel industry, there is no reason we cannot also subsidize the renewable energy so it becomes more readily available and affordable to the masses. It would give us a longer time to research alternatives before fossil fuels are completely depleted. Even if we keep finding more oil reserves, they are still a finite source that will, some day, run out entirely. Personally, I would like to be ready for another system to entirely take over when that day arrives.

You can believe that AOC's policies are too far left on climate change, but it's impossible to deny that the basis of her claims are wrong. Fossil fuels will run out one day. Sea levels are rising. Pollution is sickening humans worldwide. Whether or not that humans are the sole cause or a minuted contributing factor is irrelevant. The fact is that we play some part in this and it's happening. The Green New Deal has some very reasonable proposals, including repairing and updating existing infrastructure (our tunnels and rail tracks are in terrible shape around NYC), upgrading existing buildings to be more energy efficient (again, this would let current fossil fuel reserves last longer), improving public transit accessibility nationwide (public transit produces less pollution than driving), etc. Also, I'm strongly in favor of investing in research that could save our coastal cities from being underwater. Whether or not we agree on the cause of global warming, it's a fact that flooding is becoming more extreme and cities like Miami Beach and NYC will be partially or entirely underwater if we don't do something about it. That could be better pump drainage, levee systems, dikes like the Dutch built, etc. Again, I don't find it a political issue to care about cities ending up underwater. I would think everyone would favor some type of increased tax if it meant that our air and water remained clean/breathable/potable, our cities remained above water, we use less energy, etc. Importantly, there is no reason individuals like you and me should carry this tax burden, when the fossil fuel industry pays little to no federal taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 05:10 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,368 posts, read 23,839,391 times
Reputation: 11760
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
You can't ask the question of how much fossil fuel is left without specifying at what price. We may (or may not) be running out of light, easy to recover petroleum. But there are vast amounts of harder to recover hydrocarbons out there. Thing tar sands, oil shale, etc. If oil is $30-45/bbl, it isn't worth trying to produce this stuff. Get oil over $60/bbl, and it very much is. Let oil get to $100/bbl, and it'll be coming out of every orifice. And there may a nearly unlimited amount of natgas in there, depending on how deep they're willing to drill.

Most of the alternative sources don't really become economically viable until well past when fossil fuels get to prices where it become viable to pull out the more difficult stuff, and that floods the market, bringing prices back down.
Yea, that first part is right on, but I’m not sure about the second part. There’s the concept of grid parity and as efficiencies continue to be found during production scaling, various renewable energies in large chunks of the US have reached grid parity now, as in today, where renewable energy production is cheaper than building new fossil fuel plants, and in some parts, even cheaper than maintaining legacy fossil fuel plants. I think the sad part of the whole thing is how much of those costs came down for renewable energy in the last couple decades was especially due to production scaling as it meant simply pushing the industry to scale was valuable. Adam Smith, great free market popularizer that he was, wrote in favor of government intervention in industry on a very narrow basis of it incubating an industry of great need or having national security implications. Renewable energy was and is both and the US could have dominated the sector to its own industrial profit, but that’s not where policy went.

Anyhow, there’s an ancillary benefit for things like pushing electric vehicles that densely populated and trafficked areas like NYC and its surrounding areas have which is tailpipe emissions. I think having cleaner air is a fine thing to have and it pays dividends in terms of productivity by lessening time and resource costs from bad air quality. I’m definitely greatly in favor of electric vehicles making up a greater proportion of the vehicle fleet here whether trucks, buses, or cars. There's also the relatively minor but still notable contribution to the urban heat island effect that ICE vehicles with their inefficient conversion of gas to usable work have. Oh, and they're quieter, too!

AOC's district, as many of you know, has had a history of freeways bulldozed through them and those emissions, especially in the era of leaded gasoline and its aftermath decades after leaded gasoline was removed from the market, made a large and sustained impact. However, even outside that district, NYC residents as a whole would benefit from a push towards electrification of vehicles and a push towards better mass transit.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-31-2019 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 07:16 AM
 
303 posts, read 105,738 times
Reputation: 542
If you are not talking about Gen IV nuclear reactors, you are not serious about climate change.


The Green New Deal is just a slogan and a bunch of random stupid ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2019, 07:38 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,368 posts, read 23,839,391 times
Reputation: 11760
Quote:
Originally Posted by under a mountain View Post
If you are not talking about Gen IV nuclear reactors, you are not serious about climate change.


The Green New Deal is just a slogan and a bunch of random stupid ideas.
I agree that new generation nuclear reactors that are safer in design should definitely be on the agenda, but I also don’t believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water. It’s also likely that if a reactor design and operation whose benefits well outweigh its disadvantages and is obviously more economically viable overall than other energy production plants built anywhere would cause more people and politicians in the US to rethink their fears about nuclear reactors.

The Green New Deal is a slogan, but at the same time also puts forth at least some reasonable steps forward. I doubt it can be passed as an omnibus package as is, but parts of it are probably economically and politically feasible and advantageous to the US. I think one part of it that is a source of contention are the jobs guarantee portions of it, but whether or not there is a strict stipulation of jobs reserved, moving towards the infrastructure building and technological development will mean work and employment to implement such anyhow.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-01-2019 at 07:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top