Could the Wind Turbines of Chile Harm Blue Whales?
Time By AARON NELSEN
Wind turbines are increasingly recognized as a lethal hazard for birds, but some scientists now think they're also harmful to marine life. From half a mile away, the whooshing turbines emit an acceptable noise level of around 50 decibels; but if some of the Ecopower turbines are placed as close as 10 meters from the shoreline, they say, levels for ocean life could approach if not exceed a more harmful 100 decibels.
Peter, I think I generally agree with you, that effeciency increases, thus making the claim that GDP must require energy or fuel consumption is becoming less true. HOWEVER, I think a danger with efficiency is that consumers will not play along, unless there's an incentive for them. If consumers pay the same or more for fuel and living, who cares if their upstream provider is efficient? Efficiency then becomes a code word for "making money faster for less given back".
@greenman3610 no Peter, that's the problem, you assume that just because the supplier and producer pays less, consumers will as well.
Not always the case. The internet has made many jobs obsolete, and created many less laborious jobs, but the fact jobs are less laborious, high production with low investment, does not mean consumers will pay less. It can very well mean the producers collect more with less given back to consumers.
@greenman3610 directly related to energy use I cannot give you a good example. But the closest I can give you is this. Amazon Kindle popularized eBooks, or specifically, LEGAL ebooks. Since ebooks decrease overhead, from production to delivery, you'd expect that the fact a book was invested $10,000 less, the delivery costs would drop 90%. But it's not the case. A book that sells for $18 hardcover is still $15 Kindle. So what's in it for me to "go green" if I'm only saving $3?
@spiritualbully In MANY cases e-books are actually more expensive than the paper and ink. Just think about that. No printing costs, no risk of under or over printing the book, just a 1 hour format and web costs which are essentially free since the website is already there. E-books can't be loaned, borrowed or sold to a used book store for store credit to get new books. They are also permanently married to YOUR specific reader Ebooks SUCK.
@christo930 Then let's not forget the MOUNTAINS of e-waste created with the book readers as people "upgrade" them. What if your supplier goes out of business and your device fails? Guess what? You won't ever be able to read the books again.
@spiritualbully To quote a sci-fi author who's name I don't remember, "books are going to be like candles, nobody actually needs them, but we still use them and buy them". Eventually, hopefully e-books will come way down and author profits way up. What if a guy like Dean Kuntz decides to publish e-books directly from his website? Authors don't make much on their books, but if they can self publish a virtual item, they can cut the price by 80% and still make more money than they were before.
@christo930 author profits are already way up due to eBooks, so unless sales drop, there's no reason they'll drop in price. But printed books will definitely decrease, unless the profit margin is big enough to justify the investment. Yes, publishers FEAR authors who can be independent, this is the same case with models and musicians. Technology will make many people unemployed, if you know how to use it. The question is, will the independent artists pass it on? or make same error?
@spiritualbully I think that is going to take a long, long time. MP3 players really took off in 1998 or so, and most music is still available on CDs. E-books are gaining in popularity, but they are years away from being where mp3 players are now, so I think we will have paper books for quite some time. I also think that increased competition will drive the e-books down as the market gets bigger.
@christo930 I agree, I think competition for eBook providers and distributors will increase, and I think ebooks will grow much faster than MP3, because the lesson is already learned and they're not going to make the same mistake again. On top of that, broadband internet and mobile internet has become the norm, so ebook must work faster and hard to stay alive.
more and more companies are finding its cheaper to save energy than buy or produce it.
more and more utilities are finding renewables like wind are cheaper than coal, and way cheaper than nuclear, for a variety of reasons. and not due to subsidies.
the US peaked in gasoline use in 2007, and that downward trend is continuing.
the action is mostly at the state, city, and regional level, but it is happening.
@greenman3610 That is because of the recession, if we were to truly start growing again, gasoline usage would go back up. Also, what little we stopped using went to China, who's gasoline usage is growing.
@greenman3610 I don't doubt suppliers and producers are finding ways to save money and reduce waste, that doesn't mean they pass on the savings to consumers. So what's in it for the consumer to support cleaner or frugal suppliers unless they save too?
@spiritualbully how is that a good example? most of a book's cost covers the author's creativity - as it should be, otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harriette could write and sell books.
@alinaysa that's an example of how efficiency didn't pass savings to consumers, it only increased the profits of the author, or publisher. Every Tom, Dick Harry CAN write and sell books, at least they are allowed and able to, but only good ones make money.
@alinaysa actually you're wrong, authors are NOT the primary benefitting party when books are sold, nor are musicians, publishers collect most of it, then its distributors. The only reason it appears authors make a lot , is because authors are one person, and only the famous ones are heard of. But they actually get the smallest share of the pie.
@alinaysa a book's retail cost is NOT to cover author's creativity, but the publisher's investment. Either way, efficiency in publishing has NOT saved consumers much, if anything at all.
@greenman3610 my example was the book "Steve Jobs" by Isaacson. Why would I spend $15 (or $3 less) just to buy a digital copy of a book that I might not be able to share easily? The $3 I save might end up costing me more time and electricity to read over time. Amazon has certainly made it EFFECIENT but hasn't passed the savings down to the consumers, luckily consumers are stupid enough to pay for it.
This guy is expecting a global peak in demand around 2016? Is he friggin crazy? Chinese people are getting wealthier and are going to want to drive cars just like us and there aver over 1 billion of them. There is no such thing as peak demand, there is no limit in demand.
it's Exxon that expects peak gasoline demand in about 5 years.
The reason they give is that electric vehicles and other options have steadily become more attractive as the price of oil goes up, and commuting becomes more undesirable .
@greenman3610 Electric cars are the next big thing, they were the next big thing in the 1920's and they will be the next big thing in the 2020's. We need a replacement liquid fuel, I think there is a lot of promise in Algae and ammonia, though I think Algae will ultimately be the winner if personal vehicles are going to remain accessible to the masses.
@greenman3610 There has always been an electric car or 2 or on the market, at least in certain markets and especially during high oil prices. The real problem is rare earth elements and other materials the batteries are made of as well as energy density. If the entire world's car fleet were made electric, there would only be a couple years of theoretical materials left. Search Earths natural wealth:an audit - I think they discuss all this. It also takes many barrels of oil to build a car.
@christo930 Let's not forget about trucks (18 wheelers, not pick ups), boats and airplanes. There are some airlines using algae, but right now it's very small. The reality is that our problems are too big for substitution, there is most likely be a large reduction in consumption, fewer vacations, and far less personal mobility, because behind peak oil is peak phosphorus, peak copper and the list goes on and on.
@spiritualbully I think ending globalization, especially of food, would go a long way in conservation. On average, (for the west in general, much higher in the US) for every 1 calorie of food we produce, it took 10 calories of fossil fuel to grow and deliver to your plate. Cutting meat completely or even in half would go a very long way in helping the energy situation and the environment. We are importing vegetables from fucking Vietnam! How energy inefficient is that? We can grow our own.
@christo930 cutting meat will not help if the government continues to subsidize it. we import vegetables from vietnam because Americans would rather be paid minimum wage, and if not, they'd rather sit on their ass and collect food stamps. Americans don't want efficiency, they want jobs and welfare.
@spiritualbully What's wrong with wanting jobs? Welfare isn't the big handout you think it is. Only children can get welfare without being disabled. You must be temporarily disabled (with a doctors report) to collect welfare and it's 102.50 2x a month and 150 in foodstamps (or it was when I was very briefly on it about 10 years ago). I was glad it was there for me, which is why I don't begrudge by fellow man in need. I am much more concerned about $T bailouts.
@christo930 wanting jobs without consideration of the big picture is irresponsible. Its more honest to admit you want money, or you want quality living, even if you can do it without a job. I'm not for bailouts either, and I wasn't saying welfare is a big handout.
@spiritualbully To a degree, absolutely. Most poor Americans live better than kings of past, at least in some ways (air conditioning, heating, sanitation, fresh vegetables year round (because we can fly out of season crops into the area today) etc. However, once basic needs are met, there doesn't seem to be increased happiness with more stuff(diminishing returns). So if we can get everyone's basic needs met, we can have a happy fulfilling life in our society.
@christo930 "doesn't seem to be increased happiness with more stuff" so I then I ask you again, why do people work unless they are trying to be happy? To meet "basic needs", such as shelter and food, one can get by with about $200 a month in the US. Are we desiring too much? Or were people in the past not actually living?
@spiritualbully Where in the world did you get the idea that people can get by with 200/month in the US? It takes that much just to eat, never mind shelter, clothing, shoes etc..
@christo930 from seeing and knowing people who havent died. I don't know what you eat, but eating fast food is far less than $5 a day. shelter can be a car, and clothing can be reused for 5 years minimum. It's not comfortable, but you'll survive. You'll need to find a shared laundry & shower, that's about it.
@spiritualbully So you think that living in a car and eating fast food (which would cost more than $5 a day, even with the value menu) and showering in public places is a basic living standard?
@christo930 No, it costs less than $5 a day. I was assuming only 2 meals, dollar menu only. And yes, it's basic living standard, what do you call it?
If you went back 100 years, or 200 years, what do you call it? Why is it just because we live in a different time, somehow we're demanding more as "living"? Have humans evolved to a different need?
@spiritualbully There is no way in the world you are going to get 2k calories a day on $5/day at fast food joints eating 2 meals a day. If you went back 100 years, people didn't live in cars and there was only 1 billion people on the earth and most of them were farmers. Living in a car and eating dollar menu items (which aren't even a dollar anymore) is a far lower living standard than people had 100 years ago.
@christo930 Are you suggesting life is better when there's less people? Says who you need 2k calories to survive? I disagree that living in a car today is worse than whatever people had 100 years ago. Especially considering how much easier it is to make the little money necessary to achieve it.
Farmers had to work almost daily, people living in cars do not if they only need $200 a month.
@spiritualbully Water also has no calories or nutrition. The dollar menus aren't a dollar menu anymore, they are the value menu. The dollar double cheeseburger is now $1.29-1.79 depending on the McDonald's. You have no idea what you are talking about and this conversation has reached a point of being ridiculous.
@christo930 water has no calories or nutrition, but you need it to survive, soda has calories but no nutrition. It's still dollar menu where I go, so I'm not sure what city you live in. Yes, I am aware that double cheeseburger is now $1.30 or more, doesn't change the fact there's hamburger for $1. I bet you'll tell me later cheese is fattening (so why not avoid it upfront?)
@christo930 I'm all ears, describe to me how one can achieve the lifestyle 100 years ago. In terms of size of house, working hours, access to medicine and technology, entertainment, reproductive freedom, lifespan, education, community participation.
How many dollars in today's dollars does one need if I only wanted to live the life people had 100 years ago as a typical well to do farmer?
@spiritualbully Your comparing apples and oranges. Fist of all, if you have $5 a day, where does the car come from and how are you putting gas in it? How do you keep warm in the winter in a car with no gas? Where do your clothes come from (the ones that last 5 years)? I understand that a better quality of life is possible now with less money, just not the money you are talking about.
@christo930 Good question, where does the car come from? You'll just have to find a way to buy one. Used ones can be a cheap as $500, especially if they don't run. If they don't run, you don't need to put gas in it, just use it as a sleeping space.
Ok, as long as you agree better quality life is possible now with less money, let's hear you tell me. How much would it cost me today for the same quality life 100 years ago. I'm waiting.
@spiritualbully Rather than go back and forth, what is it that you are trying to prove? Maybe I already with agree with you. Life in the past is often romanticized and I wouldn't want to live in the past, with the possible exception of being my father's generation (he was born in 1935). WW2 was hell on earth for everyone outside of N. America, but it was a boom time that lasted for 30 years in the US.
@christo930 I think we agree more than we disagree. I don't agree that a job is the only way of having a decent standard of living, but I suspect you have a different idea of what counts as "decent standard of living". I consider Amish to be fairly decent, as they at least do not have the "rich people problems" as most of us do.
@spiritualbully I live right outside of the largest Amish community in America and many, many of them work full time, especially as construction workers and selling fresh food. The ones that don't work at a job outside the home work from sun up to sun set. Farming is hard friggin work and those carts cost thousands of dollars. Most of them have alternators because under PA law, they have to have lights.
@spiritualbully Your comment below is marked as spam and I can't reply to it. I don't know what the average is, but I do know that a lot of the non-Amish construction workers hate them because they work harder for less money. I am pretty sure they pay property taxes and lancaster is getting really built up so property is rising in prices. The horse drawn carts average over $10k and most of the families have one. Just a guess, I would imagine their costs of living about 1/2
@christo930 Maybe more, but I doubt less. Lumber costs money, farm equipment, even had operated equipment costs money, looms and sewing machines cost money even if they get their own wool. fireplaces cost money, glass costs money etc. They aren't self sufficient in any sense of the word.
@christo930 I never said they're self sufficient, I was just asking if they manage their standard of living without having to get the jobs Americans seem to claim are necessary. First of all, are they on a "decent" standard?
@spiritualbully Generally speaking, no, they are unable to live without someone in the family working because they have to buy a lot of stuff. The whole thing is kind of stupid anyway because they just draw an arbitrary line in the sand as to what technology they will use. Every single technology they use was cutting edge at one time. I also don't think they represent your living without a job standard either. They have heated horse drawn carts but don't own phones, it's silly.
@christo930 I agree their line of technology is arbitrary, and I only brought them up as an example of people who can live without starving, have acceptable shelter, and really for the most part just lose entertainment. not a standard I want to live, but far from starving in africa.
@spiritualbully I agree that their standard of living is OK, but most families have at least 1 person who works. However, I don't think everyone in the US could live like that, because their would be nobody left to supply their manufactured goods, nor is their enough fertile farmland in the US for everyone to live on un-mechanized farms. Most of the best farmlands in America are paved over.
@christo930 fair enough, which goes back a bit to my point, that the fact our population has increased, has caused life to be harder to sustain on farm only technology and standard. Luckily technology has increase efficiency so that we've been able to get by cheaper, with less work, but if we wanted to live less, we can too.
@spiritualbully Your original point, that someone could live a decent standard of living with $200/month is still not proven, even with an Amish way of life. You can't compare sleeping in a car to a home of 100 years ago, especially in the winter.
@spiritualbully Well, first you would need about at least $500,000 to buy the land. But if you ignore that, figure somewhere around 10-15k a year for a husband and wife. This is assuming all of the capital costs were already met. Most of these Amish inherit the land (and other equipment), but to go there and start today, you would have to buy land ,and land in Lancaster is expensive. You would need to buy some horses, build a home etc.
@spiritualbully keep in mind that this assumes that you already have sheep, cows, looms, foot powered sewing machines, agricultural equipment, horses to plow the fields with and on and on. Their way of life is very difficult and requires a lot of manual labor.
@christo930 i should still ask you again, why does their lifestyle require $10-15k a year? What do they need to buy? Doesn't sound like they're spending it on mortgage, health care, clothing, and especially not food
@christo930 i should still ask you again, why does their lifestyle require $10-15k a year? What do they need to buy? Doesn't sound like they're spending it on mortgage, health care, clothing, and especially not food
@Angryschizoid so its more honest to say you want money and a decent living. not a job. Are Amish living decently? Are they starving? Are they constantly sick and in fear? I'm not saying I like how they live, but the way they live sure beats being dead, sick in hospital or in prison.
@spiritualbully Ok then, lets have no standards, no complaints , no regulations just jobs.
Let us work and get payed only as much as it is needed to work again the next day (reproduce labor).
Lets get back to the conditions of the industrial revolution! That worked well (laboring up to 24 hours a day, child labor , inhumane conditions, average worker life mid 30's, i'm sure you know all bout it), at least the rich folk will be happy!
@Angryschizoid standards mean cost. you can't say you want quality and then quantity too. child labor, inhumane conditions, average worker life 30s, should've taught us something : DON'T HAVE KIDS. but instead, we pushed for "equality" and "pro-life", making every new person demand the same standards. If we had the same population as we did pre-industrial, we can get by fine, but we don't, that's the problem.
@spiritualbully Umm ... no --- it thought us to rise up , unionize and demand to be treated like human beings. The average worker back then and now does not get even a portion of his labor's worth, they will push as to the threshold , the easier the road the worse off we are.
Overpopulation was not a problem then and it's not a problem now, for most industrialized countries, in fact Europe has an unprecedented demographic crisis.
@Angryschizoid it made us demand a different standard of what a human being is. If his labor was worth more, he was free to quit or find something better. You seem to think he's owed a job just because he needs money.
Overpopulation is not a problem? then why is joblessness a problem? Why do people need jobs if they didnt have children to feed?
@spiritualbully This is not entirely true, for human beings are an asset and if certain people were never born, live might be very different that it is today, that is, one that is much more primitive.
@spiritualbully I didn't say more people was better, I said that if certain people were never borne, we might be living the same way we were 500 years ago.
If more people know about the impacts of fossil fuels in our own country, and that renewable energies arn't as expencive as right winged /fossil fuel propaganda has portrayed it, im sure alot more people would be running on renewable energy.
Costs are still a huge issue. Most people aren't comfortable enough economically to invest in renewable energy. It's governments and corporations that need to make the switch first.
It's not that easy... If it WOULD be that easy, the corporations would do it. The problem is, that solar power has high investment costs and increase rents (we've seen that here in Switzerland), wind and geothermic energy are geographically dependent and wind and solar power are not available on demand. All of them are at least double the cost as atomic energy. This is a problem and it has to be solved before it can go mainstream. And not everyone can afford an energy eff. house.
I have solar hot water. There are whole *fortnights* in Sydney winter where it hardly heats a thing. Are we to have cold showers then, because nuclear power is 'frightening' and Amory Lovins apparently implied we don't need reliable baseload power?
It's interesting how the trend in society in almost everything, not just energy is driving towards local distribution. From large computer halls to a laptop in every home. From absolute kingdoms to democracy (well kind of).
I'm not sweating the energy crisis, renewable energy is a no-brainer. The only reason things like solar cells are expensive right now is because we subsidize blowing up mountains and transporting stuff all over the world. Costs will go down and so will the oil industry.
Reminds me of a discussion I had back in high school where I argued that the monetary system is very old, hasn't changed much, has indisputable flaws, and that we can do better. One of my classmates threw around the usual ad hominem's, saying (erroneously) when I get a job I'll value money, and then suggested that without money we'd all have to live like cavemen. Unlike energy I don't know of any alternative to the monetary system, but I think the analogy fits to some extent.
Well, money is a very efficient way to distribute goods in a society. The alternatives are bartering or planned distribution (communism). The problem is that we accept the current shitty system and laws that govern how businesses operate. It it's profitable to kill off an entire forest (and the risk of getting caught/the fine is lower than the profit) they will do it. A sane society would shut such an organization down. I don't know of a single revoked corporate charter in the world
When you claim at 8:35 that the amount of energy to produce a dollar of GDP is decreasing, does this take into account the inflation of the dollar? Because one way the same amount of energy can be worth more money is if the money becomes worth less.
To all the people who think we have no effect on global warming: What happens when you overfill a fishtank and then never clean it? Case Closed. The Earth is a closed system, everyday we pollute it MORE and cut down more and more of its "filters". It's not rocket science, and it's NOT a POLITICAL issue, so please, wake the fuck up! I know some people think the planet is disposable, but us atheists actually believe that the J-man aint comin back, so we'd like to keep it livable!
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Trying to debunk this video on only 2 or 3 of it's dozens of valid arguments without actually providing any evidence that contradicts them & merely offering half-truths, flat out lies & misleading subliminal manipulations is pathetic:
Amory Lovins's theories are easily refuted by anyone who has heard of the William Stanley Jevons and his famous paradox. As efficiency increases consumption increases.
@greenman3610 maybe you wont drive to work twice, but maybe you'll decide you can afford to buy a larger home further out from the city because you can afford a longer commute. you might drive further to see more far away places for more fun vacations. you'll be able to afford to support a larger family and have more kids who will cut down more forest to build more new houses. unless carbon and other environmentally damaging behavior is made more expensive and less affordable.
@greenman3610 LMAO Hey, my car now gets 5 extra miles per gallon! I guess I'll go buy a new house and spend even MORE time every day sitting in traffic! While I'm at it I think I'll pop out a few more kids too....thank god I bought my Hybrid!
@nightmathzombieethan hybrids cost more than regular cars. do the savings in gas $ over the life of the car make up for increased purcase price? if not, it wasn't a free lunch. if so, then what would u do with your increased savings, spend it on locally grown organic vegetables or maybe find a way to send some of it back to the fossil fuel industry. What if we need fully electric cars powered not by gas or coal, but wind, solar, or nuclear. will those cars cost less than hybrids
@jffryh The hybrid part was sarcasm.... Actually my car is over 30 years old, and YES, I realize today's hybrids are a joke. People in Europe have been driving diesels with > 40 MPG for years. Heck, a Honda Civic HF from the early 80's get's better mileage than a Prius... Sadly I agree with you that the only solution is a "system" powered by clean energy sources, unfortunately as long as our political system is partyl owned by oil companies this will never happen. My only hope is biodiesel....
@RaySquirrel Jevons raises an important question, but I say build things as efficient as you can anyway. It makes sense. Why waste double the electricity driving your electric car to work if you can do so on half the electricity with a more efficient model? Why drive *at all* if instead of suburbs we build community friendly, local-agriculture-restoring New Urbanism instead?
What was missing from the jobs graph at the end was the ENERGY in question. Sure a $Billion in Coal, might produce far less jobs than Solar, Wind, or Energy efficiency — but how much steady reliable baseload energy does that BUY you? Zero with wind & solar. That's right. Zero BASELOAD energy. So you say we'll use hydro dams. How much do THEY cost on top of your solar plant? There's a reason solar & wind provide more jobs. They cost more. Labor costs money. Too much money!
We need steady, reliable, abundant clean energy that is LOW in jobs. That's right. Low jobs / gigawatt! Because the high jobs sources of power have LOW OUTPUT! They are weak, and require hundreds and hundreds of wind turbines to equal the SERIOUS muscle of a single nuke. No wonder they provide more jobs! If you add up all the overbuilding and hydro dams and other storage, they're REALLY expensive! James Hansen says believing in renewables is like believing in the tooth fairy.
Great Video and I'm all for more energy efficiency.
But there is less manufacturing in the US and globalization has exported US energy use (and pollution) to developing countries. That's probably the main reason why the US and other developed countries can generate more GDP per unit of energy.
Tornadoes in NY, Category 1 Hurricane, all with in a short period. All I gotta say is that humans are dumb and dangerous specially when they think they are right beyond a reasonable doubt. Thanks to Oil companies propaganda, you have several people running around thinking Global Warming is some sort of big hoax, when little do they know the planet really is getting damaged by all these fumes and chemicals. Oh well, Mother Nature, hope you live on after us human morons ruin you.
These graphs are meaningless since we have outsourced all of our heavy industry. GPD/Energy use have split apart because all of the manufacturing is done somewhere else. If you were to look at gdp growth vs energy use on a global basis, you will find they have a much closer relationship than US numbers would indicate.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
If carbon free economy meant increased profits, it would be done & no govt action would be needed.
J Hansen on Lovins
"Baby Lauren and the Kool-Aid"
his popularity is in part because he says everything people want to hear. He even says there is no need to have a tax on carbon. Thus even fossil fuel companies love him. Fossil fuel companies are happy to support energy efficiency, which places the onus on the public and guarantees fossil fuel dominance far into the future
One thing i thought you should have mentioned was nuclear fusion as an energy source. I know nuclear fission has its drawbacks... but i do agree with it. However, nuclear fusion does not has those wastes. The fuel can be produced form seawater, and has the potential to easily fill our power needs if we are able to successfully use it. Yes we need renewable energies and efficiency, but is fusion energy also not a viable suggestion as well Because renewables are generally intermittent in output
@greenman3610 That statement is just incorrectly put. Nuclear fusion does exist. We have used in in bombs, unfortunately, and we have done it in the lab. The break even point is what is wanted. Fusion power is what we want. If that is what you meant then I apologize. I personally think that ITER NIF HiPER and in the future DEMO would still be good investments. There is also a good experiment at Los Alamos National laboratory that shows potential as well.
@greenman3610 I am all for efficiency and renewable energy. There is no denying that. A smart grid would be amazing. However, the one thing that cannot be avoided is that global energy as a whole has increased, I would have to check if it followed global GDP but I am sure youre figures probably apply to the world and not just the USA. Why I promote nuclear fusion is that it has benefits where it can be built anywhere. Renewable energy has to be specific, or atleast selective.
@greenman3610 Finally, the intermittent nature of many renewables. WInd needs wind constantly, which isn't guaranteed. Solar is very much dependent on sun exposure and is only capable of receiving the energy during the day. Hydro electric I love but there can be drawbacks like the three gorges dam where huge areas were flooded. Biofuel would be good as a fuel source, but as an energy source probably not. I would love to hear your take on this! :) Was the GDP global or just national?
@greenman3610 Yes i do agree with the videos. Smart grid is needed. We would save huge. Along with that wind energy is amazing there is no doubt. The point I wanted to bring up though is The power storage. This is hugely important. However, why we can't do this for some of the power sources we have now? Like nuclear? Store during the low peak hours and therefore you would have 24 hour power generation. Except for times of shut down of course.
the pumped storage plant near me was built specifically with a large nuclear plant in mind, to store the energy during nighttime so that they could run the nuke full tilt even during low demand. That nuke never got built, but now the utility is spending a billion dollars to upgrade the facility, recognizing that it is ideal for renewables.
11% fewer gas stations? What is that supposed to mean? The average gas station has far more pumps then they used to. We are driving ever larger cars and using ever higher amounts of gasoline, which is why our oil usage is up from a decade ago. That part is just idiotic. I agree with conservation and it IS the easiest cheapest thing we can do. But we are a world away from it as far as cars go. SUV sales outnumber electric cars 100 to 1 (in the US).
Have you read the report by Heinberg- "Searching for a Miracle"? I have not yet had a chance to read it but it seems to run counter to the notion's of Lovins. Perhaps the discrepancy will be cleared up when I read both papers.
I disagree that economic growth can be divorced from energy use for any substantial amount of time. The reason GDP has been able to grow independently of energy use over the past few decades is due to the explosion of the financial industry and the increase of debt to keep spending up. Even if moving to energy efficiency did allow further growth that can only go so far. The limits to growth will come eventually. I suggest we acknowledge that sooner rather than later.
Bicycles are the most energy efficient vehicle. Is the US doing anything noteworthy at all to increase cycling? Anything serious that is.
Secondly electric cars simply switch one form of energy to another oil to coal etc..
light rail, velomobiles see go-one etc, bicycles, and walkable design is the answer, not cars, not suburban sprawl. Look at places like The Netherlands for inspiration.
agree about bicycles, but since we are stuck with cars for a while, we need to integrate them, as we build out people friendly communities, mass transit, etc. Netherlands and denmark are good models. For how cars fit into a smart grid renewable society, see
@KrunchyJD Excellent question. For 20 years I have begged, begged, BEGGED - US corporations, US gov't - for electric cars powered by a grid powered by solar and wind. But, it is clear that that will NEVER happen.
So, in January 2011 I began researching electric-assist tricycles. (Due to my disabilities, I cannot balance on a bike anymore.) WHAT an ordeal. There are only a handful of tricycle companies in the USA, and they were ALL USELESS to deal with. First, NONE of their products...
@KrunchyJD ... are made in the USA. Maybe partly assembled. So, I was FORCED to choose something built overseas. I think one company CLAIMED to make them in USA, but that company was HORRIFIC at returning phone calls or emails. EVERY single time I called them was like starting over from the beginning.
I finally placed an order May 12 with a company in CT, yet I STILL have not received my trike as of today, 2011 August 8.
Furthermore, I know I will have to modify the trike anyway...
@KrunchyJD ... to accomodate my disability. (I knew that before I bought it.)
But, then NEXT major obstacle to overcome: there are practically NO SHOULDERS to any of the roads coming out from where I live. I have seen racing bicyclists go by on the main highway in front of my neighborhood, so that gives me hope that cycling CAN be done around here.
But, I have NO plans to cycle "for the exercise" and "for enjoyment". I intend to give my car.
@KrunchyJD The upshot: apparently, it is simply not technologically possible to make cycling the main form of transport for a large population. Apparently, manufacturing cycles and shipping them is a monumentally complex and difficult task on the order of landing on the moon.
I still won't be able to give up my car for awhile even after I get the trike, because it will take time for me to adjust. But, I have to: because peak-oil is past and to slow climate change.
@nahaymath I am hearing you, about cycling infrastructure being crap. It is the same here in Australia. However, I believe that whoever told you that you cannot make cycling the main form of transport in a large population, is quite simply a moron. This is an excuse from a car addicted brain lazy halfwitt. What about Amsterdam?
I also believe you are on the right track with trikes, and believe that you can set an example to people, considering you have a disability and are still (cont)..
@KrunchyJD I was actually going to mention trikes, and more specifically Velomobiles. If you have not already purchased your trike, you could consider a velomobile. They have the advantage of offering weather protection and improved aerodynamics, many models offer electric assist. Eg Velomobiles include Mango, and Go-One, but there are heaps of others.
If you can cycle with a dissability, whats the excuse of the able bodied people, fat & lazy probably.
@KrunchyJD Thanks! I already "test"-drove a reclining trike, as all the velomobiles are recliners. No WAY could I ever use one. I needed to be physically lifted by 2 others into and out of it.
I have 2 artificial knees. My legs can neither flex nor extend fully. So, I will need to put the SHORTEST crank arm possible onto my trike when I get it. Obviously, the trike came in only one side.
Believe: it was agonizing knowing that I'd have to give up fairing (enclosing) for a trike.
@KrunchyJD And, yes - I guess I was being sarcastic regarding whether a large population can replace cars with cycles, although sometimes I get so angry at the population that I don't know myself whether I am being sarcastic or not. I should say, "It's not possible with a mostly STUPID population". Other than that, there is no PHYSICAL reason America cannot do this.
Well, IF my trike comes and IF I can overcome the road, I intend to slap stickers on the trike IMMEDIATELY
@nahaymath ... to the world "Peak oil is past" and "Global warming is serious".
Anyway, thank you for your encouragement!
Even one of my most environmentally conscious family members (also a lifelong vegan for animal rights like me) (I live alone) thinks I am "being silly" for thinking I am going to replace my car with a cycle. He doesn't seem to understand what transitioning to a post-oil world and fighting climate change involve.
Could the Wind Turbines of Chile Harm Blue Whales?
Time By AARON NELSEN
Wind turbines are increasingly recognized as a lethal hazard for birds, but some scientists now think they're also harmful to marine life. From half a mile away, the whooshing turbines emit an acceptable noise level of around 50 decibels; but if some of the Ecopower turbines are placed as close as 10 meters from the shoreline, they say, levels for ocean life could approach if not exceed a more harmful 100 decibels.
RandomVersion 2 weeks ago
greenliving
hamid4222 1 month ago
Are Jimmy Carter's solar panels still on the roof of the White House?
phlevs 1 month ago
@phlevs
no Reagan's first act was to take the down.
google
the road not taken
greenman3610 1 month ago
Isn't water/wave/tidal power more efficient than air?
DukeTwicep 1 month ago
I have an announcement. "Dinosaur poop". That is all.
xIntoThePitx 1 month ago
Peter, I think I generally agree with you, that effeciency increases, thus making the claim that GDP must require energy or fuel consumption is becoming less true. HOWEVER, I think a danger with efficiency is that consumers will not play along, unless there's an incentive for them. If consumers pay the same or more for fuel and living, who cares if their upstream provider is efficient? Efficiency then becomes a code word for "making money faster for less given back".
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully
the incentive is that living costs less if you are more efficient. you have money for other stuff besides survival.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 no Peter, that's the problem, you assume that just because the supplier and producer pays less, consumers will as well.
Not always the case. The internet has made many jobs obsolete, and created many less laborious jobs, but the fact jobs are less laborious, high production with low investment, does not mean consumers will pay less. It can very well mean the producers collect more with less given back to consumers.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully
you'd have to give an example related to energy use.
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 directly related to energy use I cannot give you a good example. But the closest I can give you is this. Amazon Kindle popularized eBooks, or specifically, LEGAL ebooks. Since ebooks decrease overhead, from production to delivery, you'd expect that the fact a book was invested $10,000 less, the delivery costs would drop 90%. But it's not the case. A book that sells for $18 hardcover is still $15 Kindle. So what's in it for me to "go green" if I'm only saving $3?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully In MANY cases e-books are actually more expensive than the paper and ink. Just think about that. No printing costs, no risk of under or over printing the book, just a 1 hour format and web costs which are essentially free since the website is already there. E-books can't be loaned, borrowed or sold to a used book store for store credit to get new books. They are also permanently married to YOUR specific reader Ebooks SUCK.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 Then let's not forget the MOUNTAINS of e-waste created with the book readers as people "upgrade" them. What if your supplier goes out of business and your device fails? Guess what? You won't ever be able to read the books again.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 wow, that is pretty scary. if it's true.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@christo930 that's called EFFICIENCY in profit making, or ripping off customers.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully To quote a sci-fi author who's name I don't remember, "books are going to be like candles, nobody actually needs them, but we still use them and buy them". Eventually, hopefully e-books will come way down and author profits way up. What if a guy like Dean Kuntz decides to publish e-books directly from his website? Authors don't make much on their books, but if they can self publish a virtual item, they can cut the price by 80% and still make more money than they were before.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 author profits are already way up due to eBooks, so unless sales drop, there's no reason they'll drop in price. But printed books will definitely decrease, unless the profit margin is big enough to justify the investment. Yes, publishers FEAR authors who can be independent, this is the same case with models and musicians. Technology will make many people unemployed, if you know how to use it. The question is, will the independent artists pass it on? or make same error?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully I think that is going to take a long, long time. MP3 players really took off in 1998 or so, and most music is still available on CDs. E-books are gaining in popularity, but they are years away from being where mp3 players are now, so I think we will have paper books for quite some time. I also think that increased competition will drive the e-books down as the market gets bigger.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 I agree, I think competition for eBook providers and distributors will increase, and I think ebooks will grow much faster than MP3, because the lesson is already learned and they're not going to make the same mistake again. On top of that, broadband internet and mobile internet has become the norm, so ebook must work faster and hard to stay alive.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully
bottom line.
more and more companies are finding its cheaper to save energy than buy or produce it.
more and more utilities are finding renewables like wind are cheaper than coal, and way cheaper than nuclear, for a variety of reasons. and not due to subsidies.
the US peaked in gasoline use in 2007, and that downward trend is continuing.
the action is mostly at the state, city, and regional level, but it is happening.
google
Wind Power Roars into 2012
follow the links
greenman3610 1 month ago
@greenman3610 That is because of the recession, if we were to truly start growing again, gasoline usage would go back up. Also, what little we stopped using went to China, who's gasoline usage is growing.
christo930 1 month ago
@greenman3610 I don't doubt suppliers and producers are finding ways to save money and reduce waste, that doesn't mean they pass on the savings to consumers. So what's in it for the consumer to support cleaner or frugal suppliers unless they save too?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully how is that a good example? most of a book's cost covers the author's creativity - as it should be, otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harriette could write and sell books.
alinaysa 1 month ago
@alinaysa that's an example of how efficiency didn't pass savings to consumers, it only increased the profits of the author, or publisher. Every Tom, Dick Harry CAN write and sell books, at least they are allowed and able to, but only good ones make money.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@alinaysa actually you're wrong, authors are NOT the primary benefitting party when books are sold, nor are musicians, publishers collect most of it, then its distributors. The only reason it appears authors make a lot , is because authors are one person, and only the famous ones are heard of. But they actually get the smallest share of the pie.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@alinaysa a book's retail cost is NOT to cover author's creativity, but the publisher's investment. Either way, efficiency in publishing has NOT saved consumers much, if anything at all.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@greenman3610 my example was the book "Steve Jobs" by Isaacson. Why would I spend $15 (or $3 less) just to buy a digital copy of a book that I might not be able to share easily? The $3 I save might end up costing me more time and electricity to read over time. Amazon has certainly made it EFFECIENT but hasn't passed the savings down to the consumers, luckily consumers are stupid enough to pay for it.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
This guy is expecting a global peak in demand around 2016? Is he friggin crazy? Chinese people are getting wealthier and are going to want to drive cars just like us and there aver over 1 billion of them. There is no such thing as peak demand, there is no limit in demand.
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930
it's Exxon that expects peak gasoline demand in about 5 years.
The reason they give is that electric vehicles and other options have steadily become more attractive as the price of oil goes up, and commuting becomes more undesirable .
greenman3610 4 months ago
@greenman3610 Electric cars are the next big thing, they were the next big thing in the 1920's and they will be the next big thing in the 2020's. We need a replacement liquid fuel, I think there is a lot of promise in Algae and ammonia, though I think Algae will ultimately be the winner if personal vehicles are going to remain accessible to the masses.
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930
the flaw in your reasoning is that electric vehicles are here now, and algae isn't.
If you think the US should not commit to electric vehicles, fine, China will be happy to sell them to us. The age of electric cars is on us now.
greenman3610 4 months ago 2
@greenman3610 There has always been an electric car or 2 or on the market, at least in certain markets and especially during high oil prices. The real problem is rare earth elements and other materials the batteries are made of as well as energy density. If the entire world's car fleet were made electric, there would only be a couple years of theoretical materials left. Search Earths natural wealth:an audit - I think they discuss all this. It also takes many barrels of oil to build a car.
christo930 4 months ago
@christo930 Let's not forget about trucks (18 wheelers, not pick ups), boats and airplanes. There are some airlines using algae, but right now it's very small. The reality is that our problems are too big for substitution, there is most likely be a large reduction in consumption, fewer vacations, and far less personal mobility, because behind peak oil is peak phosphorus, peak copper and the list goes on and on.
christo930 4 months ago
@greenman3610 I think the US should commit to reducing transportation, so that vehicles are irrelevant.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully I think ending globalization, especially of food, would go a long way in conservation. On average, (for the west in general, much higher in the US) for every 1 calorie of food we produce, it took 10 calories of fossil fuel to grow and deliver to your plate. Cutting meat completely or even in half would go a very long way in helping the energy situation and the environment. We are importing vegetables from fucking Vietnam! How energy inefficient is that? We can grow our own.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 cutting meat will not help if the government continues to subsidize it. we import vegetables from vietnam because Americans would rather be paid minimum wage, and if not, they'd rather sit on their ass and collect food stamps. Americans don't want efficiency, they want jobs and welfare.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully What's wrong with wanting jobs? Welfare isn't the big handout you think it is. Only children can get welfare without being disabled. You must be temporarily disabled (with a doctors report) to collect welfare and it's 102.50 2x a month and 150 in foodstamps (or it was when I was very briefly on it about 10 years ago). I was glad it was there for me, which is why I don't begrudge by fellow man in need. I am much more concerned about $T bailouts.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 wanting jobs without consideration of the big picture is irresponsible. Its more honest to admit you want money, or you want quality living, even if you can do it without a job. I'm not for bailouts either, and I wasn't saying welfare is a big handout.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully In our system, a job is the only way to a decent standard of living.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 is decent standard of living subjective?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully To a degree, absolutely. Most poor Americans live better than kings of past, at least in some ways (air conditioning, heating, sanitation, fresh vegetables year round (because we can fly out of season crops into the area today) etc. However, once basic needs are met, there doesn't seem to be increased happiness with more stuff(diminishing returns). So if we can get everyone's basic needs met, we can have a happy fulfilling life in our society.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 "doesn't seem to be increased happiness with more stuff" so I then I ask you again, why do people work unless they are trying to be happy? To meet "basic needs", such as shelter and food, one can get by with about $200 a month in the US. Are we desiring too much? Or were people in the past not actually living?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Where in the world did you get the idea that people can get by with 200/month in the US? It takes that much just to eat, never mind shelter, clothing, shoes etc..
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 from seeing and knowing people who havent died. I don't know what you eat, but eating fast food is far less than $5 a day. shelter can be a car, and clothing can be reused for 5 years minimum. It's not comfortable, but you'll survive. You'll need to find a shared laundry & shower, that's about it.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully So you think that living in a car and eating fast food (which would cost more than $5 a day, even with the value menu) and showering in public places is a basic living standard?
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 No, it costs less than $5 a day. I was assuming only 2 meals, dollar menu only. And yes, it's basic living standard, what do you call it?
If you went back 100 years, or 200 years, what do you call it? Why is it just because we live in a different time, somehow we're demanding more as "living"? Have humans evolved to a different need?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully There is no way in the world you are going to get 2k calories a day on $5/day at fast food joints eating 2 meals a day. If you went back 100 years, people didn't live in cars and there was only 1 billion people on the earth and most of them were farmers. Living in a car and eating dollar menu items (which aren't even a dollar anymore) is a far lower living standard than people had 100 years ago.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 Are you suggesting life is better when there's less people? Says who you need 2k calories to survive? I disagree that living in a car today is worse than whatever people had 100 years ago. Especially considering how much easier it is to make the little money necessary to achieve it.
Farmers had to work almost daily, people living in cars do not if they only need $200 a month.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@christo930 by the way, water is free, can't help you if you insist on buying fries and soda.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Water also has no calories or nutrition. The dollar menus aren't a dollar menu anymore, they are the value menu. The dollar double cheeseburger is now $1.29-1.79 depending on the McDonald's. You have no idea what you are talking about and this conversation has reached a point of being ridiculous.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 water has no calories or nutrition, but you need it to survive, soda has calories but no nutrition. It's still dollar menu where I go, so I'm not sure what city you live in. Yes, I am aware that double cheeseburger is now $1.30 or more, doesn't change the fact there's hamburger for $1. I bet you'll tell me later cheese is fattening (so why not avoid it upfront?)
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@christo930 I'm all ears, describe to me how one can achieve the lifestyle 100 years ago. In terms of size of house, working hours, access to medicine and technology, entertainment, reproductive freedom, lifespan, education, community participation.
How many dollars in today's dollars does one need if I only wanted to live the life people had 100 years ago as a typical well to do farmer?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Your comparing apples and oranges. Fist of all, if you have $5 a day, where does the car come from and how are you putting gas in it? How do you keep warm in the winter in a car with no gas? Where do your clothes come from (the ones that last 5 years)? I understand that a better quality of life is possible now with less money, just not the money you are talking about.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 Good question, where does the car come from? You'll just have to find a way to buy one. Used ones can be a cheap as $500, especially if they don't run. If they don't run, you don't need to put gas in it, just use it as a sleeping space.
Ok, as long as you agree better quality life is possible now with less money, let's hear you tell me. How much would it cost me today for the same quality life 100 years ago. I'm waiting.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Rather than go back and forth, what is it that you are trying to prove? Maybe I already with agree with you. Life in the past is often romanticized and I wouldn't want to live in the past, with the possible exception of being my father's generation (he was born in 1935). WW2 was hell on earth for everyone outside of N. America, but it was a boom time that lasted for 30 years in the US.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 I think we agree more than we disagree. I don't agree that a job is the only way of having a decent standard of living, but I suspect you have a different idea of what counts as "decent standard of living". I consider Amish to be fairly decent, as they at least do not have the "rich people problems" as most of us do.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully I live right outside of the largest Amish community in America and many, many of them work full time, especially as construction workers and selling fresh food. The ones that don't work at a job outside the home work from sun up to sun set. Farming is hard friggin work and those carts cost thousands of dollars. Most of them have alternators because under PA law, they have to have lights.
christo930 1 month ago
Comment removed
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Your comment below is marked as spam and I can't reply to it. I don't know what the average is, but I do know that a lot of the non-Amish construction workers hate them because they work harder for less money. I am pretty sure they pay property taxes and lancaster is getting really built up so property is rising in prices. The horse drawn carts average over $10k and most of the families have one. Just a guess, I would imagine their costs of living about 1/2
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 Maybe more, but I doubt less. Lumber costs money, farm equipment, even had operated equipment costs money, looms and sewing machines cost money even if they get their own wool. fireplaces cost money, glass costs money etc. They aren't self sufficient in any sense of the word.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 I never said they're self sufficient, I was just asking if they manage their standard of living without having to get the jobs Americans seem to claim are necessary. First of all, are they on a "decent" standard?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Generally speaking, no, they are unable to live without someone in the family working because they have to buy a lot of stuff. The whole thing is kind of stupid anyway because they just draw an arbitrary line in the sand as to what technology they will use. Every single technology they use was cutting edge at one time. I also don't think they represent your living without a job standard either. They have heated horse drawn carts but don't own phones, it's silly.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 I agree their line of technology is arbitrary, and I only brought them up as an example of people who can live without starving, have acceptable shelter, and really for the most part just lose entertainment. not a standard I want to live, but far from starving in africa.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully I agree that their standard of living is OK, but most families have at least 1 person who works. However, I don't think everyone in the US could live like that, because their would be nobody left to supply their manufactured goods, nor is their enough fertile farmland in the US for everyone to live on un-mechanized farms. Most of the best farmlands in America are paved over.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 fair enough, which goes back a bit to my point, that the fact our population has increased, has caused life to be harder to sustain on farm only technology and standard. Luckily technology has increase efficiency so that we've been able to get by cheaper, with less work, but if we wanted to live less, we can too.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Your original point, that someone could live a decent standard of living with $200/month is still not proven, even with an Amish way of life. You can't compare sleeping in a car to a home of 100 years ago, especially in the winter.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 I told you I was willing to be wrong and corrected. So what amount of dollars would it take to live like an Amish? $500? $1000?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Well, first you would need about at least $500,000 to buy the land. But if you ignore that, figure somewhere around 10-15k a year for a husband and wife. This is assuming all of the capital costs were already met. Most of these Amish inherit the land (and other equipment), but to go there and start today, you would have to buy land ,and land in Lancaster is expensive. You would need to buy some horses, build a home etc.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 thanks, yes, I was assuming land was free. Thanks for the estimate.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully keep in mind that this assumes that you already have sheep, cows, looms, foot powered sewing machines, agricultural equipment, horses to plow the fields with and on and on. Their way of life is very difficult and requires a lot of manual labor.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 i should still ask you again, why does their lifestyle require $10-15k a year? What do they need to buy? Doesn't sound like they're spending it on mortgage, health care, clothing, and especially not food
spiritualbully 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930 i should still ask you again, why does their lifestyle require $10-15k a year? What do they need to buy? Doesn't sound like they're spending it on mortgage, health care, clothing, and especially not food
spiritualbully 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930 How much money do they make on average, and what are their living expenses? I'm not trolling, I'm genuinely curious to know.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully And they are right.
The purpose of a job is to afford you a decent existence.
Jobs are useless if they don't accomplish that. What use is a job that pays you 1$ per hour?
Angryschizoid 1 month ago
@Angryschizoid so its more honest to say you want money and a decent living. not a job. Are Amish living decently? Are they starving? Are they constantly sick and in fear? I'm not saying I like how they live, but the way they live sure beats being dead, sick in hospital or in prison.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Ok then, lets have no standards, no complaints , no regulations just jobs.
Let us work and get payed only as much as it is needed to work again the next day (reproduce labor).
Lets get back to the conditions of the industrial revolution! That worked well (laboring up to 24 hours a day, child labor , inhumane conditions, average worker life mid 30's, i'm sure you know all bout it), at least the rich folk will be happy!
Angryschizoid 1 month ago
@Angryschizoid standards mean cost. you can't say you want quality and then quantity too. child labor, inhumane conditions, average worker life 30s, should've taught us something : DON'T HAVE KIDS. but instead, we pushed for "equality" and "pro-life", making every new person demand the same standards. If we had the same population as we did pre-industrial, we can get by fine, but we don't, that's the problem.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully Umm ... no --- it thought us to rise up , unionize and demand to be treated like human beings. The average worker back then and now does not get even a portion of his labor's worth, they will push as to the threshold , the easier the road the worse off we are.
Overpopulation was not a problem then and it's not a problem now, for most industrialized countries, in fact Europe has an unprecedented demographic crisis.
Finland is the oldest country in the world
Angryschizoid 1 month ago
@Angryschizoid it made us demand a different standard of what a human being is. If his labor was worth more, he was free to quit or find something better. You seem to think he's owed a job just because he needs money.
Overpopulation is not a problem? then why is joblessness a problem? Why do people need jobs if they didnt have children to feed?
What is Finland in response to?
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully This is not entirely true, for human beings are an asset and if certain people were never born, live might be very different that it is today, that is, one that is much more primitive.
christo930 1 month ago
@christo930 no, less people does not equal primitive, but more people almost always means higher demand for resources.
spiritualbully 1 month ago
@spiritualbully I didn't say more people was better, I said that if certain people were never borne, we might be living the same way we were 500 years ago.
christo930 1 month ago
Great Video; act now on increasing renewable use!
MarkNobs 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
I'm not quite understanding the chart @12:13 ;
a $billion spent is $billion worth of employment.
you're saying govt spending on efficeincy would stimulate more private sector economic activity relative to govt spending on coal?
maybe
jffryh 5 months ago
@jffryh
government or private, does not matter where the money comes from. a dollar buys more green jobs than fossil jobs.
greenman3610 4 months ago
If more people know about the impacts of fossil fuels in our own country, and that renewable energies arn't as expencive as right winged /fossil fuel propaganda has portrayed it, im sure alot more people would be running on renewable energy.
SereneiBE 5 months ago
@SereneiBE
that's what this series is about. spread them around.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 So far ive sent your videos to about 10-12 people,
hope you don't mind if a couple of them are bad apples who only know how to deni and close their eyes.
SereneiBE 5 months ago
@SereneiBE
thanks so much. It's the deniers who need to see these the most - but normal people can use the information as well.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@SereneiBE
Costs are still a huge issue. Most people aren't comfortable enough economically to invest in renewable energy. It's governments and corporations that need to make the switch first.
HerrKnitler 5 months ago
It's not that easy... If it WOULD be that easy, the corporations would do it. The problem is, that solar power has high investment costs and increase rents (we've seen that here in Switzerland), wind and geothermic energy are geographically dependent and wind and solar power are not available on demand. All of them are at least double the cost as atomic energy. This is a problem and it has to be solved before it can go mainstream. And not everyone can afford an energy eff. house.
LueTm 5 months ago
I have solar hot water. There are whole *fortnights* in Sydney winter where it hardly heats a thing. Are we to have cold showers then, because nuclear power is 'frightening' and Amory Lovins apparently implied we don't need reliable baseload power?
TheEclipsenow 5 months ago
It's interesting how the trend in society in almost everything, not just energy is driving towards local distribution. From large computer halls to a laptop in every home. From absolute kingdoms to democracy (well kind of).
I'm not sweating the energy crisis, renewable energy is a no-brainer. The only reason things like solar cells are expensive right now is because we subsidize blowing up mountains and transporting stuff all over the world. Costs will go down and so will the oil industry.
HerrKnitler 5 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från greenman3610
@HerrKnitler The chinese are currently making the best and cheapest solar cells and it keeps improving in both ways
Sutskoen 5 months ago
Reminds me of a discussion I had back in high school where I argued that the monetary system is very old, hasn't changed much, has indisputable flaws, and that we can do better. One of my classmates threw around the usual ad hominem's, saying (erroneously) when I get a job I'll value money, and then suggested that without money we'd all have to live like cavemen. Unlike energy I don't know of any alternative to the monetary system, but I think the analogy fits to some extent.
dookiecheez 5 months ago
@dookiecheez
Well, money is a very efficient way to distribute goods in a society. The alternatives are bartering or planned distribution (communism). The problem is that we accept the current shitty system and laws that govern how businesses operate. It it's profitable to kill off an entire forest (and the risk of getting caught/the fine is lower than the profit) they will do it. A sane society would shut such an organization down. I don't know of a single revoked corporate charter in the world
HerrKnitler 5 months ago in playlist Fler videoklipp från greenman3610
Do I have your permission to translate your videos?
Alrold 5 months ago
Comment removed
Alrold 5 months ago
When you claim at 8:35 that the amount of energy to produce a dollar of GDP is decreasing, does this take into account the inflation of the dollar? Because one way the same amount of energy can be worth more money is if the money becomes worth less.
rkyeun 5 months ago
@rkyeun Wouldn't that be, if the money is worth more?
dookiecheez 5 months ago
@dookiecheez
No. If it takes more dollars to buy a thing than it used to, each dollar is worth less of a thing.
rkyeun 5 months ago
best quote ever "We didnt leave the stone age because we ran out of stone" :D
SergeiFragov 5 months ago
To all the people who think we have no effect on global warming: What happens when you overfill a fishtank and then never clean it? Case Closed. The Earth is a closed system, everyday we pollute it MORE and cut down more and more of its "filters". It's not rocket science, and it's NOT a POLITICAL issue, so please, wake the fuck up! I know some people think the planet is disposable, but us atheists actually believe that the J-man aint comin back, so we'd like to keep it livable!
nightmathzombieethan 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
My laptop's really loud... MuHAHAHAHAAHAHA
dylanlawless1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Trying to debunk this video on only 2 or 3 of it's dozens of valid arguments without actually providing any evidence that contradicts them & merely offering half-truths, flat out lies & misleading subliminal manipulations is pathetic:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
^lol^
Galv140577 5 months ago
Amory Lovins's theories are easily refuted by anyone who has heard of the William Stanley Jevons and his famous paradox. As efficiency increases consumption increases.
RaySquirrel 5 months ago
@RaySquirrel
right. so if I get a more efficient car - I'll drive to work twice!!
google
In Spite of Gadgets Galore – US Homes Using Less Power
greenman3610 5 months ago 5
@greenman3610 maybe you wont drive to work twice, but maybe you'll decide you can afford to buy a larger home further out from the city because you can afford a longer commute. you might drive further to see more far away places for more fun vacations. you'll be able to afford to support a larger family and have more kids who will cut down more forest to build more new houses. unless carbon and other environmentally damaging behavior is made more expensive and less affordable.
jffryh 5 months ago
@jffryh
well, maybe monkeys might fly out my butt. It's not happening in the real world. see the post I pointed you to.
greenman3610 5 months ago
@greenman3610 LMAO Hey, my car now gets 5 extra miles per gallon! I guess I'll go buy a new house and spend even MORE time every day sitting in traffic! While I'm at it I think I'll pop out a few more kids too....thank god I bought my Hybrid!
nightmathzombieethan 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
@nightmathzombieethan hybrids cost more than regular cars. do the savings in gas $ over the life of the car make up for increased purcase price? if not, it wasn't a free lunch. if so, then what would u do with your increased savings, spend it on locally grown organic vegetables or maybe find a way to send some of it back to the fossil fuel industry. What if we need fully electric cars powered not by gas or coal, but wind, solar, or nuclear. will those cars cost less than hybrids
jffryh 5 months ago
@jffryh The hybrid part was sarcasm.... Actually my car is over 30 years old, and YES, I realize today's hybrids are a joke. People in Europe have been driving diesels with > 40 MPG for years. Heck, a Honda Civic HF from the early 80's get's better mileage than a Prius... Sadly I agree with you that the only solution is a "system" powered by clean energy sources, unfortunately as long as our political system is partyl owned by oil companies this will never happen. My only hope is biodiesel....
nightmathzombieethan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@greenman3610 "monkeys might fly out my butt. It's not happening in the real world."
Is world population not exploding?
Are forests not being wiped out?
Are global fossil carbon emissions really not accelerating?
jffryh 5 months ago
@RaySquirrel Jevons raises an important question, but I say build things as efficient as you can anyway. It makes sense. Why waste double the electricity driving your electric car to work if you can do so on half the electricity with a more efficient model? Why drive *at all* if instead of suburbs we build community friendly, local-agriculture-restoring New Urbanism instead?
TheEclipsenow 5 months ago
What was missing from the jobs graph at the end was the ENERGY in question. Sure a $Billion in Coal, might produce far less jobs than Solar, Wind, or Energy efficiency — but how much steady reliable baseload energy does that BUY you? Zero with wind & solar. That's right. Zero BASELOAD energy. So you say we'll use hydro dams. How much do THEY cost on top of your solar plant? There's a reason solar & wind provide more jobs. They cost more. Labor costs money. Too much money!
TheEclipsenow 5 months ago
We need steady, reliable, abundant clean energy that is LOW in jobs. That's right. Low jobs / gigawatt! Because the high jobs sources of power have LOW OUTPUT! They are weak, and require hundreds and hundreds of wind turbines to equal the SERIOUS muscle of a single nuke. No wonder they provide more jobs! If you add up all the overbuilding and hydro dams and other storage, they're REALLY expensive! James Hansen says believing in renewables is like believing in the tooth fairy.
TheEclipsenow 5 months ago
Great Video and I'm all for more energy efficiency.
But there is less manufacturing in the US and globalization has exported US energy use (and pollution) to developing countries. That's probably the main reason why the US and other developed countries can generate more GDP per unit of energy.
cnxtrans 5 months ago
Tornadoes in NY, Category 1 Hurricane, all with in a short period. All I gotta say is that humans are dumb and dangerous specially when they think they are right beyond a reasonable doubt. Thanks to Oil companies propaganda, you have several people running around thinking Global Warming is some sort of big hoax, when little do they know the planet really is getting damaged by all these fumes and chemicals. Oh well, Mother Nature, hope you live on after us human morons ruin you.
WhatsAfterThisPlace 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
These graphs are meaningless since we have outsourced all of our heavy industry. GPD/Energy use have split apart because all of the manufacturing is done somewhere else. If you were to look at gdp growth vs energy use on a global basis, you will find they have a much closer relationship than US numbers would indicate.
christo930 5 months ago
nice series
Tritium8 5 months ago
"We didn't leave the stone age because we ran out of stones."
Awesome, I love this quote!
Octoschizare 5 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Carbon tax is a disgusting crime against Humanity. CO2 whether man-made or otherwise doesn't drive global climate, it never has, it never will, the Sun does...
The Great Global Warming Swindle [Full Film]
watch?v=T8KgbUvsC_o
Galv140577 6 months ago
@Galv140577
The swindle movie has, of course, become an embarrassment to
all those involved. Perhaps you did not get that memo.
But thanks for bringing the subject of one of my most popular ids:
watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
greenman3610 6 months ago 14
@greenman3610 No it fucking hasn't you lying piece of agenda driven profiteering piece of shit sell out whore
Galv140577 5 months ago
@Galv140577
fool
Iamliberalandproud 5 months ago
@Galv140577 Right wing morons are a crime against nature. Your point?
graefaxe 5 months ago
Awsome vid!!
Does anyone know what the music playing in the video?
Willaras 6 months ago
Never understood people that dont like solar water heaters. I grew up using one and the water that came out of the tap was scalding hot.
Doazic 6 months ago
If carbon free economy meant increased profits, it would be done & no govt action would be needed.
J Hansen on Lovins
"Baby Lauren and the Kool-Aid"
his popularity is in part because he says everything people want to hear. He even says there is no need to have a tax on carbon. Thus even fossil fuel companies love him. Fossil fuel companies are happy to support energy efficiency, which places the onus on the public and guarantees fossil fuel dominance far into the future
jffryh 6 months ago
@jffryh
one little morsel to think about... as far as carbon, jobs, and the government
not meaning to sound like a complete conspiracy theorist, but do you know who the biggest political contributors to BOTH SIDES are, here in the USA?
OIL...
so, what do you think the chances are of the ID10Ts in the government being on the "right track" as far as reducing oil dependency?
remember THESE are the same guys who OKd subprime mortgages
or are we chasing wild geese here?
yeah.... me too....
whodathunkit1960 6 months ago
@whodathunkit1960
So, idiots in the government are dependent on $ contributions from oil/coal/gas carbon fossil fuel industry.
so there is no hope.
we should just give up and accept the fact that all life is about to come to an end shortly.
all we can do is just try to enjoy the little amount of time we have left until time runs out.
probably.
but i'm not quite just ready to give up all hope just yet.
I just wish i had connections to people with influence.
help me make some noise.
jffryh 5 months ago in playlist More videos from greenman3610
One thing i thought you should have mentioned was nuclear fusion as an energy source. I know nuclear fission has its drawbacks... but i do agree with it. However, nuclear fusion does not has those wastes. The fuel can be produced form seawater, and has the potential to easily fill our power needs if we are able to successfully use it. Yes we need renewable energies and efficiency, but is fusion energy also not a viable suggestion as well Because renewables are generally intermittent in output
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough
nuclear fusion does not exist. It's been 30 years away for 40 years.
might as well recommend di-lithium crystals.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 That statement is just incorrectly put. Nuclear fusion does exist. We have used in in bombs, unfortunately, and we have done it in the lab. The break even point is what is wanted. Fusion power is what we want. If that is what you meant then I apologize. I personally think that ITER NIF HiPER and in the future DEMO would still be good investments. There is also a good experiment at Los Alamos National laboratory that shows potential as well.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@greenman3610 I am all for efficiency and renewable energy. There is no denying that. A smart grid would be amazing. However, the one thing that cannot be avoided is that global energy as a whole has increased, I would have to check if it followed global GDP but I am sure youre figures probably apply to the world and not just the USA. Why I promote nuclear fusion is that it has benefits where it can be built anywhere. Renewable energy has to be specific, or atleast selective.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough
the figures are from the US Gov, for the USA -- Energy Information Agency.
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Finally, the intermittent nature of many renewables. WInd needs wind constantly, which isn't guaranteed. Solar is very much dependent on sun exposure and is only capable of receiving the energy during the day. Hydro electric I love but there can be drawbacks like the three gorges dam where huge areas were flooded. Biofuel would be good as a fuel source, but as an energy source probably not. I would love to hear your take on this! :) Was the GDP global or just national?
Thank you
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough
my solutions videos address the "intermittent" canard, especially the second and third ones here:
watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs
watch?v=WO3V2uXTM6k
greenman3610 6 months ago
@greenman3610 Yes i do agree with the videos. Smart grid is needed. We would save huge. Along with that wind energy is amazing there is no doubt. The point I wanted to bring up though is The power storage. This is hugely important. However, why we can't do this for some of the power sources we have now? Like nuclear? Store during the low peak hours and therefore you would have 24 hour power generation. Except for times of shut down of course.
braedencowbrough 6 months ago
@braedencowbrough
the pumped storage plant near me was built specifically with a large nuclear plant in mind, to store the energy during nighttime so that they could run the nuke full tilt even during low demand. That nuke never got built, but now the utility is spending a billion dollars to upgrade the facility, recognizing that it is ideal for renewables.
greenman3610 6 months ago
11% fewer gas stations? What is that supposed to mean? The average gas station has far more pumps then they used to. We are driving ever larger cars and using ever higher amounts of gasoline, which is why our oil usage is up from a decade ago. That part is just idiotic. I agree with conservation and it IS the easiest cheapest thing we can do. But we are a world away from it as far as cars go. SUV sales outnumber electric cars 100 to 1 (in the US).
christo930 6 months ago
Have you read the report by Heinberg- "Searching for a Miracle"? I have not yet had a chance to read it but it seems to run counter to the notion's of Lovins. Perhaps the discrepancy will be cleared up when I read both papers.
Maxdwolf 6 months ago
Is the footage of the atomic explosion real, or CG?
Reggis420 6 months ago
I disagree that economic growth can be divorced from energy use for any substantial amount of time. The reason GDP has been able to grow independently of energy use over the past few decades is due to the explosion of the financial industry and the increase of debt to keep spending up. Even if moving to energy efficiency did allow further growth that can only go so far. The limits to growth will come eventually. I suggest we acknowledge that sooner rather than later.
oggleman 6 months ago
Bicycles are the most energy efficient vehicle. Is the US doing anything noteworthy at all to increase cycling? Anything serious that is.
Secondly electric cars simply switch one form of energy to another oil to coal etc..
light rail, velomobiles see go-one etc, bicycles, and walkable design is the answer, not cars, not suburban sprawl. Look at places like The Netherlands for inspiration.
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD
agree about bicycles, but since we are stuck with cars for a while, we need to integrate them, as we build out people friendly communities, mass transit, etc. Netherlands and denmark are good models. For how cars fit into a smart grid renewable society, see
watch?v=pSdnycHfLnQ
greenman3610 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD Excellent question. For 20 years I have begged, begged, BEGGED - US corporations, US gov't - for electric cars powered by a grid powered by solar and wind. But, it is clear that that will NEVER happen.
So, in January 2011 I began researching electric-assist tricycles. (Due to my disabilities, I cannot balance on a bike anymore.) WHAT an ordeal. There are only a handful of tricycle companies in the USA, and they were ALL USELESS to deal with. First, NONE of their products...
nahaymath 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD ... are made in the USA. Maybe partly assembled. So, I was FORCED to choose something built overseas. I think one company CLAIMED to make them in USA, but that company was HORRIFIC at returning phone calls or emails. EVERY single time I called them was like starting over from the beginning.
I finally placed an order May 12 with a company in CT, yet I STILL have not received my trike as of today, 2011 August 8.
Furthermore, I know I will have to modify the trike anyway...
nahaymath 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD ... to accomodate my disability. (I knew that before I bought it.)
But, then NEXT major obstacle to overcome: there are practically NO SHOULDERS to any of the roads coming out from where I live. I have seen racing bicyclists go by on the main highway in front of my neighborhood, so that gives me hope that cycling CAN be done around here.
But, I have NO plans to cycle "for the exercise" and "for enjoyment". I intend to give my car.
I intend my trike to be my new car.
nahaymath 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD The upshot: apparently, it is simply not technologically possible to make cycling the main form of transport for a large population. Apparently, manufacturing cycles and shipping them is a monumentally complex and difficult task on the order of landing on the moon.
I still won't be able to give up my car for awhile even after I get the trike, because it will take time for me to adjust. But, I have to: because peak-oil is past and to slow climate change.
And because...
nahaymath 6 months ago
@nahaymath ... electricity can at least always be produced by solar and wind. My home electricity is Veridian electric, 100% solar and wind.
nahaymath 6 months ago
@nahaymath I am hearing you, about cycling infrastructure being crap. It is the same here in Australia. However, I believe that whoever told you that you cannot make cycling the main form of transport in a large population, is quite simply a moron. This is an excuse from a car addicted brain lazy halfwitt. What about Amsterdam?
I also believe you are on the right track with trikes, and believe that you can set an example to people, considering you have a disability and are still (cont)..
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD I was actually going to mention trikes, and more specifically Velomobiles. If you have not already purchased your trike, you could consider a velomobile. They have the advantage of offering weather protection and improved aerodynamics, many models offer electric assist. Eg Velomobiles include Mango, and Go-One, but there are heaps of others.
If you can cycle with a dissability, whats the excuse of the able bodied people, fat & lazy probably.
You are an inspiration to people !
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD Thanks! I already "test"-drove a reclining trike, as all the velomobiles are recliners. No WAY could I ever use one. I needed to be physically lifted by 2 others into and out of it.
I have 2 artificial knees. My legs can neither flex nor extend fully. So, I will need to put the SHORTEST crank arm possible onto my trike when I get it. Obviously, the trike came in only one side.
Believe: it was agonizing knowing that I'd have to give up fairing (enclosing) for a trike.
nahaymath 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD And, yes - I guess I was being sarcastic regarding whether a large population can replace cars with cycles, although sometimes I get so angry at the population that I don't know myself whether I am being sarcastic or not. I should say, "It's not possible with a mostly STUPID population". Other than that, there is no PHYSICAL reason America cannot do this.
Well, IF my trike comes and IF I can overcome the road, I intend to slap stickers on the trike IMMEDIATELY
to announce...
nahaymath 6 months ago
@nahaymath ... to the world "Peak oil is past" and "Global warming is serious".
Anyway, thank you for your encouragement!
Even one of my most environmentally conscious family members (also a lifelong vegan for animal rights like me) (I live alone) thinks I am "being silly" for thinking I am going to replace my car with a cycle. He doesn't seem to understand what transitioning to a post-oil world and fighting climate change involve.
nahaymath 6 months ago
@KrunchyJD Hey, are not my two feet are pretty efficient, too? Especially with a .7 mile walk to work. :D
TheMidwestAtheist 6 months ago
@TheMidwestAtheist Yes :)
Suprisingly though, a bicycle is the only type of vehicle more efficient then walking. Walking is still very energy efficient though...
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
The Dutch, and the Danes use bicycles as transport a lot, and also are very happy.
KrunchyJD 6 months ago
Greenman, this is truly excellent. Looking forward to Part 2. More, looking forward to stuff like this being shown on TV...
DudeThinking 6 months ago
Comment removed
mrothk01 6 months ago