Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

Except, the various studies showing jobs created by green energy, when examined more closely, prove to employ fewer people that are displaced from other energy sectors.

Now, what do you mean by subsidy?

The reserves of fossil fuel are the greatest they have ever been. We not only have new and very substantial resources discovered deep in the Mexican Gulf but also vast new resources in Iraq (or Iran?).
Then we have enormous reserves of "tight" gas coming on stream and there are the shale oil crudes - China has now discovered large reserves of Shale oil.

The price of fossil fuel is determined not by what it costs to produce but by how much is produced relative to demand.
Petrol is heavily taxed.
So we have fossil fuel prices being inflated by restricted production and high taxation.

So when you say some countries are subsidising their fuel costs, if you are talking about producers (and because it has bought up a lot of production that includes China) what they are really doing is selling the fuel domestically (or in Hugo Chavez case, for political reasons, t selected clients) at less than the market price. They are not selling the fuel at less than the cost of the fuel.

On the other hand, wind energy costs more to produce than it is sold for and that is a true subsidy. So when China shows a net profit on fuel compared to a net loss by others, who are the winners?

Given the vast fuel resources that China has both domestically and abroad through purchase (as well as tying up much of the refinery production of residual fuels) and given their industrial expansion, do you expect them to convert to solar power and wind energy? SO how effective is it for unilateral legislation to (a) impact on CO2 emissions and (b) sustain a competitive market economy?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

"Except, the various studies showing jobs created by green energy, when examined more closely, prove to employ fewer people that are displaced from other energy sectors."

If that was true, then Germany would have a much higher unemployment rate than 9.1%. The US is now at 9.7%.

 

[jmw]

This is embarrassing.

How can you relate the economic health and unemployment exclusively and specifically to renewable energy? Do not both have some relationship to other factors? Has there not been a recession/depression which has affected different countries in different ways?

Unemployment at 9.1% in Germany.... yes, what about it?
Are you saying that the employment statistics in Germany, or the US for that matter are exclusively affected by renewable energy?
Or do you suppose (think about it) there may be other factors involved as well?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[josephv]

The unemployment rate in the US is at 9.7%, and Germany's is at 9.1%. Of course there are many factors for this. Perhaps the fact that Germany is not as dependent on oil, helped their economy survive the record breaking oil prices we experienced the last few years. But to say that a transition to renewable energy results in job losses is quite false. There will be a shift in jobs during a transition to renewable energy. Just like we shifted from COBAL and mainframes to Personal Computers and C++. There were many COBAL programmers without jobs for while, but that changed. It's a fact of life.

 

[jmw]

Most of the studies I can find that proclaim greater employment in renewable energy are possibly self serving.
One major report by Juan Carlos University that says for every job in the renewables sector 2.2 are lost in the general sector has been roundly attacked.

So, until I can again discover the reports that said to be cautious about accepting net job creation claims I shall concede the potential.

The supposition that Germany's economy is thriving because it is less dependent on oil doesn't stand up. If everything we hear is that low cost fuels are being discontinued in favour of high cost fuels then it can't be cheaper, can it.
For example, the cheapest of the fuels is coal. Germany has substantial brown coal reserves.
Power was also generated using Bunker C fuel and Gas, the three cheapest fuels.... so how can shifting to more expensive fuels equate to a better economy?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

JMW: you say a few things that need challenging.

First: acid gas emissions are actually pretty good proof that if we choose to do something, we can manage to actually do it, and to produce good results.

Acid rain emissions are not over-hyped if you live in Canada. We had tens of thousands of northern lakes which were very nearly sterilized by acid rains and the associated leaching of phytotoxic metals into them. pH lower than 4. Ghostly and beautiful- clear to the bottom- and dead as a doornail. Numerous lakes and associated species are coming back now, albeit slowly, and some only with help.

Your argument about the world’s emissions not being affected by this legislation is a straw man. Had we chosen to do nothing about acid rain emissions from a legislative perspective, acid emissions WOULD have SOARED worldwide. The efforts of the 1st world in this regard may have been counteracted somewhat by the lack of efforts in the developing world, but that is FAR from being an argument against action in the 1st world. Without action in the 1st world on issues like this, action in the developing world is entirely impossible.

Dealing with acid rain emissions did not destroy our economies. Coal is STILL the cheapest fuel, even with scrubbers on the plants. And despite the acid plants on the smelters, they’re still in operation- and people are still burning Claus sulphur to make sulphuric acid and energy.

As to the argument about whether or not investment in renewables is good for or bad for the economy, it depends on how you define “the economy”, doesn’t it?

How is exporting VAST quantities of a nation’s treasure to regions of the world who have done absolutely nothing more than winning the geological lottery, good for a 1st world nation’s economy? Let’s not mention the staggering, unstated costs in military terms to keep that cheap oil flowing! Or the externalities- the costs of the toxic emissions from burning these fuels, whether or not you consider AGW to be one of these?!

Investing in energy efficiency (the 1st priority) and alternative fuels/energy sources (the 2nd priority) is worth it- in economic terms. Concerned that nations who do not do these things will end up taking all the manufacturing work? No problem- tarrif the goods they produce to put them on an even footing. They’ll still win due to labour cost differential- the race to the bottom will continue regardless. But paying all that money for energy we end up wasting is to nobody’s benefit EXCEPT those lucky enough to be sitting on top of the oil reserves.

 

[cranky108]

Why are you trying to compare solar power with oil anyway? The two in most applications are not interchangable. Solar power cars, or oil fired power plants????

Exactly how many solar powered cars, buses, trains, or boats are there anyway?
And how many oil fired electric power plants are there?

The answers are simple. Solar dosen't work very well for transportation energy. And oil is to expencive to use for electric power plants, except as a back up fuel.

It's just dumb that you compare oil and solar.

As a matter of fact, coal is much cheeper than solar for electric power generation, even with the solar substidies. That is the reason the greenies want to tax carbon, so they can compete. Not some made up climate change.

About the only thing solar is competitive enough with is natural gas for heating water. But you still need natural gas as a backup.

 

[josephv]

Thomas J. Watson former president of IBM once said,

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."

And he was a very smart guy. What we are seeing with solar and other forms of renewable energy is just the beginning of something great.

 

[jmw]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6715515.ece

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

In all respects Thomas J. Watson was wrong. This can be proven in the fact that presently more than five super computers working on global warming models.

You may be right about renewables, eventually. But as of right now they don't work very well, and are expencive.

Solar works well for space craft because of the huge lifting cost. But on earth transportation costs are much cheeper. (I never said all solar is bad).

Facts are that even wind power is cheeper than solar, but you won't soon see a wind powered car, or the return of wind powered ships (except pleasure crafts).

The best chance solar has is if we start burning trees in power plants (It is being consitered as a fractional fuel in several plants).

 

[SnTMan]

Well, as solar and wind generation increase there are bound to be more good, green jobs polishing blades and panels

Regards,

Mike

 

[owg]

Cranky108 asked:
And how many oil fired electric power plants are there?

I found a 2007 survey of 156 of them. There are lots of reasons to burn oil in a power plant. A common reason is being next door to a refinery which has nowhere to ship its residual oil. Another reason is when the local authority tells you to stop burning coal. Right now the US is sucking up all the heavy oil to fix the roads (infrastructure) so a few power plants will be cutting back on oil due to the price.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[josephv]

Many moons ago, there were many newspaper articles telling us that personal computers would cause job losses. After all, what will happen to all those workers using typewriters, and slide rulers! When CAD came along, many people who used a drafting board were replaced. Fortunately, many drafters learned CAD.

Yes, new technologies are disruptive. A shift to renewable energy will cause job losses in some sectors. However, just like in the past these losses will not be permanent. People transition and learn new skills, get new jobs and many times better jobs. This is not the first time and will not be the last time that a shift occurs in history.

When a public company is privatized many people lose their jobs, nobody really cries for them. They simply move on with their careers. How is this any different?

 

[Laplacian]

josephv,

You are basically missing the point of many posts above. The only thing technology does is increase the rate at which humans consume energy; either through increased mortality, increased population, increased productivity, or increased leisure activities. Simply saying technology is the solution is like a drug addict saying just one more hit.

A countries resolve to do the right thing is only as effective as the least moral segment of that respective society. Technology increases selfishness due to a primal survival behaviour to consume. When survival is not a top priority, materialism takes its place.

 

[owg]

Previous new technologies were trying to make things better and usually did. From now on our new technologies are needed to just break even or slow the decline. This is because we are running out of resources, or as Moltenmetal points out, running out of space to dump stuff, especially carbon dioxide. So I don't agree with the onward and upward theme.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[GregLocock]

"The unemployment rate in the US is at 9.7%, and Germany's is at 9.1%. Of course there are many factors for this. Perhaps the fact that Germany is not as dependent on oil, helped their economy survive the record breaking oil prices we experienced the last few years. But to say that a transition to renewable energy results in job losses is quite false."

Australia's is 5.6%, therefore 'proving' that Germany and USA should knock all windturbines down, get rid of reactors, and burn more brown coal and oil.

Great logic.



Cheers

Greg Locock

SIGlease see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[cranky108]

So global warming is actually anti-technology?

Just how many of the anti-technilogy people do with computers, or wash there clothes on rocks?

If you look at the benifits and resource savings of technology. Example, like us the romans had flush tolets, but since we use water valves, we use much less water per capta.
We like the romans cook our food, but we use much less energy to cook it.

So I believe technology is the answer to limited resources.

Any anti-technology people not using a computer may respond.

 

[Laplacian]

My technology issue is that it facilitates escalating resource consumption by allowing the population to rise above natural equilibrium. The further over the balance point it gets, the greater the consequence for any small inturruption in services.

I'm not anti-technology, but I am against using it as the "solution" to all the world's woes. Technology will not be the answer; but the answer will be self revealing in the very near future.

 

[cranky108]

If you look at birth rates, and death rates the world over, the most technological countries have the lowest birth rates. Even to the point of concern to countries like Russia which I believe has a negitive growth rate.

If fact the only reason the US population rate is going up is the number of immigrents.

And with technologys lowering of growth rates, and better health, we also have a higher death rate due to technology (car accidents, ect.).

And truthfully technology hasen't displaced people from the work place. It's actually increased the need for workers. Which is why there are so many immigrents here.

But please don't make statments about the recent down turn. If the goverment allows it, it will get better.

 

[btrueblood]

"My technology issue is that it facilitates escalating resource consumption by allowing the population to rise above natural equilibrium."

Erm. Ok. But natural equilibrium for us hairless apes with blunt teeth and no claws is a very small number. I'll keep my technology, thankyouverymuch.