Scientist Roy Spencer is wrong: fossil fuels are expensive

May 1, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Guardian

Screengrab of Dr. Roy Spencer, who told Catholic Online that solar and wind power are too expensive.

Comments
1 - 11 of 11 Comments Last updated May 2, 2013
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Roy is a silly boy.
Climate isn't a toy.
He must be sorry now
Eating much oily soy.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Green energy is too inefficient and expensive. People use fossil fuel because they are cheap and easily available. Go look at the number of hydrogen and electric vehicles delivering goods to the loading dock of your local store. There aren't any.
Kyle

Cromwell, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Brian_G wrote:
Green energy is too inefficient and expensive. People use fossil fuel because they are cheap and easily available. Go look at the number of hydrogen and electric vehicles delivering goods to the loading dock of your local store. There aren't any.
Yo, Lyin' Brian! Why do you merely repeat the fallacy without addressing the rebuttal?

That was rhetorical; because you're dishonest denier scum, of course.

But here's your chance - Why should the external costs of fossil fuels not be paid by those that consume them? If the external costs are paid globally, how do you propose that the tragedy of the commons be avoided?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
May 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Brian_G wrote:
Green energy is too inefficient and expensive. People use fossil fuel because they are cheap and easily available.
Were, moron. WERE.

Oil and gas declining fast.

Oil and gas are the main sources of energy in the United States. Part of their appeal was the high Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) when procuring them. We assessed data from the United States Bureau of the Census of Mineral Industries, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Oil and Gas Journal for the years 1919–2007 and from oil analyst Jean Laherrere to derive EROI for both finding and producing oil and gas. We found two general patterns in the relation of energy gains compared to energy costs: a gradual secular decrease in EROI and an inverse relation to drilling effort. EROI for finding oil and gas decreased exponentially from 1200:1 in 1919 to 5:1 in 2007. The EROI for production of the oil and gas industry was about 20:1 from 1919 to 1972, declined to about 8:1 in 1982 when peak drilling occurred, recovered to about 17:1 from 1986–2002 and declined sharply to about 11:1 in the mid to late 2000s. The slowly declining secular trend has been partly masked by changing effort: the lower the intensity of drilling, the higher the EROI compared to the secular trend. Fuel consumption within the oil and gas industry grew continuously from 1919 through the early 1980s, declined in the mid-1990s, and has increased recently, not surprisingly linked to the increased cost of finding and extracting oil.

Wind power better than oil and improving rapidly.

" We examine 119 wind turbines from 50 different analyses, ranging in publication date from 1977 to 2007. Our survey shows an average EROI for all studies (operational and conceptual) of 25.2 (n = 114; std. dev = 22.3). The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n = 60; std. dev = 13.7). This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI."
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fortunately here in Florida a new town with over 15,000 homes is going to be breaking ground, after a 7 year fight with the oily republicans, it will be completely solar dependent. First in the nation. Voters here have decided that toxic fuels to be to expensive. Savings in our health alone will pay for the system. Others around the world are coming to the same conclusion. Here is Mega example of how the pioneers of our energy futures, envision its time to send our Toxic Fueled Energy into the dusty bins of our humanities archives‘.
DESERTEC
Arab, African American deserts can very well be the new glut for energy source. Consider that with a mere 35,000 square miles of barren desert, it can provide the entire planet with its energy requirements.
Presently such an adventure is being studied to do just that. Europe is pushing for a Desertec plan to embrace solar thermal collectors in North Africa and Southern Europe. Heated water to provide the energy to the dynamos to feed their nations. Goal at present is to achieve 15 to 20 percent of Europe’s electrical needs by mid century.
Logistical barriers, from the deserts to the cooler Northern regions, are being addressed by Franz Trieb, German engineer who is responsible for the initial studies on Desertec.
One strategy he proposes is to gather solar and wind as well as thermal energies into a large storage tanks of molten salt.
[ Giant Capacitors!] to be tapped into as demand requires 24/7.
Control on distribution is regulated by a central command system.
Representatives of the Moroccan and Egyptian government have publicly expressed support for Desertec.
Solar Thermal Collectors are more efficient than solar panels. Infrastructures required to logistically serve Northern Europe, would require subsides to make them competitive to oil and coal. Considering that governments around the world contribute $312 billion in subsides to fossil fuel industries and only $57 billion to renewable, is an area of corporatist political biases. One that calls for a solution. To suggest or imply that we need to prioritize our wealth investments into a depreciating, limited, polluting cost systems is beyond reason. With complete non polluting renewable system at the ready for deployment. Increase in productivity of employment and an added benefit in reducing negative health issues through out the world and all species.
Deployment of the magnitude will take years as we transfer our energy base and the required technologies upgrades to our present infrastructure to increase efficiency in use of all energies and communicational information.
Joseph Romm, a physicist at the Center For American Progress, emphasizes the vast out lay and importance of the infrastructure. Solar Thermal Plants of the magnitude of 500 megawatts are presently under construction in Quarzazate, Morocco. As these plants come to maturity additional plants will go under constructions in various barren desert regions of the world. Infrastructure to address the distributions will be of a paramount quest for our present undertaking.
The GREEN Is Bursting Out!!
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Green energy is too inefficient and expensive. People use fossil fuel because they are cheap and easily available. Go look at the number of hydrogen and electric vehicles delivering goods to the loading dock of your local store. There aren't any.
Brian is as usual completely out of touch. There are municipalities that have converted their vehicles for deliveries to electric and or methane. The golf cart is evolving. Presently here in the USA hydrogen is too expensive. Odd that the auto companies have on their drawing boards Hydrogen vehicles. Hmmm maybe the got wind of the new research that will soon be able to produce Hydrogen efficiently enough for Hydrogen Cell Vehicles. Perhaps Brian should take a trip to Iceland where they use their thermal energies to produce Hydrogen for their vehicles. Including delivery vehicles. Amazing that we have but scratched the surface on the R&D of Alternative Energy and the new innovations are accelerating faster than our manufacturers can keep pace with them. Many of those that have gone bankrupt is due to this rapid acceleration, that makes their products inferior to what the markets have evolved to. Hmm similar to how the computer evolved from the tube on to the transistors and then micro chips that we are presently enjoying. LOL even this is now going to be evolving for even greater efficiencies. Nano coupled with quantum systems will produce super computers for the average manufacturers to afford. Imagine what the evolution of our primitive Green Energy Gardens of today will be like. Our children will enjoy total instant independent energy directly from the sun. Sure beats waiting for Mother Nature to make a new supply of Toxic Fuel for us via the sun.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Kyle wrote:
Yo, Lyin' Brian! Why do you merely repeat the fallacy without addressing the rebuttal?
Kyle's 'rebuttals' amount to little more than name calling.

.
Kyle wrote:
That was rhetorical; because you're dishonest denier scum, of course.
See?

.
Kyle wrote:
But here's your chance - Why should the external costs of fossil fuels not be paid by those that consume them? If the external costs are paid globally, how do you propose that the tragedy of the commons be avoided?
The external costs of fossil fuels are being paid by everyone who consumes, produces, transports, stores and markets them; their called taxes. There is no "the tragedy of the commons" when it comes to our atmosphere, nothing on Earth is larger except the Earth itself. There is no limit to the amount of CO2 we can put in or take out of the atmosphere, except individual initiative and ability.

You are welcome to emit as much CO2 into the air as you like, or to use as much to feed your plants; that's your business and nobody else's.

Beside's, there's no experimental evidence our CO2 emissions are harmful.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Kyle's 'rebuttals' amount to little more than name calling.
.
<quoted text>See?
.
<quoted text>The external costs of fossil fuels are being paid by everyone who consumes, produces, transports, stores and markets them; their called taxes. There is no "the tragedy of the commons" when it comes to our atmosphere, nothing on Earth is larger except the Earth itself. There is no limit to the amount of CO2 we can put in or take out of the atmosphere, except individual initiative and ability.
You are welcome to emit as much CO2 into the air as you like, or to use as much to feed your plants; that's your business and nobody else's.
Beside's, there's no experimental evidence our CO2 emissions are harmful.
Brian is concerned with Kyle’s name calling as we are with Brian’s paradoxical comments.
One example: Here explains to us there is Earth that we all live on and its nobody’s business how much the Brian's of the earth want to pollute it.! LOL that would be like being on an expedition to Mars aboard a vehicle and Brian says to the others, its of no concern as to how I use our resources. Not a good ideology to express. Next time Brian steps outside the vehicle for a space walk…. Well … now that’s a deep subject.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

who="Brian_G"]<qu oted text>Kyle's 'rebuttals' amount to little more than name calling.
.
<quoted text>See?
.
<quoted text>Beside's, there's no experimental evidence our CO2 emissions are harmful.
Brian lacks the ability to try simple experiments.
Brian states {Beside's, there's no experimental evidence our CO2 emissions are harmful.}
Now Brian I have a very simple experiment for you. Step inside an air tight small cubical say 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet height. Bring one Tomato plant in with you and all the food/ water you desire. Shut door and do not open for 100 hours and then come back and give us your observations on CO2 accumulation and its absorption to the tomato plant. Would be interested in your results, as I’m about to go out and plant a tomato plant.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

CO2 isn't pollution; it's vital to life. We're not living on a vehicle traveling to Mars, we've got a whole planet to add and remove as much CO2 from te air air as we please.

Please post the most compelling climate change mitigation you've found.
Bernard Forand

Fort Myers, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
CO2 isn't pollution; it's vital to life. We're not living on a vehicle traveling to Mars, we've got a whole planet to add and remove as much CO2 from te air air as we please.
Please post the most compelling climate change mitigation you've found.
Waste not want not;
Vehicle to Mars is just condensing and illuminates your nonsense. Here on earth we are on this space ship and we are just going round and round.
Once again you want others to do your homework. It would be easier for you to cite an example that we are not in a warming trend. Once again a reliable source not tabloids.
Hey how is that simple experiment I gave you to try?
CO2 distribution may or may not be pertinent source as early earth had greater amounts of CO2 and was in an ice age! What does concern me on this issue is Free Oxygen relatively new to our atmosphere. Conversion of Oxygen into various molecules, including CO2, is dissipating Oxygen levels. Replenishment factors are being subdued as say CO2 is increased through the various life forms. Would not want to go into debt.
Well have strayed off on this ranting. Its just some thoughts I have while I enjoy my cigar??

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Blog News Forum right now

Search the Blog News Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Amrita Rao plans to write a fashion blog 9 hr aakanksha 2
Alison Sweeney Blogs: Jillian Michaels Is Tough... (Jan '13) Tue amw 41
i need help Tue Anonymous blogger 1
Roxanne Cabanero in nude photo scandal out of p... (Mar '11) Tue Angel of Joy 21
Tyrone Delgado on trial/In search of truth (Jun '08) Jul 21 Dobie 30
Barbara Simpson, conserv. Radio Talker Fired fr... Jul 20 colsteve 8
.com | Ethiopian bloggers challenge detention Jul 18 Zambezi 1
•••
•••