http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/apr...ssil-fuels

Mankind always will do whatever makes economic sense. If oil remains the cheapest form of energy, we'll stick with it until there is no more. Expecting humanity do to anything different is naive.

The Wall Street Journal says that Fossil Fuels will save the world (really). Good article.

I'm sure there have been some variant of that article in circulation throughout the western world since 1995. It wasn't interesting then and it still lacks credibility today. Because for all the wishful thinking about energy, what can't be overcome are the laws of thermodynamics. So if environmentalists want to move away burning stuff to make power then it's important to acknowledge and embraces the capabilities and limitations of non-combustion energy sources. Will moving away have a economic global impact? Obviously, but the freedom from the shackles of the fossil fuel economy will be worth it, but it too will come at a cost.

Nice avatar you have there Bearcat. Always appreciate the underboobage.

Ok. Two things that I liked. A market based approach to carbon sequestration paid for by a carbon tax. Second thing and this is really important. We don't act like there is a problem. We have to get past that critical barrier in the public policy step cycle. I don't think we wean off them cold turkey so we will sequester them. That's my guess.

(04-10-2015 09:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok. Two things that I liked. A market based approach to carbon sequestration paid for by a carbon tax. Second thing and this is really important. We don't act like there is a problem. We have to get past that critical barrier in the public policy step cycle. I don't think we wean off them cold turkey so we will sequester them. That's my guess.

The problem with weaning us off oil, at least, is that we don't have any viable alternative to oil. We have alternative energy sources, just none of them replace any appreciable amount of oil.

(04-10-2015 09:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok. Two things that I liked. A market based approach to carbon sequestration paid for by a carbon tax. Second thing and this is really important. We don't act like there is a problem. We have to get past that critical barrier in the public policy step cycle. I don't think we wean off them cold turkey so we will sequester them. That's my guess.

By definition, government taxing a good is not "market based".

Government's heavy hand on the scale can only distort the market.

You set up a market to sequester the carbon dioxide. You pay people to capture it. That's the market on both sides of it.

(04-10-2015 10:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 09:23 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ok. Two things that I liked. A market based approach to carbon sequestration paid for by a carbon tax. Second thing and this is really important. We don't act like there is a problem. We have to get past that critical barrier in the public policy step cycle. I don't think we wean off them cold turkey so we will sequester them. That's my guess.

The problem with weaning us off oil, at least, is that we don't have any viable alternative to oil. We have alternative energy sources, just none of them replace any appreciable amount of oil.

Which is the flaw in the whole carbon capture plan. We currently have great non combustion alternatives for stationary power. But nothing that approaches the efficiency and portability of petro. What is the carbon capture on all of the cars trucks, earth moving equipment, ships and airplanes going to look like and more importantly, cost?

Why am I not surprised that a liberal would almost immediately jump to a tax as the answer to a problem.

And why am I surprised that a conservative won't admit to the problem or find other viable alternatives because the answer is a tax.

(04-11-2015 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And why am I suDidn'Td that a conservative won't admit to the problem or find other viable alternatives because the answer is a tax.

What makes you think taxes will make any meaningful reduction in emissions? Did that not already fail in Europe? All a tax is going to do is raise energy and shipping costs and make everyone poorer.

If there's a looming climate catastrophe on the horizon, our biggest mistake by far is letting 30 years go by without building a single new nuclear reactor.

We need to be making investments for Thorium fission regardless of what the reality of climate is, too. It uses a very common isotope of a very abundant element.

(04-11-2015 01:03 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And why am I suDidn'Td that a conservative won't admit to the problem or find other viable alternatives because the answer is a tax.

What makes you think taxes will make any meaningful reduction in emissions? Did that not already fail in Europe? All a tax is going to do is raise energy and shipping costs and make everyone poorer.

If there's a looming climate catastrophe on the horizon, our biggest mistake by far is letting 30 years go by without building a single new nuclear reactor.

We need to be making investments for Thorium fission regardless of what the reality of climate is, too. It uses a very common isotope of a very abundant element.

Bingo. Finally, someone who has a clue.

LockMart supposedly has a compact Fusion Reactor in advanced development and about six years away from testing.

Of course this is the same corporation that makes the LCS and the F-35.

(04-11-2015 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And why am I surprised that a conservative won't admit to the problem or find other viable alternatives because the answer is a tax.

The answer is not a tax. Right now, there is no alternative that is cost effective, period save for possibly nuclear, but that is also unacceptable for the Libs.

(04-11-2015 08:49 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 11:27 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And why am I surprised that a conservative won't admit to the problem or find other viable alternatives because the answer is a tax.

The answer is not a tax. Right now, there is no alternative that is cost effective, period save for possibly nuclear, but that is also unacceptable for the Libs.

Let's see if this works. You never know how much of the "Black DOE Budget" has been expended so far.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/product...usion.html

The better questions is, why would it want to?