Trib Article: "What is religious and what is political?"

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Solar kills birds?  News to me.

You can google it.  It kills somewhere between 10s of thousands and over a hundred thousand birds annually.  Basically cooks them to death when they fly in the wrong area. 

I'm not suggesting that that is an environmental disaster in and of itself or a reason not to use it.  As far as I can tell there is no energy (clean, green, renewable, or fossil fuel) that does not have a negative impact on some animal species.

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Time to change the paradigm.  

I think a lot of people are trying.  It's just such a huge and complicated paradigm--with so many spokes in the wheel--that it will take time to do it.  Trying to do it more quickly than is feasible is probably going to create a lot of problems that could have been avoided with more reasonable measures.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can google it.  It kills somewhere between 10s of thousands and over a hundred thousand birds annually.  Basically cooks them to death when they fly in the wrong area. 

I'm not suggesting that that is an environmental disaster in and of itself or a reason not to use it.  As far as I can tell there is no energy (clean, green, renewable, or fossil fuel) that does not have a negative impact on some animal species.

For what it’s worth. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116301422#tbl2

[rodheadlee]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

 

So?

So I didn't need the government to pay for them .

 

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

And some may be supportive of the idea, but may not be willing to sacrifice themselves that much to offset the needs of others.

Very true. It is always a lot easier to advocate for changes that only negatively affect other people.

[pogi]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Some of those graphs are confusing because they use 'green energy', 'clean energy', and 'renewable energy' without defining what they mean. 

Which graphs are you talking about?  The ones I posted defined what they were comparing into the following categories: petroleum, natural gas, coal, solar, wind, grid, or nuclear.

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really do think the main problem is that right now, clean energy doesn't exist without oil and gas.  That is a hurdle that will be hard to get over.  It's not insurmountable but I don't think there are any quick solutions either.

I don't really see that as a problem.  I don't think the goal is to completely eliminate oil and gas.  There are countless products that require oil/gas for production.  We can still reap the environmental (and I believe economic) rewards with more sustainable and reduced use without completely eliminating the industry. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Which graphs are you talking about?  The ones I posted defined what they were comparing into the following categories: petroleum, natural gas, coal, solar, wind, grid, or nuclear.

What does "grid" mean for example?  Grid is not an energy form.  It usually refers to electricity but electricity by coal plants?  Hydro?  Solar farms? Electricity doesn't make itself, it's a byproduct of the use of some other kind of energy. 

Quote

I don't really see that as a problem.  I don't think the goal is to completely eliminate oil and gas.  There are countless products that require oil/gas for production.  We can still reap the environmental rewards with more sustainable and reduced use without completely eliminating the industry. 

A lot of the stuff that is made from petroleum products are made from byproducts in the refining process as the oil is being turned into different types of fuel.  Most refineries would not be able to exist only to create byproducts of petroleum.  

When you use the leftovers to make other things, taking away the reason that the leftovers exist is a problem.

Plus, transportation, construction, and maintenance of "clean energy" is another pretty big hurdle that will take years to resolve.  There is a reason that people use diesel trucks and equipment for this kind of work.  Diesel creates torque efficiently.  Electric powered vehicles have not been able to duplicate it, and even the few things that currently exist that have tried, it's an inefficient process that usually uses coal powered electricity to create an inferior product.

That will hopefully change in the future, but it's not a given that it will be possible. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by bluebell

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What does "grid" mean for example?  Grid is not an energy form.  It usually refers to electricity but electricity by coal plants?  Hydro?  Solar farms? Electricity doesn't make itself, it's a byproduct of the use of some other kind of energy. 

A lot of the stuff that is made from petroleum products are made from byproducts in the refining process as the oil is being turned into different types of fuel.  Most refineries would not be able to exist only to create byproducts of petroleum.  

When you use the leftovers to make other things, taking away the reason that the leftovers exist is a problem.

Plus, transportation, construction, and maintenance of "clean energy" is another pretty big hurdle that will take years to resolve.  There is a reason that people use diesel trucks and equipment for this kind of work.  Diesel creates torque efficiently.  Electric powered vehicles have not been able to duplicate it, and even the few things that currently exist that have tried, it's an inefficient process that usually uses coal powered electricity to create an inferior product.

That will hopefully change in the future, but it's not a given that it will be possible. 

And I don't know if we have years to get it done, but if it's our only hope maybe we need to do it for the children that inherit the earth that we damaged.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I don't know if we have years to get it done, but if it's our only hope maybe we need to do it for the children that inherit the earth that we damaged.

There are many difficult issues to resolve, for sure.  We do need to try to resolve them.  It's not a given that we will be able to find solutions for them all, but I think even just trying will produce some good results.

[pogi]

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What does "grid" mean for example?  Grid is not an energy form.  It usually refers to electricity but electricity by coal plants?  Hydro?  Solar farms? Electricity doesn't make itself, it's a byproduct of the use of some other kind of energy. 

"Grid" refers to the infrastructure (wiring etc.) that supplies electricity from all sources (coal, hydro, solar, etc).  Regardless of the source of electricity, grid jobs will always exist and be needed (until we invent the wireless transfer of electricity ).   The charts were just comparing pay from all energy related jobs.  

39 minutes ago, bluebell said:

A lot of the stuff that is made from petroleum products are made from byproducts in the refining process as the oil is being turned into different types of fuel.  Most refineries would not be able to exist only to create byproducts of petroleum.  

When you use the leftovers to make other things, taking away the reason that the leftovers exist is a problem.

Plus, transportation, construction, and maintenance of "clean energy" is another pretty big hurdle that will take years to resolve.  There is a reason that people use diesel trucks and equipment for this kind of work.  Diesel creates torque efficiently.  Electric powered vehicles have not been able to duplicate it, and even the few things that currently exist that have tried, it's an inefficient process that usually uses coal powered electricity to create an inferior product.

That will hopefully change in the future, but it's not a given that it will be possible. 

Interesting.  I really don't see those as huge hurdles though when the goal isn't to completely eliminate the industry.  Diesel vehicles and still exist while reaping the reward of significant environmental benefit from an inverting the industry to predominantly clean energy dependence.  I agree that most refineries couldn't exist.  That is a good thing.  They can get jobs in clean energy.  We should get by with fewer refineries which supply diesel and other gas/oil products and byproducts.   

Edited August 30, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Grid" refers to the infrastructure (wiring etc.) that supplies electricity from all sources (coal, hydro, solar, etc).  Regardless of the source of electricity, grid jobs will always exist and be needed (until we invent the wireless transfer of electricity ). 

Thanks for clarifying.  So grid is not necessarily clean energy and could actually be a part of the fossil fuel side of jobs (since you can't have coal, for example, without a coal mine and plants to burn it).

Quote

We should get by with fewer refineries which supply diesel and other gas/oil products and byproducts.

How so?  The issue is that the vast majority of product that refineries make is fuel (81%).  Only 19% of what goes into a refinery comes out as a byproduct.    

Let's say that demand for fuel drops so that the US can only support 12 refineries (there are currently 129). Yay!  But will 12 refineries be able to create enough petroleum byproducts to meet demand levels that used to take 129 refineries to meet? 

As things stand right now, no.  Demand for petroleum byproducts will likely remain the same (or even go up) in the next few years.

You can't drastically cut production of byproducts and still have enough byproduct to go around, especially when so much of clean energy requires petroleum byproducts to exist. 

It's math, not magic.

[BlueDreams]

 

I'm catching up on this thread, so for give me if this is a little repetitive.

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

I really don't know much about the use of solar.  I know that it takes up huge areas of land and kills off a lot of birds, but that's about it.

Things that I would be interested to know is how long do the panels last?  Is it possible to make them without using petroleum products?  How biodegradable are they?  Where will we put trash ones when they need to be replaced?

I'm wondering these things because these are the big issue with wind turbines.  Their blades are made of non biodegradable petroleum bi-products and the blades must be replaced every ten years or so.  This is a huge issue since each blade is typically as long as a football field and must be transported-one at a time-via oversized trailers and large semi trucks.  And then they have to be buried somewhere where they will never decompose.  

They also kill hundreds of thousands of birds each year, but whether or not someone finds that a problem really depends on their view of birds.  Environmentally, it's probably not that big of an impact.

With solar, it depends on whether you're going with large energy farms. There are means to mix solar in existing infrasture. The most obvious is roof top solar. If more of the area in existins homes and buildings were being used this would strongly reduce the need for added space (some estimates state if it were on all homes it would take care about 40% of our power needs). It would also likely reduce concerns with birds. Name because the solar would be more broken up over several buildings. The biggest concern right now is energy storage. Right now that is mostly reliant on separate lithium batteries. There's funky tech/innovations on the near horizon that may shift that. This includes different types of batteries that run on salt and sand, Energy storage via kinetic energy storage in two bodies of water, or having existing ev batteries double as a home storage unit for home solar, etc.

I would also not consider solar new tech. It's been around for over 40 years. There are new tech in solar, including ones still in the developmental stage that is switching up materials used to increase energy absorption and increase surface areas that they could go on (like cars, planes, etc). These we'll have to see. But the basic solar tech is pretty established and well studied. 

Recylcing in general needs a major change. Most of our materials aren't recycled period. There could be major investments into systems that actually work and can incorporate specialty recycling of materials such as solar and wind turbines. Most of the parts on both are recyclable BUT there's still improvements needed, particularly for wind turbine blades. There are also forms of wind power that reduce concerns for birds by changing the shape of blade or making smaller home systems that are in development. This is one I've had my eye on that's being developed in SLC. 

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

I really do think the main problem is that right now, clean energy doesn't exist without oil and gas.  That is a hurdle that will be hard to get over.  It's not insurmountable but I don't think there are any quick solutions either.

It may not be as big of a problem as it seems at first. The amount that green energy relies on oil and gas would still equal a massive cut in overall energy use from oil and gas. A minimal use of oil bi-products will likely continue to be a thing for a while since we have limited replacers for plastics in general. It can change and It likely will, but that is a longer goal. I think it's something that's a little misunderstood about the transition. Very few places are planning on completely ditching certain materials. Most are aiming for goals that keep us between 1.5-2 C of change. This means halving (or close to) emissions by 2030 from 1990 levels. Though we're at least going in the right direction, we're still not going fast enough and there needs to be energy incentives and federal supports to shift that. But this is as gradual as we can really go. Because by 2050 we need to be nearing net-zero. This means our carbon outputs need to be equal with our offsets. This doesn't mean there will be no oil/nat gas use ever. It means how we use it will be very limited and largely background supports to cleaner energy sources, changes to lifestyle, and replacement of less necessary plastic use. We do need some quicker solutions and shifts, but luckily we have 20+ years to start doing other major shifts to change our habits. No plan includes overnight shifts. It's not feasible. But all of them must include continued faster shifts in order for us not to be strapped with large costs for decades if not centuries. 

21 hours ago, bluebell said:

As for the economics of it, probably the hardest thing to reproduce would be the benefit to the state or country.  The reason that countries (or states for the US and Canada) make so much money off of the oil industry is because they often own the land that it's coming from.  That means taxes, leases, and income from the sale of the product itself.

For example, Wyoming funds its public school system off of just the taxes that it makes from oil, natural gas, and coal because it almost all comes from BLM land.  Because of this Wyoming can spend over $16,000 on each student per school year.  In comparison, Utah spends around $6500 last I checked. 

I'm not sure. Often these are unequal penance to what they receive from the government in subsidies and ignored community costs + profit margins. Just on the subsidies alone the carbon based industries receive 20+ billion dollars yearly from the US. This does not include that they rarely have to pay for the costs they place on communities and the globe in terms of environment degredation and increased risks/disasters.  The costs from this industry are projected to be $15-23 trillion in the next few decades worldwide....or about 11-15% of every country's GDP. And this will not hit equally. As it is, this amount that WY receives compared to UT is also a great example how oil/gas/coal don't naturally benefit communities equaly. All but 2-4% of UT's energy sources come from carbon based energy. And yet due likely to state government priorities and a student body around 6-7x's bigger than WY our kids aren't naturally benefiting from it. And that's before you deal with the cost in asthma and respiratory problems because of reduced air quality from emissions mixed with the inversion problem unique to the main valleys housing the bulk of the population. 

 

Have to go. Will probably add some things a little later when I can read more

With luv,
bd

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

So I didn't need the government to pay for them .

 

Well write your congress person and senators then.  Or run for office.  See that is how it works. None of us will ever like every decision that is made.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I'm catching up on this thread, so for give me if this is a little repetitive.

With solar, it depends on whether you're going with large energy farms. There are means to mix solar in existing infrasture. The most obvious is roof top solar. If more of the area in existins homes and buildings were being used this would strongly reduce the need for added space (some estimates state if it were on all homes it would take care about 40% of our power needs). It would also likely reduce concerns with birds. Name because the solar would be more broken up over several buildings. The biggest concern right now is energy storage. Right now that is mostly reliant on separate lithium batteries. There's funky tech/innovations on the near horizon that may shift that. This includes different types of batteries that run on salt and sand, Energy storage via kinetic energy storage in two bodies of water, or having existing ev batteries double as a home storage unit for home solar, etc.

I would also not consider solar new tech. It's been around for over 40 years. There are new tech in solar, including ones still in the developmental stage that is switching up materials used to increase energy absorption and increase surface areas that they could go on (like cars, planes, etc). These we'll have to see. But the basic solar tech is pretty established and well studied. 

Recylcing in general needs a major change. Most of our materials aren't recycled period. There could be major investments into systems that actually work and can incorporate specialty recycling of materials such as solar and wind turbines. Most of the parts on both are recyclable BUT there's still improvements needed, particularly for wind turbine blades. There are also forms of wind power that reduce concerns for birds by changing the shape of blade or making smaller home systems that are in development. This is one I've had my eye on that's being developed in SLC. 

It may not be as big of a problem as it seems at first. The amount that green energy relies on oil and gas would still equal a massive cut in overall energy use from oil and gas. A minimal use of oil bi-products will likely continue to be a thing for a while since we have limited replacers for plastics in general. It can change and It likely will, but that is a longer goal. I think it's something that's a little misunderstood about the transition. Very few places are planning on completely ditching certain materials. Most are aiming for goals that keep us between 1.5-2 C of change. This means halving (or close to) emissions by 2030 from 1990 levels. Though we're at least going in the right direction, we're still not going fast enough and there needs to be energy incentives and federal supports to shift that. But this is as gradual as we can really go. Because by 2050 we need to be nearing net-zero. This means our carbon outputs need to be equal with our offsets. This doesn't mean there will be no oil/nat gas use ever. It means how we use it will be very limited and largely background supports to cleaner energy sources, changes to lifestyle, and replacement of less necessary plastic use. We do need some quicker solutions and shifts, but luckily we have 20+ years to start doing other major shifts to change our habits. No plan includes overnight shifts. It's not feasible. But all of them must include continued faster shifts in order for us not to be strapped with large costs for decades if not centuries. 

I'm not sure. Often these are unequal penance to what they receive from the government in subsidies and ignored community costs + profit margins. Just on the subsidies alone the carbon based industries receive 20+ billion dollars yearly from the US. This does not include that they rarely have to pay for the costs they place on communities and the globe in terms of environment degredation and increased risks/disasters.  The costs from this industry are projected to be $15-23 trillion in the next few decades worldwide....or about 11-15% of every country's GDP. And this will not hit equally. As it is, this amount that WY receives compared to UT is also a great example how oil/gas/coal don't naturally benefit communities equaly. All but 2-4% of UT's energy sources come from carbon based energy. And yet due likely to state government priorities and a student body around 6-7x's bigger than WY our kids aren't naturally benefiting from it. And that's before you deal with the cost in asthma and respiratory problems because of reduced air quality from emissions mixed with the inversion problem unique to the main valleys housing the bulk of the population. 

 

Have to go. Will probably add some things a little later when I can read more

With luv,
bd

Agreed that there is a lot of potential for these problems to be solved.  But they are problems the require solutions that don't yet exist, and that is my main issue.  There is no reason to pretend (as some do, not saying that is you) that making these changes is easy peasy lemon squeezy.  It's better to face the hill that we are up against.

Just wanted to also say about the differences between Wyoming and Utah in terms of income from the oil and gas industry, though Utah gets a lot of energy from their oil and gas, it only equals 543 million in revenue to the state.  Wyoming on the other hand made 1.2 billion in 2020 (and over a billion every year before that since 2015, which was the last statistic I found on it) on oil and gas revenue. 

Not to mention that over 19,000 of Wyoming residents are employed in oil and gas and they were paid 1.12 billion in 2019.

Wyoming just has a lot more of the stuff (21 of their 23 counties produce oil and gas revenue) and depends on it a great deal to survive.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying.  So grid is not necessarily clean energy and could actually be a part of the fossil fuel side of jobs (since you can't have coal, for example, without a coal mine and plants to burn it).

Ya, its really just the infrastructure that supports the entire energy industry clean or not.  I wouldn't say it is "part of the fossil fuel side of jobs" per se.  It is more neutral and doesn't take sides.  All they need for jobs is electricity, regardless of the source.  They will exist even if there were no fossil fuels, for example. 

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Thanks for clarifying.  So grid is not necessarily clean energy and could actually be a part of the fossil fuel side of jobs (since you can't have coal, for example, without a coal mine and plants to burn it).

How so?  The issue is that the vast majority of product that refineries make is fuel (81%).  Only 19% of what goes into a refinery comes out as a byproduct.    

Let's say that demand for fuel drops so that the US can only support 12 refineries (there are currently 129). Yay!  But will 12 refineries be able to create enough petroleum byproducts to meet demand levels that used to take 129 refineries to meet? 

As things stand right now, no.  Demand for petroleum byproducts will likely remain the same (or even go up) in the next few years.

You can't drastically cut production of byproducts and still have enough byproduct to go around, especially when so much of clean energy requires petroleum byproducts to exist. 

It's math, not magic.

I see what you are saying.  I would be curious to see what the supply/demand balance currently is of these byproducts?    Do we currently produce more byproducts than are used?  Can we handle a reduction in production and not effect other industries? 

Edited August 30, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

They will exist even if there were no fossil fuels, for example. 

 

The grids will exist, but whether or not they will be in use is another issue. 

For example, when there is not enough coal power to support the electrical grid in California (which frequently happens in the summer when they have to implement rolling blackouts due to their electrical demand outstripping the supply), the grid becomes essentially useless.  It's there, but people can't get any energy from it.  At that point it ceases to be a part of the energy infrastructure and just becomes a fun place for birds to sit.

Existing and performing the task they were created to perform are two different things.  

Quote

 

I see what you are saying.  I would be curious to see what the supply/demand balance currently is of these byproducts?    Do we currently produce more byproducts than are used?  Can we handle a reduction in production and not effect other industries? 

 

 

 

From what I can tell, yes, we use all of those products.  There is no surplus.

I found an article (from 2009 but it looks like the issue is the same now as it was then--which shows the complexity of the problem since we've supposedly been working on solving it for over ten years) about the problem that a lot of people who are pushing for environmental changes with oil and gas don't always notice. 

And that is that a barrel of oil is a lot more than just gas for cars, and we can't make any real environmental changes until we solve the issue of the entire barrel of oil.

"Many products are made from a barrel of petroleum. If we replace only one of those products, such as gasoline, petroleum refineries as they are currently constituted cannot readily shift all of the displaced molecules into other products. If we reduce total petroleum usage as a percent of one market, we need to think about how that impacts other markets. The most obvious issue is that we have to replace diesel and jet in proportion to gasoline, since their combined volume is approximately 75% that of gasoline and their markets are projected to grow significantly faster. The largest proportion of the “other products” shown in the barrel above is the petrochemical industry, virtually all of which is based on crude oil and natural gas.

If we do not replace the whole barrel, we risk creating knock-on effects that will cause shortages or surpluses in other markets, with the attendant economic consequences. "

Edited August 30, 2022 by bluebell

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed that there is a lot of potential for these problems to be solved.  But they are problems the require solutions that don't yet exist, and that is my main issue.  There is no reason to pretend (as some do, not saying that is you) that making these changes is easy peasy lemon squeezy.  It's better to face the hill that we are up against.

 

 

i think I get that. I think for me it’s not been a concern to look at the hill and work to manage concerns with it, as long as we’re aware that we can’t keep sliding down the cliff we’re currently on. To me the problems of switching to sustainable energy is by no means as big as the problems that will exponentially increase if we don’t. I don’t want people to be sold this as a simple solution that we could magically shift to entirely next year. The biggest hurdles are in infrastructure and energy storage. I do want people to realize that there are solutions, a diverse number of them and several others that we’ll need to develop and invest into. We’ll want to make sure that we give avenues for transition work wise. I think one of the big differences is that because in many ways this transition is more intentional than other major shifts in tech, there’s more space to avoid some of the pitfalls that have happened prior when there’s major industrial changes in terms of leaving people economically stranded in the shifts. 
 

but it is doable. And in terms of actual energy more doable than we may first think. There are already states and countries where the substantial majority of their energy is from renewable resources. They have different emphases of what type of resources they use to do that based on what sort of renewables make the most sense for their regions. Some have a little more wind, some geothermal, some hydroelectric, some wind, some biomass, and most a mix of many of the above.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

 

Just wanted to also say about the differences between Wyoming and Utah in terms of income from the oil and gas industry, though Utah gets a lot of energy from their oil and gas, it only equals 543 million in revenue to the state.  Wyoming on the other hand made 1.2 billion in 2020 (and over a billion every year before that since 2015, which was the last statistic I found on it) on oil and gas revenue. 

Not to mention that over 19,000 of Wyoming residents are employed in oil and gas and they were paid 1.12 billion in 2019.

Wyoming just has a lot more of the stuff (21 of their 23 counties produce oil and gas revenue) and depends on it a great deal to survive.

All states will likely experience a shift that needs to be managed well. Utah may not lose as much revenue/jobs, but they will have more of a hill to climb when it comes to shifting since we’ve been slow to convert and slow in other resource management concerns (namely water). it won’t be easy but it will be worth it. The alternative is really ugly. 
 

with luv, 

BD 
 

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

To me the problems of switching to sustainable energy is by no means as big as the problems that will exponentially increase if we don’t.

That is really what it all boils down to.  

Fighting change to keep industries happy that rely on oil production is like focusing on keeping the chickens happy as we take them to the slaughter house.   Resistance is an economic and environmental disaster waiting to happen.  The status quo simply isn't sustainable.  

Change isn't going to happen over night, but unless we set targets/goals/incentives/regulation, ain't nothin' gonna change.   

[bluebell]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is really what it all boils down to.  

Fighting change to keep industries happy that rely on oil production is like focusing on keeping the chickens happy as we take them to the slaughter house.   Resistance is an economic and environmental disaster waiting to happen.  The status quo simply isn't sustainable.  

Change isn't going to happen over night, but unless we set targets/goals/incentives/regulation, ain't nothin' gonna change.   

If you look at it like "it's about trying to keep industries happy", then sure, it's a no-brainer. 

But if you look at it like it's about trying to keep tens of thousands of families from being unemployed with no way to make up the income they lost (and all the fun stuff that comes with that like losing your house, health insurance, etc.), then you'll make more headway with a lot of the people who view environmentalists and environmentalism as an elitest's game.   

Because I guarantee that the people who are pushing back against "environmentalism" are not pushing back in the name of an industry or a company.  

(I know there will always be some environmentalists that have an "Oh well" response to collateral damage, but for those of us who are trying to be disciples of Christ, it's not so easy to dismiss.)

 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed that there is a lot of potential for these problems to be solved.  But they are problems the require solutions that don't yet exist, and that is my main issue.  There is no reason to pretend (as some do, not saying that is you) that making these changes is easy peasy lemon squeezy.  It's better to face the hill that we are up against.

Yep. Here's yesterday's update from Finland's Fingrid:

Quote

Finns should be prepared for power outages caused by possible electricity shortages this coming winter ... 

Fingrid estimates that electricity consumption can rise to around 15,100 megawatts in the coming winter's consumption peak. Domestic production is estimated to cover at best 12,300 MW, with an estimated additional 600 MW of power reserve.

The Finns are pinning their hopes on the possibility that their new (and currently non-operating) nuclear power plant can be commissioned in time to cover this shortfall. I hope that happens!

In either case, no amount of magical thinking about solutions that don't actually exist yet are going to help the Finns survive their winter this year.

Edited August 31, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If you look at it like "it's about trying to keep industries happy", then sure, it's a no-brainer. 

But if you look at it like it's about trying to keep tens of thousands of families from being unemployed with no way to make up the income they lost (and all the fun stuff that comes with that like losing your house, health insurance, etc.), then you'll make more headway with a lot of the people who view environmentalists and environmentalism as an elitest's game.   

Because I guarantee that the people who are pushing back against "environmentalism" are not pushing back in the name of an industry or a company.  

(I know there will always be some environmentalists that have an "Oh well" response to collateral damage, but for those of us who are trying to be disciples of Christ, it's not so easy to dismiss.)

I am talking about being open to a transition (which means opening new jobs) over time.  Like I said, "change isn't going to happen over night".  We are not talking about terminating the industry cold-turkey and ending jobs tomorrow before having any reasonable answers to many of these problems.  Maybe some extremists are, but not most environmentalists. The change is inevitable, however.  It is going to happen.  There are no other options for long-term solutions.  We can resist that change and hose EVERYONE in the end, or we can find ways to make the transition with as little collateral damage as possible.  That is what everyone should want.  I get why those in the industry might find it challenging to see the big picture when they have to feed their family tonight.  But we want the entire human population to be able to feed their families for a much much longer time.  That is what environmentalism is about.

I understand that people who are employed by these industries are not pushing back in the name of industry, but they have to understand that environmentalists are not pushing back in the name of elitism, but in the name of every man, woman, and child who will walk the earth and who will walk the earth in the future.  Sure, there may be some hypocrite elitists who say and do things in the name of environmentalism, but that is not who is behind the science that drives it - that is not the everyday environmentalists (the vast majority) who understand that we need to make these changes to save the planet.

Perhaps people that call environmentalism an "elitist game" will make more headway if they start to viewing environmentalists as scientists and everyday humans who are trying to not just feed their families, but to feed the entire planet long term.   It is simply a difference in perspective.  The people you are talking about are looking at the short-term and little picture (not diminishing how big of a deal it is too them personally).   Environmentalists are looking long term and at the big picture.  

While there may be some environmentalists who are dismissive of peoples livelihood and wellbeing and see the ends as justifying the means, the environmentalists I know care about peoples livelihoods and want to transition in as smooth a way as possible while understanding some people simply are not going to like it and may suffer because of it.   But when you compare the amount of inevitable suffering between the two options - there is no dismissing the vast gulf in relative risk. 

We can resist change and eat for today, or we can make change and eat for generations.    

I need to be convinced why we should focus on saving tens of thousands of jobs for short term benefits at the expense of long-term consequences for 7 billion people on earth.  We can transition in a way to reduce collateral damage.  That is not out of the question.  But to resist change completely?  I think that is short sighted tunnel vision. 

Edited August 31, 2022 by pogi

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yep. Here's yesterday's update from Finland's Fingrid:

The Finns are pinning their hopes on the possibility that their new (and currently non-operating) nuclear power plant can be commissioned in time to cover this shortfall. I hope that happens!

In either case, no amount of magical thinking about solutions that don't actually exist yet are going to help the Finns survive their winter this year.

It is a concern, especially when electric cars are seen by many as the solution to the gas-powered vehicle problem.  At certain times of the year, California cannot handle their current electrical load.  Evs will add to that load (especially as they become more popular).  And this also happens in NY, LA, and TX.

Sure, not every EV will be charging at the same time, but in places where the grid is already at capacity, adding EVs is an issue that will need to be addressed. 

I think a solution will probably be found, if EV usage is implemented responsibly.  

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am talking about being open to a transition (which means opening new jobs) over time.  Like I said, "change isn't going to happen over night".  We are not talking about terminating the industry cold-turkey and ending jobs tomorrow before having any reasonable answers to many of these problems.  Maybe some extremists are, but not most environmentalists. The change is inevitable, however.  It is going to happen.  There are no other options for long-term solutions.  We can resist that change and hose EVERYONE in the end, or we can find ways to make the transition with as little collateral damage as possible.  That is what everyone should want.  I get why those in the industry might find it challenging to see the big picture when they have to feed their family tonight.  But we want the entire human population to be able to feed their families for a much much longer time.  That is what environmentalism is about.

I understand that people who are employed by these industries are not pushing back in the name of industry, but they have to understand that environmentalists are not pushing back in the name of elitism, but in the name of every man, woman, and child who will walk the earth and who will walk the earth in the future.  Sure, there may be some hypocrite elitists who say and do things in the name of environmentalism, but that is not who is behind the science that drives it - that is not the everyday environmentalists (the vast majority) who understand that we need to make these changes to save the planet.

Perhaps people that call environmentalism an "elitist game" will make more headway if they start to viewing environmentalists as scientists and everyday humans who are trying to not just feed their families, but to feed the entire planet long term.   It is simply a difference in perspective.  The people you are talking about are looking at the short-term and little picture (not diminishing how big of a deal it is too them personally).   Environmentalists are looking long term and at the big picture.  

While there may be some environmentalists who are dismissive of peoples livelihood and wellbeing and see the ends as justifying the means, the environmentalists I know care about peoples livelihoods and want to transition in as smooth a way as possible while understanding some people simply are not going to like it and may suffer because of it.   But when you compare the amount of inevitable suffering between the two options - there is no dismissing the vast gulf in relative risk. 

We can resist change and eat for today, or we can make change and eat for generations.    

I need to be convinced why we should focus on saving tens of thousands of jobs for short term benefits at the expense of long-term consequences for 7 billion people on earth.  We can transition in a way to reduce collateral damage.  That is not out of the question.  But to resist change completely?  I think that is short sighted tunnel vision. 

I think that some of the angst between the two groups is that there are a lot in both that are unwilling to consider anyone's point of view from their own.  And there is a lot of baggage on both sides that leads them to see the other side as the enemy.

Just like every other issue in the world right now I guess.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It is a concern, especially when electric cars are seen by many as the solution to the gas-powered vehicle problem.  At certain times of the year, California cannot handle their current electrical load.  Evs will add to that load (especially as they become more popular).  And this also happens in NY, LA, and TX.

Sure, not every EV will be charging at the same time, but in places where the grid is already at capacity, adding EVs is an issue that will need to be addressed. 

I think a solution will probably be found, if EV usage is implemented responsibly.  

EV’s will ramp up slowly. Even more aggressive tactics put EV’s making 60-70% of cars on the road by 2050. That’s 28 years from now. This is partially due to supply (how quickly anyone can pump them out) and demand (both in people seriously looking right now and finding one within their price range). So a gradual shift isn’t a big concern right now. This had a fun infographic about it. Even the most recent bill would mean a delay before the incentives for the bulk of EV’s effected would be available due to needing an in-country manufacturing site to have it apply. 
 

That plus major infrastructure bills will help bulk up the more problematic concerns facing TX, CA, and LA…which all face very different energy problems. CA’s is a mix of a hodge-podge system that’s described as a bit half-hazardous placed together mixed with an an aging infrastructure. And the energy gap when solar powers down while it’s people power up nearer evening. Plus waning hydro from drought. TX’s big prob is their tactics around regulations…as in being super loose on them and not having back up sources from other states because they refuse to meet fed regulations leaving them on the edge of blackouts.  LA’s is tied to not having a more diverse energy system, relying heavily on natural gas above all other sources, delaying investment in renewables, and thus being more at the behest of oil/gas market costs. All of these states are struggling with the added problem of climate change straining their systems. Particularly TX and CA, which are especially vulnerable to the shifts via massive heat waves, less predictable weather, wild fires, and drought. 
 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think that some of the angst between the two groups is that there are a lot in both that are unwilling to consider anyone's point of view from their own.  And there is a lot of baggage on both sides that leads them to see the other side as the enemy.

Just like every other issue in the world right now I guess.

Part of me wonders if the angst and polarization preceded or at least continues to problems between the 2. Like pogi, most people concerned with the environment are generally not elitist. (Elitists actually rep a special niche for being a prob by environmentalists. Their lifestyles give them a massive and disproportionate impact on the environment and carbon emissions). But they may also not have in-roads to talk to people more skeptical around needed changes and to talk on those needs specifically. It usually takes a key community leader or trusted individual to start shifting communications. The breakdown in trust though means a lot of these opportunities shut down before they can start nowadays. If you can find a community connector you may end up finding them skeptical of the “elitist,” outsider trying to shove (name some liberal,  governmental, or educational institution) down their throats. If they somehow convince them they’re not that but truly concerned for the future of a community, that community leader may end up becoming another appendage/symbol of institutional distrust. People aren’t people anymore. We’re labels and flat images of the boogie men, problems, and enemies we or another have constructed for us. In that atmosphere, how can you really talk? 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited August 31, 2022 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

On 8/30/2022 at 10:07 PM, bluebell said:

It is a concern, especially when electric cars are seen by many as the solution to the gas-powered vehicle problem.  At certain times of the year, California cannot handle their current electrical load.  Evs will add to that load (especially as they become more popular).  And this also happens in NY, LA, and TX.

Sure, not every EV will be charging at the same time, but in places where the grid is already at capacity, adding EVs is an issue that will need to be addressed. 

I think a solution will probably be found, if EV usage is implemented responsibly.  

The US power gird could not handle an electric vehicle fleet. It couldn’t provide the power and the infrastructure would be insufficient to transmit it.

We need another 1950s where we do mass improvements in infrastructure. This is a big ask when we aren’t even maintaining the stuff we have now.