|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 2, 2010 16:11:52 GMT
 And this year, the United States Department of Energy calculates that the world used 500 quads of energy. The United States and China will each use roughly 100 quads. Comparisons, contrasts–you don’t even need a calculator! A quad is a quadrillion British Thermal Units, and is roughly equivalent to the energy liberated from 36 million tons of coal. It’s a lot of energy, and 500 of those quads is really a mind stretcher. (For those of you who are counting, about 52 of those quads came from renewable energy. Of those 52 quads, about 50 came from hydroelectric power… urkk…) See more discussion here: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/01/global-energy-use-in-the-21st-century/#more-24260Just a little reality check for those who think "renewables" may be making an impact on fossil fuels any time soon. Peak Oil recedes into the future as more and more vast reserves are discovered. Technology develops which can make fuel oil from waste products. Coal ubiquitous everywhere around the world. Shale set to produce massive quantities of gas. It's a jolly good job we have all these options to back up the fluctuating trickle of power from this island's windmills, isn't it?. Not to mention Nuclear power of course. Will enough be built before the lights go out? But so many greenies don't like that either, do they? Luddites. |
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 2, 2010 16:30:46 GMT
That nice pie chart wouldn't have come from that biased, unbalanced, lying, deceitful website wikipedia would it?
Where is the link to the original paper that was demanded of Dai on the BBC?
"Peak Oil recedes into the future as more and more vast reserves are discovered. Technology develops which can make fuel oil from waste products. Coal ubiquitous everywhere around the world. Shale set to produce massive quantities of gas."
Most of which will release more long-stored waste products into the atmosphere with long term consequences. Not just CO2 but soot and other particulates, nitrates, etc.
How come you're relying on scientists to find solutions when you don't trust what they're saying now about Global Warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2012 20:48:03 GMT
Because the IPCC climate "scientists" are not REAL scientists, Havelock. I have much more confidence in the hard sciences like physics, geology, chemistry etc. and the specialisms like statistics, atmospheric Physics, Seismology, Vulcanology and oceanography
Climatology is an immature and synthetic discipline with no scientific rigour - a little bit of everything and nothing substantial about anything. It is like sociology, in fact, with a bit of geography and environmental studies thrown in. IOW the perfect discipline to attract people who want to save the world but were very poor at maths and science at school and could not get in to good universities.
A bit like Psychology, you could say.
|
|
|
|
Post by visitor on Dec 6, 2012 20:55:39 GMT
Because the IPCC climate "scientists" are not REAL scientists, Havelock. I have much more confidence in the hard sciences like physics, geology, chemistry etc. and the specialisms like statistics, atmospheric Physics, Seismology, Vulcanology and oceanography Climatology is an immature and synthetic discipline with no scientific rigour - a little bit of everything and nothing substantial about anything. It is like sociology, in fact, with a bit of geography and environmental studies thrown in. IOW the perfect discipline to attract people who want to save the world but were very poor at maths and science at school and could not get in to good universities. A bit like Psychology, you could say. Wow - four edits in as many minutes. I was constructing a post to endorse your view that we should be investing in nuclear power but when I looked to check what you'd written, it had gone. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 6, 2012 21:03:15 GMT
Here's an update  Figure 1. World electricity production by fuel type. Renewables (defined by AGW activists as solar-, geothermal-, wind-, and biomass-generated electricity, but not hydroelectricity) are 2.7% of the total electricity use. Data from National Geographic  Figure 2. World energy consumption by source. “Renewables” are solar, geothermal, wind, and biomass. Note that the traditional use of firewood for cooking is not included. Data from the BP Statistical Review
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Dec 7, 2012 11:39:04 GMT
Great! Solidarity at last!
We right wing, free market defenders and dependents of the military industrial complex and neo-colonialist, imperialism must stick together, eh? I get my cheques from Big Oil, you get yours from, Edge, Qinetiq et al?
Sorry, I really must stop this sparring with a pure figment of my imagination. I can't help it, though. I'm a scorpion, remember. Embrace your values and life-choices, like I do, Visitor! Denial will only damage your mental health. You should know!
|
|
