[pp.int.general] Don't roast our planet
Kenneth Peiruza
kenneth at pirata.cat
Fri May 18 11:49:11 CEST 2012
Just getting independent of unreliable and troublesome energy sources
like Russian gas and Arab oil would be enough for me to switch from
fossil fuels to renewable energy sources.
Not to say about improving our import-export balances. The technology is
there, we aren't talking about promises neither switching from black to
white in 5 years, we're talking about reaching REAL changes in a short
period of time. Like 50% of clean primary energy sources by 2025.
Right now, Spain is producing 10% of it's energy with renewable sources,
and 11% of its electricity with wind power. Wind power is (as stated by
US dpt. of Energy) significantly cheaper than nuclear power, and below
market-prices. The cheapest source is advanced combined cycle, which
will increase its price in the next years, as it's based in fossil fuels.
Another approach is the Danish one, a very smart policy that has dropped
a 10% of energy consumption every decade, since the 70's.
So, which should be a smart energy policy?
Moving towards wind power + other affordable renewable sources + energy
efficiency + promoting smart energy and smart cities + electric vehicles
+ take advantage of energy production peaks + keeping some of the
production through cheap-non-renewable sources like combined cycle, that
can be started and stopped almost immediately, so they can balance the
fluctuation of renewable sources.
Spain is able to produce 100% of its electricity through the usage of
only renewable + advanced combined cycle, but political pressures
re-started our carbon generation and keep our nuclear power working at
full throttle. There could be some debate about nuclear power, but the
carbon thing is just unacceptable, as it's more expensive and the worst
in CO2 and pollution.
In fact, Spain has enough combined cycle stations to power 85% of the
highest consumption peak ever.
The problem with increasing renewable energy production is not
technological but political: why should we need to invade Iraq or keep
Tyrants in oil-producers and why should we buy so much weaponry if we
aren't afraid of oil and gas imports? what would be US business model if
control of oil production rendered useless?
Remember that almost half of the 7 biggest media groups worldwide belong
to defense companies, and they control 70% of TV, radio and newspapers.
In the US, at least 3 million citizens depend directly or indirectly of
the industrial military complex + US army, and that industry is mostly
used to keep control over oil production and distribution worldwide.
Regards!
Kenneth
Al 18/05/12 11:20, En/na Justus Römeth ha escrit:
> I do not need to do anything, I just do not see you engaging in this
> conversation with anything but hypthetical talking points.
>
> Yes, IF we find out that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming (or
> we cannot stop it anyways), IF global warming is more of a concern
> than running out of fossil fuels and the growing ozone layer and IF
> our resources regarding those issues are severly limited we are
> betting on the wrong horse trying to reduce CO2 emission. Those are
> three pretty big IFs, I don't think arguing with these hypotheses as
> the main starting point makes a lot of sense, and frankly I do not
> understand why you think it does, other for the sake of arguing and
> going against the majority, or for not having to change a convenient
> lifestyle.
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Charly Pache <charly.pache at gmail.com
> <mailto:charly.pache at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Why do you need to tell i'm childish and that my argument are
> weird? Be factual, don't make any subjective statement please.
>
> As for the resources, there are not so many brains really working
> on these issues worldwide on an everyday basis (450 lead authors
> and ~800 contributing authors worked on the last IPCC report).
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Justus Römeth <squig at dfpx.de
> <mailto:squig at dfpx.de>> wrote:
>
> Now you just sound childish while making up hypothetical
> scenarios that suit your weird arguments, tbh. If our
> resources were that strained we'd be f'cked either way. This
> is not a Roland Emmerich movie!
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Charly Pache
> <charly.pache at gmail.com <mailto:charly.pache at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The argument is that human kind has a limited amount of
> energy, resource and time and it's better to put focus on
> the most efficient ways of reaching our goal. In a limited
> world, we have to prioritize and yes, these two things
> could be mutually exclusive if we realize we have to put
> all your resources in one solution or the other. So my
> argument is an argument, definitely.
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Justus Römeth
> <squig at dfpx.de <mailto:squig at dfpx.de>> wrote:
>
> As others have stated, reducing CO2 emissions is a
> worthy goal even if they are not responsible for
> global warming. At the same time we have to plan for
> the scenario that we will not be able to stop global
> warming whatever we do, and act accordingly. Those two
> things are not mutually exclusive, so your argument is
> not really an argument at all.
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Charly Pache
> <charly.pache at gmail.com
> <mailto:charly.pache at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> No, it was just insinuating that i'm ignorant that
> i didn't like, and transforming my words to let
> think i said something i never said.
>
> One last thought about this topic.
>
> Imagine one day, in let say 20 years, we realize
> the main cause of the global warming was not C02,
> but sun fluctuation.
>
> And that we suddenly realize that during the last
> 20 years we took measures to cut-off C02 emissions
> and that these heavy measures didn't stop global
> warming at all cos in fact, we didn't analyse
> toroughouly the topic at the beginning and we
> blindly accepted for granted the C02 theory, even
> if we didn't have all the necessary data.
>
> That's dangerous. Because then will realize we
> lost 20 years into looking for other solutions,
> like this one [1] or these ones [2][3], in the
> case the sun would be the cause.
>
> Take care, warm thoughts ;) Charly
>
> [1] Obama climate adviser open to geo-engineering
> to tackle global warming:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/08/geo-engineering-john-holdren
> [2] Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid
> patent row (15th May 2012!, please note that
> climate engineering is not yet allowed under
> international law):
> http://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645
> [3] A (not so up-to-date) list of geoengineering
> patents filed by many private corporations (and i
> didn't say it's bad, if situation on Earth will be
> unbearable, we will have to raise the issue):
> http://www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/patents.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Richard Stallman
> <rms at gnu.org <mailto:rms at gnu.org>> wrote:
>
> Re-read my messages please, I never said
> there is no global warming going
> on, on the contrary, we argued here on
> whether it was really man made or
> natural, like it could be assumed as the
> other planets in our solar system
> get warmer as well. And I never said 4°C in
> Switzerland is the proof that
> there is no global warming
>
> By mentioning it in this discussion, you
> presented it as relevant to
> the issue. If you misspoke, you can say so
> and people will disregard
> that apparent meaning. But don't criticize
> people for responding for
> what you appear to say.
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org <http://www.fsf.org> www.gnu.org
> <http://www.gnu.org>
> Skype: No way! That's nonfree
> (freedom-denying) software.
> Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> <mailto:pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20120518/c7ccc2ed/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the pp.international.general
mailing list