The rising cost of gasoline isn't going to go away. [Admin warning: NO POLITICS]

[dbsb3233]

I disagree- the energy source is incredibly important. If the Powder River Basin is on fire, it's going to be tough to get gas/oil/coal out of it. If the Middle East is consumed by mass migration out of uninhabitable areas it's tough to produce oil. If China is invading Russia to get access to water resources it's going to be tough to fuel home heating in Europe. Energy is the key to the whole thing.

If the wind farms are on fire, that's problem too. If the solar farms are on fire, that's a problem too. You can play that card for any energy source. They all come from some place on earth that's potentially subject to some catastrophic disaster.

We can talk about the logistics of each, of course (there's all sorts of factors there, for all these sources). As well as their consistency, dependability, scale, backups, etc. Those are all major issue for each in different ways.

Sponsored

 

[MachTee]

Not sure if this is a rhetorical question...

Yes and no. Just wanted to hear what opinion we have around here.

 

[ctenidae]

If the wind farms are on fire, that's problem too. If the solar farms are on fire, that's a problem too. You can play that card for any energy source. They all come from some place on earth that's potentially subject to some catastrophic disaster.

We can talk about the logistics of each, of course (there's all sorts of factors there, for all these sources). As well as their consistency, dependability, scale, backups, etc. Those are all major issue for each in different ways.

That's why there should be more than one source of energy. In any case, there's no conceivable way burning fossil fuels and pouring COx, SOx, and NOx into the air is a benefit to the environment.

One small part of the equation, for sure, but it's a tangible action that both prepares for the future and potentially mitigates changes. Also creates a bunch of jobs and reduces price volatility.

 

[dbsb3233]

That's why there should be more than one source of energy. In any case, there's no conceivable way burning fossil fuels and pouring COx, SOx, and NOx into the air is a benefit to the environment.

One small part of the equation, for sure, but it's a tangible action that both prepares for the future and potentially mitigates changes. Also creates a bunch of jobs and reduces price volatility.

Oh sure, we've always had lots of sources of energy, and we always will. And as I noted, cleaner is always nicer. That's always a plus, but of course needs to be weighed against all the other pros and cons of each.

As for the jobs, there's jobs associated with any source. And in most cases, an energy source that requires fewer jobs is more likely to be better in that aspect, because more labor required = more cost. The goal is to keep the cost low.

 

[ctenidae]

The goal is to keep the cost low.

I guess it's a matter of accounting for all the costs. There's more to the equation than money.

Reforming regulations on interstate power lines could open the way to electrifying transcontinental train lines which would reduce transport costs, create jobs, deliver cheaper energy, improve grid reliability, and allow excess wind resources in the Great Plains to be tapped. That doesn't require high gas prices or shutting down coal plants. But, state level politics and local NIMBYism won't allow it.

That's the kind of thing I think needs to change.

 

[dbsb3233]

I guess it's a matter of accounting for all the costs. There's more to the equation than money.

Reforming regulations on interstate power lines could open the way to electrifying transcontinental train lines which would reduce transport costs, create jobs, deliver cheaper energy, improve grid reliability, and allow excess wind resources in the Great Plains to be tapped. That doesn't require high gas prices or shutting down coal plants. But, state level politics and local NIMBYism won't allow it.

That's the kind of thing I think needs to change.

It's hard for trains to compete with air travel over those kind of distances. Especially now that people are used to going a few thousand miles in hours instead of days. (And high speed rail is incredibly expensive.) I don't really see that one becoming a big thing in North America.

But cars, sure. That's already in gradual transition.

 

[ctenidae]

Transport costs, not transit costs. Shipping goods by rail.

Sponsored