+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 2
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 15921 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2015, 03:56:30 pm »
This post is divided into 3 parts due to max size of post limitations. It was originally one post on the Doomstead Diner Forum (Agelbert's Newz Channel).

I've been thinking about the onslaught of Alzheimer's  ;) he has had lately in regard to Nicole Foss's history of support of fossil fuels and, despite her CYA talk about Faustian bargains and such with fracking and tar sands in 2011 and 2012, her SUPPORT for those technologies by awarding them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1. The instant she did that, she signaled to investors, as a credentialed energy expert, that they could MAKE MONEY off of them. THAT is SUPPORT, in my book. 

I do believe the old boy has the same crush on her that another Doomstead Diner (Golden Oxen) I have gone round and round with has.

So, here's a stroll down memory lane for Ka.

Two sides of Nicole Foss's mouth:
The "I'm not happy with this" side showing much concern for humanity after paragraph after paragraph of IGNORING global warming and GLOSSING OVER the enormous environmental damage the fracking causes:
Snippet From "Fracking Our Future" by Nicole Foss (crocodile tears are in evidence).
Given the poor economics and low EROEI of shale gas in general. It is very difficult to argue that fracking, particularly in areas like the Marcellus Shale, makes sense. Unconventional gas is far from being a clean fuel when the whole lifecycle is considered. In fact considering the substantial potential for releases of fugitive methane emissions, one cannot even argue that unconventional gas is an improvement in comparison with burning coal when it comes to climate impact, let alone an improvement on other environmental fronts.

Shale gas is simply another Faustian bargain that humanity should not be making. We run substantial long term risks, which we socialize, for the sake of short term private profits.

This is the typical human modus operandi, but it is high time we learned from our mistakes.

HELLO? Who is "TRYING TO ARGUE" that Fracking makes sense? The ARGUMENT is not about "sense", dear. The ARGUMENT is about ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE COSTS. You just FLAT REFUSE to QUANTIFY THAT!  :emthdown:

Some compassionate words about  fracked gas not being an improvement over the damage of coal to the climate (without COST NUMBERS) DOESN'T CUT IT.

Now for the other side of her mouth.  THAT IS, whenever a Credentialed Energy Expert SAYS the EROEI of WHATEVER is ABOVE 1:1, they are engaging in DE FACTO support of said technology. They are TELLING investors that the technology is PROFITABLE. If Ka does not define that as support, it is due to his hairsplititis, an occupational hazard of self described scholars everywhere. 

In 2012 she wrote an article with lots of graphs showing the EROEI of Fracked gas to be ABOVE 1:1. I wrote and told her that fracking was an obscenity. I cannot find the article or my comment. If anyone can find it, please post it HERE. I will not hold my breath waiting for Ka to do it.

I went back to comment on another article in the hopes of getting that "energy" expert to understand that pushing fossil fuels as "cheap" was inaccurate (i.e. the energy RETURN is LESS than that INVESTED so the number must be, for example 1: 0.1) when the climate costs are figured. The whole point (that she has ALWAYS danced around) was to tell her that externalized costs are real and they MUST be figured in the EROEI.
Ilargi, another one of Ka's pals(?),  took care of THAT:
July 9, 2012 at 3:48 am #4515 
Raúl Ilargi Meijer
I deleted your obviously far too lengthy comment from this thread. Left it on the other thread for now. I thought I had been clear before. Apparently not. Any additional comments like this will be deleted. This is a forum for everyone, and it’s not to be bogarted.

I wrote the Open Letter in 2013 (a year later). I showed conclusively how her predictions had NOT panned out and how her SUPPORT of technologies like tar sands and fracking (by ASSIGNING them EROEI numbers ABOVE 1:1 was bad for the  climate and beneath her as an "Energy" expert. I was polite, as Ashvin had requested me to be in PM's when we discussed it. She never answered.  :emthdown:

When I posted the letter HERE on the Doomstead Diner, the SILENCE was DEAFENING. Ka was not interested in talking about it. Neither was anybody else. And Foss was CERTAINLY NOT interested in eating crow. So it goes.

SNIPPET from the letter hi-lighting the OTHER side of Nicole Foss's mouth:
What does propaganda fostered by the fossil fuel industry for the purpose of denying Global Climate Change have to do with the subject of this letter to you?

A lot. I'll get to that but now I wish to remind you of a response you wrote to me in a comment forum about a year ago when I complained that you had not figured in the cost of poisoned aquifers from fracking gas drilling in the EROEI of fracked gas. I further said that, given the fact that Renewable Energy does not pollute, it actually is more cost effective than fossil fuels.

Why wait a year to answer you? Because I ran into exactly the same talking points in several other comment forums when the subject of fossil fuels versus renewable energy came up. So I set about to research your claims and predictions.

I have answered the statements and predictions you made. Nearly 100% of your predictions have not come about. In fact, in some cases the exact reverse of what you predicted has happened.

Also, some of your statements were factually incorrect at the time you made them, not just a year after you made them. Please read them and tell me if you have revised your views in these matters.

I have included your statements in exactly the same sequence as you made them without any alterations whatsoever.

Your statements are in brown color

My response in blue

Renewables represent a drop in the bucket of global supply.

(Phase 1)
  Energy from renewable resources—wind, water, the sun, biomass and geothermal energy—is inexhaustible and clean. Renewable energy currently constitutes 15% of the global energy mix.


They are having no effect whatsoever on fossil fuel prices.

(Phase 2) So the huge demand destruction in fossil fuels this past year was ONLY related to the depression we have been in since 2008!!? Why then, didn't said demand destruction occur THEN? Why did that demand destruction DOVETAIL with the explosive growth of energy and wind in the USA in 2011 and 2012?

Charts: The Smart Money Is on Renewable Energy
—By Tim McDonnell
Mon Apr. 22, 2013


IEA Predicts Wind to Double and Solar Solar to Triple in 6 Years


The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.


They are more expensive than fossil fuels

(phase 3)

  When you account for the effects which are not reflected in the market price of fossil fuels, like air pollution and health impacts, the true cost of coal and other fossil fuels is higher than the cost of most renewable energy technologies.


In the July 2011 PE magazine article “Why We Need Rational Selection of Energy Projects,” the author stated that “photovoltaic electricity generation cannot be an energy source for the future” because photovoltaics require more energy than they produce
(during their lifetime), thus their “Energy Return Ratio (ERR) is less than 1:1.”

Statements to this effect were not uncommon in the 1980s, based on some early PV prototypes. However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.


because of their very low EROEI

(phase 3) See above. The EROEI of fossil fuels is lower than Renewable energy EROEI.


However, today’s PVs return far more energy than that embodied in the life cycle of a solar system (see Figure 1).

Their energy payback times (EPBT)—the time it takes to produce all the energy used in their life cycles—currently are between six months to two years, depending on the location/solar irradiation and the technology. And with expected life times of 30 years, their ERRs are in the range of 60:1 to 15:1, depending on the location and the technology, thus returning 15 to 60 times more energy than the energy they use. Here is a basic tutorial on the subject.

Energy Payback Time = (Emat+Emanuf+Etrans+Einst+EEOL) / (Eagen–Eaoper)
Emat: Primary energy demand to produce materials comprising PV system
Emanuf: Primary energy demand to manufacture PV system
Etrans: Primary energy demand to transport materials used during the life cycle
Einst: Primary energy demand to install the system
EEOL: Primary energy demand for end-of-life management
Eagen: Annual electricity generation in primary energy terms
Eaoper: Annual energy demand for operation and maintenance in primary energy terms

The traditional way of calculating the EROI of PV is EROI = lifetime/EPBT, thus an EPBT of one year and life expectancy of 30  years corresponds to an EROI of 1:30..


and very large fossil fuel dependency.

(phase 3) Maybe that was true in 1980 but NOW it is only partially true. Norway has about 100% penetration of renewable energy in their electric grid. Other highly industrialized countries have high penetration as well. This mean the electric arc furnaces for smelting steel and other high temperature thermal processes dependent on electricity are using very little fossil fuels to make renewable energy machines in these places.

Also Nuclear power plants, something neither you nor I favor, have always been made with fossil fuels but that never stopped our government from making or heavily subsidizing that new energy technology. Why should it be different for renewable energy machines?
Observe below the Renewable Energy penetration of the electric grid in various industrialized countries

Electric Grid Renewable energy Penetration in Selected Markets

Although we technically do not have PV manufacturing plants or Wind turbine manufacturers driving EV trucks or mining with EV machines as well as powering their factories with wind and PV or some other renewable energy, it's just a matter of time.

WHY? Because of the HIGH EROEI of Renewable Energy devices. They pay for themselves in a few years and then, as long as they are properly maintained, last a number of decades while using ZERO fossil fuels throughout the entire period.

The fossil fuel powered internal combustion machine is not competitive with Renewable Energy technolgies UNLESS fossil fuels retain their massive subsidies and continue to limit the market penetration of renewable energy systems in the USA and elseware with the threadbare excuse, and untrue allegation, that they are "too intermittent".

The Great Transition, Part I: From Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy
Lester R. Brown


In fact renewables is a minomer. The sun will continue to shine and the wind to blow, but steel is not renewable and neither are many other essential components.

Six Terrawat hours a year of energy is expended each year in the USA just to make the internal combustion engines and spare parts. How come you never complained of this massive amount of energy involving "non-renewable" steel used in manufacturing internal combustion machines?

Renewable Energy devices terminology refers to the FACT, that once they are constructed, they don't USE fossil fuels to output energy. And the metal used in Renewables is not high temperature alloy metal like that required for internal combustion engines which makes it recyclable with LESS energy than that required for internal combustion engine metals.

In fact, we need far less steel and other metals to replace the entire internal combustion independent infrastructure with renewable energy WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL MINING by just cannibalizing the internal combustion machines for Renewable Energy machine metals as we make the transition.

Yes, I know about the rare earth metals mining pollution. I can only remind you of that phrase, "drop in the bucket" compared with the benefits of doing away with fossil fuels altogether.


For As Long As The Sun Shines: The Non-Crisis of PV Module Reliability


The demand and price collapse will kill much of renewable development,

Prices have gone up for fossil fuels even as demand has gone down. This has actually spurred the switch to renewables , not dampened it.

Retail Prices (Dollars per Gallon) 2012-2013


Volatile fossil fuel prices make renewable energy more attractive


especially at a large scale.

(phase 3)

To date, we've committed over $1 billion to renewable energy project investments, signed ... It may also be more feasible to build larger power installations .... and match their demand with utility-scale solution


You cannot run an industrial society on intermittent energy sources with low EROEI.

The Renewable energy blend eliminates intermittency and the low EROEI claim has been proven, not just inaccurate, but the exact reverse.


Continued on next post in this thread:
« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 09:42:04 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23


+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm