[dredmorbius]

I just dislike the black-and-white way renewables vs. nonrenewables are addressed.

Then do some research.

I've, literally, dedicated the past 9 months to figuring out what the hell is going on. And one way or the other, we're going to run out of fossil fuels in any practical economic sense (there will always be some coal, oil, and natural gas underground, but the ability to extract it and gain useful economic productivity from it will eventually expire).

You can quibble over whether we've got enough to last for 5 years, 50, 500, or 5000, but they will run out. Almost certainly at some point in the timespan I've just given. Very likely sooner rather than later for oil (on which we're tremendously dependent for anything involving transportation), and likely not much longer for gas and coal. And those timespans are well within the span of existing human history. Which is to say: we're facing the very probable end of industrial civilization of humans on Earth.

It's also hardly a "green" or "liberal" viewpoint: the finite nature of fossil fuels was realized quite early in the Industrial Revolution. William Stanley Jevons is often mentioned ("The Coal Question", 1865), but he was beat by 76 years by John Williams, "The Limited Quantity of Coal in Britain", 1789. More recently, M. King Hubbert (petroleum engineer), Hyman Rickover (US Navy admiral), and Colin Campbell (petroleum engineer).

It's geology, physics, and math. Not ideology.

And even if we've got reserves to last a million years, the environment can't take it. CO2, mercury, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and other pollutants from coal, oil, and gas will kill us.

We're stuck between those two prongs.

And beyond energy, there's a host of other resources which humans have done an exceptionally good job of drawing down. As if it's our job (and I could make a fair case that it has been).

And, as with any coldly rational bottom-line focused employer, once an employee has provided all the useful work they can provide you, you let them go.

That's us: humanity is very close to having worked its way out of a job. And no, the Universe doesn't offer unemployment insurance, welfare, or a pension.

Think it over. Do some research. See what conclusions you come to.

[sliverstorm]

You're so eager to defend renewables you're projecting opinions you want me to have, on me.

What I mean is I don't like how anything that is grouped into "renewables" is considered to be equally perfect. Like, "It's not fossil fuels so it's the holy grail". Nevermind that hydro backs up rivers and solar panels require rare earth metals. This sort of mindset, I figure, will hamper our ability to choose the best renewables. I'm not saying we should stick with fossil fuels.

[dredmorbius]

What I mean is I don't like how anything that is grouped into "renewables" is considered to be equally perfect.

In which case, you're projecting opinions on me which aren't correct.

In the world of energy sources available to humans, there are two classes:

Renewables which replenish given time.

Nonrenewables which don't.

For all of human existence save the past 250 years, we've depended virtually entirely on renewable resources. Which isn't to say they didn't have negative impacts on the land humans occupied. Deforestation and desertification are very common in human history and prehistory.

For the past 250 years or so we've had coal, oil, and gas. The chart looks roughly like this: https://plus.google.com/photos/104092656004159577193/albums/...

There are a handful of other nonrenewables which are sufficiently abundant that they might be able to address some of our energy needs (mostly electricity -- transportation, liquid fuels, and chemical feedstocks remain a major issue). They have some pretty tall technical challenges however. Thorium reactors are more probable, fusion rather less so: we've been unable to reach technical let alone commercial viability with 50 years' research during the period of maximum abundance.

And there's a very clear relationship between energy, economic growth, and population: http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/08/29/the-long-term-tie-betwe...

Anyhow, as I said: list out your options. Figure out how viable they are, and what the negatives are.

A list of questions I like to keep in mind:

1. How Much Energy is Returned for the Energy Invested (EROEI)?

2. Have the claims been verified by an independent third party?

3. Can I see the alternative energy being used?

4. Can you trace it back to the original energy source?

5. Does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics?

6. Does the inventor make extravagant claims?

7. Does the inventor claim zero pollution?

8. Can I see blueprints, schematics or a chemical analysis of how it works?

9. Infrastructure Requirements -- Does the energy source require a corporation to produce it? How will it be transported and used? Will it require new engines, pipelines, and filling stations? What will these cost? Who will pay for them and with what? How long will it take to build them?

From: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052703_9_questions...

Have fun.