The world needs more energy - energy leads to freedom. - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crefcQpwA5w[/media] I know the video is long and the guy doesn't think global warming is real, but what he's saying about the third world and energy is spot on.

except coal is not the answer, its whats been killing the third world in general. its expensive, inefficient, and has horrible long-term effects. in third-world countries they use it as a fuel source not as electricity. the big push for coal has been to replace wood in traditional uses, but its completely different than wood and it ends up costing more for being less efficient. they often have poorly built stoves that don't use the heat the coal generates and are very poorly vented because nobody really understands that there's a difference between a coal burning stove and a wood burning one, so its even worse than the fuel it replaces and costs more while producing fumes that nobody understands are very bad to breath. whats more coal's advantages over natural gas are very slim, hydrolic fracking will be rapidly adopted by all the world's countries because they see what it did to revitalize the US natural gas industry, and its pretty cheap (especially when you ignore its enviromental safety laws) and that doesn't even get started on renewables which can easily be employed on micro-grid level projects to provide very simple but life-improving electricity for lighting and pumps or charging computers and other electronic devices. coal can't do any of that, to do so would require massive electric infastructure that the areas in question often lack coal is on its way out and it should be, because its not going to save the 3rd world

You didn't watch the video, did you? Also, coal isn't expensive, that's why everyone uses it.

The problem with coal is the emissions and coal ash. You can recycle coal ash. Coal just like Oil is a limit resource. Using all of the resource will be hard but if we all use coal we will pollute our planet with CO2 and deplete the resource rapidly. If these people really want to use Coal than I suggest for every coal plant you match the energy output with something green.

[QUOTE=Aide;47596073]The problem with coal is the emissions and coal ash. You can recycle coal ash. Coal just like Oil is a limit resource. Using all of the resource will be hard but if we all use coal we will pollute our planet with CO2 and deplete the resource rapidly. If these people really want to use Coal than I suggest for every coal plant you match the energy output with something green.[/QUOTE] Again, it sounds like you didn't watch the video and completely missed the point.

[QUOTE=download;47596123]Again, it sounds like you didn't watch the video and completely missed the point.[/QUOTE] to be fair, it's a pretty long video, maybe you could give a short summery so people can understand easier? I mean, watching a speech for a full hour can be inconvenient for many is all

does this video address the fact that renewable energy developments in africa are growing rapidly anyway

[QUOTE=J!NX;47596129]to be fair, it's a pretty long video, maybe you could give a short summery so people can understand easier? I mean, watching a speech for a full hour can be inconvenient for many is all[/QUOTE] There is a pretty close correlation between the availability of low cost energy and education. Education of course leads to more technical jobs and better interactions with your fellow man which improves equality, leads to proper medicine and all that good stuff. Low cost energy also means people move from a mostly farming based society to an industrialized society. Ultimately this will save lives due to the increased standard of living and reduce regional conflict. So, how can we as Westerners, who still use shit tonnes of fossil fuels, be telling Africans they need to buy the significantly more expensive green options when very low cost coal based solutions exist? It's hypocrisy at it's finest. These countries simply can not afford the green option at the moment, they are far too expensive. He also discusses the scale of global energy use and how many fucking wind turbines we would need to supply that even before you get to the fact that they only have a load factor of about 25% (it's a lot). He also covers energy density of different power sources. [editline]25th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=CheeseMan;47596787]does this video address the fact that renewable energy developments in africa are growing rapidly anyway[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

Well he said he was agnostic towards climate change, whatever that means. But in general he is right about the fact that we still heavily depend on oil, coal and natural gases and current green power couldn't possibly replace it yet. I definitely dont agree with everything he has to say but for a climate change sceptic he does seem pretty reasonable.

Energy is becoming the only important commodity on the large scale. We can create combustion engine fuels, they just require energy. We can purify water, even saltwater, it just requires energy. We can recycle metals, guess what's the issue? It costs tons of energy. Eventually humanity will be at the point where energy is the only really crucial commodity, as everything we need, be it food, pure water, or even clean air, or clothing or building materials will be question of having some trash and applying enough energy on processing it back into something useful again.

[QUOTE=download;47596848]There is a pretty close correlation between the availability of low cost energy and education. Education of course leads to more technical jobs and better interactions with your fellow man which improves equality, leads to proper medicine and all that good stuff. Low cost energy also means people move from a mostly farming based society to an industrialized society. Ultimately this will save lives due to the increased standard of living and reduce regional conflict. So, how can we as Westerners, who still use shit tonnes of fossil fuels, be telling Africans they need to buy the significantly more expensive green options when very low cost coal based solutions exist? It's hypocrisy at it's finest. These countries simply can not afford the green option at the moment, they are far too expensive. He also discusses the scale of global energy use and how many fucking wind turbines we would need to supply that even before you get to the fact that they only have a load factor of about 25% (it's a lot). He also covers energy density of different power sources. [/QUOTE] The nice thing is that by educating and starting right with responsible, renewables like nuclear/geothermal/etc. (I'll probably get flak for suggesting nuclear if we're talking about unstable countries). But by starting them out right with these renewables (LFTR, molten salt reactors, etc), we can increase their prosperity without sacrificing their environment. China realized this once smog has all but engulfed their major metropolitan centers. Their prosperity has skyrocketed from the use of coal, but they're playing catch up on the environmental standpoint. They have good reason to be using breeder reactors and the like to combat their environmental problems while still retaining high energy prosperity.

The only reasonable green option is nuclear and there is no way that the rest of the world will tolerate them having nuclear reactors unless they become stable.

[QUOTE=Amiga OS;47603464]They [I]are[/I] stable.[/QUOTE] You're a fool if you think Africa is in any way stable.

[QUOTE=download;47595790]You didn't watch the video, did you? Also, coal isn't expensive, that's why everyone uses it.[/QUOTE] No actually coal is really expensive, its just very subsidized to make it compedative. Its always been very man-intensive to mine and very dangerous to mine, and that's before processing it into fuel and distributing it, the only thing it has over natural gas is that it is solid and can be thrown into a cart and wheeled around, its easy adaptability is why everybody uses it Natural gas is as abundant as coal but it takes a slight amount of infrastructure to distribute verses coal, but the energy and health gains are substantial, we shouldn't be subsidizing coal in 3rd world we should be making gas more avalible, because its more energy dense, usable, and cleaner, and it develops jobs since a distribution network needs tanks, tank deliverers, refillers and more

It's not subsidized outside of the US. We don't subsidize it here in Australia and it's the cheapest energy source here

[QUOTE=download;47608608]It's not subsidized outside of the US. We don't subsidize it here in Australia and it's the cheapest energy source here[/QUOTE] its subsidized there, it makes up 77% of your energy production, is the largest export of austrailia, and only makes up 2% of the Australian GDP, its a huge part of your economy but provides almost no net benefit. coal is subsidized everywhere because it employs large amounts of unskilled labor, but the actual demand for coal is often much lower than the actual production of coal [url]http://theconversation.com/coal-curse-the-black-side-of-the-subsidised-resources-boom-7801[/url] australia lacks a fully connected natural gas network, which means its always going to be much more expensive than coal [t]http://annualreport2012.apa.com.au/sites/all/themes/apa2012/images/highlights-map.gif[/t]

After saying that I did research into the supposed subsidies. The government subsidizes all mineral and petroleum exploration - I can't say I care about that, they subsidize transport for some people and most public transport (hurr, oil industry conspiracy!), and they return the 40c/L fuel tax if you don't use the fuel on public roads - the same return farmers and off-road drivers see. So no, there isn't a coal subsidy. As for the fully connected gas network, most of the gas consumers and the gas sources are in SA, QLD, NSW and Vic. There isn't much need.