1
Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games (RPGs) Discussion / Re: Orcs vs goblins
« Last post by Ruprecht on Today at 06:06:16 AM »Does that help, Ruprecht?Yes it helps a lot. I was thinking to narrowly.
Does that help, Ruprecht?Yes it helps a lot. I was thinking to narrowly.
Then why did real data from 1972 to 2012 track the LtG standard run model?
Why are you using proven reserves?
New methods of extraction is unconventional production.
Direct connection? When oil prices went up, demand didn't go down. When oil prices plummeted to zero or lower during the early stage of the pandemic, demand didn't soar. And do you know who sets prices? Not the end users but the ones who speculate at the bourse and negotiate with the sellers.
Worse, did you also look at demand per day, which is 100 Mbd? You got a field with potentially 5 billion barrels. How much supply is that for the world economy? 50 days?
Finally, what economical cost? Capex has been doubling the last two decades, and in exchange for what? A third of the previous increase in oil production? And covered by increasing debt, consisting of mostly junk bonds?
It seems like you're picturing an adventuring party like a SEAL team --
The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.
So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs. You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs. In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.
By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.
BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?
If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs
EVs have low energy returns and quantity because much of mining, at least half of manufacturing, and the bulk of shipping involve fossil fuels. Similar applies to mechanized agriculture.
Meanwhile, energy returns from fossil fuels have been dropping, from a hundred barrels for each barrel used in the 1930s to three today. Why do you think the oil industry has been resorting to not only fracking but tar sands, biofuels, natural gas, etc., with even countries like Saudi Arabia investing in nuclear and solar power?
It's like debating with Greta and her counterpart, and both living in a fantasy world: one imagines utopia based on environmentalism and the other based on the Jetsons.
The lifetime emissions can range from 20% less to 60% less than a gasoline car, depending on how its made and especially on what source you're charging it from.
So, by only comparing lifetime emissions, you are conveniently leaving out the environmental harm done in the process of strip mining for the minerals needed to make the batteries to make the EVs. You can't be unaware of this problem since GeekyBugle has brought it up several times in detail. I can only conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous and deliberately presenting a false view of the costs. In short, you are arguing in bad faith again.
By "lifetime" I mean end to end, including both production and disposal -- i.e. including the minerals needed for the car body, engine, battery, etc.
BUT you're ONLY focussing on gas emissions, because?
If I was a betting man I would say it's because you can't argue your way out of the TOTAL environmental damage done by EVs