Venezuela exports oil, but has massive rolling blackouts

[_MeDotOrg]

Think of it: Venezuela, an oil exporting nation, is now reducing federal employees to a 2 day workweek because of rolling blackouts.

Venezuela is home to the Guri Dam, whose hydroelectric power (10 megawatts - 5 times greater than the Hoover Dam) is normally 60% of Venezuela's electricity. But the massive drought of the past years has dramatically reduced the dam's hydroelectric capacity. Right now the water level is 5 feet above what is known as the catastrophic point where the turbines stop turning altogether.

The lion's share of responsibility for this situation devolves to horrible planning and execution by the government. Obviously Venezuela has the natural resources to generate electricity without hydroelectric power.

But government incompetence should not obscure a far larger issue: How can governments rely on hydroelectric power in a world where climate change is increasing extreme weather patterns, including droughts? The Three Gorges Dam in China produces 22.5 megawatts of electricity. That is a very large chunk of power generation in China.



We have the spectre of global climate change making droughts more common, which will make us more dependent on fossil fuels, which can then lead to more droughts.

[_ajax18]

We have the spectre of global climate change making droughts more common, which will make us more dependent on fossil fuels, which can then lead to more droughts.

Is climate change making droughts more common everywhere on the entire earth at the same time?

[_Themis]

We have the spectre of global climate change making droughts more common, which will make us more dependent on fossil fuels, which can then lead to more droughts.

Is climate change making droughts more common everywhere on the entire earth at the same time?

Some areas may become drier on average making hydro electric less available for energy generation. Especially during drought times. Global warming that we are seeing can make some areas drier and some areas wetter, but it also tends to create more extremes.

[_ajax18]

Global warming that we are seeing can make some areas drier and some areas wetter, but it also tends to create more extremes.

So build hydroelectric damns in the areas that become wetter. A lot of the rain the western US has enjoyed this past year came at the expense of those in northern South America. If it weren't the drought in South America, it would have been the drought in California.

I don't know a lot of things. But I know you're not going to change the weather patterns significantly with crippling regulations heaped asymmetrically upon the US economy. Change is inevitable. Embrace it or be left behind.

[_Themis]

Global warming that we are seeing can make some areas drier and some areas wetter, but it also tends to create more extremes.

So build hydroelectric damns in the areas that become wetter.

You need to figure out how the climate will change in each area, but the real problem is what has already been built.

A lot of the rain the western US has enjoyed this past year came at the expense of those in northern South America. If it weren't the drought in South America, it would have been the drought in California.

So? The problem with global warming is changing areas we have already developed. Changing the climate can come with huge costs, especially coastal areas with rising sea levels. Also more acidic oceans can have huge affect of life in the sea which is a major source of food and resources.

I don't know a lot of things. But I know you're not going to change the weather patterns significantly with crippling regulations heaped asymmetrically upon the US economy.

Making changes now can slow down and mitigate climate change which could cost us a lot. It also does not have to cost us to make important changes.

Change is inevitable. Embrace it or be left behind.

Which is why we need to change how we generate energy to slow down and stop global warming. It's a lot cheaper to decrease our emissions then pay for the changes we will cause long term. Most of the causes are done by the US and other developed nations so they have more responsibility to help to make real change.

[Guest]

So build hydroelectric damns in the areas that become wetter. A lot of the rain the western US has enjoyed this past year came at the expense of those in northern South America. If it weren't the drought in South America, it would have been the drought in California.

On the face of it there's nothing wrong with thinking about how to adapt. In reality there are some other considerations, such as whether or not the area that becomes wetter has the geography set up for insertion of dams or other hydroelectric facilities, or if that land can be set aside for that purpose anyway (think imminent domain).

[_EAllusion]

So build hydroelectric damns in the areas that become wetter. A lot of the rain the western US has enjoyed this past year came at the expense of those in northern South America. If it weren't the drought in South America, it would have been the drought in California.

I don't know a lot of things. But I know you're not going to change the weather patterns significantly with crippling regulations heaped asymmetrically upon the US economy. Change is inevitable. Embrace it or be left behind.

Can China borrow your dam building fund that you have under your mattress? That should take care of it.

[_ajax18]

Can China borrow your dam building fund that you have under your mattress? That should take care of it.

The climate has always changed long before the industrial revolution and will continue to change long after. Humans have had to suffer the cost, adapt, and survive. You could just as easily blame overpopulated countries that refuse to limit their birth rates. Blaming the US economy for problems like this demonstrates the root of global warming is not so much about climate change but rather global Marxism.

[_EAllusion]

Can China borrow your dam building fund that you have under your mattress? That should take care of it.

The climate has always changed long before the industrial revolution and will continue to change long after. Humans have had to suffer the cost, adapt, and survive. You could just as easily blame overpopulated countries that refuse to limit their birth rates. Blaming the US economy for problems like this demonstrates the root of global warming is not so much about climate change but rather global Marxism.

Climate change is predicted to be more extreme and more rapid than natural fluctuations people have had to adapt to. This is harder to adjust to and will, depending on how severe it gets, cause tremendous financial loss and suffering. It's the rapidity of change - at least at first - that is the biggest problem.

Your quoting a post about China, which is one of the few countries on the planet so brutally totalitarian that its government has actively attempted to limit birth rates. That makes it especially an odd criticism. You complain about Marxism in this post while blaming countries for not adopting communist population control. Make up your mind.

Your argument here is that other countries should limit their populations, so climate change won't be as devastating because they'll need less resources and therefore be less severely impacted when those resources are harder to come by. So the US economy, which had an awful lot to do with carbon emissions, has no fault here. That's like blaming a family for needing to drink too much water when you poisoned their river. It's like you're trying to be worse than a Captain Planet villain.

[_Themis]

Can China borrow your dam building fund that you have under your mattress? That should take care of it.

The climate has always changed long before the industrial revolution and will continue to change long after.

It hasn't changed that quickly, and any change has been with humans living simple lives that can move quickly and easily to adjust. Modern society doesn't have the ability. Things like dams can take many years and great cost to build and you cannot move them. Cities built on the coast cannot just up and move to higher ground with huge costs. Add to that human stupidity in places like New Orleans in rebuilding areas that should have been made into parks.

Humans have had to suffer the cost, adapt, and survive.

Easy to do if you are a hunter gatherer society. Not so much if you are building huge structures to live and power your society. Cheaper to cut green house emissions since they are causing change to happen faster then they would on their own.

You could just as easily blame overpopulated countries that refuse to limit their birth rates. Blaming the US economy for problems like this demonstrates the root of global warming is not so much about climate change but rather global Marxism.

EA's point destroys your idiocy here. He is also right that the US economy is responsible for much of the problem, but keep blaming others for your lifestyle and the consequences of it.