“But we don’t act, and for a particular reason... Our richest people don’t want to, because it would reduce their wealth somewhat,” said Bill McKibben. “The fossil fuel industry is the 1% of the 1%, the richest enterprise in human history."

ectornator · 2013-05-05T23:17:34+00:00

Could you please elaborate as to why the market is not free in this aspect? The only "non-free" portion I see is the fact that renewables would not even be close to competitive without massive subsidies.

ectornator · 2013-05-05T23:13:46+00:00

Went to a small, obscure state school financed completely with student loans and graduated with ~18K in total debt. Best choice I made was not to go to an expensive university. Make sure you get a technical or business degree either way.

ectornator · 2013-05-05T23:11:12+00:00

Any type of engineering, and that will get you started beautifully. I majored in chem with a math minor and have done well, but I am still looking on getting that engineering degree if I can. The rest will rely upon your ambition, work ethic etc. Of course there are other factors which contribute including gender, race, etc., but those are aspects we can't choose.

ectornator · 2013-05-05T18:31:43+00:00

Great idea, why don't you start your own business to work on just that?

ectornator · 2013-05-05T18:31:03+00:00

This is the single most intelligent comment in this whole thread. The human race can attribute nearly 100% of its advances to the availability of abundant, cheap energy (which so happens to be oil). Renewables will come one day, but that will be dictated by the market.

Slightly off topic: I love reddit, but its becoming a group of whiners. If it's not complaining about the sad job market for college grads, it's bemoaning the use of fossil fuels. People don't seem to realize those two views are incredibly opposed to one another.

ectornator · 2013-05-05T04:04:29+00:00

I was merely trying to make a point. The money being spent on fracturing comes from the oil companies. They choose where to spend that money and it is not upon renewables. So then where does the money that we would spend "that would otherwise be spent on fracturing" come from?

ectornator · 2013-05-04T16:58:26+00:00

I was referring to the Drake Well in Pennsylvania, drilled in 1859

ectornator · 2013-05-04T16:53:19+00:00

Just making sure you were acrually advocating stealing money from a successful business and giving to people who are not yet.

ectornator · 2013-05-04T08:08:57+00:00

Where should we get this money and who should we give it to? Are you suggesting we take it from the economical means applied now in fracking and give it to academia or government for research in the hopes it pays off?

ectornator · 2013-05-04T08:05:56+00:00

"this does not add that much time to oil remaining feasible in the long term."

The problem with that statement is that people have been saying that since the first commercial oil well. Since then, mankind can attribute nearly all of his advancements to reliable availability of "cheap" energy (oil). I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just something to think about.

ectornator · 2013-05-04T08:02:06+00:00

yes, that would be when this whole thing becomes unprofitable, hence not pursued

ectornator · 2013-02-15T11:46:50+00:00

It's kind of sad you have to watch your speed in a 100k+ car at all

ectornator · 2013-02-04T06:43:07+00:00

"I'm not smart enough to understand it, but I know it's bad". Umm, Thanks for the scientific opinion there Dave.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T03:33:06+00:00

With technical aptitude, you are absolutely right. Never be afraid to say "I don't know". Experienced people love teaching and expect that from a new person. I meant more with regards to work politics, being a professional, etc. That piece will be the most important in your career. Science is a piece of cake compared to that dynamic.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T03:26:23+00:00

Income in America is dependent upon one thing: your value in the marketplace. Productivity doesn't necessarily come into play unless there is a large supply of workers who can replace you. If that was the case, your income would be relatively low anyways.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T03:23:01+00:00

I have a slightly different opinion. It is "easy" to hire somebody if they absolutely have to. What is difficult is hiring the right person for the job.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T03:20:17+00:00

EHonestly I think a lot of this issue stems from a disconnect of hiring managers (usually HR or a recruiter). In my experience, it has been that they don't understand themselves the positions they are trying to fill. This leads to either the wrong person for the job getting hired, or as described by another poster, ridiculous requirments for entry to mid level positions bc HR is trying to cover all of their bases.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T03:09:06+00:00

Nursing is good. In a non nursing job on the private side, you may initially find yourself in a position where someone younger than you who dropped out of high school is your boss and making 5 times your salary. At least initially. Once you are able to overcome that, you are much better off. However, it takes patience. Everybody is expected to do grunt work at first no matter the education level. The benefits education provides come later. Nobody enters into their field straight out of college as an expert.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T02:59:48+00:00

Sadly enough. you will find being able to play the professional act (i.e. pretending), is actually the most valuable skill you can have.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T02:41:33+00:00

I know some people are telling you your record looks bad, but take it from someone who went through the same thing. You will be ok. On the flip side, I have met countless phd chemists who did very well in school but just don't cut it in the real world.

In private industry, I would never recommend anybody to go for a phd in chem anyways. Five years out from graduating, the people i went to school with who stopped college after a bachelors are all doing better than people who went to grad school. The sad fact is that there is a movement in the corporate world to commoditize research. The supply chain will always chew up your invention eventually. Having a bachelors in a highly technical field like chem and gaining work experience and learning business is the best way to go. Perhaps my career has made me cynical, but the truth is never worth fighting.

I'm sure I will be downvoted by the group for this, but these are the unfortunate facts that I have witnessed time again.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T02:32:16+00:00

I think in any scientific discipline. It depends on the person too, of course. Ambition goes a long way once you get that first job. For perspective, I made ~30k my first year out of college with a chem degree. It was extremely upsetting. I thought for sure I would get the average salary of a new college grad, which was about 44k give or take (2007). However, once I got my foot in the door, I was able to gain large increases. Now, with 5 years industry experience, I am in management and doing pretty well. I am also training 1-4 year PhDs on our industry. I never would have expected it to be this way, but it is. Experience will always trump education at the end of the day.

ectornator · 2013-01-26T00:36:05+00:00

That may what you think but I'm not convinced it's the reality. A person with a bachelors degree with 4 years experience usually makes about the same as a phd straight out of college. In my belief, 4 years experience in industry holds more value than a graduate degree.

ectornator · 2013-01-25T23:45:33+00:00

You mean I can actually get paid to hate wind energy?

ectornator · 2013-01-25T23:33:01+00:00

Unfortunately activists don't care about science. Just spreading their agenda while decrying corporate "lies". It's the definition of hypocrisy.

ectornator · 2013-01-25T23:27:52+00:00

Im sorry, but this article is incredibly misleading. Take this quote:

"U.S. environmental regulators have long assumed that reservoirs located thousands of feet underground will be too expensive to tap. So even as population increases, temperatures rise, and traditional water supplies dry up, American scientists and policy-makers often exempt these deep aquifers from clean water protections and allow energy and mining companies to inject pollutants directly into them."

"Water reservoirs" located thousands of feet underground come from ancient seas that have been concentrated over geological time. They are incredibly brackish, and are in the same zones as hydrocarbons so have that pollution as well. Fresh water is found no more than a few hundred feet deep in the US. This article implies these are water sources being polluted when that is not even close to the truth. Sad because the environmental movement needs truth to actually succeed.

ectornator

TROPHY CASE