GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 I couldn't agree more. Again, I think we're very much on the same page. Any practical alternative to fossils fuels is likely a long way off, and I am 100% against artificially driving up the cost of any form of energy, like what was done to the coal industry a few years ago. That doesn't mean that I do not support research and investment into developing reliable alternative energy, but again - you're right. It probably won't be a reality for a long time. I don't fault people for caring, either - it's just that what so many people believe to be truth is a bunch of manufactured bull#$%& because they take a political view, not a realistic one. The only meaningful legacy that Al Gore will leave is Manbearpig. Don't you think it's realistic to look at all the costs of producing various types of energy, hard to quantify though they may be, rather than simply price per joule?
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Don't you think it's realistic to look at all the costs of producing various types of energy, hard to quantify though they may be, rather than simply price per joule? Does anyone not do that? I mean...can you think of an energy source where production and infrastructure costs aren't factored in to pricing?
GoBills808 Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Does anyone not do that? I mean...can you think of an energy source where production and infrastructure costs aren't factored in to pricing? Then there's no argument to be made against solar for electricity, at least. It's cheaper per kW/hour than any fossil fuel as of around 2016 without not counting carbon emissions. If the argument then becomes storage, that's certainly a cost to factor in. But it's why I asked how 'price' was being defined.
DC Tom Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Then there's no argument to be made against solar for electricity, at least. It's cheaper per kW/hour than any fossil fuel as of around 2016 without not counting carbon emissions. If the argument then becomes storage, that's certainly a cost to factor in. But it's why I asked how 'price' was being defined. I'd included that under "infrastructure." And instead of "storage," think of it as "portability." The big advantage of fossil fuels over everything else is that you can carry it with you in useful quantities pretty easily. Energy sources with higher energy density (nuclear, rocket fuel), are not nearly as portable. Even electricity, which is highly mobile, is still not as portable (you can move large quantities easily over predefined routes - wires. Or you can move limited quantities more freely - batteries.) Azalin said it best: until you can use it to put jets in the air, you don't have an alternative. That's the standard for portability. (And yes, nuclear-powered jets have been tried. The best attempt was ridiculously impractical; the worst was never tried, as it was an Strangelovian nightmare.)
GoBills808 Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 I'd included that under "infrastructure." And instead of "storage," think of it as "portability." The big advantage of fossil fuels over everything else is that you can carry it with you in useful quantities pretty easily. Energy sources with higher energy density (nuclear, rocket fuel), are not nearly as portable. Even electricity, which is highly mobile, is still not as portable (you can move large quantities easily over predefined routes - wires. Or you can move limited quantities more freely - batteries.) Azalin said it best: until you can use it to put jets in the air, you don't have an alternative. That's the standard for portability. (And yes, nuclear-powered jets have been tried. The best attempt was ridiculously impractical; the worst was never tried, as it was an Strangelovian nightmare.) I wouldn't use 'can it fly a plane' as the standard, personally. Jet fuel is a small piece of the energy consumption pie to make that argument logical. My point was in response to the idea that we should only phase in 'renewables' when they become cost effective, and for a large percentage of daily usage solar would fit that description even discounting the incidental costs.
Tiberius Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 Volvo will go all electric by 2019, drop traditional engines CBS News - 52 minutes ago In Volvo's view, the combustion engine is going the way of tailfins and ashtrays. Volvo will begin producing electric motors on all its cars from 2019, becoming the first traditional automaker to forgo the combustion engine altogether.
B-Man Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 We have to stop thinking about reversal and start thinking about mitigating effects. We've been beyond the tipping point for 15 years or so. And Hawking isn't a climatologist - there's no reason to think he knows what he's talking about. You are correct. Climate scientists and policy experts are criticizing famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking for arguing President Donald Trump’s policies would push the Earth “over the brink” towards runaway global warming. Climate scientists, even those usually worried about future global warming, pushed back against Hawking’s claims that Earth would become like Venus. Zeke Hausfather @hausfath A good example that even brilliant scientists sometimes say silly things when it's outside their field of expertise (see Nobel disease) https://twitter.com/garethsjones1/status/881576291517988864 … Ryan Maue ✔ @RyanMaue Stephen Hawking's wacky & bizarre opinions on climate change (e.g. Earth becoming Venus) pollute policy debate. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726 … Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which means its climate is extremely hot compared to Earth’s climate. Earth’s atmosphere is only four-hundredths of one% carbon dioxide. Venus’s average surface temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, while Earth’s average surface temperature from 1951 and 1980 was 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit.
Koko78 Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 Venus’s atmosphere is 96.5% carbon dioxide, which means its climate is extremely hot compared to Earth’s climate. Earth’s atmosphere is only four-hundredths of one% carbon dioxide. Venus’s average surface temperature is 864 degrees Fahrenheit, while Earth’s average surface temperature from 1951 and 1980 was 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. So... he's calling the human race a bunch of slackers?
Very wide right Posted July 6, 2017 Author Posted July 6, 2017 Thank you all for continuing to keep my topic going strong.I started this dialogue in 2014 and its still on top!!
B-Man Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 Link according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings. Skeptics of man-made global warming have criticized the adjustments. Climate scientists often apply adjustments to surface temperature thermometers to account for “biases” in the data. The new study doesn’t question the adjustments themselves but notes nearly all of them increase the warming trend. Well................let's see Conducted by scientists peer-reviewed I know.............I know................they were paid for by evil, energy corporations
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 Link That paper's such a load of **** that it's illegal to have it anywhere near the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Tiberius Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 according to a study published June 27 by two scientists and a veteran statistician. s conservative activist scientists?
B-Man Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 SETTLED SCIENCE” IN TWO HEADLINES Climate science is “settled,” right? To the 97th percentile! Anyone who asks pesky questions about what we might not know, or what might be a meaningful uncertainty, is a “denier,” the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Well then: Amazing how one wet winter can change the science. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/07/settled-science-in-two-headlines.php
row_33 Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 They couch everything in terms like "could" or "if we don't do something" which makes it a very soft science.
4merper4mer Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 They couch everything in terms like "could" or "if we don't do something" which makes it a very soft science. "Doing something" means communizing.
TH3 Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Link https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot
grinreaper Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot Setting the standard for idiots everywhere.
4merper4mer Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 Setting the standard for idiots everywhere. Further Communizing the educational system can fix that too.
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 11, 2017 Posted July 11, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jul/10/conservatives-are-again-denying-the-very-existence-of-global-warming Your a idiot The proper usage is Your a moran.
Recommended Posts