Page 23 of 146 FirstFirst ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 3644
  1. #551
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    Quote Originally Posted by JongDoe View Post
    Originally Posted by old goat View Post

    In the second place, the technology exists today for a zero carbon economy. The technology also exists for us all to have flying cars (but not autonomous flying cars) but we don't have them. The issues are cost, politics, and the willingness of all of us to drastically change our lives and to have far more government control of our lives than we have now.


    Bingo. This is exactly why we will never move away from carbon sources, regardless if you believe global warming is a problem or not.
    This is what the fossil fuel industry wants us to believe - that switching will be very expensive and will allow lots of government control of our lives.

    It just isn't true. Utility scale wind and solar are cheaper then gas and coal. Yes, putting in infrastructure for smart grids and EV charging will cost money, bit so does drilling for oil or coal.

    Economists love the idea of putting a price on Carbon. Consumers don't as they don't want costs to go up. So don't do it. The market has failed to address climate change so that now we need to get to net zero emissions quickly. Regulations that require 100% renewables is part of the answer; renewables are cheap.

    About the point that we would need to give government more control of our lives, this also isn't true. Yes, government will set industrial policy, like it has since our founding. They will say you can't drive a gas car you must drive a more powerful, sportier EV that is cheaper to drive and requires less maintenance. But you can still drive a car. You won't heart your home with gas but your home will be comfortable and costs will be low.

    If we stop giving billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuel companies we'll
    Have money to begin the transition.

    The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action.

  2. #552
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    The optimist in me disagrees. Think of how far some technologies have advanced in your lifetime if there is a market.
    I agree with your disagreement. My point or takeaway from above quote is "dozens" and "asking" city council is probably not enough to achieve an objective clear path. It's a start. Let's check back in a year or two and see where they are.

  3. #553
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Would you guys stop acting like the Los Angeles Solar plant is an answer for anywhere but LA, Vegas, and Arizona? Jesus it's surrounded by mountains followed by a fucking DESERT. So it's sunny, wide open to development, and out of sight. Wonderful.

    Now try scaling that power need by a factor of 3 for the NYC Metro area with literally zero open space to cover with solar panels that isn't already in heavy use by agriculture or Nature preserves. Think of your solar wealth equivalent to our potable water wealth.

  4. #554
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    If wind and solar are so expensive, how did LA manage to sign a contract for PV + battery for less than the cost of natural gas?



    http://labusinessjournal.com/news/20...-clean-energy/

    New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear



    https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcm.../#49f390a95971
    You can't translate this cost onto a 100% clean renewable future. This is for only 7% of LA's power, and the batteries only have 4 hours of storage so it still needs carbon backups. To be serious about replacing fossil fuels the storage needs to be closer to 4 days. Also notice this project has a 30% subsidy. I know this isn't the greatest source, but its the most detailed cost breakdown I can find: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/...u-do-the-math/

  5. #555
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    As for the article itself, it reinforces what I believe, that the problem is not technological but sociopolitiical and economic. The key sentence is in the last section-- "Jacobson and his colleagues said that a remaining challenge of implementing their roadmaps is that they require coordination across political boundaries." We can't even cooperate within our political boundary.
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.

  6. #556
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,084
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Man are you dumb. D.. U.. M.. B..

    The map he is using is called surface mass balance. Study your hooked on phonics, maybe follow along with a pencil pointing at words and go slowly. Maybe you can comprehend the below sentence which is literally the first thing on the surface mass balance site.

    http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
    The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis. This is known as the surface mass balance. It does not include the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.
    You said, "...most ice loss is from calving, not melt...."

    From: https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1

    "In combination, the breakaway of icebergs (calving) and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers account for between one third and one half of the mass annually discharged from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean."

  7. #557
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    2,100
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.
    So, basically, your whole argument against renewable energy is that trying is the first step towards failure?

  8. #558
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Just for giggles go add up the 5 largest solar plants in the world. Only like 2 are at full operating capacity. I gave benefit of doubt and added the full operating capacity (most won'te achieved forany years). Combined they produce just over 5000megawatts of electricity a state like California has used 50,270 megawatts in a DAY (July 24 2006). The top 5 take up about 100sq miles of land. We simply aren't going to cut it with solar.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

  9. #559
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    19,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    We simply aren't going to cut it with solar.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    And that is why Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into developing alternative methods of nuclear energy production. We need that too.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  10. #560
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    And that is why Bill Gates is putting a lot of money into developing alternative methods of nuclear energy production. We need that too.
    I am 100% for alternative sources of energy to move away from fossil fuels, however betting on "all in" solar is never going to work. Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans. We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.

  11. #561
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Where the sheets have no stains
    Posts
    22,070
    Solar is one piece, wind another, Nukes another.

    One thing that gets skipped is increasing efficiency. The GND is excoriated yet part of the proposal is to increase building efficiency to reduce energy usage, to me that is a freaking huge opportunity that should be easy to get going if only the shouters would STFU and think about the idea critically.

    How much energy could we save by making as many old and leaky buildings much less energy intensive?

    Until some brainiac comes up with the ultimate answer energy will come down to a broad set of sources.

  12. #562
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    I am 100% for alternative sources of energy to move away from fossil fuels, however betting on "all in" solar is never going to work.
    I don't know anyone that is going "all in" on solar. But there are a LOT of people that are advocates of going all in on carbon-free. Which seems like a prudent direction to take.

    Soon we will need nearly every square inch of land for humans.
    While this seems like a simple answer, the reality if the math is done appears to be a bit less alarming: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/

    We keep people alive longer and keep reproducing. We need a plague or something.
    Yeah - if we just ignore the whole shitshow, we're going to see large numbers of humans dying, and it will be of our own doing.

  13. #563
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    7,926
    Quote Originally Posted by Not bunion View Post
    Solar is one piece, wind another, Nukes another.

    One thing that gets skipped is increasing efficiency. The GND is excoriated yet part of the proposal is to increase building efficiency to reduce energy usage, to me that is a freaking huge opportunity that should be easy to get going if only the shouters would STFU and think about the idea critically.

    How much energy could we save by making as many old and leaky buildings much less energy intensive?

    Until some brainiac comes up with the ultimate answer energy will come down to a broad set of sources.
    This.

    Quote Originally Posted by skaredshtles View Post
    I don't know anyone that is going "all in" on solar. But there are a LOT of people that are advocates of going all in on carbon-free. Which seems like a prudent direction to take.



    While this seems like a simple answer, the reality if the math is done appears to be a bit less alarming: https://www.freeingenergy.com/how-mu...power-the-u-s/


    Yeah - if we just ignore the whole shitshow, we're going to see large numbers of humans dying, and it will be of our own doing.
    And this.

    Funny to read all over the internets comments about how Windmills don't spin all of the time and therefore they are worthless. All the right wing talking points handed down to the masses by the dumbasses running the right wing talk shop - including the orange dictator wannabee.

    The trolls on here are only slightly more nuanced. Gets so tiring.

  14. #564
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The reason we have a sociopolitical and economic problem is because of the technology. If the tech was there it would be an easy sell economically and politically.
    This is probably your biggest lie yet.

    Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.

    These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.

    Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.

    Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.

    When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change

  15. #565
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    14,410
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    This is probably your biggest lie yet.

    Much of the market value of fossil fuel companies is based on their vast holdings of oil, gas and coal reserves. If we move away from fossil fuels, these reserves are worthless and the value of these companies disappears.

    These companies also have billions of dollars of fossil fuel infrastructure (wells, pipelines, tankers, refineries, gas stations, etc) that become stranded assets if we move to clean energy. I think they care more about this than the tech needed to go clean.

    Follow the money and you see why people like Ron Johnson lie and try to confuse.

    Listening to the scientists and getting off of fossil fuels is an existential threat to fossil fuel companies. They are doing everything they can to prevent this from happening, even if it means allowing the climate to tip into chaos.

    When they tell us how awful it will be to go to zero emissions, remember that 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. Who do you think funds the deniers?

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustaina...climate-change
    Too big to fail? What would getting rid of all those companies do to the economy? I'm seriously asking.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app

  16. #566
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,624
    They'd be replaced by other companies stepping in to produce clean energy. Investment will continue. But yes, by refusing to change business models they are putting the climate and the economy at risk.

  17. #567
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    At the beach
    Posts
    19,069
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    They'd be replaced by other companies stepping in to produce clean energy. Investment will continue. But yes, by refusing to change business models they are putting the climate and the economy at risk.
    Agreed. Their lobbyist will be mother fuckers to overcome. Ban lobbying is a great place to start along with meaningful term limits (2) to get all the bought and paid for politicians out.
    Quote Originally Posted by leroy jenkins View Post
    I think you'd have an easier time understanding people if you remembered that 80% of them are fucking morons.
    That is why I like dogs, more than most people.

  18. #568
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    10,734
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You said, "...most ice loss is from calving, not melt...."

    From: https://link.springer.com/article/10...641-017-0070-1

    "In combination, the breakaway of icebergs (calving) and submarine melting at marine-terminating glaciers account for between one third and one half of the mass annually discharged from the Greenland Ice Sheet into the ocean."
    The moron in the video, who you defended, used a chart that ignored a third to half of all melt in his argument that this is all alarmism, and your objection is I said most? Now that you know that his whole argument includes 1/2 to 2/3th the total melting do you reject his argument?

  19. #569
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    11,184
    Guys, check out this Energy expert who can clear up all of these arguments:

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...sburgh-1461337
    Know of a pair of Fischer Ranger 107Ti 189s (new or used) for sale? PM me.

  20. #570
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Quote Originally Posted by liv2ski View Post
    Agreed. Their lobbyist will be mother fuckers to overcome. Ban lobbying is a great place to start along with meaningful term limits (2) to get all the bought and paid for politicians out.
    The horse and buggy industry had plenty of lobbying power too. They still died after Ford made the automobile affordable. Time marches on.

  21. #571
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    5,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    Would you guys stop acting like the Los Angeles Solar plant is an answer for anywhere but LA, Vegas, and Arizona? Jesus it's surrounded by mountains followed by a fucking DESERT. So it's sunny, wide open to development, and out of sight. Wonderful.

    Now try scaling that power need by a factor of 3 for the NYC Metro area with literally zero open space to cover with solar panels that isn't already in heavy use by agriculture or Nature preserves. Think of your solar wealth equivalent to our potable water wealth.
    there is a shit ton of real estate fifty miles from Manhattan to put solar panels

    here in the champlain valley you can't go ten feet without tripping on a solar panel farm

  22. #572
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Quote Originally Posted by DBdude View Post
    there is a shit ton of real estate fifty miles from Manhattan to put solar panels

    here in the champlain valley you can't go ten feet without tripping on a solar panel farm
    In aggregate what square footage would you put that at? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the available space in a fucking DESERT. You ever been to the Mojave? There is fuck all between Barstow and Needles (150 miles) other than rocks and sand. There's also all that pesky "not ideal for solar" weather difference too between the two locations.

  23. #573
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    champlain valley
    Posts
    5,656
    it doesn't matter. the country that has the highest solar use is germany. eight percent of their total consumption is solar

    that it has to be sunny all the time for solar to be efficient is stupid

  24. #574
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    13,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Tippster View Post
    In aggregate what square footage would you put that at? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's nowhere near the available space in a fucking DESERT. You ever been to the Mojave? There is fuck all between Barstow and Needles (150 miles) other than rocks and sand. There's also all that pesky "not ideal for solar" weather difference too between the two locations.
    You've convinced me.

    We should give up on solar... it's a dead-end.

  25. #575
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Stuck in perpetual Meh
    Posts
    35,247
    Dude. Germany got flattened in WWII. Go there and find the shit ton of leaky drafty wood single family homes we have. The climate also (with exceptions, like this year) doesn't call for AC being run 24/7 for months on end. Their per capita kW/hr consumption of electricity is miniscule compared to ours... and really? 8%?? that leaves 92% to....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •