Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:22pm PT
|
And the denialist crowd still makes excellent arguments. Of course they are arguing against straw men and red herrings, so it's pointless and comical.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
Same idea as ever Wilbeer. Their has yet to be species , or group of species unless you Include bacteria's, to achieve perpteual sustainability. Indeed the Earth, the solar system, or even the galaxy is not sustainable in its present form. From the day we climbed down out of the trees mankind, in its original form, was doomed. However,as the first species to achieve self awareness of mind external to the state of its physical containment .We have been endowed with an ability to manipulate the physical world. This ability is in its infancy still. We will adapt, evolve, expand beyond this earthly confine if we dont shrink inwards in fear of "problems" inflated to artificial proportions. In short we engineered ourselves into this problem (if you believe it is real), we can engineer our way out. Going backwards in retreat is not a sustainable option.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
You just made an excellent argument for lowering carbon emissions rick.
Our ability to manipulate the physical world may be in it's infancy but it's affects are significant. Humans have modified over 50% of the land mass of the Earth. And when you think how much of the rest is desert and covered with ice, that doesn't leave much left to change.
Going backwards in retreat is not a sustainable option. Another straw man argument.
There's two time frames in question in my mind. 1. the next 100 years or so. It's a question of economics. It's cheaper to cut emissions (if done right) than to deal with the aftermath of global warming (storms, sea level, food cost, etc.) and the people who feel it the worst are the poor, low lying countries. And 2. the next 1000 years, where if humanity lives in a sustainable way and we can afford the investment required we will probably develop the technology to expand to other planets.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:43pm PT
|
You do not even think towards the middle [ideologically]of this problem.
It will become a bigger problem,not ALARMING anyone with a gd pulse,There is a solid majority that want to address this .
It IS economically possible to do this ,Address CARBON pollution ,get leaner,help mitigate.
You and yours are just in the way,for now.....
Democracy,at least in our region,will win out,I know you do not like that,so good.
And learn how to not write in a slab.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2014 - 05:52pm PT
|
What JEleazarian, Bruce and Ed propose here is called Extortion.
Good luck backing that one up.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 06:09pm PT
|
Fet the mainstream radical prescriptions to cure this hypocondriac global warming problem is the most gigantic straw man of all. Phoney to its rotten core. Instead of accepting on the shelf technoligy like latest generation nuclear and expanded usage of NG, the proponents of this scam always advocate not ready for prime time wind and solar whose providers are often cozy with the politicians directing subsidues to the otherwise impossibly unaffordable installations. Besides this they always push ruinous carbon taxation and limits on peoples freedom of mobility. This inflexability in their action plan makes it obvious they don't so much want to solve a problem as enslave and impoverish the populace. Wilbeer, besides typing on a smart phone im techno challenged.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 06:26pm PT
|
When I ride my bike to the top of the hill 3 miles from my house ,I see this.We have outlawed fracking here and up our watershed.But we have helped subsidise this.
Farmers and property owners are getting better leases from wind companies than they would have from NG drillers.
It is not all about ROI.
EDIT; Yes ,that is right.WE voted down fracking,voted up wind.We employed thousands ,from where the towers are made [Watertown ,N.Y.]to all the Electricians hooking it all up.
Good Luck stopping IT now.
There,I hope you got a little New York on you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
|
levying a tariff or a tax is not extortion
rick's basic argument is that nothing is happening so nothing needs to change.
Why he engages in any of this discussion is beyond me. He badly distorts reality to bend to his basic conclusion, which he holds with fervent belief as The Truth.
Not much to argue with there, I am convinced the rick holds his views to be The Truth. He is certainly entitled to those views, that entitlement doesn't convey to them any validity.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 08:17pm PT
|
Looks like a bucolic scene Wilbeer, other than those god awful blights marring the ridge. You know New York's underground is lousy with energy rich gas and the rigs to drill aren't permanent, the pads and gaslines smaller than the wind tower pad or cleared transmission line. And the bonus amigo is that by the time the gas is dry (not to mention uranium or thorium) a new generation of good scientists ,like our friend Ed,will have invented even more energy dense sources so you can take the windmill beanie off your head and move off Walden's Pond. Ed, unlike the belief in pronouncements you ascribe to me, I have no such opinion of what you say. I think deep in your soul you are old school skeptical scientific type.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 08:28pm PT
|
Again ,your intentions are obvious.
You are a wallethugger ,You would sell anything,anyone,anywhere.
All about me.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 08:31pm PT
|
Ahh, BS Wilbeer. You know you'd sell your soul for latest, greatest windmill beanie and a half bowl of tofu.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2014 - 02:10pm PT
|
Fet the mainstream radical prescriptions to cure this hypocondriac global warming problem is the most gigantic straw man of all. Phoney to its rotten core. Instead of accepting on the shelf technoligy like latest generation nuclear and expanded usage of NG, the proponents of this scam always advocate not ready for prime time wind and solar whose providers are often cozy with the politicians directing subsidues to the otherwise impossibly unaffordable installations. Besides this they always push ruinous carbon taxation and limits on peoples freedom of mobility. This inflexability in their action plan makes it obvious they don't so much want to solve a problem as enslave and impoverish the populace. Wilbeer, besides typing on a smart phone im techno challenged.
Rick, it seems supertopo polifools are mostly right wing or left wing so you are going to get a skewed view of the debate here.
Mainstream radical prescriptions is an oxymoron.
And you could say the whole global warming issue is a strawman for a global left wing conspiracy to control you (despite all the evidence to the contrary) but prescriptions to help aren't a straw man.
There's no agreement on any mitigation, so you can't say what's mainstream. You really have to look at each proposed effort. One tactic is California's cap and trade which took on the lessons learned from other carbon markets around the world. I have an issue with cap and trade because it's not fair, because different people get away with different amounts of emissions, but it is one of the best solutions because it is so efficient. It's probably the most economically feasible way to reduce emissions. It worked good for acid rain.
But generally I'm in favor of things that won't hurt us economically in the long term, like better MPG requirements, and subsidized green energy projects and especially technologies development, because long term they are GOOD for our economy. The problem is that those hurt some and help some, so the people that it hurts (the petroleum industry and their huge influence in Washington) don't want to change the status quo because it's good for them, even if it hurts everyone else. They are financing a denial industry to do everything they can do sow doubt on this issue.
I believe is the issue. There is simple direct evidence that shows it's extremely likely it's happening and I'm ok with nuclear and natural gas. Long term would should invest in green energy technology. But in the meantime whatever is the most economical way to deal with it should be used when possible.
A big problem is also the coal industry. It's very bad for many reasons, but the people making money and who have jobs because of it also don't want to change the status quo. I'd much rather see natural gas or nuclear for the next 50 years than coal. But the lobbyists and voters from coal states don't want that.
So your statements of "always" and "inflexibility" primarily exist in your mind. There are many things we can do that don't put any hamper on the economy and our lifestyles and if we don't do them for fear of a slippery slope of far left liberals controlling what we do, we won't do anything and it will be much more expensive to deal with the effects of global warming than to reduce our contributions to it.
P.S. I also agree with you that we need to look at and be careful about solar and wind providers being cozy with the govt. and doing things not in the countries best interest. But the coal and petroleum industries have way more money, lobbyists, and friend in the govt. And they have a long history and experience with getting their way. They both need to be kept an eye on, but to deny that the coal and petroleum industry have more influence that wind/solar is silly.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 13, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
|
Silly ass humans thinking the can CONTROL the climate.
What, you never turn on the AC in your car?
Oh...right. That climate.
Hey, I never heard anybody say we could control it. But, I did hear that we are causing an HUGE motherf*#king effect on the current climate. So yeah, we can try to control how we effect the climate.
And maybe we just need a better thermometer?
Which reminds me... How do you tell the difference between a rectal thermometer and a regular one you use in your mouth?
By the taste, dumbo!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2014 - 06:46pm PT
|
an interesting graphic for 60 years from 1950 to 2010
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2014 - 07:01pm PT
|
interestingly, over these 60 years the total energy efficiency hasn't changed, it's about 50%
and the transportation efficiency has not changed, it's about 25%
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2014 - 07:49am PT
|
Ed, thanks for posting up those charts.
I'm trying to understand the Electricity Generation box, what does the number in the box, 39.49, represent? Is that the percentage of our total "fuel" going into electrical production? It's interesting to see the efficiency of that electrical production (and distribution, I suppose).
One of the great things about solar is that is can be decentralized--you put the energy production near the point of use. Think of the energy grid needed to distribute power from centralized plants.
It's interesting to watch big power companies try to figure out ways to centralize solar.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2014 - 07:57am PT
|
Pure gold.
Sketch, I'm trying to understand your comment, it can be taken in many ways. Are you saying the line you emphasize makes solar worth investing in, or are you being tongue-in-cheek and saying his statement is golden BS?
My hunch, knowing your slant, is the latter. But I'm not sure.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2014 - 09:38am PT
|
Seems like efficiency in electrical transmission has huge potential gains. Wasn't their some recent breakthrough on room temperature super conduction applicable to a large percentage of the loss?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2014 - 10:08am PT
|
There is a considerable debate among the technical minded regarding the wisdom of moving to solar energy. In particular, the question regarding whether that technology can ever be efficient enough to compete with the other alternatives.
As a technology, it is certain one that can be commodified in a way to make it attractive to individual home owners.
In rural areas lacking the means of moving a lot of electricity over power lines it provides an alternative, probably viable, compared to the creation of a centralized energy production. So solar makes sense in places like Africa.
It's not at all clear that solar makes sense in the US, and especially not without some consideration of how the "power grid" will evolve, particularly since that grid grew unplanned. Of prime concern is how to break the necessarily diurnal character of solar power. That is, when you go to turn your lights on at night, where does the energy come from to allow you to do that?
There are some potential scientific break throughs which might reduce the cost of solar to the point of being competitive with fossil fuels. The real question is why the fossil fuel costs are so low. As has been discussed endlessly in this sprawling thread, it is because the full costs of fossil fuel use is not being recovered, that is, the costs associated with the climate change it creates.
This only becomes a problem when the accumulative effect of energy production byproduct, the CO2, starts to play a role in climate change. We're there, and the costs of that climate change can be estimated in many different ways. This is the reason why it makes sense to recover the costs of CO2 emission by increasing the costs of using CO2. Then the red line on Dr. F's plot moves up, and it does that for all the alternatives.
This also means that energy costs go up. They will go up anyway, as the resources are used up, and that is evident in the costs of oil production. Technology is developed (at a cost that is passed on to the consumers) to extract reserves that had not been accessible previously. Oil doesn't bubble up on the ground anymore, we've collected all that easy to get resource.
Mining doesn't make sense when it is possible to just move entire mountains, literally... to excavate down to the coal resources. Or building a pipeline across north america to move tar? the cost of the tar end product must be able to support both the capital costs of the pipeline as well as the operational costs of the production.
Simply put, we don't have any windfall wood to burn in our campfires, instead we pay a lot of money to buy some wood at home and transport it by car to our campground... it's a great analogy to follow, and includes ecological dimensions that are disturbing (such as the transportation of insect, fungal and bacterial species living in that wood that are introduced to ecosystems from which they were absent previously, to grievous effect in many areas). And yet you're willing to pay that price all because you want to observe a "tradition," a campfire, from our shared "wilderness culture"?!
Maybe we should get real here...
... and the reality is that within a century or so, given the current rate of consumption, the world will expend all of the fossil fuel reserves. The fossil fuel use will be a "blip" on human history, certainly lasting no longer than a 1000 years, a time short compared to written history, and very short compared to all of human history.
To burn all of that fossil fuel we'll have to figure out someway to prevent the exhaust product, CO2, from venting into the atmosphere. It is apparent that the climate change caused by just venting and doing nothing to mitigate the effect won't support the civilization that requires it, it is self limiting. And doing anything to mitigate it will drive the costs up, either directly or indirectly.
There may be a way of using nuclear fission or fusion for power, but these are not without consequences either, and to do it on the scale of the projected energy needs is something that is far from thought out at this point.
Generating it all from alternatives is an equally dismal calculation.
But necessity is the mother of invention, so I hold out some hope for a solution, even a solar based one. Maybe we can genetically engineer photosynthesis to increase its efficiency... or maybe many of you wouldn't like that solution, either...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!