ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , global warming , green energy issues

Reply
Old 9th February 2019, 08:58 PM   #241
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
It was a vast right-wing conspiracy 2.0
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:02 PM   #242
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,021
I think the conservatives in this thread should have a long, hard talk to Germany. I mean, these backward idiots have just announced a phasing out of coal power, not long after cutting back on nuclear. What would these clowns know about science and engineering? They need real solutions (aka do nothing) from TBD and others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKCN1PK04L
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:03 PM   #243
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,661
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I think the conservatives in this thread should have a long, hard talk to Germany. I mean, these backward idiots have just announced a phasing out of coal power, not long after cutting back on nuclear. What would these clowns know about science and engineering? They need real solutions (aka do nothing) from TBD and others.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g...-idUSKCN1PK04L
They decided a long time ago that Europe's not the real world.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:07 PM   #244
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,021
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
They decided a long time ago that Europe's not the real world.
Sadly, a good point. The Europeans obviously know nothing.....
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:25 PM   #245
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Because I like planes, and it's cool looking into and discussing how aerospace engineers are working to make them less damaging to our environment, if you're not interested, you don't have to be involved in the conservation.
That last word is a somewhat apt typo (but undesirable outcome.)
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:30 PM   #246
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,031
LOL, reactionary USAian conservatives thinking their views on anything actually matters.
__________________
Proud Dirtbag Leftist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:43 PM   #247
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,021
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
LOL, reactionary USAian conservatives thinking their views on anything actually matters.
They got Trump elected.....
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:48 PM   #248
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
They got Trump elected.....
And alienated the rest of the free world in doing so, making it clear as day that the emperor (AKA the USA) has no clothes. At this point only the worst bootlicking scum still believes that the US is the "shining beacon on the hill".

Good luck to them getting cozy with North Korea and russian oligarks.
__________________
Proud Dirtbag Leftist.

Last edited by Lambchops; 9th February 2019 at 09:51 PM.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:53 PM   #249
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
I don't travel to China much but I was in Shenzhen recently and was surprised by the number of electric taxis, a lot seemed to be manufactured by BYD.

More interesting for me is that the major and traditional car manufacturers are joining the market. So instead of a buyer having to first choose electric or hydrocarbon power instead in the showroom both products will be available side by side. I believe electric wins in less than a generation.

As for power, regulatory difficulties already slow down CFPP projects, approval of an EIA takes time and if a government changes during the process the start and completion of construction cannot be accurately determined. Solar power projects are easier to get approved and quick to get to commercial operation. Wind to me seems a less obvious solution - but i see that windfarms onshore and offshore being constructed in so many places (the UK view to the horizon has changed so much in 15 years)

But i believe in the short term the worldwide agreements on renewables and emission reductions are important. For that reason I believe The New Green Deal can be a vote winner, the youthful US vote will be to fix climate change as much as it can be fixed in 10 to 20 yeara.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:20 PM   #250
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,644
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
AOC rolled out her Green New Deal today:



Sounds wonderful, but the devil is in the details. For starters, the GND hand-waves away any questions about funding:



And in case that isn't specific enough:



The document is not all smoke and mirrors; only 90%. Getting down to specifics, they envision ending all air travel in 10 years. No, I'm not kidding:



And no nukes:



Oh, and there's this little proposal:



The plan claims support from 92% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans, including Democratic presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Kirsten Gillibrand among others.

Scientists have been warning for about 40 years about the need for action on AGW. The longer we have delayed taking effective action the more drastic action we have to take to remediate the loss of time. You can call her absurd but all she is doing is pointing out the bleeding obvious. It is our society that has been more absurd by delaying effective action for so long. If we had been taking more effective action over the years we would already be well on the way to preventing disaster.


Much of it can be done with little cost to consumers.


As for paying for the changes needed, where were all the conservatives when Trump brought in his tax cuts for the wealthy? The budget is still heading into stratospheric debt either way.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

Last edited by a_unique_person; 9th February 2019 at 10:25 PM.
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:21 PM   #251
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,800
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
They got Trump elected.....
Disaffected ignoramuses and idiot liberals got Trump elected; two-bit American conservatives from the peanut gallery just cheered the result.
The Shrike is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:27 PM   #252
Lambchops
Graduate Poster
 
Lambchops's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Norvegr
Posts: 1,031
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
Disaffected ignoramuses and idiot liberals got Trump elected; two-bit American conservatives from the peanut gallery just cheered the result.
__________________
Proud Dirtbag Leftist.
Lambchops is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:31 PM   #253
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you think this is junk science?

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/...ownsCities.pdf
Jacobson? Yes. At minimum really bad science.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:34 PM   #254
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,021
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Jacobson? Yes. At minimum really bad science.
Well if you say so.....
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 10:53 PM   #255
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
I think the conservatives in this thread should have a long, hard talk to Germany. I mean, these backward idiots have just announced a phasing out of coal power, not long after cutting back on nuclear. What would these clowns know about science and engineering? They need real solutions (aka do nothing) from TBD and others.
Germany is the poster child for the most disastrous way that a country can tackle climate change. Spend massive amounts of money. Huge increase in electricity costs. Extremely minimal decreases in ghgs. Per capita CO2 emissions at least twice as high as France. For the simple reason that they followed a completely counterproductive ideology, instead of science.

Ontario eliminated coal years ago (and would have eliminated it much sooner, except that they too followed the same anti-science ideology of shutting down nukes, resulting in a massive increase in coal. Spending billions on wind and solar, increasing the electricity costs for decades to come, before realizing that the wind and solar was completely useless, canceling future wind and solar contracts - which they knew would not only further increase electricity costs, but would actually increase emissions - finally putting the nuclear back online and due to that easily shutting down all coal).

Last edited by Wayward son; 9th February 2019 at 11:25 PM.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 11:03 PM   #256
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
Well if you say so.....
When he first published those papers. His math was so bad and so full of errors he had to take the excel sheets offline, but even still the methodology is hilarious. He has locations ramping up hydro which don't have rivers to dam etc. Serious scientists consider his work a joke and people who have tried to replicate his work can't come close.

But, I don't really care. I have long known that until people understand the methods promoted by the greens have zero chance of working, we will get nowhere when it comes to climate change except for pissing away money.

The proportion of energy worldwide that came from zero carbon sources increased steadily for decades - for instance doubling from 6% in 1973 to 12% in 1990. If it had continued the same trend it would be at 40% today. Instead it has held steady at roughly 12 - 12% for the last 29 years. That because at that time climate change policy started to enter the mainstream and politicians started to follow the disastrous policies of the Greens - who claim to care about climate change, but instead put all of their efforts into eliminating nuclear.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 11:29 PM   #257
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
Germany is the poster child for the most disastrous way that a country can tackle climate change. Spend massive amounts of money. Huge increase in electricity costs. Extremely minimal decreases in ghgs. Per capita CO2 emissions many times higher than France. For the simple reason that they followed a completely counterproductive ideology, instead of science.

Ontario eliminated coal years ago (and would have eliminated it much sooner, except that they too followed the same anti-science ideology of shutting down nukes, resulting in a massive increase in coal. Spending billions on wind and solar, increasing the electricity costs for decades to come, before realizing that the wind and solar was completely useless, canceling future wind and solar contracts - which they knew would not only further increase electricity costs, but would actually increase emissions - finally putting the nuclear back online and due to that easily shutting down all coal).
As you know the reason why France has a low GHG emission figure per capia is not due to climate change policy but the adoption of nuclear power as a main power generation strategy about 40 years ago.

While i expect you have data that shows that historically environmental concerns have held back the bringing online of nuclear power plants I do not see that as the major reason now. Nuclear power is difficult to fund due the the long design-construct and commisioning period. Economics are the main reason nuclear power is not the answer now.

Power is needed everywhere not just developed, technologically advanced, rich economies. For that reason solar and wind seem safer to further develop and promote than nuclear.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 11:36 PM   #258
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,661
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
When he first published those papers. His math was so bad and so full of errors he had to take the excel sheets offline, but even still the methodology is hilarious. He has locations ramping up hydro which don't have rivers to dam etc. Serious scientists consider his work a joke and people who have tried to replicate his work can't come close.
Evidence/link?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 11:41 PM   #259
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,661
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
I have long known that until people understand the methods promoted by the greens have zero chance of working, we will get nowhere when it comes to climate change except for pissing away money
You think this is junk science, too?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...307?via%3Dihub

Quote:
Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere, faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term. Energy systems based on renewables, on the other hand, are not only feasible, but already economically viable and decreasing in cost every year.
Quote:
As a result, we conclude that the 100% renewable energy scenarios proposed in the literature are not just feasible, but also viable. As we demonstrated in Section 4.4, 100% renewable systems that meet the energy needs of all citizens at all times are cost-competitive with fossil-fuel-based systems, even before externalities such as global warming, water usage and environmental pollution are taken into account.

The authors claim that a 100% renewable world will require a ‘re-invention’ of the power system; we have shown here that this claim is exaggerated: only a directed evolution of the current system is required to guarantee affordability, reliability and sustainability.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 12:12 AM   #260
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You think this is junk science, too?

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...307?via%3Dihub
The way I see things progressing are a substitution of large solar and wind power plants for existing large CFPP. That would be the major, and not unsurmontable, engineering change. Plus a huge increase in storage to spread the load. This storage can be traditional pump storage at dams, large battery facilities and domestic batteries.

One big negative factor is the large space needed for solar power. I see a huge (>1,500MW) solar plant in China covers around 45Km2. CFPP in Asia can range from small 100MW plants to larger plants of around 1,200MW capacity. The land area for one of these large plants might be 1/10th of that of the Chinese solar power plant I mention. But think of the savings in land used for mining and transport facilities to bring in the fuel.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 12:19 AM   #261
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,644
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
The way I see things progressing are a substitution of large solar and wind power plants for existing large CFPP. That would be the major, and not unsurmontable, engineering change. Plus a huge increase in storage to spread the load. This storage can be traditional pump storage at dams, large battery facilities and domestic batteries.

One big negative factor is the large space needed for solar power. I see a huge (>1,500MW) solar plant in China covers around 45Km2. CFPP in Asia can range from small 100MW plants to larger plants of around 1,200MW capacity. The land area for one of these large plants might be 1/10th of that of the Chinese solar power plant I mention. But think of the savings in land used for mining and transport facilities to bring in the fuel.

Gas turbines generation can be built quickly. The produce CO2 but can be turned on and off quickly to meet demand, which coal fired plants can't do. They are also cheaper to build than coal fired plants.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:00 AM   #262
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 10,399
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
One big negative factor is the large space needed for solar power. I see a huge (>1,500MW) solar plant in China covers around 45Km2. CFPP in Asia can range from small 100MW plants to larger plants of around 1,200MW capacity. The land area for one of these large plants might be 1/10th of that of the Chinese solar power plant I mention. But think of the savings in land used for mining and transport facilities to bring in the fuel.
What on earth gives you the idea that Solar plants and panels have to "take space" away from other things

Service station forecourts




Electric Car Charging stations



Parking lot shelters





Bus Stop shelters



and in Australia, they even put them in the fields with sheep...



....where they serve multiple purposes
1. Powers the shearing shed
2. Powers the shearer's quarters
3. Powers the Homestead
3. Acts as stock shelters on blistering hot days and rainy days.


And just to make the point that this last one is not just a one-off

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=e...w-R7_s#imgrc=_
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:06 AM   #263
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
[quote=Zambo;12595466]As you know the reason why France has a low GHG emission figure per capia is not due to climate change policy but the adoption of nuclear power as a main power generation strategy about 40 years ago.[quote]

Of course. That makes it worse.

Quote:
While i expect you have data that shows that historically environmental concerns have held back the bringing online of nuclear power plants I do not see that as the major reason now.
Historically, not exactly. Back in the 70s it was a merging of the environmental movement (who were often not anti-nuclear at all) with the anti-war movement, and with the odd radical far-right electricity privatization group (who opposed nuclear because it was public power). In Ontario for instance Energy Probe essentially had no other mission other than to make nuclear more and more expensive, and dramatically lengthen the time for nuclear plants to get on line. They are not well known now, but they were probably the most powerful environmental group in Ontario in the early 90s with enormous sway over Ontario's only Socialist government. And after success in Ontario they helped groups in other countries do the same thing.

But today, yes it is 100% the concerns of environmental groups. They created the social, legal, and political environment that is 100% the reason today. That you don't see only shows how completely effective they have been.


However, just because it is 100% environmental groups, doesn't meant that it is legitimate environmental concerns.

Quote:
Nuclear power is difficult to fund due the the long design-construct and commisioning period. Economics are the main reason nuclear power is not the answer now.
Again, this is 100% because you think that the only way to build reactors is the completely absurd way they were most recently built. And again that just shows how completely effectively anti-nuclear groups have been.

Quote:
Power is needed everywhere not just developed, technologically advanced, rich economies. For that reason solar and wind seem safer to further develop and promote than nuclear.
Solar and wind is not going to make a dent in the developing world because it simply doesn't work outside of fantasies. The choice will coal, other fossil fuels or nuclear.

"When the former chief minister of Bihar state visited to inaugurate the (solar) grid, villagers lined up to protest, chanting, “We want real electricity, not fake electricity!”
By “real,” they meant power from the central grid, generated mostly using coal. By “fake,” they meant solar."

So, as I said earlier - I don't care. The world will continue to go no where on climate action until the greens value the environment and the planet more than their ideology. After 30 years there is no sign of that happening. The solution is not technological change, it's psychological change.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:08 AM   #264
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
[quote=smartcooky;12595491]What on earth gives you the idea that Solar plants and panels have to "take space" away from other things

Service station forecourts

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7tmudifr4b9h5ih/SP1.jpg?raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1bv1bnnlabcdmi8/SP0.jpg?raw=1

Electric Car Charging stations

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qe715ap577tbj76/SP4.jpg?raw=1

Parking lot shelters

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5unvom70esuffyc/SP2.jpg?raw=1

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pmqf2itd2p4pj8v/SP3.jpg?raw=1

Bus Stop shelters

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2fjzg3kfgpz1hen/SP5.jpg?raw=1

and in Australia, they even put them in the fields with sheep...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ie5hx5xabdnuah/SP7.jpg?raw=1

....where they serve multiple purposes
1. Powers the shearing shed
2. Powers the shearer's quarters
3. Powers the Homestead
3. Acts as stock shelters on blistering hot days and rainy days.


And just to make the point that this last one is not just a one-off

https://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=e...w-R7_s#imgrc=_[/QUOTE

This is the alternative approach, a complete overhaul of the way power is generated and distributed. But either way for the 1,500MW that I stated with the technology in place you will need 45Km2 of space - it's a considerable area of roof (domestically fine for Australia but what about Singapore? We also need power for industries such as cement production). I am just putting forward the view that one option is to replace our present large thermal power plant with similar capacity solar and wind power plants.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:23 AM   #265
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post

Historically, not exactly. Back in the 70s ......

So, as I said earlier - I don't care. The world will continue to go no where on climate action until the greens value the environment and the planet more than their ideology. After 30 years there is no sign of that happening. The solution is not technological change, it's psychological change.
I do agree about the psychological factor, but i see the change being acceptance of solar and wind power not deregulating to make nuclear power cheaper. There are very large solar power plants supplying national grids now and the costs can compete with CFPP, either way for 1,200MW you are not going to get any change from USD 1 billion, nuclear even with some of the standards dropped it's still goibg to be 3x the cost.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:49 AM   #266
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
You think this is junk science, too?
Junk science. Bad science. Take your pick. Any article which says that world can be completely run on renewables, or any other source for which there is no real world example of it working on large scale is making a ton of assumptions and is covering a wide range of scientific, technological and engineering areas that the authors are unable to rigorously assess. There are many problems that grids with high levels of wind and/or solar will have to address. Things like frequency stability, inertia etc. Fixing those issues comes with a significant costs. Authors, such as these, who claim the cost of solar and wind are decreasing every year, are being deceptive. Costs of electricity within power grids almost always go up dramatically when large scale wind and solar are added. This is because the energy created by large scale wind and solar becomes less and less valuable as more is added to the grid and the unreliability of it results in the grid either needing to have more and more natural gas ready at a moments notice (this is extremely expensive) or they need large scale storage - which has massive energy loss, costs a lot, and requires a lot of resources.

Quote:
Nuclear power, which the authors have evaluated positively elsewhere
This is meant to make the reader think that the authors are non-biased instead of long-time extreme anti-nuclear ideologues. It is meant to make the reader assume that the authors have written articles that are positive towards nuclear - which is exactly why you highlighted it. But they haven't. They reference 3 articles which none of the authors had anything to do with, but which they managed to . . . read. I have read some farcical claims in scientific papers before, but that one really is in a class of its own.

Quote:
faces other, genuine feasibility problems, such as the finiteness of uranium resources and a reliance on unproven technologies in the medium- to long-term.
This is a level of embarrassment which can only come with looking critically at the obstacles of the a technology you oppose, while ignoring the obstacles of the technologies you support. The finiteness of many required resources for the production of wind and solar are far more pressing than the finiteness of uranium resources.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 01:54 AM   #267
Wayward son
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 508
Originally Posted by Zambo View Post
I do agree about the psychological factor, but i see the change being acceptance of solar and wind power not deregulating to make nuclear power cheaper. There are very large solar power plants supplying national grids now and the costs can compete with CFPP, either way for 1,200MW you are not going to get any change from USD 1 billion, nuclear even with some of the standards dropped it's still goibg to be 3x the cost.
As I have said, I don't care. I don't plan on changing people's minds, and changing someone's mind on here would do nothing towards changing the overall culture.

When solar and wind have failed completely over and over again (as it already has in places like Ontario) on a large enough scale people will recognize it for the obvious absurdity that it is and abandon it. It will be a hard lesson to learn and recover from, but such is life.
Wayward son is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 02:07 AM   #268
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Gas turbines generation can be built quickly. The produce CO2 but can be turned on and off quickly to meet demand, which coal fired plants can't do. They are also cheaper to build than coal fired plants.

Agreed. If at present we consider that for total energy use we have say 30% coal, 30% oil and 30% gas with the rest being renewable or nuclear. Then the first 2 steps are dramatic reduction in transport usage of oil which is achieved by electric vehicles. But then we need to generate that power and replace coal use for power generation Gas is not the answer although I expect it remains in the fuels available for power generation.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 03:24 AM   #269
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 43,021
Originally Posted by Wayward son View Post
As I have said, I don't care. I don't plan on changing people's minds, and changing someone's mind on here would do nothing towards changing the overall culture.

When solar and wind have failed completely over and over again (as it already has in places like Ontario) on a large enough scale people will recognize it for the obvious absurdity that it is and abandon it. It will be a hard lesson to learn and recover from, but such is life.
So you say. How about some credible sources supporting your assertions.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 03:30 AM   #270
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,696
There's no trouble finding enough space to put solar panels. In addition to the places that are mentioned above, every domestic roof, and the top & sides of every skyscraper, are more opportunities to put panels up. Pretty much every bit of surface you could see from a satellite or aerial image that doesn't have other major physical requirements to contradict it (like letting cars drive on it) is another place you could put a panel.

But more importantly, even all of that still wouldn't be scratching the surface. The USA, China, Asutralia, and the Middle East and northern Africa have lots & lots & lots of land that's otherwise pretty much entirely unusable. It's called "deserts". Enough panels to power the world would never cover a substantial fraction of it.

The physical problem isn't space. It's production, and what producing that many panels would mean environmentally.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 03:43 AM   #271
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 450
I think I have seen this tactic before (from some other grand, sorry, sizable old party maybe) - demand something totally outrageous and thus move the debate towards your goals. Better to play on your own homeground. If you start with a compromize you will end with much less that you could have settled for with bit tougher tactics. It totally doesn't matter if AOC being realistic at all, better actually if not.
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 04:05 AM   #272
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Do you think this is junk science?

https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/...ownsCities.pdf
They do include water, though, which in Canada's case if often easier than in other countries.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 04:11 AM   #273
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,644
Water can also include pumped water as a means of storage. There is a lot more flexibility in where that can be implemented.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 04:30 AM   #274
Zambo
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
There's no trouble finding enough space to put solar panels. In addition to the places that are mentioned above, every domestic roof, and the top & sides of every skyscraper, are more opportunities to put panels up. Pretty much every bit of surface you could see from a satellite or aerial image that doesn't have other major physical requirements to contradict it (like letting cars drive on it) is another place you could put a panel.

But more importantly, even all of that still wouldn't be scratching the surface. The USA, China, Asutralia, and the Middle East and northern Africa have lots & lots & lots of land that's otherwise pretty much entirely unusable. It's called "deserts". Enough panels to power the world would never cover a substantial fraction of it.

The physical problem isn't space. It's production, and what producing that many panels would mean environmentally.
My prediction is that commencement of the last CFPP construction will be within a dozen years and that internal combustion engines will be in the minority of cars in the same timeframe. I just don't think there is time to start dramatically changing the power distribution system and negotiating cross border power agreements (Governments will just take advantage of lower costs and proceed independently). Also imagine drilling all those syscraper walls to install panels - who could afford the insurance.

I just imagine everything continues the same except the power plants are solar and wind.
Zambo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 06:39 AM   #275
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,423
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Well, if the Republicans could come up with own Plan for Climate Change and Protecting the Environment.....
But they can't because any that would work would violate the Lassize Faire, Let Business Do Whatever It Wants dogma that is the GOP's stock in trade.
Not all Republicans are Lassize Faire Neoliberals.
In fact there is a bipartisan Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act EICDA that would help mitigate AGW quite a bit. It is a Carbon Fee & Dividend bill . It has only one main flaw preventing further support by even more Republicans, and that is in how the dividends are dispersed. They are divided evenly and paid to everyone, which on the surface isn't too bad, at least it doesn't grow government, but we conservatives can do better.

There is a conservative option to modify that EICDA bill that reduces both government regulatory burden and lowers taxes too. Or at least doesn't raise taxes. I wrote an article about it for The Elephants in the Room blog at Quora along with my reasons why it is far better than both the liberal Green New Deal and the bipartisan EICDA Carbon Fee & Dividend bill .

Is there a technically viable and economically advantageous solution to Climate Change and what is preventing its implementation?

It has a lot of references and also explains how we can make minor adjustments to the Bipartisan EICDA discussed above. The main difference would be a scrapping of the current hundreds of billions annually used to subsidize food and farmers and more importantly the very destructive subsidized buffer stock schemes on commodity agriculture and replace them with a more sane Carbon market with verified carbon offsets. This carbon market would be partially funded by the EICDA dividends, reducing the cost already being paid by taxpayers in the farm bill.

As for reducing the regulatory burden, I discuss that part in a different article I wrote for The War Elephant.

As a farmer, what do you wish more people understood?

And what exactly would those changes do to agriculture that make them so much more efficacious? I wrote a long article about that too!

Can we reverse global warming?

I am also debating here at ISF the biophysical in the science section, here: Solution to Anthropogenic Climate Change?
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management

Last edited by Red Baron Farms; 10th February 2019 at 06:51 AM.
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 07:02 AM   #276
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
Originally Posted by Lambchops View Post
LOL, reactionary USAian conservatives thinking their views on anything actually matters.
Yes, Hillary in a landslide
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 07:04 AM   #277
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,909
Given the thread drift I'm guessing this green New Deal is DOA
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 07:44 AM   #278
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
Yes, Hillary in a landslide
Wow, that's precisely backwards. Nice.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 07:51 AM   #279
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,942
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Wow, that's precisely backwards. Nice.
Way to miss the point there.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th February 2019, 08:03 AM   #280
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 78,650
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Way to miss the point there.
The only reason why I can say it's backwards is because I didn't miss it.

Perhaps you can explain what I missed, though. I doubt you'll surprise me.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.