|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 06:20:21 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote: So ranting about CO2 seems unproductive. The US and EU are doing their part. It's the rest of the world is the problem and there's little chance that they can be convinced since they are developing countries. China is starting to do its part, but its producing twice as much as the US India will be decreasing soon, like China. And we should look at per capita production, not absolute amounts, when it comes to designing policy. The economy of the world is based on energy, and there is no future to fossil fuel based energy. As developed countries improve alternatives, less developed countries will certainly follow. CO2 is the primary problem, by far. It's exactly what we need to be "ranting" about. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 9:21:16 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 06:20:21 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel wrote: So ranting about CO2 seems unproductive. The US and EU are doing their part. It's the rest of the world is the problem and there's little chance that they can be convinced since they are developing countries. China is starting to do its part, but its producing twice as much as the US India will be decreasing soon, like China. India is way behind China in development. How many solar panels are made in India? And we should look at per capita production, not absolute amounts, when it comes to designing policy. That seems like pure baloney to me. It's not what you or I generate. It's the absolute amounts that dictate the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The economy of the world is based on energy, and there is no future to fossil fuel based energy. In the long run, yes. But the ranting is about the short term. As I said, if GW is due to CO2 levels, we are screwed because the only way for 3rd world countries to get ahead is to use fossil fuels, and that's what they're doing. As developed countries improve alternatives, less developed countries will certainly follow. Less developed countries don't have the money. CO2 is the primary problem, by far. It's exactly what we need to be "ranting" about. You should go to the undeveloped countries, change your name to Jeremiah and preach to THEM. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:50:28 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel wrote: India will be decreasing soon, like China. India is way behind China in development. How many solar panels are made in India? India can use solar panels that are not made in India. And we should look at per capita production, not absolute amounts, when it comes to designing policy. That seems like pure baloney to me. It's not what you or I generate. It's the absolute amounts that dictate the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It is. But it's the amount used by every individual that can be used to change behavior and create sound public policy. The economy of the world is based on energy, and there is no future to fossil fuel based energy. In the long run, yes. But the ranting is about the short term. As I said, if GW is due to CO2 levels, we are screwed because the only way for 3rd world countries to get ahead is to use fossil fuels, and that's what they're doing. If just the developed countries significantly reduce their CO2 levels over the next few decades, that will be a huge help. Yes, we're in trouble no matter what since we've waited too long and CO2 persistence is long. That's no reason to reduce our efforts, though. As developed countries improve alternatives, less developed countries will certainly follow. Less developed countries don't have the money. Wind and solar are already the cheapest energy sources in many places, and they're the only types of energy that are getting cheaper over time. They will be the most affordable for all countries in the near future. Is either actually cheaper without subsidies? (Both apparently - it's hard to measure - receive a *lot* more subsidies per MWh than conventional generating technology.) -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:50:28 -0800 (PST), Gary Harnagel
wrote: India will be decreasing soon, like China. India is way behind China in development. How many solar panels are made in India? India can use solar panels that are not made in India. And we should look at per capita production, not absolute amounts, when it comes to designing policy. That seems like pure baloney to me. It's not what you or I generate. It's the absolute amounts that dictate the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. It is. But it's the amount used by every individual that can be used to change behavior and create sound public policy. The economy of the world is based on energy, and there is no future to fossil fuel based energy. In the long run, yes. But the ranting is about the short term. As I said, if GW is due to CO2 levels, we are screwed because the only way for 3rd world countries to get ahead is to use fossil fuels, and that's what they're doing. If just the developed countries significantly reduce their CO2 levels over the next few decades, that will be a huge help. Yes, we're in trouble no matter what since we've waited too long and CO2 persistence is long. That's no reason to reduce our efforts, though. As developed countries improve alternatives, less developed countries will certainly follow. Less developed countries don't have the money. Wind and solar are already the cheapest energy sources in many places, and they're the only types of energy that are getting cheaper over time. They will be the most affordable for all countries in the near future. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:51:17 -0700, Chris L Peterson wrote:
If just the developed countries significantly reduce their CO2 levels over the next few decades, that will be a huge help. Yes, we're in trouble no matter what since we've waited too long and CO2 persistence is long. That's no reason to reduce our efforts, though. It's not just producing co2 that matters. If we used more wood for things and less metals it would help. I was at my doctors last week and the couch had a wooden frame. That's carbon that's not in the atmosphere and a lot less was created making the frame than would have been if it had needed metal. -- Faster, cheaper, quieter than HS2 and built in 5 years; UKUltraspeed http://www.500kmh.com/ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:08:48 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Is either actually cheaper without subsidies? (Both apparently - it's hard to measure - receive a *lot* more subsidies per MWh than conventional generating technology.) Yes, both are cheaper without subsidies in some places than fossil fuels in the same places. Those would be places that rely on imports, I'm guessing. So, not really cheaper. We're in a transition now where certain fossil fuels That'd be the ones that we use the most of, and always have, I'm guessing. remain cheaper over all (mainly due to fracking), but that's shifting quickly, as all fossil fuel prices are increasing (some slowly, like natural gas, some quickly, like coal), whereas both wind and solar are plummeting in price, with no indication that trend is approaching any limits yet. Where I live, I'm currently getting ready to build a new house. It will be off-grid, a combination of passive solar and PV, because this will be a LOT cheaper than either getting power from the commercial grid or heat from trucked in propane. Of course, oil is much more expensive if we consider the actual environmental, health, and military costs in incurs. Those are effectively hidden subsidies. As are the environment and health (and, eventually, military, I'm guessing) costs of solar and wind, and supporting technologies (neitehr is particularly useful without sophisticaed battery technology). -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 15:08:48 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: Is either actually cheaper without subsidies? (Both apparently - it's hard to measure - receive a *lot* more subsidies per MWh than conventional generating technology.) Yes, both are cheaper without subsidies in some places than fossil fuels in the same places. We're in a transition now where certain fossil fuels remain cheaper over all (mainly due to fracking), but that's shifting quickly, as all fossil fuel prices are increasing (some slowly, like natural gas, some quickly, like coal), whereas both wind and solar are plummeting in price, with no indication that trend is approaching any limits yet. Where I live, I'm currently getting ready to build a new house. It will be off-grid, a combination of passive solar and PV, because this will be a LOT cheaper than either getting power from the commercial grid or heat from trucked in propane. Of course, oil is much more expensive if we consider the actual environmental, health, and military costs in incurs. Those are effectively hidden subsidies. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: Yes, both are cheaper without subsidies in some places than fossil fuels in the same places. Those would be places that rely on imports, I'm guessing. No, they are places with abundant wind or sun. We're in a transition now where certain fossil fuels That'd be the ones that we use the most of, and always have, I'm guessing. No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both of which are now being priced out of the energy generation market. Petroleum remains as the dominant energy source for transportation, but that will shift rapidly over the next 10 years or so. The main thing that is keeping fossil fuels in the game is natural gas from fracking and shale. But that's a short term pulse which is already flattening out. As are the environment and health (and, eventually, military, I'm guessing) costs of solar and wind, and supporting technologies (neitehr is particularly useful without sophisticaed battery technology). Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials, so there is no military cost. And battery technology does not have a large environmental impact. Nor do the production of wind or solar production equipment. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
Chris L Peterson wrote in
: On Mon, 22 Jan 2018 16:42:57 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote: Yes, both are cheaper without subsidies in some places than fossil fuels in the same places. Those would be places that rely on imports, I'm guessing. No, they are places with abundant wind or sun. NPR (that bastion of conservative extremism) was just talking this morning about how all the biggest manufacturers of solar panels are in China these days, because China has been subsidizing them (and encouraging dumping in the international market) for a decade or so. And how ****ed they re with the new tariff, which brings their prices up to something more competitive to the less (but still) subsidized US manufacturers. We're in a transition now where certain fossil fuels That'd be the ones that we use the most of, and always have, I'm guessing. No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both of which are now being priced out of the energy generation market. More by the low prices of natural gas than the high prices of either, of course. There's a real glut of natural gas these days, and it's not likely to end soon. Petroleum remains as the dominant energy source for transportation, but that will shift rapidly over the next 10 years or so. Yeah, hold your breath on that. It will take a lifetime to build enough infrastructure and generating capacity to replace gasoline powered cars with eelectrics (which will required at least a 1/3 increase in total capacity in the US). The main thing that is keeping fossil fuels in the game is natural gas from fracking and shale. But that's a short term pulse which is already flattening out. Fracking and shale have been less popular in recent years because crude prices have been so *low*. For tham what pays any attention at all to current events. As are the environment and health (and, eventually, military, I'm guessing) costs of solar and wind, and supporting technologies (neitehr is particularly useful without sophisticaed battery technology). Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials, Are there rare earth mines actually productive in the US now? China is the biggest producer, and they've already manipulated the market to protect their own interests. so there is no military cost. Today. And battery technology does not have a large environmental impact. Now you're into retard territory. Nor do the production of wind or solar production equipment. Wind, less so. Solar requires exotic materials, as do high tech batteries, both of which have environmental implications for manufacture, and disposal after they're worn out. Only a ****ing *moron* could not know that, at this point. Go back to smoking your Kool-Aid, son. You're not ready for grownup land. -- Terry Austin Vacation photos from Iceland: https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole." -- David Bilek Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
No Significant Relief from Global Warming
On Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:05:45 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote: NPR (that bastion of conservative extremism) was just talking this morning about how all the biggest manufacturers of solar panels are in China these days, because China has been subsidizing them (and encouraging dumping in the international market) for a decade or so. And how ****ed they re with the new tariff, which brings their prices up to something more competitive to the less (but still) subsidized US manufacturers. It will raise the price of panels, of course. But panels are already one of the less expensive parts of any PV system. No. The traditional fossil fuels are petroleum and coal, both of which are now being priced out of the energy generation market. More by the low prices of natural gas than the high prices of either, of course. There's a real glut of natural gas these days, and it's not likely to end soon. Coal will not recover. It's simply too dirty and too expensive to clean. It was already being priced out even before cheap natural gas showed up. Petroleum costs will depend upon supply, but most evidence points to that diminishing. Meanwhile, solar and wind will certainly continue to get cheaper. Yeah, hold your breath on that. It will take a lifetime to build enough infrastructure and generating capacity to replace gasoline powered cars with eelectrics (which will required at least a 1/3 increase in total capacity in the US). That's almost certainly a myth. Most of the infrastructure already exists right in people's homes. Battery technology is not dependent upon foreign materials, Are there rare earth mines actually productive in the US now? China is the biggest producer, and they've already manipulated the market to protect their own interests. Battery technology does not utilize much in the way of rare earths. there is no military cost. Today. Why would there be if we're not dependent upon foreign sources for materials? And battery technology does not have a large environmental impact. Now you're into retard territory. That's not an intelligent response. There is lots of information out there about the environmental issues surrounding batteries. The lead acid battery industry achieves near 100% recycling, and is viewed as a model for how other battery lifecycles can be modeled. The toxins in the batteries and used for manufacturing are usually not significant, and are manageable. We don't see environmental releases from batteries (and certainly not at the levels we see from burning fossil fuels). Nor do the production of wind or solar production equipment. Wind, less so. Solar requires exotic materials, as do high tech batteries, both of which have environmental implications for manufacture, and disposal after they're worn out. No, not really. The bulk of the materials are not in the least exotic and the manufacturing processes are the same or similar to what we see in a great many products today, where environmental impact is well controlled. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What about global warming? | [email protected] | Misc | 0 | June 12th 07 06:05 PM |
dinosaur extinction/global cooling &human extinction/global warming | 281979 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 17th 06 12:05 PM |
Solar warming v. Global warming | Roger Steer | Amateur Astronomy | 11 | October 20th 05 01:23 AM |
Global warming v. Solar warming | Roger Steer | UK Astronomy | 1 | October 18th 05 10:58 AM |
CO2 and global warming | freddo411 | Policy | 319 | October 20th 04 09:56 PM |