|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#301
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 3:33:46 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/23/2016 8:23 PM, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start. For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most others I know of - because they know that every vote counts. Hilarious! If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 NLexit? Did I miss something? Lou |
Ads |
#302
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:13:39 +0000, Phil Lee
wrote: Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business, trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net increase in total CO2 emmissions. Very doubtful, at least in the U.S. If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about. The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations, That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the ethanol subsidies in the US. I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber - all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for traditional uses. That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed. When I worked in Indonesia there were freighter load after freighter load of wood chips leaving on every tide. Straight from the forest to the freighter. I didn't work in that field but my understanding was that economically it was cheaper to chip the lower grades of timber rather than milling it. and wind and solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch rags) Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean currents will cause. The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean currents. As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different. The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power. To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel stove to a nuclear power plant! The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be brought down when people stop buying their products, not before. Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may yet be able to let them survive. First, the steel used for wind turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas. Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms of other pollutants. At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator, so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which would mostly be farm waste). Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the *global* effect is what's alleged to be important. Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce the stuff cheaper! The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper energy, once you get the infrastructure built. That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not falling short some of the time. Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable. That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that respect. I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable infrastructure built with it. Already happening. Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed using electric vehicles? Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed (although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal combustion engines. as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes, I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming "hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax. To get way back to the original question, who determines who the "qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is not. the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are not. Most will not even try. I guess that's an argument against democracy, then? Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic principles. Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized much any more. Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses. I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just BURNED it?" I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and we'll be the ones viewed as savages. -- cheers, John B. |
#303
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On 12/25/2016 4:42 AM, Phil Lee wrote:
AMuzi considered Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:33:41 -0600 the perfect time to write: On 12/23/2016 8:23 PM, Phil Lee wrote: Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start. For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most others I know of - because they know that every vote counts. Hilarious! If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc. In a word, ignorance. I believe the accepted term is 'basket of deplorables'. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#305
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 2:20:26 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Most people know it already (at least in the form we know now), but are equally aware that it will happen very slowly, not overnight. Which works well for recycling the vehicles, as well as allowing people to become accustomed to the change in circumstances by moving to live nearer to where they work (or work to move nearer to their workforce). public transport to be developed back to it's former scale, and so on. Phil, being where the sun doesn't shine perhaps you're unfamiliar with US culture but believe me - the motor vehicle will NOT go away no matter what they have to do. In the US distances are simply too far and loads being carried too large and the age and health of people not in a category to allow them to use either public transit or bicycles. Not that I don't think it a good idea. Employers WILL NOT relocate closer to their workers - already in some businesses in San Francisco half of their workers are coming in from Sacramento and the numbers of available workers in Sacramento would easily make up for the loses. Silicon Valley is situated in a very small area in San Jose, Sunnyvale and Mountain View. I live 30 miles away but the commute would be two hours in each direction. Most of their employees do not live anywhere NEAR Silicon Valley but you don't see them moving to the MUCH cheaper areas with vast amounts of open industrial buildings. Relieving the traffic along these corridor would allow those laid off in San Francisco to find jobs closer to their own homes. Industrial growth could have a GIANT kick in the pants and start afresh but instead they remain fixed in areas that are so traffic bound that people spend as much time commuting as working. If people are so stupid to put up with this they sure aren't going to get rid of cars as long as there is one single gallon of petrol available. |
#306
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 2:41:43 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 22:35:43 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: Frank Krygowski considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 16:15:16 -0500 the perfect time to write: On 12/22/2016 3:39 PM, Radey Shouman wrote: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business, trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net increase in total CO2 emmissions. Very doubtful, at least in the U.S. If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about. First, the steel used for wind turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas. Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the *global* effect is what's alleged to be important. You're right that the global total is what matters. But to prove your contention that wind turbines are a net harm because of their steel content, you'd have to look at the amount of steel consumed by turbine construction every year. It's obviously a tiny portion of the world's steel consumption. You'd also want to track the method used to produce that steel, since different methods (scrap remelt vs. ore) would put vastly different amounts of CO2 into the air. And you'd have to compare those emissions with the CO2 savings over the life of the turbine. My guess is that the amount of steel used is quite small, that a lot of it is made by relatively clean methods, and that the CO2 savings easily outweigh the costs. But I'm willing to look at numbers, if you have any. You also have to look at the carbon production of keeping the generation system in each case fed with fuel, and the steel used for building ships, railway tracks, and other fuel handling equipment all the way from it's source. Of course, for most renewables, that's nil - the wind brings itself to the turbine, the water to the hydro-electric plant, and the tides and waves to their respective generators. No transport required. The cost of laying a cable to bring the power out is the same in both cases, so that can be pretty much ignored. But even gas needs a pipeline, and the steel and carbon cost of building that is significant. It's true that transport of fuel isn't free, but how about the cost of mowing all the weeds in the solar fields? I wonder how they do that. If it's too dry to grow weeds then cleaning the facilities is an ongoing expense. Maintenance of wind or solar fields demands quite a bit of fossil fueled transport, consider how those turbines are installed -- they don't last forever, and they can't run long without maintenance. I'm completely in favor of renewable energy, but it has to compete on a realistic basis, and it has to pay a penalty for uncertain availability. I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable infrastructure built with it. as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes, I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming "hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax. To get way back to the original question, who determines who the "qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is not. the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are not. Most will not even try. I guess that's an argument against democracy, then? Yep, as it's currently implemented here. Alternately, it can be looked on as an argument against ignorance. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to measurably improve either one. Well, a genuinely proportional representation system would be a start. For all it's faults, the European Parliament (elected using PR) is far more responsive to well argued concerns of the electorate than most others I know of - because they know that every vote counts. I guess you didn't vote Brexit, then. I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did. Sadly, there are a lot of gullible fools - some even in government. Our unelected Prime Minister is rushing to pull the trigger before even starting negotiations on what will follow, despite it being perfectly obvious that 2 years (the maximum time after invoking article 50 for the exit to take place) is nowhere near long enough to untangle the interdependence, never mind build some trade relationships and agreements to follow it. So you are calling THE MAJORITY of your countrymen stupid? After some of your comments here I could have predicted that. |
#307
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 3:13:43 AM UTC-8, Phil Lee wrote:
Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business, trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net increase in total CO2 emmissions. Very doubtful, at least in the U.S. If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about. The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations, That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the ethanol subsidies in the US. I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber - all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for traditional uses. That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed. and wind and solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch rags) Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean currents will cause. The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean currents. As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different. The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power. To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel stove to a nuclear power plant! The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be brought down when people stop buying their products, not before. Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may yet be able to let them survive. First, the steel used for wind turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas. Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms of other pollutants. At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator, so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which would mostly be farm waste). Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the *global* effect is what's alleged to be important. Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce the stuff cheaper! The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper energy, once you get the infrastructure built. That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not falling short some of the time. Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable. That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that respect. I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable infrastructure built with it. Already happening. Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed using electric vehicles? Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed (although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal combustion engines. as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes, I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming "hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax. To get way back to the original question, who determines who the "qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is not. the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are not. Most will not even try. I guess that's an argument against democracy, then? Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic principles. Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized much any more. Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses. I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just BURNED it?" I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and we'll be the ones viewed as savages. OK Phil, since you believe the world around you to be stupid beyond belief and yourself to be very smart why don't you tell us your local tides and the size of the installation that would deliver the 25 mw that the largest windmills presently do. |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 3:48:53 AM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 25 Dec 2016 11:13:39 +0000, Phil Lee wrote: Radey Shouman considered Fri, 23 Dec 2016 22:31:11 -0500 the perfect time to write: Phil Lee writes: Radey Shouman considered Thu, 22 Dec 2016 15:39:15 -0500 the perfect time to write: Frank Krygowski writes: On 12/22/2016 10:54 AM, Radey Shouman wrote: jbeattie writes: On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 10:29:46 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote: But CO2 is not tobacco, there are no CO2 non-smokers, unless they live deep in the jungle and shoot all strangers with poison arrows. The sad fact is that CO2 regulations are probably good for Exxon's business, trying to cut CO2 has led to an *increase* in natural gas use, for peaking power plants, at the expense of coal, which is used for base load. Coal is still needed, of course, to make steel for all those huge offshore wind turbines. It's quite likely that they have led to a net increase in total CO2 emmissions. Very doubtful, at least in the U.S. If you want to restrict your measurement to one country it's easy to reduce CO2 -- Germany has no doubt reduced its emissions for electric generation, but by putting a lot of the burden of power peaking on its neighbors. But I thought it was *global* warming we were worried about. The UK now uses very little coal - much has been replaced with carbon neutral woodchip fuel for the same generating stations, That "carbon neutral" woodchip fuel is a massive and unconscionable scam. A lot of it is logged in the US, and would otherwise be lumber or left as trees, then it is shipped across the Atlantic in fossil-fueled vessels. It's as pointlessly destructive to the environment as the ethanol subsidies in the US. I'd understood that most of it came from the by-product of lumber - all the bits of wood that are too small or otherwise unsuitable for traditional uses. That said, conversion to woodchip is only an interim measure to keep the lights on while genuinely (local) renewables are developed. When I worked in Indonesia there were freighter load after freighter load of wood chips leaving on every tide. Straight from the forest to the freighter. I didn't work in that field but my understanding was that economically it was cheaper to chip the lower grades of timber rather than milling it. and wind and solar are still growing fast. We haven't even really started on the carbon neutral source with the greatest and most predictable capacity of all - tidal power - although several experiments are underway to find the most efficient way of using it without damaging the very environment we are trying to protect. All that stands in the way are the puppets of the fossil fuel industry, who will be brought down in time, when their funding runs out, and they lose the ability to buy governments and "news" programming (like faux news and the Murderoch rags) Good luck with the tidal power (really). Running equipment in the ocean is tough, and no one has made much of a success of tidal power yet. If they do, I have to wonder what sort of damage the alteration of ocean currents will cause. The scale would never be large enough to damage the big ocean currents. As for running equipment in a hostile environment, we've been doing that for millennia. It's not hard, it's just different. The biggest source of delay is the endless arguments over the most efficient way to convert water movement into electrical power. To which of course the answer is "who cares, as long as you get on and build some" The energy available from even a very slow tidal current is enormous - it's proportional to the weight that's in motion, and that is over a tonne per cubic metre (sal****er being more dense than fresh). Comparing it with wind power is like comparing a solid fuel stove to a nuclear power plant! The first step of any rational divestment campaign, is boycott. A few million people boycotting fossil fuels would really get the attention of those greasy plutocrats. The fossil fuel industry will be brought down when people stop buying their products, not before. Some are doing that already, far more are avoiding investments in them, which may be the more effective lever. Collapsing share prices tend to make them sit up and take notice, and if the big companies in the fossil fuel sector would just redirect their huge investment potential towards renewables instead of yet more fossil fuels, we may yet be able to let them survive. First, the steel used for wind turbines is a tiny portion of total steel production. Second, the steel industry in the U.S. is mostly using mini-mills with electric furnaces to re-melt scrap. Less than a third of U.S. made steel comes from ore, and that industry uses only a tiny portion of the U.S. coal production. Of course, like anything else electric, those electric furnaces are ultimately powered more and more by natural gas. Unfortunately, converting from one fossil fuel to another doesn't change the carbon use much, if at all, despite being cleaner in terms of other pollutants. At least the natural gas plants can be run on bio-methane just as easily as fossil gas, so can be converted with the addition of a bio-gas digester. But you still need to get the gas to the generator, so the digester needs to be somewhere on the existing pipeline network and not too far from the sources of digestible raw materials (which would mostly be farm waste). Sure, much of the production of steel from ore has been offshored to China, but it still requires large quantities of coal. Once again, the *global* effect is what's alleged to be important. Yet China is increasing it's use of carbon neutral power sources faster than anywhere else on earth. Which may be why they can produce the stuff cheaper! The great thing about renewables is that they produce far cheaper energy, once you get the infrastructure built. That's actually true, the problem is availability. Under a rational pricing regime you would have to install several times the expected demand in solar or wind facilities in order to have a chance of not falling short some of the time. Only if you attempt to rely on the unreliable. That's why funding a replacement for baseload is essential, and I don't know anything that comes even close to tidal power in that respect. I'll believe in a renewable energy economy when I see renewable infrastructure built with it. Already happening. Where? Give an example, please. Are wind turbines being installed using electric vehicles? Electric vehicles are becoming more and more common, and are used for maintenance on quite a few solar farms, and our panels were installed (although admittedly not delivered) without any use of infernal combustion engines. as well as Universities around the world. The pro-DDT writings (yes, I'm changing pollutants) cited by Andre were done by a professor at my alma matter while he was a professor (along with other notable antics). EPA regulations, some of which implicate the global warming "hoax" (e.g. the methane regulation) are the products of endless public input, typically from industry-hired scientists and environmental groups. There are legions of qualified scientists who are capable of determining what is or is not a hoax. To get way back to the original question, who determines who the "qualified scientists" are? At some point, if we're going to have any approximation to a democracy, the public have to have enough understanding to make some guess as to who is trustworthy and who is not. the problem is, the vast majority of "the public" will always be incapable of telling which scientists are trustworthy and which are not. Most will not even try. I guess that's an argument against democracy, then? Well, it's certainly against the corrupt versions practiced in both the UK and US at the moment, which seem to be designed to give the appearance of democracy without actually following it's basic principles. Democracy has eventually failed every time it's been tried. As long as that is remembered it might have a chance. Oddly it's not emphasized much any more. Another thing that is widely missed is just how many better (as well as less destructive) uses crude oil has. It is a soup of very useful chemicals, with an even wider variety of uses. I wonder what future generations will think when they look back at the late 20th and early 21st centuries and ask "what, you mean they just BURNED it?" I suspect their reaction will be like that of our current view of ancient tribes just destroying things they didn't understand, and we'll be the ones viewed as savages. -- cheers, John B. 20% of the Brazilian Rain Forest has been logged off and 150 acres every single day disappear under the machinery. This is the most important forest in the world and it is disappearing for fast that will will be beyond saving in short order. |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
"Phil Lee" wrote in message ... [snip] I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did. [imported from another reply] If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc. In a word, ignorance. If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ. Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!! Graham. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
3 feet in 50 years?!?
On Sunday, December 25, 2016 at 10:38:52 AM UTC-8, Graham wrote:
"Phil Lee" wrote in message ... [snip] I doubt if anyone with an IQ above room temperature did. [imported from another reply] If that's true please explain Brexit, the upcoming NLexit etc. In a word, ignorance. If that is what you truely think then I think you ought to consider your own IQ. Mine is well above room temperature and possibly higher than yours as I suspect is that of many who voted Brexit. It is your own elitest liberal arrogance that spawned Brexit and Trump. Something I would have hoped to avoid and possibly could have had it not been for guys like you. If you cannot see why then your IQ is not as high as you think!!!! I've enough Irish in me that Phil would only say that once around me. When he returned from hospital he would be a great deal more careful with his words. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Another one six feet under | Judith in England[_2_] | UK | 15 | July 3rd 13 04:02 PM |
Where do you put your feet? | snowkel | Unicycling | 1 | June 27th 08 01:34 PM |
Where do you put your feet? | kokomo | Unicycling | 0 | June 27th 08 06:49 AM |
Where do you put your feet? | kerosian | Unicycling | 0 | June 27th 08 04:03 AM |
how big are your feet? | thinuniking | Unicycling | 13 | June 5th 04 11:22 AM |