Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-18-2018, 12:56 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 7,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
https://skepticalscience.com/Empiric...l-warming.html


Mind you, the ski-blue and light red color areas are the regions of uncertainty, as one can notice the temperature where we should be if no anthropologic factors where there is well below the uncertainty range. We are currently at about one degree of an increase in surface temperature thanks to industrialization.
Thanks for the link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
So, when it comes to climate policy, the US should totally ignore the warnings of science and recklessly forge ahead with business as usual, destroying the environment with impunity? In particular, it should avoid any kind of collaboration with other countries to achieve common goals for the planet?
I think we should work with other countries. As long as the framework is advantageous. Which as a powerful country we could get.

Quote:
OK. We can use the same template to help out with other decisions, too, like stockpiling the maximum possible quantity of nuclear weapons and refusing to engage in any kind of arms limitation talks.

That actually makes sense, because when one of these nuclear powers blows up the world we won't have to worry about the devastated environment any more.

That's why it's taken quite a few years to answer it. But I'm going to guess that you haven't read the current release of the IPCC reports and don't intend to, and prefer to pretend that we don't have enough information to guide actionable policy.
I think it's important to act now actually. I'm not in favor of oceans rising and increased ocean acidity. I think the science skepticism is one of the biggest issues with the Republican Party.
  #102  
Old 08-18-2018, 12:57 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Hopefully in 30-40 years we can settle on what Pluto is.

Concerning climate change though? I think that there is a hesitancy to be bound by international agreements that will constrain US economic power and political sovereignty.


Like if independence from foreign oil and big energy companies is not a conservative idea too.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science...e-clean-energy
Quote:
On October 5, the Christian Coalition and the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform (YC4ER) hosted the third annual Conservative Clean Energy Summit in Washington D.C. More than 300 conservatives from across the nation met with industry leaders, activists, businesses and members of Congress to send a message to everyone in the energy debate.

“Clean energy isn’t a left or right issue. It’s an American issue,” said Angel Garcia, the national outreach director for the YC4ER. “We need leaders out there to explain that this is something that will make America better, stronger and independent.”
Clean energy is pragmatic and consistent.” – Senator Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota

Coming together as conservatives for clean energy doesn’t exactly separate them from the larger dialogue, Garcia said. It just provides more perspectives and additional arguments in support of renewables. Key themes shared throughout the summit included “home-grown” energy, job growth and national security.

Energy independence was one of Trump’s keynotes during his presidential campaign. However, what he had in mind was producing more coal, oil and gas in the United States instead of relying on renewable energy or foreign sources of fossil fuels. The summit speakers reiterated several times that the nation’s energy independence won’t succeed by using fossil fuels.

“There’s a maximum need on what we can always provide, and the U.S. is one of the greatest consumers of energy,” Senator Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, said in his speech. “Clean energy is pragmatic and consistent.”
Quote:
Clean energy as a solution to help impoverished people has also been considered for certain national security crises. After Hurricane Maria left calamity in Puerto Rico, companies like Tesla and the German energy storage manufacturer sonnen jumped to offer assistance in transforming the island’s energy infrastructure. One route would be through microgrids, which would use small-scale solar panel or wind generator arrays that can quickly restore localized power during outages. Places in urgent need, such as hospitals or cell towers, can be brought online quickly through these microgrid energy systems.

For the conservatives at this summit, these success stories and accomplishments make America great. To accomplish the Trump administration’s sentiment, leading the world in the energy sector and empowering all Americans is our best bet, Pinion explained. “When you’re talking about increasing prosperity for all individuals, clean energy must be at the forefront of the conversation,” he said.
  #103  
Old 08-18-2018, 02:28 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
Seems to me to be the primary drive of both republicans and democrats, but then this is a far-left board so I expect to get shut down on that opinion.
I'm curious how you come to this conclusion. Like, there's a legitimate case to be made that the main thing driving many Trump supporters is pissing off the "other" of the liberals. They're quite overt about it - "triggering the snowflakes" is such a common theme on right-wing websites that it's virtually impossible to avoid. What's the equivalent on the liberal side? A few people acting with cruel schadenfreude when they read stories about Trump supporters who didn't realize that they were on Obamacare?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-18-2018 at 02:29 AM.
  #104  
Old 08-18-2018, 05:23 AM
wintertime wintertime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
What's the equivalent on the liberal side? A few people acting with cruel schadenfreude when they read stories about Trump supporters who didn't realize that they were on Obamacare?
This goes beyond the topic of this thread, but since you asked ..

[off-topic answer]

First of all, I don't see any evidence that there is a liberal side and a conservative side. People are too diverse to fit into two tiny boxes.

But it's a perception shared by enough people (particularly the more vocal ones) across the spectrum to turn every issue into a partisan one in the public discourse.

The division of political power in the USA in two parties facilitates the idea that political thinking is equally divided.

But while the most public displays of partisanship are unlikely representative of convictions shared by the majority, they do constitute, consolidate and reinforce the image of those "sides" - for the people who care about the issue currently on view as well as everyone else listening. If we continue to vocalize partisanship on every issue long and strong enough, it turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And since you asked about an equivalent on the "liberal side" (though I'm not quite sure where you position it): in my mind, their outspoken agents tend to characterize anyone who isn't on their side as fascists or Nazis - in other words, they don't see a political opposition at work but evil itself. Which might also explain why the ones afflicted by this idea can't abide to hear any opposition speak at all; a need to silence the ideologically unpure is a disturbing tendency among the loudest voices on the left.

You can see this happening on colleges and the entire public discourse, including this forum.

And while it's not fair, I think this tendency is the main reason for the willingness among conservatives to box all liberals and lefties once again into a neat "neo marxist" drawer - which turns political opposition into a metaphysical struggle for the "soul of the nation".

Of course, the partisan voices argue that they have plenty of reason to think like that - and act on it. And, not surprisingly, the loudest among those sides start to devour their own children. Hallelujah.

[/off-topic answer]

Last edited by wintertime; 08-18-2018 at 05:27 AM.
  #105  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:28 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Why bother? I have nothing against nuclear power, but it seems to have plateaued in terms of cost and efficiency, while solar especially is getting cheaper and more widespread. And it is working, especially in California:

From here.


Relatively few houses in my affluent neighborhood have solar cells, so there is plenty of room for growth. It's not politics, it is economics and technology.
Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear.

But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics.

Regards,
Shodan
  #106  
Old 08-18-2018, 09:49 AM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear.

But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics.
You can keep repeating that over and over, but that doesn’t make it true.

Stranger
  #107  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:04 AM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
You can keep repeating that over and over, but that doesn’t make it true.

Stranger
Don't be shy, quote the relevant lines from your cite to support your position.

After that you can address the efficiency issues with solar cells compared to nuclear power. Solar cells have a known problem with night-time production which is when we will need power to recharge EV's so we can save the planet from climate change.

The solution is to make twice the number of solar cells and batteries necessary to cover electrical usage. No problem, China's coal-fired industries should take care of demand.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #108  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:39 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So...you trust the Chinese (or at least won't 'rag' on them) because they signed a treaty? You do realize that they have signed a lot of treaties and then basically broken them, right?
No, I didn't realize that, but my info isn't up-to-date. Have they broken even more agreements recently than the U.S.A. has?

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Also, their emissions are basically the same as the next 5 nations combined. That includes the US.
Two points:
(1) It was "more than next 4 combined" a few years ago but, because China's CO2 emissions didn't grow in 2014-2017, is now only "more than next 3 combined." But where did you get "next 5 combined"?

(2) China has more goats than any other country, more sheep than any other country, consumes more ice cream than any other country; need I go on? It's only two in number of automobiles, behind the U.S.A., but I think China has more red houses than any other country, and makes more Trump-themed apparel than any other country including the U.S. China is a big country.

Qatar has 2½ times the per capita emissions of U.S., which in turn has about twice the per capita emissions of China but, since Qatar emits less than 1% of China in absolute numbers, they're fine in your opinion?

New York emits more CO2 than Alabama does, so, in your opinion, is it New York rather than Alabama that should cut back? Even though Alabama's per capita number is three times New York's?

China leads the world in solar energy; almost twice Japan or Germany or U.S.A. Most of the world's top manufacturers of solar panels are Chinese companies. China is also the global market leader in hydropower, bioenergy, and electric vehicles.

China has made fighting pollution a priority. While still too high, the SO2 levels of Beijing's air are only a third what they once were.
  #109  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:49 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
Seems to me to be the primary drive of both republicans and democrats, but then this is a far-left board so I expect to get shut down on that opinion.
The idea that the Board is "left leaning" has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. XT is active in this thread—he's no leftist—and at least 3 rightists are posting. Does the center-left outnumber the right-wing here? Sure, but that's true of almost any intellectual grouping.

And "far-left"? There are some Bernie Bros at SDMB, if that's what you mean, but I don't think they're a majority.

I'd be curious to hear specific examples of thinking you call "far-left" (or "far-right" for that matter). Is it "leftist" to think temperatures are rising, and then "far-leftist" to think the warming is caused by man?
  #110  
Old 08-18-2018, 11:35 AM
RaftPeople RaftPeople is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 7-Eleven
Posts: 6,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Solar will not scale up to meet enough of our energy needs, and is more expensive than nuclear.

But it is politics that causes Democrats to ignore the economics.

Regards,
Shodan
These are the trends I see:
1 - Efficiency increasing
2 - Costs decreasing

To say it "will not" seems to imply a limit that isn't apparent in the trends. Is there some physical limit that will prevent the cost from dropping further?
  #111  
Old 08-18-2018, 11:47 AM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 15,668
Quote:
Originally Posted by gytalf2000 View Post
I grew up in a very conservative church (the Churches of Christ) -- I never really bought into the fundamentalist mindset, myself, though -- and I can attest to the fact that a lot of these folks really don't think that global warming is ever going to be a problem. They don't trust scientists; hell, they prefer their so-called "holy book" over sciency facts, and reject evolution and the modern world in general.

I actually had one guy tell me a few years ago that worrying about global warming (or any type of environmental issue, for that matter) was indicative of "lack of faith" in God. Because God told man to go forth, multiply, and conquer, and we better damm well do that, come hell or high water. Any so-called problems will be overcome either through sheer human inventiveness, or rendered moot by the second comin' of Christ hisself!
I think that's a big problem with the latter-day (i.e. post-1980s) Republican/Conservative side of things. They've hitched their wagon so tightly to the conservative religious fringe that points of religious doctrine have become intertwined with the party platforms.

So you get idiocy like the notion that people have to choose between Jesus or science encoded in the political party's doctrine. And then you have 40% (not necessarily the same people either) who will vote for that party, come hell or high water and who accept what they say without thinking it, because you know, the Democrats are the enemy, regardless of what they say.

From what I gather, before the 1990s, it was more of a philosophical difference- there was still the same divide, but it didn't have the religious flavor it does today, and I think that may be what makes a lot of the difference. It winds a lot of people in tighter than they otherwise might be, for fear of religious offense.
  #112  
Old 08-18-2018, 01:12 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
Don't be shy, quote the relevant lines from your cite to support your position.

After that you can address the efficiency issues with solar cells compared to nuclear power. Solar cells have a known problem with night-time production which is when we will need power to recharge EV's so we can save the planet from climate change.

The solution is to make twice the number of solar cells and batteries necessary to cover electrical usage. No problem, China's coal-fired industries should take care of demand.
The linked report is from the US Energy Information Administration entitled "Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2018". The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) estimates for different sources are presented in Table 1a and Table 1b for capacity-weighted average and unweighted average for new sources coming online in 2022. The report is in plain language which you can read for yourself. The LCOE is in terms of FY2017 USD per megawatt, so on a cost basis it doesn't matter that solar power can only be generated in daytime, although from a baseload standpoint that is less of an issue than you make of it because peak electrical power demand also occurs in daytime to early evening.

But there is another logistical issue to consider; a conventional (pressurized or boiling water reactor) nuclear fission power plant can take five years or more to design, site, construct, and certify for operation even without significant delays. Light water reactors also require enriched uranium fuel; the United States has neither high grade uranium ore deposits, nor even enough enrichment capacity to sustain current operating fission reactors; we use enriched uranium and mixed oxide fuel from foreign sources which is costly and a substantial national security risk that would only increase with greater dependence upon nuclear fission. Standing up new refining and enrichment capability to support a multiple factor increase in nuclear fission power generation would be the work of a decade or more even if we can find someplace to site the facility. (Previous enrichment facilities have required extensive cleanup and remediation, and communities are naturally reluctant to be home to one even despite the well-paying jobs it brings.)

On the other hand, photovoltaic (PV) solar can be deployed nearly as fast as panels can be fabricated and shipped. Aside from an environmental impact statement, there are almost no concerns about local pollution, no ongoing fuel processing costs, and is enormously scaleable. The downsides to solar--that it requires a large footprint per kWh of power production, the limited lifespan of PV solar panels, that it is not well suited to high latitude regions, the lack of baseload capability and need for external power storage for nighttime demand--prevent it from being a complete solution but in terms of rapidly offsetting the most polluting fossil fuels it is by far the quickest and cheapest to deploy in the near term, which also gives time and space to develop and approve more advanced fission power generation designs that require less fuel processing and enrichment and generate less overall waste while generating more energy from fuel elements through partial or complete fuel burnup.

As for China, they are investing heavily in renewables and solar in particular because they understand both the costs and security risks of coal and oil are just going to increase as time goes on. Their increase in solar power generation capability in 2016 was greater than the increase of all other nations combined. And PV solar panel fabrication not only has a lower energy cost associated with it per kW of generation capacity than the end-to-end nuclear fuel cycle but also actually has a lower carbon footprint than that associated with the fabrication of nuclear power plants (which require a lot of concrete, steel piping, and transportation carbon costs in addition to fuel mining, milling, and enrichment). China has the goal to be energy secure through a combination of strategic alliances and transitioning to an energy infrastructure that is largely renewable and ultimately not dependent upon any external energy supplies for critical functions. They look to be sitting pretty while the rest of the world runs down the clock on oil and readily available natural gas, which is the smart play looking ahead thirty or forty years. If we really wanted to be energy secure, and oh by the way bring back some of those lost manufacturing jobs, we'd be doing strategic investment in domestic manufacture of PV solar panels and associated hardware, not chopping off mountaintops for coal and fracking the shit out of low yield tar sands as our energy plan of the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The idea that the Board is "left leaning" has always struck me as a bit exaggerated. XT is active in this thread—he's no leftist—and at least 3 rightists are posting. Does the center-left outnumber the right-wing here? Sure, but that's true of almost any intellectual grouping.
The crowd of people bitching about how "left leaning" this board is come from the view that anyone left of Newt Gingrich is a flaming socialist, which reflects the fact that the once-pragmatic Republican party has been hijacked by Tea Party zealots who have shifted the perception so far to the political right that even Reagan would protest in the streets with the pussy hat people. With few exceptions, those self-identified conservatives who pisstake about the liberal bent are doing so to avoid making substantive arguments or provide evidence to back up their claims, often resorting to innuendo and baiting rhetoric to divert a discussion not going their way.

Stranger
  #113  
Old 08-18-2018, 03:21 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
But there is another logistical issue to consider; a conventional (pressurized or boiling water reactor) nuclear fission power plant can take five years or more to design, site, construct, and certify for operation even without significant delays. Light water reactors also require enriched uranium fuel; the United States has neither high grade uranium ore deposits, nor even enough enrichment capacity to sustain current operating fission reactors; we use enriched uranium and mixed oxide fuel from foreign sources which is costly and a substantial national security risk that would only increase with greater dependence upon nuclear fission. Standing up new refining and enrichment capability to support a multiple factor increase in nuclear fission power generation would be the work of a decade or more even if we can find someplace to site the facility. (Previous enrichment facilities have required extensive cleanup and remediation, and communities are naturally reluctant to be home to one even despite the well-paying jobs it brings.)
The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that's a red herring. They're virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They're a construction project just like anything else.

'the fastest alternative to coal plants are natural gas plants which take little time to transition over too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post

As for China, they are investing heavily in renewables and solar in particular because they understand both the costs and security risks of coal and oil are just going to increase as time goes on.
uh huh. We;ll just forget the 2 power plants a week they were building in 2016.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #114  
Old 08-18-2018, 03:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that's a red herring. They're virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They're a construction project just like anything else.

'the fastest alternative to coal plants are natural gas plants which take little time to transition over too.
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/01/28...nuclear-power/
Quote:
Myth: We need to build more nuclear power if we want to cut electricity emissions quickly and turn off coal and natural gas power plants.

Short answer: Renewables can grow fast because they can be installed practically everywhere rapidly and simultaneously. Renewable capacity in the magnitude of 1 TW can in principle be added every year. Germany installed 3 GW of PV in one single month in December 2011. Germany has roughly 1% of the world’s population. So, if the entire world installs only 20% the amount of PV that Germany did 5 years ago, it would be at 720 GW per year. At a single utility-scale-PV plant, 120 MWp per month was installed. If only 10% of all cities worldwide installed utility-scale-solar at this scale at the same time, it would lead to approximately the same number just for utility-scale-solar (the world has 4,412 cities with a population of at least 150,000). In fact, if the world only installs one PV module per person per year, this already leads to 1,850 GW per year. Nuclear power plants, meanwhile, take several years to build — and are much more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
uh huh. We;ll just forget the 2 power plants a week they were building in 2016.
Quote:
Originally Posted by same article
On the other hand, preliminary information on China’s new energy five-year plan broke out yesterday from a government-controlled media outlet, indicating a more complete ban on new permitting will be forthcoming.
The article also makes clear that most of the coal plants are headed for a huge fall as even with no clampdown there is an over production of them. Also a lot of other energy projects not related to coal are bound to cause most of the new coal plants to fail.

Quote:
‘Winter is coming’

Chinese energy industry publication Southern Energy Observer recently collected comments on the overcapacity situation from market participants across the country, and one phrase got repeated half a dozen times: the power industry’s “winter is coming”.

A commentator from the northeast said that the industry had anticipated a central government clampdown on new permits and rushed to grab permits at the last minute, with a lot of poorly planned projects going into construction.

A Cantonese reader noted that nuclear, hydro, wind and solar are competing with thermal power, resulting in a lot of existing units standing idle. Yet, more coal power units are under construction, surely worsening the situation and risking waste of capital.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-18-2018 at 03:45 PM.
  #115  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:03 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 78,489
Man, I get so tired of people looking for "the solution" (and this is, so far as I can tell, a truly bipartisan problem). Those who say that solar power is the solution to green energy generation are just as wrong as those who say that nuclear is the solution. The fact is, we don't need one solution. We need a whole bunch of things which, collectively, add up to a solution. Let's make more solar panels, and more wind turbines, and more geothermal plants, and more nuclear plants, and increase the efficiency of our appliances and vehicles, and research and develop new technologies. We're not limited to just doing one of those things, and it's highly unlikely that any one would be enough. Now, doing everything? That can be enough.
  #116  
Old 08-18-2018, 04:15 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magiver View Post
The designs for the next generation nuclear plants already exist so that's a red herring. They're virtually idiot proof and will safely shut themselves down regardless of human input or the lack thereof. They idea that solar panel farms spring into action quickly is nonsense. They're a construction project just like anything else.
Not true. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not certified any design of either a fast neutron reactor or small modular power reactor, and while there are some proof of concept demonstrations of both no full scale complete design exists for any Generation IV nuclear fission reactor. Getting a new type design certified is viewed as a major hurdle by potential operators, hence why their is little serious private interest in developing Generation IV designs for commercial power generation despite the efficiency improvements.

No one has said that "solar panel farms spring into action" by any magical process; what has been stated is that PV solar panels can be deployed nearly as quickly as they can be fabricated and transported with scaleability down to the level of the individual consumer. Since they produce no waste products or emissions, even getting a siting approval is a straightforward process compared to any kind of natural gas power plant. With thermal solar, up to the level of a single installation being able to provide power in the several thousand megawatt-hour/day range.

Stranger
  #117  
Old 08-18-2018, 05:51 PM
Magiver Magiver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Dayton Ohio USA
Posts: 27,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
Not true. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has not certified any design of either a fast neutron reactor or small modular power reactor, and while there are some proof of concept demonstrations of both no full scale complete design exists for any Generation IV nuclear fission reactor. Getting a new type design certified is viewed as a major hurdle by potential operators, hence why their is little serious private interest in developing Generation IV designs for commercial power generation despite the efficiency improvements.
There are type 3 designs approved and ready to go. Beyond that all it takes is political willpower to stop the economic extremists from delaying the process of type 4 approval.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
No one has said that "solar panel farms spring into action" by any magical process; what has been stated is that PV solar panels can be deployed nearly as quickly as they can be fabricated and transported with scaleability down to the level of the individual consumer. Since they produce no waste products or emissions, even getting a siting approval is a straightforward process compared to any kind of natural gas power plant. With thermal solar, up to the level of a single installation being able to provide power in the several thousand megawatt-hour/day range.

Stranger
natural gas power plants are upgrades to existing coal plants. the environmental approval consists of agreeing to less Co2 produced.
__________________
"People enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought": John Anderson
  #118  
Old 08-18-2018, 07:40 PM
Desert Nomad's Avatar
Desert Nomad Desert Nomad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe/MidEast
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The idea that the Board is "left leaning" has always struck me as a bit exaggerated.
I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center.

Some interesting polls here by members of this very community:

134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=8463

Most people think Clinton's poll numbers were underestimated (40 vs 15)
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=7863

158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=7882

Even after the election, more people here think the EC would defect to Clinton
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=7920

86 to 4 on not watching the Republican National Convention
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=7769

Last edited by Desert Nomad; 08-18-2018 at 07:42 PM.
  #119  
Old 08-18-2018, 11:15 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center.
There is IMHO a bit of that, but I think that you are not taking into account that our conservatives are different. And I base that on another thread where I did see that the majority of the conservatives did not favor Trump in the past election. Now on many occasions they fall in line with their leaders as good Republicans do, but it is clear to me that they should rather not have the current leadership.

But I do think that a lot of what we are seeing, and this subject is part of it, is that organizations like the press are finding out that misinformation is becoming normalized. In past elections mayor newspapers in the USA usually endorsed the Republican candidate, that changed after the Clinton years when newspapers began to endorse both the Democrat and the Republican with similar numbers.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...orsement-race/

Obama began to change that when he clearly got more endorsements than McCain, but in 2012 Romney got close to Obama's numbers.

And then we have 2016, Almost all newspapers endorsed Clinton, what many do forget here is that many of those were of conservative bent. But the main reason why I do think that the newspaper endorsement item is important here is because 538 did notice like I did that politics was not the main driver for that endorsement, and so I do think that what you describe is IMHO what does happen when on a board that was a bit leaning to the left but geared towards evidence based information, finds that the current conservative leadership in Washington is running with the idiot ball.

Quote:
What accounts for this blowout in newspaper endorsements? It wouldn’t be 2016 without mentioning Trump’s pet theory: “Media rigging election!” The Trump campaign and pro-Trump media outlets have argued that there is a clear media bias. They claim not only that the media is liberal — journalists, as a group, do lean left — but that the media is explicitly working with the Clinton campaign (and other entities) to defeat Trump.4

But there’s a simpler explanation than deliberate rigging. Reading through the endorsements, I found surprisingly little mention of the candidates’ ideologies or even policy preferences. Instead, many editorial boards focused on the personal qualities and histories of the two candidates. As Newsday wrote of Trump:

Quote:
He has an astonishing lack of knowledge about the world and about how government works. Worse, he shows no curiosity to learn. His stunning refusal Wednesday night to say he will accept the results of the election undermines one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And he has no peer in his ability to spout untruths. If that weren’t enough, his temperament disqualifies him. He wants to be president like it’s a trophy to be won, and he would have others do the actual work. That is not leadership.
So perhaps Clinton’s unparalleled landslide in newspaper endorsements is reflective not of ideological bias, but of general agreement among journalists — conservative as well as liberal — as to the qualities that make a candidate fit or unfit for the presidency.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-18-2018 at 11:18 PM.
  #120  
Old 08-19-2018, 12:43 AM
Desert Nomad's Avatar
Desert Nomad Desert Nomad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe/MidEast
Posts: 2,855
I voted for Gary Johnson, so feel like a bit of an outsider. My state (Nevada) went for Clinton. I must admit that I enjoyed election night seeing most of the media talking heads simply break down as it became clear that their predictions were wildly wrong. I see a real split in the coasts and the interior and those crowds don't seem to mix. People need to drive across the country sometime without using the interstate highways.

What really surprises me is that people are so affected (or think they are) by who is president. I am a small business owner and my life has not changed considerably through the GWB, Obama and Trump years. Furthermore a newspaper endorsement has zero influence on me and it scares me to think that it may sway some people.

Last edited by Desert Nomad; 08-19-2018 at 12:45 AM.
  #121  
Old 08-19-2018, 02:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center.

Some interesting polls here by members of this very community:

134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=8463

...
158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=7882
I think left/right refers more to policy positions than predictions. But let's look at two of the above.

"134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump"
Bricker voted for Clinton. Do you include him in the "left" or in the "far left"?

"158 to 20 thinking Clinton would win the election."
Most people, including Trump, thought Clinton would win. She probably would have won without Comey's Surprise in late October; even with that the election was quite close.

You do understand that when Nate Silver predicts 90% favorites, if he doesn't get 10% of those wrong, then his predictions are off, right?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now that you understand my question, can you try answering it again? Is opposing right-to-work laws a "far left" position? Support for gay marriage?
  #122  
Old 08-19-2018, 03:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
I guess it is hard for you to see how left this board is because you are a member of the left majority and most people perceive themselves as the center.

Some interesting polls here by members of this very community:

134 votes for Clinton, 15 for Trump
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...ts&pollid=8463
This forum is dedicated to fighting ignorance. It's bound to lean away from a presidential candidate who embodies that ignorance writ large.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
I voted for Gary Johnson, so feel like a bit of an outsider. My state (Nevada) went for Clinton. I must admit that I enjoyed election night seeing most of the media talking heads simply break down as it became clear that their predictions were wildly wrong. I see a real split in the coasts and the interior and those crowds don't seem to mix. People need to drive across the country sometime without using the interstate highways.

What really surprises me is that people are so affected (or think they are) by who is president. I am a small business owner and my life has not changed considerably through the GWB, Obama and Trump years. Furthermore a newspaper endorsement has zero influence on me and it scares me to think that it may sway some people.
If the matter of "who runs the most powerful country in the world" affects you so little, you are phenomenally privileged. Not everyone is in that situation. Do you have a single LGBT person you care about? Does the murder of hundreds of thousands of people bother you at all?

Of course, I doubt that you're in that situation. You weren't affected at all by the financial crash of 2007, just to name the most obvious example? I live in Germany, and I have to care about this shit! Is your small business going to be unaffected by Trump's trade war? Are you recession-proof?
__________________
Interested in recreational hypnosis? Ask me about my Patreon, where I go by "ToymakerHypnosis".
  #123  
Old 08-19-2018, 08:18 AM
Desert Nomad's Avatar
Desert Nomad Desert Nomad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Europe/MidEast
Posts: 2,855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Of course, I doubt that you're in that situation. You weren't affected at all by the financial crash of 2007, just to name the most obvious example? I live in Germany, and I have to care about this shit! Is your small business going to be unaffected by Trump's trade war? Are you recession-proof?
I do have LGBT friends, though most of them do not live in the USA.

Our wars have not been affected by who is president - Iraq happened under Bush, Syria happened under Obama and the war situation is not changing under Trump.

I was not affected by the crash of 2007. I owned my home in the Czech Republic outright, and when I moved back to the US (part time) in 2009, prices were low. The best years for our business (software) were 2007-2009. It seems to be fairly recession-proof. Maybe because more than half our customers are outside the USA.

One reason I am not affected is I live well below my means. Until 2002, I drove a 1977 car, then moved overseas and did not own a car again until 2012. I have never had cable TV.

I think people are far less affected by who is president than they think they are. Same goes for the governor of my state and the mayor of my town.

Last edited by Desert Nomad; 08-19-2018 at 08:23 AM.
  #124  
Old 08-19-2018, 11:42 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,577
The origins of their resistance made perfect sense. Agreeing with the science on climate change was bad for business.

In recent years, as climate change becomes more mainstream and resistance to it is limited to the fringes of the right wing, I think conservatives just look at climate change denial as another way to make liberals cry.
  #125  
Old 08-19-2018, 01:19 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
You can keep repeating that over and over, but that doesn’t make it true.

Stranger
Which part of your cite do you believe shows that solar will scale up to meet our energy needs, or that it costs the same, or less, than nuclear? Keep in mind that subsidies do not reduce costs, only shift them.

Regards,
Shodan
  #126  
Old 08-19-2018, 01:22 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Nomad View Post
I think people are far less affected by who is president than they think they are. Same goes for the governor of my state and the mayor of my town.
A bit incomplete on that point, one important thing is that I was talking about the congress critters and judges too, the damage they and Trump are doing is not going to be apparent soon, but it will translate into subsequent waste of money and resources figuring out what was wrong or ignorant or evil or illegal as well as immoral.

Cases in point from recent headlines:

Americans Think NASA Should Focus on Climate Change. Trump Doesn’t

NOAA’s Research Just Shifted from Climate Change to “Empowering the Economy” and “National Security”

GOP Senators: Climate-Change Education Program Is Propaganda, Not Science

Florida Cities Are Most at Risk From Climate Change, Report Says


At 'America First Energy Conference', Solar Power Is Dumb, Climate Change Is Fake

Trump's giveaway to Big Oil will accelerate climate change

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-19-2018 at 01:23 PM.
  #127  
Old 08-19-2018, 01:37 PM
aregard aregard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
My other claim was that a few decades was short for scientific inquiry. It is, and you presumably disagree, but nothing you said explains why.
1912
"A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. " True according to Snopes.

More than "a few decades" and definitely referencing man made changes.
  #128  
Old 08-19-2018, 09:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by aregard View Post
1912
"A 14 August 1912 article from a New Zealand newspaper contained a brief story about how burning coal might produce future warming by adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. " True according to Snopes.

More than "a few decades" and definitely referencing man made changes.
I think the first scientific paper hypothesizing manmade atmospheric warming dates back to 1896.
  #129  
Old 08-20-2018, 04:14 AM
wintertime wintertime is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 972
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think the first scientific paper hypothesizing manmade atmospheric warming dates back to 1896.
Not quite. The Swedish chemist and physicist Svante Arrhenius published his paper about the green house effect which sought to develop an explanation for the ice ages indeed in the year 1896. First in German, Über den Einfluss des atmosphärischen Kohlensäuregehalts auf die Temperatur der Erdoberfläche in the Swedish journal Behang till Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar then, abridged, in English in The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science.

The introduction to the copy of the English translation clarifies:

Quote:
Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
The relevant passage from page 270:

Quote:
The world's present production of coal reaches in round numbers 500 millions of tons per annum (..). Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere. It represents a layer of limestone 0-003 millim. thickness over the whole globe (..). This quantity of carbonic acid, which is supplied to the atmosphere chiefly by modern industry, may be regarded as completely compensating the quantity of carbonic acid that is consumed in the formation of limestone (or other mineral carbonates) by the weathering or decomposition of silicates. (..)
The "later work" is Worlds in the Making (1908); a passage from the chapter The celestial bodies, in particular the Earth, as abodes of organisms [p.54] shows his awareness that human influence on global climate is possible:

Quote:
The actual percentage of carbonic acid in the air is so insignificant that the annual combustion of coal, which has now (1904) risen to about 900 million tons and is rapidly increasing, carries about one-seven-hundredth part of its percentage of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries.
  #130  
Old 08-20-2018, 05:14 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
China emits more than the US and the EU put together.

This is the kind of thing that leads me to believe that Democrats aren't serious. Every time someone suggests that the problem is serious enough that we should stifle our economy to avert it, and someone else points to the elephant in the room, they try to change the subject.

We aren't going to do anything about AGW, until we have to. Neither the GOP, nor the Democrats, are serious about it. For different reasons, but neither are. So we won't, until we are forced to.
What? The fact that Democrats aren't trying to look for excuses and suggest we do something about the problem now as well as supporting and pressuring countries like China to reduce their emissions means they aren't taking the problem seriously!?

Yes if only we were taking the problem as seriously as right-wing pundits. Every step along the stages of denial, from "There's no climate change" through "There's climate change, but it's got nothing to do with CO2" through to now where every year there are record-breaking high temperatures, just as was predicted, and it's having catastrophic consequences, the answer is the same: Let's do nothing. Because...because look, other people are doing nothing! (which btw is not true about China; they are making a big move to renewable energy).

Last edited by Mijin; 08-20-2018 at 05:18 AM.
  #131  
Old 08-20-2018, 05:19 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,594
Nah, you see, Republicans are actively trying to deny and obfuscate the problems of climate change, while Democrats are drawing attention to the dangers of climate change and proposing measures to alleviate it, but not being as radical in their proposals as most climate scientists recommend. In the Shodaniverse, that means that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame for public inaction on climate change.
  #132  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:02 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Shodan
China emits more than the US and the EU put together.
Oh my. Those who didn't read #108 are sentenced to writing "China is a big country" 50 times on the blackboard.

China has more goats than the US and EU combined, eats more ice cream than the US and EU combined, and has more geniuses—and imbeciles—than the US and EU combined. Why is this? I've spoilered the answer in case you want to guess by yourself.
SPOILER:
China has 550 million more people than the US and EU combined.

China has lower per capita CO2 emission than Germany, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Canada and much less than half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A.

Hope this helps. You're welcome.
  #133  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:18 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. 'The largest polluter on earth doesn't count because it's larger' doesn't, and isn't.

Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don't want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won't work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else's fault.

Regards,
Shodan
  #134  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:27 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. 'The largest polluter on earth doesn't count because it's larger' doesn't, and isn't.

Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don't want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won't work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else's fault.

Regards,
Shodan
Just because you don't understand something doesn’t make it stupid. It just means you don't understand it. You don't understand why it's relevant that China's per capita emissions are dwarfed by America's? How, exactly, should we "address" the issue of a country that does more than us and also doesn't like us very much?
__________________
Interested in recreational hypnosis? Ask me about my Patreon, where I go by "ToymakerHypnosis".
  #135  
Old 08-20-2018, 07:58 AM
Filbert Filbert is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, for something to help, it usually has to make sense or be relevant. 'The largest polluter on earth doesn't count because it's larger' doesn't, and isn't.

Like I said, it is difficult to believe the left thinks AGW is as serious as they claim to think. They don't want to address the major cause, their solutions cost more and won't work, they are afraid to speak against their fundamentalists (who are green rather than Christian, but are equally faith-based) and it is always somebody else's fault.

Regards,
Shodan
I have a suggestion how China drastically lower its emissions; by simply splitting into several smaller countries, it'll no longer be the worst!

Anyway, I'm off to ask the Vatican how to re-write my country's energy policy, theirs are so low, they must have some amazing ideas...
  #136  
Old 08-20-2018, 09:16 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Just because you don't understand something doesn’t make it stupid. It just means you don't understand it.
I understand it just fine. That's how I can tell it's stupid.
Quote:
You don't understand why it's relevant that China's per capita emissions are dwarfed by America's?
It's not relevant. China is emitting more than the US and the EU put together, even though their per-capita is lower. Because they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together right now, and it is likely to get worse as they continue to increase the total amount they are emitting. See also what Filbert wrote.
Quote:
How, exactly, should we "address" the issue of a country that does more than us and also doesn't like us very much?
Apparently now you understand that they are doing more than us, in the sense that they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together, so maybe now you understand how per-capita is irrelevant.

But again, it is hard to take Democrats seriously on the issue. Their idea of how to address the issue of the largest polluter is to give them a break, while imposing limits on the US and the EU, that would be insufficient to address the allegedly serious problem even if they applied to China.

So, the solution to the problem of AGW is a treaty that doesn't affect the largest source of the problem, stifling the US economy in ways that won't help. switching to technologies that cost more, won't scale up, and won't help, determinately change the subject every time someone tries to suggest technologies that have a chance or working, and presto! Problem solved.

Darn those Republicans for being skeptical about so obvious and straightforward a solution.

Regards,
Shodan
  #137  
Old 08-20-2018, 09:23 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
You realize Filbert was mocking you, right? If we split China into three countries, each the size of the USA, each of those countries would have far lower emissions than the USA. Per capita matters.

And let's not forget that China is a member of the Paris accords (along with every country in the world except the US), is leading in solar panels, and also none of us can vote in Chinese elections. I can't affect Chinese climate policies. Neither can you. Nobody is "cutting China a break".

Basically everything you just said is wrong.
__________________
Interested in recreational hypnosis? Ask me about my Patreon, where I go by "ToymakerHypnosis".
  #138  
Old 08-20-2018, 11:19 AM
Lumpy's Avatar
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 16,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
Let's do nothing. Because...because look, other people are doing nothing! (which btw is not true about China; they are making a big move to renewable energy).
That's not an entirely irrational position to take; the Tragedy of the Commons is that if only some of the people stop grazing their herds on the commons, it impoverishes them while rewarding the cheaters. ("Thanks Sucker!")
  #139  
Old 08-20-2018, 11:38 AM
Mijin's Avatar
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 8,451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Apparently now you understand that they are doing more than us, in the sense that they are emitting more than the US and the EU put together, so maybe now you understand how per-capita is irrelevant.
I took "they are doing more than us" to mean they are doing more to switch to renewables: For every $1 the US put into adding renewable energy last year, China put in $3

Remind me again, what was your excuse for doing fuck all about climate change?

Quote:
But again, it is hard to take Democrats seriously on the issue.
Yeah so naive to try to implement measures to actually reduce CO2 emissions. It's like they are not even trying to find excuses.

Thank goodness there are republicans brave enough to sit down and be counted, only taking their hands out of their arses long enough to pocket lobbying cash from energy companies.
  #140  
Old 08-20-2018, 11:57 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You realize Filbert was mocking you, right? If we split China into three countries, each the size of the USA, each of those countries would have far lower emissions than the USA. Per capita matters.
If per capita matters, then splitting China up into three countries would address the problem of AGW, right? Except that it wouldn't.

Quote:
I can't affect Chinese climate policies. Neither can you.
So the Kyoto and Paris accords will have no effect, as I mentioned. Which is another of the solutions that Democrats are pinning their hopes to. So, again, a solution that won't work and doesn't address the major source of the problem. But it is a good idea, because the Chinese are poisoning their own people as well as the atmosphere.

But let's not talk about that, or nuclear energy, or any other practical solutions. Because the problem is so serious.

Uh-huh.

Regards,
Shodan
  #141  
Old 08-20-2018, 12:02 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
...But let's not talk about that, or nuclear energy, or any other practical solutions. Because the problem is so serious.
You are quite aware that "we" are talking about a lot of different solutions.

Where's yours?
  #142  
Old 08-20-2018, 12:07 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I took "they are doing more than us" to mean they are doing more to switch to renewables: For every $1 the US put into adding renewable energy last year, China put in $3

Remind me again, what was your excuse for doing fuck all about climate change?



Yeah so naive to try to implement measures to actually reduce CO2 emissions. It's like they are not even trying to find excuses.

Thank goodness there are republicans brave enough to sit down and be counted, only taking their hands out of their arses long enough to pocket lobbying cash from energy companies.

That's true...China does spend more on renewable energy than the US does. They spend more on non-renewable dirty energy than the US does as well. They USE more energy than the US does. One of the big differentiators between China and the US wrt renewables is hydro. Over a million GWh for China verse a touch over 200k GWh for the US. That's a HUGE difference, and one we will never close the gap on since we are building zero new hydro plants and even decommissioning some of the existing. The US actually has more wind powered generation than China and only a bit less solar. We beat then in geo-thermal, mostly because China doesn't seem to use this much. But the big one is hydro.

As for them spending more, well, a couple of things there. First off, as I noted, they spend more on all types of new generation, dirty and clean. That's because they are still building capabilities and expanding coverage, while the US isn't really doing that. The US has a mature grid, and a lot of what we spend is really swapping out older systems for newer, not building new capacity. So, it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

Far from the US 'fuck all about climate change', we are the number 2 nation wrt installed and working renewable energy systems. We spend the 2nd most (not that I think this stat means shit, but since you used it I figured what the hell).

It saddens me that China gets such a pass without scrutinizing what the stats actually mean, or WHY they are doing what they are doing. They are tossed out (using per capita when it suits or using the gross figures as you did when that suits the narrative) as a foil to the US, showing how much better they are and how much worse we are without thinking of why the numbers are what they are, or what the actual CCP goals are in the broader context.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #143  
Old 08-20-2018, 01:00 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
You are quite aware that "we" are talking about a lot of different solutions.

Where's yours?
I think we should concentrate more on nuclear energy, and not on solar or wind, which will not be more than niche applications. "We" should be talking about that.

I may have mentioned it a couple of times, including in the part of my post that you quoted. Funny that you missed it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #144  
Old 08-20-2018, 01:57 PM
ExTank's Avatar
ExTank ExTank is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Creve Coeur, MO
Posts: 6,609
Well, in the mid-90s, SUVs became insanely popular out in suburbia and beyond.

And there was a backlash from urban liberals, and SUVs became the hated symbol of crass materialism/capitalist consumption, a hallmark of suburban sprawl, basically, everything that was Wrong With America.

The rest of us just shrugged and said, "Whatever."

Then Global Warming came along, and, just coincidentally, SUVs were the biggest culprits.

Then Al Gore came along, and he told me I needed to be using less energy to stave off Global Warming; this coming from a multi-millionaire, whose twenty-room mansion (with year-round heated outdoor swimming pool) uses more energy in a week than I do in a year in my two-bedroom apartment.

A guy who flies in a private jet to speaking engagements, travels in armored SUV motorcades...but I'm the one who needs to make sacrifices to save the global ecology.

Yeah. All animals are equal, but some more so than others.


Global warming is just another tool of the socialist left, being used in their attempt to subvert standing institutions and force free people to submit to ever-increasing levels of government control, by people who think that the world as depicted in Orwell's 1984 would be a great place to live in, and that the Soviet Union was paradise on Earth.
  #145  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:07 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
It saddens me that China gets such a pass without scrutinizing what the stats actually mean, or WHY they are doing what they are doing. They are tossed out (using per capita when it suits or using the gross figures as you did when that suits the narrative) as a foil to the US, showing how much better they are and how much worse we are without thinking of why the numbers are what they are, or what the actual CCP goals are in the broader context.
Actually, and it remains a straw man that bit about giving China a pass, I did look at the cite from Magiver that claimed that China was indeed making more coal energy plants.

But.

He did not notice that in the article that even in China they realize that the coal guys used loopholes, that are being removed, to build many of those energy plants; While China is starting to produce more of their energy with renewals. The article then reports that many of those coal plants are or will go idle or become failures due to overproduction. I think we have to blame that result on classic communist mismanagement.

But as I said, their selfishness is what I count more with, and preventing a coming refugee disaster or seeing people complain more about immediate contamination is more important to the powers over there, what I got from the article is that workers will also get coal plant construction jobs in the meantime, and that is also cynically important for them, specially more more local authorities. That the plants will not be as useful later is a feature, not a bug.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 08-20-2018 at 02:08 PM.
  #146  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:11 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think we should concentrate more on nuclear energy, and not on solar or wind, which will not be more than niche applications. "We" should be talking about that.

I may have mentioned it a couple of times, including in the part of my post that you quoted. Funny that you missed it.
I didn't, actually--and I'm also a strong proponent of nuclear power, much to the chagrin of some of my greenie associates.

I just didn't realize that nuclear power is the One True Solution in your thinking. If you're annoyed at people supposedly hammering only one solution (with which you happen to disagree) it seems odd that you would yourself be dedicated to only one solution.

Instead of working on multiple fronts for a broader, more systemic set of progressive approaches to old, failed, and failing power generation and transmission paradigms. One which could easily include the solar and wind options you scoff at as well as nuke, hydro, and geothermal approaches. And one which also includes acknowledging the China problem as well as our own.
  #147  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:19 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,356
I can't put in a nuke plant in my backyard, but I did put in solar and home batteries. I have to admit, it wasn't motivated by global warming or environmental concerns - I just think it's cool to be able to go off grid.
  #148  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:33 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post
Well, in the mid-90s, SUVs became insanely popular out in suburbia and beyond.

And there was a backlash from urban liberals, and SUVs became the hated symbol of crass materialism/capitalist consumption, a hallmark of suburban sprawl, basically, everything that was Wrong With America.

The rest of us just shrugged and said, "Whatever."

Then Global Warming came along, and, just coincidentally, SUVs were the biggest culprits.

Then Al Gore came along, and he told me I needed to be using less energy to stave off Global Warming; this coming from a multi-millionaire, whose twenty-room mansion (with year-round heated outdoor swimming pool) uses more energy in a week than I do in a year in my two-bedroom apartment.

A guy who flies in a private jet to speaking engagements, travels in armored SUV motorcades...but I'm the one who needs to make sacrifices to save the global ecology.

Yeah. All animals are equal, but some more so than others.
This talking point is almost older than the internet.

https://skepticalscience.com/al-gore...uth-errors.htm
Quote:
Note: the vilification of Al Gore is best understood in the context of personalisation. When opponents attack something abstract - like science - the public may not associate with the argument. By giving a name and a face and a set of behavioural characteristics - being a rich politician, for example - it is easy to create a fictional enemy through inference and association. Al Gore is a successful politician who presented a film, his training and experience suitable to the task. To invoke Gore is a way to obfuscate about climate science, for which Gore has neither responsibility, claim nor blame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExTank View Post
Global warming is just another tool of the socialist left, being used in their attempt to subvert standing institutions and force free people to submit to ever-increasing levels of government control, by people who think that the world as depicted in Orwell's 1984 would be a great place to live in, and that the Soviet Union was paradise on Earth.
It is clear you missed post#102, there are plenty of conservative reasons to avoid continuing to treat our atmosphere as a dump.
  #149  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:37 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If per capita matters, then splitting China up into three countries would address the problem of AGW, right? Except that it wouldn't.
*blinks*

Okay, do I need to explain what "per capita" means?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
I think we should concentrate more on nuclear energy, and not on solar or wind, which will not be more than niche applications. "We" should be talking about that.
Awesome! You do realize that this is not the mainstream republican position, right? No, the mainstream republican position is embodied not by "Global warming exists, the solutions the democrats are floating aren't great and we should try something else", but rather by the post ExTank made. Complete ignorance of the facts, conspiracy theories declaring that a massive field of research over decades is nothing more than an attempt at a socialist new world order, and personalization to Al Gore (oh my god who the fuck cares about Al Gore in 2018). In the rare case that you can get a republican representative to even admit that human-caused global warming is a thing - most of them will not - almost none of them will propose anything resembling a solution. And the actual republican leadership on climate? James Inhofe, Scott Pruitt, Paul Broun. The most radical denialists of the bunch.

I wonder - do you have any response to ExTank? I feel like your disagreement with him is likely considerably more significant than your disagreement with me or andros, and his claims are much more in need of correction than anything we're posting.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 08-20-2018 at 02:41 PM.
  #150  
Old 08-20-2018, 02:43 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,656
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Actually, and it remains a straw man that bit about giving China a pass, I did look at the cite from Magiver that claimed that China was indeed making more coal energy plants.

But.

He did not notice that in the article that even in China they realize that the coal guys used loopholes, that are being removed, to build many of those energy plants; While China is starting to produce more of their energy with renewals. The article then reports that many of those coal plants are or will go idle or become failures due to overproduction. I think we have to blame that result on classic communist mismanagement.

But as I said, their selfishness is what I count more with, and preventing a coming refugee disaster or seeing people complain more about immediate contamination is more important to the powers over there, what I got from the article is that workers will also get coal plant construction jobs in the meantime, and that is also cynically important for them, specially more more local authorities. That the plants will not be as useful later is a feature, not a bug.
You say strawman, as you ironically give them a pass by not looking into the claims or who 'the coal guys' are who use those loopholes. Did it never occur to you that many are aligned with (or just plain in) the CCP? Also, claims that China will, this time, start to enforce their environmental regulations should be met with just a touch of skepticism...which is fully lacking in your post here. As is the claim that all or even some percentage of these new(ish) coal plants will just be idle. IF that is indeed the case, I agree, from our perspective that would be a feature, not a bug. However, the reality is that China consumes more coal than the rest of the world...combined. So, I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that those coal plants are now or will soon be idle.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 08-20-2018 at 02:44 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017