Trinity wrote:David Attenborough warns of the extinction of the natural world. Stable Genius doesn’t buy it. Saudis First.
THIS above: icon_puke "....I'm done with educating people...." Hillaryous. Why are you done? When did you start JHU72?cradleandshoot wrote:There is no argument you can make to educate some of these folks.
That will never happen when the folks in question understand the difference between educate and indoctrinate. When the education begins with … "the science is settled" you are not being educated you are being indoctrinated. Nice try 72... I hope you have some better tools in that tool box of yours. They are rusty, unusable and in need of a lot of WD 40...I am still all ears if you can tell us how we save the planet. Does Consensus save the planet or does science save the planet?
Here is some education from Dr Spencer... his words speak volumes here. That is if you can sort through all the sheepdip being presented beforehand.
"Skeptics advancing alternative explanations (hypotheses) for climate variability represent the way the researcher community used to operate, before politics, policy outcomes, and billions of dollars got involved."
Saving the planet my arse… as always it is nothing more than follow the money. Isn't that what it always boils down to... Al Gore has already proven that fact.
jhu72 wrote:a fan wrote:Right. They aren't perfect. And your skepticism is warranted.cradleandshoot wrote: This is where the cynical side of me comes into play... these same scientists had 2 space shuttles blow up in their face... one at launch... one on re-entry. It ain't as easy as we think it should be. That doesn't mean we should not do it. It means that there will be painful mistakes along the way. Anybody like me that watched Challenger blow up on live TV understands the complications and the risks.
That skepticism is addressed by working on things that have other primary benefits: the energy efficient homes and factories I mentioned. Address directly reducing CO2 last. Focus on infrastructure, both private and public, that we know makes people, companies and governments, better and more financially efficient. Doing these things inherently reduces greenhouse gas emission exponentially as a secondary effect.
If we do that, and only that? The problem will be fixed, and we won't have to do stupid things like carbon taxes or "cap and trade'. That stuff costs money and fixes nothing.
We're in the same camp, old bean. Your skepticism makes us focus on the right fixes, and ignores the silly stuff that does nothing but lines the pockets of Al Gore and his kind.
Clean the Chesapeake, as runrussellrun suggests, and bring the oyster beds and recreation back. Look for ROI !
I see your point but addressing CO2 last is not smart. CO2 once it is in the atmosphere is very difficult to remove, it remains for a very very long time, and needless to say expensive. Your plan will leave us with a beautiful much warmer planet.
Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.jhu72 wrote:A realistic assessment. I don't think it is a reason for pessimism. Solar adoption is a little ahead of schedule and this is just with silicon based technology. Perovskite cells in 9 years (discovery of technology to today) have gone from 3% to 29% efficiency, matching silicon's theoretical limit (practical scale-able limit for silicon is ~25%). It has taken silicon technology my whole life to advance to this point. Perovskite is theoretically limited at 33% efficiency. Perovskite - hybrid technology much higher. It was projected that we would see first commercial Perovskite product this year, 2018. Hasn't happened to the best of my knowledge but there is no reason to believe it won't happen in the near future. Perovskite manufacturing is a wet chemistry process that is much less expensive than silicon and a lot cleaner. Solar is going to become much cheaper in the near future.
Batteries and other chemical storage, molten salt and other thermal storage, pumped-storage hydro and other water storage to name a few. There are dozens ways to store larger amounts of energy, and lots of research still going into it.runrussellrun wrote:Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.
Those slave/amazon workers in buildings 4-5 lacrosse fields long are open 24/7. The sun is not. What's providing electricity at 4am?
RRR believes the goal is to eliminate all forms of fossil fuel and other pollutants. Not to moderate but to eliminate altogether and if you are not eliminating these things completely you are a "pretend"...you see we should all adopt an Amish lifestyle.holmes435 wrote:Batteries and other chemical storage, molten salt and other thermal storage, pumped-storage hydro and other water storage to name a few. There are dozens ways to store larger amounts of energy, and lots of research still going into it.runrussellrun wrote:Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.
Those slave/amazon workers in buildings 4-5 lacrosse fields long are open 24/7. The sun is not. What's providing electricity at 4am?
Throw in some modern nuke reactors for additional balance and some fossil fuel plants for backups and you're good to go.
holmes435 wrote:Batteries and other chemical storage, molten salt and other thermal storage, pumped-storage hydro and other water storage to name a few. There are dozens ways to store larger amounts of energy, and lots of research still going into it.runrussellrun wrote:Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.
Those slave/amazon workers in buildings 4-5 lacrosse fields long are open 24/7. The sun is not. What's providing electricity at 4am?
Throw in some modern nuke reactors for additional balance and some fossil fuel plants for backups and you're good to go.
my view is that distributed generation (on houses and buildings with the primary aim of reducing the power taken from the grid) is the future for renewable - particularly solar, but there have been some very interesting distributive wind technologies out there as well.jhu72 wrote:holmes435 wrote:Batteries and other chemical storage, molten salt and other thermal storage, pumped-storage hydro and other water storage to name a few. There are dozens ways to store larger amounts of energy, and lots of research still going into it.runrussellrun wrote:Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.
Those slave/amazon workers in buildings 4-5 lacrosse fields long are open 24/7. The sun is not. What's providing electricity at 4am?
Throw in some modern nuke reactors for additional balance and some fossil fuel plants for backups and you're good to go.
… and we haven't even begun to talk about the possibilities and advantages of both homeowner co-generation and local storage. Lots of jobs.
preparing for the impacts to/demands on the grid are really critical if any renewable energy sources are going to be viable. Those costs are almost always ignored when green lobbyists talk about cost of energy comparisons. Wind is the absolute worst in terms of scheduling and grid requirements....holmes435 wrote:Local storage is still going to be a lot less efficient than centralized at the moment, but local generation is certainly important. It is is massively disrupting market-wise, so we'll need overhauls in how we support utility companies financially from municipalities on up to the federal level. Upgrading the grid to properly accept and distribute the additional load is worthy of investment and is certainly a high scale operation if someone is able to snag some government cheese to do so.
Agreed, lots of jobs available but for some reason we're lagging behind on infrastructure investment.
I would agree if she was actually calling for nationalization of Tesla. But that appears to be a misrepresentation, a big stretch beyond what she actually said.cradleandshoot wrote:https://news.grabien.com/story-ocasio-c ... -will-crea What this woman says she wants to do should scare the hell out of most people. It is not about saving the planet it is about the US government making a huge power grab. That is if you consider her idea of the government nationalizing Tesla because the government gave them the money to begin with. Some of you all wanted more socialism. Just like too much capitalism it comes with a very scary downside, if you are paying attention to the words being spoken. I bet the folks that run Tesla are just freaking thrilled about this news. bang1
It’s past time, she said, that the government gets its “due” for this “investment.” This has to be the most arrogant and terrifying thing I have read from any politician in a very long time. My instincts tell me this woman was the victim of a very large brain fart. That does not mean that she does not believes in this vision, but that even the FLP hardcore folks know they can't sell this pant load to the American people just yet.
Andover/Lawrence Mass. gas explosions........Columbia gas is replacing thousands of homes mechanical and appliances. Nope......no solar panel HOT dihydrogen monoxide systems. No giant wind turbines on the banks of the Merrimack.Typical Lax Dad wrote:RRR believes the goal is to eliminate all forms of fossil fuel and other pollutants. Not to moderate but to eliminate altogether and if you are not eliminating these things completely you are a "pretend"...you see we should all adopt an Amish lifestyle.holmes435 wrote:Batteries and other chemical storage, molten salt and other thermal storage, pumped-storage hydro and other water storage to name a few. There are dozens ways to store larger amounts of energy, and lots of research still going into it.runrussellrun wrote:Creating the energy/electricity is NOT the main thrust. It's the storage. That is the tech salve.
Those slave/amazon workers in buildings 4-5 lacrosse fields long are open 24/7. The sun is not. What's providing electricity at 4am?
Throw in some modern nuke reactors for additional balance and some fossil fuel plants for backups and you're good to go.
with it's over billion dollar endowment. Not bad for a HIGH schoolThe problem is not just Bayh-Dole. Bayh-Dole simply codified what many people, not without considerable evidence, thought would spur entrepreneurship and economic activity. It went too far in my opinion. There are other ways to spur that entreprenearship without the government giving up IP rights. Those IP rights should be held in trust for the American people and monetized for the benefit of the American people. I find your description of the situation to be a bit hyperbolic. Bayh-Dole is a small thing in the overall problem/solution equation.runrussellrun wrote:When can we actually READ the Green New Deal ? exactly
Until Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez starts talking about repealing the Bayh-Dole act of 1980.........she is just like Lizzie Warren, all sabre rattling, fluff, with NO substance.
How many of you pretend liberals even know what I am talking about?
