Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 376 to 390 of 442
  1. #376
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Wow ... lots to work with there.

    "Developed countries" use more than we need to use. No doubt, but that is part of "the good life" that we want to elevate people to. We shouldn't go to the beach, watch movies, have TVs, we should live in tiny houses in bunk beds, no need to communicate 99% of what we communicate, no need to spy on other people, and on and on. We can all be happy being subsistence farmers who only ever see 10-20 people in a lifetime.

    But we want to travel long distances, to watch TV and movies, to eat nice food, to be able to buy groceries days in advance of consuming them, and on and on.

    I drive very few miles on fuel efficient cars, I use efficient lights and leave them off the vast majority of the time, I don't watch TV (I do use my PC all day), I don't use multiple computers, I don't travel to work, I consume simple food mostly grown locally and purchased on my block from a store I walk to. I am still a power glutton based on most environmentalists standards. How austere a lifestyle are you suggesting we restrict everyone to?

    A solar array will struggle with one of the main needs of electricity ... light at night. And battery technology really sucks right now. Pumping water for crops and purifying water as well as using electricity to cook (and saving the environment and the people from cooking over dirty and dangerous fires) for a "small community" is still quite a bit of electricity to gather from the sun and store enough at night. And you'd still need even more to make up for cloudy days, and longer nights in winter etc. It's no simple solution.

    "we should limit population" ... hoo boy. How are you going to do that??
    Good points, now we just sit back and wait for tech to solve it................................we there yet, we started yet. May as well wait a bit more, it'll be fine. Just a little more, we got time.

  2. #377
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,077
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Good points, now we just sit back and wait for tech to solve it................................we there yet, we started yet. May as well wait a bit more, it'll be fine. Just a little more, we got time.
    We have the technology to generate cheap power without burning fossil fuels yes. We don't have the technology to store or transport electricity efficiently. And yes, it's being worked on. An efficient battery has been the BIG DEAL that will make an instant billionaire for decades.

    The best solution may be to use wind and solar to power plants to turn water into hydrogen to transport it to use it in fuel cells to turn it back into electricity. Unfortunately that's at about around 75% loss with available technology, but it works and works well, and while the infrastructure is wildly more expensive and complex it's a comparable return of energy as fossil fuels and it produces pure water out of the fuel cell.

    My point was that we cannot stop other countries from trying to elevate their people, and theoretically we don't want to prolong people's suffering, so we need to focus there above everywhere else in the climate change process.

  3. #378
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    13,123
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    I'm not sure you know the point that they are making. But you and Bill Gates. Nuclear power means dick without bees or arable living soil or clean water or any of the like.
    Bees can be harvested, soil can be remediated and water can be purified....and?
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  4. #379
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    We have the technology to generate cheap power without burning fossil fuels yes. We don't have the technology to store or transport electricity efficiently. And yes, it's being worked on. An efficient battery has been the BIG DEAL that will make an instant billionaire for decades.

    The best solution may be to use wind and solar to power plants to turn water into hydrogen to transport it to use it in fuel cells to turn it back into electricity. Unfortunately that's at about around 75% loss with available technology, but it works and works well, and while the infrastructure is wildly more expensive and complex it's a comparable return of energy as fossil fuels and it produces pure water out of the fuel cell.

    My point was that we cannot stop other countries from trying to elevate their people, and theoretically we don't want to prolong people's suffering, so we need to focus there above everywhere else in the climate change process.
    It being worked on......for decades

    75% loss with available technology.

    Seems all our problems are solved, or will be in decades anyway.

    You are correct that we cant stop other countries from industrializing, nor should we. We also shouldn't expect that they will any more efficient in their growth as we were. To talk about the things we ought to do to help developing countries accomplishes nothing. It's the never ending cop out, we aren't providing funding, many if these countries aren't allies and owe us nothing, and by what right should/do we have a say when we have no plan to curb our own usage. The focus needs to be everywhere, yesterday.

  5. #380
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Bees can be harvested, soil can be remediated and water can be purified....and?
    Oh sure, easy peasy and it all works so well and is completely sustainable. You'd be hilarious if you didn't know better.

  6. #381
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,077
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    It being worked on......for decades

    75% loss with available technology.

    Seems all our problems are solved, or will be in decades anyway.

    You are correct that we cant stop other countries from industrializing, nor should we. We also shouldn't expect that they will any more efficient in their growth as we were. To talk about the things we ought to do to help developing countries accomplishes nothing. It's the never ending cop out, we aren't providing funding, many if these countries aren't allies and owe us nothing, and by what right should/do we have a say when we have no plan to curb our own usage. The focus needs to be everywhere, yesterday.
    I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

    The biggest difference we can make to climate change emissions is in basically giving cleaner power generation to other countries that are building coal power plants. If we do it through the UN then it's not the US buy all countries working together.

  7. #382
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hell on Earth- Missouri
    Posts
    13,123
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    Oh sure, easy peasy and it all works so well and is completely sustainable. You'd be hilarious if you didn't know better.
    Bees? Sure, I'll admit I know nothing more about bees than the average Joe.

    Soil remediation and water purification, I can talk about all day long...and yes, they're both easily sustainable and they both work incredibly well.
    GJO- You will never be forgotten. "MORE THAN MINFINITY"!

  8. #383
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncsinmo View Post
    Bees? Sure, I'll admit I know nothing more about bees than the average Joe.

    Soil remediation and water purification, I can talk about all day long...and yes, they're both easily sustainable and they both work incredibly well.
    Makes sense, considering that my focus is on ecosystems and yours is on clean soil, which is precisely my criticism of ecomodernism.

  9. #384
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

    The biggest difference we can make to climate change emissions is in basically giving cleaner power generation to other countries that are building coal power plants. If we do it through the UN then it's not the US buy all countries working together.
    If and when and at what cost and to who being the issue? What is unclear? It's an ideology based on never having to work on the solution because when we need a solution it will come, while maintaining that the solution lies in what is only a small part of the problem. I guess jesus will intervene. Idk

  10. #385
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Wow ... lots to work with there.

    "Developed countries" use more than we need to use. No doubt, but that is part of "the good life" that we want to elevate people to. We shouldn't go to the beach, watch movies, have TVs, we should live in tiny houses in bunk beds, no need to communicate 99% of what we communicate, no need to spy on other people, and on and on. We can all be happy being subsistence farmers who only ever see 10-20 people in a lifetime.

    But we want to travel long distances, to watch TV and movies, to eat nice food, to be able to buy groceries days in advance of consuming them, and on and on.

    I drive very few miles on fuel efficient cars, I use efficient lights and leave them off the vast majority of the time, I don't watch TV (I do use my PC all day), I don't use multiple computers, I don't travel to work, I consume simple food mostly grown locally and purchased on my block from a store I walk to. I am still a power glutton based on most environmentalists standards. How austere a lifestyle are you suggesting we restrict everyone to?

    A solar array will struggle with one of the main needs of electricity ... light at night. And battery technology really sucks right now. Pumping water for crops and purifying water as well as using electricity to cook (and saving the environment and the people from cooking over dirty and dangerous fires) for a "small community" is still quite a bit of electricity to gather from the sun and store enough at night. And you'd still need even more to make up for cloudy days, and longer nights in winter etc. It's no simple solution.
    I freely admit that on this topic I am a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist, and I believe that some kind of forced austerity is on its way. I certainly can't describe it, but I do believe that immediate action will mitigate it to some degree (not all that much at this point). Under this shadow, I think that we either continue to party until the lights go out or we prepare in whatever way we can. Pushing solar, taxing fossil fuels, simplifying lifestyles are some pretty basic steps. Will they divert austerity. Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    "we should limit population" ... hoo boy. How are you going to do that??
    Start with free contraception for all and the abolition of certain religions institutions (i.e. all those who oppose free contraception).

    Remember, in this scenario, I am the president!
    Last edited by Crovash; 12-05-2019 at 11:44 AM.

  11. #386
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,077
    Quote Originally Posted by benny01 View Post
    If and when and at what cost and to who being the issue? What is unclear? It's an ideology based on never having to work on the solution because when we need a solution it will come, while maintaining that the solution lies in what is only a small part of the problem. I guess jesus will intervene. Idk
    I didn't say anything about any of that.

    If? No, it has to happen, there is no if.
    When? 40 years ago would have been nice, but now is all we can do.
    What cost? An enormous cost.
    To who? All of the developed world.

    We can solve the worlds issues with climate change emissions today with current technology, it will just cost a lot of money to get it to them cheap. And it will require we give up some ownership of things.

    We have an issue with solar and wind in that they are not reliable and our technology for storage and transmission still sucks, but it's better now than it's ever been and it's getting better.

    Nuclear doesn't have those issues right now.

    We don't need to dream of new solutions to get on the problem now, we just need to accept that nuclear is the stopgap answer we need while we build out and ramp up the infrastructure for a better solution as we go.

    Is that the "ideology" you are talking about? Or is it jesus?

  12. #387
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    I freely admit that on this topic I am a dyed-in-the-wool pessimist, and I believe that some kind of forced austerity is on its way. I certainly can't describe it, but I do believe that immediate action will mitigate it to some degree (not all that much at this point). Under this shadow, I think that we either continue to party until the lights go out or we prepare in whatever way we can. Pushing solar, taxing fossil fuels, simplifying lifestyles are some pretty basic steps. Will they divert austerity. Nope.



    Start with free contraception for all and the abolition of certain religions institutions (i.e. all those who oppose free contraception).

    Remember, in this scenario, I am the president!
    There is no way US austerity measures reduce worldwide climate change emissions. None whatsoever. The rest of the world outside of North America and Europe are building climate change emitting power stations and there are a lot more of them than their are of us.

    I don't think President is enough to get that stuff passed, I think you'd have to convince people you are God herself to do it. Keep in mind that citizen population in all of the western world is already dropping, it's the other parts of the world that are the population problem, and a little studying on China's efforts to control population pretty quickly demonstrates the horrific things that result.

  13. #388
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    Quippy? It is, yes, but there is some sense to it as well.

    Those of us in the so-called developed countries use far more energy than we need. Furthermore, the standard by which we measure progress in the so-called developing countries should not be determined by our current level of consumption. One well-functioning solar array in a small community can bring needed electricity to a village without electricty, but does that mean every home in the village must have two televisions, five computers, three cars, red meat for every dinner, and 2000 useless square feet of house to heat (or cool)

    And we should limit population.
    So Thanos was the good guy then.. At least to you right?

  14. #389
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    There is no way US austerity measures reduce worldwide climate change emissions. None whatsoever. The rest of the world outside of North America and Europe are building climate change emitting power stations and there are a lot more of them than their are of us.
    The point remains. We’re all probably screwed, so it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world actually does. We can do our bit, take whatever leadership we can muster up, and pray to whatever gods we don’t really believe in to spare us when the walls come tumbling down.

    You say nuclear is an option. Sure, it’s an option, but not a solution (neither are renewables if we continue to increase our energy demands). Given how much time and resources it will take to build a viable system, I think we are better off putting our efforts into solar.

    Either way, however, the time has probably run out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I don't think President is enough to get that stuff passed, I think you'd have to convince people you are God herself to do it. Keep in mind that citizen population in all of the western world is already dropping, it's the other parts of the world that are the population problem, and a little studying on China's efforts to control population pretty quickly demonstrates the horrific things that result.
    Education and free contraception.

  15. #390
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    30,077
    Quote Originally Posted by Crovash View Post
    The point remains. We’re all probably screwed, so it doesn’t matter what the rest of the world actually does. We can do our bit, take whatever leadership we can muster up, and pray to whatever gods we don’t really believe in to spare us when the walls come tumbling down.

    You say nuclear is an option. Sure, it’s an option, but not a solution (neither are renewables if we continue to increase our energy demands). Given how much time and resources it will take to build a viable system, I think we are better off putting our efforts into solar.

    Either way, however, the time has probably run out.



    Education and free contraception.
    Education and technology has proven to improve society to the point that contraception isn't needed to reduce birth rate.

Page 26 of 30 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •