Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
As long as they stay in the west I'm fine, we have our own problems in the north (people who don't like Hockey).

There is no such creature. I dont believe it....go Redwings!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, is Texas still around? :p

We're waiting for California to secede. Then maybe Washington and Oregon will follow. Then we can conquer them fair and square. They are full of hipsters. With their tight pants they can't duck. Should be a breeze. Then Cuba, then Mexico. Then the ultimate prize...Tahiti!

Yeah talk big now, but when those Tahitian armored divisions are marching downtown Dallas, it wont be funny! Better start learning Tahitian if you mess with the big dogs!

 whembly wrote:

The "a-ha" moment was when the Cook's 97% consensus was debunked... even though the AGW crowd/politicians keeps pushing that for their justifications on new policy changes.

I'm okay with trying green tech and tailoring regulations to make things safer within reasons.

But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.

Besides... I'm the ultimate greenie... where's the feth are my nuke plants??

Have you read nothing I've written? There have been a multitude of studies, with a variety of different methodology, showing that there is a consensus. The Cook study being "debunked" doesn't matter.




http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WFCTd-YrK00



At this point it's like saying "there isn't a consensus on evolution because this one study on it had bad methodology".

I am all for green energy, but I won't support it as a mainstream solution until these conditions are met:

It is as consistent, efficient and reliable as fossil fuels.

The cost to use the green technology is the same or less than fossil fuel.

You can ensure the green energy be prevalent.

The manufacturing of green energy materials/devices doesn't require the use of vast amounts of fossil fuels, extremely dangerous and environmentally unfriendly chemicals and or manufacturing processes (looking at you solar panels)

These green sources don't overwhelm the landscape (wind farms are quite ugly)

These green sources MUST be easy to use and something the common person can do.

And that these green sources and products will be durable and long lasting.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.

True, but, by their very nature, oil, gas, and coal are finite, and it is best to find alternative energy sources sooner rather than later, allowing the remaining oil, gas, and coal to be used for other purposes. Sure, we're not going to run out in our lifetimes, but it's not going to get cheaper. We'll always need them for various industrial purposes (until replicators are invented), and I'd rather not give GW another excuse to raise their prices.

Replicators... the genesis is 3d printings. We're close man...

Besides... I'm the ultimate greenie... where's the feth are my nuke plants??

But are you willing to have one of them installed within ten miles of your house? That tends to be the sticking point for a lot of people.

Sure!

In fact, I wanted to see what it would take to get those molten salt reactors in my neighborhood so that we can go off grid.

Advocates of Green Energy are quick to point out that 11% of the US's power is from green energy. What they don't tell you is that over 90% of Green Energy is from Hydroelectric dams that those same advocates protest against. Almost all the places that could have a hydro plant all ready do, so there isn't really a chance to expand there anyway.

Many places in Europe have all ready tried green energy and reverting back to coal, much of which is being imported from the US.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Advocates of Green Energy are quick to point out that 11% of the US's power is from green energy. What they don't tell you is that over 90% of Green Energy is from Hydroelectric dams that those same advocates protest against. Almost all the places that could have a hydro plant all ready do, so there isn't really a chance to expand there anyway.

Many places in Europe have all ready tried green energy and reverting back to coal, much of which is being imported from the US.

Incorrect. Hydro-power is 6% of total US electrical generation. All other renewable sources sit at 29%, 22% of which is nuclear.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Also, some sources on switch back to coal? I know some are focusing more on nuclear power and natural gas vs other sources, but not coal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Advocates of Green Energy are quick to point out that 11% of the US's power is from green energy. What they don't tell you is that over 90% of Green Energy is from Hydroelectric dams that those same advocates protest against. Almost all the places that could have a hydro plant all ready do, so there isn't really a chance to expand there anyway.

Many places in Europe have all ready tried green energy and reverting back to coal, much of which is being imported from the US.

Incorrect. Hydro-power is 6% of total US electrical generation. All other renewable sources sit at 29%, 22% of which is nuclear.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Also, some sources on switch back to coal? I know some are focusing more on nuclear power and natural gas vs other sources, but not coal.

Nuclear isn't really a renewable energy source. From the info you provided Green energy still only provides 13% of US electricity.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Advocates of Green Energy are quick to point out that 11% of the US's power is from green energy. What they don't tell you is that over 90% of Green Energy is from Hydroelectric dams that those same advocates protest against. Almost all the places that could have a hydro plant all ready do, so there isn't really a chance to expand there anyway.

Many places in Europe have all ready tried green energy and reverting back to coal, much of which is being imported from the US.

Incorrect. Hydro-power is 6% of total US electrical generation. All other renewable sources sit at 29%, 22% of which is nuclear.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Also, some sources on switch back to coal? I know some are focusing more on nuclear power and natural gas vs other sources, but not coal.

Nuclear isn't really a renewable energy source. From the info you provided Green energy still only provides 13% of US electricity.

It is, however, included in "green/clean energy". It produces no carbon emissions.

And everything you said was still false.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Nuclear isn't really a renewable energy source.

Of course it is. Nuclear fuel is only "limited" when you start looking at time scales beyond the length of recorded history. If we replace an energy source that is likely to cause problems within our lifetimes with one that may be a problem thousands of years from now I think it's safe to call that a win.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am all for green energy, but I won't support it as a mainstream solution until these conditions are met:

It is as consistent, efficient and reliable as fossil fuels.

The cost to use the green technology is the same or less than fossil fuel.

You can ensure the green energy be prevalent.

The manufacturing of green energy materials/devices doesn't require the use of vast amounts of fossil fuels, extremely dangerous and environmentally unfriendly chemicals and or manufacturing processes (looking at you solar panels)

These green sources don't overwhelm the landscape (wind farms are quite ugly)

These green sources MUST be easy to use and something the common person can do.

And that these green sources and products will be durable and long lasting.

And this is the problem we have: you won't support green energy until it comes with no disadvantages at all, even though the disadvantages of current energy sources are obvious. Sorry if it hurts to hear this, but solving our problems is going to mean making sacrifices. You may have to cut your energy consumption. You may have to pay more for energy. You may have to put up with the fact that a wind farm exists nearby. There is no magic no-drawbacks answer where we get to keep current consumption levels at current prices and pay no long-term consequences.

If we get Fusion reactors to work, that would mean basically unlimited energy too, so that's nice.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Nuclear isn't really a renewable energy source.

Of course it is. Nuclear fuel is only "limited" when you start looking at time scales beyond the length of recorded history. If we replace an energy source that is likely to cause problems within our lifetimes with one that may be a problem thousands of years from now I think it's safe to call that a win.


[.

We also have several hundred years worth of coal. I wouldn't call that renewable.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:

The "a-ha" moment was when the Cook's 97% consensus was debunked... even though the AGW crowd/politicians keeps pushing that for their justifications on new policy changes.

I'm okay with trying green tech and tailoring regulations to make things safer within reasons.

But, if the reason to introduce polices is to kill Oil/Gas/coal industries in favor of more expensive green-tech... then... we will have problems. That's just dumbassery.

Besides... I'm the ultimate greenie... where's the feth are my nuke plants??

Have you read nothing I've written? There have been a multitude of studies, with a variety of different methodology, showing that there is a consensus. The Cook study being "debunked" doesn't matter.




http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/02/rick-santorum/santorum-un-climate-head-debunked-widely-cited-97-/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WFCTd-YrK00



At this point it's like saying "there isn't a consensus on evolution because this one study on it had bad methodology".

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

I have problems with many of those sources and especially that graph (touting the same methodology BS as Cook et. el.).

What do you think of the American Meteorological Society?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
...Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column.

Let's take this to PM or another thread... this is rapidly devolving into a Climate Change debate... and this thread is about Politics.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[And everything you said was still false.

From the list you provided, Hydro makes 6%, All other renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) have a combined total of 7%. 6 plus 7 equals 13.

I've heard estimates from 85-250 years, of coal so it's not great no matter what. Plus it produces loads of pollution. Coal is a gak power source, it just happens to be cheap.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
[And everything you said was still false.

From the list you provided, Hydro makes 6%, All other renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) have a combined total of 7%. 6 plus 7 equals 13.

You said 90% of green energy was hydro. 6/13 = 46%

You claimed Europe was going back to coal. Source?

 cuda1179 wrote:
We also have several hundred years worth of coal. I wouldn't call that renewable.

No, of course not. But there's a rather significant difference between the two: coal is physically limited on the scale of hundreds of years, and limited by climate change issues on a much shorter scale as the price of continuing to use coal becomes unacceptable (and it arguably already has become unacceptable). Nuclear fuel is physically limited on a scale of thousands of years, even without counting potential space sources. Burning coal for power doesn't help any of our problems, switching to nuclear power provides immediate benefits and buys an immense amount of time to get fully renewable sources working.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Nuclear isn't really a renewable energy source.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NorseSig wrote:
I am all for green energy, but I won't support it as a mainstream solution until these conditions are met:

It is as consistent, efficient and reliable as fossil fuels.

The cost to use the green technology is the same or less than fossil fuel.

You can ensure the green energy be prevalent.

The manufacturing of green energy materials/devices doesn't require the use of vast amounts of fossil fuels, extremely dangerous and environmentally unfriendly chemicals and or manufacturing processes (looking at you solar panels)

These green sources don't overwhelm the landscape (wind farms are quite ugly)

These green sources MUST be easy to use and something the common person can do.

And that these green sources and products will be durable and long lasting.

And this is the problem we have: you won't support green energy until it comes with no disadvantages at all, even though the disadvantages of current energy sources are obvious. Sorry if it hurts to hear this, but solving our problems is going to mean making sacrifices. You may have to cut your energy consumption. You may have to pay more for energy. You may have to put up with the fact that a wind farm exists nearby. There is no magic no-drawbacks answer where we get to keep current consumption levels at current prices and pay no long-term consequences.

What sacrifices exactly?

What do you mean "pay more for energy"?? Arbitrarily raising energy cost will disportionally affect the poor and middle class.

 whembly wrote:
What sacrifices exactly?

What do you mean "pay more for energy"?? Arbitrarily raising energy cost will disportionally affect the poor and middle class.

Renewable sources tend to be more expensive than coal?

 kronk wrote:


You claimed Europe was going back to coal. Source?

http://www.powermag.com/europes-new-coal-curtain-eastern-europe-embraces-coal-as-western-europe-deserts-it-and-russia-is-still-all-in/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe-consuming-more-coal/2013/02/07/ec21026a-6bfe-11e2-bd36-c0fe61a205f6_story.html?utm_term=.52f3b8036c90

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/phase-out-hurdle-germany-could-restart-nuclear-plant-to-plug-energy-gap-a-774203.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/higher-prices-higher-emissions-the-downside-of-germany-s-nuclear-phaseout-a-767900.html

Germany in specific is subsidizing the construction of new coal plants.

 whembly wrote:
What do you think of the American Meteorological Society?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
...Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column.

Yes, let's look at that. Of the climate scientists who primarily publish on the subject (IOW, the people most qualified to answer the question), 78% outright say it's mostly caused by humans and another 10% say it's equally human and natural (which leads to the same conclusions about needing to change our contribution). Only 2% say that it's mostly natural and disregard human impact. You don't get meaningful support for the denialist point of view until you start looking at the less-qualified groups. So yeah, I'd say it pretty well proves you wrong when even your own sources disagree with you. Climate change is happening, we're responsible, and saying otherwise is wishful thinking.

and this thread is about Politics.

Alright, let's bring it back to politics. This little example nicely demonstrates the problem with US politics: an entire party and side of the political scale rejects science and reality whenever it conflicts with conservative ideology, and will embrace any tinfoil hatter or industry-funded "research" that lets them cling to their beliefs. This is an absolute disaster, both in the practical effects of refusing to even acknowledge that we have a problem that needs to be solved, and in how it ruins any hope of constructive political discussion. The awkward truth here is that we have ~45% of active voters who can not be reasoned with, will never support a viable party, and can only be opposed by desperately hoping to rally the rest of the country around a single candidate and overwhelm them by sheer numbers.

 Peregrine wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
We also have several hundred years worth of coal. I wouldn't call that renewable.

No, of course not. But there's a rather significant difference between the two: coal is physically limited on the scale of hundreds of years, and limited by climate change issues on a much shorter scale as the price of continuing to use coal becomes unacceptable (and it arguably already has become unacceptable). Nuclear fuel is physically limited on a scale of thousands of years, even without counting potential space sources. Burning coal for power doesn't help any of our problems, switching to nuclear power provides immediate benefits and buys an immense amount of time to get fully renewable sources working.

Might want to check your sources on that. At the current rate of usage we have about 80 years left of viable uranium.
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

 whembly wrote:
What sacrifices exactly?

Cut energy consumption. Stop buying frivolous garbage, stop buying a new iphone every month, etc. Accept that energy is going to cost more money, and saving money is not ok if it means wrecking the environment in the long run.

What do you mean "pay more for energy"?? Arbitrarily raising energy cost will disportionally affect the poor and middle class.

I didn't say anything about arbitrarily raising energy costs. But if, say, building a new wind/solar/etc plant costs more than continuing to operate an existing coal plant then energy costs are going to go up. And the disproportionate impact of increased energy costs can be offset by higher taxes on people who can afford to pay them, with the revenue going to provide subsidies for companies that provide cleaner energy.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What sacrifices exactly?

Cut energy consumption. Stop buying frivolous garbage, stop buying a new iphone every month, etc. Accept that energy is going to cost more money, and saving money is not ok if it means wrecking the environment in the long run.

What do you mean "pay more for energy"?? Arbitrarily raising energy cost will disportionally affect the poor and middle class.

I didn't say anything about arbitrarily raising energy costs. But if, say, building a new wind/solar/etc plant costs more than continuing to operate an existing coal plant then energy costs are going to go up. And the disproportionate impact of increased energy costs can be offset by higher taxes on people who can afford to pay them, with the revenue going to provide subsidies for companies that provide cleaner energy.

There is also environmental impacts of wind farms. I happen to live in a state that has one of the most consistently windy days in the country (Iowa). Not too much wind, but few dead-air days as well. We are almost the perfect place to have wind farms. The problem is that we also have large concentrations of endangered birds, specifically we have a high population density of bald eagle. Wind farms take them out left and right.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Might want to check your sources on that. At the current rate of usage we have about 80 years left of viable uranium.
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

That's primarily an effect of less-efficient reactor designs, in large part because of political rules that attempt to limit the spread of nuclear weapons (more efficient reactor designs produce "waste" that is suitable for weapons development). And even then the 80-year number is talking about economically justifiable reserves, not the total amount of uranium that is available. If you accept that energy prices will increase then the 80-year number also increases.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-global-uranium-deposits-last/ gives some better information on the subject. TL;DR is about 120 years of known reserves with current reactors, with another 230 years estimated in undiscovered reserves. Easily available improvements in reactor technology could double that number. Moving to breeder reactors (the kind that is a danger for nuclear weapons proliferation) multiplies it by ~100x. Extracting uranium from sea water provides a ~60,000 year supply of uranium, even with current reactors. Take that sea water supply and put it into breeder reactors and you're talking about millions of years worth of nuclear fuel.

Yeah, but then we are flooding the market with nuclear weapons grade material. What could go wrong there?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What do you think of the American Meteorological Society?
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
...Look at the views in column 1, then look at the % in the rightmost column.

Yes, let's look at that. Of the climate scientists who primarily publish on the subject (IOW, the people most qualified to answer the question), 78% outright say it's mostly caused by humans and another 10% say it's equally human and natural (which leads to the same conclusions about needing to change our contribution). Only 2% say that it's mostly natural and disregard human impact. You don't get meaningful support for the denialist point of view until you start looking at the less-qualified groups. So yeah, I'd say it pretty well proves you wrong when even your own sources disagree with you. Climate change is happening, we're responsible, and saying otherwise is wishful thinking.

and this thread is about Politics.

Alright, let's bring it back to politics. This little example nicely demonstrates the problem with US politics: an entire party and side of the political scale rejects science and reality whenever it conflicts with conservative ideology, and will embrace any tinfoil hatter or industry-funded "research" that lets them cling to their beliefs. This is an absolute disaster, both in the practical effects of refusing to even acknowledge that we have a problem that needs to be solved, and in how it ruins any hope of constructive political discussion. The awkward truth here is that we have ~45% of active voters who can not be reasoned with, will never support a viable party, and can only be opposed by desperately hoping to rally the rest of the country around a single candidate and overwhelm them by sheer numbers.

No. The awkward truth in that study, at least, is that about half (48%) of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic GW.

Notice the difference between those who cite some climate publications and those who don’t? People are often most convinced of their own work, while others looking in from the outside, not so much. That's telling...

But as for the politics of this, I guess it's a matter how we appeal to authority and how much credence we give it.

Then there is also the case that nuclear power doesn't scale well. Nuclear power only produces 2.5% of the global electricity. Considering the vast amounts of land needed for one, there are limits on how close you can live to one, and that it must be near a large body of water there really aren't that many places left to put one.

Add to that the incredibly short lifespan of a nuclear reactor. Do to neutron embrittlement they basically have to tear a plant down every 50 years.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, but then we are flooding the market with nuclear weapons grade material. What could go wrong there?

Yes, and that's what I mean about accepting that there is no perfect answer. Every option has its limits. So, if you don't like the idea of increasing the supply of weapons-grade nuclear material then what is your energy proposal?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No. The awkward truth in that study, at least, is that about half (48%) of the world’s largest organization of meteorological and climate professionals don’t think humans are “mostly” the cause of Anthropogenic GW.

Read your own table. 78% of the most qualified group says "humans are doing it", and another 10% says "humans are half the problem". Only 2% say that humans are not responsible (the other 10% is various "I don't know" answers).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Then there is also the case that nuclear power doesn't scale well. Nuclear power only produces 2.5% of the global electricity. Considering the vast amounts of land needed for one, there are limits on how close you can live to one, and that it must be near a large body of water there really aren't that many places left to put one.

Water is an issue, living near one is not (at least no more so than living near any other power plant). There are plenty of places to put a nuclear plant, especially if you are willing to sacrifice land to create artificial lakes for the cooling supply. The fact that nuclear power is only 2.5% of global electricity production is primarily an effect of political issues, not engineering problems.

Add to that the incredibly short lifespan of a nuclear reactor. Do to neutron embrittlement they basically have to tear a plant down every 50 years.

Compare that to the awkward truth of coal plants having an average lifespan of 40 years.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yeah, but then we are flooding the market with nuclear weapons grade material. What could go wrong there?

Diamond Batteries!!!!

Peregrine,
As you also brought up seawater uranium. This is technically an option, and would provide thousands of years of power, if we were actually able to filter it out. The problem is that the more you filter out the less material that is in the ocean, which means that you need to filter more water to get the same amount of uranium. This basically causes an exponential increase in money and energy usage for processing and it is estimated that within 30 years the process would be too inefficient.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
[
Compare that to the awkward truth of coal plants having an average lifespan of 40 years.

Well, sort of. Coal plants can be pushed past their life expectancy, it just becomes inefficient. Doing that with Nuclear plants isn't really a great idea unless you want to risk a catastrophic failure. Also, once a coal plant is dismantled you can reuse the land, not so much for nuclear.