Previous :: Next Topic |
Author |
Message |
Ski ><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005 Posts: 12797 | TRs | Pics Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:26 am
|
|
|
this thread only needs 70 more posts to hit the 10,000 mark!
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:34 am
|
|
|
Gregory wrote: | So, Bill Nye, the science guy does not know what he is ranting about after all. |
Never confuse a TV personality with someone with actual knowledge.
(just 69 to go now)
|
Back to top |
|
|
Schenk Off Leash Man
Joined: 16 Apr 2012 Posts: 2372 | TRs | Pics Location: Traveling, with the bear, to the other side of the Mountain |
|
Schenk
Off Leash Man
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:26 am
|
|
|
OMG Randy, you have destroyed my world...I worshipped Jacques Cousteau as a young lad.
68 to go
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
Nature exists with a stark indifference to humans' situation.
|
Back to top |
|
|
RayD the griz ate my pass
Joined: 20 Aug 2005 Posts: 1763 | TRs | Pics Location: Vacaville |
|
RayD
the griz ate my pass
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:59 pm
|
|
|
Bill Nye knows more than James Inhofe. Yeah, yeah a really low bar to clear!
Just a few more posts.
don't believe everything you think
don't believe everything you think
|
Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Parked Out wrote: | Annual change in the world's energy supply 2001-2018, from https://www.worldenergydata.org/world-energy-supply/
Note that last year's growth of energy from fossil fuels was about four times the growth in renewables, and trending up.
annual change world energy |
In the interest of hitting that 10,000 replies mark, here's a somewhat neutral question for everyone: Whether CO2 emissions result in a 6-8 degree C rise over the next 80 years, or climate change turns out to be a big nothing-burger, do you think we're just along for the ride at this point? Or is something actually going to change that allows humanity to move away from fossil fuels? The data on energy usage isn't encouraging (IMO).
|
Back to top |
|
|
Anne Elk BrontosaurusTheorist
Joined: 07 Sep 2018 Posts: 2410 | TRs | Pics Location: Seattle |
|
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:22 pm
|
|
|
I rarely comment in this thread (what's another "opinion" worth?) but glad to help! I say "along for the ride" especially after reviewing the graphs below. Not all the most current, but good enough.
The global economic system is so intertwined with fossil fuel consumption, we couldn't possibly untangle ourselves at a rate needed to get to where "they" say we should be to reverse anthropogenic impact. What I found surprising is that the US only contributes 15% to global emissions, and that transportation is only 14% of the global cause.
sources:
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
"There are yahoos out there. It’s why we can’t have nice things." - Tom Mahood
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
Anne Elk wrote: | I rarely comment in this thread (what's another "opinion" worth?) but glad to help! I say "along for the ride" especially after reviewing the graphs below. Not all the most current, but good enough.
The global economic system is so intertwined with fossil fuel consumption, we couldn't possibly untangle ourselves at a rate needed to get to where "they" say we should be to reverse anthropogenic impact. What I found surprising is that the US only contributes 15% to global emissions, and that transportation is only 14% of the global cause. |
Always happy to have your comments, Anne. I'm tending to agree, especially after seeing that California's fossil fuel electricity capacity grew 23% from 2001-2018 even as coal & nuclear went offline, overall in-state generation declined, and renewables grew 83%. If rich & progressive California can't distance itself from fossil fuels any better than that, I'd say it's more or less hopeless for the rest of the world. Who knows what technological breakthroughs the future will bring, but in the meantime I vote 'along for the ride' as well.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:41 pm
|
|
|
I'm of the opinion that even if tomorrow someone invents a "Mr Fusion" device ala "Back to the Future" that is so cheap to manufacture that it makes economic sense to retrofit 20 yo pickup trucks just for the savings on fuel -- we are still facing decades of climate shifts from all the CO2 already released into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step... the sooner we start working on reducing CO2 emissions, the less impact the emissions will have.
My brother-in-law when diagnosed with adult onset diabetes choose to continue to eat donuts by the box and within 5 years died of kidney failure.
We will not be able to stop all the effects from past emissions and cannot eliminate all emissions going forward, but I think that doing what is possible and practical is wiser.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
So You Think We're Reducing Fossil Fuel? -- Think Again
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/20/so-you-think-were-reducing-fossil-fuel-think-again/#7f89efb752fb
"Renewables and fully electric vehicles aside, all fossil fuels are increasing worldwide primarily because of economic growth in the developing world. Even coal is increasing worldwide, producing more power than hydro, nuclear and renewables combined.
While the developed world is switching from coal to natural gas, the developing world sees coal as their savior. This not because coal is cheapest – it’s not.
Of all energy sources, coal is merely the easiest to set up. Coal is the easiest to install in a poor or developing country that has little existing infrastructure. It is the easiest to transport – by ship, rail and truck. It is straightforward to build a coal-fired power plant. And to operate it.
While it is easiest to build a natural gas-fired power plant, it is not at all easy to support it. Natural gas requires more infrastructure than any other energy source - for transporting the gas in pipelines, liquefying facilities and special terminals; and for storing it, often deep underground in geologic formations.
In the developing world, large-scale renewables are not effective since there is no baseload to support them, no back-up sources to load-follow the intermittency, and no extensive high-voltage distribution system. Hydro is possible in the developing world, but is limited physiographically.
No, coal is the obvious energy source to bring a country’s starving people up into the modern world. After that, they may have the luxury to care about the planet. And that’s the seemingly insurmountable hurdle facing any plan to mitigate global warming."
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:08 pm
|
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
The phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" comes to mind.
I hope India won't settle for the kind of economy that's compatible with unreliable energy.
|
Back to top |
|
|
Randito Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008 Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:59 pm
|
|
|
Parked Out wrote: |
The phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" comes to mind.
I hope India won't settle for the kind of economy that's compatible with unreliable energy. |
I think the people of India get to choose the energy sources that makes sense for them. And not the solution that Forbes magazine thinks is best for them.
Quote: | The Modi government has also set aggressive targets to increase solar energy capacity, and it has succeeded in going from less than four gigawatts in 2015 to nearly 30 gigawatts — about 8% of India's total energy capability. The government wants to increase that to 100 gigawatts by 2022 |
74% Of India’s New Power Capacity Addition In 2018 Was Renewables
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/01/21/74-of-indias-new-power-capacity-addition-in-2018-was-renewables/
|
Back to top |
|
|
joker seeker
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 7953 | TRs | Pics Location: state of confusion |
|
joker
seeker
|
Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:45 pm
|
|
|
What a crazy idea. Investing in solar in a notoriously sunny country...
|
Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011 Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics Location: Port Angeles, WA |
joker wrote: | What a crazy idea. Investing in solar in a notoriously sunny country... |
California is sunny too. Do you suppose India is backing up all that new solar with natural gas plants like California is?
|
Back to top |
|
|
|