Printable View
yeah here we are in western Pennsylvania OCTOBER 19th ..........
for the record I am 59 ( almost 60) and this is the earliest snow I recall in my lifetime ... second earliest is Halloween around 1978
https://scontent.fpit1-1.fna.fbcdn.n...mw&oe=6354C2AC
Wow... Don't know about global warming, but climate change is for real. Been happening since the beginning of time.
Where I live that little bit would have most businesses and schools shut down. There would be an apocalyptic-like run on groceries. My people are weird, but predictable.
changes daily .... and in this part of the country every 3 months or so we have a season changeQuote:
Originally Posted by vasteeler
My part of the country we have all 4 seasons in one day. lol
lucky i live hawaii. 86 degrees all year round :chuckle:
Blah blah blah...:heh:Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckHodges
well the good news is the government can fix it if we give them enough money. :pop2:Quote:
Originally Posted by vasteeler
The effectiveness of carbon dioxide at raising the temperature is an inverse square relationship. That means if you add enough carbon to raise the temperature by one degree, you will then need to add twice that much to raise it another degree.
The overwhelming consensus is that we have currently burned no less than a third of the available hydrocarbons on the planet. That's produced, even according to the most extreme climate zealots, something like a 1-1.5 degree temperature increase.
What do you get, therefore, if you burn the other two thirds? One more degree. And that's it, the upper limit of what you can do, over and out. What will they find to panic about after that? Follow the science.
Opening this to a more general discussion, I think that like most things, the extremes on both sides get it wrong. For those who argue humans aren't affecting the earth's temperatures at all, it is impossible to interact with an environment without introducing change to that environment. On the other side, all you can is laugh when some climatologists ignore the fact that several other planets/moons in our system are heating up as well.
Those two points are why I trend to conservation rather than a blind use of resources on the one side and environmental extremism on the other. It's something I'd like to see more of as I think it'd bring a much more balanced conversation to things like energy policy. For instance, I do think it is a national security matter that we are dependent on oil from outside the US. I'd like to see all the US be dependent only on American oil reserves. So, drill and build. But, the reality is that at current consumption rates, there is only enough oil to last 50 years. Consequently, we need to find ways off oil at the same time. That is why I say this either/or crap is dangerous. Worse, it creates a slingshot effect every four or eight years when each new president reverses course.
What's more, there are already two or three very good ways to move away from oil. Nuclear power is one of them. There has been one major accident with nuclear power in the US, and that was Three-Mile island. Cleanup was expensive at 2.4 billion but there was little adverse health effects. In fact, there are no deaths at all in the US related to nuclear energy it and of itself. The thirteen deaths in the industry are due to things like electrocutions, falling parts during building or maintenance, and so on. Chernobyl was due to the USSR utter carelessness. A second method is solar towers that take reflected light and heat up a solution that then boils water, creating steam that drives a turbine. Heavy investment in these areas could extend those oil reserves for a very long time, and in the end, perhaps leave them for other industries like plastics, synthetic rubber, and reserves for our military that would use oil at a much reduced rate. (Assuming eventually, the current electrical car problem concerning batteries is fixed).
Sadly, until we move away from "The world's going to melt/humans have no affect on the world just ignore everything" back-and-forth yelling, real ways forward that is good for the country at a security level will only be a distant second thought.
This is why if you are one of those people who thinks climate change is the biggest threat in the history of civilization, and you are not loudly advocating for nuclear power, you are not a serious person and your opinions are trash.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
These dunces say things like "We need a new Manhattan Project for clean energy." Well guess what, the technology has existed for several decades. It even came from the original Manhattan Project, for fuck's sake. That's how stupid they are, they say it completely unironically without even realizing the self-own. It is just unfathomable how these people do not realize how stupid they look.
Like, unless their stance is that nuclear reactor accidents are going to exterminate the human race, they've utterly self-defeated their own argument. And that's not much of an argument either, since everyone knows the chance of that is zero.
There is the question of waste, and it is a good question. But the amount of waste that would be produced until we build enough Solar Towers and the infrastructure to carry the energy is minimal. Nuclear power will also be limited to resources and estimates put the limits (depending on what kind of material is used and other things) anywhere from 100 years to 600 years. So, in the end, nuclear power is also a stopgap, but it's a much longer-term stop gap than oil at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by steelreserve
The other thing I didn't mention is dams. Yes, we're changing local environment by building dams, but beaver dams and ice dams have made similar changes to local environments on both a smaller (beaver) and as large or larger scale (ice) than most human-built dams for millennia. Once the dam is built, the power we get is about as clean as it comes.
Is 100 to 600 years long enough for those people to shut up and die?Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
All right then, nuclear power it is.
WE NEED MORE:
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022...y=75&auto=webp
i might take them more seriously if they would ban private and corporate jets , yachts, mansions , and cruise ships.
one thing these green idiots fail to take into consideration is that lithium is a very limited resource.
The world needs 2 billion electric vehicles to get to net zero. But is there enough lithium to make all the batteries?
Jul 20, 2022
- Lithium is one of the key components in electric vehicle (EV) batteries, but global supplies are under strain because of rising EV demand.
- The world could face lithium shortages by 2025, the International Energy Agency (IEA) says, while Credit Suisse thinks demand could treble between 2020 and 2025, meaning “supply would be stretched”.
- About 2 billion EVs need to be on the road by 2050 for the world to hit net zero, the IEA says, but sales stood at just 6.6 million last year, and some carmakers are already selling out of EVs.
- Lithium supply faces challenges not only from surging demand, but because resources are concentrated in a few places and over half of today’s production is in areas with high water stress.
Quote:
“China owns basically 70-80% of the entire supply chain for electric vehicles and lithium-ion batteries,” Lake Resources’ Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. The IEA puts China’s share of global lithium chemical production at 60%, and says it accounts for 80% of lithium hydroxide output. “Five major companies are responsible for three-quarters of global production capacity,” it says.
“There simply isn’t going to be enough lithium on the face of the planet, regardless of who expands and who delivers, it just won’t be there,” Lake Resources Chairman Stuart Crow told the Financial Times. “Car makers are starting to sense that maybe the battery
makers aren’t going to be able to deliver.”
- Australia had the highest production in 2021, according to the US Geological Survey, but Chile has the world’s biggest lithium reserves. The South American country is part of the so-called “Lithium Triangle”, along with Argentina and Bolivia. Just under 60% of Earth’s lithium resources are found in these three countries, according to the 2021 US Geological Survey’s Mineral Commodity Summary.
However, lithium extraction requires very high volumes of water, and this is leading to problems around water stress – a situation where a region’s water resources are not enough to meet its needs.
This is particularly concerning given that a lot of lithium is found in drought-prone regions – such as South America and Australia. Bolivia’s San Cristóbal mine reportedly uses 50,000 litres of water a day, and lithium mining companies in Chile have been accused of depleting vital water supplies.
More than half of today’s lithium production is in areas with high water stress, the IEA says. “Several major producing regions such as Australia, China, and Africa are also subject to extreme heat or flooding, which pose greater challenges in ensuring reliable and sustainable supplies,” it adds.
Serbia this year withdrew licences for a lithium mine because of widespread protests. The demonstrators said the site would contaminate water supplies and damage the landscape irreversibly.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/...ium-resources/
Great post. When we let the extreme nutjobs on either side then nothing gets done. The earth has had floods, ice ages, hot periods all long before humans were here burning fuels. Do we effect it? Possibly but to think we control it is laughable. Look I'm not a person that believes we should start killing people off but we do have to consider that in my lifetime alone (I'm 54) that the world's population has more than doubled, that could be a problem with regard to resources in the future. Again, I'm not calling for eliminating people, but maybe we should be looking into ways to slow this down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craic
As far as energy and resources, I'm all for using more efficient fuels but not at the expense of our daily quality of life. For instance you have people like Greta Thunberg that want to ban everything overnight, yet she travels around on planes crying this out. Tell someone in Minnesota they have to heat their house off of solar and wind this winter and see how that works out. Forcing people to use things with false statements like we are all going to be dead in 12 year or else is ridiculous.
When I built my house 10 years ago I put in Geothermal, built our house with a passive/solar design, faced it south, put 6 inches of foam insulation and high end windows. My house on a sunny winter day will heat itself from the solar gains of the sun alone. Our energy bills to heat/cool and power everything in my house are less than $2,000/year. All houses should be built like mine. That alone would be a hundred times better than FORCING people to change energy sources. It would be much easier to make building codes more stringent then forcing me to give up my non-electric car.
When it comes to electric cars, again I would have no problem switching if they did the following:
1. EC for daily commutes make sense because you can charge them nightly. But our electric GRID is a mess in a lot of places, especially around large population areas, and in CA people have to have electric blackouts because of this. How about instead of laundering money for defensive contractors to Ukraine we put that money back into building our electric GRID into the 21st century?
2. EC take 8 hours to charge. How about they move to a system with smaller batteries that are interchangeable (no matter what company you buy your car from). That way you could build charging stations (like gas stations are now) where you could swap out batteries. Then these batteries could be taken to a larger charging station to be refilled or recharged at these filling stations. That way you could actually take your electric car on a family vacation that isn't within 200 miles of your house. Who wants to wait 8 hours to charge a car?
3. Switch us to nuclear (for now) as a bridge technology until something better comes along. Nuclear has only one waste (heavy water) and ZERO carbon emissions. It isn't the best solution but it's better than burning coal/gas.
4. Once these things are done the final piece would be to mass produce these cars to the point that prices would come down so everyone that needs one can afford one. Why are TELSA's $80K?
These are great points and for me they underscore the big scam that has been pulled off in the "green discussion" - the primacy placed on individual decisions. It is great to raise the awareness and actions of individual people (like your example with your passive/solar home) or household level recycling, but these measures are less than a drop in the bucket. Is it any wonder that large companies, manufacturers, and the fossil fuel industry have traditionally been some of the largest funders of household recycling ad campaigns? It fosters the creation of an attitude that this is the level the solution lies at it rather than attacking the overall problem way up the chain at the source of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by EzraTank
The examples you laid out about EC's is just another part of that same idea. It creates more problems than it solves, but fools individuals into thinking it is their problem. Meanwhile, companies just move to somewhere in the world that looks the other way on whatever they want to do when it comes to the environment. That's the other un-talked about thing here. It is why I always laugh when politicos talk about manufacturing coming back to America. No way. Companies are not willing to pay the costs of environmentally responsible manufacturing when there is some spot on the planet with cheaper labor that will let them do whatever they want to.
Also, now way the power companies rehab the grid. That cuts into profits so no governing board would let that happen. There is no ROI. Various federal and state administrations have tried to tackle pieces of it, but the political willpower for the sustained expenditure of tax dollars just isn't there. They tried to do some stuff here and one side got some funding through and the other side just campaigned on the "tax increases". Tried to counter with stories about crumbling this and broken that and no one cared -- just wanted lower taxes. Start talking infrastructure and everyone on all sides tunes out. Start talking defense spending (even wildly irresponsible defense spending) and everyone starts voting.
The shit sandwich of this all is that "solving" all this just requires innovation. Something that, historically, humans have been really good at. Faced with problems or limitations, we usually invent our way out of the no-win situation. Basically we "Kobayashi Maru" that nonsense and just change the scenario parameters. Problem is that is really expensive and we have lost the willpower for short term burdens that have long term ROIs. That's it. No one is willing to pay now for an intangible payoff later. Because screw those later folks that is their problem. And the investment is difficult at the individual level. I would love to have a home like you have described -- but I don't have the cash to fund that construction right now. I would consider an EC but again...out of my price range.
In the meantime, we could be building passive/solar buildings, revamping transportation to move to electric and rail, shifting to nuclear power, and rehabbing our terrible infrastructure...but again...why? What I have now works...so why spend money on it?
I'm sure this will just get turned back on me because liberals or something....despite the fact that I am agreeing with most of what the non-liberals are saying. I just start with the POV that the climate is going to kill us all eventually if our actions do not change.
I love it !! First of all, I'm not a big believer in it, thinking that everything has a cycle of ups and downs throughout all of history. What goes up must come down scenario. It's a typical government scam. I used to like the cold and snow when I was young. Schools would close for the day to clean roads, we would sled ride and ski all day. Now that I'm in my 70's and retired I hate the cold. I live in the state of Indiana and have a small farm and property, so moving south isn't in my future. I love the open land of country living, the freedom to roam my land and hunt, ride my motorcycle and just walk and see nature without restrictions. No, moving south isn't happening in my mind. I don't speak spanish and I'm not a big fan of Mexican food. So, if my Indiana winter weather changes from -30 deg wind chill factor to 40 deg for a normal......yea !!!
Dude, how can you not like Mexican food?Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose
Well, a thread like this was either going to devolve to calling someone Hitler or isolating a tangent issue. This is a good tangent. Don't like Mexican? Heathen!Quote:
Originally Posted by cubanstogie
im not a fan of mexican food either. everything tastes the same to me. of course my experience is limited to taco bell which is my least favorite fast food joint and 2 local mexican restaurants. both are owned by mexicans with mexican emplyess so im assuming its authentic. im pretty sure id hate indian food as well.
How do people live without good Mexican and Indian food? Spicy and delicious! Maybe that’s why everybody is so angry…not enough flavor in your life!
I got you pegged for a meat and potatoes guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion
- - - Updated - - -
Throw in sushi too! To each their own but I eat burritos from Taqueria atleast twice a week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw
How do people live without good Indian, dot not feathers, food?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojouw