Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 151 of 357 (777115)
01-26-2016 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by xongsmith
01-25-2016 12:35 PM


Re: Manhattan
xongsmith writes:
I googled "solar power windows"....
Solar windows are nice.
But for a century or so, New York City has had laws about how wide a tall building can be - because buildings tend to blot out the sun for buildings behind them. I'd be more impressed by the scalability of solar power if somebody actually did the math and showed how much solar power NYC could actually generate. Can solar windows, etc. provide enough power for the building plus the buildings in its shadow?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by xongsmith, posted 01-25-2016 12:35 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2016 3:30 PM ringo has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 357 (777122)
01-26-2016 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by NosyNed
01-26-2016 9:42 AM


Re: 216 feet
How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2016 9:42 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2016 12:57 PM Jon has replied
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2016 5:54 PM Jon has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 357 (777123)
01-26-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jon
01-26-2016 12:34 PM


Re: 216 feet
How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?
If we continue at the current rate, we can raise temps enough to melt all of the ice. The question is instead how long would we have to wait. Part of the problem is that there is a positive feedback mechanism whereby increasing temperatures frees up CO2 from the oceans thereby increasing temps further. Avoiding the issue means avoiding the tipping point.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 12:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 1:49 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 357 (777129)
01-26-2016 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by NoNukes
01-26-2016 12:57 PM


Re: 216 feet
The question was: How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?
When you say "[i]f we continue at the current rate", you're just preaching and not offering any hard facts.
So how much FF do we have to burn to melt all the ice and how fast do we have to burn it?
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by NoNukes, posted 01-26-2016 12:57 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2016 3:38 PM Jon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 155 of 357 (777137)
01-26-2016 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by ringo
01-26-2016 11:07 AM


Re: Manhattan
... I'd be more impressed by the scalability of solar power if somebody actually did the math and showed how much solar power NYC could actually generate. ...
It's hard to generate solar power in a canyon, so really what you have are high rooftops and upper floors available -- maybe 1/4 of the ground acreage. Using area between buildings would cause more shade and blocked sun unless done with window panels -- basically sling a roof between buildings and maybe create something like a dome structure ...
But I think a more viable alternative is to use wind power between buildings, vertical turbines. These could be made like giant works of art ... see art turbine
Another vision is
I'm sure that the NY artists could rise to the challenge to create mobile sculptures that generate energy ... like a permanent "Macy's Xmas Parade" ...
But if you are interested in solar power, airports are great places to have solar farms as the area around the runways needs to be open space with clear viewlines. You could also have coverings over highways and rail lines with panels on top, and part of the energy could be stored locally to light the highways at nights.
One thing that I see going on is that these alternative energy sources are transforming the way we think about energy distribution, looking for aesthetic solutions not just a bunch of towers and electrical lines.
That alone is worth pursuing.
Enjoy
ps -- for those following my personal experience with solar, I have already generated more power in January than I did in all of December (days getting longer again), and I still have energy in the bank ... so I expect to have a sizable surplus by the time I finish my first year on solar. Of course I also plan to replace gas for hot water and radiant floor heat with an electric water heater this summer, and that should take more electricity while saving on gas bills (I expect to save ~$1400.00 per year in combined gas and electric utility bills).

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 01-26-2016 11:07 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by ringo, posted 01-27-2016 2:18 PM RAZD has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


(1)
Message 156 of 357 (777138)
01-26-2016 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Jon
01-26-2016 1:49 PM


Dunno
So how much FF do we have to burn to melt all the ice and how fast do we have to burn it?
I don't know. Do you? Should we keep going like this when we don't know the answer to that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 1:49 PM Jon has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 157 of 357 (777146)
01-26-2016 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jon
01-26-2016 12:34 PM


Re: 216 feet
How much FF would we have to burn (and how fast) to melt all the ice?
You've got a good point. Unless and until the people who tell us that we should take no action can answer that question exactly, we should ignore them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 12:34 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 6:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 357 (777147)
01-26-2016 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2016 5:54 PM


Re: 216 feet
You mean we should all give up the only source of energy we know to be capable of improving our lives (clean water, abundant food, health care, personal - and, by extension, economic and political - freedom, warm houses and general good times) out of what may be an insanely irrational fear?
If solar could give us what we needed, I'd say 'fuck, man, let's switch tomorrow'. But as it cannot - as no other energy source can - we need to ask the tough and honest questions, such as: is it worth giving up the food on your table and the clothes on your kids' backs just to stave off a few meters of sea water a couple hundred years in the future?
Is it?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2016 5:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2016 7:08 PM Jon has replied
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2016 8:00 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 8:49 PM Jon has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(5)
Message 159 of 357 (777149)
01-26-2016 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon
01-26-2016 6:14 PM


Re: 216 feet
is it worth giving up the food on your table and the clothes on your kids' backs just to stave off a few meters of sea water a couple hundred years in the future?
Is it?
No. But it would be worth giving up 10% of farm subsidies, 1 main battle tank, and a 5% increase in income tax on corporations and wealthy individuals each year to fund a $3 bn per year renewable energy project for the next 20 years to accomplish the same thing. And you can keep your house, Jon. You don't have to move into a mud hut or a cave. Oh, and you can keep you car, your fridge and your heat/AC during the transition as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 6:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 9:50 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 160 of 357 (777155)
01-26-2016 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon
01-26-2016 6:14 PM


Re: 216 feet
You mean we should all give up the only source of energy we know to be capable of improving our lives (clean water, abundant food, health care, personal - and, by extension, economic and political - freedom, warm houses and general good times) out of what may be an insanely irrational fear?
No, that's not what I mean. Do you want to guess again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 6:14 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Theodoric, posted 01-26-2016 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 161 of 357 (777158)
01-26-2016 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Dr Adequate
01-26-2016 8:00 PM


Re: 216 feet
If you meant that I am guessing you would have said it.
Jon seems to have either a reading issue or a comprehension issue.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2016 8:00 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 162 of 357 (777159)
01-26-2016 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jon
01-26-2016 6:14 PM


Re: 216 feet
You mean we should all give up the only source of energy we know to be capable of improving our lives (clean water, abundant food, health care, personal - and, by extension, economic and political - freedom, warm houses and general good times) out of what may be an insanely irrational fear?
It isn't an irrational fear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will increase temperatures. It is rather solid science.
If solar could give us what we needed, I'd say 'fuck, man, let's switch tomorrow'. But as it cannot - as no other energy source can - we need to ask the tough and honest questions, such as: is it worth giving up the food on your table and the clothes on your kids' backs just to stave off a few meters of sea water a couple hundred years in the future?
Nuclear can replace all of our gas and coal fired plants, and it can do it now. France has already shown that it can work. With advances in battery capacity, it won't be too long before everyone can use electric vehicles for personal transport. That just leaves large vehicles like transport trucks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 6:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2016 9:09 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 164 by Jon, posted 01-26-2016 9:21 PM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 357 (777160)
01-26-2016 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taq
01-26-2016 8:49 PM


Re: 216 feet
It isn't an irrational fear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will increase temperatures. It is rather solid science.
How much CO2 does it take to melt all that ice and raise the water by 216 feet? How much time do we got?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 8:49 PM Taq has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 357 (777161)
01-26-2016 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Taq
01-26-2016 8:49 PM


Re: 216 feet
It isn't an irrational fear that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will increase temperatures. It is rather solid science.
That's not what I was referring to as an "irrational fear". For a hint see the subtitle of this post, your post, and the one you replied to.
Nuclear can replace all of our gas and coal fired plants, and it can do it now.
Indeed. It's just unfortunate no one here is advocating such real alternatives to fossil fuels.
France has already shown that it can work.
Well. France's production is below the U.S.
That's the thing with looking at small countries - it's easy to distort the reality of the situation with large percentages of rather small wholes.
It is a step though.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 8:49 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NosyNed, posted 01-26-2016 9:54 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 10:04 PM Jon has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 357 (777162)
01-26-2016 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Jon
01-25-2016 8:40 PM


Re: 216 feet
The real problem, as I said and as you quoted is that renewables like solar and wind just cannot provide the power our societies need.
Yet.
Just because we can't just switch now doesn't mean we can't look to them as/for alternative sources.
You've been talking about the scalability problems and reliability concerns, but I haven't seen anyone address this issue:
quote:
because of technological limitations - lack of good power storage systems
Have you looked into the Tesla Powerwall? It's just a big battery. But I think that kind of technology can offer the crutch that solar and wind need be able to provide the utility that you're saying is required. There's still plenty of work to be done, but we shouldn't disregard the renewables just yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Jon, posted 01-25-2016 8:40 PM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024