Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?
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

  
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

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 357 (777164)
01-26-2016 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by AZPaul3
01-26-2016 7:08 PM


Re: 216 feet
... to accomplish the same thing.
But will it?
Where's your evidence that it will? It's what I've been asking about for most of this thread and asked about for a good portion of the thread on fusion.
Do you know how many serious replies I got? How many attempts to present the math? How many folks stepped up to demonstrate the real-world feasibility of renewables to replace fossil fuels?
Exactly zero.
Maybe you care to change that? Or maybe you just care to bitch and proselytize?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by AZPaul3, posted 01-26-2016 7:08 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-27-2016 7:57 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 357 (777181)
01-27-2016 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Taq
01-26-2016 10:04 PM


Re: 216 feet
A fear is irrational if the things feared are unlikely.
We know the mechanisms that create killer clowns. Yet we also recognize a fear of clowns to be irrational.
France's production as a percentage of total power output is well above the US.
Like I said, the problem with percentages and all...
Whether it's scalable or not I don't know. I also don't know if we'd just find somewhere else to burn all the coal if we stopped sticking it in power plants. History tells me we probably would...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Taq, posted 01-26-2016 10:04 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 3:12 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 172 of 357 (777202)
01-27-2016 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by LamarkNewAge
01-27-2016 7:57 AM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
If you're talking about the report I think you're talking about, then you still haven't produced anything.
Where's the numbers? Where's the data?
How about you try again?
Give us the link. Describe what it is. Quote some relevant portions. Show how they support your position.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-27-2016 7:57 AM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 12:42 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 178 of 357 (777237)
01-27-2016 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2016 3:12 PM


Re: 216 feet
But are they unlikely?
Yes.
... how can you imply that we should take no action?
Where have I either said or implied that we should "take no action"?
Produce the numbers and the data.
You mean do the research for someone else's argument?
No thanks.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 3:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2016 11:07 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 357 (777275)
01-28-2016 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by LamarkNewAge
01-28-2016 12:42 AM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
You said wind and solar were less than 50% of new generation capacity added in 2015.
That was my mistake. I missed that you were talking about capacity. I'm not interested in talking about capacity. I'm interested in talking about electricity actually generated because that's what matters.
If petroleum is so great then why are electric cars cheaper to fuel? Tesla just released an electric car for $80,000 but there is a $9,000 savings in average energy costs over 5 years (and $18,000 over 10 years I suppose).
More laughs.
The sun doesn't shine at night. So take a guess at what's actually charging all those electric cars while their drivers sleep.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 12:42 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by frako, posted 01-28-2016 1:27 PM Jon has replied
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2016 3:35 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 357 (777278)
01-28-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by frako
01-28-2016 1:27 PM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
No they don't.
Every modern society generates the majority of its energy from fossil fuels.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by frako, posted 01-28-2016 1:27 PM frako has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2016 2:30 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 190 of 357 (777279)
01-28-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by xongsmith
01-28-2016 1:32 PM


Re: Manhattan
I think what ringo - and definitely myself - is looking for is a plan.
How much electricity does NYC use? (This will require you to use words like watts and watthours in your reply.)
How much electricity can you reliably get from a solar panel in NYC - on good days and bad?
How big are the solar panels? How big is NYC? (This requires words like square feet or meters.)
How much storage capacity will you need and how much space will it require?
What backup capacity will you need and what type will it be?
Are any additions needed to the current delivery system and how will delivery and distance from the source of generation impact the other factors?
Let's start here with the basic physics of it all. We can move on to costs next...

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by xongsmith, posted 01-28-2016 1:32 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 194 of 357 (777290)
01-28-2016 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Theodoric
01-28-2016 3:35 PM


Re: Jon ignores evidence.
Emissions produced by individual cars compared to emissions from the production of electricity that is used for electric cars. Which scenario is better for the environment?
That's nice. I'm still right, though. The power behind electric cars is almost all FF.
It's not the carbon-free dream folks like LNA are peddling it as.
Also, you do realize that there are storage technologies available for power produced by wind and solar don't you?
Not really. If there were, folks in Columbia, MD, would simply store all the wind and solar power they are producing and use it as needed instead of selling it off when they make extra and relying on FF-derived grid power when the winds ain't blowing and the sun ain't shining.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Theodoric, posted 01-28-2016 3:35 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 357 (777291)
01-28-2016 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by NosyNed
01-28-2016 2:30 PM


Re: What?
How do you know?
You can't even tell me how much FF we'd have to burn to get to the 216 feet.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2016 2:30 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2016 5:48 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 197 of 357 (777307)
01-28-2016 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by NosyNed
01-28-2016 5:48 PM


Re: How do we know?
Unless of course you are absolutely sure it won't be in 30 years...
I am absolutely sure of that. And you should be too.
... and you don't give a shit about the next generations to follow us.
I care a great deal for the future generation and for the one after it and the one after that and all of them to come.
That is why I want to do whatever it takes to keep the lights on in the hospitals, the tractors running through the fields, the rain off our heads, and all the other things that will make sure the future generations inherit a world with less sickness, more food, and the best possible quality of life we can give them.
If that requires fossil fuels, that requires fossil fuels. But maybe someone in this thread will be able to show us how it can happen without them.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by NosyNed, posted 01-28-2016 5:48 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-28-2016 10:54 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2016 7:57 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 357 (777349)
01-29-2016 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
01-29-2016 7:57 AM


Re: How do we know?
and if fossil fuels are the problem causing destruction of the web of life to such an extent that it prevents making "sure the future generations inherit a world with less sickness, more food, and the best possible quality of life we can give them" ?
If the use of fossil fuels is really going to cause such problems, then we should all be very sad. Because we know what a world without access to the cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy provided by fossil fuels looks like: it's the world inhabited by humanity everywhere for most of its existence and in underdeveloped societies today - a world of scarce food, death by even minor illnesses, hard and brutal labor, and short lives, where folks live at the mercy of nature waiting to die by flood, drought, and plague.
It's a world that doesn't look very good. And that's the world that happens tomorrow if we give up our fossil fuels.
Unless... unless... Is there an alternative?
It's not going to happen by sitting back and waiting for someone to do it for you/us.
Can we have a serious discussion on how it might happen? One involving evidence with real numbers and real math?
How will we get to a renewable energy world? How does it work?
We can start with the city of New York. What will it take to make it 100% renewable? (Let's focus on electricity for now.)

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2016 7:57 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2016 12:52 PM Jon has replied
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2016 1:59 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 357 (777355)
01-29-2016 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by NoNukes
01-29-2016 12:52 PM


Re: How do we know?
We've never actually lived in a world where the alternatives replaced substantial portions of carbon burning.
I was moreso talking about a world without energy. And right now a world without fossil fuels is a world without energy.
But if we can generate the energy some other way, that's great. The question I've asked repeatedly though is: Can we? And how?
Lots of eager responses to the first part of that question.
Mostly silence on the second part.
We actually have no experience showing us what that would look like. The introduction of fossil fuels way back when interrupted the development and exploitation of solar based technology.
I'm curious as to what you mean by this.
I'm not disagreeing - yet - ; this just sounds like a history I've never heard before.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2016 12:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by LamarkNewAge, posted 01-29-2016 10:10 PM Jon has replied
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 01-29-2016 10:33 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 357 (777366)
01-29-2016 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Dr Adequate
01-29-2016 3:15 PM


Re: Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-29-2016 3:15 PM Dr Adequate 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