General / Off-Topic Well, we're basically stuffed then...

98% of the energy available to us is geothermal, about 1.6% is solar, wind and hydro make up about another .35% with fossil fuels, lumber and other combustibles making up another .04% and about .01% nuclear.
We need to use natural gas as a transition fuel and we need better capacitors. People need to decentralize their power production and get used to having less electricity. You still need high energy fuels for industry but it's a waste to run machines on them that don't need it. Powering your electric cars from a gas power plant takes advantage of economy of scale and is more efficient than each individual car producing far more power than they need. Aeropower technology is plenty good. Hydro dams destroy large habitats. Solar panels are made of terrible poisons but wind power only kills birds.

Even assuming anthropogenic global warming and climate change don't exist, it always makes sense to learn to live with less, be frugal and lower your expectations, use energy more efficiently, promote options and have clean air to breathe. You can't tell me you don't smell it if you live near a freeway.
 
Just a quick comment here. Nuclear power plants can't be used as adjustment power. They can only be run at a very narrow range of power generation. A nuclear power plan is basically only on or off ~90 - 100% output. There needs to be a way to balance the load from second to second, and to account for spikes in demand. Gas turbines are probably the cleanest stuff we can currently have, for the flex power that needs to be able to ramp up and down quickly, and to come online only when needed.

As for grid-level-storage, this doesn't have to mean batteries (but if we solve large scale liquid metal batteries, it may end up being just that). We can use the excess power from renewables to drive electrolysis and store the hydrogen. It can then be used to run turbines of fuel cells when demand exceeds production. There are other systems too, like using old mine shafts for hydro power. Pump the water up when you have excess from renewables - run it through a turbine when you need to tap into the reserve. Etc etc.

It's very likely that we're going to have to time our peak use with peak production better though. It makes sense to drive energy intensive industries when production is high, and not in the dead of night for instance.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Just like I said :(


And regarding the climate, you guys may want to read up on his stated plans here: https://www.greatagain.gov/policy/energy-independence.html

1.
Correct.
Nuclear Power Plants are Generally not used for Regulation but for Base Consumption.
The Range in which the newer ones can Operate is somewhat Larger. (I think the newest we got over here can go down to 73% and for a Short Duration run 112%) but doing this is a waste and very Expensive. So they are Generally not used for this unless you really expect the Power Requirement to be Lower for Extended Periods of Time.

2.
The Two Big Problems with Gas are.
A. You dont have in Europe. So this one Automaticly makes you Dependent on Russia. Which especially in the current time is Something that Suicidal in my Eyes.
B. Having Gas Power Plants Running is Incredible Expensive. Its roughly the same League as Wind Power. And since you also need Personnel its even more Expensive to Run them on a Regular Base. Due to that Gas Power Plants usually only work and are also only fully Staffed during Daytime when Energy Prices are high enough for them to work. Because otherwise they cant make a Profit and thus are not used.

3.
Here is the Problem. As you yourself already hint out by how you say it. This is Technology we dont actually have yet. Or which are in its current level so Inefficient that you need vastly more Energy to do it than you get out of it later.





Sorry Mate.
But this entire thing is currently far away from being Feasible. You wont get anywhere without Fossil Powers for at least another 20 years.
And thats the thing I am always telling People. The very Moment this Technology becomes available and actually profitable to use. Coal Mines will Close not due to Activists or because the Politic got Pressured into Prohibiting it. They will close simply cause the Companies get pressed out of the Market.
 
Oh dear. GJ51 is parroting the line that "follow the money" points the finger of blame to scientists seeking grant money. :D :D :D

It doesn't get much funnier than that. Yeah, that's where the big bucks are for sure. *giggles madly*

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

1.
Sorry Mate.
But this entire thing is currently far away from being Feasible. You wont get anywhere without Fossil Powers for at least another 20 years.
And thats the thing I am always telling People. The very Moment this Technology becomes available and actually profitable to use. Coal Mines will Close not due to Activists or because the Politic got Pressured into Prohibiting it. They will close simply cause the Companies get pressed out of the Market.

Nope. Live and learn my friend: http://neocarbonenergy.fi/internetofenergy/ A brand new study on the subject, modelled by country and for the whole planet. We have the technology right now.
 
The same thing happened in the UK after the Brexit vote. Racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and generally thuggish and violent bigots feel they now have free reign.

The thing is, there are thugs on both sides, both in the UK and America. It's no good the "liberals" who supported Hillary claiming the moral high ground. Not when you get scum like this:

[video=youtube;o10Lengp1x4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o10Lengp1x4[/video]

And then there are all the protestors who are resorting to rioting, smashing up shops and public property. How is that a reasonable reaction? Why is it the shop owner's fault? What do they want to happen? For the vote to be flipped, just because they're unhappy with the outcome? Yeah, ok, like that is democratic.

These morons need to grow up, go home, and do something productive. Because smashing up your streets, or mob attacking defenceless people is not helping the country, is it.
 
I don't like her either, but at least she's rational.

Rational? Hillary Clinton? Lol. Not judging by some of her past and current actions / comments. She might try and pretend, but some of her comments she has made in the past are just as hateful, homophobic and xenophobic as some of Trump's are. She's a vile woman.

And for those who think she is better because of her envrionmental stance need to think again, due to her wishy washy position when it comes to fracking, and the fact her own Foundation sold Uraniam to the Russians, yet she hypocritically criticises Trump for chumming up to Putin. But then, it's all business to her and her husband, isn't it?
 
Last edited:
Oh dear. GJ51 is parroting the line that "follow the money" points the finger of blame to scientists seeking grant money. :D :D :D

It doesn't get much funnier than that. Yeah, that's where the big bucks are for sure. *giggles madly*

Koch Brothers funding of organisations against the "drastic action" narrative: $88m since 1997 to present (Source: Greenpeace)
ExxonMobil funding of organisations against the "drastic action" narrative: $34m since 1997 to 2015 (Source: ExxonSecrets.org)

Federal funding for man-made climate change research: $40bn since 1997 (Source: GAO ~ $2bn per annum)
Size of the Climate Change consulting industry in the US: $1.5TN per annum.
Developed nation spending on supporting developing nations (like China) as part of the Paris Agreement : $100bn per year to 2025

It really is where the big bucks are. At the same time, it doesn't really matter who funds what. The science is the science and stands on it's own two feet, regardless of the funding sources. Arguing about statistic techniques used to generate temperature series with a differential of fractions of a degree is like arguing over how many angels can dance on a pin head. There's no such thing as a fully reliable temperature series because of the way that sensors have changed, the data has been corrected and then updated and that's true of ALL records.

The problem (with regards to this thread topic) is what the policy response to this science is and the impact vs. the reward.
 
The problem (with regards to this thread topic) is what the policy response to this science is and the impact vs. the reward.

That should be the problem, but unfortunately the US still has too many politicians who claim not to believe the science, including our soon to be president and vice president. And they've got the party which has historically been against any kind of reasonable action on climate change lined up behind them and in the majority.
 
There are still actual live climate change deniers, in this day and age? You've got to admire their sticktoitiveness, through your despair.
 
That should be the problem, but unfortunately the US still has too many politicians who claim not to believe the science, including our soon to be president and vice president. And they've got the party which has historically been against any kind of reasonable action on climate change lined up behind them and in the majority.

Define "reasonable action" from the point of view of someone who's at risk of losing their job to a factory in China and you'll appreciate the appeal of the policy.
 
And for those who think she is better because of her envrionmental stance need to think again, due to her wishy washy position when it comes to fracking, and the fact her own Foundation sold Uraniam to the Russians, yet she hypocritically criticises Trump for chumming up to Putin. But then, it's all business to her and her husband, isn't it?

What does the selling of uranium to Russia have to do with fighting climate change?
 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-lead-epa-transition/?WT.mc_id=send-to-friend




I'm trying very hard not to hate the Americans, but it's not easy right now. This is what happens when people don't care about facts and follow a poisonous demagogue. Jesus Christ this is bad...

Hate the 25% that elected him and the 42% that just let it happen. HRC failed and failed miserably at getting democrats to show up and vote for her.

Just remember, they sound ambitious now but Republican controlled government has a nasty history of infighting and not passing legislation. There are also enough Dem senators to prevent cloture so a lot of stuff will be defunded but not entirely removed. For example, ACA cannot be fully repealed w/o three fifths of the Senate approving such an action. Dems can take the Senate in 2018 and should be starting the ground game now.
 
Hate the 25% that elected him and the 42% that just let it happen. HRC failed and failed miserably at getting democrats to show up and vote for her.

Just remember, they sound ambitious now but Republican controlled government has a nasty history of infighting and not passing legislation. There are also enough Dem senators to prevent cloture so a lot of stuff will be defunded but not entirely removed. For example, ACA cannot be fully repealed w/o three fifths of the Senate approving such an action. Dems can take the Senate in 2018 and should be starting the ground game now.

What about the fact that the Dems have already set the precedent for using the "nuclear option" in the Senate and that in the next midterm there are something like 26 Dem Senate seats up and only 8 Repubs?

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/midterm-senate-map-a-democrat-nightmare/

"An unfavorable map in 2018 could all but guarantee Democrats remain shut out from government for at least four years. In 2018, Democrats will have to defend at least six highly endangered incumbents in red to red-leaning states."
 
It's the Paris Treaty I worry about. We can't afford to lose another four years again.

IDK, I'm in the camp of its too damn late anyway.

Mitigation is our only option now. Start building sea walls, start developing man made food supply chains (no reliance on ocean stock), consider erecting solar shields to give the land a break from the heat, desalination needs to become a priority technology and people need to start leaving the sun belt.
 
It's the Paris Treaty I worry about. We can't afford to lose another four years again.

You should worry. According to the US Constitution international treaties must be ratified by the US Senate. The Paris climate agreement was made when Obama bypassed the Senate. Therefore it is not binding on anyone in the US but Barrack Obama - Harvard Law Review Constitutional scholar.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/29/obama-will-bypass-senate-ratify-paris-climate-acco/

The Government of the US has never sought legal ratification as required and authority was never granted for legitimate ratification.

Just like all the other Executive Orders that Obama couldn't get through legislation, they are null and void at the stroke of Trump's pen if he so chooses on Jan 21, 2017.
 
Last edited:
IDK, I'm in the camp of its too damn late anyway.

Mitigation is our only option now. Start building sea walls, start developing man made food supply chains (no reliance on ocean stock), consider erecting solar shields to give the land a break from the heat, desalination needs to become a priority technology and people need to start leaving the sun belt.

That's grim. It would mean accepting that billions of us will die. And not in the "everybody dies eventually" sense either.
 
and they now have a license to act out on their bigotry.

be careful about using that term, it applies to literally every single liberal and loony left person I've known online or in person or read about:

bigotry
ˈbɪɡətri/
noun
noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
 
Back
Top Bottom