- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:50 am to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:50 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
The one possible problem with your pov is say we drop oil, coal, natural gas, etc. type energies that comes out of the ground.
Who said anything about that?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:51 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
The one possible problem with your pov is say we drop oil, coal, natural gas, etc. type energies that comes out of the ground. Just how many solar panels, wind turbines and any other above ground sources of energy will dot the countryside in order to provide all the fossil fuel energies now being used to provide energy at this day and time?
This is of course another issue with the greenies. They seem to ONLY focus on the POSITIVES of THEIR supported tech.
The sheer number of windmills and solar panels that would be required is staggering at this point. Yet, you never hear what the implications of that might be.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:52 am to a want
I actually think there should be a greater focus on these more pressing, better understood environmental issues than on AGW.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 9:55 am to a want
I was basing my post on the fact that I thought all this green energy stuff was about doing away with fossil fuels. Now if the green energy is cheaper to produce and cheaper for me to buy, sign me up. If not, then I don't want "experiments" dotting the countryside for a so-called just cause.
Didn't intend to criticize your post, just the argument for green energy.
Didn't intend to criticize your post, just the argument for green energy.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:05 am to Homesick Tiger
Right, but think about how much $ has been invested in improving the efficiency of traditional energy sources (coal, petroleum, etc). It took a long time (and a lot of money) to get where we are today.
I don't think anybody is saying dump coal or oil. They're (I'm) just saying it would be a good idea to start investing in improving efficiency of solar, wind, tide, etc. in light of recent data. And yes, it might take another century.
The first cell phone was pretty crappy by today's standards. People didn't immediately start ripping out their landlines....but slowly over the decades they've gotten better and better. The internet was started/made possible by large government/military investment. The same goes for computers and many other technologies.
I don't think anybody is saying dump coal or oil. They're (I'm) just saying it would be a good idea to start investing in improving efficiency of solar, wind, tide, etc. in light of recent data. And yes, it might take another century.
The first cell phone was pretty crappy by today's standards. People didn't immediately start ripping out their landlines....but slowly over the decades they've gotten better and better. The internet was started/made possible by large government/military investment. The same goes for computers and many other technologies.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:09 am to a want
quote:
Why is it so hard to believe we can improve efficiency in these technologies over time?
It's not just producing twice or three times the energy production of these renewables. It would require an exponential increase in efficiency over a very short period of time to just meet the current energy demands, not accounting for future demand increases.
These renewables are very, very ineffective. At some point, we will max out their production ability.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:14 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
These renewables are very, very ineffective
"are" is the operative word. Cell phones, the internet, automobiles, airplanes and computers were also very ineffective at one point.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:18 am to a want
quote:
Right, but think about how much $ has been invested in improving the efficiency of traditional energy sources (coal, petroleum, etc). It took a long time (and a lot of money) to get where we are today.
But even those increased weren't exponential. It's a small example but the increase of fuel efficiency in cars over a 45 year period has been about 6 to 7 miles per gallon. In the U.S., passenger cars have gone from about 14 mpg to 21 mpg between 1960 and 2005. That's a 50% increase over 45 years.
quote:
"are" is the operative word. Cell phones, the internet, automobiles, airplanes and computers were also very ineffective at one point.
Again, those weren't exponential increases. Wind and Solar have such a lower starting point than fossil fuels and nuclear that it would require massive gains to just pull even.
I'm not saying that these renewables don't have a role in supplementing the energy grid. I just think its a pipe dream to expect them to ever get to the point which they are primary sources of energy within the next two centuries. Hence why I said that the obviously answer to this issue is nuclear. It's clean, it's abundant, and it's incredibly efficient.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 10:23 am
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:21 am to a want
There is money still being put into renewable research, but it's probably decades away from being viable enough to take a sizable chunk away from fossil fuels. It's going to take time to get more efficient at collecting the energy and more efficient at storing it.
The prudent thing for today would be to look toward converting from oil/petro to natural gas. It's cheap and available and much cleaner than coal and oil. Let the solar and what not come when they are ready.
The prudent thing for today would be to look toward converting from oil/petro to natural gas. It's cheap and available and much cleaner than coal and oil. Let the solar and what not come when they are ready.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:23 am to a want
"I don't think anybody is saying dump coal or oil. They're (I'm) just saying it would be a good idea to start investing in improving efficiency of solar, wind, tide, etc. in light of recent data. And yes, it might take another century."
I would be for funding of basic science research in these areas but that's it. Otherwise, private industry will do a better, more efficient job of figuring out the best applications based on conditions and market incentives that exist at those future times.
I would be for funding of basic science research in these areas but that's it. Otherwise, private industry will do a better, more efficient job of figuring out the best applications based on conditions and market incentives that exist at those future times.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:25 am to a want
quote:
could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
No.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:25 am to Duke
quote:
The prudent thing for today would be to look toward converting from oil/petro to natural gas. It's cheap and available and much cleaner than coal and oil.
I don't understand this line of thinking. There is a more efficient, cleaner source of energy available.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 10:27 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
I don't understand this line of thinking. There is a more efficient, cleaner source of energy available.
I assume you mean nuclear. That is something we absolutely should be using for our electricity. I was thinking more along the lines of autos/machines you don't plug in.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:38 am to a want
So since we concerned with these people dying, how many unborn innocent babies was killed in Just America last yr?
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:49 am to a want
quote:7 million, out of 7 billion? 1:1000 people? Surely, you aren't this guillable?
Pollution Killed 7 Million People Worldwide in 2012, Report Finds
quote:bullshite. Dysentery is the greatest third-world threat to life. Water based infection.
Its report identified air pollution as the world’s single biggest environmental health risk.
quote:Nope. Not a bit. Because... assuming the outrageous claim is true... how many lives are SAVED because of access to food, medicine, pesticides provided by (and only by) cheap energy. Without it... many millions would be starving and more would be dying from entirely preventable disease.
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
For example... I was in a medical equipment museum a few weeks ago. Stirking that almost all of the equipment was built of stainless steel and glass. Cleaned between each use. Rife opportunity for infection. Now that plastic is widely available, everything is sterile (and disposable).
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:56 am to a want
quote:Basic physics. It's almost impossible to have more energy density than contained in the C-H bond that so easily harnessed.
Why is it so hard to believe we can improve efficiency in these technologies over time?
Take solar for example-- even if you made the panels free, you still have the balance of system-- steel to hold them up, wiring, inverters, etc. All mature commodity items that are not getting any cheaper with "research".
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 11:58 am to Antonio Moss
quote:AND finding feedstock replacements for plastics, paints, pesticides, medicines, asphalt...
It's not just producing twice or three times the energy production of these renewables. It would require an exponential increase in efficiency over a very short period of time to just meet the current energy demands, not accounting for future demand increases.
Posted on 3/26/14 at 12:23 pm to a want
quote:
Why is it so difficult to think we can't improve the efficiency of solar or wind energy?
Strawman
Posted on 3/26/14 at 12:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
how many lives are SAVED because of access to food, medicine, pesticides provided by (and only by) cheap energy. Without it... many millions would be starving and more would be dying from entirely preventable disease.
i was on my phone earlier when i posted, but this is exactly right. the desired regs put billions (with a B) of people at risk.
This post was edited on 3/26/14 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 3/26/14 at 12:43 pm to a want
quote:
Setting aside the AGW argument, could these numbers influence your opinion on alternate/green energy investment?
No. Why don't we go back to pre industrial revolution then. What was the life expectancy then 50-60 years? we don't need all those fancy vaccines, and labor saving devices.
During the Industrial Revolution, the life expectancy of children increased dramatically.The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730-1749 to 31.8% in 1810-1829
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News