- 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: are there still people who still believe the earth is warming and man caused it?
Posted on 1/7/14 at 12:05 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 1/7/14 at 12:05 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:While it's surely not as serious as a major asteroid impact, I think it should still qualify as "serious". It should definitely not be dismissed outright as not even being a concern.
The threat from AGW is not nearly as serious
quote:Solar and wind are both surprisingly cost-effective, and will very soon be competitive with fossil fuels.
without a cost effective alternative to burning fossil fuels, even in the mid-term, I believe we should continue to make progress towards sustainable energy for that day, however many years from now, when that source of energy is expended.
quote:I'm not demonizing anybody (though I know that many do), I'm just saying that I think we can do better. And while I'm generally against subsidies or taxing one industry to finance a competitor, I understand that in many cases it is necessary. If we just continue to rely on what's cheap now and ignore the fact that it won't be cheap and plentiful forever, then we will have dug ourselves a deep hole since surely other countries will have long since taxed and devoted resources to developing "replacement" industries. I know that most here don't see things that way, but as a nation we have a pretty long history of subsidizing industries in order to keep them competitive globally. I think we have been pretty successful so far with this strategy.
Until then, I am against taxing energy to attack this "problem", I'm against demonizing the very people and industry that allows everything else in modern society to work, and I'm against sitting around in the dark, freezing to death.
2
Posted on 1/7/14 at 1:53 pm to Korkstand
quote:Indeed
I'm just saying that I think we can do better.
E.g., One of the reasons warmists piss me off is the negative effect they have on efforts to transition to NatGas.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 2:55 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Solar and wind are both surprisingly cost-effective, and will very soon be competitive with fossil fuels.
Not without subsidies, they aren't.
quote:
I'm just saying that I think we can do better.
We can always do better. If you're not getting better, you're getting worse.
quote:
And while I'm generally against subsidies or taxing one industry to finance a competitor, I understand that in many cases it is necessary.
So we're back to picking winners and losers, is it? I hate how corrupt this has become.
quote:
If we just continue to rely on what's cheap now and ignore the fact that it won't be cheap and plentiful forever, then we will have dug ourselves a deep hole since surely other countries will have long since taxed and devoted resources to developing "replacement" industries.
I'm not in favor of this approach, either. We need "cleaner" nuclear fission power (and if the left would stop demonizing it for a moment, and see that the pellet style reactors are safe, cost-effective, and not nearly as susceptible to WMD uses, it is being improved as we speak), we need to make wind power that is more reliable, both as a power source and the machinery to produce it - I don't think we're nearly there yet (and what will happen when the environmentalists complain about wind turbines impacting the climate?), solar is getting better by the day, geothermal, tidal power, and the list goes on and on.
However, I think we are at least a century away from even a majority of the world's power coming from these alternative sources, and that is only if the left will ease up on nuclear a little and let the industry improve. If you're waiting on wind and solar to power everything? 5 to 10 generations - AT LEAST.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 2:57 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I'm not in favor of this approach, either. We need "cleaner" nuclear fission power (and if the left would stop demonizing it for a moment, and see that the pellet style reactors are safe, cost-effective, and not nearly as susceptible to WMD uses, it is being improved as we speak),
Nuclear energy is many things, but it isn't as cost effective as you think
Posted on 1/7/14 at 3:08 pm to Powerman
quote:
Nuclear energy is many things, but it isn't as cost effective as you think
Does it emit carbon? No.
Is it more cost effective than solar or wind? Yes.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 4:09 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:The costs of both wind and solar are dropping dramatically, and the input "fuels" have always been free. I think you will be surprised at how competitive the prices will be without subsidies in about a decade.
Not without subsidies, they aren't.
quote:
So we're back to picking winners and losers, is it? I hate how corrupt this has become.
Fossil fuels have had their fair share of subsidies, as has nuclear. This "picking winners and losers" nonsense needs to stop, because every developing industry (and even well-established ones) get subsidized one way or another. Very few industries just spring forth from the free market ready to compete, and nobody is going to take a loss for 50 years doing R&D in order to move technology forward without some help. This happens everywhere, in almost every industry, and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. The US is a world leader in almost everything because our government has been willing to take risks and put money where it needs to go in order to secure profits decades from now instead of just for next year.
quote:
However, I think we are at least a century away from even a majority of the world's power coming from these alternative sources
If we let the free market work it out, then yes you are probably right. But long before then another country will have done what should have been done and risen to power as an energy leader. I do agree with you on nuclear, though. I think it should be a critical part of our strategy on energy.
I love capitalism, and I don't think there's any other way. But I know that it doesn't do absolutely everything in the most efficient manner.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 4:35 pm to Korkstand
quote:
The "mini ice age" predictions were overblown in the media back then. There was speculation that aerosols and their cooling effect would overpower CO2 and its warming effect, but most in the field still predicted warming.
I missed the part about most predicting warming because all the mainstream media told us was an ice age was coming if we didn't adjust our lifestyles.
Are you sure about that? Remember most means more than half.
A question for the experts here, if the world's climate was indeed warming due to natural cycles(which has certainly happened before); should we attempt to stop climate change? Are we so superior that we should attempt to manage the Earth's climate? Are we saying that the climate for all of mankind was "perfect say in 185) and we need to keep it that way if we can even if it involved trillions of dollars in spending and less spending to help feed, clothe and shelter people?
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 1/7/14 at 5:16 pm to doubleb
quote:
I missed the part about most predicting warming because all the mainstream media told us was an ice age was coming if we didn't adjust our lifestyles.
Are you sure about that? Remember most means more than half.
Well, I wasn't even alive at the time, much less old enough to care about the climate, so all I have to go by are papers written about it at the time. There was a slight cooling trend for a couple decades leading up to the 70s, so that is what the media latched onto. From what I gather, though, most scientists thought that it was only temporary and predicted future warming. This paper seems to go somewhat in-depth into the media and scientific literature at the time, and it looks like well over half of the papers predicted warming despite the recent cooling trend. The popular Time magazine cover dated 1977 warning of an ice age is a hoax. It looks like just one of those things that deniers find easy to latch onto in an effort to discredit those crazy scientists.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 5:26 pm to Korkstand
quote:
I think you will be surprised at how competitive the prices will be without subsidies in about a decade.
Would be.
I don't think much more can be squeezed from solar FWIW on a macro use level.
But isolated less developed areas could/can benefit greatly.
Posted on 1/7/14 at 5:32 pm to goatmilker
quote:Why do you think that? Keep in mind that solar has zero input fuel costs, while fossil fuels have ongoing input costs.
I don't think much more can be squeezed from solar FWIW on a macro use level.
Edit: If you're stressing the "macro" part, solar scales up pretty well and actually reduces cost per watt as you do so. However, yes, I think its best use would be smaller installs to supplement other energy sources on the macro scale.
This post was edited on 1/7/14 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 1/7/14 at 6:30 pm to ironsides
quote:
Bottled water industry doesn't lie to people saying that your drinking water is unsafe or that the water is anything but water. People are retarded for buying it, but that's another story.
Do you even Fiji Water?
Posted on 1/16/14 at 4:51 pm to Korkstand
quote:
Keep in mind that solar has zero input fuel costs, while fossil fuels have ongoing input costs.
You still have more maintenance with solar than you do with traditional forms of energy. Plus, you generate more energy in the summer than you do the winter. You need to pair it with a windmill to do it properly. Plus you have that underground battery that you need to really operate it properly (unless you're 1/2 amish). Those batteries are not that environmentally friendly......
Posted on 1/16/14 at 5:35 pm to ironsides
quote:
You still have more maintenance with solar than you do with traditional forms of energy. Plus, you generate more energy in the summer than you do the winter. You need to pair it with a windmill to do it properly. Plus you have that underground battery that you need to really operate it properly (unless you're 1/2 amish). Those batteries are not that environmentally friendly......
Obviously we can never go totally solar, but I think it is an excellent idea to use it to supplement grid power. Especially since the output from solar panels coincides with higher energy use during the day, so they would be very effective for load balancing. And we probably shouldn't bother with batteries for home use, just put the excess on the grid.
But what do you mean about maintenance, other than keeping them clean? Sure, having to clean them is more maintenance than if you just use grid power, but I think a big solar array plant would probably be on par with traditional power plants as far as maintenance.
Posted on 1/16/14 at 6:47 pm to Korkstand
Wow...topical, informative give and take on an important, polarizing issue. Good stuff!
Posted on 1/16/14 at 6:49 pm to catholictigerfan
Singular weather events don't prove or disprove global climate change/warming.
It's a whole collection of years and years of statistical data.
It's a whole collection of years and years of statistical data.
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News