She could have been mistaken for an iceberg as she starred at Trump at the UN. A child shall lead them is becoming a reality in the climate debate because the time for talking is over. Either way, whether you believe as I do, that climate change is a natural process, or you believe in AGW and man's ability to limit the damage, the time for talking is over. It is ridiculous that world leaders have to be challenged by a child, it is ridiculous that school children have to be incited to hold rallies because of assine ideas that profit should come before people, or that one nation controls the debate or the action. The problem will not go away, it needs clear ideas on how to mitigate the effects and this might mean starting mass migration and resettlement away from coastal areas now.

To be practical, China and India are not going to stop using coal, Japan is not going to stop using coal. Brazil is not going to stop burning the amazon. The only way to stop this is to destroy these economies which isn't going to happen. But the elephant in the room isn't Trump, it is "population" there are too many people thus there is pollution and there is consumption. The fact that there are too many people is why the US and Europe have an immigration problem. So instead of CO2 emissions control we need birth control

Population control is slippery slope. If there is anything used to justify it, then it devalues the human life. For the sake of mother Earth or the sake of our national sovereignty we must kill x, y, z people.

The Earth is more than capable of handling 11 billion people in terms of food supply, more without waste and who knows what kinds of technology will multiply that capacity in the future.

In terms of space, the whole population of the world can fit inside and of Texas, and we're good at building up.

As far as pollution, there will be technology that changes energy sources, that captures carbon, that mediates flooding, etc. People tend to invent out of necessity.

On top of all this, it seems to be wise to beware of doomsday seers. Throughout history they've always had an agenda.

Personally I'm not convinced of the catastrophy, for decades they've told us that in 10 years we're going to be drowning and such. I've yet to see where they're predictions have come to fruition in any vector.

. Either way, whether you believe as I do, that climate change is a natural process, or you believe in AGW and man's ability to limit the damage, the time for talking is over.

I'm not following you on this one. You say that you believe climate change to be a natural process. I suppose that would indicate that any contribution by man is pretty much incidental, but then you say that we should be moving aggressively to do something about it such as controlling the population of the earth. But if CC is a natural occurrence, then why should we worry about population growth and its effect on carbon emissions? If you don't believe in man's ability to limit the damage, then why are you suggesting we take steps to limit the damage? I mean if climate change is purely natural, as you say it is, then the only reason that the time for talking is over would be because there is nothing to talk about. We would not be able to stop CC anymore than we could stop an erupting volcano or an earthquake.

I'm not following you on this one. You say that you believe climate change to be a natural process. I suppose that would indicate that any contribution by man is pretty much incidental, but then you say that we should be moving aggressively to do something about it such as controlling the population of the earth. But if CC is a natural occurrence, then why should we worry about population growth and its effect on carbon emissions? If you don't believe in man's ability to limit the damage, then why are you suggesting we take steps to limit the damage? I mean if climate change is purely natural, as you say it is, then the only reason that the time for talking is over would be because there is nothing to talk about. We would not be able to stop CC anymore than we could stop an erupting volcano or an earthquake.

There is more pollution than CO2, plastics are trashing the oceans, getting into the food chain and this is solely because of the amount of it and that is down to population. Climate change has been happening for thousands of years, it is what has allowed our population to grow, but at the same time, that population is a serious problem because of its demand for resources. Recognise that sea level rise is real and move populations before the planet kills them, then do something real about limiting population.

You are right, we cannot stop climate change and it is utter foolishness, hysteria, to think we can. If there is a tipping point then we are already well beyond it, but anything we do is little compared to the forces that are in play, our activities may actually be slowing down the possibility of an ice age so that a few generations may enjoy the climate we have, however there is a cost

Just curious Clete about what your ideas about controlling populations are? The China experiment doesn't work very well, and nobody is leading the charge to change human climate behavior, as it seems they rather have lights, cars and cable at a rising cost rather than a consensus global plan, be it a natural process, or a man made one obviously it must be addressed. On that we agree, but HOW would you go about population control. if indeed it's your solution?

nobody is leading the charge to change human climate behavior, as it seems they rather have lights, cars and cable at a rising cost rather than a consensus global plan, be it a natural process, or a man made one obviously it must be addressed.

So you believe that going to a non carbon-based electrical grid is going to lower the costs of electricity and cable?

Carbon based power has been subsidized for decades or else nobody could afford to use it, and the biproduct of that is filthy air and water and land quality. At some point you have to seriously do better and doing nothing should not be an option. Subsidize clean energy like you do coal.

Carbon based power has been subsidized for decades or else nobody could afford to use it, and the biproduct of that is filthy air and water and land quality.

Filthy air and water? Poor land quality? Not in Mississippi, and not in practically all of the United States.


At some point you have to seriously do better and doing nothing should not be an option. Subsidize clean energy like you do coal.

"Green" sources of electricity are fantastically expensive. I hope you realize that subsidies don't come from money grown on trees. It comes from taxpayers, or even worse, borrowed money.

Talaniman: The solution is to GO NUCLEAR! It makes tons of sense! If the French can do it right, why can't the United States? Why will we allow a Hollywood movie and a few screwups by the Soviets and Japanese eclipse us from going forward with Nuclear Power? We can do it safely. Have an uncle and two cousins in Nuclear Engineering....they been in it a long time and know its safe....like anything else, you have to be conscious of what you are dealing with at all times: Respect the power!

Wind Farms are for those who dream, they are not practical and never will be: You have to keep power plants geared up and online while the wind mills are going because we can ensure that the wind will continue to blow all the time.

Paraclete is correct about the plastic problem: Its a PROBLEM! Go PAPER, as much as possible....Paper is a renewable resource with many valuable byproducts and the Paper Industry is Power-Self-Sufficient: They can make their own power as a by-product of their processes.....The Pulp & Paper Industry is TRULY A GREEN INDUSTRY.

Paraclete is also correct about Climate Change: The climate is changing, all the time! And it isn't about to stop changing.....and we have little influence on the climate....its like a piss-ant peeing on a forest fire: Our contributions to climate changes are inconsequential.

Paraclete is correct about the plastic problem: Its a PROBLEM! Go PAPER, as much as possible....Paper is a renewable resource with many valuable byproducts and the Paper Industry is Power-Self-Sufficient: They can make their own power as a by-product of their processes.....The Pulp & Paper Industry is TRULY A GREEN INDUSTRY.

There is no way to replace all, and most likely even most plastic products with paper.

There is no way to replace all, and most likely even most plastic products with paper.

Paper manufacturing is a highly polluting industry, any processing of timber is an issue, you can get touchy, feely about "renewables" but they have their own set of issues, we have to get sensible about packaging. For example; what I think is ridiculous is that products coming out of China are all packaged in plastic and cardboard but China refuses to take this back for reprocessing. We should regulate that all packaging can be returned to the country of origin, a legitimate cost of doing business

jlisenbe: No, not all, but as much as possible......And certainly, you don't want to replace SOME paper products with plastic (flush!)! I can say the straws could go away as could plastic bags.....and there are many more.

Paraclete: New, modern Pulp and Paper Mills are an Engineering marvel! They are nearly self-contained units and, here in the states, at least, their effluents are highly monitored and tracked.....they aren't like they used to be and they used to be awful, not any more.

Can someone explain to me why the political right denies man-influenced climate change and the political left believes in it? Why should it be partisan?

Can someone explain to me why the political right denies man-influenced climate change and the political left believes in it? Why should it be partisan?

Good question. I'll take a stab at it. It seems that the question of climate change has become, as you suggested, polarized. You can either believe that carbon pollution is going to destroy civilization in the next ten years or you can discard the whole theory as junk. There seems to be no middle ground. Those of us, like me, who do not entirely accept the theory point to cases of orchestrated deception that have taken place, airheads like Al Gore and AOC who lead the movement, and consistently inaccurate computer models as our justification.

But perhaps the biggest hindrances for many of us are the draconian "Alice in Wonderland" solutions being proposed that are sure to be fabulously expensive (refer to the Green New Deal), the fact that it will result in considerably higher costs for electricity, and the likelihood that it will do very little to reverse climate change unless these are done world-wide for several decades. Good luck with that. Maybe if we could come together in a reasoned manner and begin to look at realistic measures to cut carbon emissions, it might prove useful.

Athos: My shot at explaining the positions of the left and Right on the Global Warming Hysteria Phenomena: It is quite simple, actually: It comes down to a "World View" between left and Right with the left seeking to install a "One World Government" and do away with nations and nationalism by tearing down borders and imposing "World Law", effectively the old Bolshevik outlook, and the Right taking a position that is diametrically opposed to that vision in every way.

Global Warming Religion has its roots in the goal of destroying Western Civilization. The left chooses to attach Western Civilization at every opportunity while the Right chooses to preserve Western Civilization at every opportunity. You can bet that if you take the position of preserving Western Civilization, you will be demonized by the left...hence the left's demonization of Caucasians (White Guilt mantra) and the idea that Western achievements were only realized because of the exploitation of the East and underdeveloped nations/3rd World nations as a whole. Every leader or nation that has tried to preserve the ideals and cultures of Western Civilization have been attacked and demonized: The winners write the histories. The whole Global Warming pseudo science is simply a religion, at this point: G.W. is a scheme designed by multinational industrialist and Globalist to siphon/move jobs from the West to the East and effectively enhance profit margins. It is a fact that all Western nations have suffered greatly in the throes of enduring the G.W. hysteria mandates on emissions, carbon footprints (what a crock of sh&$) and the like...and, the U.S. has suffered the most of any nation (look at the job losses!)....By contrast, the East (ChiComs, especially, and many other Asian nations) have made fabulous economic gains during this time period with millions upon millions of jobs being exported from the West to the East, not to mention the exporting of technologies: The West has become the Research Company for the ChiComs. One almost wants to say that the ChiComs were behind all of this but they didn't need to considering they had the Globalist/New World Order bunch doing the job for them.

The carnage upon Western economies has been severe since the inception of the G.W. hysteria....and the mind pollution has gone several layers deep, getting down into youngsters even at the Elementary Schools level. Several of the G.W. scientist have been caught manipulating the data to "fit" their narratives....that shows you the ideological bent and fervor this G.W. religion has on its "believers"....and it also discredits the pseudo science itself. The Global Warming Hysteria is a "Selling Tool" in the tool bag of those wanting to line their pocket with gold off the backs of the available "slave labor" in undeveloped countries and they don't give one damn about the repercussions that these move have upon the developed countries.

Rant on wingers, the progressives already know we will have to grab you by the ankles and drag your scarey arses into the future kicking and screaming your conspiracy theories. I think venting those fears is good therapy, but why is everything left or right with no middle?

Rant on wingers, the progressives already know we will have to grab you by the ankles and drag your scarey arses into the future kicking and screaming your conspiracy theories. I think venting those fears is good therapy, but why is everything left or right with no middle?

Many words. Much name-calling. No facts.

What good are facts when you're mind is made up and you wouldn't accept a fact from anyone you think is a leftie in the first place? Fact is you lump stuff into one big basket and criticize rather than answer the simple question of why is everything left or right and no middle? The post by Vac7 was nothing but a rant with no facts just feelings. Like much of your own postings are.

Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.

What good are facts when you're mind is made up and you wouldn't accept a fact from anyone you think is a leftie in the first place? Fact is you lump stuff into one big basket and criticize rather than answer the simple question of why is everything left or right and no middle? The post by Vac7 was nothing but a rant with no facts just feelings. Like much of your own postings are.

Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.Rather paranoid to be fair, as decades of mixed up history are hardly facts. Heck, they aren't even accurate.

More words. Still no facts.

When you find a post of mind which is "a rant with no facts just feelings", you make sure and let me know.

Sorry, don't have the time or inclination to argue, but my above post was in reference to the rant by Vac7. When you post crazy stuff rest aassured I will let you know like I always do.

Roger that.

But the elephant in the room isn't Trump, it is

"population"
there are too many people thus there is pollution and there is consumption. The fact that there are too many people is why the US and Europe have an immigration problem. So instead of CO2 emissions control we need birth control

soylent green kill 2 birds with one stone

https://www.businessinsider.com/cannibalism-eating-human-flesh-climate-change-2019-9

Emperor Zero didn't appear too concerned when he purchased a real expensive home and property on the beach of Martha's Vineyard .

Talaniman: Here is the only FACT that we need to talk about: It is a fact that Global Warming Hysteria has exported jobs from the West to underdeveloped countries....and that fact extends to the United States.....and I am a witness to it. When the Obama Administration looked to shut down Pulp & Paper Mills in the U.S., the route of attack was through the use of the EPA....it went like this: He used the EPA by getting them to introduce Boiler Mack, an emissions standard that directly affected the industry by imposing regulations on their stack emissions....the requirements were so strict that the technology didn't even exist that would permit the facilities to reach the requirements! By not being able to reach the emission requirements, fines were levied. For many production facilities, this stole their profits to such an extent that they either: 1) shut down operations and went belly up or 2) shut down operations and reopened or transferred production to facilities overseas. People lost their jobs because of the Global Warming religion and are still losing their jobs because of this pseudo science crap....AND THAT IS A FACT!

The G.W. mantra is a "Wealth Transfer Plan" of enormous breadth.....and that means transferring wealth out of the West: Its an attack on Western Civilization!

soylent green kill 2 birds with one stone

https://www.businessinsider.com/cannibalism-eating-human-flesh-climate-change-2019-9

What? I can go to Mickey D's for a granny burger?
Emperor Zero didn't appear too concerned when he purchased a real expensive home and property on the beach of Martha's Vineyard .


Unlike Ma and Pa Kettle who live in a flood zone, I'm sure the Obama's can afford the house insurance.

Talaniman: Here is the only FACT that we need to talk about: It is a fact that Global Warming Hysteria has exported jobs from the West to underdeveloped countries....and that fact extends to the United States.....and I am a witness to it. When the Obama Administration looked to shut down Pulp & Paper Mills in the U.S., the route of attack was through the use of the EPA....it went like this: He used the EPA by getting them to introduce Boiler Mack, an emissions standard that directly affected the industry by imposing regulations on their stack emissions....the requirements were so strict that the technology didn't even exist that would permit the facilities to reach the requirements! By not being able to reach the emission requirements, fines were levied. For many production facilities, this stole their profits to such an extent that they either: 1) shut down operations and went belly up or 2) shut down operations and reopened or transferred production to facilities overseas. People lost their jobs because of the Global Warming religion and are still losing their jobs because of this pseudo science crap....AND THAT IS A FACT!

The G.W. mantra is a "Wealth Transfer Plan" of enormous breadth.....and that means transferring wealth out of the West: Its an attack on Western Civilization!

Jobs left the country because it's cheaper to build new plants in another country with much cheaper labor costs and the ones that remain don't need humans because they have high technology. Another example would be traditional box retailers losing out to online shopping. Granted for many industries, emission standards are an added costs especially older power plants, but a look at old pictures of the LA smog and the newer pictures one can only marvel at the differences, given there are many more cars on the road since then.

Big Biz hunting for cheap labor overseas is the cause of wealth transfer for west to east, but consider that the west is the biggest consumer market for those cheap labor overseas operations. If it were not so, then why does Walmart build clothing maker shops in India? This exodus has been happening for decades Vac, be it clothes or steel, so why are you conflating the GW crisis with the rich guy capitalists choices. Two different things my friend and a lot more complex than your simple erroneous explanation.

Sounds good to you but your theory is way off. I lived by steel mills and refineries and the air is foul, how about you. What kind of industry are you in?

Talaniman: Pulp & Paper....32 years now.....and it is criminal how the government has treated this industry.....and why this industry isn't embraced, cherished, and celebrated for being "The True Green Heavy Industry" makes no sense to me.

Talaniman, I enjoy the back and forth with all of you on here....and Athos has taught me a lot about delineating an argument...and, I know, its sounds like we're about to cut each others throats but it is the spirit of the debate and communication of and learning of new viewpoints that makes it all so exciting, to me......But, if there is one thing that you and I and the rest of those on this site will agree to, it is this:

"IF YOU HATE PAPER, TRY WIPING YOUR A$$ WITH PLASTIC!"

I couldn't help myself, had to let that go!

Pretty clean industry is it not?

Talaniman: It is now.....it wasn't always....but the industry exercised a great ambition to making it cleaner and the hard work has paid off......Today, the industry is heads and shoulders above where it was only 20 years ago....almost unrecognizable now versus then.....And I know where you are going with this: If we can do it, why cannot other industries? I believe all things are possible through dedication to a goal and the implementation of standards with sound Engineering practices to empower and fulfill those goals...without setting a goal, no progress will be made....but you must attain a level where control is possible: The old saying is true: "You cannot change what you cannot control." No one likes changes, most love the status quo...its human nature to fear the unknown....but you walk bravely into the unknow if progress is to be achieved.

Believe me when I tell you, I don't want to breath bad air or drink bad water any more than anyone else here, but I don't want wholesale unemployment, either. I also believe we can arrive at both clean air, water, and sustained employment simultaneously.....But we need time to figure these things out....it takes time, a precious commodity, indeed.

Vac, I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess that you are working, or have worked, in the paper industry.

jlisenbe: You guessed it!

Talaniman: It is now.....it wasn't always....but the industry exercised a great ambition to making it cleaner and the hard work has paid off......Today, the industry is heads and shoulders above where it was only 20 years ago....almost unrecognizable now versus then.....And I know where you are going with this: If we can do it, why cannot other industries? I believe all things are possible through dedication to a goal and the implementation of standards with sound Engineering practices to empower and fulfill those goals...without setting a goal, no progress will be made....but you must attain a level where control is possible: The old saying is true: "You cannot change what you cannot control." No one likes changes, most love the status quo...its human nature to fear the unknown....but you walk bravely into the unknow if progress is to be achieved.

Believe me when I tell you, I don't want to breath bad air or drink bad water any more than anyone else here, but I don't want wholesale unemployment, either. I also believe we can arrive at both clean air, water, and sustained employment simultaneously.....But we need time to figure these things out....it takes time, a precious commodity, indeed.

And a huge investment another precious commodity.

Talaniman: Remember, "You have to spend money to make money" most of the time, and, many times, its all a gamble. Yes, the investment was huge but the payback has been good.....I must say, its been a "Win, Win".....there aren't that many times in ones life where you can get those.

10-4 to that. That's why there should be no excuse for not having clean, air, water, or soil in every corner of America. We can do that and keep the lights on and the trains running on time and still enjoy Disneyland with the family. No excuse at all!

bu Tal you know the excuse, it isn't profitable. It is cheaper to let Monsanto poison the environment

Some want quicker profits than others Clete.

Some want quicker profits than others Clete.

Doesn't make it right

If the lawmaker you buy says it's okay then it's okay. Money is might, and might makes right doesn't it?

Talaniman: No, money doesn't make it right....There are many, many people on the left and on the Right, that think money is everything.....but I know you know that is not true.....and I know that I do. We can not take it with us when we go....maybe we want enough to get there on, comfortably, but our Final Judgements will have NOTHING to do with money......I have often laughed at this, in my mind, of course, when I have sat in rooms full of people who talked incessantly about money....spare me! In all honestly, money may be the root of all evil.

In all honestly, money may be the root of all evil.

The love of money is the root of all evil, money is just a tool, saves you carrying around a lot of rocks

The love of money is the root of all evil, money is just a tool, saves you carrying around a lot of rocks


He's already been told that, but little registers in a closed mind.

Athos: A closed mind, no....a slow learner, yes.....give me time to make corrections....these things don't come overnight....there is a process involved.

V7 - Respect

LOL, Vac, that's probably better than being a slow thinker like myself who needs a whole lot of information.

Talaniman: You'll find not arguments here: The balance comes between the "want" to be decisive, and not appear to vacillate, and the desire to not take a wrong decision.....In the times in my life where I'd taken the decisions more hurriedly than I had wished to, on some of those occasions were those were times where I made my biggest errors! And, it also goes against my own preaching: I tell youngsters to not be so quick to judgement before taking decisions and let their decision making process be "data driven"......then I catch myself not taking my own advice!

We could build breeder reactors in some far away place, a desert or salt flat, or the top of a mountain where the air is too thin for life. They've got be so far out of the way that piping their energy back to civilization is not feasible, to help mitigate any potential contamination. They would drill deep into the earth, plunging deep into salt water aquifers and purifying the waters with high pressure reverse osmosis. Creating a river, warm river, nourishing the land around it. Leaving it open for regular testing of any kind. Using only waste energy to bring life to a dead region.

These breeder reactors would produce safe plutonium 238 that produces no dangerous radiation, and has a fairly high critical mass. Shipping it around the country with multiple well established infrastructures, trucking, and rail transport come to mind. Strategically placed small reactors are placed around dense grid areas, smart grid tech can help here to harden and prioritize the power. Conjuncting with this and some more feasible solar and wind and geothermal and whatever projects will help reduce load on the reactors, and keep competition alive for the power industry.

Breeder reactor might be 10 high production reactors in the same location. The waste products can be refined onsite, others purified and sold off as chem supplies, manufacturing, and other commercial markets.

Irritated products are stored in proper encasement after being reduced to their smallest volume and buried in even deeper wells. We could even experiment with rock melting/self burial techniques, or subduction zone bores. There are safe disposal methods.

The landscaping could be tailored towards melt down scenarios, with sunflowers and other plants that soak up radiation, collapsible wells, and other containment strategies.

Thunberg is still getting flack, some of it justified. Her argument is too simplistic, she proposes action or change but doesn't offer any suggestions excepting rallying for change. If you want action then you should be proposing a course of action, not good enough to bad mouth everyone because you don't like their answer. The fact is some of the problem is naturally occurring like volcanoes that destroy the ozone layer allowing solar radiation to heat the Earth, what does she propose we do about that, perhaps nuke the offending volcano?

Thunberg is a victim, a victim of an education system that has provided some "facts" such as higher temperatures are being recorded but failing to correlate other facts

Paraclete: We call the effect of having facts but not being able to intelligently frame a problem or its solution as "Have just enough information to be dangerous".....and we see this all over the GLOBAL WARMING crowd......BTW: Polar Bear numbers are exploding! The G.W. crowd was saying that they were on the verge of extinction: that doesn't square with the facts. And this Winter is expected to be extremely harsh....not good for the G.W. narrative.

Polar bears are but a small part of a bigger story on the impacts of GW. Nobody questions the rising seas or the effects of man's activities to keep the lights on or the cars running. Of course it's easy to ignore pollution of land, air, and water, or deforestation of entire eco systems, for man's convenience. I respectfully submit that there is so much human chaos and ignorance of the facts we have been reduced to talking points that distract us from the very real climate changes we as humans make worse.

If you are suggesting we do nothing NOW then I must reject that notion because facts are out there but what's dangerous is ignoring those facts and listening to those with a narrow interest of profits that result from that activity and continuing the mass pollution of the air water and lands and not only the human costs but environment as well.

I think we separate the weather from the climate to observe the global trends more efficiently and formulate a plan to improve not just the pollution. but general environment as well. It's a lot more complicated than just the polar bear population I think.

Polar bears are but a small part of a bigger story on the impacts of GW. Nobody questions the rising seas or the effects of man's activities to keep the lights on or the cars running. Of course it's easy to ignore pollution of land, air, and water, or deforestation of entire eco systems, for man's convenience. I respectfully submit that there is so much human chaos and ignorance of the facts we have been reduced to talking points that distract us from the very real climate changes we as humans make worse.

I can agree with you that global warming due to industrial age carbon pollution is a real thing. The problem comes when we try and figure out how to detach ourselves from the use of carbon based fuels. The completely ludicrous ideas put forward by AOC are an example of the liberal dem tendency to live in a fantasy world far removed from reality. Windmills and solar panels are not the answer. Nuclear might be a solution but the left is terrified of it. Natural gas is the cleanest burning fuel and we thankfully have a lot of it. Carbon sequestration might be of some help. But then the problem still remains of what to do about India and China. So it's a really tough problem so solve. The fed government, thanks to our stupid politicians and even more stupid voters, is so deeply in debt that to think the feds can do much about it is a pipedream. And no, taxing the wealthy more heavily is not the answer. It will be like giving a starving man a couple of crackers. So I'm open to solutions, but they have to be based in the real world.

What do you suggest?

SUGGESTION: GO NUCLEAR! With some sense! Make the reactors like France has done.....NOT LIKE RUSSIA! Just don't do it cheap....it will cost, initially, but the payback is there, in more ways than one!

I watched this TED talk about desertification, it essentially says that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere produced by humans has more to do with desertification than anything else. When an acre of soil loses its life, all the microbes, fungi, and other plants and animals basically evaporate their carbon of into the atmosphere. An acre of deserted soil puts more carbon in the air than most anything else humans do.

It even goes on about micro deserts like roadways and buildings and all the areas we clear and do not allow anything to grow.

It would be worth considering this as one of the main causes of GW.

Maybe going green really has more to do with green than all the craziness that's been proposed. We need to grow everywhere, and revitalize the deserts, and grow algae in lakes, and green roofs, and anything that will increase life.

This particular scientist took grazing animals by the tens of thousands and used their defication and trampling the soil to bring new life to barren lands.

Support the ecosystem, conserve what's there, and it can then support you and untold amounts of life.

Alan Savory is the name if you want to look him up. Truly inspirational a and sound research.

InfoJunkie4Life: A few things to consider:

If CO2 is an instigator of G.W., it is also CRAVED by green plants: they love it.....so there is something of a contradiction within the G.W. argument on this basis.

We have to watch algae in lakes or any body of water: Algae consumes oxygen and robs oxygen from fish.....also, some algae is toxic to fish, and humans.

Hooved animals are great: As long as they are CATTLE! For the most part, the lighter weight splayed-hooved animals are killers to any land: They densify the soil and will, often obliterate any vegetation because they bite down to the ground: My father told me about islands he saw in the South Pacific during WWII that were inhabited by goats: All trees had been killed, all bushes, too....the goats were surviving on meager lichen on rocks! And we all know about the Hog Infestation!

Algae absorbs CO2. When it dies it's decomposition is what depletes the water.

As far as the herds, it is necessary that they must be moved regularly. They are given to trample and chomp and thin everything out, then when the land has a chance to recover, it does so tenfold. It's the rotation that is good for the land.

If CO2 is an instigator of G.W., it is also CRAVED by green plants: they love it.....so there is something of a contradiction within the G.W. argument on this basis.

There is no contradiction there. The GW advocates will happily admit that increased CO2 is somewhat beneficial for plants, but that has nothing to do with a rise in temperatures and it's that rise that they are concerned with.

There is no contradiction there. The GW advocates will happily admit that increased CO2 is somewhat beneficial for plants, but that has nothing to do with a rise in temperatures and it's that rise that they are concerned with.

Yes the problem is the failure to see the big picture when focused on a single issue, vulcanologists, geologists, etc will tell you that there is a correlation in their studies between temperature rise and various natural processes so that focusing on CO2 abatement won't solve the problem and may not even be the issue

Paraclete: Damn! Wish someone had told the G.W. bunch that information about the CO2 maybe not even be the culprit in G.W. before their tantrums relieved the U.S. of so many jobs to China!

Paraclete: Damn! Wish someone had told the G.W. bunch that information about the CO2 maybe not even be the culprit in G.W. before their tantrums relieved the U.S. of so many jobs to China!

Moving jobs to China just made a bad situation worse, if the situation could be made worse. The US got to look like it had achieved something in abatement and the atmospheric pollution in China just got worse, in the mean time we have solar and wind up the wazzoo and they are still calling for more abatement but are not willing to deal with the elephant in the room, population

More green plants = greater holding capacity

According to many (https://www.google.com/search?q=global+population+plateau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m) estimates the world population will peak around 11 billion.

By then I expect us to have a handle on food production and emissions. As wealth goes up world wide, technology will grow and the population can live comfortably without melting our planet.

According to many (https://www.google.com/search?q=global+population+plateau&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1-m) estimates the world population will peak around 11 billion.

By then I expect us to have a handle on food production and emissions. As wealth goes up world wide, technology will grow and the population can live comfortably without melting our planet.

No really, more people means more consumption and more pollution there will be serious resource issues in developing nations, you see just looking at number doesn't help. 11 billion means 1 and 1/2 times the people we have now all wanting the best standard of living and this will mean forests are cut down, more plastic pollution in the oceans and there will be serious issues, water, available land, dealing with waste

True, however, as countries grow in wealth, they tend towards environmentalism. They use less energy per capita. They have a better handle on production and distribution, reducing waste.

Not saying there won't be hurdles along the way, but don't abandon what works. More people also means more heads focused on every problem.

If the 11 billion is within the next hundred years, it's questionable whether the planet can sustain that number comfortably.

History says no.

Where in history have we reached a global maximum?

"Scientists" have been predicting that event every generation or so, sure, but we've never reached that point as far as I'm aware.

The same can be said about the oil scares going back to 1919 on the very cusp of the petrol age.

Overpopulation scares go back as far as 1798 with Thomas Malthus, he encourages promoting disease and bad hygiene amongst the poor. It's always the poor, they are the highest producer of children, and they're relatively dumb and powerless...

The trick is to grow wealth everywhere, then people can practice good environmental policy. Wealth in the world has been growing rapidly, developing nation's soon won't be too far behind us in green affairs, given a bit of freedom and capitalism.

If China and India, political opposites basically are any indication, we are in trouble and the planet will get over run by humans. Better get those rockets ready and start looking for another planet to screw up. Unfortunately nobody really is clamoring for a nuclear bomb in here back yards as enough disasters have scared countries to explore safer ways to keep the lights on. Nuclear technology is expensive and time consuming and produces waste which we haven't yet figured out what to do with. Heck we haven't figured out what to do with any of our waste yet for that matter, and until we do, we pay the costs of keeping those lights on.

Still waiting for Clete to figure out population control besides nuking everybody but the white people. Or the suggestion that rich folks will share the wealth with the workers. Voluntarily.

True, however, as countries grow in wealth, they tend towards environmentalism. They use less energy per capita.

I don't think that's true. The general trend is that expanding economic growth increases energy use per capita.


Heck we haven't figured out what to do with any of our waste yet for that matter, and until we do, we pay the costs of keeping those lights on.

I'm not following you on that one. Landfills are entirely acceptable and are projected to be available for decades to come, so I'm not sure I get your point. Nuke waste is a problem only because Obama shut down the Nevada waste site after ten bil had been spent on it.

Population control is WELL BEYOND MORTAL CONTROL......We cannot work this out, or we won't be willing to do what it takes to work it out....only God can and will take care of this....and, when God steps in, its death and destruction cometh, in spades. Rest easy, someone a lot bigger than us will take control of the steering mechanisms before too long.

I don't think that's true. The general trend is that expanding economic growth increases energy use per capita.

Big difference in economic growth, and population growth, but you are correct as both put greater demand on energy consumption. The big elephant in the room is both efficiency, and abundance.


I'm not following you on that one. Landfills are entirely acceptable and are projected to be available for decades to come, so I'm not sure I get your point. Nuke waste is a problem only because Obama shut down the Nevada waste site after ten bil had been spent on it.

I remember it rather well and despite the money spent not one ounce of waste was stored mostly because a majority of Nevadans didn't want it as was the case of the other sights proposed. They didn't want it either, so the Yucca Mtn were chosen simply because they were the only ones on the list without a powerful senator to fight against it (Until Harry Reid vowed to fight it, I guess they had enough of the Nuclear stuff since the bomb testing days). Power companies don't want the responsibility either, and indeed the congress did make government responsible for safe disposal so we sit in limbo. I don't suppose Mississippi wants to store spent nuclear waste does it? Why not?

Always sounds better to put stuff in somebody else's back yard doesn't it.

Whilst global energy growth is growing from developing economies, the trend for many high-income nations is a notable decline. As we see in exemplar trends from the UK and US, the growth we are currently seeing in transitioning economies ended for many high-income nations by over the 1970-80s period. Both the US and UK peaked in terms of per capita energy consumption in the 1970s, plateauing for several decades until the early 2000s. Since then, we see a reduction in consumption; since 2000, UK usage has decreased by 20-25 percent.


Below is a graph from the same source, depicting energy consumption per dollar gdp, a measure of actual energy efficiency over time.
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/energy-intensity-of-economies_v3_850x600.svg

Talaniman: Did you ever get over to Aiken, S.C.? How about Hanford in Washington State or Crystal River in Florida? Got kin who work in Baton Rouge site and in Surry, Va. (VEPCO).

Looks like gap between rich and poor is shrinking over time in terms of energy costs....this indicates Efficiency gains for all.

You like your small towns don't you? Me too! Not sure what your point is or reading that rather extensive link by InfoJunkie has me distracted for the time being. Great link!

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources

https://www.atg.wa.gov/hanford

Whilst global energy growth is growing from developing economies, the trend for many high-income nations is a notable decline. As we see in exemplar trends from the UK and US, the growth we are currently seeing in transitioning economies ended for many high-income nations by over the 1970-80s period. Both the US and UK peaked in terms of per capita energy consumption in the 1970s, plateauing for several decades until the early 2000s. Since then, we see a reduction in consumption; since 2000, UK usage has decreased by 20-25 percent.

Good data!

Where in history have we reached a global maximum?

The trick is to grow wealth everywhere, then people can practice good environmental policy. Wealth in the world has been growing rapidly, developing nation's soon won't be too far behind us in green affairs, given a bit of freedom and capitalism.


My point was not that, historically, we have in the past reached a population maximum. It was that your contention that due to growth and technological breakthroughs the people will all be comfortable and wealthy therefore leading to better management of resources. That has never occurred on a basis that is equal for all. I think it is a naive view.

I'm only halfway through this link InfoJ, but it appears the nations with the years of evolving the grids and network upgrades and have the policies and processes in place are the ones not only with better efficiencies but spend less to maintain and easier to make improvements. Like most human endeavors though the initial startup costs are through the roof and often the management of waste is the long term stickler even by todays standard and that takes into accounting the local politics and willingness to bear the costs. Government subsidies and regulations notwithstanding.

I'm not a believer in the trickle down good will for all theory though, as evidenced by past experience, as rich guys and corporations are more likely to pass costs on and that goes for fines for slow or non compliance and disasters they cause. I mean refusing to raise taxes on the rich by less than a percent to fund an infrastructure bank didn't exactly fill me with confidence. Nor does rolling back Obama era regulations and getting out of the climate change agreement give much hope of the motivation to meet environmental targets.

Seems like the real goal is drill, frack, baby drill and frack some more. That can't be good unless you like MO'MONEY for the rich dudes.

InfoJunkie4Life: I hope it works out the way you envision it.....its obvious you have thought a lot about this and think that it is possible....We need NUCLEAR in the U.S.: We've gone too long allowing a Hollywood movie to dictate our Energy Department policies on Nuclear Power growth....that's just dumb.

The caveat in all of this is the growth and WHO gets cut while others grow: When little guys grow, its not at the expense of other little guys, its at the expense of the BIG GUY and the BIG GUY IN ALL THIS IS THE U.S.....I am not FOR ADVANCING ANY OTHER NATION AT THE EXPENSE OF THE U.S.'S POSITION IN THE WORLD, AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR ECONOMY. OR AT THE EXPENSE OF OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE.....If all this can be done WITHOUT COSTING OR HURTING THE U.S. IN ANY WAY, ITS GREAT!

The link I provided about Hanson, Wa. clearly shows that they moved the residence out to build this nuclear wastestorage facility for Nuclear waste and are now cleaning it up as it has neared capacity, and the SST's are beyond there reliable age for safety. I believe we have real life examples of nuclear disasters from 3 Mile Island to Chernobyl, to Fukushima to be very wary of the hazards of nuclear plants despite all the safety protocols we put in place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents



As of 2014, there have been more than 100 serious nuclear accidents and incidents from the use of nuclear power. Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and about 60% of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA[10] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#cite _note-critev-10) Serious nuclear power plant (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_plant) accidents include the
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster) (2011), the Chernobyl disaster (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)(1986), the Three Mile Island accident (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident)
(1979), and the SL-1 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1) accident (1961).[11] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#cite _note-timenuke-11) Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[12] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents#cite _note-12)


After all this time nuclear powered plants still have a few kinks to be worked out. You know us humans are far from perfect.

The link I provided about Hanson, Wa. clearly shows that they moved the residence out to build this nuclear wastestorage facility for Nuclear waste and are now cleaning it up as it has neared capacity, and the SST's are beyond there reliable age for safety. I believe we have real life examples of nuclear disasters from 3 Mile Island to Chernobyl, to Fukushima to be very wary of the hazards of nuclear plants despite all the safety protocols we put in place.

So what is your solution?

A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.

The key word is incremental as opposed to all out push for profit with no regard for consequences to life on Earth as we know it.

Talaniman: I am all for what you propose AS LONG AS certain conditions are met: 1) It is universally applied to all countries, equally, in such demands; 2) It doesn't put the U.S. at a disadvantage insofar as our manufacturing capacity; and 3) The U.S. doesn't pay for anyone else's participation, we pay only for our own.

A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.

Many words but no solution. To stop using carbon based fuels, you must come up with a different source of energy. You seem to reject nuclear. I understand that, but after that there are very few alternatives. Platitudes about non-profits mean very little. Name a non-profit that is currently successfully managing a large sector of the economy and we can discuss it. The Soviet Union was basically non profit. How far did that get them?

I don't see a solution. If indeed man's activities are promoting global warming, then the only solution might be to learn how to ameliorate its negative effects.

Obviously your UNDERSTANDING of my words is as insufficient as your technical knowledge despite the big word you found to hide the fact. That's okay with me since it's a VERY complex subject.

Obviously your UNDERSTANDING of my words is as insufficient as your technical knowledge despite the big word you found to hide the fact.

Anytime you want to discuss technical knowledge in the area of energy policy, then go for it.

Anytime you want to discuss technical knowledge in the area of energy policy, then go for it.

I've already went for it. Guess you missed it through not understanding.

Well, I asked what you proposed for a solution and this is the "technical knowledge" you came up with.


A global approach to minimizing waste and not poison the air, land, and water for our kids. Imagine energy providing being a non profit human endeavor, responsible for cleaning up it's own messes, while developing safer technology for its production. I don't see this as a silver bullet solution, but an incremental step in the right direction.

The key word is incremental as opposed to all out push for profit with no regard for consequences to life on Earth as we know it.

Now if I missed your tech knowledge, maybe it was because you didn't include any. It was just a political vision about non-profits and not poisoning the land, air, and water. That's fine, but I don't think anyone would mistake that for a technical explanation of energy sources outside of fossil fuels, probably because you didn't bother to list a single one much less give us any real explanation of why they would work.

You must first identify the issues before you can design a solution. That's the first stage in developing any technology isn't it? Nothing political except to the uniformed and technically challenged.

The whole argument is mote, no matter what technology you employ you shift to another environmental problem, those who propose CO2 abatement cannot ignore the pollution these new industries bring

You must first identify the issues before you can design a solution. That's the first stage in developing any technology isn't it? Nothing political except to the uniformed and technically challenged.

We did identify the issues. I asked what your solution was and you basically had none other than to dismiss nuclear power. Well, so much for any discussion involving technical knowledge.


My point is that, like it or not, we are stuck with fossil fuels until the time someone comes up with a viable alternative. Solar and wind will contribute a relatively small amount, and learning to be more efficient in our use of energy will help some, but those are not going to do away with the use of carbon based fuels. Once you get past all the hoopla, it might be that the environmental consequences are not going to be all that great anyway. We'll see in the next two or thee decades.

If you weren't so technically challenged you would have remembered the technical debates and LINKS provided about the already developing technology of SST and cap and capture, and the resistance by the power companies or the regulatory roll backs of the dufus administration letting power companies off the hook to even invest in the technology for the future, or be responsible for past disasters.

Where were you when the BP, or Exxon spills occurred? It still has effected adversely vast eco systems that repubs have tried to let those corporations dither about the costs of those clean ups. I just gave you a LINK to the Hanson, Washington clean up efforts, and still you have no technical solution of your own nor can you debate the real clear issues we are already faced with. Instead we get from you and Clete just wait until we get the fix, in the meantime do nothing.

While it is a huge complex issue even for those technically advanced to grapple with, dismissing and ignoring is no solution either. To mitigate the problem I think you eliminate the worst COST that slows the progress, and makes solutions possible, ergo wrap your head around the not for profit aspect of future energy production which without huge subsidy you couldn't afford it any way. Still you are left with waste DISPOSAL that doesn't leach into the ground and pollute the water.

You got anything on that that's better than your solution on mitigating costs? Oh wait you got NOTHING to mitigate the costs.

If you weren't so technically challenged you would have remembered the technical debates and LINKS provided about the already developing technology of SST and cap and capture, and the resistance by the power companies or the regulatory roll backs of the dufus administration letting power companies off the hook to even invest in the technology for the future, or be responsible for past disasters.

Where were you when the BP, or Exxon spills occurred? It still has effected adversely vast eco systems that repubs have tried to let those corporations dither about the costs of those clean ups. I just gave you a LINK to the Hanson, Washington clean up efforts, and still you have no technical solution of your own nor can you debate the real clear issues we are already faced with. Instead we get from you and Clete just wait until we get the fix, in the meantime do nothing.

While it is a huge complex issue even for those technically advanced to grapple with, dismissing and ignoring is no solution either. To mitigate the problem I think you eliminate the worst COST that slows the progress, and makes solutions possible, ergo wrap your head around the not for profit aspect of future energy production which without huge subsidy you couldn't afford it any way. Still you are left with waste DISPOSAL that doesn't leach into the ground and pollute the water.

You got anything on that that's better than your solution on mitigating costs? Oh wait you got NOTHING to mitigate the costs.

And yet once again you have no ideas for alternative energy sources. Just putting a lot of text in a post says nothing about your supposed knowledge of technology. Writing about oil spills, Hanson, not for profits, and waste disposal does absolutely nothing to show us the pathway beyond fossil fuels. If you want to brag about your technical expertise, then at some point you have to actually put it out there for people to see. So far it has been nada.

I'll ask again. What non-profits are out there right now making good progress in a major segment of the economy? Give us a reason to believe that non-profits are the way forward.

climate protesters are going to borrow tactics from Hong Kong rioters. Does this mean we will see fire bombing? pitched battles with police? civil disobedience? Why because an autistic girl thinks there is an extinction. I'll make a prediction if this keeps going. Someone will get killed

Paraclete: Non-violent protests are one thing.....violent protests are another: When protesters go violent, they are asking for a violent response. These Antifa thugs wearing masks and running up and down our streets attacking people have only served to embolden other crazies: They should have never been allowed to pull those stunts in the first place....If you and I put a mask on and tried walking around, law enforcement will be all over us like white on rice.

And yet once again you have no ideas for alternative energy sources. Just putting a lot of text in a post says nothing about your supposed knowledge of technology. Writing about oil spills, Hanson, not for profits, and waste disposal does absolutely nothing to show us the pathway beyond fossil fuels. If you want to brag about your technical expertise, then at some point you have to actually put it out there for people to see. So far it has been nada.

I'll ask again. What non-profits are out there right now making good progress in a major segment of the economy? Give us a reason to believe that non-profits are the way forward.

I wasn't bragging about my technical skills, but have done the homework in an area I do have some experience in. My bad for presenting STUFF you have no clue about since you obviously have trouble identifying the relationships I tried to lay out for you which you fail to follow yet chose instead to try and put down and dismiss what I was presenting.

Shame on you for emulating the dufus and running your mouth to hide your lack of knowledge and it shows in poor debating skills. You must understand I just seek to provide data and research usable to the knowledgeable, but for you to reject the guidance to know more. That's cool with me, but if you think I'm going to do all the work for you to reduce to just words, you better think again.

So instead of reasonable debate and discussion we are reduced to insults and snark and rock throwing. That's cool with me too, since I can do that with the best of 'em, and frankly your laziness makes you an easy target, So try and keep up by doing your own homework and research and we can move along, or keep your time wasting assinine questions to yourself.

Case in point you could of simply googled your own question, "I'll ask again. What non-profits are out there right now making good progress in a major segment of the economy? Give us a reason to believe that non-profits are the way forward", and you would have found out that not for profit is the way to go to mitigate the high costs of design and implementation of the redundant systems required for a fully integrated efficient power grid. Maybe even you would have run across sites like this in a search for background information. (https://www.publicpower.org/policy/distributed-energy-resources) What I present was the IDEA to go completely non profit, as opposed to return on investment through long term consumer support, for an industry that's already heavily subsidized by tax payers.


But if you rather snipe than learn cool, I don't have to waste anymore time debate another dufus, and we can just get to the rock throwing. Your choice.

PS

I realize that reading technical stuff is not your forte, or experience, but you are trying my patience my friend so out of respect at least act like you're trying to keep up.

I wasn't bragging about my technical skills, but have done the homework in an area I do have some experience in. My bad for presenting STUFF you have no clue about since you obviously have trouble identifying the relationships I tried to lay out for you which you fail to follow yet chose instead to try and put down and dismiss what I was presenting.

You have presented nothing technical. You have presented no solutions. None.


Shame on you for emulating the dufus and running your mouth to hide your lack of knowledge and it shows in poor debating skills. You must understand I just seek to provide data and research usable to the knowledgeable, but for you to reject the guidance to know more. That's cool with me, but if you think I'm going to do all the work for you to reduce to just words, you better think again.

This whining gets old. I can't debate since you have presented nothing to debate about.

I hope one day that you will learn that when you make a suggestion such as non-profits, then it is not my job to do research for you. You linked to this site. I found nothing there to indicate that non profits do any better job of providing energy than for profit companies, but I will give you credit for at least responding. https://www.publicpower.org/policy/distributed-energy-resources

You get mad when someone calls you out on your posts. I am simply asking you to back up what you are saying. There's really no need to have a temper tantrum about it.


But if you rather snipe than learn cool, I don't have to waste anymore time debate another dufus, and we can just get to the rock throwing. Your choice.

I don't care if you respond or not. That is your choice. When you post something foolish, I will respond to it. I will not engage in name calling such as you love to do. I always feel that if I have to resort to name calling, then it shows that I have nothing intelligent to say.


I realize that reading technical stuff is not your forte, or experience, but you are trying my patience my friend so out of respect at least act like you're trying to keep up.

That made me laugh. If you ever post anything concerning any level of technology, then I assure you I will have no trouble keeping up. Up to this point, any competent sixth grader could keep up with your posts. I don't say that to be ugly. You just simply haven't posted anything even approaching complicated. What am I supposed to be in awe of? Your posting about non profits, or landfills, or Hanson, or your concerns with nuke energy? Do you really believe you have posted anything that even approaches being complex???

I ain't mad at ya guy. Dissappointed though. That's okay since you would obviously rather throw rocks. I guess you don't think much of the distributed energy resources concept even though it's already being developed. I just thought we could get some background going for a more informed interchange, rather than leave it at wait a few decades and see what happens.

That's okay since you would obviously rather throw rocks.

You show me where I have thrown rocks and we can discuss it. You are the one tossing names around and suggesting I have no technical skills. When you start a genuinely tech conversation (as below), you will find I will have no trouble in keeping up.


I guess you don't think much of the distributed energy resources concept even though it's already being developed. I just thought we could get some background going for a more informed interchange, rather than leave it at wait a few decades and see what happens.

I'm familiar with the concept of DER, but it generally concerns such areas as rooftop solar cells, electric cars, or the very occasional residential windmill. Much of that would not exist if it wasn't for government subsidies. My son has an electric car. He bought it because he could get a 7K tax deduction, which means, of course, that you and I helped him out in buying his car. That's what I object to. If solar or wind can compete then fine, but as of now that is generally not the case, and when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing, then you have to fall back on something else. So no, I'm not excited about it.

The truth is, the only currently viable, economically feasible alternative to the use of fossil fuels for genuinely large scale electrical production (which is what is needed) is nuclear. There is nothing else.

jlisenbe: I am pro-Nuclear, too......but that doesn't mean exclusively nuclear in all instances: There are many applications for Hydroelectric Power that I really think are great fits, as well.....and Hydroelectric works very well and its why my electric bill is the cheapest in the nation!

There are many applications for Hydroelectric Power that I really think are great fits, as well.....and Hydroelectric works very well and its why my electric bill is the cheapest in the nation!

My understanding is that most of the prime hydro sites are already used, so what is left would not become a major contributor.

My understanding is that most of the prime hydro sites are already used, so what is left would not become a major contributor.

You make more with more and bigger dams way up in those snowy mountains

Part of the bigger problem is the cost borne mostly on a regional, either county or locally to ensure a viable energy source to meet peak demands. A lot of small systems, state regulated according to what they have to work with. The US is very diverse both in resources and capital on local levels, so differing capacity needs are the ultimate factors involved, along with the costs to deliver, and in every jurisdiction the considerations of long term ROI borne by consumers of course, maintenance also born by consumers as well as whatever disasters and accidents to be mitigated. That's the jest of the formulae all the systems share no matter the source or capacity that's demanded.

Now bear with me a minute, and step back and visualize a bigger map, that expands beyond local and state and even regional, to the whole country. On this map we lay all the systems calculate demand and even with the factor of costs being the biggest initially, we get a GRID with obvious holes of both peak demands and over capacity. Obviously where I'm going is a SHARED GRID, which requires an expansion of redundant network power transmission sources, not to just add to capacity demands NOW, but the future as well if growth models hold.

Technology hasn't completely solved the nuclear waste storage problem, or the time cost of cleaning up the mess it makes, or I would be fully on board as long as a safety first approach was taken and the plans I've seen for that are a joke, just as the fossil fuel contingency plans are a complete joke, and if we haven't learned the lessons of big oil in handling their messes then what's the point of this whole exercise? One thing I learned in the steel mills was safety first, because the cost of doing business pales in comparison to the cost of human lives, and stuff does happen with us humans.

So what do you guys think?

Now bear with me a minute, and step back and visualize a bigger map, that expands beyond local and state and even regional, to the whole country. On this map we lay all the systems calculate demand and even with the factor of costs being the biggest initially, we get a GRID with obvious holes of both peak demands and over capacity. Obviously where I'm going is a SHARED GRID, which requires an expansion of redundant network power transmission sources, not to just add to capacity demands NOW, but the future as well if growth models hold.

How does that do away with our dependence on fossil fuels? As to your idea, I think that is largely done now as different power companies purchase power from others.

As to the safety of nuke power, if you accept the reality of GW, then which one is really the least safe, nukes or fossil fuels?

How does that do away with our dependence on fossil fuels? As to your idea, I think that is largely done now as different power companies purchase power from others.

As to the safety of nuke power, if you accept the reality of GW, then which one is really the least safe, nukes or fossil fuels?

It doesn't do away with it at all nor do I forsee the burning of fossil fuels going away. My position is the cost of clean air, land, and soil being the goal and we do have technology for that expensive as it is. Rolled back was the regulation(?) that new plants require this technology which was cost saving, but unsafe in regard to pollution in the log term therefore humans as well and there is still those wastes that even the scrubber technology produces, it's just more contained. A policy that helps the bottom line, but long term doesn't solve the waste/pollution problem, but makes it more manageable.

My idea is based in small part to that companies buying from each other when the need to, but expanded to widen the options those companies and states have. Why can't sunny Arizona sell some power to lets say Mississippi or even Texas when the wind dies down?

As to which is the safest, it's a wash right now because as I point out the safety plans for events that could be deemed a threat to are sorely inadequate on many fronts though those plans are required by law, but who enforces them? Those plans are available to the public. Review them and see if we agree. Remember they may be just regionally available, and states may have differing requirements.

Off hand though I would say nuclear is the most dangerous, and I think both could be safer. I accept GW, but also believe in responsible management, but like any human endeavor costs are what really governs performance and actions. PROFIT above all else. A national GRID to facilitate power and cost sharing is a MASSIVE endeavor but we did go to the moon didn't we?

All energy initiatives are subsidized already. The US spends a smaller amount than most nations because our networks are far more advanced AND more diverse in both resources and finances than the world and that's something to look into.

I believe in goals and working steadfastly to acheive them!

As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...

Or that we're dying tomorrow....

Then maybe we can actually make progress I. A safe, healthy, and profitable future can be more assured this way.

As long as we can agree that the way forward isn't radical...

How can you be sure of that?

You can never be sure of anything but anything new will be considered radical by some for better or worse until tried and proven. Like going to the moon as an example. Radical stuff APPEARS more scary than doable, but some solution or good ideas worth trying, start with thinking outside the box I feel.

It's not like we don't have plenty of data and experience of what does work and what doesn't work as well as it could. I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.

Radical would be dreaming of jumping out of a plane with no parachute, and expecting a soft landing. I mean a few years ago jumping off a cliff was insane, but guys do it for sport now. Somebody came up with a fly suit.

I just don't think the costs and profitability should be the main factors in do ability or NECCESSITY. Hey it's just a thought, the starting point for a larger plan. I got nothing else to do but dream.

You had me until you seemed to indicate that we can ignore cost. Not even the non-profits can do that. It has to be paid for.

I never said IGNORE costs, I said cost and profitability shouldn't be the MAIN factors in the consideration of viability of a plan. I'm a capitalists and do believe any cost can be mitigated (Regulatory rollbacks is not a good vehicle in this case. Just my opinion, but based on the data.).

jlisenbe: Ever hear of the 80/20 Rule? Its interesting and it exemplifies business.....It says that 20% of your sales people, Engineers, planners, accountants, whatever discipline accomplish 80% of your goals, whether it be projects or sales......and that 80% of that same staff accomplish the remaining 20%......Well, most people look at that and say "Fire that 80% and save the costs" but that will not work: You still need to retain the 80% staff to get that residual 20% gain.....Don't be so concerned with knowing the COSTS of Everything when the VALUE is the dominant concern.

jlisenbe: Ever hear of the 80/20 Rule? Its interesting and it exemplifies business.....It says that 20% of your sales people, Engineers, planners, accountants, whatever discipline accomplish 80% of your goals, whether it be projects or sales......and that 80% of that same staff accomplish the remaining 20%......Well, most people look at that and say "Fire that 80% and save the costs" but that will not work: You still need to retain the 80% staff to get that residual 20% gain.....Don't be so concerned with knowing the COSTS of Everything when the VALUE is the dominant concern.

Good memory. We went to the same school different years it seems. In terms of sports though the star can have a bad day or injury, and the role players have to step up and fill the gaps on any given day. That's usually the difference between winning and losings.

The Gemini fire didn't stop our moon landing quest did it? The Civil War didn't stop the nation from growing either. To overcome obstacles keep your eyes on the GOAL. Forgive me but I get goosebumps when challenged.

Great post VAC.

Talaniman: Its a Boxing match of sorts.....if the other guy isn't touching you, you probably aren't going to touch him, either, the way you want to...you have to step-in and take a gamble, chance, show some risks.....Same with industrial challenges and, I think, Energy projects of any stripe: There are no sure things and if that is the pursuit, the return will be minimalized.....You must risk greatly to achieve greatly.....and sometimes, you have to "Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before".....a lot of great accomplishments had a playbook but no set recipe book....so the plan was formulated but the safety net didn't exist because there were no previous "examples" to go by: What was being done was the first time it had ever been attempted!

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree other than to say that no business in America will teach people to disregard cost. It is not the only factor, but it is a big, big one.

LOL, Few things go perfectly according to the initial plan, so sometimes you have to make adjustments according to conditions. Sometimes you screw it up and have to redo it. Things do look better on paper, and I'm sure a national grid has been thought of. Just the jobs from all those man hours has me giddy.

I get what you're saying and I don't disagree other than to say that no business in America will teach people to disregard cost. It is not the only factor, but it is a big, big one.

I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.

>Relevant commercial break< (https://costfreak.com/moon-trip-cost/) Of course we need another commercial! (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9399379/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/nasa-estimates-billion-return-moon/#.XZ0Ko25FzY8) Now back to our show folks (https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/8/3/17638246/national-energy-grid-renewables-transmission), the very last paragraph says it all. The links are fabulous trust me! 8D

I didn't say it would be cheap, but a country with a trillion dollar military that fights trillion dollar wars for years and can cut more than a trillion dollars in taxes aught to be able to fund a world class grid and power transmission system.

That same country is 23 tril in debt and still spends like a drunken sailor, so you might want to figure out a different funding source. And besides, how does making changes to the grid get us off of our dependence on fossil fuels?

We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management. When we find a better energy source we can leave fossil fuels behind. I like lights and A/C personally. As to the debt, that can be managed too. Our politicians don't want to.

We don't have to get off fossil fuel, we must mitigate the pollution factor. That includes waste management

How do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?

jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!

Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.

jlisenbe: Costs on a project positively influencing/increasing production are largely mitigated as that production volume/production rate increases over time....its the integration of costs: The more product you make/the higher the production, the more the costs of the particular production increase project's initial costs and, also, the new project's Annual Operating Costs, are spread out/across over the increased number of units produced (could be widgets, cinder blocks, cars, tanks, planes, paper, etc., whatever!)…the effect of this is that costs are water-down and disappear through enhanced production rates: Costs Per Unit Volume (whatever the unit produced is) will decline and the COSTS that everyone worries about simply evaporates......This is why COSTS just aren't that exciting when you look at it in terms of production increases. The ROI is there and it usually is there in gobs once you get the process tuned-up.....Where people go astray is over-estimating the project ROI period: You won't do that but once because the knots on you head and butt will remind you never to do it again!

Once a project is implemented and up to production levels anticipated, you can then begin to hone the process, and costs, even more by going after EFFICIENCY enhancements.....its like icing on the cake.

And so again, how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?

You ever consider the meat packing business? You shoot the bull better than anyone I know.

jlisenbe: No, I wasn't involved in that discussion....that was between you and Talaniman…...but since you brought it up with me: Typically, with the industry I am involved with, we have people/industries who use the carbon residual and residues that are a result of using fossil fuels (very efficient burns)…..there are many uses of carbon, particularly in filtration media.

No, never considered the meat packing business...but grew up on a beef cattle farm.....also, have a brother who is a Butcher. What I said to you isn't bullsh$&t....I have been involved in many projects like these. Don't know why you would want to come at me with such a smartassed reply....never have and never would do that to you.....I can only imagine that you must be having a bad day....the days will get better, jlisenbe, believe me.

My apologies, Vac. I had asked Tal, " how do you practice waste management with the products of burning fossil fuels?". I thought your post was his reply to my question which, of course, would have made no sense at all. I'm actually kind of glad to find out my mistake. I puzzled hard over his (your) reply and how it could have made sense relative to my question.

We have a power plant nearby that was going to be a model of how to burn coal cleanly. They were going to pipe the CO2 to oil fields and inject it into old oil wells. As it turned out they could not get the technology of gassifying coal to work right and the whole thing ended up being a colossal failure.

jlisenbe: Apology accepted, Sir.....one Southern man to the other!

There are ways to make this all happen....just going take a big commitment, government help (in spots), a lot of engineering, big time labor involvement, and, initially, an acceptance that financial losses are inevitable in the interim periods until the process cycles up and the bugs get worked out.

But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.

But my issues with all of this is the same as those expressed by Paraclete: While we spend time, money, and effort to implement all these waste management systems, if China and India don't respond-in-kind, very little net change will occur.

That's a very good point, but even beyond that it's still an open question as to how much of the marginal global warming that has occurred is genuinely caused by CO2. There is still so much of this that is still poorly understood.

jlisenbe: This the biggest "System" anyone has ever worked on just, maybe, the most complex. G.W. is a religion to some people.....it can't become that if it is to truly EVALUATED: Science cannot follow "agendas"....scientific evaluations can't be "forced" in terms of the proofs fitting predesigned narratives....and that is the danger when we allow "emotionally driven" decisions instead of data driven decisions....So far, the "data" is driving statistical outcomes.....and some of the G.W. scientists have been caught "manipulating" the data, not a confidence builder if you are trying to sell your ideas.

...and some of the G.W. scientists have been caught "manipulating" the data, not a confidence builder if you are trying to sell your ideas.


Please provide specifics on your claim that some GW scientists have been caught "manipulating" the data.

Athos: Here is a sampling of what I was referring to around data manipulation by G.W. scientists:


Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data ...


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/...

Feb 05, 2017 · The climate change debate went nuclear Sunday over a whistleblower’s explosive allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data to advance a political agenda by hiding the global warming “pause.”.



Author: Valerie Richardson

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data ...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-

Feb 04, 2017 · Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data. The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming


Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature ...


https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/06/whistleblower-noaa-scientists-manipulated...

NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.


Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data ...


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/...

Feb 05, 2017 · The climate change debate went nuclear Sunday over a whistleblower’s explosive allegation that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association manipulated data to advance a political agenda by hiding the global warming “pause.”.



Author: Valerie Richardson

..

World leaders duped by manipulated global warming data ...


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-

Feb 04, 2017 · Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data. The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
.

Fed Whistleblower: NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature ...


https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/06/whistleblower-noaa-scientists-manipulated...

NOAA Scientists Manipulated Temperature Data To Make Global Warming Seem Worse World Leaders Duped Over Manipulated Global Warming Data The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
.

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl


https://principia-scientific.org/nasa-exposed-in-massive

Nov 24, 2015 · Veteran award-winning journalist Günter Ederer reports of a shocking new global warming data fraud in NASA’s global temperature data series, as relied on by the UN and government climate scientists

NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating ... - Snopes


https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data

Feb 08, 2017 · NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a …



Author: Alex Kasprak

That pretty much cuts both ways Vac since fossil fuel and energy corporations employ scientist that parrot position that justify and benefit them also. I agree with your assessment of data driven and tend to side with the idea that focus should be on what we as a nation should be doing. Not China, NOT India. Getting out of the Paris Agreement I think was a mistake that wiped out the opportunity to LEAD which is what we do supposedly according to the hype, but should that be a stumbling block for getting our own house together? Shame if it is.

I was so curios about the Mississippi gasification failure I looked it up. Rising costs and a crippling lawsuit (http://theamericanenergynews.com/energy-news/mississippi-power-suspends-coal-gasification-kemper-county-power-plant)by a competitor put the project in limbo. I'll provide this overview of the timeline of events leading to this failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project) for your consideration.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-

Feb 04, 2017 · Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data. The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming




NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating ... - Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data

Feb 08, 2017 · NOAA Scientists Falsely Accused of Manipulating Climate Change Data A tabloid used testimony from a single scientist to paint an excruciatingly technical matter as a …

Author: Alex Kasprak

Several of your links are duplicated, falsely showing a greater incidence of reporting than actual.

I note you included the debunking of the report by Snopes. Is that an error or are you trying to show both sides?

Here's a further link/report that debunks the story which originated in the UK's Daily Mall, a notorious publication prone to yellow journalism.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/

After reading all the links, the Snopes and Factcheck reports are far more likely than the others.
(https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/)

Tal, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The lawsuit was a minor detail compared to the cost overruns which were enormous and reminds me of how the military does things. Cost estimates went from about 2.5 bil to over 7 bil at the end with still no start date in sight. Remember that conversation we had about watching costs?

They spent money for land like they had lots and lots of it. I sold about forty acres for probably three or four times what it was worth, and that price did not include the coal which they would have paid extra for once they mined it. It ended up being the biggest white elephant you can imagine. And now they own all those many square miles of land which they can grow trees on or whatever.

The final nail in the coffin was the drop in the price of natural gas which made the whole thing a losing proposition anyway.

Whoever was managing that project was not watching costs nor had any quality control, an indication of MAYBE cutting corners, and shoddy work as too many delays in repairs and adjustment contributed to those deadline missing penalties. It was a huge undertaking from the start as most successful gasification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Gasification_Company)projects around the country (http://www.airproducts.com/Company/news-center/2018/11/1105-air-products-to-acquire-ge-gasification-business-and-technology.aspx) are much smaller in scale.

From failure can come success. I see a massive reorganization here though if they get the management kinks resolved.

Athos, Talaniman, & jlisenbe: Yes, threw the competing/contrasting story in to give a balance: Need to be data driven and SOMEBODY needs to be the DATA CZAR to "police" the data and make sure everything is on the up and up...who that would be, I haven't a clue.....if you don't do this, you will always have an opening for some wiseass to perforate your findings: Human Beings are so predictable and self-destructive.

Its always a contest with US doing something "environmentally friendly" that might somewhat negatively affects our production outputs while we are competing with those who AREN'T participating in-kind: The fairness thing always rises to the top in these discussions......but, as you pointed out, we are supposed to be leaders...and that can be burdensome on many levels.

jlisenbe: 3 to 4 times the actual value for the land? You have a horseshoe up your butt! I would have done that jump with all four feet! I know people who got some of this goodie, too, out in La.

Natural Gas prices fluctuate wildly! Know a Paper Mill out West that goes up or down with the price of N.G.: MADDENING! I would hate to be tied to that roller coaster.

Thunberg has used the Australian bushfires to enhance her climate debate. No sensitivity at all to the hundreds of families who have lost their homes, the thousands of valiant volunteers who fight the fires, the millions affected by the pall of smoke and those unfortunates who have lost their lives. But then when someone is as emotionally closed off as she is, we cannot expect empathy just exploitation for political advantage. Am I mad, yes I am and not about climate change but about someone as far removed from our situation as you can get having anything to say about it. Go peddle your northern hemisphere crap somewhere else because we don't want to hear it

Your island is but ONE climate event of MANY across the globe Clete and the real question will be, and is, how WE prepare for the NEXT event we KNOW is coming no matter where you are. Doesn't matter what you call it, or any of that idealogical stuff, but we are well past the ignore and dismiss stage. As you yourself point out, it's happening NOW. LOL we really look stupid when we rather argue than PREPARE, but when their is no plan or preparation helpless is what we get.

Don't blame the messenger for stating the obvious.

This is one messenger that should be dealth with, a paddle to the backside would be appropriate. Anything she stated is not obvious, climate change did not cause the bush fires

Seems the climating is always changing though. Save your energy for surviving the change.

Tal, I'm too old to survive anything had a very savage reminder of that last night

Please feel free to share the experience Clete.

Well Tal difficult to know what caused it my big toe stood up at on odd angle very painfull some sort of spasm I guess. application of heat, strong pain killers and liberal doses of gout medication wasnt happy as I had a long drive ahead of me made longer because of road closures from the fires

Sorry about your discomfort Clete, just glad it sounds like you are moving to safety though, and more help!

Get well soon, Clete. That stuff is no fun.

Sorry about your discomfort Clete, just glad it sounds like you are moving to safety though, and more help!
not really tal but less smoke the highway down here intermittently closes so not sure when i can go back this situation is beyond a joke

sort of glad I came home earlier than intended, avoided the evacuation and the fires that have subsequently devastated my route but still have the smoke here and cannot image what it might be like there. My doctor tells me it is equivalent to smoking a pack a day even here

Surprised you didn't get your own oxygen mask while you were out.

The Lord has provided we have had RAIN!

http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDR032.loop.shtml#skip

Thank God for that. Happy for you guys.

Thank God for that. Happy for you guys.

Yes but it is short lived so we will see where we go from now. I was reviewing some statistics and while these fires are up there have been others even a massive 117 million hectares, so let's hope we don't get to that, in 1851 the fire season was as large so let us not hear about climate change

Just seen where 24 Australian citizens were arrested for STARTING FIRES! This mess is man inspired.

These 24 should receive some due punishment.

Just seen where 24 Australian citizens were arrested for STARTING FIRES! This mess is man inspired.

These 24 should receive some due punishment.

You can be assured they will, however we no longer lynch arsonists, pity, i would have thought a slow roasting was what they deserved

I second that emotion: These people are really, really sick!

I second that emotion: These people are really, really sick!

Yes but they didn't start the many hundreds of other fires

Fires can spread grow, and start other fires quite well just on it's own. Just saw fire and wind create a firenado right before my eyes, as well as firestorms complete with thunder and lightning. Fascinating and dangerous.

Been there, dont want to go there

Me either, but that's not always our choice. Even if we could do a lot more we still face the possibility that it's not enough.

Me either, but that's not always our choice. Even if we could do a lot more we still face the possibility that it's not enough.

Tal, our puny efforts are never enough. we have this great hysteria about climate change and emissions and our efforts can never be enough because the goal posts keep moving. Once it was 25% abatement, now it is 100%, which means we move back to the stone age. You see this month many people in Australia found out what it is like to be without electricity, without telephones, without sufficient transport, with water supply at risk and what it taught us is we are not going to go quietly into the dark, we will use our full resources to preserve our civilisation. This means we will build more dams, cut back vegetation, reduce our specific risks whether the rest of the world, or even our indigenous peoples, think it is a good idea or not.

Paraclete: If you are going to have to go back to the mid-1800's, you need your firearms back, too! YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT IS REQUIRED THAT YOU DO! The WORLD doesn't live in AUSTRALIA, YOU DO!

A man without a gun is a victim.....eventually!

Paraclete: If you are going to have to go back to the mid-1800's, you need your firearms back, too! YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT IS REQUIRED THAT YOU DO! The WORLD doesn't live in AUSTRALIA, YOU DO!

A man without a gun is a victim.....eventually!

Vac, even in the 1800's we didn't need every man with a gun to control this country, this isn't america and a different ethos operates here. So you can take your guns and shove them where it hurts the most. No gun ever prevents nor fights a fire

Now Clete, we all know that when this is finally over things go back to business as usual. No lessons learned and it may takea few more disasters to get people thinking and acting.

Now Clete, we all know that when this is finally over things go back to business as usual. No lessons learned and it may takea few more disasters to get people thinking and acting.

I'm not as cynical as you are Tal, already the move is to consensus to solve our problems, you see our ethos is rooted in concensus, not the division that the left injects into society. There is no class struggle here, our billionairres have stepped up and I expect more to come. We are not the capitalist society you are, business only thinks it rules here. It is interesting to note that our economy was flagging but now we will have a fire led recovery, I expect a time of growth, and at the end of it, our approaches will be different

Just read that the Australian fires killed well over a billion animals: I expect that the Dingos weren't among those numbers and their population will probably benefit from the fires in a weird "Unnatural" balance.

What comes after fire season Clete? No doubt the bulldozers and planes and helicopters get parked, and volunteers go home and everybody breathes a sigh of relief and get distracted by reality and the next big season. Is that cynical or just reality?

What comes after fire season Clete? No doubt the bulldozers and planes and helicopters get parked, and volunteers go home and everybody breathes a sigh of relief and get distracted by reality and the next big season. Is that cynical or just reality?

Totally cynical, the bulldozers will go back to building roads and dams, and volunteers will go home if they still have one. The reality is we will have an enquiry to find how we might have done better. This has devasted a large area and destroyed not only property but livelihoods. Regions which rely on tourism will have a season of little income. What might have been a bumper season will bring the reality of bankruptcy and PTSD

Thunberg is back sticking knives in Donald's back

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-22/trump-and-thunberg-do-battle-again-at-davos/11888208

her brilliant response to climate policy, planting trees is not enough. problem is; people like her don't think any effort is enough, but if we plant trees and stop cutting down the ones we have, there will be abatement. What we don't want is complete shutdown of electricity generation. instead of saying something positive, what she contributed is negativity

In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago

In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago


So Trump wants to plant a trillion more, to green america, and it doesn't matter that vegetation is recovering from exploitation, not the issue, therefore, your point is mote

The fraud Democrats at their best . At least it feels good to think you are saving the planet .
https://www.baltimoresun.com/maryland/baltimore-county/bs-md-co-baltimore-county-glass-recycling-20200131-20200201-7rjeujm3vfes3nvxf67z3if6q4-story.html

Or making big bucks, because not recycling is a stiff fine and those are repubs making those rules here.

Baltimore ? Repubs making the rules ?

You know I don't live in Baltimore Tom! Conservatives rule here. Everybody is a capitlist too, even the homeless. It's bash the dems day for conservatives eh? Any day that ends in Y!

They should be taken out and bashed perhaps it will give them some sense

Recycling is a farce: Greatly oversold as to its true benefits and greatly undersold as to it own collective environmental impact....but the problem is that we have more than a generation of people that have been "taught"/BRAINWASHED by our public school systems (which we fund)that RECYCLING is the savior of all mankind! Well, it isn't...far from it. The RECYCLING INDUSTRY is built upon lies.

Recycling is a farce: Greatly oversold as to its true benefits and greatly undersold as to it own collective environmental impact....but the problem is that we have more than a generation of people that have been "taught"/BRAINWASHED by our public school systems (which we fund)that RECYCLING is the savior of all mankind! Well, it isn't...far from it. The RECYCLING INDUSTRY is built upon lies.

Well Vac the rubbish has to go somewhere, by volume "recycling" makes up 2/3 of my rubbish with plastic the main component. When you take out the paper, cardboard and metal, plastic is most of it. Who do we have to thank for this, the packaging industry, and aside from bottles most of it is unnecessary

It's like any business, profit is the rule.

Yes without profit there would be no business

It's like any business, profit is the rule.Kind of hard to stay in business if you don't make a profit.

Best thing we could do with used plastic is to burn it and capture the BTUs released. It makes no sense to recycle this trash. All garbage should be burned in boilers so heat recovery can be realized.

Best thing we could do with used plastic is to burn it and capture the BTUs released. It makes no sense to recycle this trash. All garbage should be burned in boilers so heat recovery can be realized.

Ok so now we know for sure you are not on the side of the climate change fanatics, but plastic can be turned into oil and be re-refined into fuel so just to burn it is waste, it is like putting aluminium foil in the garbage, that stuff costs a lot of electricity to make. Some garbage is not pollution free so needs to be burned in high temperature furnaces, not just burned otherwise you get smog, never mind it's technical, and you have shown that you don't understand

Technology doesn't matter enough if you can't cover costs of the operation. The trash buyer just ain't buying enough trash anymore so yeah it piles up somewhere. Even power plants are having a problem with waste management about what to do with waste it captures even with the new revenue stream of leasing it's network transmission lines.

recycling is good and not even much of an inconvenience. Thunderstruck decided she wanted to trademark herself . Ahhh profits .Why not cash in championing a cause 'Doing well be doing"good" ' is the progressive way .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/us/greta-thunberg-trademark-trnd/index.html

recycling is good and not even much of an inconvenience. Thunderstruck decided she wanted to trademark herself . Ahhh profits .Why not cash in championing a cause 'Doing well be doing"good" ' is the progressive way .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/us/greta-thunberg-trademark-trnd/index.html

Well I'm thunderstruck at the thought Greta might be given a Nobel prize, what has she contributed "how dare you" to the debate? This child has been manipulated

Not coloring inside the circle: Recycling is a farce: The jackarses in control of the RECYCLING INDUSTRY have wrapped themselves in the impenetrable cloak of ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY and think that will insulate them from any negative publicity (i.e. TRUTH!): I can assure your that the ENVIRONMENT is the lowest concern for these damned RECYCLE KINGPINS! They could give one damn about the ENVIRONMENT: They care a whole hell of a lot more for $$$s!

Paraclete: The smoke must have blocked more than your nasal passages: You think that the U.S., the LARGEST EXPORTED OF OIL IN THE WORLD, should concern itself with retrieving OIL FROM PLASTIC WASTE? NOT HAPPENING! We would be better off burning the plastic in our power boilers and/or incinerators and be done with it!

Paraclete: The smoke must have blocked more than your nasal passages: You think that the U.S., the LARGEST EXPORTED OF OIL IN THE WORLD, should concern itself with retrieving OIL FROM PLASTIC WASTE? NOT HAPPENING! We would be better off burning the plastic in our power boilers and/or incinerators and be done with it!

Vac you want to stink up the place with more pollution, go ahead! Burning plastic gives renewables a new meaning. The US should become a responsible world citizen instead of this we will do it our way crap thinly disquised as make America great

recycling is good and not even much of an inconvenience. Thunderstruck decided she wanted to trademark herself . Ahhh profits .Why not cash in championing a cause 'Doing well be doing"good" ' is the progressive way .

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/us/greta-thunberg-trademark-trnd/index.html

A capitalist put a bug in her ear obviously.

A capitalist put a bug in her ear obviously.

She is just another pawn in the endless AGW debate and she comes from a place where they do as vac suggests; turn rubbish into heat, Don't see her complaining about that. Vac should get on the front line and do some placard waving

Paraclete: I don't want the U.S. to REDUCE its carbon footprint! Trees love Carbon Dioxide! I want the U.S.'s carbon footprint to expand!

CARBON FOOTPRINT: ANOTHER HOAX! Example: The carbon footprint of a Toyota Prius or even a Tesla is LARGER than the carbon footprint of a Cadillac Escalade expanded out across the life of the vehicle! The rechargeable cell/batteries for these vehicles are incredibly large in terms of carbon footprints! Yet, the crazy environmental bunches keep pushing electric cars! SUCH A FARCE!

waste disposal and inceration is a cost saved by recycling. in addition the cost of production is less using recycled materials As an example ;
production using recycled aluminum can cut costs in half. That’s because much less energy is required to process recycled aluminum than to extract it raw. The savings is cycled back to consumers, who can buy goods for less. The
labor force for recycling generates nearly $240 billion in annual revenue. There is also an international market for it as countries with fewer natural resources seek to purchase recycled raw material .This is especially true of countries with a shortage of forests . They buy recycled paper . From someone in industry I find it indispensable .It saves my company a fortune is waste disposal fees .

Paraclete: I don't want the U.S. to REDUCE its carbon footprint! Trees love Carbon Dioxide! I want the U.S.'s carbon footprint to expand!

CARBON FOOTPRINT: ANOTHER HOAX! Example: The carbon footprint of a Toyota Prius or even a Tesla is LARGER than the carbon footprint of a Cadillac Escalade expanded out across the life of the vehicle! The rechargeable cell/batteries for these vehicles are incredibly large in terms of carbon footprints! Yet, the crazy environmental bunches keep pushing electric cars! SUCH A FARCE!

While I sympathise with the idea that CO2 is not the primary source of AGW, and that even AGW is a hoax, the fossil fuel reserves are finite and so the development of electric cars has been delayed over 100 years, some of the earliest vehicles were electric. lithium ion batteries are not the answer but this is no reason to abandon research

The United States has at least a hundred years reserve of natural gas.

jlisenbe: You know it: The U.S. doesn't need to grovel in the dirt in an attempt to place nice with Mother Nature: We have what we need! Let the rest of the world find theirs, WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO GET BY!!!

Look, if Carbon Footprint is THE CRITERIA OF JUDGEMENT, then electric vehicles ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO....its a simple, straight forward comparative. And, guess what else? The damn batteries aren't even made in the U.S. because the process is so ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY! So, foreign countries employ foreign workforces to acquire revenues in the production of battery cells, all the while polluting the hell out of the environment so we can put these batteries in weak arse vehicles and run around proclaiming that we are helping the ENVIRONMENT AND SAVING THE PLANET! GOD HELP US ALL: The American People are entirely obsessed with the "Feel-Good" sensations....this is such a strange desire.

Tomder55: I am in production in the Pulp & Paper Industry: I can tell you that the U.S. P&P Industry SHOULD HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO THE RECYCLING SCAM! We have more natural, reproducible, and superior fiber loads than any other nation in the world, challenged only by Canada (mismanaged Socialist nation/screwed-up industry) and Russia (vast woodstores much of which is yet to be harvested)….it is because the U.S. has all this VIRGIN fiber store that we should have never got sucked into the RECYCLE SCAM....by engaging in this mess, all we did was lose our 100% Virgin Fiber Exclusivity and become just another COMMODITY SUPPLIER to world markets....Foreign countries clamor to BUY our recycled fiber loads in pure rubbish form and they also seek to buy HIGH VIRGIN CONTENT CONTAINERBOARD MADE IN THE U.S. and they do this to OBTAIN our virgin fibers for their domestic packaging operations. These foreign competitors can compete with the U.S. when we make Recycled or Recycled Content papers but THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH THE U.S. WHEN WE STICK TO 100% VIRGIN FIBER PAPER PRODUCTION. My point is: The U.S. doesn't need to roll around in the mud with the foreigners when WE HOLD THE ADVANTAGE! The U.S. needs to learn that when we get a guy down, SHINE YOUR BOOTS ON HIS ARSE, DON'T HELP HIM UP!

jlisenbe: You know it: The U.S. doesn't need to grovel in the dirt in an attempt to place nice with Mother Nature: We have what we need! Let the rest of the world find theirs, WE HAVE WHAT WE NEED TO GET BY!!!

Look, if Carbon Footprint is THE CRITERIA OF JUDGEMENT, then electric vehicles ARE NOT THE WAY TO GO....its a simple, straight forward comparative. And, guess what else? The damn batteries aren't even made in the U.S. because the process is so ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY! So, foreign countries employ foreign workforces to acquire revenues in the production of battery cells, all the while polluting the hell out of the environment so we can put these batteries in weak arse vehicles and run around proclaiming that we are helping the ENVIRONMENT AND SAVING THE PLANET! GOD HELP US ALL: The American People are entirely obsessed with the "Feel-Good" sensations....this is such a strange desire.

Tomder55: I am in production in the Pulp & Paper Industry: I can tell you that the U.S. P&P Industry SHOULD HAVE NEVER ENTERED INTO THE RECYCLING SCAM! We have more natural, reproducible, and superior fiber loads than any other nation in the world, challenged only by Canada (mismanaged Socialist nation/screwed-up industry) and Russia (vast woodstores much of which is yet to be harvested)….it is because the U.S. has all this VIRGIN fiber store that we should have never got sucked into the RECYCLE SCAM....by engaging in this mess, all we did was lose our 100% Virgin Fiber Exclusivity and become just another COMMODITY SUPPLIER to world markets....Foreign countries clamor to BUY our recycled fiber loads in pure rubbish form and they also seek to buy HIGH VIRGIN CONTENT CONTAINERBOARD MADE IN THE U.S. and they do this to OBTAIN our virgin fibers for their domestic packaging operations. These foreign competitors can compete with the U.S. when we make Recycled or Recycled Content papers but THEY CAN'T COMPETE WITH THE U.S. WHEN WE STICK TO 100% VIRGIN FIBER PAPER PRODUCTION. My point is: The U.S. doesn't need to roll around in the mud with the foreigners when WE HOLD THE ADVANTAGE! The U.S. needs to learn that when we get a guy down, SHINE YOUR BOOTS ON HIS ARSE, DON'T HELP HIM UP!

Just what are we going to do with all that cardboard, compost it perhaps, you think burning it is a good idea so you can make more, but in reality you only have to cut down a tree once and leave the new growth to grow. The advantage is in cheap product

You still have to do something with the trash humans make as consumers and as producers of goods and services. Why not recycle if you can for profit since those are jobs and a revenue source. Seems to be enough trash in the world for the whole world to make a few bucks and clean air and less pollution is a great by product of such efforts. The pros greatly outweigh the cons in my book.

with you there Tal gives the poor people something to do

Why not recycle if you can for profit since those are jobs and a revenue source. As I understand it, that's somewhat been the problem. There is little to no profit in recycling. That's why so many municipalities are abandoning it.

The United States has at least a hundred years reserve of natural gas.

The US has a million years reserve of hot air and if you could harness that all debate would be mote, however, irrespective of whether AGW is a reality or a myth, our civilisation is too dependent on the fossel fuel teat, whether it be 100 years or four hundred years, things need to change.

things need to change.I thought you did not believe that global warming was man-made. If you don't think it's man-made, then why do you believe we need to change from fossil fuel usage?

I thought you did not believe that global warming was man-made. If you don't think it's man-made, then why do you believe we need to change from fossil fuel usage?

Because fossil fuel is finite and it is polluting in many ways, just stand on the corner of a busy street, it isn't CO2 you are smelling

It's finite, but there is an enormous supply left that will last many decades more, and there is doubtless enormous reserves yet to be developed. For probably 98% or 99% of the U.S, pollution is not a significant problem. Technology has solved much of that problem here. When I stand on a busy street, I just smell the air. Any odor is absolutely minimal. But I do think we will eventually go electric with cars since it seems to make economic sense. Natural gas, not as polluting as gasoline or coal, will be used more in trucks and trains. At least that's my guess on the subject.

The fly in the ointment for electric cars is the batteries/fuel cells need to be made (nasty!) and the batteries have to be charged. What recharges those batteries and where does that recharging unit get its power to recharge those batteries? This is not a virtuous and perpetual cycle.

The fly in the ointment for electric cars is the batteries/fuel cells need to be made (nasty!) and the batteries have to be charged. What recharges those batteries and where does that recharging unit get its power to recharge those batteries? This is not a virtuous and perpetual cycle.

Not yet but nuclear power will solve that. Yes lithium ion batteries are not the answer very polluting industry

Like anything that too can be managed safely for enough profit to keep it going. Some manage it better than other.

Like anything that too can be managed safely for enough profit to keep it going. Some manage it better than other.

fairy story

The fly in the ointment for electric cars is the batteries/fuel cells need to be made (nasty!) and the batteries have to be charged. What recharges those batteries and where does that recharging unit get its power to recharge those batteries? This is not a virtuous and perpetual cycle.That's a fair statement, VAC, but it is cheaper to charge an electric car's batt than to put gasoline in a gas burner. It's a LOT cheaper, in fact. Give free enterprise another ten or twenty years and the battery problem might very well be solved.

There is a cost associated with everything in America, and they just keep adding more stuff and more costs.

Talaniman: Can you say NEXT BIGGEST THING? Which usually connotes "NEXT BIG GIMMICK".

Talaniman: You and I seem to be of like mind of a few things and one of them is the suspicion that the GOAL of most of these NEW DRUMBEATS is to "work us over but good".

jlisenbe: Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!

Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if the government OUTLAWED every electric powered vehicle tomorrow.....along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.

Even Detroit is investing in electric/hybid cars. Not just electric but self driving for you drunks and bad drivers I suppose.
No steering wheel, no accelerator, no brake. 25 mph and under.


V7 -- along with Wind Powered Turbines and other such B.S.!!!
My Ohio farmer friend had solar panels put on his house's roof last summer. He hasn't had to pay an electric bill since then.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Texas

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/GreenMountainWindFarm_Fluvanna_2004.jpg/465px-GreenMountainWindFarm_Fluvanna_2004.jpg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GreenMountainWindFarm_Fluvanna_2004.jpg)

Don't bet on electric cars in the future.....this isn't new technology...its a bet that the consciousness of the public will drink the cool aide and that the SHEPEOPLE will loudly demand more and more of these damned things....my bet is that that doesn't happen and the people will STILL want bigger and better and more powerful conventionally fueled cars.....REMEMBER: The economies of many nations depend upon the anticipation that carbon fuels consumption will constantly rise in the future...and that INCLUDES the U.S....DON'T BET AGAINST DETROIT!It's possible that you are right, but if electrics come along, and I think they will, that are considerably more economical to drive than the gas burners, then they will catch on. I am open to the idea that the marginal global warming which has occurred is caused, at least in part, by a build up of CO2. If that turns out to be the case, then people will more and more call for a decrease in fossil fuel usage. Now what to turn to? Windmills? Solar panels? None of those are economical or reliable. It is a tough question. Maybe nuclear?

I'm sure they are economical and reliable in some regions, just see my post above. Maybe run a line to one of those regions.

So what happens on those days when the wind is too slow or stopped?

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.

Now tal I thought you are a died in the wool liberal opposed to those dastardly coal plants what is predictable is hot air blowing from the east

You kick the coal plants up. Our winds are abundant and predictable for the most part. It's a growing industry.So we have to keep double the number of generating facilities open to get the same amount of electricity we have now? That does not sound like much of a plan to me.

You might be missing something, because they are indeed doing it, and more of it as time goes by. It's a simple equation, the more you use alternative the less coal you use. Wind dies down, sun runs away kick the coal into gear until they come back and the wind blows at night too! Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.

Where did you get that keep double the facilities running for the SAME amount of electricity? Actually the coal facilities always run, but at much lower capacity.You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

You just said it. "Actually the coal facilities always run." In what world does that not amount to double the facilities and double the personnel to produce the same amount of power? Why not just get rid of the wind component and run the coal plants? It would save a ton of money since the wind power is not economical anyway without fat federal subsidies, and you would halve the number of production facilities to run.

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophy

You know that doesn't equate to wasteful liberal philosophyI would agree with that.

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.

The cost of shutting down and starting up a coal fired facility is prohibitive so you keep them running at a minimum. Makes little sense to shutdown a facility completely without a 100% alternative. Ask any engineer.What would that same engineer say to the titanically crazy idea of running both the coal plant AND a bunch of windmills, and so doubling the expense of producing the same amount of power? It would be the same thing as needing one coal plant, so we'll build two and run them both. Makes no sense at all.

Talaniman: You are correct: Ups and downs with a coal generating plant is near impossible and prone to reliability issues, as well.

Personally, I like NUCLEAR in power: Just have to make a national commitment! And one hell of a sales job to the "Doubting Thomas'" out there.....Need someone with charisma and an acute engineering knowledge to do that sale: Too bad Jimmy Carter is so old now....but someone like him...he was a very, very good Engineer and I say that even if I didn't agree with him politically.

Look at it this way. If you want to produce, for example, 500KW of power, you could build a coal plant, or you could build a wind farm. What you are proposing is to build BOTH of them, and yet still only produce 500KW of power. So you go to the expense of building and operating both of them, and yet still only get 500KW of power? How on earth does that make any sense?

Vac, for you to say that coal plants have "ups and downs" and are prone to "reliability issues" is really a stretch. They are utterly, wildly reliable relative to wind farms. Now I could go along with the nuke option when you answer the question of why we would want to shut down perfectly good, up and running fossil fuel plants and start what would be an enormously expensive program of replacing them with nukes. Why would we do that? If you believe in catastrophic, man made global warming, then that would be your answer. If you don't, then why would we go to all that expense and trouble?

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.

As for nuclear there are 450 plants world wide and while clean it's also expensive, and the most dangerous to utilize. An expensive clean up and storage proposition we are undertaking for older plants as it is.

https://sciencing.com/pros-cons-nuclear-power-plants-4779089.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/05/the-60-year-downfall-of-nuclear-power-in-the-us-has-left-a-huge-mess/560945/

I see your problem. Your math! Useage of both increases your capacity substainially to be much greater than EITHER, as opposed to your statement they don't, while saving on the coal supply and dependency to it, and reducing your carbon footprint. Plus it's a growing jobs market and the land leases benefit the land owners just as gas leases do.Actually, you don't see it at all. You are suggesting we build two facilities because of the certainty that one of them (wind) is unreliable. So you are still building two plants to only get the capacity of one of them. It's the nuttiest idea I have heard in a long time. It's just like buying two table saws but only running them one at a time. And you've already said that the coal plant, in your scenario, would be run at low capacity. Why would anyone with half a brain build a coal plant and then run it at low capacity most of the time just to support a wind farm? So I'll ask it again. Why not just build the coal plant? It's totally reliable and you'd get the same amount of power at half the cost.

Did you bother to read my link? Wind works in Texas for Texans to create electricity very reliably, cost effectively. I'm not suggesting anything to you but just telling you what we have done which is both successful and profitable. It's not building two plants to get the capacity of one, but actually doubling and tripling that capacity. You scale back the coal capacity out put to save on the coal supply, which in the long run increases your supply saving you money. Saves consumers money too.

Only a guy with half a brain would tell a guy that has done that successfully, it doesn't work. Seems you would find a way to solve your own problems with what you have rather than criticize those that have done that already. Texans are grateful for the winds to help us out. Maybe you would be better served finding something to be grateful for and helping YOU out!

So in Texas, what do you do when the wind is not blowing? How do you replace that lost power? If you do it by cranking up the coal plants, then please explain how you are not having to finance double capacity since one of them (wind) is not reliable?

Grid management which requires a bunch of investment and PLANNING.

https://thetylerloop.com/how-texas-become-a-renewable-energy-powerhouse-and-how-all-that-wind-and-sun-power-gets-to-east-texas/

Certainly helps to be blessed with a wide range of energy resources though, which regretably others don't have.

I read through your article. Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote the section where it tells what happens on those days when the wind is not sufficient to efficiently drive the turbines.

Wind and solar are similar in that neither one could make it without tens of billions of dollars in fed subsidies. I'm all for them if they can make it on their own. I don't think they can.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/06/wind-energy-subsidies-billions/

"That sum includes all local, state, and federal subsidies as well as federal loans and loan guarantees received by companies on the American Wind Energy Association’s board of directors since 2000. (Most of the federal grants have been awarded since 2007.) Of the $176 billion provided to the wind-energy sector, $2.9 billion came from local and state governments; $9.4 billion came from federal grants and tax credits; and $163.9 billion was provided in the form of federal loans or loan guarantees."

In Texas wind is reliable and is blowing pretty good all the time somewhere in this huge energy rich state, just as the sun also shines most time. That's why coal is essentially being steadily pushed off the grid. ALL energy in America is subsidized, coal is just the oldest, but others are pushing it aside at least here any way. Astute of you to realize that some coal plants are indeed being shutdown. May happen in your state once you get harnessing your natural gas A$$ act together.

I apologize as I thought you could glean the answers to your questions from the links I provided, but I'm still searching for that easy for all to understand explanation of what happens when the winds dies in TEXAS, on a cloudy day.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/14/texas-coal-did-not-get-blown-away-by-wind/

Let me know if this helps.

In Texas wind is reliable and is blowing pretty good all the timeNo, it's not. I lived in Dallas for two years. The wind blows pretty steadily but some days not so much, so you still have not explained what to do on those days. To be clear, if it works for you guys in Texas (only 18%, according to your article), then that's fine with me. I just don't care for those who suggest that wind and solar are THE answers. They are not.


I apologize as I thought you could glean the answers to your questions from the links I provided, but I'm still searching for that easy for all to understand explanation of what happens when the winds dies in TEXAS, on a cloudy day.Instead of giving a smart-a$$ answer, why not just quote your beloved article where it tells what they do when the wind does not blow? Why have you listed another article when you cannot yet explain the 300 or so you've already listed? Just give an answer, or admit you don't have the slightest idea. I think we both know the answer to that one.

What you say about Dallas is certainly true, but how did you miss where the wind farms are in my numerous links including the one with the maps. I mean even to have 18% of the energy market is pretty consistent over a year in of itself, and obviously it works whether you beleive it or not. So your case we should abandon the renewables and just have coal is absurd!

We haven't even talked about the biggest renewable here and that's gas. It's a hoot though that a dude from Mississippi is telling a dude from Texas how we waste our money, when you struggle to figure out how to get money yourself and explore your own resources. And stop blaming me for not being able to understand the links provided which explained things very well.

Or perhaps having spent more than 30 years in an industrial setting and know how stuff works from a production perspective as well as a maintenance one, my comprehension may be different than yours which is highly likely. What do you think?

What you say about Dallas is certainly true, but how did you miss where the wind farms are in my numerous links including the one with the maps. I mean even to have 18% of the energy market is pretty consistent over a year in of itself, and obviously it works whether you beleive it or not. So your case we should abandon the renewables and just have coal is absurd!I've never made that argument, but I'm still asking you a very simple question. What happens if the wind dies down for a couple of days?


We haven't even talked about the biggest renewable here and that's gas. It's a hoot though that a dude from Mississippi is telling a dude from Texas how we waste our money, when you struggle to figure out how to get money yourself and explore your own resources. And stop blaming me for not being able to understand the links provided which explained things very well.You can't understand the links, but they explain things very well? Really? And gas is a renewable? When did that happen?


Or perhaps having spent more than 30 years in an industrial setting and know how stuff works from a production perspective as well as a maintenance one, my comprehension may be different than yours which is highly likely. What do you think?I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".

I've never made that argument, but I'm still asking you a very simple question. What happens if the wind dies down for a couple of days?

You can't understand the links, but they explain things very well? Really? And gas is a renewable? When did that happen?

I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".


"then that is indeed a very different "comprehension" jl, you do realise that liberals have a different comprehension they see many things as acceptable, while seeing others as unacceptabile. Taxes, abortion, HC, taxes, welfare, taxes

Texas is a red state run by conservatives Cletes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Texas)just like JL so you explain it to him. JL since that has seldom happened to my knowledge then demand would be met by what's available, either coal, gas, solar or rubbing two sticks together. Where ever you got the notion that I don't understand MY own links forget it. It's you behind the curb and for your knowledge each unit of energy production has it's own output so system capacity is adding them together, as is output. One of those links you cannot understand illustrates that point.



I think that if you continue to insist that building two facilities to produce the electricity produced by one plant, then that is indeed a very different "comprehension".

You talk crazy when you want to don't you? Of course your statement makes no sense whatsoever except to YOU?

"then that is indeed a very different "comprehension" jl, you do realise that liberals have a different comprehension they see many things as acceptable, while seeing others as unacceptabile. Taxes, abortion, HC, taxes, welfare, taxes


That is certainly true on this board.


You talk crazy when you want to don't you? Of course your statement makes no sense whatsoever except to YOU?OK. Have it your way. I give up and admit that it makes perfectly good sense to build two expensive power plants to do the work of one plant. Very, very reasonable to do. In fact, we should do that for many things. Two water treatment plants to do the work of one, two traffic lights at every intersection, two interstates where only one would do, two stoves and two refrigerators in every house, and two table saws in every shop. We can call it the "Rule of Tal".

That is certainly true on this board.

OK. Have it your way. I give up and admit that it makes perfectly good sense to build two expensive power plants to do the work of one plant. Very, very reasonable to do. In fact, we should do that for many things. Two water treatment plants to do the work of one, two traffic lights at every intersection, two interstates where only one would do, two stoves and two refrigerators in every house, and two table saws in every shop. We can call it the "Rule of Tal".

Dude, you build power plants to ADD to what you have so you can provide more power to more people. Geez even a third grader can figure that out and it works great so what are you really stuck on? That's not Tal's way but the reality of the STATE. You argue with the success or what? It's not really an argument though just you showing off your stubborn streak to hide your lack of comprehension. Admit that and enough with the stupid analogies.

No. It's just me saying that to build two powerplants to produce what one powerplant will produce is really crazy . If you need a second plant, then fine, but in your scenario the only reason to have the second plant is because the first one doesn't produce power all the time. It's a strange idea.

If you are getting it to work in Texas, then I'm all for you. At only 18%, I can see how it could be done, and your article did state that the price of electricity had gone down, so that's good. I just don't see wind farms as anything more than a small part of the pie because of the problems of the reliability of the wind.

No. It's just me saying that to build two powerplants to produce what one powerplant will produce is really crazy . If you need a second plant, then fine, but in your scenario the only reason to have the second plant is because the first one doesn't produce power all the time. It's a strange idea.

If you are getting it to work in Texas, then I'm all for you. At only 18%, I can see how it could be done, and your article did state that the price of electricity had gone down, so that's good. I just don't see wind farms as anything more than a small part of the pie because of the problems of the reliability of the wind.

Just to inject some reality, there hasn't been a new coal plant in this nation in twenty years and many have been decommissioned so the argument is mote. Why, because massive installations of wind and solar have taken over. It isn't the cheapest power, but, it serves other purposes, like lessening the call for more renewables. But, like anything the more you do the more is expected, despite AGW being a northern hemisphere obscession

Just to inject some reality, there hasn't been a new coal plant in this nation in twenty years and many have been decommissioned so the argument is mote. Are you speaking of Australia?


Why, because massive installations of wind and solar have taken over.I assume you mean in your country. Here, wind and solar combine for only a little over 10%. Natural gas, coal, and nukes still carry the largest share by far.

Are you speaking of Australia?

I assume you mean in your country. Here, wind and solar combine for only a little over 10%. Natural gas, coal, and nukes still carry the largest share by far.

yes I am speaking of Australia, I wouldn't say Coal isn't still the main base load but older coal is being retired with no replacement. Much of our natural gas is exported it being far from major cities and industrial centres. What I am illustrating is that there are alternatives without reverting to coal and we have no nuclear plants. Maybe we are living in a fool's paradise but it will take twenty years for us to find out

Same here Clete,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever-build-another-big-coal-plant/,

I know of no new facilities being built in the USA, but more are being shuttered or planned to be and at least 50 since the dufus took office.

https://phys.org/news/2019-05-coal-power-trump.html

Same here Clete,

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/will-the-u-s-ever-build-another-big-coal-plant/,

I know of no new facilities being built in the USA, but more are being shuttered or planned to be and at least 50 since the dufus took office.

[]

Also the banking industry has decided coal carries too must risk and will not invest

the unintended consequences of promoting wind power :

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills)

Another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of Wind Power: Birds of prey and birds, in general, are being killed by wind driven turbines at an alarming rate....Eagle are really being taken out in large numbers.

Let's tear down those highrises and skyscrapers plus get rid of picture windows and window walls!

"Bird-window collisions are an unfortunate side-effect of urban environments and are a proven problem ... throughout the world. Every year, hundreds of millions of birds in the U.S. die as a result."
https://www.audubon.org/news/building-collisions-kill-hundreds-millions-birds-year

After years of destroy wildlife ecosystems and running people off their lalnds for big oil, gas, and coal, do we really believe killing a few birds is a big concern?

Let's tear down those highrises and skyscrapers plus get rid of picture windows and window walls!So you want to just turn all those people out on the street? How do you intend to pay for all of this? Ready for your taxes to double? And the federal gov could put the "picture window" police on the street and put people in jail who don't have them? George Washington is turning over in his grave.



"Bird-window collisions are an unfortunate side-effect of urban environments and are a proven problem ... throughout the world. Every year, hundreds of millions of birds in the U.S. die as a result."You are aware of the millions of birds killed every year in wind generator collisions? Should we tear them down as well?

So you want to just turn all those people out on the street? How do you intend to pay for all of this? Ready for your taxes to double? And the federal gov could put the "picture window" police on the street and put people in jail who don't have them? George Washington is turning over in his grave.

You are aware of the millions of birds killed every year in wind generator collisions? Should we tear them down as well?
You missed my sarcasm again. I was responding to V7's post about wind turbines.

V7 said --

"Another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of Wind Power: Birds of prey and birds, in general, are being killed by wind driven turbines at an alarming rate....Eagle are really being taken out in large numbers."

Roger that. My apologies. Your post was at the very top and I didn't see what came before.

You missed my sarcasm again. I was responding to V7's post about wind turbines.

V7 said --

"Another UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE of Wind Power: Birds of prey and birds, in general, are being killed by wind driven turbines at an alarming rate....Eagle are really being taken out in large numbers."

so in general you think we should give up our civilisation and turn the environment back over to the birds why not give it back to the first nations while you are at it?

No wonder conservatives have no friends, they have no sense of humor.

No wonder conservatives have no friends, they have no sense of humor.


Humour is one thing, practicality another, vac was not joking. Windmills as presently constructed, are not a great idea, but they do serve a purpose, I'm sure you know we are in transition, but vac doesn't seem to

guess no one wants to discuss all those unrecyclable and unusable discarded windmill blades filling up land fills

guess no one wants to discuss all those unrecyclable and unusable discarded windmill blades filling up land fills
And all the plastic!!!!! especially the plastic trash along roadsides....