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.
|
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 issueQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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, populationQuote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
More green plants = greater holding capacity
According to many 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 wasteQuote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
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.
I don't think that's true. The general trend is that expanding economic growth increases energy use per capita.Quote:
True, however, as countries grow in wealth, they tend towards environmentalism. They use less energy per capita.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
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?Quote:
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.
Always sounds better to put stuff in somebody else's back yard doesn't it.
Below is a graph from the same source, depicting energy consumption per dollar gdp, a measure of actual energy efficiency over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources
https://ourworldindata.org/exports/e...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-pr...energy-sources
https://www.atg.wa.gov/hanford
Good data!Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
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/Nucl..._and_incidents
Quote:
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] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include theFukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), the Chernobyl disaster(1986), the Three Mile Island accident(1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[11] Nuclear power accidents can involve loss of life and large monetary costs for remediation work.[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.
So what is your solution?Quote:
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.
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.
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?Quote:
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.
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:44 PM. |