 |
What you are talking about is the conversion of junk science to public policy . If you go by the bogus modelling then your concern is not the US where significant reductions have occured due to voluntary actions in the marketplace. Your real threats are from emerging economies ;and rogue nations like China. Good luck with that .
Tom both our nations can claim significant reductions because of market shifts and offshoring of our manufacturing emissions to China. We know that China is an inefficient producer of power, etc at this point in time and has no plans to reduce growth in emissions until 2030 which might as well be never. However what I spoke about is efficiency in converting CO2 emissions into GDP, a statistic which no one publishes because it would create too many red faces. China is four times less efficient in converting CO2 to GDP. You think you can write them off as a rogue nation but we are all in this together
Somebody will sell them some modern scrubber equipment soon.
Yes that might bring them back to being about as efficient as Russia
Why would they buy them ? Because they care about their people ? Because the people have a say in how their government and economy runs ? Because they have a 'decent respect to the opinions of mankind' ? They have signaled to the emperor and the world that they intend to grow their emissions until it peaks in 2030 (and the emperor boasted that was a successful negotiation ) . Nah they won't buy them . If anything they will steal the technology when they are ready to employ it.
something egg heads contemplate instead of doing real work. Here's a calculator (paid for by the American taxpayer ) to play with when you are bored .Quote:
converting CO2 emissions into GDP
Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator | Clean Energy | US EPA
I'm not that bored yet, I prefer to do my own research, not tainted by oil industry grants
that's an interesting take on the EPA .....not that it would surprise me . The thing to know about oil companies is that their main goal is to make money. So it should not surprise you then that they are some of the leaders in alternate energy research . No they don't want to suppress it . Instead ,they want to be in a position to exploit alt energy when they become viable in the market place. They really are interested in diversification .American based oil companies invested about $9 billion in alternate fuels in the last decade ,representing about 20% of the total research investment in the US .
You and I both know that alternatives like wind ,solar ,biofuels will only be able to supply a fringe amount of the worlds total energy needs in the next century .We are biding our time until the next real breakthrough occurs ....perhaps in fusion technology.
You mean in this century Tom, more like a few decades. I have to agree though that China has little incentive to clean the air, nor invest in it at this time. It still remains a huge untapped market in many areas. I know you are drooling for them to become capitalists though.
Tom we may well solve the energy needs of this and other centuries in innovative ways. If we convert all motive power to electric we still have a massive problem of providing that power and nuclear in any form will be the only way. It requires a change in thinking and maybe Tal the chinese will have the edge in that because they are not just motivated by profit
tthe laugh of the year ! As the Chinese economy grew ,the cadres all resorted to extreme plunder. It is as much a hallmark of the regime as the suppression and repression.Quote:
the chinese will have the edge in that because they are not just motivated by profit
The Chinese are stuck in their own monolithic ideology, and struggle to keep up. They cling to their old ways of economics and stifle their own potential. They aren't alone.
Yes they are introspective and have been for thousands of years, it has never been their philosopy to adopt the ways of others, some of their solutions have been unique we tend to forget what their innovation has given us. I think we have less to fear from them than we think but Russia may be different
Once again we find that statistics regarding emissions has deceived us and this time it is because averages have been used to calculate China's emissions. I wonder how many have fallen for this trap and labelled coal a problem when it is only certain types of coal. China gets an instant reduction of 40% when you use real pertinant data, but then who knows the truth
China CO2 emissions: 'Coal error' caused wrong calculations - BBC News
Is anyone just a little pissed off by this climate change scare mongering where we get data overload and revelations every time they have a meeting about it
More lovelly statistics, while I've been freezing my backside off, I'm actually being told that I'm living in temperatures that are warmer than normal. Snow fell on my lawn in the first time in a hundred years and it's warmer than normal? Has anyone stopped to consider where this data is being taken? I'm not a climate change denier, I agree the climate is changing, I'm just remain uncertain as to the extent that man influences this and whether we have any ability to change anything.
Today the newspapers screamed hottest in four thousand years, at this point I begin to deny the science. Show me the temperature record for the last four thousand years in definative terms for this region. As far as I'm aware indigenous people in any place did not keep temperature records. I agree compared with the ice age of say, ten thousand years ago, it is hotter and it might be hotter than certain other periods, including the little ice age, but I have not observed that it is appreciably hotter now than it was earlier in my life so how the last month could be the hottest in four thousand years eludes me. I expect that what we have is the frog in the pot syndrome.
http://www.news.com.au/technology/en...-1227493098122
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENS !
I trade marked that logo and have that bumper sticker on my car right by the exhaust pipe.
We are now well into the 2nd month of the traditional 'hurricane season' . Remember when Katrina hit and the Goracle and his minions were telling us that we should get used to it because that was our future ,seasons of Cat 5 killer storms would ravage the east coast of the US .
Well this week hurricane Danny formed off the African coast. It is the 1st storm in the Atlantic this season. It is a Cat 1 storm ,now approaching with 80mph winds ....but it is expected to peter out to a tropical storm before it reaches land .
But guess what ! The scientists predicted this ! Yes NOAA ,2 months into the current season predicted that 'Outlook calls for a 90 percent chance of a below-normal hurricane season. ' WTG !!!!! Pretty soon they will be as good as the weatherman on the local yokel news network .
Tom, we are agreed climate change happens, the sahara desert is evidence of this and offers a perspective if current trends continue in some places. Tropical storms happen sometimes with increasing impact as the Philippines can tell you, however it appears the effects of CO2 emissions are averaged out by the planet so that you don't get improvement in specific places when there are reduced emissions, the effect is not localised, or maybe it is. In my nation we could reduce our emissions to zero and it wouldn't make any difference to outcomes despite the fact we are accused of being the highest per capita emitters. The rise of the third world will negate our efforts unless we become savvy and build only nuclear base load power stations, this augmented by renewables may hold the line.
I have said it before this isn't an emissions problem it is a population problem and while population grows we will have the problem. To get a proper perspective on this we need to change the way we account for emissions and calculate the emissions on an end user basis. If we did this we would once again see that the US is the larger emitter of CO2 and the nation that must do the most to reduce the impact. All the energy we expend digging minerals out of the ground so china can supply the markets of the world doesn't make us the highest users per capita.
I did an exercise last week on whether it was economical for me to install solar generation on my residence. You know what? It wasn't? I couldn't see how the power generated would actually meet more than 20% of my consumption which is lower than the average household and most of the power generated would go into the grid at a price lower than I would be paying to buy it back.
I would incure a significantly higher cost for no purpose than to pay for someoneelses power supply. This renewables generation on a household basis is B/S, the emphasis should be on commercial applications
Some bizairre statistics have emerged on emissions, Islamic State (Daesh) is actually good for the environment
Middle East conflict drastically 'improves air quality' - BBC News
Studies show that NO2 emiissions are directly associated with population but they are also impacted by conflict, where there is conflict NO2 emissions are low. This definitely points to human activity being capable of being modified and in particular we need to look seriously at modes of transport to make inroads into emissions. This is not new but it suggests emphasis on reducing the impact of unnecessary journeys and the mode of transport such as less gas guzzling SUV
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
This makes no sense. It doesnt appear that your problem was with the generation of energy but the storage core for your energy plan. That is the trick to getting renewables to work. Also in most cases you need more then one single source to gain an independent solution. What I mean by that is a combination of sources that combine to fit your needs. Solar combined with wind can give you better solutions as you can have the ability to suppliment your electrical needs during a time when the sun isnt shining or not shining as bright.
Right now technology investment is very expensive. The hope for the furture is to find a practical solution that all people can use and isnt so expensive that it drives the average consumer away.
The wind doesn't blow here often I'm sheilded by a hill and storage would not have reduced cost it would have significantly increased it meaning that the payback is somewhat long term. It is better as a commercial proposition because generation is more aligned with consumption wind isn't practical in an urban setting I'm waiting for Dyesol to come on the market that will turn roofs and windows into solar generators which will mean greater efficiency and I might need a new roof
I've been around renewables a long time and I know that in this district wind cannot be more than 20% efficient solar maybe 40% but I wanted to do the exercise
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:12 AM. |