[excon]

Hello again, tom:

You see NO conflict between ID and evolution, yet the world CAN'T be warming if it's cold outside.

Dude!

excon

[tomder55]

Yeah I guess it could if AGW was being promoted as a philosophical concept . But presumably there is science behind it... no matter how fabricated that science is.

[Capuchin]

I don't " embrace " ID . I have told you plenty times that I am fully on board with the hypothesis of evolution. I do not see a conflict between the scientific hypothesis of evolution and the religious and philosophical thesis of Intelligent Design. You do because your own 'faith' tells you something else.

Theory. Theory of evolution.

[tomder55]

:p

[excon]

theory. theory of evolution.

Hello Cappy:

Well, there you go, Cappy. It's a THEORY. To science deniers, the word "theory" CONFIRMS their worst suspicions.. How can it be real, they ask, if people are only theorizing about it?? They don't quite understand the rigors of scientific theory, as opposed to their own theory's, such as it always rains on the last day of the month.

excon

[tomder55]

The process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

[Capuchin]

the process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

Precisely! Another embarrassing knee-slapper of history: At one time consensus was that there was a man in the sky that made everything :)

Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think developing green technologies is a bad idea/poor use of money?

[excon]

is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along

Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

[tomder55]

I'm not opposed to green tech per se .I think if there is a market for them ,then development will surely follow. I am ,for instance ,a huge supporter of the private pursuits of biomass conversion of algae.

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century .

There are also things that go into "green technology " that is not as environmentally friendly as some claim. As an example ;there is still a lot of mining involved in the extraction of rare earth minerals used in so called renewable sources like wind . Not only is there an environmental impact ;but we are FAR from energy independent when we use these minerals... mostly mined in China.

I have also spent a lot of time on these boards on the negative effects of corn ethanol for a number of reasons . Green is not the panacea it is portrayed to be . Is it part of the solution ;probably... But we are a long ways away from replacing carbon based resources (especially since we are afraid of nuclear) .

[tomder55]

Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

You do

[excon]

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century .

Hello again, tom:

I saw a documentary recently on the subject. I WISH I could remember which one so I could refer you.. I'm sure it was on one of those namby pamby left wing channels like PBS.. In any case, they profiled a solar electric plant in the southwest... It was mirrors that concentrated the sun on an oil tank.. It heated the oil, which boiled some water, made steam and ran turbines...

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs. I don't know why that WOULDN'T be true.. It's simple math. Yeah, on cloudy days, we can burn some of that natural gas we've got an abundance of.

I say again, we can solve the problem TOMORROW. Yes, we're going to have to build a few more electric cars. That ain't bad.

excon

[paraclete]

This debate has turned Quixotic

[tomder55]

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs.

I am somewhat familiar with the Mojave Desert solar plants. They are already large... huge actually ;and they generate a combined 354 megawatts . 3 Mile Island Nuclear plant alone generates 802 megawatts.

I don't dispute his claim about the generation... but you do lose so much in transport to population centers that it makes his solution problematic .That is true with the hydro-electric generation in Niagra ;that is true with T Boone's windmills in Texas ;and it is true in solar power also.

I already said renewables can supplement regional supplies and they are doing so currently. Everything generated in NY must be added to the grid by law. But NY still relies heavily on nuclear,hydro ,and gas .
You know what I've said... all hands on deck. Then perhaps there will be a breakthrough.

[paraclete]

Tom the reality of renewables is that they can be located in a distributed manner so as to minimise transport losses and costs, to concentrate production in one massive installation is just business as usual, not a green solution. What ex ignores is the logistics of creating this nirvana of green solar production. We know that here in Australia we have the space and climate to create a massive solar plant also that could generate enough electricity to power the nation but I don't see it happening because the infurstructure needed in distribution is massive, far beyond what is provided by the existing grid

[excon]

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

Now you are starting to think, Ex, how about a plant the right size to power a city right outside the city so the footprint doesn't have to be large and the distribution costs are low. Still have to overcome the problem of how to power the city at night but the daytime peaks are taken care of. And you know with the right kind of Solar it doesn't have to be outside the city, it can be on the roof.

But, yes, the glass is half empty because it isn't a complete solution, just a part of the moasic. This is the problem, no one renewable technology offers a complete solution. Wave power has the greatest potential but it still leaves out the inland, Hot rocks are good too but in limited supply, so back to nuclear for base load without CO2

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

Hi Ex there is no political will to make revolutionary changes which could have a nasty backlash. It's a matter of a short term political cycle and the need for long term decisions. There has been a lot of talk about cap and trade, restrictions, carbon price, renewables, but actually progress has been very slow. When we really start to see people being employed in the green industries the pace will pick up but until then no one wants to pay the bill. I know that here various initiatives have staved off the building of new coal fired generation but the gun is now at our head, we either do it or head into third world supply conditions. We haven't used the nuclear option so even if we started today we will hit the wall in about two years. We blame the delay in making clear targets and moving legislation forward. The chickens are roosting in the legislature

[tomder55]

Show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasible "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

[paraclete]

show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasable "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

You know Tom that they can't because most of these technologies are reliant on the supply of rare earths, if we scale them up we place ourselves in a catch 22, and even if one or two nations achieved the goal, the rest of us will be out in the cold. Take the electric car, a dream that relies on lithium. OK for a few million cars but to have the world run on electric cars, a dream. Wind technology generation also relies on rare earths so we can only scale that up so far. We have to find alternatives to electrical energy to overcome the problem and are we even researching that?

We have to realise that the very concepts behind our civilization, such as endless population growth, individual transport, detached dwellings, infinate instantaneous personal communications, transportation of foodstuffs and manufactures from one end of the world to the other have to be challenged and changed. The day of the free lunch is over.There is no time to adapt, the way we are behaving we will still be debating what to do in fifty years, just as we have for the last twenty