thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,412
Climate continues to change.
- Thread starter phrodeau
- Start date
- Status
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
By whose estimate?
Found out recently you can drive your gas guzzling truck for 7 years at the same emission quotient that it takes to build the batteries for the Tesla. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out.
Silly humans.
Ishmael
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Thanks for the garbage.
You know, it might be true if you only burn a tank of gas every other year.
thør
Karhu-er
- Joined
- May 29, 2002
- Posts
- 92,412
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Never saw one of those electrics plugged into a tree out in the middle of nowhere. Or 40 miles of 'get the hell out of here' in Gerry cans on the back bumper. But they'll get you from LAX to Wiltshire, and back, maybe.
I keep encouraging the hand wringers to commit suicide. It's my personal idea re. recycling.
Ishmael
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
Just how much shit are you going to swallow before you realize that there is no free lunch? All the shit you think is going to create 'clean' energy is just as dirty, or more so, than the energy sources you want to eliminate.
You've bought the whole schtick. If co2 was such a pollutant, you and your fellow gullible's should be eliminated first.
Just imagine, the co2 emissions (that poisonous gas) that you will emit for the rest of your life will be subtracted from the total. As will all the co2 produced in the gro0wing, processing, and transportation of all the food you'll eat. Food that just as well could be consumed by someone of sound mind and contributing to the overall economy.
Sound harsh? Yeah, I agree. But you aren't any part of any solution, you ARE part of the problem...............kill yourself and put us all out of your misery.
Ishmael
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
No numbers, huh? Tch.
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
You coulda just said, "No, I don't have any numbers to back up my dumbass claim," and been done with it.
No matter what thread you post in, or how many times, you're still an ignorant piece of shit.
Ishmael
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Your full stop should have been a comma.
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
These estimates were provided by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, though I imagine BNEF also relied on outside climate research numbers to compare tends in energy production to warming.
That figure for carbon emissions and Tesla batteries is probably misleading. Electric vehicles are cleaner than internal combustion, and they're getting cleaner. Phrodeau's links do a good job of detailing this.
Which isn't to say there aren't any problems with electric batteries. Of course we should be commercializing battery tech without the externalities of cobalt mining etc. But in principle this is a solvable problem. Battery tech is moving fast, just like solar.
Freudian_Slit
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2017
- Posts
- 1,121
So Trump recently made some remarks against wind energy.
Trump attacks wind power in state that gets nearly third of energy from wind
Where's the problem? Well, one problem is with the following.
Trump has attacked wind power at rallies before. "The wind kills all your birds," Trump said at an August rally. "All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that."
Which is almost certainly wrong, but gets repeated, anyway.
Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why
It concluded, "Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
That's nearly 15 times more. From this, the author estimated that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.
In other words, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
Trump attacks wind power in state that gets nearly third of energy from wind
Where's the problem? Well, one problem is with the following.
Trump has attacked wind power at rallies before. "The wind kills all your birds," Trump said at an August rally. "All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that."
Which is almost certainly wrong, but gets repeated, anyway.
Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they're made out to be—here's why
It concluded, "Wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fuelled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh."
That's nearly 15 times more. From this, the author estimated that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.
In other words, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.
Hard_Rom
Northumbrian Skald
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2014
- Posts
- 13,623
260,000 people work in the solar energy business. I'm sure wind energy provides work for a few more Americans. Solar produces more power then nuclear. Wind will be catching up. Does Trump have vested interest in pure fossil fuel energy creation? Or is he just stupid?
KUJACK
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 15, 2008
- Posts
- 2,237
Solar power is untested long term, what happens to those panels in 20 years when the wear out. Toxic metal dumping
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
There have been toxic metals in cars since Henry Ford.
domroger
Really Dirty Old Man
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Posts
- 3,245
I vote for both .
domroger
Really Dirty Old Man
- Joined
- May 2, 2009
- Posts
- 3,245
Look at North Carolina for toxic waste from coal mining .
More importantly the storage of the waste from the nuclear industry .
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
What "Climate Leadership" Really Means: More Coal
by Francis Menton
Three weeks or so ago, we all got a good laugh from the New York Times fretting that China was in the process of seizing "climate leadership" from the United States. As reported here on June 8, Pravda had just reported that China was aiming to win the "economic and diplomatic spoils" that would come from dominating the world markets for wind and solar energy. Of course, this was big front-page news.
But wind and solar as sources of electricity are intermittent and fundamentally useless to power a 24/7/365 grid. Are the Chinese really this stupid? Or are they just putting up some token Potemkin village demonstration projects to deceive the deluded climate cultists into pressuring the U.S. to hobble its economy, even as China floods the world with hundreds of more coal plants?
Today's Pravda has the answer. Of course, since the answer is inconvenient, it's not big front-page news, but rather buried on page A10. The headline is "As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants." It seems that a German consultancy called Urgewald has gone out and compiled data on plans for new power plants around the world. The compilation comes after a recent highly-publicized announcement that China had scaled back plans to build coal power plants, and had canceled more than 100 of them that had previously been planned. That's "climate leadership"! But according to the Urgewald data, even after the cancelations China seems to be gearing up to build some 700 new coal plants, both in China itself and in countries around the world:
China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin.
To give you an idea of the scale of this, the U.S. currently has around 600 coal generation units, of which close to 50 are currently scheduled for closure. So, what the Chinese companies have in the pipeline for just the next few years is more than the entire U.S. capacity for generating electricity from coal...
But wind and solar as sources of electricity are intermittent and fundamentally useless to power a 24/7/365 grid. Are the Chinese really this stupid? Or are they just putting up some token Potemkin village demonstration projects to deceive the deluded climate cultists into pressuring the U.S. to hobble its economy, even as China floods the world with hundreds of more coal plants?
Today's Pravda has the answer. Of course, since the answer is inconvenient, it's not big front-page news, but rather buried on page A10. The headline is "As Beijing Joins Climate Fight, Chinese Companies Build Coal Plants." It seems that a German consultancy called Urgewald has gone out and compiled data on plans for new power plants around the world. The compilation comes after a recent highly-publicized announcement that China had scaled back plans to build coal power plants, and had canceled more than 100 of them that had previously been planned. That's "climate leadership"! But according to the Urgewald data, even after the cancelations China seems to be gearing up to build some 700 new coal plants, both in China itself and in countries around the world:
China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade. These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin.
To give you an idea of the scale of this, the U.S. currently has around 600 coal generation units, of which close to 50 are currently scheduled for closure. So, what the Chinese companies have in the pipeline for just the next few years is more than the entire U.S. capacity for generating electricity from coal...
more:
http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/7/2/what-climate-leadership-really-means-more-coal
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
Hey Trysail, if you want to just compare people's opinions, here's a map to see.
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/
http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
No kidding. It's over 70 degrees in Sydney Australia today, way above average.
OMG! What are we going to do!!!!
phrodeau
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2002
- Posts
- 78,588
You do realize that winter started in Australia two weeks ago, right?
- Status
Similar threads
