CO2 emergency measure

[Whereisup]

If this is an emergency because we simply can't handle a large increase in yearly major floods, a large increase in yearly strong hurricanes, and a large increase in yearly strong tornadoes, this is a way we could save ourselves. While continuing to do things like shift to electric cars, we could:

The United States could do this alone, but we would probably be joined by the EU and some other nations.

To be eligible to do business, directly or indirectly, in the United States and any nations which joined us, all corporations would be required to use five percent of their joint receipts to build new wind and solar power facilities. They would own the facilities they built so this would be a forced investment rather than a tax or fee.

The Gross World Product is about 60 trillion dollars per year, but not all that cycles through corporate cash flow. Therefore, let us be conservative and assume that this would produce 1.5 trillion dollars per year in new wind and solar power facilities. Wave power could be added if it becomes realistic.

1.5 trillion dollars a year would be 15 times the 100 billion dollars per year target which is under discussion, so would produce a rush of new wind and solar power facilities. The requirement would be the same for all corporations, so there would be a level playing field. In a level playing field where all businesses have the same expense, that expense does not reduce profits.

The amount is actually fairly small compared to what nations are able to come up with in a war. In World War 2 for example, the united States spent a lot more than 5% on war expenses. Global warming is as much a threat to the nation as any war.

Jim

 

[USNavyVet]

The market should be the determining factor on electric cars, not some hokey pseudo-science.

 

[Old Rocks]

The market should be the determining factor on electric cars, not some hokey pseudo-science.

The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is hardly pseudo-science. What you are stating is that all of the Scientific Societies, all of the National Academy of Sciences, and all the major Universities in the world are in on a conspiracy to fool us all. If you believe that, I suppose that you are wearing an aluminum foil hat to ward of negative brain waves.

And the market is determining that high quality EV's are desirable. Tesla has sold all they have produced, outdoing more traditional high end vehicles like Mercedes, BMW, and Jaguar.

CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More.

Other EVs

Additionally, while they aren’t accounting for a large percentage of the sales, several plug-in electric cars are now on the market, adding a bit more to the total. These include: the Mitsubishi i, Ford Focus Electric, Ford C-MAX Energi, Ford Fusion Energi, Toyota Prius Plug-in Prius, Honda Fit EV, and more.

EV Sales Are Looking Good

They story is very clear: In an increasing number of places and situations, buying an EV simply makes a ton more sense than buying a gasmobile.

The DOE makes one more point that I think is very interesting and worth bookmarking:

“The latest numbers also show how the early years of the PEV market have seen much faster growth than the early years of the hybrid vehicle market. Thirty months after the first hybrid was introduced, monthly sales figures were under 3,000.

“By comparison, PEVs – which were first introduced in December 2010 – report nearly 9,000 cars sold in the last month.”

EVs are at the early stage of their growth and development, but they’re already worth paying attention to. And if you’re in the market for a new car, i’d 100% recommend an electric vehicle (either to buy or lease).

Read more at CleanTechnica | Clean Tech News & Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. & More.

 

[Whereisup]

The market does many good things, but there are areas where the market fails. For example, many artists in the past sold paintings for no more than the amount of renting a room for a month, yet in later history, people were paying millions of dollars for those paintings. If the market is perfect, why weren't the artists paid more?

Also, the market doesn't support basic research which produces the new knowledge which people later on turn into new inventions. So in failing to support basic research, the market isn't working.

On evaluating science, you have probably been told by people little better than scam artists that global warming is pseudo-science. The energy companies even hire scientists to say that, knowing that it is a lie. But many scientists will lie if paid enough money, and if they are not being successful in their own research.

So how can you tell whether something said in various places is true to not.

If it is true, it will contain details about how whatever it is works. If it is a simplified article for less educated people, it has enough in it so you can use google etc. to find more professional articles which do have the details.

If you look carefully, you will find that the so-called experts saying global warming is pseudo-science don't have real details to back them up. However, the scientists who think there is global warming do have details if you want to wade through laboratory results, and discussions of computer models of climate change.

So don't just believe people. Go look at the laboratory and computer model work.

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

If this is an emergency because we simply can't handle a large increase in yearly major floods, a large increase in yearly strong hurricanes, and a large increase in yearly strong tornadoes, this is a way we could save ourselves. While continuing to do things like shift to electric cars, we could:

The United States could do this alone, but we would probably be joined by the EU and some other nations.

To be eligible to do business, directly or indirectly, in the United States and any nations which joined us, all corporations would be required to use five percent of their joint receipts to build new wind and solar power facilities. They would own the facilities they built so this would be a forced investment rather than a tax or fee.

The Gross World Product is about 60 trillion dollars per year, but not all that cycles through corporate cash flow. Therefore, let us be conservative and assume that this would produce 1.5 trillion dollars per year in new wind and solar power facilities. Wave power could be added if it becomes realistic.

1.5 trillion dollars a year would be 15 times the 100 billion dollars per year target which is under discussion, so would produce a rush of new wind and solar power facilities. The requirement would be the same for all corporations, so there would be a level playing field. In a level playing field where all businesses have the same expense, that expense does not reduce profits.

The amount is actually fairly small compared to what nations are able to come up with in a war. In World War 2 for example, the united States spent a lot more than 5% on war expenses. Global warming is as much a threat to the nation as any war.

Jim

what problem does plug-in electric cars solve? Be specific..

Why waste money on wind? Why not build 200 new nuclear plants?

Why do you need to FORCE corporations to pay for useless wind projects?

 

[Whereisup]

If this is an emergency because we simply can't handle a large increase in yearly major floods, a large increase in yearly strong hurricanes, and a large increase in yearly strong tornadoes, this is a way we could save ourselves. While continuing to do things like shift to electric cars, we could:

Jim

what problem does plug-in electric cars solve? Be specific..

Why waste money on wind? Why not build 200 new nuclear plants?

Why do you need to FORCE corporations to pay for useless wind projects?

Those are very good questions.

1. If electric cars take their electricity from alternative energy production facilities, such as wind and solar, then that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If the electricity comes from fossil fuel, they don't do any good at all. Cars that are practical can't just run on solar cells on their roofs. So electricity with batteries is the option. There is another option, having cars run on pure hydrogen. I think the reason people shy away from that is that hydrogen is somewhat dangerous. If that problem could be solved, they cars could run on either.

2. As a daydream, I would like to see nuclear plants burn all the nuclear fuel, because then nations wouldn't have any left with which to make bombs. Unfortunately, nuclear plants have proven to be unsafe, and when a nuclear plant goes, the cost to everyone is tremendous. Then other, unexpected costs have arisen, such as the costs of disposal of waste. That makes wind less expensive as well as safer.

3. I think that private corporations would do a better job because their future profits from the wind and solar facilities would depend on how well they did the work. Of course, governments could just tax people and businesses and build the wind and solar facilities themselves. I'm not against government doing things, but I lean towards private businesses when that is feasible.

In many areas, private businesses do a better job because they are more diverse. One reason the communist nations got themselves into trouble, I think, is that they had centralized planning, and therefore no diversity.

The problem is the limitations of our brains. Our brains are unable to process as much information as comes through the senses, and as is outside temporarily outside of our perception, such as what everybody else in the area is doing and thinking.

To handle this limitation in our brain, we greatly simplify the information flow. Given that we have the brain limitations, that is an intelligent strategy and the best we can do., However, simplifying information always creates blind spots and biases. It is in handling blind spots and biases that distributed decision making is so much better than communism.

In all cases, the decision-makers all have blind spots and biases, which leads to many mistakes. With the central decision making of a communist system, the blind spots and biases of the leaders will set policy everywhere, so their mistakes will spread through the economy, and they can't be corrected because nobody can question the policymakers.

However, in our system, things are different. The people who run the individual businesses will also have blind spots and biases, and will still make mistakes. However, different business owners and executives will have different blind spots and biases and make different mistakes. Therefore, when a mistake is made by one business, it will not be made by some other businesses. That makes it possible to slowly detect and eliminate important blind spots and biases. One looks at the businesses making a mistake, and at the businesses not making a mistake. If one does a good analysis, that will tell one what is going wrong, so every business with the problem can correct it.

Of course, there will always be future blind spots and biases, and consequent future mistakes, so doing this is a forever job. But it does make it possible for a free enterprise system to do a better job than a communist system.

Therefore, since it seems to be a matter of life and death to solve the global warming problem, it is better to force corporations to build the wind and solar facilities than to have the government build them.

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

If this is an emergency because we simply can't handle a large increase in yearly major floods, a large increase in yearly strong hurricanes, and a large increase in yearly strong tornadoes, this is a way we could save ourselves. While continuing to do things like shift to electric cars, we could:

Jim

what problem does plug-in electric cars solve? Be specific..

Why waste money on wind? Why not build 200 new nuclear plants?

Why do you need to FORCE corporations to pay for useless wind projects?

Those are very good questions.

1. If electric cars take their electricity from alternative energy production facilities, such as wind and solar, then that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If the electricity comes from fossil fuel, they don't do any good at all. Cars that are practical can't just run on solar cells on their roofs. So electricity with batteries is the option. There is another option, having cars run on pure hydrogen. I think the reason people shy away from that is that hydrogen is somewhat dangerous. If that problem could be solved, they cars could run on either.

2. As a daydream, I would like to see nuclear plants burn all the nuclear fuel, because then nations wouldn't have any left with which to make bombs. Unfortunately, nuclear plants have proven to be unsafe, and when a nuclear plant goes, the cost to everyone is tremendous. Then other, unexpected costs have arisen, such as the costs of disposal of waste. That makes wind less expensive as well as safer.

3. I think that private corporations would do a better job because their future profits from the wind and solar facilities would depend on how well they did the work. Of course, governments could just tax people and businesses and build the wind and solar facilities themselves. I'm not against government doing things, but I lean towards private businesses when that is feasible.

In many areas, private businesses do a better job because they are more diverse. One reason the communist nations got themselves into trouble, I think, is that they had centralized planning, and therefore no diversity.

The problem is the limitations of our brains. Our brains are unable to process as much information as comes through the senses, and as is outside temporarily outside of our perception, such as what everybody else in the area is doing and thinking.

To handle this limitation in our brain, we greatly simplify the information flow. Given that we have the brain limitations, that is an intelligent strategy and the best we can do., However, simplifying information always creates blind spots and biases. It is in handling blind spots and biases that distributed decision making is so much better than communism.

In all cases, the decision-makers all have blind spots and biases, which leads to many mistakes. With the central decision making of a communist system, the blind spots and biases of the leaders will set policy everywhere, so their mistakes will spread through the economy, and they can't be corrected because nobody can question the policymakers.

However, in our system, things are different. The people who run the individual businesses will also have blind spots and biases, and will still make mistakes. However, different business owners and executives will have different blind spots and biases and make different mistakes. Therefore, when a mistake is made by one business, it will not be made by some other businesses. That makes it possible to slowly detect and eliminate important blind spots and biases. One looks at the businesses making a mistake, and at the businesses not making a mistake. If one does a good analysis, that will tell one what is going wrong, so every business with the problem can correct it.

Of course, there will always be future blind spots and biases, and consequent future mistakes, so doing this is a forever job. But it does make it possible for a free enterprise system to do a better job than a communist system.

Therefore, since it seems to be a matter of life and death to solve the global warming problem, it is better to force corporations to build the wind and solar facilities than to have the government build them.

Jim

good answers --- generally..

Lemme embellish.. Running cars on hydrogen and fuel cells actually solves 3 problems..

1) It gets EVs totally off the grid. So the cost and complexity of building grid infrastructure goes away.. That's a MASSIVE amount of time, energy and dollars.

2) It avoids enviro impact of all that battery manufacturing and waste stream.. At the same time it offers hydrogen as a TRUE alternative fuel and makes EVs CLEAN from the git-go..

3) Production of hydrogen CAN use wind and solar despite their flaky performance by using these sources as they are available OFF GRID.. The lack of storage medium for their sketchy performance is NOT a factor if they are used to make fuel.. THAT is entirely to business and the hydrogen infrastructure would blossom without ANY govt shoving or funding. What biz man wouldn't want a piece of a refinery biz where the energy is free?

Wind will NEVER be a major ON-grid generation factor.. It is wholly unreliable, unschedulable and requires a PRIMARY reliable source backup for every Kwatt you build
and install..

Question?????????????????
Have you ever looked at the daily production charts for a well-built wind farm?


McDonald's is in the food biz.. Putting them in the energy biz would be akin to Mao Tze Tung's plan to send the city folks to the country and bring the country folks to the cities..

Global Warming is not now a life/death problem. No where close.. A collision with an asteroid is more likely and disruptive.

Which are you more frightened of? The "life/death" threat of Global Warming or allowing new generation nuclear power plants to be built to end the threat of GW?

 

[percysunshine]

Socialism trumps physics? Good luck with that one.

 

[Whereisup]

Actually, off shore wind, which is being tapped by some European nations, is much more steady and reliable.

If artificial fuel is made from coal derived carbon and hydrogen, that still increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be OK if methane were made with hydrogen and CO2, and hopefully, the cost of doing that and the energy needed to do it might decline enough with additional research. It is certainly something to keep researching.

We have some people dying right now from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes, and from the damage to food crops in third world nations.

I do try to keep myself out of my thinking. That doesn't mean I am always successful, but I try. Well, it's certainly not bad, but it isn't all that helpful, to ask me what I want.

I try to put science and what other people want first, again, not always successfully.

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, off shore wind, which is being tapped by some European nations, is much more steady and reliable.

If artificial fuel is made from coal derived carbon and hydrogen, that still increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be OK if methane were made with hydrogen and CO2, and hopefully, the cost of doing that and the energy needed to do it might decline enough with additional research. It is certainly something to keep researching.

We have some people dying right now from floods, tornadoes, and hurricanes, and from the damage to food crops in third world nations.

I do try to keep myself out of my thinking. That doesn't mean I am always successful, but I try. Well, it's certainly not bad, but it isn't all that helpful, to ask me what I want.

I try to put science and what other people want first, again, not always successfully.

Jim

There is NO form of wind that is "steady and/or reliable"... I've got a million charts to prove that.. How about this one?

Name a tornado and/or hurricane that is the affirmed result of a 1deg change in average temp since you were born..

I think you've been traumatized and scientifically abused... My condolences..

 

[Moonglow]

I am more worried about the disappearing anti-mater in the Universe.

 

[percysunshine]

I am more worried about the disappearing anti-mater in the Universe.

People who refuse to mate eventually disappear....Darwin

 

[Whereisup]

I said more steady and more reliable, which is very different from absolutely steady and absolutely reliable.

In any case, if we are in danger of a massive die off of humans, then a little inefficiency is fully acceptable.

Moving to alternative energy wouldn't have to destroy the energy companies, although if they have taken on too much debt, that is a problem.

If oil, gas, and coal aren't burned for energy, they will still have a market in the chemical industry, for use making plastics and other things.

Would a rational energy company executive condemn his heirs to a terrible nightmare, just to make profits a little faster than if his or her product were only used to make chemicals?

So why are energy company executives being so irrational?

Jim

 

[flacaltenn]

I said more steady and more reliable, which is very different from absolutely steady and absolutely reliable.

In any case, if we are in danger of a massive die off of humans, then a little inefficiency is fully acceptable.

Moving to alternative energy wouldn't have to destroy the energy companies, although if they have taken on too much debt, that is a problem.

If oil, gas, and coal aren't burned for energy, they will still have a market in the chemical industry, for use making plastics and other things.

Would a rational energy company executive condemn his heirs to a terrible nightmare, just to make profits a little faster than if his or her product were only used to make chemicals?

So why are energy company executives being so irrational?

Jim

There are no "alternatives" that would guarantee the safety of 90,000 SEC football fans attending a night game at Auburn... Or keep a hospital running 24/7..

So the choices you are painting aren't really even an "either/or" situation.. Do you get this part?? AFTER you solve the safety of those football fans and hospital patients, we can chat about your obvious anti-free-market biases and how to punish the producers of stuff that keeps you alive and well...

 

[Old Rocks]

what problem does plug-in electric cars solve? Be specific..

Why waste money on wind? Why not build 200 new nuclear plants?

Why do you need to FORCE corporations to pay for useless wind projects?

Those are very good questions.

1. If electric cars take their electricity from alternative energy production facilities, such as wind and solar, then that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. If the electricity comes from fossil fuel, they don't do any good at all. Cars that are practical can't just run on solar cells on their roofs. So electricity with batteries is the option. There is another option, having cars run on pure hydrogen. I think the reason people shy away from that is that hydrogen is somewhat dangerous. If that problem could be solved, they cars could run on either.

2. As a daydream, I would like to see nuclear plants burn all the nuclear fuel, because then nations wouldn't have any left with which to make bombs. Unfortunately, nuclear plants have proven to be unsafe, and when a nuclear plant goes, the cost to everyone is tremendous. Then other, unexpected costs have arisen, such as the costs of disposal of waste. That makes wind less expensive as well as safer.

3. I think that private corporations would do a better job because their future profits from the wind and solar facilities would depend on how well they did the work. Of course, governments could just tax people and businesses and build the wind and solar facilities themselves. I'm not against government doing things, but I lean towards private businesses when that is feasible.

In many areas, private businesses do a better job because they are more diverse. One reason the communist nations got themselves into trouble, I think, is that they had centralized planning, and therefore no diversity.

The problem is the limitations of our brains. Our brains are unable to process as much information as comes through the senses, and as is outside temporarily outside of our perception, such as what everybody else in the area is doing and thinking.

To handle this limitation in our brain, we greatly simplify the information flow. Given that we have the brain limitations, that is an intelligent strategy and the best we can do., However, simplifying information always creates blind spots and biases. It is in handling blind spots and biases that distributed decision making is so much better than communism.

In all cases, the decision-makers all have blind spots and biases, which leads to many mistakes. With the central decision making of a communist system, the blind spots and biases of the leaders will set policy everywhere, so their mistakes will spread through the economy, and they can't be corrected because nobody can question the policymakers.

However, in our system, things are different. The people who run the individual businesses will also have blind spots and biases, and will still make mistakes. However, different business owners and executives will have different blind spots and biases and make different mistakes. Therefore, when a mistake is made by one business, it will not be made by some other businesses. That makes it possible to slowly detect and eliminate important blind spots and biases. One looks at the businesses making a mistake, and at the businesses not making a mistake. If one does a good analysis, that will tell one what is going wrong, so every business with the problem can correct it.

Of course, there will always be future blind spots and biases, and consequent future mistakes, so doing this is a forever job. But it does make it possible for a free enterprise system to do a better job than a communist system.

Therefore, since it seems to be a matter of life and death to solve the global warming problem, it is better to force corporations to build the wind and solar facilities than to have the government build them.

Jim

good answers --- generally..

Lemme embellish.. Running cars on hydrogen and fuel cells actually solves 3 problems..

1) It gets EVs totally off the grid. So the cost and complexity of building grid infrastructure goes away.. That's a MASSIVE amount of time, energy and dollars.

2) It avoids enviro impact of all that battery manufacturing and waste stream.. At the same time it offers hydrogen as a TRUE alternative fuel and makes EVs CLEAN from the git-go..

3) Production of hydrogen CAN use wind and solar despite their flaky performance by using these sources as they are available OFF GRID.. The lack of storage medium for their sketchy performance is NOT a factor if they are used to make fuel.. THAT is entirely to business and the hydrogen infrastructure would blossom without ANY govt shoving or funding. What biz man wouldn't want a piece of a refinery biz where the energy is free?

Wind will NEVER be a major ON-grid generation factor.. It is wholly unreliable, unschedulable and requires a PRIMARY reliable source backup for every Kwatt you build
and install..

Question?????????????????
Have you ever looked at the daily production charts for a well-built wind farm?


McDonald's is in the food biz.. Putting them in the energy biz would be akin to Mao Tze Tung's plan to send the city folks to the country and bring the country folks to the cities..

Global Warming is not now a life/death problem. No where close.. A collision with an asteroid is more likely and disruptive.

Which are you more frightened of? The "life/death" threat of Global Warming or allowing new generation nuclear power plants to be built to end the threat of GW?

1. With the present level of battery development, there is no need of the additional level of complexity of a fuel cell. And I can produce my own electricity by several differant methods, much easier than making my own hydrogen. And, yes, I do have the "Hydrogen Homestead" book. And was actively considering that path, untill the development of the present batteries.

2. So you say. Many problems yet to be solved in that area. And presently, the market is definately stating that the EV is the preferable choice.

3. OK. All good and great. Why is nobody going in that direction? Could there be some some technical details you are leaving out?

Wind is allready a major factor in many areas. And will become one in the rest in the near future. As more wind from more areas is brought online, you will have an evening out effect.

When global warming is a life or death threat, it will be far too late to do anything about it. Your statement demostrates your total lack of understanding as to what the affects of warming are, and how it works.

I would like to see fourth and fifth nuclear plants built. But thus far, nukes are a very expensive form of electrical generation. And the siting of many existing plants is a bad joke among geologists.

A collision with an asteroid big enough to damage civilization is a millions of years event, with a very, very low probability in terms of centuries. Enough warming to damage our civilization is a certainty in this century if we continue on our present course.