Green Technology: What WILL Happen

[IndependntLogic]

My texting sucks btw...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL. What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.

And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.

Toyota states that by 2020 they will be mass producing batteries that have will give a 600 mile range to a vehicle, at 5 to 10 times less price than the present batteries.

The paradigm change in energy production and use is just starting. And all the howling and foot dragging by the 'Conservatives' will not change the course of the change one bit. Like their stance on global warming, making this a political issue will only produce a political blowback that they will regret in the near future.

Then you admit that the government has no place funding green energy at all.

According to dingbats, the government had no place in funding the Trans-continental railway. Thank God we had some forward looking people at that time.

The transcontinental railroad was a triumph of crony capitalism, no wonder moonbats like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

LOL. What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.

And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.

Toyota states that by 2020 they will be mass producing batteries that have will give a 600 mile range to a vehicle, at 5 to 10 times less price than the present batteries.

The paradigm change in energy production and use is just starting. And all the howling and foot dragging by the 'Conservatives' will not change the course of the change one bit. Like their stance on global warming, making this a political issue will only produce a political blowback that they will regret in the near future.

Batteries are not solar panels. Not one person in this thread is skeptical about improvements in battery technology, which is not even the stupidest part about you bringing this up. The stupidest part is that betteries have nothing to do with energy prodiction, they are energy storage devices.

For someone not the see the synergy between solar panels and high energy capacity batteries is quite beyond my understanding. An average home uses about a kw an hour, normal running. This could be cut down to one fifth that in an emergency. An EV with a battery that has a 100 kwh capacity could power that home for quite a while. And if that home had solar panels for charging that battery, then one would have indefinate independence if the grid were down. Also, if the solar installation were big enough, the combination of the battery and panels could make one completely independent of the grid.

What synergy between solar power panels and batteries? If it actually exists outside your feeble imagination you should have no problem showing how advances in solar panels have fueled new discoveries in batteries.

Alternatively, you could admit you totally misused the word synergy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great post and exatly my point in the OP. People have been told to hate scientific progress for political reasons. WTF??? When did the wind and sun become political? When FOX news told the followers it should be.
You don't have to be a genius to see what's coming here. But the emotions have been manipulated so masterfully.
No one in this thread has ever said "We should convert to solar, wind etc... NOW. it has just been a commentary on the future and inevitable trends. What does change mean to some people here?
Oil that will continue enslaving us to the ME and hurting the environment = Good!
ANYTHING else that could make us the richest country in the world and cuts huge amounts of terrorist funding = SOCIALIST!!!!

Oh the whackjobbery....

That is more moronic than the post Old Rocks made. No one has been told to hate progress for political reasons. The simple fact is that not all technologies are viable. If they were we would have steam powered dirigibles.

Hmmm....... A non-viable technology growing at 70% a year. And even at the lowest estimate of future growth, 20% per year, solar looks like a very viable industry.

Looks to me like you distaste for solar is entirely political.

Solar Markets: Overall Growth & Size By Country

As can be seen from the graph at the left, the solar industry has seen remarkable growth in a rebound from the 2009 recession. The bars represent the actual annual installed amount of PV solar systems by manufacturers expressed in giga-watts (1 GW = 1 billion watts). For reference purposes, one nuclear reactor produces about 1.3 GW of electricity per year. Data up to 2011 is from Solarbuzz, the forecast for 2012 is by the author.

The five year growth rate from 2007 to 2011 was approximately 70% per year! The growth rate from 2009 to 2010 was a whopping 172%. The growth rate for 2011 was a more modest 40%, but still great for an entire industry.. The reason for the slowdown to 15% in 2012 is the reduction of incentives in several European countries. While the growth numbers are very impressive, the 27 giga-watts installed in 2011 is just a fraction of one percent of the total amount of electricity that was being generated by all sources. After 2012, the long term growth estimates range from 20% to 30%.

Government subsidies are wonderful things, aren't they?

 

[percysunshine]

Word of the day:

'Niche'.

 

[Katzndogz]

LOL. What we have here are those that are looking for energy solutions that cost less than the present fossil fueled industry, and do not cause the environmental pollution that the fossil fuels do.

And then we have the people that say such cannot exist, even though many of the present wind turbines cost less to build, per watt produced, than fossil fuel plants. And solar is going to be below fossil fuel prices in the near future.

Toyota states that by 2020 they will be mass producing batteries that have will give a 600 mile range to a vehicle, at 5 to 10 times less price than the present batteries.

The paradigm change in energy production and use is just starting. And all the howling and foot dragging by the 'Conservatives' will not change the course of the change one bit. Like their stance on global warming, making this a political issue will only produce a political blowback that they will regret in the near future.

Then you admit that the government has no place funding green energy at all.

According to dingbats, the government had no place in funding the Trans-continental railway. Thank God we had some forward looking people at that time.

If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Then you admit that the government has no place funding green energy at all.

According to dingbats, the government had no place in funding the Trans-continental railway. Thank God we had some forward looking people at that time.

If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

 

[Katzndogz]

According to dingbats, the government had no place in funding the Trans-continental railway. Thank God we had some forward looking people at that time.

If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

The government didn't fund anything. It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft. Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design.

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones. Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming. No government funding. Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon. No government involvement. How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad? Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government? Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins, men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track. The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land. Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money. Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued. A nice pay as you go program. In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs. These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.

 

[bobgnote]

The OP claims technology, including green tech is expensive and inefficient, at first, but I disagree, with regard to KLEPTOMANIA and related media, but kleptos and fascists have been hand-in-hand for years, so they are not new, and their tech is efficient.

The US banned brewing of alcohol in 1918, in such a way as to thwart common development of CO2-neutral grain fuels, in competition with the emerging petroleum industry. Some nations export petroleum, to us, here in the US, where we are beholden to special interests, such as prison industry, which block media, related to global warming and green technology, on behalf of petroleum and nuclear energy. That technolody is quite developed.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 15 minutes the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, FDR signed it, and this thwarted Ford's and Diesel's wishes, for hemp alcohol, and Ford's existing products, which were made of indestructible hemp plastic, see YouTube and Google, search 'hemp, ford, diesel.' I'd post links, but I need 15 posts, first.

The Hemp Stamp Tax Act was declared unconstitutional in 1972, whereupon Nixon founded the DEA. Our US oil production peaked, that decade. We declined, ever since.

It seems to me Al Gore admits to die-offs from the carbonic acid exchange, related to anthropogenic global warming, but he always opposed legalization of pot, including industrial hemp, and the Democrats passed the Obamacare debacle, lost the US House, and THEN tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012.

The Republicans tend to support petroleum excesses, including the monstrous fracking, while dismissing AGW and related phenomena, such as accelerating warming and acidification, while the acid has been threatening plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, reefs, and the entire oceanic food chain.

In the Pacific NW, a big oyster die-off just happened. The cold, O2-rich waters of the Pacific NW up-welling bring a plankton bloom, which is threatened, since the cold water bears acid, well. The cod are decimated, and they are not recovering.

Mass extinction event 6 looms. The extinction rate is 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. If we do not reduce pollution, we will be killing each other, for food.

Eh? If we cannot simply reduce the carbon footprint of the oppressive, costly drug war, prison, Zionism-related war, legal, and petroleum industries, in a stroke, we will never recover the oceans OR the lands, which suffer die-offs. Desertification and cyclonic storms are bad; pollution is actually worse. Dying time is HERE.

If we are not allowed to recover SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY, which is known, we will not even attempt to make CO2-neutral fuels OR to re-green, using genetic engineering, to recover desertified, acidified, and polluted areas, on land and at sea. If we do not make a fast move, to cut corruption and its carbon media, we will LOSE THE OCEANIC FOOD CHAIN, in a blink!

Technology is, as technology does. What is complicated, we don't really need, yet. What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.

 

[Big Fitz]

As long as green technology is consumer driven it will evolve at a logical pace consistent with development and affordability. If the left wing politicians get involved and taxpayer funds are authorized based on political agenda or political payoffs all bets are off.

That's reasonable. So are you against oil subsidies and tax breaks? I'm not assuming, I'm jsut curious.

Depends on the definition of 'tax breaks' and 'subsidies'.

All businesses are able to deduct wear and tear on their facilities and equipment. Energy companies, to help spur growth and promote the continued building of more infrastructure get to deduct all that in one shot right up front. This puts more money in their pocket which in turn is sunk back into improving and growing. Most businesses are forced to do this over the lifetime of the item.

 

[starcraftzzz]

If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

The government didn't fund anything. It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft. Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design.

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones. Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming. No government funding. Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon. No government involvement. How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad? Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government? Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins, men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track. The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land. Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money. Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued. A nice pay as you go program. In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs. These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.

What the hell are you talking about? It was the government that build the first jets, the first planes that went into space, the first non piloted drones etc etc

 

[bigrebnc1775]

'Shit Happens' is one of the laws of thermodynamics.

And there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Well that's um, very uh, nice. And uh, A house divided against itself will fall!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5340746-post1.html

Do you understand this thread is about technology?

Maybe if you would click on the link you would see what I was referring too

 

[Old Rocks]

If the government were funding the invention of the train, we wouldn't have one today at all.

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

The government didn't fund anything. It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft. Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design.

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones. Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming. No government funding. Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon. No government involvement. How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad? Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government? Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins, men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track. The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land. Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money. Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued. A nice pay as you go program. In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs. These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.

LOL How you lie to support your idiot ideology.

First Transcontinental Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The construction and operation of the line was authorized by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land. Completion of the railroad was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line. It was one of the crowning achievements in the crossing of plains and high mountains westward by the Union Pacific and eastward by the Central Pacific. Opened for through traffic on May 10, 1869, with the driving of the "Last Spike" at Promontory Summit, Utah, the road established a mechanized transcontinental transportation network that revolutionized the population and economy of the American West.

 

[flacaltenn]

Batteries are not solar panels. Not one person in this thread is skeptical about improvements in battery technology, which is not even the stupidest part about you bringing this up. The stupidest part is that betteries have nothing to do with energy prodiction, they are energy storage devices.

For someone not the see the synergy between solar panels and high energy capacity batteries is quite beyond my understanding. An average home uses about a kw an hour, normal running. This could be cut down to one fifth that in an emergency. An EV with a battery that has a 100 kwh capacity could power that home for quite a while. And if that home had solar panels for charging that battery, then one would have indefinate independence if the grid were down. Also, if the solar installation were big enough, the combination of the battery and panels could make one completely independent of the grid.

It's funny. I put the more stupid and negative whackjobs on ignore so i usually don't see their posts. Gotta love a guy who calls someone elae stupid for considering electric cars to be included in what ia deemed "green technology"! I mean after all, how could anyone consider zero emmissions a "green" thing! Lol
He's juat a small minded contrarian who never poata anything of substance. Easy to ignore

Speaking of "small minded contrarians", that would include those who have been brainwashed to considered electric cars as "zero emissions"... Clearly TODAY -- an EV charged at a typical American home barely beats out an ICE (internal combustion engine for all our environmental gurus who don't know this) in terms of bad combustion polluting.. It's only "zero emissions" if it's already charged. Where do you think the energy comes from????

The calculus on using "your car to power your home" is a prime example of why I've lost patience with the eco-nauts. If EVERYBODY did this --- we'd have a toxic waste stream created larger than any other in history.. But ignoring the obvious un-greenness of that proposal -- the car powers NOTHING. If you drive it out of garage at night, the house goes dead. Your food rots, your clocks all blink 12:00....

To even CHARGE an EV from a solar grid is near impossible today. As the major manufacturers (Leaf/Volt etc) all require a NEW 220V 40A service....
From the Leaf manual:

If I want to "prewire" a new home for a future Nissan LEAF™ owner, what is required?
A The home charging dock will require a 220/240V 40 amp dedicated circuit connected to a breaker. The charging dock will need to be hard-wired directly to the circuit by a certified electrician.

What is the estimated time for full charging with 110v, 220v and fast charge stations?
A It takes about ~30 minutes to 80% at a 480 volt quick-charge station. Starting from a depleted battery, ~7 hours at 220/240V (depending on amperage), about 20 hours at 110/120V.

This WAAAAY exceeds the typical capability of home solar installation.. UNLESS you want 40 hour charging times for the car. Which leaves little juice for your Wii games.... 40 hours because you stayed up late last night and used too much power. A consideration that WILL NOT FLY with the American way of life.. Energy should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL...

EVEN WITH a doubling of battery capacity, the ability to increase charge rates and discharge rates for future batteries has to be balanced against lifetime, safety issues, and the use of even MORE toxic materials.....

REAL problems to be solved.. Not a snapping of fingers.. Which is what TRUE "small-minded" contrarians are dreaming up and DEMANDING thru their political power vendors...

 

[Old Rocks]

That is the present technology. And, since most people commute less than 40 miles a day, and the electricity is cheapest at night, that means for most in urban areas, the Leaf would satisfy the majority of their transportation needs.

Toyota could have 600-mile, solid state battery ready by 2015-2020

The Holy Grail of electric vehicle technology is coming soon, according to Japanese news outlet Nikkei.

The Holy Grail, at least for now, is solid-state battery technology. Nikkei reports that Toyota, along with partners Tokyo Institute of Technology and High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, have developed a prototype solid-state battery that could be ready for commercialization in the 2015-to-2020 time frame.

Here's why sold-state batteries are such an improvement:


Since the [solid state] battery can easily be processed into sheet form, it can store several times the amount of electricity, volume for volume, than the current generation of electric vehicle batteries, according to the developers. This added capacity may extend the maximum driving distance per charge for compact electric vehicles to around 1,000 kilometers [621 miles] from the 200 km [124 miles] or so for existing vehicles.
As you can see, a solid-state battery has numerous advantages over its liquid electrolyte counterpart, including simpler fabrication, stability, safety and excellent conductivity. The hard part is turning this theory into reality.

According to other sources, Toyota will have this battery mass manufacture by 2020. At 1/5 to 1/10 the cost of present batteries. If they do that, the EV will have arrived.

 

[Old Rocks]

Flat, have you ever heard of grid parrallel? That is the configuration of most solar installations today.

 

[flacaltenn]

So instructive that most high end cars in Saudi Arabia are converted to run off of natural gas

Oil is easier to export than nat gas. More profit. Because nat gas has to be turned into Liquid Nat Gas (LNG) for shipping and that is costly.. So they use nat gas domestically as tho it was almost free... which it is in Saudi Arabia..

 

[flacaltenn]

Flat, have you ever heard of grid parrallel? That is the configuration of most solar installations today.

Of course, the OPPOSITE of using a massive battery at the load for storage.. Which do you want to discuss. Since "grid-parallel" is "from each according to his ability -- to each according to their needs" socialism --- I'd assume you want to switch to grid parallel.

Seriously, how is that different than going into the energy business.... Has nothing to do with where YOUR electrons come from...

 

[Katzndogz]

I see. And the government was not the one that funded most of the developments in aviation?

The government didn't fund anything. It purchased ever more developed aircraft thereby providing an incentive for private industry to invent ever more developed aircraft. Sometimes a governent, not always ours, gave out prizes for better technology or design.

There is a commercial on television produced by Best Buy promoting all their cell phones. Statements by all the men who developed the camera, instagram, voice technology, video streaming. No government funding. Cell phone towers were built by Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon. No government involvement. How many people really think that the cell phone and it's service was funded by the government.

Who did fund the transcontinental railroad? Did you ever look it up, or just believe the liberal pap that it was the government? Funding came from private investment, from Crocker, Stanford, Huntington and Hopkins, men who formed private limited liability companies and invested all they had to lay that track. The government's involvement was to give the railroads land grants, of which the government kept ownership of half the land. Later, as the railroad progressed, the government sold bonds to raise money. Bonds that had to be repaid before more bonds would be issued. A nice pay as you go program. In no case did the government hand out checks the way it is trying to do, and failing, with its ridiculous green energy programs. These programs have half the money given returned to democrats in the form of campaign donations which was the whole point of giving out the money to begin wiith.

What the hell are you talking about? It was the government that build the first jets, the first planes that went into space, the first non piloted drones etc etc

At what government owned factory were these aircraft built? Which government employed designer drafted the design. The government BOUGHT these aircraft, they didn't design them or build them. They were invented incrementally by a number of people in a number of countries. The Jet Plane is not an American government invention.

The "turbojet", was invented in the 1940s, independently by Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain. The first turbojet aircraft to fly was the Heinkel He 178 prototype of the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, on August 27, 1939 in Rostock (Germany).[2]

The first flight of a jet engined aircraft to come to popular attention was the Italian Caproni Campini N.1 motorjet prototype that flew on August 27, 1940.[3] It was the first jet aircraft recognised by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (at the time the German He 178 program was still kept secret). Campini had proposed the motorjet in 1932.

The British experimental Gloster E.28/39 first took to the air on May 15, 1941, powered by Sir Frank Whittle's turbojet.[4] After the United States was shown the British work, it produced the Bell XP-59A with a version of the Whittle engine built by General Electric, which flew on October 1, 1942. The Meteor was the first production jet as it entered production a few months before the Me 262.

The first operational jet fighter was the Messerschmitt Me 262,[5] made by Germany during late World War II

Now just who was it that invented the drone?

One of the best weapon systems currently in use, the jihad-killing, pilotless drone, was conceived by a brilliant engineer—an Israeli-born Jew—and built, like the Apple computer, in a garage.

In 1980, Abraham Karem, an engineer who had emigrated from Israel, retreated into his three-car garage in Hacienda Heights outside Los Angeles and, to the bemusement of his tolerant wife, began to build an aircraft.

The work eventually spilled into the guest room, and when Karem finished more than a year later, he wheeled into his driveway an odd, cigar-shaped craft that was destined to change the way the United States wages war.

The Albatross, as it was called, was transported to the Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, where it demonstrated the ability to stay aloft safely for up to 56 hours — a very,very long time in what was then the crash-prone world of drones.

Three iterations and more than a decade of development later, Karem’s modest-looking drone became the Predator, the lethal, remotely piloted machine that can circle above the enemy for nearly a day before controllers thousands of miles away in the southwestern United States launch Hellfire missiles toward targets they are watching on video screens.

The emergence of hunter-killer and surveillance drones as revolutionary new weapons in the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, and in counterterrorism operations in places such as Pakistan andYemen, has spawned a multibillion-dollar industry, much of it centered in Southern California, once the engine of Cold War military aviation.

Over the next 10 years, the Pentagon plans to purchase more than 700 medium- and large-size drones at a cost of nearly $40 billion, according to a Congressional Budget Office study. Thousands more mini-drones will be fitted in the backpacks of soldiers so they can hand-launch them in minutes to look over the next hill or dive-bomb opposing forces.

If democrats could think, they might actually be useful.

 

[flacaltenn]

The OP claims technology, including green tech is expensive and inefficient, at first, but I disagree, with regard to KLEPTOMANIA and related media, but kleptos and fascists have been hand-in-hand for years, so they are not new, and their tech is efficient.

The US banned brewing of alcohol in 1918, in such a way as to thwart common development of CO2-neutral grain fuels, in competition with the emerging petroleum industry. Some nations export petroleum, to us, here in the US, where we are beholden to special interests, such as prison industry, which block media, related to global warming and green technology, on behalf of petroleum and nuclear energy. That technolody is quite developed.

The Democrat-controlled Congress passed in 15 minutes the Hemp Stamp Tax Act of 1938, FDR signed it, and this thwarted Ford's and Diesel's wishes, for hemp alcohol, and Ford's existing products, which were made of indestructible hemp plastic, see YouTube and Google, search 'hemp, ford, diesel.' I'd post links, but I need 15 posts, first.

The Hemp Stamp Tax Act was declared unconstitutional in 1972, whereupon Nixon founded the DEA. Our US oil production peaked, that decade. We declined, ever since.

It seems to me Al Gore admits to die-offs from the carbonic acid exchange, related to anthropogenic global warming, but he always opposed legalization of pot, including industrial hemp, and the Democrats passed the Obamacare debacle, lost the US House, and THEN tried to pass CO2-neutral biomass research, which lost, 2012.

The Republicans tend to support petroleum excesses, including the monstrous fracking, while dismissing AGW and related phenomena, such as accelerating warming and acidification, while the acid has been threatening plankton, eggs, little fish, oysters, reefs, and the entire oceanic food chain.

In the Pacific NW, a big oyster die-off just happened. The cold, O2-rich waters of the Pacific NW up-welling bring a plankton bloom, which is threatened, since the cold water bears acid, well. The cod are decimated, and they are not recovering.

Mass extinction event 6 looms. The extinction rate is 100 times, headed for 1000 times normal. If we do not reduce pollution, we will be killing each other, for food.

Eh? If we cannot simply reduce the carbon footprint of the oppressive, costly drug war, prison, Zionism-related war, legal, and petroleum industries, in a stroke, we will never recover the oceans OR the lands, which suffer die-offs. Desertification and cyclonic storms are bad; pollution is actually worse. Dying time is HERE.

If we are not allowed to recover SIMPLE TECHNOLOGY, which is known, we will not even attempt to make CO2-neutral fuels OR to re-green, using genetic engineering, to recover desertified, acidified, and polluted areas, on land and at sea. If we do not make a fast move, to cut corruption and its carbon media, we will LOSE THE OCEANIC FOOD CHAIN, in a blink!

Technology is, as technology does. What is complicated, we don't really need, yet. What is made from hemp and switchgrass, we needed it, YESTERDAY, all-wicked-ready.

]

The acid is all around you... Might be IN you as well...