Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[orogenicman]

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

 

[westwall]

Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts. Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES. Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US. I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers. But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities. The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia. There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption. This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales. I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done. If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation. Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system. Uh-huh. We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control. There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system". I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions. What do you actually mean with this point? Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.

Ask orogenicman, if he's a true geologist he'll know.

Abandoned wells. By the way, the EPA has spent millions doing exactly that, when it is the petroleum companies that should be doing it.

Try again junior "G" man. I thought you were a geologist.

 

[westwall]

Al Gore only claimed to be a politician. But, that puts him way ahead of you. Is there anything that you can claim?

I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

Please feel free to show us some good science then. So far everything you have shown is shit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid?

The grid is ailing and aging because it's fossil fuel dominated?

When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?

Show me a grid where more expensive, less reliable renewables make up a decent % of total generation.

 

[orogenicman]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid?

The grid is ailing and aging because it's fossil fuel dominated?

It is fossil fuel-dominated, and it is ailing. You do the math.

When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?

Show me a grid where more expensive, less reliable renewables make up a decent % of total generation.

It hasn't been built yet. But that is neither here nor there as to whether it CAN be built. I think it can, and so do a lot of other people.

 

[IanC]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Not the nicest sentiment I've ever seen. As you can see above, I did reply. FCT's list was quite lacking on items that would "protect the environment" and that were lacking funding due to efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

Apparently a "kill zone" employing a variety of sniper rifle with a cork in the muzzle.

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.



That seems even less apropos.




But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.

Idont necessarily agree with everything he says but I always know his ideas are worthy of consideration because he states what he believes is realistic rather than just regurgitating someone else's talking points without understanding them.

So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.


BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid?

The grid is ailing and aging because it's fossil fuel dominated?

It is fossil fuel-dominated, and it is ailing. You do the math.

When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy?

Show me a grid where more expensive, less reliable renewables make up a decent % of total generation.

It hasn't been built yet. But that is neither here nor there as to whether it CAN be built. I think it can, and so do a lot of other people.

It is fossil fuel-dominated, and it is ailing. You do the math.

Then let's fix it up. We can power it with reliable nuke plants.

 

[orogenicman]

And that's what happens when you stroll into a sniper's kill zone. Nice shot flac.

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.



That seems even less apropos.




But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.



So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?

Many of the warmers plans for changing our energy production and usage are so sophomoric and prone to unintended consequences that I cannot believe they are openly stated, let alone accepted as realistic alternatives.

So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.


BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

And how many death threats have environmentalists received? Resorting to threats and violence never solved any problem. So is this where you really want to the conversation to turn?

 

[flacaltenn]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

What real environmental protection would that be? Where would you like to spend money?

I'm glad you ask that. Part of the reason I'm so grumpy about the AGW debacle is that I'm frustrated that it has sucked the air out of true environmentalism..

I'd have the GOVT clean up it's act. It is the nations largest and most dangerous polluter. Including it's antiquated generators in the Tenn Valley Auth. and military base dumps.

From the leaking nuclear weapons waste at Hanford and Savannah river to fulfilling the promise of completing Yucca Mtn as a waste depository.

I'd figure out how to remove 100s of sq. miles of floating waste in the oceans and do better and more efficient mitigation for ocean oil spills thru engineering.

I'd cut the subsidies going to billionaires to make trophy cars for millionaires and do BASIC SCIENCE on hydrogen production and fuel cells.

Plan for a recycling infrastructure for the mountain of battery waste from the ill-conceived push for plug-in EVs.

I'd push market oriented incentives for private landowners to make provisions for nature on their lands and IMPROVE the stewardship of PUBLIC lands at the BLM and Forest Service. Consolidate STRATEGIC public lands and PLAN for habitat zones that make sense.

I'd be honest about the fallacy of using wind and solar ON GRID and instead propose meaningful work for renewables OFF GRID doing desalinization and hydrogen production.

End the subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, and any fossil fuel as a commodity and funding or subsidies limited to only EXPLORATION and RESEARCH.

I'd figure out exactly WHY the bees are dying and how to bolster fisheries with more market oriented practices..

Plenty of stuff to work on isn't there? No reason why we got to spend all our time arguing over AGW when no one wants to fix it tomorrow by unleashing 2 decades of new nuclear plant design..

That is a lovely laundry list you've got there and I fully agree with you that most of those are deserving of our full attention. I do not agree with you, however, if you are contending that these items are not being addressed due to time or money being spent to combat GHG emissions. Besides which, reducing GHG emissions is a major part of "true environmentalism".

Of course I'm contending that we are wasting time and money on phoney enviro gimmicks. We did not need $Bills to go to Solyndra, or Tesla or ethanol.. We do not need to give GE $40 for every "energysaver" dishwasher that they sell. And for WAAAY too long we've told about "alternatives" that boil down to just wind and solar. BOTH of which are mature technologies and shouldn't be getting MASSIVE subsidies. You HAVE no alternatives to spend 100X the current AGW inspired budget amount on.. That's the terrible secret.. All ya got is a plan to tear down and make energy RARE and EXPENSIVE.

I reject your contention that the government is the largest and most dangerous polluter. The largest source of air pollution in this country is the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation. The largest source of water pollution is farming runoff. Neither of these are activities in which the government participates to any significant degree. Neither is the government a large producer of non-biodegradable waste material (polystyrene, polyethylene, PCBs, etc). Military bases have been localized sources of waste and hazardous waste in the past but for the past decade and a half have been the subject of a intense and strenuously enforced program to minimize the production of such waste and to properly dispose of what is generated.

Not true.. As SINGLE ENTITY polluters go --- TVA has many of the dirtiest generators at the very top of the national list. As far as danger goes -- the complete disregard for enviro regs shown by the Nuclear Weapons industry is unparalled. The entire PUSH for battery wagons EVs, and ethanol production are gonna generate a mandated pollution stream of epic proportions. Not to mention the poisoning of multiple municipal water supplies from the EPA's insistence to push MTBE to "clean the air"..

((We agree on a lot.. Including the comm. nuke industry and the fact that batterywagon EVs are gonna soon look like a primitive waste of time compared to hydrogen fuel cells)

If it were at the sole discretion of the federal governnment, the nuclear waste facility at Yucca Flats would have been operational many years back. It has been the opposition of the NIMBY locals that have halted the project. Now whether or not Yucca Flats, as envisioned, was a truly safe location and design at which to dispose of our nuclear waste material is another question. It is also a bit of a red herring for while the various generators are not happy building and maintaining their local storage facilities, the nation's nuke plants have the capacity in those local facilities for decades more.

Yucca is a safe plan.. MOst of the waste is low level waste from medical and industrial sources. Keeping spent fuel at the sites is not a good plan as seen in Japan. There have been SEVERAL Indian Nations offering up their land for a site. Get it freakin done so that those leaking barrels at Hanford and Savannah River can go home..

Hanford and Savannah are both environmental disasters. However, their cleanup is not currently hampered by lack of funding.

Governments at all levels, at home and abroad, are working to eliminate the sources of all that plastic floating around in the ocean. Unfortunately, plastic packaging has become completely ubiquitous and will not be eliminated overnight. And replacing it with paper may not be the best idea in the long run. Biodegradable plastics may be the best solution but so far they're higher cost has prevented their widespread adoption.

Offer up a bounty for efficient engineering approaches to go sweep it up. Stop it at the source.. No excuses. It's like turning a blind eye to slavery in this day and time.. GET IT DONE. Have you seen pictures of sq. miles of storm whipped trash floating in the oceans?

You may have laws for littering --- but you still need street sweepers...

You want to eliminate subsidies for the development of non-polluting automobiles yet ICE-powered automobiles are one of the largest polluters on the planet. It's not just CO2 coming out of those exhaust pipes. You cannot take the first step towards cleaning up this nation's air until you address the problem of automobile exhausts. CAFE and emissions standards for automobiles have already produced enormous benefit but there is room for a great deal more. The complete elimination of hydrocarbon exhaust compounds is a worthy goal.

Every one of the world's great economies pay more - a great deal more - for each liter of gasoline they consume. The price at the pump needs to actually reflect the cost to society of acquiring and burning the stuff. It is toxic on many levels and no matter what amazing new discoveries are made, its supply is finite.

Not interested in MORE taxing on gasoline. They already toss all that cash into the "gen fund" never to see a highway project again. EVs get you NO WHERE on emissions that hybrids can't until you fix the generation problem.. And the Grid ain't gonna be expanded on the backs of wind or solar or both. I don't want subsidies on EV design because they are slanted to DISCOURAGE work on alternatives like fuel cells and hydrogen. And there is no common sense public discussion about the extra costs and effort to EXPAND the grid and generation to every podunk corner of America to support Plug-Ins.. It's a ridiculous plan.

Obviously we disagree on whether or not the current push for EV is "ill-conceived". I will admit that, at present, recycling LIPo batteries is a difficult and expensive process with a relatively small profit potential when those batteries no longer contain cobalt. However, there are currently a very small number of EV vehicles on the road and most are quite new. The supply of failed, automotive lithium batteries is minute. There is absolutely no economy of scale. And the mechanical processes involved in recycling lithium batteries from cameras and other small electronics is completely different from what is used to process batteries from EV automobiles.

However, I expect the 'Lithium Era' to be rather short-lived. Several major manufacturers plan to have hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the market in 2-5 years. As you know, the holdup is hydrogen supply. The advantages hydrogen fuel cells have over batteries is significant and once such vehicles are available I expect far more infrastructure progress than we've seen with EV charging stations. A hydrogen-powered car can be refilled in a few minutes if not seconds. Spending two - three hours at a gas station while my car batteries charge has never been a picture I (or anyone else) saw as truly feasible. For one thing, the number of charging stations required to support a given population of EVs is dependent on the charging time. The results are nearly unworkable unless the cars are used almost solely for local transportation and can be charged at home. Hybrids are a stepping stone to EVs and EVs are a stepping stone to fuel cells.

Completely agree about batterywagons being an ill-conceived fad. So why are wasting time and money? What entreprenuer WOULDN'T invest in distributed hydrogen refineries that use wind and solar OFF-GRID to make fuel? I would in a heartbeat.. Don't worry about the infrastructure. Europe already has an extensive Hydrogen Highway in the making. Solves the problem of MISUSING wind and solar --- Doesn't require massive investment in Grid infrastructure --- and has much better driver performance factors as you mentioned.

Charging times for EVs have also been misreprented in the public discussion. SHORTER charge times represent HIGHER LOADS on the instaneous grid demand. Charging a 300 mile Tesla for instance in 15 minutes will suck 480KWATTS !!! Get the kiddies out of the car when you try that..

Solar and wind power are well suited for hydrogen production and the like but they aren't completely incompatible with grid use. The zero fuel cost has some remarkable powers when calculating efficiency.

I don't see anything you've listed here as being unduly limited by a competition with GHG reduction for capital resources. The only purpose of many items on your list is to stop the effort to curtail GHG emissions. That's not quite what you claimed it would be.

Wind is non-starter.. A quick look at ANY hourly production chart will scream FAIL as an "alternative" on the grid. Solar is as best a 10 to 20% "peaker" technology. You got nothing else to fight climate change on the list..

So why again do you want me to roll over and give the world $4Trill to mitigate AGW? Most of that would get "redistributed" to the 3rd world beggars sponsoring the IPCC. Tuvalu and Micronesia needs your bucks..

What you gonna spend that on?? And what is gonna suffer because of it??

 

[PMZ]

Bull pucky. People are paying MORE for the energy they use thanks to your politically driven anti-science agenda....

MidAmerican Energy seeking rate increase | WQAD.com

CPS Energy asking for rate increase | News - Home

Duke Energy rate increase would average 5 percent | WCNC.com Charlotte

Xcel Energy - Xcel Energy requests rate increase

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

 

[PMZ]

I haven't made 10s of millions spreading bad science, unlike Gore.

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

Please feel free to show us some good science then. So far everything you have shown is shit.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[flacaltenn]

Would you mind if I described the debate action here in terms of violence and death? I think you would. I only ask of you the same sort of consideration. You had no reason to be hostile towards me. From your point of view, I had provided FCT an opportunity to make an impressive answer. You should have praised me, not fantasized my violent demise.



That seems even less apropos.




But he's not the only one. And I would have to disagree with "well thought out positions". His positions are too simple to invalidate to be particularly well thought out.



So what? What does that have to do with my query as to how he would spend money on the environment? Do I deserve death for having asked the question?



So what? Your kill zone comment was not in response to any "warmer" plans I put forth. I posed a question giving FCT an opening through which you could have driven a truck. You celebrated what you saw as FCT's debate victory with a violent analogy. This issue has nothing to do with FCT or me. It has to do with your perceptions and your choices.

But, not to get too far off topic, can you identify any of the places FCT would rather spend money as areas whose funding has been curtailed due to efforts to combat AGW? For that matter, where, exactly, do you see large quantities of taxpayer money being spent to combat GHG emissions? Enhanced pollution regulations? New CAFE standards? New power plant licensing schemes? It doesn't actually cost much to generate paper and ink.

Interesting. Are you serious that you consider my comparison to someone blythly walking into an ambush was a fantasy about your demise? Hahahaha.

Perhaps you are too young to remember Bentsen gobsmacking Quayle in 1988. You should google it. A simple statement absolutely demolished by an unexpected retort.


BTW. Are you offended by the seemingly real calls for death to skeptics by some of the more extreme warmers?

And how many death threats have environmentalists received? Resorting to threats and violence never solved any problem. So is this where you really want to the conversation to turn?

Uh Hello ????? IanC is the most peaceful reserved poster on this forum.. If you feel agrieved --- I'll protect ya..

Really not interested in devolving into the same inane nonsense that we both reject...

I'm glad that you and Abraham joined with us. I'm sure that IanC is happy you're here as well..

 

[flacaltenn]

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

How would Oro-man handle this deflection?

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

How would Oro-man handle this deflection? would it be "red herring" or "non-responsive"?

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER. We don't DEPEND ON WIND. That's the problem. You can scream bloody lies about cities running TOTALLY on wind -- but there are none.. Wind is there for 20 minutes and gone for an hour. LARGE QTYs of it will drag the Grid to it's knees.. ESPECIALLY when the GOVT forces primary gens to idle whenever the wind blows.. It will disincentivize the construction of primary power --- THEN the lights go out all day on Tues and Friday..

How much of THAT --- should the govt FORCE US to buy????

 

[flacaltenn]

What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.

The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances..

Your side wants electricity to be RARE and EXPENSIVE (that's the end result of "conservation")

And many of us believe that electricity should be CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL.
Cheap and plentiful rubs leftists the wrong way since they see society as a blight on the planet anyway.

Our nuclear plants are approaching 60 yrs old.. There's more computing power in a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll than a US nuclear plant. THAT'S why we need to expedite verification of latest BEST technologies and allow them to be replicated without delay.

So what you are saying is that we should spend billions of dollars installing "Windows" in our nuclear plants. OMG! Perhaps you haven't thought that through.

Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone...

I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.

THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

Moving towards WHAT alternate sources??

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles??

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one?

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot?
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter.

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..

 

[orogenicman]

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

How would Oro-man handle this deflection?

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

How would Oro-man handle this deflection? would it be "red herring" or "non-responsive"?

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER. We don't DEPEND ON WIND. That's the problem. You can scream bloody lies about cities running TOTALLY on wind -- but there are none.. Wind is there for 20 minutes and gone for an hour. LARGE QTYs of it will drag the Grid to it's knees.. ESPECIALLY when the GOVT forces primary gens to idle whenever the wind blows.. It will disincentivize the construction of primary power --- THEN the lights go out all day on Tues and Friday..

How much of THAT --- should the govt FORCE US to buy????

We've been 43 years reducing emissions and surface and subsurface pollution. No one said it would be quick and easy, but we've made very real strides. And in that time, millions of jobs have been generated and new industries have arisen, along with advanced technologies. So don't tell me that we are too stupid to figure out how to add alternative energy sources to the mix without crashing the power grid, and at the same time reducing emissions and pollution even further. It's insulting, and also not true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's due to supply and demand. It's been forecast for decades now. It's just another set of predictions that you find it convenient to ignore.

Republicans avoid problem solving because it involves taking responsibility. Whining does not.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future. If you have to ask why, you'll never understand the answer.

While you continue to whine, liberals take responsibility for mankind's future.

More expensive, less reliable energy.....for mankind's future <--------liberal responsibility

More expensive than what? Certainly not than doing nothing.

More expensive than natural gas, more expensive than coal, more expensive than nuclear and more expensive than doing nothing.

Did I leave anything out?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your biggest claim to fame is that you haven't made 10s of millions? That's pretty bizarre. In order to know bad science, one has to know good science. That leaves you on the outside looking in.

Please feel free to show us some good science then. So far everything you have shown is shit.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

He asked you for good science.

 

[orogenicman]

What is being offered is a schizoid plan to simultaneously push electric conservation and at the SAME TIME talk about encouraging a 30% increase in Grid capacity by pushing EVs. Makes no sense. I'm pulling 1W chargers out of the wall while my neighbor is using a day's worth of juice to fill his Leaf.. Wind and Solar don't ADD capacity. They are supplements that must come second to PRIMARY generators capable of 24/7/365 generation.

The lights go out when the country realizes that the cost and furor over a major grid overhaul and generation increase is out of reach given our finances..

Your side wants electricity to be RARE and EXPENSIVE (that's the end result of "conservation")

And many of us believe that electricity should be CHEAP AND PLENTIFUL.
Cheap and plentiful rubs leftists the wrong way since they see society as a blight on the planet anyway.

Our nuclear plants are approaching 60 yrs old.. There's more computing power in a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll than a US nuclear plant. THAT'S why we need to expedite verification of latest BEST technologies and allow them to be replicated without delay.

Let me worry about how to keep MicroSoft the hell out of the nuclear zone...

I'm actually working right now to update components for some of those old plants. We really don't want to keep patching them forever... One display that I just redesigned TRIPLED the processing power of that plant because I included a $1.50 microprocessor.

THere is so much exciting new nuclear tech out there. And we have not had the balls to let it thrive.

There is nothing "schizoid" about urging energy conservation and simultaneously working to boost grid capacity to support EV usage. The goal of both efforts is to burn less fossil fuels, even if those EVs are, for the most part, charged with energy created by burning fossil fuels. The efficiency of a large power plant is grossly better than the best ICE powered automobile. And as more and more alternative energy sources (and nuke plants) come online, the situation will only get better.

Those who believe AGW to be a real threat (that would be virtually every man, woman and child on the planet sporting a science education) do not want electrical energy to be rare. We would like to see its price reflect its actual cost. No one is served in the long run by government pushing the price down through taxpayer-funded subsidization and price controls. At some point, the actual bill will have to be paid. We think that actively moving towards alternative energy sources represents a wise investment. The infrastructure has to change. The sooner we get started on it, the less it will cost and the less destructive impact the needed changes will have.

I have always been an advocate of nuclear power. This nation has been a little short on testosterone on the topic for quite some time. It looked like things were going to turn around and then we all got our lesson on tsunamis and why nuke plants shouldn't be built on coastlines in geologically unstable areas. Hopefully, we can get past this sticking point. There are few alternative sources with the promise of nuclear power wrt reducing our GHG (and CO and sulfate and particulate) emissions.

Moving towards WHAT alternate sources??

RARE and EXPENSIVE is expected result by economic theory when you PUSH primarily "conservation".. Who's getting rich from conservation? GE paid no taxes because they got more "green credits" than they could use selling dishwashers and washing machines that would have been built and sold WITHOUT the credits.

Not Schitzoid?? How many 1Watt chargers do I have to pull out of the wall to get 30KWhrs for my Leaf to go 75 miles??

ETHANOL? Who's getting rich on ethanol? And what (predictable) perturbations to the food supply did Al Gore miss on that one?

Gasoline is priced correctly.. The government does not need more money to spend on unrelated drone weapons and horseshit Elon Musk subsidies. Know why Tesla stock is hot?
Over 50% of their "profits" came from govt kick-backs last quarter.

The reality is --- you lefty greens have squandered the opportunities and managed to botch any attempt to get REAL enviro remediation with the money you've ALREADY been given.. You got NOTHING to propose except MORE conservation and dead-end plans like shifting transport energy to the electrical grid..

Natural gas, for one. It certainly is not rare nor expensive. And yes, it is, at best, a stop-gap measure. No one is saying that it is not. But it is the longest term stop-gap solution we have. And it is far more energy efficient and less polluting that coal or fuel oil at generating electrical power. Same with regard to transportation. Yes, there is an infrastructure issue there. But then, the infrastructure we have today for gasoline wasn't built over night either. You people seem to expect solutions over night, or else none at all - meaning that you'd prefer to keep the status quo. But that's not a solution, either, nor is it an option. There are no overnight solutions. It took us 150 years to get into the situation we find ourselves in today. It is foolish to believe that we can get out of it overnight.

 

[Abraham3]

Money that COULD BE used for real enviro protection...

Clean up all the toxic waste dumps that are out there. Restore the orphan holes that dot the Earth. Prevent rainforest destruction. Save the whales. Develop a asteroid protection system. Develop a viable alternative energy system.

That will do for now....

Putting money into the Superfund trust fund has been far more hampered by elected Republicans failing to fund it and failing to go after the industrial polluters themselves than it has been affected by any shortage of funds due to GHG efforts. Saving the environment, oddly enough, has never been a high priority among CONSERVATIVES. Go figger.

There are, to my knowledge, no rainforests of note under environmental threat in the US. I am sure there are areas in the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico that are under threat from developers. But if you want to use federal funds to buy up the land and take it off the market, you're going to have complaints from locals that you're preventing economic growth and expanded employment opportunities. The truly threatened rainforest is found in equatorial regions such as the Amazon, the Congo, Indonesia. There, of course, we have little influence save some method to curtail US consumption. This is not something you could fix if only somehow we could stop funding the war on CO2.

Save the Whales. I'm with you 100%. Unfortunately, there's not much else the US can do than what it has already done. If you'd like to declare war on Japan, Iceland, Norway and the Inuit Nation, I'll give you a raised fist, but the whole problem has been boiled down to one of cultural reeducation. Money is not the issue.

Asteroid protection system. Uh-huh. We could move current funding up a order of magnitude without impacting the budget for mosquito control. There is no conflict between this and GHG emission reduction.

"Develop a viable alternative energy system". I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. The US already spends a considerable amount of money on this topic and unless you're leaving a few crucial points unspoken, I think this is part and parcel of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions. What do you actually mean with this point? Where would you spend money and how would it differ from efforts to develop clean coal, wind, solar, fission, fusion, hydroelectric, OTEC, geothermal, space-based or any of the dozens of other technologies in R&D?

Finally, I haven't the faintest idea what an "orphan hole" might be and neither does Dictionary.com, Wikipedia or three different search engines.

Ask orogenicman, if he's a true geologist he'll know.

That's all the comment you've got? What did you mean when you said you'd develop an alternative energy system?

 

[flacaltenn]

How would Oro-man handle this deflection?

As opposed to an ailing and aging fossil fuel-dominated electrical grid? When was the last time your lights went out due to the use of alternative energy? Be specific.

How would Oro-man handle this deflection? would it be "red herring" or "non-responsive"?

The reason the lights DON'T go out is that for every KW of wind power added to the grid, you are paying to add a KW of something else to provide PRIMARY POWER. We don't DEPEND ON WIND. That's the problem. You can scream bloody lies about cities running TOTALLY on wind -- but there are none.. Wind is there for 20 minutes and gone for an hour. LARGE QTYs of it will drag the Grid to it's knees.. ESPECIALLY when the GOVT forces primary gens to idle whenever the wind blows.. It will disincentivize the construction of primary power --- THEN the lights go out all day on Tues and Friday..

How much of THAT --- should the govt FORCE US to buy????

We've been 43 years reducing emissions and surface and subsurface pollution. No one said it would be quick and easy, but we've made very real strides. And in that time, millions of jobs have been generated and new industries have arisen, along with advanced technologies. So don't tell me that we are too stupid to figure out how to add alternative energy sources to the mix without crashing the power grid, and at the same time reducing emissions and pollution even further. It's insulting, and also not true.

Of course it's true.. Open your eyes. Look at the graph.. 43 YEARS and we're STILL TOSSING $BILLs for an electrical generation source with THAT type of performance?

What are you smoking???