|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 17, 2019 0:50:17 GMT -5
I'm looking at Venice, right now, as a real-time example that we have a real problem here. It's sitting in our lap. I'm curious why you'd say that. Venice has experienced flooding this time of year for centuries. Are there news articles trying to say that the current flooding is global warming related?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 1:24:52 GMT -5
Nuclear power.
There are two major deals cooking here:
#1. Ok, there are dangers present and concerns aplenty concerning the safety of nuclear power. Make a decision, which danger is the bigger danger in your mind, a Chernobyl here and there or the impact of a changing climate we are likely face as a result of our inability to give up our current comfortable lives based on plentiful and convenient energy?
I believe most agree that wind, solar, and other Green energy sources by themselves are not going to produce enough energy to sustain the economy and lifestyle we currently enjoy and that we are very unlikely to dial back our economy and lifestyle enough to fit into a down-sized Green Energy box.
There is and will continue to be throughout these next vital thirty or forty years a gap between what Green Energy supplies and what we will demand. Nuclear power can fill that gap. Maybe it will only need to supply 25% of our electricity in 2030 to fill that gap. Maybe it will need to supply 35%. Maybe in thirty years we will learn that it isn’t needed any more and the plants are shut down.
But, we do know nuclear power works because it has worked for forty years. Currently 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear plants… plants that are currently too old to still be running but are too needed to be shut down (as many of them soon should be). This 20% can’t be replaced, it will continue to be needed, yet we, as a country are sitting our with our thumbs up our butts doing nothing about an energy source we currently depend and are likely to continue to depend on in the future. Instead we are just building a bunch of windmills and a few consequential solar farms and crying woe and doom.
#2 Here’s what we should do. (next post)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 1:57:03 GMT -5
Our current nuclear plants are obsolete or near obsolete dinosaurs, most of them were built in the seventies and are well past their expected shut down dates. Yet nothing new has been built. Nor will anything new get built… given the current circumstances.
There are plenty of new, safer designs for nuclear plants but private industry will not build them. They can’t afford to build test plants. They can’t afford to run non-revenue producing test plants through a ten to twenty year gauntlet of regulations, reviews, and non-stop lawsuits. The expense is way too high, the timeline too lengthy, the bottom line too thin. It won’t happen. Private enterprise and public coops will not build time consuming non-revenue producing test plants with modern designs and the old-style monster plants are money losers and will never be seen again.
But, the Federal government on Federal land has the wherewithal to build some test plants, pick out the winning designs, and build the new modern nuclear plants themselves (it works for the Navy). The Feds can cut the red tape, the lawsuits, and all the bull shit that keeps stuff from ever getting done. Declare an Environmental Emergency and just build the damn things.
Create an energy corridor on Federal land located in the Dakotas and eastern Montana or Wyoming. Build a series of small to medium-sized new age, cool-running nuclear plants within this corridor. Then lease these plants to electrical coops and energy companies. The power would be centralized within the corridor. Electrical companies would build the outlines that hook into their grid. The land surrounding these plants, the energy corridor itself, would be a wildlife sanctuary and native prairie. Turn a bunch of buffalo and wolves loose on it. Along with grouse and pheasants. If you must, put up some windmills and solar farms.
This could be done just by doing it. Declare an Energy Emergency and just do it. No protests, no lawsuits, no bullshit. The resources of the United States government would be turned loose and the energy corridor could be up and running in less than ten years.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 2:02:35 GMT -5
[crap, I did cut and paste from Word and didn't notice my paragraph breaks weren't happening.]
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 17, 2019 6:19:47 GMT -5
Nuclear power. There are two major deals cooking here: #1. Ok, there are dangers present and concerns aplenty concerning the safety of nuclear power. Make a decision, which danger is the bigger danger in your mind, a Chernobyl here and there or the impact of a changing climate we are likely face as a result of our inability to give up our current comfortable lives based on plentiful and convenient energy? I believe most agree that wind, solar, and other Green energy sources by themselves are not going to produce enough energy to sustain the economy and lifestyle we currently enjoy and that we are very unlikely to dial back our economy and lifestyle enough to fit into a down-sized Green Energy box. There is and will continue to be throughout these next vital thirty or forty years a gap between what Green Energy supplies and what we will demand. Nuclear power can fill that gap. Maybe it will only need to supply 25% of our electricity in 2030 to fill that gap. Maybe it will need to supply 35%. Maybe in thirty years we will learn that it isn’t needed any more and the plants are shut down. But, we do know nuclear power works because it has worked for forty years. Currently 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear plants… plants that are currently too old to still be running but are too needed to be shut down (as many of them soon should be). This 20% can’t be replaced, it will continue to be needed, yet we, as a country are sitting our with our thumbs up our butts doing nothing about an energy source we currently depend and are likely to continue to depend on in the future. Instead we are just building a bunch of windmills and a few consequential solar farms and crying woe and doom. #2 Here’s what we should do. (next post) I agree with everything except the underlined portion. I don't buy that it's about comfort. I believe that it is survival. It's survival for the least capable in our society. I believe that's one of the "tells" of the whole climate change activist rhetoric. They always frame it in a manner meant to put Americans on the defensive based upon the activist's socio-economic world view that America is inherently unfair to the rest of the world. It's the "tell" that reveals that theirs is a class war against the "haves", and not at all about saving the environment. The rhetoric of the climate change activists resonates with those in our political polarity that also believe that fundamentally economies are based solely on the distribution of finite resources. The fear that that yields only allows for one kind of solution and it's pretty dire. If, on the other hand, that was not the ultimate goal of climate change activism, they would be more honest about who was going to be hurt by their proposed policies -- the poorest. That's why it's so chilling that after these conversations go full cycle, the extinction of humanity is usually raised....and not as a negative.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 17, 2019 10:03:24 GMT -5
I'm looking at Venice, right now, as a real-time example that we have a real problem here. It's sitting in our lap. I'm curious why you'd say that. Venice has experienced flooding this time of year for centuries. Are there news articles trying to say that the current flooding is global warming related? I think the Mayor of Venice, or some high up government official publicly blamed Global Warming. Apparently there was a particularly rainy period. **shrugs**Venice has lots of environmental problems. The soil is settling. The sea is rising. It don't look good. Don't make a long term investment in Gondola futures.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 12:57:58 GMT -5
Mayor appears to be saying that Venice is a global treasure threatened by a globally-caused problem so some global funds would be appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 17, 2019 13:15:26 GMT -5
Men are from Mars. Women are from Venice.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,903
|
Post by Dub on Nov 17, 2019 13:29:11 GMT -5
Men are from Mars. Women are from Venice. I’ve been to Venice. It’s a very strange place.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 17, 2019 16:32:26 GMT -5
Men are from Mars. Women are from Venice. I’ve been to Venice. It’s a very strange place. I think that's Van Nuys.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 17, 2019 17:44:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Nov 17, 2019 18:18:58 GMT -5
I'm looking at Venice, right now, as a real-time example that we have a real problem here. It's sitting in our lap. I'm curious why you'd say that. Venice has experienced flooding this time of year for centuries. Are there news articles trying to say that the current flooding is global warming related? Aside from the mayor's statements, which could be easily discounted as not based on science, and numerous links obviously adhering with one side of the debate or the other, no, I don't. My comment was based solely on speculation.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 17, 2019 18:30:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Nov 17, 2019 18:40:55 GMT -5
I'm sure we can reverse the models to back calculate it.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 17, 2019 21:39:17 GMT -5
You're asking the wrong question.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 21:59:41 GMT -5
Should the question be: "How many inches (or whatever) Venice has sunk in the last couple decades or so?" Which could mean the flooding story should be about a sinking Venice rather than a rising sea. Which, if so, would raise the question of why it wasn't.
Or should the question be: How many teams have come back from a 20 point or greater 1st half deficit and gone on to win the game?
(if the correct question is #2, then I know the answer, The Vikings!)
(I don't know the answer to question #1, unless it's The Vikings!)
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 17, 2019 22:09:36 GMT -5
I'll grant you that weather fluctuations are knee-jerk credited to Climate Change. When, weather patterns have always had a randomness to them. And there have always been times when random circumstances combine to make a perfect storm.
But there are measurable changes occurring now. Are they responsible for every calamity that comes along? Of course not. But they combine with natural randomness to augment frequency and severity of bad events. That should not be denied.
Can we stop this, or reduce the added effects? - Not likely to a significant degree. We're too dependent on fossil fuel technology for survival.
Buckle up Buckaroo. Don't invest in Gondola futures.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 22:17:08 GMT -5
A quick googling revealed that Venice is sinking between .04-.08 inches per year. Which would mean that Venice has sunk four inches or so in the last 40-50 years. Which means Venice is not a very good metric to use in a rising sea argument. Which means, if global warming rears its head in a story about a flooding Venice, it is sloppy story with a soggy premise.
Also found while googling, only one NFL team in the last five years has overcome a 20 point or greater deficit in first half while going on to win the game, the Vikings!
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 17, 2019 22:23:27 GMT -5
Don't know about the planet, but the Vikings are heating up!
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 18, 2019 8:50:13 GMT -5
"Can we stop this, or reduce the added effects? - Not likely to a significant degree."
I've read a lot more about the problem than about potential solutions. My understanding is that we can reduce the added effects by taking steps that ought to be palatable. Even some oil companies are now advocating a carbon tax to rationalize the use of fossil fuels. We were making substantial progress with alternative energy sources before we dropped the effort. I understand that we're not going to shut down our entire way of life. I would hope that we would tolerate some minor inconvenience to mitigate the destructive side effects of our way of life. Maybe that's too much to ask.
|
|