|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 18, 2019 16:42:46 GMT -5
Better to radiate one candle than curse the darkness. Do you have the copyright on that one? Not yet, but maybe I should. It came to me yesterday. I could get a bunch of T-shirts printed up and order some bumper stickers. I could retire ... wait, I am retired. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 18, 2019 17:04:46 GMT -5
There was an interesting, or depressing, depending on you're point of view, article by Rodger Pielke (Univ of Colorado) last month. Short version is if the world is going to go to net zero CO2 by 2050, it will require bringing online more than one new nuclear power plant every single day between now and then. This graph from Pielke tells the whole story:  This is fundamentally why I don't take much of any of this seriously. No one who has a basic grounding of reality in energy systems thinks anything remotely like this is possible. It's just not happening. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 18, 2019 17:48:30 GMT -5
er, well, you know, every single expert said it was impossible for the Vikings to come back from a 20 point deficit at halftime, yet they did. Impossible is just a word. Better to radiate a single candle than curse the darkness! The longest journey begins with a single construction.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 18, 2019 18:08:29 GMT -5
epaul, what does not zero mean in this context? No carbon emissions?
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 18, 2019 18:13:26 GMT -5
er, well, you know, every single expert said it was impossible for the Vikings to come back from a 20 point deficit at halftime, yet they did. Impossible is just a word. Better to radiate a single candle than curse the darkness! The longest journey begins with a single construction. You are like a living Bartlett. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 18, 2019 18:21:39 GMT -5
Change YOUR toes. Not my toes !  |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 18, 2019 20:38:07 GMT -5
I'm a little surprised to see the Hatfields and McCoys stuff about this issue at this point. Silly me.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 18, 2019 20:50:16 GMT -5
epaul, what does not zero mean in this context? No carbon emissions? I don't know. Jeff posted the chart and I don't understand the question. My thinking is just get started on a bunch of approaches. See what works, what doesn't. I don't know where we need to be fifty years from now. Maybe we can't reach 0%. Ok, well, then maybe we can reduce C02 emissions by 50%, which should be a hell of a lot better than watching emissions by increase by 50%. I'm a born and raised Minnesotan, if you miss out on great, Ok is good. I'm in the middle. Some think there is nothing to be done or nothing that should be done to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Others regard fossil fuels as an abomination that needs to be immediately consigned to the deepest pit in hell. Some believe that no alternative energy sources should be researched. Others believe that only nice greenie-approved energy sources should be focused on... to the point that they not only refuse to consider approaches to fossil energy that mitigate CO2 release or the addition of some nuclear power to the "clean" energy mix of the future... they believe research in clean gas and safer nukes should be stopped, killed, and they believe this adamantly. I definitely don't believe in stopping research*. I believe all avenues should be considered. I believe in keeping scientists in a wide array of fields busy. No one knows what the future will bring (it is within the realm of the possible, if not at all likely, that come 50 years some could be advocating the release more CO2 in order to warm a cooling planet) I would keep my fingers and toes in a wide assortment of research and investment waters, just in case. Invest broadly in energy and dump what is in danger of becoming a too narrow Greenie litmus test. To the point, regarding the new nuclear plants I have lobbied for in this thread, if they never come to fruition, never see production, fine. But why not build some test plants just in case. Check them out. Maybe they will work wonderfully. Maybe they will even be needed. And if not, fine. Turn then into skateboard parks. But what's the harm in providing some research money for some of our brightest scientists and building some small scale test plants to check out some of the most promising new designs? Just in case, don't you know? The Green Mind has become a very narrow one. *in Obama's second term, his EPA tried to kill research North Dakota wanted to pursue in sequestering the CO2 released from ethanol production... and this I know because my wife was involved in the project. The project was A-OK first term Obama and supported by the Energy Department. It was stonewalled second term Obama (though still supported by the Energy Dept). And it was greenlighted again first term Trump. Now the project to sequester the CO2 emissions of a corn ethanol plant in ND is underway. The ethanol produced will be green fuel per California standards. It may never amount to a hill of beans, or it may usher in a way to build a mountain of clean energy with beans. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 18, 2019 20:55:34 GMT -5
I don't disagree with much of anything you've said, Paul. I'd never heard "net zero" discussed in any serious article about this issue and I had no idea what it meant. That's never been suggested as a target by anyone I'm familiar with.
Oops. I thought you posted the net zero stuff, Paul, and it was Jeff. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 18, 2019 21:05:03 GMT -5
My guess is that Jeff's "net zero" thing was one extreme arguing with the position of another extreme. Straw men involved on both ends. That goes on a lot nowadays. Something to do with mimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 18, 2019 21:34:47 GMT -5
My guess is that Jeff's "net zero" thing was one extreme arguing with the position of another extreme. Straw men involved on both ends. That goes on a lot nowadays. Something to do with mimes. Of course it's extreme. It's crazy extreme. It's also mainstream. That's exactly the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Nov 19, 2019 0:13:02 GMT -5
I don't disagree with much of anything you've said, Paul. I'd never heard "net zero" discussed in any serious article about this issue and I had no idea what it meant. That's never been suggested as a target by anyone I'm familiar with. Oops. I thought you posted the net zero stuff, Paul, and it was Jeff. Sorry. I'm surprised to hear that. I would have thought you would be following the primaries. Stated net zero pledges so far: Biden - 2050 Booker - 2045 Bennett - 2050 Bullock - 2040 Buttigieg - 2050 Castro - 2045 Harris - 2045 Klobuchar - 2050 Sanders - 2050 Steyer - 2045 Williamson - 2050 Yang - 2049 I probably missed some. www.cbsnews.com/news/where-the-2020-candidates-stand-on-climate-change-town-hall-2019-09-03/Most candidates have some intermediate pledges as well...typically something like halving CO2 by 2030. Here I'll editorialize... It's all nonsense. None of this is going to happen. Even if we got serious and developed a national consensus to build nuclear power plants, how many could realistically be built over the next 30 years? For some ridiculous reason, this issue is always framed as a matter of political will. It isn't. It's a matter of basic industrial capacity more than anything. Here's a "long bet" style wager: I say global CO2 emissions per unit of economic output in 2050 will be no lower than 90% of what they are in 2019, and that total CO2 emissions (in absolute terms, that is) in 2050 will be higher than 2019's. I'll cover any stakes. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Nov 19, 2019 0:20:59 GMT -5
And don't invest in gondola futures.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Nov 19, 2019 0:42:33 GMT -5
Clearly we need a different chart. Preferably one that uses less math.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 19, 2019 5:11:11 GMT -5
Obviously this proves that while all the others are just guessing, Yang has done the math. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Nov 19, 2019 6:39:15 GMT -5
I play 2048 now and then.
|
|
|
|
Post by howard lee on Nov 19, 2019 7:37:53 GMT -5
Do you have the copyright on that one? Not yet, but maybe I should. It came to me yesterday. I could get a bunch of T-shirts printed up and order some bumper stickers. I could retire ... wait, I am retired.
It's the official motto of the Christophers. Notice the bottom of the first paragraph on their landing page: www.christophers.org/
"[It's] better to radiate light one candle than [to] curse the darkness."
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Nov 19, 2019 8:09:16 GMT -5
Not yet, but maybe I should. It came to me yesterday. I could get a bunch of T-shirts printed up and order some bumper stickers. I could retire ... wait, I am retired. It's the official motto of the Christophers. Notice the bottom of the first paragraph on their landing page: www.christophers.org/"[It's] better to radiate light one candle than [to] curse the darkness."
Yeah, I know but I liked the radiate version. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Nov 19, 2019 9:19:11 GMT -5
Jeff, I wasn't aware of the goals the candidates have articulated. I see that I didn't miss anything that mattered. It's very optimistic puffery. As I indicated, I've looked a lot more at studies of the problem than at potential fixes. Based on what I have read about fixes, I'm not optimistic. We should do what we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 19, 2019 9:33:49 GMT -5
It's not possible for the left to be seen as extreme because the left's supporters take them seriously, not literally.
|
|
