Climate Change - True Believer or Skeptic?

by Simon 129 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Coded Logic

  What about Germany? What does that have to do with the efficiency of green energy?

  You seem to be confusing Germany's decision to get rid of nuclear power (premature in my opinion) with an actual policy that moves a country away from fossil fuels.

  This is not a pie in the sky idea. Iceland, Sweden, and Costa Rica have all succeeded in achieving 100% renewable energy. And dozens of other countries are operating at greater than 50% renewables. For countries like the US where we have a large population and we like to live in big houses - we like to drive big cars - we like to light up our cities like their a god-damn rave scene - etc. the transition is going to take a lot longer and require a lot more investment. But every little bit helps. And the more we do now the smaller price we'll pay economically and environmentally.
• 

  Old Navy

  Living creatures who travel upon our most wonderful planet eat foods they consider delicacies, breathe air to acquire Oxygen, then exhale to provide Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere.

  Living things which are essentially stationary with roots into the soil, in turn "eat" the Carbon Dioxide in order to convert it into cellulose, lignin, sugars and other substances and chemicals which are beneficial to the aforementioned "travelers" as either materials useful in commerce or as foods.

  A well thought out plan by those who made all life possible. Therefore, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant but a plant food. Unless, of course, those who make "rules of men" wish to classify it as a pollutant in order to serve some political purpose.

  Farmers know better. Without abundant Carbon Dioxide there are no crops.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Coded Logic: Germany’s power cost also doubled as renewables grew and they are now starting up COAL again as well as LNG to maintain the grid.

  Renewables aren’t sustainable long-term, California is running into the same issue, wind farms and solar farms are respectively chopping up and lighting up the big birds (eagles, condors etc) while taking valuable space from tortoises and other wildlife.

  We need to move back to energy-dense fuels, uranium is currently the most energy dense fuel we know about and can safely harness. It’s cheaper by a large margin and requires a lot less resources per TWh than anything else, it’s safer. Solar and wind just isn’t dense enough to sustain larger and larger, energy demanding populations.
• 

  Bungi Bill

  Iceland, Sweden, and Costa Rica have all succeeded in achieving 100% renewable energy.

  Actually, Sweden generates 40% of its electricity from nuclear power plants, and has to import 3% of its electricity requirements. It does, though, produce 53% of its power from hydro electric generation.

  The other two countries you mention derive the majority of their power (over 70%) from hydro electric generation. Additionally, both being located in volcanic areas, geothermal power stations also a contribute a significant amount (30% in the case of Iceland).

  However, not all countries have many suitable hydroelectric sites. Even Australia's remarkable Snowy Mountains hydro electric scheme contributes barely 2% of the country's power requirements. Even fewer areas of the world have any geothermal potential.

  Also, with hydroelectric generation, you are liable to encounter environmental issues of a different type. I come from a country that previously generated over 80% of its power requirements from hydroelectricity. That figure is now 54%, and falling - principally because of mass opposition from environmentalists, recreational fishermen, white water rafters and other pressure groups. In many quarters, hydro power has almost become a swear word!

  When it comes to both hydroelectric and geothermal generation, the old saying "All that glitters is not gold" comes to mind.
• 

  Judgejudy

  Iceland is the only country that gets all its power from renewable sources. No other country. This does not mean because a country that has a population of 330 thousand and has geothermal sources and hydro that can do this that countries with major populations can. Wyoming which has the smallest population of all the states is almost double Iceland. You can not say because one person lives in a travel trailer and gets his light bulb lit by a solar panel that therefor you can do that to LA. That is not logical.
  
• 

  Simon

  "A windmill is made of 260 tons of steel that required 300 tons of iron ore & 170 tons of coking coal, all mined transported & produced by hydrocarbons. A windmill could spin until it falls apart & never generates as much energy as was invested in building it"

  They explode well ...

  https://twitter.com/GregNorberg/status/1107172351379030018

  NOTE: the video appears to be doctored and the stats need to be scrutinized, but it highlights that all the factors are not always compared when it comes to declaring energy "clean". It needs to be about total cost to build, run, maintain and decommission - not just the peak power-generating performance.
  
  
• 

  Coded Logic

  The research has been done on this exact topic. And it finds that wind turbines not only have a high Energy Return on Investment - they also out preform fossil fuels and nuclear power. So the argument that a windmill could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it is completely and utterly false:

  "The EROI entails the comparison of the electricity generated to the amount of primary energy used in the manufacture, transport, construction, operation, decommissioning, and other stages of facility’s life cycle (Fig. 2) Comparing cumulative energy requirements with the amount of electricity the technology produces over its lifetime yields a simple ratio for energy return on investment (EROI) . . . The average EROI for just the operational studies is 19.8 (n¼60; std. dev ¼13.7). This places wind in a favorable position relative to fossil fuels, nuclear, and solar power generation technologies in terms of EROI."

  Note, this is just the "operational studies." It doesn't include the fact that windmills are becoming more efficient over time and are able to produce greater amounts of energy. So we can expect its EROI to go up even more.

  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222703134_Meta-Analysis_of_Net_Energy_Return_for_Wind_Power_Systems
• 

  redvip2000

  Folks, just give up and throw your hands up. Some people just can't be convinced regardless of the evidence.

  To recap, climate change is a chinese hoax. American scientists are fudging numbers because they don't like Trump. The non-American scientists are also fudging the numbers for their own reasons. Coal is "clean" like Trump says. Solar and Wind energy are useless. Carbon emissions don't change the planet's temperature. Other green house gases are a myth created by the left. And of course climate change is BS because I just stepped outside and it's cold.
  

  Got it? Trump wins, and you all lose.

  Also, don't run with scissors and don't eat pink snow
• 

  Judgejudy

  First off it was global cooling. Then Global warming and they had to change that so they picked a can not lose Climate change. LMAO The climate is always changing. The question is, is change normal or not? If it is not normal compared to long term historical records then is it man made or some other factors? The Earth has been much hotter than now and much colder on avg then now. So can it be proven that CO2 is causing this 3 degrees in 100 years change? Science says that correlation is not causation. It is very difficult to prove that one thing is causing warming if indeed warming is actually happening.

  The Medieval warming time line was much warming than today an no factory's and cars. The same people who say that people who question the science will gulp down the same without asking any questions. They go with the band wagon fallacy. 9 out of 10 doctors say Camel cigarettes are healthy.

  
  
• 

  Simon

  Forest fires are evidence of climate change

  Arson and poor forest management are primary cause of forest fires

  Therefore arson and poor forest management are evidence of climate change

  Do I have the logic right?