I would think solar would be better than having houses go up in there,.. and when Fatkid says solar farms are noisy,.. Huh ? Sure as heck beats a coal plant in my town belching out pollution. Don't want to get too political on this form though,..
So my question to you all is how high a fence can a deer jump ?
If you think clear cutting hillsides, encouraging erosion and wiping out old farmland and orchards, destroying the natural ecosystem for whatever lived in those woods is a better alternative I just don't understand and never will.
Maybe I just care to much about the wildlife and land we have and hate seeing it lost. I also realize that I live in the wrong state but family keeps me here.
I say that to point out that I really like the concept of alternative energy. Be it wind, solar, tide current etc.
My issue here, is that, as so often happens... A good idea comes up, we start focusing on making money with it before we focus on how to best implement it.
For example, there are thousands of acres of parking lots, which could end up with solar over all or parts of them, providing shade for the cars, a little cover in general and electricity from an already barren and relatively sterile environment. Instead (and I cant blame folks - you get beat on the cost of everything) farmers and other large land area owners are seeing this as a big win and taking over areas that were once hay or corn or other sorts of fields to put in a solar farm that helps them pay for their property. Some even cut forest for it. I get it, but it is a bummer.
It would be nice, if a bit more long range planning could be used during implementation of stuff like this.
Long term, it's great... but there sure seem to be some solid losses on the road to figuring out the best implementation strategies.
Not sure but I think you may have been misled,.. the reason you are seeing wind and solar appear everywhere is because it is the cheapest form of electrical generation around now. Me thinks you are looking at charts that show upfront costs,.. Yes it is more expensive to build a solar farm than say Coal plant watt for watt,.. but then you have to add in the cost to feed the coal plant for the next 30 years,.. that's not cheap.
Excessive CO2 in our atmosphere is a by product of us burning everything in sight. The U.S. burns up 19 million barrels of oil a day (A DAY!),.. that is just oil,.. add in coal, wood, nat gas, and plenty of other stuff. Throw in what the entire world is burning per day,... (and they do not do it as clean as us) and it is a problem,...
We have polluted the land,.. the water in the ground, the oceans, what haven't we fucked up?,.. Christ we put a hole in our ozone layer,.. to think the atmosphere is somehow immune from pollution is a bit odd to me?
Have you not seen the cities in China India etc blanketed in smog,.. millions die from it,.. Hell visit LA in the summer,..
Scotland is dang near 100% renewable energy now,..
Smacks forehead,.. People,.. wake up!
Without going point by point there are several convoluted points in your position. They all flow from talking points and few have scientific merit. No reasonable person wants pollution. That is a separate issue that has been intertwined to gain sympathy and public support like a crying Indian(Native American for the PC minded.). ( that worked though and I'm glad of it).
Pollution , such as smog is created by specific physical dynamics that trap un-burned fuel and chemical byproducts into a local area . Smog is not a CO2 issue. The sun reacts to create ground level ozone and negative chemical reactions happen in these particular spaces. There must be inadequate ventilation for such things to happen such as air inversion. For those places a solution is warranted but for the rest of our vast majority it is not applicable and strapping ourselves will not effect them either way. Again it is a local issue having to do with their physical environment. They should move the city or ventilate it or restrict it to electrical generated outside the city. The rest of the country and world does not need to change to fix that problem.
CO2 is the byproduct of burning petroleum based fuel. It is not a harmful product . It is a net positive to our natural world. And it does not cause global warming and is negligible as a smog element. All these are false arguments aimed at convincing a public to invest in the alternatives .
The financial return and output of these "alternatives" should be enough to warrant the re-labeling of them as "ridiculous pipe dreams without good reason "... I'll work on a more catchy name. They will soon be stranded assets and end up in the junk pile . That must be figured into the cost as well. There output potential is so minimal to our current needs it is hard to imagine why we allow our tax dollars to be flushed like that. Hence the illusion of Evil oil to accomplish it. The "Chicken little syndrome"
If science could prove Petroleum use to be harmful or at least be more harm than good then we would begin to have a fair dialogue on the way forward . Greater scrubbers and mining practices for instance. Nuclear would likely be the future but instead there are false claims and Fake science pushing this illusion . Too much to go into here, but for anyone searching that reality , start with the NIPCC report and dig into the science of real pollution and where it comes from. The myth of CO2.
No one wants pollution or significant negative "Global changes" which is not caused by burning things anyway . But the alternative to the presumption that this is happening must be based on real data and that doesn't exist. Hence the lies of catastrophic changes that don't exist and this new pet market of the elite at the expense of the people paying for it. Lost assets. Its snake oil . And check the natural Ozone hole / layer... it isn't deteriorating at all. Also, ponder how Carbon ,which is heavier than air, could be making it up to the upper atmosphere... another myth driven illusion. What is the real consequences of air particles if any ? It ain't warming ! , ask the dinosaurs.
You really trust the insiders who created this movement to be telling you the truth ? The clean air and water act has worked wonders , long before this big push for " Alternatives" . See the politics through the trees. Or at least check the science .
There is your smack to the forehead, I apologize if I left a unnecessary mark. I'm awake !
But back to the topic, the solar farms are obstacles to deer travel and help create funnels. Since we can't stop progress, good, bad or indifferent, let's take advantage of it while we can.
Spike and Pi,.. I love you guys to death but please just do a little research,.. google it man.
It would take .6% of the USA or 11 million square miles,.. to provide USA with power
https://solar.gwu.edu/q-a/how-much-land-would-it-take-power-us-solar
Their are made from Silicon Wafers,... that is Silicon,.. that is sand. One company, First Solar makes them out of Cadmium which is bad they are not recyclable,..
Why are folks so prejudiced to things different ?,.. why so closed and not willing to look this stuff up yourself,.. I really am stumped? Is it fear of something different? I really don't get it?
Human nature I guess,.. dunno?
Perhaps you can answer this . What is the driving factors of our Global climate ? What harm is there to CO2. in our environment ?
Which 11 million square miles are you setting aside and how do we get that power where we need it ? The transportation would require more copper than the earth has... And why fix what isn't really broken ?
What is your human nature ? Can we make electricity from solar ? sure , but at what cost and why do it ?
The study of ancient air samples and temperatures over the millions of years show that as CO2 in our atmosphere goes up so does the temp of the planet. That is because CO2 is a green house gas meaning it traps reflective heat and does not allow radiative cooling of the earth.
Many times volcanoes have unleashed large amounts of CO2 and not coincidentally the planets temp went up. So before we started burning fossil fuels and before we had 7 billion people on the planet we had 270 parts of CO2 per million today it is above 400 and rapidly rising,.. because we are burning everything we can.
I guess you can say fuck it,.. the planet gets hotter, oceans get filled up with plastic and who cares,.. PS by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/20/by-2050-there-will-be-more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-worlds-oceans-study-says/?utm_term=.7e9bb564ecaf
The ideal of clean power appeals to me,.. why would it not? Pi you put on roofs, you put it where it is needed. In fact it is happening right now before our eyes,.. Pi the change is all around you.
It is cheap, I like that too.
This reminds me of folks who looked at a car for the first time and said no way I am getting in that thing! I am sticking with the horse.
Why would anyone not want clean, cheap, power,.. oh wait those who have built an empire on our addiction to fossil fuels,. Exxon, Mobile, etc,.. only the largest company's on the planet i guess.
The real question is not,.. why do it?,.. but why would we not do it?
Pi you are a religious sort right,.. God destroyed the earth the first time with a flood,.. tell us what the bible says about how he will destroy it in the future,.. Not coincidentally by Fire. PS I am not a religious person by the way. Here is the quote which I find sort oddly prophetic since 15,000 scientists all over the world are saying change and change fast humanity, or you are fucked.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html
2 Peter 3New Life Version (NLV) "At that time the heavens will be destroyed by fire. And the sun and moon and stars will melt away with much heat."
I just don't get why folks are so dead set against clean, cheap, power,.. Dunno?
I will not post again on this as I am sure everyone wants to get back to bow stuff,..
Thanks for letting me rant,.. back to regular programming,..
Unfortunately, any way we produce power is going to impact the local environment and the world as a whole negatively. Maybe there was a time in our history when our population was low enough to avoid that, but it certainly ain't now. I think an unavoidable fact is there are too darn many of us. You'd be hard pressed to find an ecologist who doesn't think our earth is nearing or beyond our carrying capacity of the human species.
Couple of facts: The first organisms were anaerobic, they polluted the world with oxygen and killed themselves off. Dinosaurs ruled this planet for what, like 165,000,000 years. They changed all kinds of stuff.
CO2 is a by product of burning things,.. and mankind is burning everything in sight at an alarming rate ( I just filled my wood stove at lunch break and drove my car back to work LOL). Today's world is powered by burning things. NOT AN ALARMING RATE AT ALL. THERE IS PLENTY. CO2 IS A GREENING AGENT AND PLANTS THRIVE UNDER GREATER AMOUNTS . 1200 PPM IS OPTIMAL THEN THE BENEFIT FALLS FLAT. ON OUR NUCLEAR SUBS THE ALARM RINGS AT 8000 PPM BUT MAN FEELS NO EFFECTS . UNDER 200 PPM PLANTS DIE. SO THERE IS A BRILLIANT SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP OF USING THE GOD GIVEN FUEL AND PRODUCING BETTER CROPS THAT REQUIRE LESS AS THE CO2 RISES. THE EARTH IS 11 % GREENER THAN AT THE START OF THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. SUCH RESPONSES TO ATMOSPHERIC CARBON MITIGATES THE PERCEIVED NEGATIVE BY PRODUCING MORE OXYGEN AND ATMOSPHERIC MOISTURE WHICH FALLS AS A NICE COOLING RAIN. WE CERTAINLY NEED THE RAIN AND SNOW .
AS FOR 400 PPM THAT IS .004% OF OUR NATURAL ATMOSPHERE AND OUR CONTRIBUTION IS A FRACTION OF THAT . NOW EXPLAIN HOW OUR ALMOST IMMEASURABLE ADDITION TO THAT FRACTION OF A PERCENT OF NATURALLY OCCURRING ATMOSPHERIC GAS CONTRIBUTES TO WARMING ... IT DOESN'T . IT IS OFFSET BY OTHER FEEDBACK'S AND IS A SMALL FRACTION OF THE GREENHOUSE GASSES TO BEGIN WITH. TO ADD THE CARBON MOLECULE IS ALREADY VIBRATING AT ABOUT 80% CAPACITY AND HAS LITTLE ROOM FOR MORE ENERGY ABSORPTION . BY THE WAY HEAT RISES AND THERE IS NO GLASS TO STOP IT. IF CARBON HAS THE ABILITY TO DEFLECT HEAT BACK IT HAS THE EQUAL ABILITY TO DEFLECT THE RADIATION TO BEGIN WITH . BUT ALL THAT IS PART OF THE MYTH ANYWAY. THE ADDITION IS LIKE A HAND FULL OF SAND ADDED TO THE BEACH.
The study of ancient air samples and temperatures over the millions of years show that as CO2 in our atmosphere goes up so does the temp of the planet. That is because CO2 is a green house gas meaning it traps reflective heat and does not allow radiative cooling of the earth. YOU HAVE THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. CO2 FOLLOWS THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE IT DOES NOT PRECEDE IT. NEVER DID. MOST OF OUR RISE IN MODERN TIMES PRECEDED THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE REST WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. NO CORRELATION TO CO2 , IT IS NOT A DRIVER OF CLIMATE IT IS A RESULT OF A WARMING WORLD. THAT STUFF IS RIGHT OUT OF THE AL GORE HAND BOOK AND NOT SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSTANTIATED .
Many times volcanoes have unleashed large amounts of CO2 and not coincidentally the planets temp went up. So before we started burning fossil fuels and before we had 7 billion people on the planet we had 270 parts of CO2 per million today it is above 400 and rapidly rising,.. because we are burning everything we can.THERE IS NO CORRELATION OF VOLCANIC ACTIVITY WITH CLIMATE. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE DINOS DIED OUT FROM COOLING DUE TO ATMOSPHERIC OVERLOAD OF PARTICLES BY IMPACT OF A GREAT FOREIGN BODY. MAYBE GOD CHUCKED IT AND HIT THE MARK... THE PRIMARY DRIVER IS THE THREE ASPECTS OF EARTH ORBIT, WOBBLE, TILT AND ORBIT FORM . SOLAR CONDITIONS ARE CYCLICAL AND PREDICTABLE AND WATER VAPOR IS THE MAIN ATMOSPHERIC COMPONENT CONSISTING OF 95 % OF THE EQUATION.. CO2 IS ,004 % . THINK ABOUT THAT SMALLNESS.
I guess you can say fuck it,.. the planet gets hotter, oceans get filled up with plastic and who cares,.. PS by 2050 there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. NO ONE WANTS PLASTIC . IT IS NOT THE ISSUE AND DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO GLOBAL WARMING. AT ALL. LETS KEEP THE PLACE CLEAN. BUT IF WE COULD WARM THE PLANET IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING NOT A BAD THING. COLD KILLS , WE ARE A SUBTROPICAL SPECIES. ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ARE MORE STABLE IN WARMER EARTH. NOT THE LIES THEY TELL YOU.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/20/by-2050-there-will-be-more-plastic-than-fish-in-the-worlds-oceans-study-says/?utm_term=.7e9bb564ecaf
The ideal of clean power appeals to me,.. why would it not? Pi you put on roofs, you put it where it is needed. In fact it is happening right now before our eyes,.. Pi the change is all around you. I KNOW IT IS AND I OBJECT TO IT.
It is cheap, I like that too. NO ITS NOT . IT IS SUBSIDIZED BY GOVERNMENT TAKEN FROM OUR TAX DOLLARS . IT IS WITH THEIR OWN INTEREST AT HEART. IF IT WAS COMPETITIVE WE WOULD NOT NEED TO SUBSIDIZE IT.
This reminds me of folks who looked at a car for the first time and said no way I am getting in that thing! I am sticking with the horse. IT REMINDS ME THAT PEOPLE ARE GULLIBLE AND DON'T RELY ON FACTS.
Why would anyone not want clean, cheap, power,.. oh wait those who have built an empire on our addiction to fossil fuels,. Exxon, Mobile, etc,.. only the largest company's on the planet i guess. WE HAVE CLEAN CHEEP POWER. ITS PETROLEUM BASED . WHO CARES IF THERE IS AN EMPIRE BUILT ON FUEL.? THERE IS A GREAT NEED AND THEY PROVIDE. PERHAPS YOU WANT AN EMPIRE OF GOVERNMENT SELLING LIES IN STEAD. PERHAPS MORE ETHANOL TO SAVE THE PLANET... ? THAT WAS ANOTHER BRILLIANT SCAM. USE FOOD FOR FUEL ... WHY TO SAVE NATURAL PETROLEUM RESOURCES WHICH ARE SUPERABUNDANT.
The real question is not,.. why do it?,.. but why would we not do it? BECAUSE IT PUTS RESOURCES ( FINANCIAL) INTO SOMETHING WE DON'T NEED AND THEREFORE THE MONEY CAN'T BE USED OTHERWISE.
Pi you are a religious sort right,.. God destroyed the earth the first time with a flood,.. tell us what the bible says about how he will destroy it in the future,.. Not coincidentally by Fire. PS I am not a religious person by the way. Here is the quote which I find sort oddly prophetic since 15,000 scientists all over the world are saying change and change fast humanity, or you are fucked. 33 PLUS THOUSAND DOCTORATE LEVEL SCIENTIST IN THE SPECIFIC FIELD OF ATMOSPHERIC STUDIES AND RELATED SAY THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/letter-to-humanity-warning-climate-change-global-warming-scientists-union-concerned-a8052481.html
2 Peter 3New Life Version (NLV) "At that time the heavens will be destroyed by fire. And the sun and moon and stars will melt away with much heat." AND THE END IS KNOWN TO NO MAN , BUT IS NOT TO OCCUR BEFORE THE LORDS THOUSAND YEAR REIN SO UNLESS HE SHOWS UP SOON WE ARE ALL SET FOR AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. GOD PROMISED TO PROVIDE FOR US AND IT IS INTERESTING THAT IT IS NON BELIEVERS THAT ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE "MAN WILL SAVE US THEME ." GOD MADE A PERFECT ABUNDANCE IN A MIRACULOUS WAY . (AT THE FALL OF THE ANAEROBIC STAGE, THANK YOU MRW) AND IT IS PRIMARILY FROM THOSE ANCIENT OCEANS THAT IT WAS FORMED. VERY FEW FOSSILS. ANOTHER MISINFORMATION TITLE. THERE IS FURTHER SCIENCE TO SUPPORT MORE IS STILL BEING PRODUCED FROM SOURCE ROCK AND CHEMICAL PROCESSES. BUT PERHAPS ANOTHER TIME FOR THAT. ITS TECHNICAL.
I just don't get why folks are so dead set against clean, cheap, power,.. Dunno? IF IT WAS COST EFFICIENT AND DIDN'T WASTE OUR MONEY WHICH COULD BE PUT TO BETTER USE ... WHY BE AGAINST WHAT WE HAVE ... OH BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS WRECKING THE EARTH ... BUT IT IS NOT.
I will not post again on this as I am sure everyone wants to get back to bow stuff,.. NO PROBLEM WITH THAT . I COULD GO ON TILL THE COWS COME HOME.
Thanks for letting me rant,.. back to regular programming,.. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISPEL THE MYSTERIES ...
PEACE BROTHER
preach on the solar! total scam...
Science is traditionally open to debate and proof. Not This Time around , the Intergovernmental panel IPCC was a construct of the UN and the intention/ MO/ stated mission , was to state why carbon was bad for our world. That is not science but agenda driven. Science would ask what are the effects of CO2 and deal in facts , verifiable and be open to scrutiny. it was not.
Much like the fake/manufactured Russia dossier that was used to launch a "trumped up" investigation , to muddy the waters of our current president and that political direction. It happens.
Those who do not produce the desired wording or findings are not further funded. You can easily see the trend to say what is desired by the fund holder. That was a group of "Environmental " overlords who are of questionable character in cahoots with government insiders that deal with global issues for profit. Ask Clinton / Gore /Obama maybe the Bush family too . The incentive is , power to move funding and capitalizing on that move. Insider trading on a huge scale. Look up Shore Bank and its founders ... in Chicago of all obvious places and guess who is found ? guess what they wanted to sell ? yup Carbon credits , that's right , trading carbon credits for processing profit . Michelle O' is deep into big organizations as well. Research this .
Head of EPA was found absent from duty for about a year... It was a mess and politically driven. The IPCC head man quit because of fake reports and the list of fake reports go on and on. Google the hockey stick , fake data .
NOAA also fudge the numbers with ocean temp readings before the last climate accord.
Duke university was funded to find negative correlation with breathing issues (Platt-Kant) admitted to fudging the trials to fit the expectations at the tune of 130 million buckeroos... or so.
It is not science at all , it is Hollywood propaganda , just like the news organizations and their monopoly on select information . It is persuasion not truth.
That's just the tip of the iceberg, that is not melting.
1.) You all are clearly correct, not only were Moons ancestors clearly the first hunters... I bet they even chucked the big rock at the earth that fried up most of the dinosaurs :)
I dont like to read newspapers for details on stuff like this (global warming/pollution/environmental health)... I take it seriously though because environmental health is a direct factor on my line of work which requires human health (I'm a performance coach with a masters degree) to be high.
This study on anthropogenic global warming is an interesting read. If you only read the abstract, the final statement sum's the paper, which is a review of many other studies (over 11,000 from 91-2011) on the subject as follows: "Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW [Will Edit: Antrhopogenic Global Warming] is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf
John Cook, Et Al., in this paper (a consensus of consensus studies) http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf wraps up the abstract (just easy to only note that simple conclusion - Id encourage reading the full paper) as follows: "We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."
As a hunter and fisherman... and human, I'm really interested in environmentalism. It was "outdoors people" like "us" who started the environmental movement - it wasn't PETA and Greenpeace. I dont think this is a political issue. And I sure as heck dont have the answers.
So, while incorrect science, if we applied the numbers of study 2 above to the number of papers reviewed in study 1... Out of about 11,500 studies reviewed, 345 didnt feel AGW was as sure as the other 11,155... I'm not a gambler... But... I think the Pat's had better odds of coming back from 25 down with 3' to go in the 3rd quarter last February than AGW not having at least a little to do with changing climate and the resultant environmental changes going on at this point in human history.
That's the beauty of science and philosophy though, different ideas and opinions and interpretations make everyone better.
Now back to being stoked for each others cool hunts, and to seeking to better understand how dang white tailed deer can make us look like idiots so often :)
Of course we are having an impact . just like anything that exists. The questions are in this nature : Is that impact worth doing something about or is it not ? Is the results of our existence truly catastrophic or grossly negative or is it also beneficial ? Is the alternative a strongly positive net gain without great downside ? Or not worth doing ? And exactly , if the trend is into a new Ice age then it sure seem silly to worry about 1 degree warmer if in fact we are bringing this about . Is a continued rise a reasonable expectation or does this trend have a limit ? I'm convinced it does , like a carrying capacity. So without the common "fallacy of equivocation" we should be looking at the facts , not manipulated by fear based lies , propaganda or exaggeration .
That is exactly what should be laid out to the public , not decided by the few or exaggerated and manipulated to make that decision more favorable , or an unnecessary burden, without consent of the governed.
I will stop there for "the bothered people" who cant handle the deviation during bow season but as originally posted long ago when this came up , I am willing to dialogue through P/M .
PS. Freeman Dyson has a good disposition on the subject. And for those that may be concerned that he is a big oil brother ... he is not. He is a life long Democrat but realistic as well.
Belchertown Bowman's Link
https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/
There is a place for a "peaker" gas plants,.. that is for sure!,.. but our core energy should be cheap, clean, renewable energy. Preferably produced on my roof, owned by me.
My point is there are many options for cheap clean power,.. but not as long as we have folks (and oil funded think tanks) throwing out crazy facts. I respect folks opinions but when it comes to listening to a Bowhunter in his PJ's,.. sitting on his couch,.. telling us how much solar power is a turd due to costs,.. (no offense meant),.. well I will go with my own research and utilize expert opinion of folks who are investing billions of dollars into a future energy mix and are doing it for profit. They put their money where their brains are,.. and we can see it pouring into renewables all around us.
I also listen to scientists, 97% who say we better do something and do something fast,..
The real question is would I listen to a scientist in his PJ's sitting on his couch?,.. Hmmmm,,, LOLOLOL
The 97% is debunked. by 100% of reality based assessment on that trickery. It is just opinion in a bubble. Blow the horn ! BS alert ! Run for cover... TTTHHHMMiink and research the researcher !
Yes the majority of Scientist believe we are having some effect. 85%. But the severity of its effects falls off steeply among them. There is the kicker. What should be done if anything and how bad could it get ? We have a warming planet Naturally and we add a small portion but how much do we add and how bad is that ? That is the numbers of consensus we should be looking at. And that is a fraction of the 97% with deep division among them as to what we should be doing in our future efforts.
They move.
Ill throw this out. Even if the papers suggesting human impact is a factor only are about 50% of published literature, why is that not enough to encourage society to take steps towards things science has found may limit AGW?
This is not all or nothing - no research is. If we closed every coal mine, and petrol factory today, the environment would likely be cleaner, but we'd live in a lawless insane society as people literally go crazy from everything they know stopping and the economy crashing. Shifting away is not eliminating. If we can reduce, and over years reduce strongly, the potential negatives are little.
If the scientific consensus is correct, and we dont do that... at some point we are going to be in a big hurt.
You have me thinking though. I'm having a nice sidebar with a environmental science PhD sister in law picking her brain and asking for studies to read. thanks for the push!
The alternatives can not produce the amount of energy needed .
Fossil fuel on the other hand has a massive net gain. I’m in no way advocating fossil energy. My point is that we still have a way to go and we remain dependent on fossil fuels.
Additionally, transparent solar glass has an issue they can’t overcome yet and that is current development. There’s a capacitive effect that causes massive sections of the “glass” to short out and cook itself. Currently this has become a materials engineering issue. We need to invent something that will take the current, prevent inductance, all the while not being insulated....and thin enough to remain transparent when clustered and stacked
...yeah
We have a ways to go, I hope we get there.
Ill throw this out. Even if the papers suggesting human impact is a factor only are about 50% of published literature THAT WAS SOLICITED THEN, why is that not enough to encourage society to take steps towards things science has found may limit AGW? BECAUSE IF YOU CONTINUE TO READ THE FOLLOW UP ON WHAT THOSE 50% THINK YOU ARE TO FIND THAT ANOTHER 50% OF THEM THINK NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE BECAUSE IT IS NOT GOING TO ESCALATE AS ERRONEOUSLY PERPETUATED. THE NUMBER KEEPS FALLING BY HALF AS THE QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS RELEVANCE AND PUBLIC EXPENDITURES ARE ASKED.
This is not all or nothing - no research is. If we closed every coal mine, and petrol factory today, the environment would likely be cleaner, HOW SO ? A LITTLE COAL DUST OR CO2 OR MINING BYPRODUCTS ? NO QUESTION WE SHOULD FILTER AS MUCH AS WE CAN. NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL . but we'd live in a lawless insane society as people literally go crazy from everything they know stopping and the economy crashing. Shifting away is not eliminating. If we can reduce, and over years reduce strongly, the potential negatives are little. THE POINT IS THAT THE NEGATIVES ARE NOT LISTED AND REAL PROBLEMS BUT MADE UP OR EXAGGERATED AND CONVOLUTED TO CONFUSE PEOPLE. THE KNOWN CONCERNS ARE BEING ADDRESSED , AS THEY SHOULD BE. WHY INVEST IN AN INDUSTRY THAT IS NOT ABLE TO SUSTAIN OUR NEEDS ? THE ONLY THING THAT COMES TO MY MIND IS TO HELP LESSEN THE SINGULAR ENERGY SOURCE SO THAT IT MUST REMAIN COMPETITIVE , PRICE-WISE. WHY NOT NUCLEAR ? IT HAS A GIGANTIC OUTPUT AND EVER IMPROVED FOR LONGER ACTIVE LIFE OF REACTORS . SAFE STORAGE IS A PROJECT THAT O'BUTHEAD ENDED WHY? HE HAD HIS HAND IN THE SOLAR COOKIE JAR.
If the scientific consensus is correct, and we dont do that... at some point we are going to be in a big hurt. THAT IS NOT WHAT THE CONSENSUS SAID. THAT IS WHAT POLITICIANS SAID AND THERE IS NO PROOF OF IT. ONCE YOU STUDY THE PHYSICS AND HOW THE FEEDBACK'S OF OUR SYSTEMS WORK IN OUR MULTIDIMENSIONAL ATMOSPHERE YOU WILL SEE THE BALANCING EFFECTS AND LIMITS TO THE FURTHER INPUT OF CARBON. IT HAS A LEVELING EFFECT AND WE HAVE APPARENTLY REACHED IT. ACCORDING TO AL GORE-BREATH WE SHOULD BE SWIMMING AND SWEATING AND HORRIBLE THING SHOULD BE HAPPENING ALREADY. THEY ARE NOT AND THE UPWARD TREND HAS FLATTENED OUT , THE MODELS WERE WRONG BECAUSE THEY MADE THEM TO BE THAT WAY. THAT IS WHY THEY WANTED TO RUSH IT THROUGH. CLASSIC SALES TECHNIQUE. SNAKE OIL.
You have me thinking though. I'm having a nice sidebar with a environmental science PhD sister in law picking her brain and asking for studies to read. thanks for the push! YOU ARE QUITE WELCOME. ASK IF SHE IS BEING FUNDED BY SOMEONE WITH AN INTEREST IN SOMETHING AND IF THAT ALTERS THE COLOR OF HER SHADES. NOT SUGGESTING IT DOES BUT THE POINT APPLIES TO THE PAST FOLKS THAT FOUND MAJOR FUNDING FROM PUMPING UP THE RHETORIC WITHOUT THE FACTS. THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AND I DO NOT TRUST ANYONE THAT WILLINGLY DOES THIS. THAT WAS THE NORM WITH THE LAST ADMINISTRATION ON MANY FRONTS FROM ENERGY TO SOCIAL ISSUES TO CHEATING AND GOVERNING FROM THE LAW BENCH. WHICH IS WHY WE ARE STILL FINDING OUT WHAT WAS REALLY SAID AND BY WHOM. THIS IS PART OF THAT MIND SET AND AGENDA. THEY ARE GOOD AT IT TOO.
NOW IS THE TIME TO BE THINKING ! KEEP AT IT AND QUESTION IT ALL.
That is if we ever need a back up. We probably don't for 500 years or more but lets plan ahead and go with nuclear power then. Problem solved.
Belchertown Bowman's Link
Christ and I promised to not post on this thread again,.. UGH !!! ,.. Jumps off porch!
LOLOLOL
It is not fake news but a bit misleading. The return seems to be an average of 50% by renewable sources . Which is extraordinary but in context maybe not so impressive as it seems. Scotland has unique conditions and they capitalize on that . Great ! But in conjunction with the total of the UK (who subsidies the projects in Scotland) or measured against countries of great production how do they compare ? High taxes and a growth of less than 1% for the foreseeable future.... ? It's misleading but not fake.
I sure don't want to copy Scotland. I value my Freedom . FFFRRREEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOOMMMMM
I have no issues with nuke,. it just costs more than sticking panels on a land fill dump,.. or my roof
I would like you to post a link to your data,.. if ya could,.. Show me?
Xi seriously explain to me?
EDIT XI you bastard I thought you were serious,.. OMG!! LMAO
BB - pretty interesting piece from BBC.com there. Thanks for sharing it.
I vote this thread go the way of the Doodo bird,.. Just saying,..
Like the Tomb of Tutankhamen ,.. may you be cursed who ever dare revive this thread! That will probably be Pi!
Happy Holidays you guys,.. what a great time of the year.
BB
And Ill promise again next week and the week after so you are always reminded of my silence.
Didn't Tut worship the Sun also ?
PS. Don Quixote send his best wishes.
You better know I'm kidding or its gonna get ugly .
