Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21

[dik]

thread1618-496010:
thread1618-496614:
thread1618-497017:
thread1618-497239:
thread1618-497988:
thread1618-498967:

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

No, just a common occurrence.

 

[Tomfh]

 

[dik]

I guess we'll have to wait and find out... it will be interesting if these events become bi-weekly...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

As with hurricane intensity, tornado intensity is driven by temperature differential, not average temperature.

 

[Tomfh]

it will be interesting if these events become bi-weekly...

They won’t.

 

[TugboatEng]

The apocalypse anticipators are crazier than the deniers.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That's myth... take a gander at the countries with the highest per capita carbon output... India is 1/10 the US and China is about 1/2. Why should they not be entitled to 'the good life' that we have? Or, why should we be allowed to continue, at their expense?

Lol. Really? It's a myth that poorer countries are desperate for abundant energy as a way to improve their standard of living?! You use the "per capita" carbon emissions as "proof" that my statement was a myth.

It's a myth that China and India are the biggest polluters in the world. Yes, that is true. However, if you look at GROWTH of carbon emissions of the 20+ years that we've been talking about carbon emissions, then what does the data say?!

I wasn't just talking about China and India. Those two countries are comfortably in the 2nd world. Not the 3rd world. But, the lack of power is what keeps a lot of nations in EXTREME poverty. Try telling them that they should have reliable power so that businesses (what few of them there are) can function. Or so that they can more efficiently grow food. So, that they can keep their food from rotting. So that they can have clean water supplies for their people.

I remember 30 years ago when the company I worked for had a new (and very large) offices in Manilla (Phillipines) and India (can't remember which province / city). They set up there mostly because they wanted to reduce the cost of engineering because US engineers were just too expensive. They realized one of the big problems was that the city's power grid wasn't very reliable and the power would just go out in the middle of the day fairly often. They had to come up with ways to keep those offices up and running without being dependent on the grid..... Such things are a major obstacle of growth and prosperity. And those aren't really even "poor" countries.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That's quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever read on this forum. Given that I ate my brussel sprouts this evening, can you please point me toward some of the free money for green energy that's going to save the planet?

Maybe I should have said, let's be MORE efficient with the money we spend. Subsidizing rich people to put up solar panels on their houses (solar panels that are only PROVEN to last about 20 years) is just not efficient.

Replacing coal power plants with combined cycle gas turbines would be a more efficient use of government money on a dollar per ton of emissions saved. It would be even better to do this for Nuclear Plants. Whether they are small scale or large scale plants. Those nuclear power plants are CARBON FREE power.

How about funding these ventures by taxing the least efficient sources of power (measured by cost per ton of CO2 emissions)? A way to skew the market (only slightly) to account for CO2 emissions.

How about Tariffs on imports from countries that emit too much CO2 (based on the type of energy they use to produce their power)? Or a tariff on any goods that have to be shipped more than a certain number of miles. Again, using that money to fund our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. Heck, you could even use that to sponsor overseas projects to help reduce CO2 emissions in those countries that are getting hurt by those tariffs or that need better sources of clean power.

 

[enginesrus]

Today on the local news the weather person, showed how we are having an almost total alignment of most all the planets. This was known for likely some hundred years previous that this was going to happen in this time in history of the planet earth. And how it was going to cause extreme weather on the earth. How convenient the climate change, mother earth religion that are using this and geoengineering to propagate their propaganda.
No wonder we could see the aurora this far south, must be some wild solar activity as well. I really don't think there are global warming gases affecting the sun.

 

[dik]

To prevent penalising countries with large populations, it should be based on a per capita basis... and it doesn't matter the source of the CO₂, it's the end product that counts... whether it's coal, or petroleum products... it's the same CO₂. The problem is that, on a per capita basis, the US has nearly twice the carbon footprint as China and nearly 10 times that of India... They would not be too happy about tariffs...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

To prevent penalising countries with large populations, it should be based on a per capita basis... and it doesn't matter the source of the CO2, it's the end product that counts... whether it's coal, or petroleum products... it's the same CO2. The problem is that, on a per capita basis, the US has nearly twice the carbon footprint as China and nearly 10 times that of India... They would not be too happy about tariffs...

I tend to disagree. The per capital amount is almost certainly related to standard of living. We've done this before, where we kill all the manufacturing in our 1st world countries with harsh regulations and we then the manufacturing is done in a less environmentally friendly manner in a country that pollutes like hell and then ships the products halfway around the world dramatically raising the carbon emissions per product produced. What's to stop a totalitarian state (say North Korea or China) from using slave like labor from building factories for their ruling elite while the majority live in extreme poverty.

Now, some kind of a Combo evaluation that look at BOTH the per capita and the type of power used to produce the product is maybe a good idea.

 

[dik]

I disagree... it's still carbon output and in the case of India, no one should be able to output 10x the carbon... they are affecting the lives of those that are not putting out carbon. You will have to change your lifestyle...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Dik, you still need to change that LP. It is badly scratched. Surely there are more than one song on it.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

I disagree... it's still carbon output and in the case of India, no one should be able to output 10x the carbon... they are affecting the lives of those that are not putting out carbon. You will have to change your lifestyle...

Dik -

Now, if you (and your political allies) genuinely believe that climate warming is the an existential crisis and should be a priority over all other things in the world, then there is only ONE solution for the time being..... go hard for nuclear energy. Now. Not tomorrow, not a decade from now. But, yesterday. Do this hard core until you have an energy grid (here, in Europe, China, Japan, and anywhere that can construct these things) that is almost entirely nuclear with assistance from other "green" energy methods (Hydro, solar, wind, geothermal). When that's done, start exporting the nuclear technologies to as many other countries as possible until they are green as well.

Unfortunately, that's a political "no go" from the left. They prefer to throw billions and billions of dollars at solar to make small nibbles out of our fossil fuel based power system. Why? Because that's what the left politically supports and the left makes it clear that nuclear power is not an acceptable solution to the climate issue.

 

[dik]

Hokie... the lyrics haven't changed appreciably... Josh... I'm not political...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Josh... I'm not political...

Well, climate change is primarily a political problem. And, the biggest "allies" of the global warming doom day predictors in politics are the biggest hypocrites in politics (which says A LOT) because they are very anti-nuclear. Nancy Pelosi practically did a little dance when the San Onofre was shut down due primarily to regulatory and political obstacles.

 

[Tomfh]

To prevent penalising countries with large populations, it should be based on a per capita basis.

If the goal is to reduce overall carbon emissions then you must count overall emissions, and overall emissions are a function of both per capita emissions AND population. Ignoring population is ignoring the problem.

 

[TugboatEng]

The bigger problem is calling electricity zero emissions regardless of it's source. Carbon-free electricity requires a lot of raw materials.

 

[dik]

Canada's carbon, on a per capita basis is high partly due to long travel distances and the climate. Even with our high value, we are one of the leading countries for hydro power generation which has a really low carbon footprint. Our carbon footprint could be higher...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

With all of that low cost low carbon energy Canada should have plenty of money to give to other countries to reduce their CO2 footprint. As far as I know, Canada's monetary contributions per capita are also very low.