2014 was definitely the hottest year on record

[Harrekin]

Why can't you encourage innovation while tackling part of the problem at the same time? A huge part of the problem is CO2 emissions, until we handle that no amount of new batteries will make much of a difference.

Of course humanity would survive. The consensus if we don't is much worse

Do you not get it?

Batteries are literally the only thing stopping a new generation of solar, tide, geothermal and wind energy generation.

The problem currently being that you can't store energy thats produced in abundance (eg high winds, clear days) to cover the shortfall from when it's not (eg cloudy days, no wind).

It's funny, we both have the exact same goal but you can't agree with me because we differ in our reasonings...

EDIT: I will however say that electricity generation should NOT be taking place with coal, etc. even today.

Nat Gas is a much smaller emitter and commonly available, nuclear is an option too if we can dispose of the waste more efficiently (I say send it to space, it's radioactive as fuck up there anyway) and there are other nuclear technologies that look promising (thorium salt reactors, etc).

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you not get it?

Batteries are literally the only thing stopping a new generation of solar, tide, geothermal and wind energy generation.

The problem currently being that you can't store energy thats produced in abundance (eg high winds, clear days) to cover the shortfall from when it's not (eg cloudy days, no wind).

It's funny, we both have the exact same goal but you can't agree with me because we differ in our reasonings...

EDIT: I will however say that electricity generation should NOT be taking place with coal, etc. even today.

Nat Gas is a much smaller emitter and commonly available, nuclear is an option too if we can dispose of the waste more efficiently (I say send it to space, it's radioactive as fuck up there anyway) and there are other nuclear technologies that look promising (thorium salt reactors, etc).

You don't seem to understand, none of it matters if we don't get the polluters to stop polluting. We could have fancy new batteries that could hold all the abundant energy produced, but if we're still emitting tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year it won't matter very much, not until it outprices fossil fuels hundreds-thousands of years in the future.. Regulations have to be made, profit/capitalism be damned. If this were your life, would you prioritize your ability to earn more money by deferring chemo over treating your cancer? No you wouldn't because you can't make money if you're dead, now can you.. Anyone worried about the short-term economic costs hasn't considered the long-term costs if we do nothing.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Ok, they include those stations in the data and it makes small impact if at all with other data and those station excluded explains their drive but not what I ask. I ask, Why even turn the first screw and put it there at all ? They know it`s flawed.

Then, back in 08 when Philippe asks Wondering Aloud if he is certain that surface terms raising more than atmosphere is ok to ignore, Wondering Aloud replies yes 100% because it would violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Right off the bat,.... if the atmosphere is preventing heat loss, than it will increase on the surface like an oven and entropy laws of thermodynamics are nullified and therefore can`t be used to say with any, let alone 100% certainty that it is the explanation to defend the question asked about surface temps being warmer than atmosphere are ok to ignore or that he was right.

Second, if the first law of thermodynamics works of matter cant be created or destroyed, ...I didn`t go too far into Fusion but left knowing it creates a new Element after destroying (however small) another.

How does increased entropy laws explain a melting snowball ? It would seem it`s surrounding air would not have to change(ex. 35 degrees) to continue the process of the snowball surface warming to melt ?

Another poster said that answering with,.. "numerous studies have shown", without links is a lot sloppy.

Things like this bug me.

Maybe the laws of thermodynamics needs another looking at.

I think it's cute that even though you clearly don't understand anything about this you still think you have something to contribute

 

[ginjawarrior]

Do you not get it?

Batteries are literally the only thing stopping a new generation of solar, tide, geothermal and wind energy generation.

I don't know what "new generation" in above power sources you are talking about. For a start tidal and geothermal do not require storage like wind or solar
Secondly there are hard limits as to how much power you can extract from solar and wind, batteries won't improve that much
I don't think you quite understand how much wind and solar is truely needed to make a significant impact

The problem currently being that you can't store energy thats produced in abundance (eg high winds, clear days) to cover the shortfall from when it's not (eg cloudy days, no wind).

It's funny, we both have the exact same goal but you can't agree with me because we differ in our reasonings...

EDIT: I will however say that electricity generation should NOT be taking place with coal, etc. even today.

Nat Gas is a much smaller emitter and commonly available, nuclear is an option too if we can dispose of the waste more efficiently (I say send it to space, it's radioactive as fuck up there anyway) and there are other nuclear technologies that look promising (thorium salt reactors, etc).

I've already shown we can get rid of nuclear waste.

 

[Harrekin]

I don't know what "new generation" in above power sources you are talking about. For a start tidal and geothermal do not require storage like wind or solar
Secondly there are hard limits as to how much power you can extract from solar and wind, batteries won't improve that much
I don't think you quite understand how much wind and solar is truely needed to make a significant impact

I've already shown we can get rid of nuclear waste.

You've shown we can partially get rid of waste.

And alot of wind and solar would be needed, a metric shitload.

Have we the space for it?

Hell yes.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You've shown we can partially get rid of waste.

Yeah like 99% of it

What are you expecting a perfect solution? Cause thorium reactors or fusion reactors will have similar problems

And alot of wind and solar would be needed, a metric shitload.

Have we the space for it?

Hell yes.

Where exactly are you going to find this space? Especially without causing massive environmental damage doing it?

You planning on using farmland? Or you planning on cutting down the forests to make way for solar and wind farms?

 

[Harrekin]

Yeah like 99% of it

What are you expecting a perfect solution? Cause thorium reactors or fusion reactors will have similar problems

Where exactly are you going to find this space? Especially without causing massive environmental damage doing it?

You planning on using farmland? Or you planning on cutting down the forests to make way for solar and wind farms?

At sea for wind anyways.

For example an offshore wind farm is planned for off our Atlantic coast once the interconnector to Britain is built.

Why you ask?

Because for the scale to make sense Ireland couldn't use enough power, but the wind farm is expected to provide a massive chunk of the UK's power too.

Solar is less of an option here but in the US and many other places there are massive deserts that are otherwise useless.

Imagine Africa got its shit together and decided to build solar on a MASSIVE scale and sold all that power to Europe?

Fusion reactors actually produce very little radioactive waste btw, the reactor casing needs replacing occasionally but that much safer to store than massive vats of radioactive water...

And as for your recycling of waste, Japan was the foremost leader in recycling waste before Fukushima...so why the massive disaster at one of their domestic plants related to the release of radioactive water?

 

[ginjawarrior]

At sea for wind anyways.

For example an offshore wind farm is planned for off our Atlantic coast once the interconnector to Britain is built.

Why you ask?

Because for the scale to make sense Ireland couldn't use enough power, but the wind farm is expected to provide a massive chunk of the UK's power too.

Solar is less of an option here but in the US and many other places there are massive deserts that are otherwise useless.

Imagine Africa got its shit together and decided to build solar on a MASSIVE scale and sold all that power to Europe?

Off shore is good for wind yes

Waiting for Africa to get its shit together yeah that's not really a sensible plan

Fusion reactors actually produce very little radioactive waste btw, the reactor casing needs replacing occasionally but that much safer to store than massive vats of radioactive water...

It still produces waste

Those massive vats are from older reactor designs

I want new gen reactors. Please keep up

And as for your recycling of waste, Japan was the foremost leader in recycling waste before Fukushima...so why the massive disaster at one of their domestic plants related to the release of radioactive water?

Let's see
One of biggest earthquakes in human history
Big enough to move Japan 8 feet >>> that way
Massive tsunami hitting power plant
One of world's oldest reactors (which funnily enough is of the old design causing problems with waste)

Now while tens of thousands of people died of result of tsunami, nobody has died as result of Fukushima. Yet everyone is scared of big bad nuclear while continuing to live next to ocean

 

[Harrekin]

Off shore is good for wind yes

Waiting for Africa to get its shit together yeah that's not really a sensible plan

It still produces waste

Those massive vats are from older reactor designs

I want new gen reactors. Please keep up

Let's see
One of biggest earthquakes in human history
Big enough to move Japan 8 feet >>> that way
Massive tsunami hitting power plant
One of world's oldest reactors (which funnily enough is of the old design causing problems with waste)

Now while tens of thousands of people died of result of tsunami, nobody has died as result of Fukushima. Yet everyone is scared of big bad nuclear while continuing to live next to ocean

No one is afraid of nuclear, it has its place.

But large scale nuclear means large scale waste, even if youd recycle 99% you still have issues with accidents transporting it to the recycling plant, etc.

 

[ginjawarrior]

No one is afraid of nuclear, it has its place.

But large scale nuclear means large scale waste, even if youd recycle 99% you still have issues with accidents transporting it to the recycling plant, etc.

We already have those issues with the waste that's already been produced, no amount of solar or wind will get rid of that old waste.

The only real problem with nuclear power is peoples misconceptions about it. Just as your displaying here...

 

[Harrekin]

We already have those issues with the waste that's already been produced, no amount of solar or wind will get rid of that old waste.

The only real problem with nuclear power is peoples misconceptions about it. Just as your displaying here...

Well we already have loads of CO2, no amount of wind or solar will get rid of that old CO2.

See how ridiculous your argument is?

 

[ginjawarrior]

Well we already have loads of CO2, no amount of wind or solar will get rid of that old CO2.

See how ridiculous your argument is?

Nope because new nuclear can burn the old nuclear waste removing the problem of hundreds of thousand year half life

New co2 emmiting power plants won't get rid of old co2....

Do you see where you went wrong there?

 

[NLXSK1]

You don't seem to understand, none of it matters if we don't get the polluters to stop polluting. We could have fancy new batteries that could hold all the abundant energy produced, but if we're still emitting tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year it won't matter very much, not until it outprices fossil fuels hundreds-thousands of years in the future.. Regulations have to be made, profit/capitalism be damned. If this were your life, would you prioritize your ability to earn more money by deferring chemo over treating your cancer? No you wouldn't because you can't make money if you're dead, now can you.. Anyone worried about the short-term economic costs hasn't considered the long-term costs if we do nothing.

Cars have not been around for 200 years yet you say it is going to take hundreds of thousands of years to come up with something better? LOL!!!

If we cannot come up with a better power source before then how could we possibly affect the temperature of the earth... TOO FUNNY!!!!

Your ideological platform just collapsed.

 

[Harrekin]

Nope because new nuclear can burn the old nuclear waste removing the problem of hundreds of thousand year half life

New co2 emmiting power plants won't get rid of old co2....

Do you see where you went wrong there?

It leaves super concentrated batches of radioactive Caesium etc.

If you've brain cancer and liver cancer, curing just the liver cancer isn't a solution.

 

[NLXSK1]

It leaves super concentrated batches of radioactive Caesium etc.

If you've brain cancer and liver cancer, curing just the liver cancer isn't a solution.

Radiation comes from the earth, it is a natural product, we didnt create it. We can launch it into space or drop it into the deepest crater in the ocean. The waste is relatively small in volume so storage and/or disposal is not that big of a problem. We are talking about the burning of fossil fuels on the other hand right? Which pollutes more?

 

[Harrekin]

Radiation comes from the earth, it is a natural product, we didnt create it. We can launch it into space or drop it into the deepest crater in the ocean. The waste is relatively small in volume so storage and/or disposal is not that big of a problem. We are talking about the burning of fossil fuels on the other hand right? Which pollutes more?

It's not exactly natural the way we extract energy from uranium, have you ever heard of uranium ore reaching critical mass in the ground?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Cars have not been around for 200 years yet you say it is going to take hundreds of thousands of years to come up with something better? LOL!!!

If we cannot come up with a better power source before then how could we possibly affect the temperature of the earth... TOO FUNNY!!!!

Your ideological platform just collapsed.

Try again

 

[OddBall1st]

I think it's cute that even though you clearly don't understand anything about this you still think you have something to contribute

I think you bit the bait, copped out and it was all expected. Exactly the point I was making, nothing but cop out and run.

This is an invitation to let fly a broadside.

 

[OddBall1st]

Nope because new nuclear can burn the old nuclear waste removing the problem of hundreds of thousand year half life

New co2 emmiting power plants won't get rid of old co2....

Do you see where you went wrong there?

I think you will bump and run, cuz I`ll give you a run for your money.

 

[OddBall1st]

I get sick of all the melt warnings while new Glaciers appear where there were never any. The USA has a brand new glacier, grown in global warming or now what is it, climate change,...next week it`ll be the return of the ice age.