"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

[ginjawarrior]

I'm not sure what your little bit of arithmetic was supposed to prove.

pipedreams

Are you a saying that solar is an unimportant source of energy?

it has it uses but it cannot ever do the heavy lifting you guys think it can
http://www.withouthotair.com/c30/page_236.shtml

Figure 30.3. The little square strikes again. The 600 km by 600 km square in North America, completely
filled with concentrating solar power, would provide enough power to give 500 million
people the average American’s consumption of 250 kWh/d.
This map also shows the square of size 600 km by 600 km in Africa, which we met earlier.
I’ve assumed a power density of 15 W/m2, as before.
The area of one yellow square is a little bigger than the area of Arizona, and 16 times the
area of New Jersey. Within each big square is a smaller 145 km by 145 km square showing
the area required in the desert – one New Jersey – to supply 30 million people with 250 kWh
per day per person.

sure by all means get yourself a hobby with electronics and play around with this crap but dont ever pretend your saving the world doing so

 

[ginjawarrior]

I was merely helping you on your journey, ever improving your use of the English language and you've done nothing but respond with snide whining.

Most people consider that melting down.

wanna cookie?

im a piss taking bastard at heart

you havent got anything on me

 

[Big_Lou]

I was merely helping you on your journey, ever improving your use of the English language and you've done nothing but respond with snide whining

Most people consider that melting down.

.........

fuck it i have 5 mins

there was a 400w solar panel. lets just throw out the laws of thermal dynamics and assume 100% efficiancy throughout the whole system

a 400w panel array will produce 0.4kw in an hour.. say the same as running a 400w hps for an hour

he said the bank is fully charged in a few mins (lets say 3mins)

3 mins is 1/20th of an hour

0.4kwh / 20 = 0.02kwh

you want to put out 2kw (2000w) from 0.02kwh

you'll get what 36 seconds of 2000w and the system is completly empty

lithium batteries just one or two of them can piss all over this array...

i'll deal with the rest later

**jangles keys for see4**

look shiney

is this amateur hour or something? you think you got what it takesto make me melt down?

i have 5 words you should probably hear

"you've never met my ex"

as i said i have 5 mins...

rushed and shit

got any substance?

and???

you think that changes it significantly?

lets not forget we completly threw out any idea of efficiancy loss

this with its battery would piss all over that capacitor array

http://www.screwfix.com/p/makita-dss611z-165mm-18v-li-ion-lxt-cordless-circular-saw-bare/60898#product_additional_details_container

and you could still charge it with those panels...

(clears throat)

 

[esh dov ets]

not climate science

on what is needed to break free from co2 based energy prodution

solar and wind arent the magic bullets people think they are.

wanna cookie?

Solar and wind are part of a start. Not yet sufficient enough if used alone. Some of The propaganda against going green says what you said. The fact is we can ramp up solar and wind while adding hydro electric and other existing methods there by significantly reducing our need to burn fossil fuel while we perfect those technologys and newer ones. But thats not what the current powers of industry feel ready for so they say things like wind and solar aren't enough.
What kind of cookies you got?

 

[ginjawarrior]

wanna cookie?

im a piss taking bastard at heart

you havent got anything on me

.........










(clears throat)

ahem...

see im not here on either one of your left or right tribes. here at rollitup in the politics sections you've sunk so deep into tribalism that anyone that dares to point out your failings at any point immediatly becomes an enemy of the whole

case in point...

left or right. male or female. big spoon or little spoon.

rape jokes are never classy...

Ah, another racism/prison rape/snitch endorser! Noted.

View attachment 3900960

im not here to join anyones gang and i will say someone is wrong when they are

and i dont need to post penis pics to prove it

just links and facts....

 

[ginjawarrior]

Solar and wind are part of a start. Not yet sufficient enough if used alone. Some of The propaganda against going green says what you said. The fact is we can ramp up solar and wind while adding hydro electric and other existing methods there by significantly reducing our need to burn fossil fuel while we perfect those technologys and newer ones. But thats not what the current powers of industry feel ready for so they say things like wind and solar aren't enough.
What kind of cookies you got?

solar and wind arent enough

only way we can really kick ourselves of the CO2 habit is with a big uprush of nuclear power

now this is where i really clash with the pipedreamers as nuclear is a devil to them although its one of the safest and most regulated sources of power we have

 

[esh dov ets]

i liked the first half of it until he went into his new "establishment bad, super uber progressives good" thing again.

i am much more with ttystikk here. the diagnosis of why america is not great in the first half of pada's post is spot on. minimum wage needs to go up, the prison population needs to go way down, wages and corporate profits need to go up in parity, home ownership should be more accessible, health care spending needs to go down, and accessibility to higher education and trades needs to go up. all of us libtards agree on these things.

tty agrees though that incremental change is worth fighting for. i think he sees the bigger picture better than pada does. until we can vote in anyone in 2018 with a D next to their name though, these issues are going to go into reverse. and the DCCC and DSCC are going to run whoever they can for the most part, without purity tests.

as a moderate liberal, i find incrementalism OK. more liberal liberals like pada and tty don't so much, but some accept it better than others.

all that said, i think pada will like brianna wu and ted lieu. he should look them up, if he's listening to us. they are hardcore, non-establisment liberals on the rise. i think all of us can rally behind future leaders like them.

Of course i vote for the small increments. As well as stay warry that increments quell resistance while not making much if any real progress.

I have a brother who is pretty much far right. He doesn't think the Democratic Party is not liberal enough. Those people who turned the election for Trump weren't voting Republican because they weren't given access to universal healthcare. They voted for Trump because Democrats weren't promising to improve jobs and wages in their locale. Trump did. It's about jobs, economy, and "what have you done for me lately?" not liberal vs conservative.

As far as "corruption" goes. My state has two democratic senators and four democratic representatives. I don't think they are corrupt. DeFazio, the rep for my district advocated that the US govt simply buy out the mortgages for people stuck with homes that were worth much less than the amount they owed. He said it would have been much cheaper and more effective than what Obama ended up doing. I'm saying this because I support liberal politicians. And DeFazio, Merkely, Wyden are good for my state and district. I expect Senators and Representatives in more conservative districts are probably not going to support some of their agenda. Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work?

I want the end of drug enforcement, access to healthcare, all that stuff you say. I'd vote for it in a minute. I'm just saying the voting trends don't point to more left wing policies. I also am not arguing with you about it. I just don't see what you say matching what's really happening.
I'm happy to discuss it. If you like to throw a few incendiaries into your posts, its fine with me.

There are a lot of people who don't consider things like participatory economics and total solutions because they require drastic change and or because they seem far fetched or because they do not see working examples of the solutions deemed more radical.

My gripe with incrementalism is that it hasn't worked, sooo it's time to try something different.

We vote for it but we strive for better right?

 

[esh dov ets]

solar and wind arent enough

only way we can really kick ourselves of the CO2 habit is with a big uprush of nuclear power

now this is where i really clash with the pipedreamers as nuclear is a devil to them although its one of the safest and most regulated sources of power we have

If we are talking modern technology and we are going to keep it up it has potential to be clean for our lifetime as well as potential to desrtoy areas where it's built and beyond. It is also impossible to safely store the waste, as it lasts longer then empires and longer then any seals known to man. It is a lie that it is the only option. Keep thinking.

 

[esh dov ets]

According to Bernie supports.

They where targeted in propaganda campaigns and used quite effectively. The propaganda said hillary was a treasonus super crimanal. While trump was a blundering oaf that might push real politicians agenda or do nothing. And when the dem party snubed the crusader in favor of the common crimanal politician , the spin was put on and you now had Bernie supporters campaigning for trump.

 

[ginjawarrior]

If we are talking modern technology and we are going to keep it up it has potential to be clean for our lifetime as well as potential to desrtoy areas where it's built and beyond. It is also impossible to safely store the waste, as it lasts longer then empires and longer then any seals known to man. It is a lie that it is the only option. Keep thinking.

modern technology can make a nuclear reactor that leaves waste which is only dangerous for a couple of hundred years (less than how long the current co2 is going to affect the world)

atm we are stuck with a fleet of old nuclear reactors that have roots int the cold war and the need to produce weapon grade material

they burn something like 1 % of the fuel thats why the waste lasts for hundred of thousand of years

we can burn 99% of the fuel and have something that lasts hundreds

we can also burn all the old waste too if we really wanted

the uk atm has enough plutonium left over from dismantled nukes to power the entire country for 100 years +

http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

or we can pretend it doesnt exist leave it for hundreds of thousand of years and keep buring Co2 fuel.....

 

[esh dov ets]

modern technology can make a nuclear reactor that leaves waste which is only dangerous for a couple of hundred years (less than how long the current co2 is going to affect the world)

atm we are stuck with a fleet of old nuclear reactors that have roots int the cold war and the need to produce weapon grade material

they burn something like 1 % of the fuel thats why the waste lasts for hundred of thousand of years

we can burn 99% of the fuel and have something that lasts hundreds

we can also burn all the old waste too if we really wanted

the uk atm has enough plutonium left over from dismantled nukes to power the entire country for 100 years +

http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

or we can pretend it doesnt exist leave it for hundreds of thousand of years and keep buring Co2 fuel.....

If we are to continue , we have literally tons of spent rods that can now be re used and thats the way to go but isn't the way its going.
I am not familiar with any process leaving only 200 years of waste. Not all the waste lasts for thousands of years btw but some does. Check your notes.

 

[Fogdog]

solar and wind arent enough

only way we can really kick ourselves of the CO2 habit is with a big uprush of nuclear power

now this is where i really clash with the pipedreamers as nuclear is a devil to them although its one of the safest and most regulated sources of power we have

Ok, so you've managed to string together a few sentences that were spell checked and actually make sense.

Until nuclear waste is made safe, the last statement regarding "safest" is questionable. Also, Fukushima makes me leery about these claims of safety.

That said, nuclear power ought to be considered in order to make up the gap between energy production and use that solar, wind, geothermal and biofuel would create. The alternative of continuing to use fossil fuels at much lower rates to fill in the gap has it's own public safety issues but maybe it's a better option than nuclear.

The way we produce food and how or where we live will also be affected. We haven't talked about the social aspects of reducing carbon emissions. Does that make up pipe dreamers?

I mis-used the the word "pacification" instead of "passivation" once when talking about how to stabilize an iron powder. It brought some laughs from my audience but didn't set the progress of science back much. What really happened was I lost credibility. Thermal dynamics (chuckle)

 

[SneekyNinja]

If we are to continue , we have literally tons of spent rods that can now be re used and thats the way to go but isn't the way its going.
I am not familiar with any process leaving only 200 years of waste. Not all the waste lasts for thousands of years btw but some does. Check your notes.

I think Ginja is confusing "half life" with "duration of radioactivity".

 

[Fogdog]

modern technology can make a nuclear reactor that leaves waste which is only dangerous for a couple of hundred years (less than how long the current co2 is going to affect the world)

atm we are stuck with a fleet of old nuclear reactors that have roots int the cold war and the need to produce weapon grade material

they burn something like 1 % of the fuel thats why the waste lasts for hundred of thousand of years

we can burn 99% of the fuel and have something that lasts hundreds

we can also burn all the old waste too if we really wanted

the uk atm has enough plutonium left over from dismantled nukes to power the entire country for 100 years +

http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

or we can pretend it doesnt exist leave it for hundreds of thousand of years and keep buring Co2 fuel.....

Thanks for the link

Nuclear industry has been touting how safe they are for decades. They were wrong before. Not saying it should be taken off the table for discussion but I don't trust business press releases.

Here is something from Wired. It's pretty neutral about the future of nuclear but does point out that nuclear is very safe if one looks at the total track record. Perversely, the reason nuclear has dwindled almost to death is because all those safety precautions and regulations that make it safe also make it very expensive to produce.

https://www.wired.com/2016/04/nuclear-power-safe-save-world-climate-change/

 

[ttystikk]

I'm not sure what your little bit of arithmetic was supposed to prove. Are you a saying that solar is an unimportant source of energy? That's clearly wrong and so I'm pretty sure you aren't saying that. But just like your spelling and mis-use of terms, your writing is muddled. Or are you saying that a 400 W panel can't support the needs of a city? I mean, duh.

I mistook a metamorphic rock for an igneous rock. Because of that, we don't have flying cars.

We don't deserve flying cars.

 

[Fogdog]

We don't deserve flying cars.

It's all because I got the fourth digit of pi wrong once. Its all my fault.

 

[ttystikk]

modern technology can make a nuclear reactor that leaves waste which is only dangerous for a couple of hundred years (less than how long the current co2 is going to affect the world)

atm we are stuck with a fleet of old nuclear reactors that have roots int the cold war and the need to produce weapon grade material

they burn something like 1 % of the fuel thats why the waste lasts for hundred of thousand of years

we can burn 99% of the fuel and have something that lasts hundreds

we can also burn all the old waste too if we really wanted

the uk atm has enough plutonium left over from dismantled nukes to power the entire country for 100 years +

http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/

or we can pretend it doesnt exist leave it for hundreds of thousand of years and keep buring Co2 fuel.....

The idea of poisoning the earth for tens of thousands of years just so we can run screen savers on idle computers today strikes me as amazingly short sighted. Nuclear is too dangerous to share the same environment with humans. It makes sense to use it in space, where there's already lots of radiation, but not on the surface of habitable planets.

 

[Fogdog]

The idea of poisoning the earth for tens of thousands of years just so we can run screen savers on idle computers today strikes me as amazingly short sighted. Nuclear is too dangerous to share the same environment with humans. It makes sense to use it in space, where there's already lots of radiation, but not on the surface of habitable planets.

People need to live and produce food somewhere, too. Also wilderness for plants, animals and a sustainable environment is pretty nice to have. Given space requirements, as well as gaps in time when solar or wind are down, renewable energy can't provide enough power to meet current needs. It's not just about the US, either. Some countries don't have room for large solar installations or wind farms. What do they do?

I'd like to see an honest and open discussion of our options and am pretty sure that nuclear will compare well against any option that includes fossil fuels. I don't think that the nuclear waste issue is insurmountable. But it does need to be addressed in an open and science-based discussion.

 

[ttystikk]

People need to live and produce food somewhere, too. Also wilderness for plants, animals and a sustainable environment is pretty nice to have. Given space requirements, as well as gaps in time when solar or wind are down, renewable energy can't provide enough power to meet current needs. It's not just about the US, either. Some countries don't have room for large solar installations or wind farms. What do they do?

I'd like to see an honest and open discussion of our options and am pretty sure that nuclear will compare well against any option that includes fossil fuels. I don't think that the nuclear waste issue is insurmountable. But it does need to be addressed in an open and science-based discussion.

Morocco has built one of the world's largest solar power farms. It can be done without nuclear power.

Let's not forget that not all fossil fuels are created equal; coal is horrible, but natural gas is really not deserving of the same bad rap.

 

[Fogdog]

Morocco has built one of the world's largest solar power farms. It can be done without nuclear power.

Let's not forget that not all fossil fuels are created equal; coal is horrible, but natural gas is really not deserving of the same bad rap.

Morocco. yes, solar makes sense. And in Brazil? Maybe we should bulldoze the rain forest? Fracking for natural gas is doing all sorts of interesting things to the US environment. Solar farms in the desert sounds nice but if you've ever spent much time in the desert, it's a fragile ecosystem filled with plants and animals that use the sun too. Then again, where do you put solar in Europe? There is no perfect answer.