UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
go to your safe space where i cannot hurt you with my words
Stop Blaming 'Both Sides' for America's Climate Failures
- Thread starter ttystikk
- Start date
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
did you plant those trees yourself or were they already there?
do you get your energy from the national grid or provide it yourself?
were you prius made with renewable energy or from fossil fuel?
were the roads you drive on made with carbon free energy?
personal footprint is something but it pales in comparison to the footprint needed by society to keep itself going
rooftop solar and prius is just a drop in thw bucket compared to what needs doing
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I agree with everything but the suggestion that we need nuclear power.
Geothermal will do everything nuclear does for less money and no pollution, nevermind risk of catastrophic meltdowns.
There's plenty of it, especially here in America.
Bonus; building lots of geothermal power plants around Yellowstone and Mammoth Lakes will reduce the risk of them erupting, which is AVERTING catastrophe rather than risking it.
Nuclear has costs humans cannot pay. It's NEVER as cheap as advertised. Geothermal can do everything nuclear can, like base load generation, and things nuclear can't, like shutdowns without long lead times or heavy consequences.
This isn't pie in the sky, NASA engineers have been working on it and the tech exists, thanks in large part to the fossil fuel industry.
The next time someone suggests nuclear, just say, 'no thanks, we just don't need it!'
deno
Well-Known Member
False equivalency. What you say is true, but there a magnitude in difference when the party's goal is to convince people of a dangerous falsehood for their personal gain.
too larry
Well-Known Member
I don't walk on water, but I do turn off the lights when I leave a room. It's true that all transport combined only produces 27% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest is from powering the grid. But eating meat adds to greenhouse gasses too. Cow farts are a real thing. Not to mention the carbon footprint of feed corn. My point was that everyday things we do do make a difference. The size car you drive, the size of your house, what you eat, it's all part of the equation.
And I only have about 60-65 acres of old growth. I've planted the rest.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Don't shortchange positive steps; those trees haven't been cut down for development, that Prius isn't a Ford F-250 and Florida's legislature is taking serious heat for outlawing consumer grid tied solar and it will change soon.
Every step in the right direction is progress.
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
He said ignorant not intimidating.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
nuclear isnt the boogey man you've been taught
we can build reactors that wont ever meltdown
we can burn the waste so that what ever is left will be dangerous for a couple of hundred years
not perfect but the co2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere will last a similar time scale and the effects of warming might take hundreds of thousands of years before it gets back to "normal"
how can you guarantee that any geothermal works around yellow stone will reduce risk rather than help cause it?
yellow stone erupting is a much bigger shitstorm to this planet than even a few hundred nuclear plants melting down
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
trees cut down for development if they are replanted and allowed to grow back are a carbon sink it helps the co2 problem
all the wood in your house is a store of carbon
MichiganMedGrower
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I do want to reiterate that the party and whichever goals come after the corporations and individuals with business agendas have paid everyone off and already done the damage.
The payoffs seem to not care which political party the person of power is a member of.
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
power from the grid in most cases is co2 swapping transportation to batteries will only extra stress the grid and its co2 production
cow farts are very much a thing yes but it will be easier to get an american to drive a prius than to give up their burgers
small things you do personally can help but the main fix has to come from on top
you panted 140 acres yourself with new trees?
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the compliment.
Do you think being entered on your ignore list would be a loss to anybody? You have the imagination and sense of humor of the dwarf in a dungeon with the hot branding iron. You are going to die alone, unloved with everybody in your family grateful you are gone.
Last edited:
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The fault lies entirely with the GOP. Focus on fixing it, not laying blame where it doesn’t belong
ginjawarrior
Well-Known Member
i've already said in this thread that the right is ignoring that there is a problem
ok lets just imagine the right is ready to do something about it
how do we fix it??
i've looked at fixing it for years i know the problems that we're facing
too larry
Well-Known Member
Not by myself, but yes, we did plant them. Longleaf, slash and sand pines. Here is the 20 acres of longleaf in my backyard. {pinestraw just got harvested a couple weeks ago}
londonfog
Well-Known Member
does it not take about 7-8 years to harvest from first planting
too larry
Well-Known Member
Pinestraw? We had to wait 15 years on those because we were on a federal habitat restoration program taking land out of rowcrops and planting the native longleaf. If you have good dirt, and a good stand of trees you might could harvest straw after 9-10 years.
For the trees themselves, you can thin slash pine after 15 years. You take 3/4 of the trees. Most commonly you cut ever other row, then take half the trees in rows you leave. After you thin them, you can't sell straw anymore. And if you don't thin, they will start to thin themselves.
Longleaf is a slower growing tree. The interest rates determine when you harvest. If the rates are real high, you can consider chip and saw, where the bigger trees are sold as saw logs, and the smaller ones are sold as pulp wood. You need to have 12 inch diameter trees chest high for chip and saw.
If interest rates are not quite as high, you wait for saw logs. If the rates are really low, it pays to wait to sell the trees as poles. This is the highest rate of return, but it takes the longest. You have to figure out how much you would be making on you money if it was in the bank.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Well, getting a government in place that will commit resources would be a beginning.
Stop hemmoraging experienced scientists at NASA, Dept of Forestry, Ag and BLM would also be important.
Appoint a lead scientist for the effort whose first job would be drawing up recommendatation from a panel of stakeholders and scientists.
In other words a plan that includes costs, schedule, resources, interim goals and get it funded.
I don't know what your involvement is but anything I would recommend is just the musings of a dilettante. @ttystikk all by himself is fully capable of sitting on the sidelines carping and making useless uninformed noise enough for the whole nation, I'm not needed for that.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'm aware of newer technology nuclear power designs. I'm also aware that building them has been such a boondoggle that all have been cancelled because they're so far over budget they'll never make a dime.
'burning' nuclear waste isn't a viable option for all of it, not even for most of it. The idea that it will only be dangerous for a few hundred years is laughable.
Geothermal is available in many places beyond Yellowstone. It's cheap, well proven and can start and stop quickly to match power fluctuations like those from solar and wind power.
I'd be with you if there were no other choices than nuclear power- but that's not the case and never was. You're just swallowing the propaganda General Electric is selling.
Bonus; Yellowstone is already overdue and WILL blow (again) if nothing is done. How's that a better outcome?