Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[mad_gater]

for me it's more about whether it would be economically feasible...and for solar power it could actually be economically feasible in areas that see a lot of sunlight.....not so much in areas that don't

to protect the photovoltaic cells the building uses to convert the visible light spectrum radiation to electrical energy an enclosure could be erected around them that would still let visible light through, vented appropriately to allow heat build-up to escape...the enclosure would probably still need to be cleaned though unless you treat it with something that repels dust and rainwater and other elemental annoyances

[Falcon Horus]

*tiptoes in*

This is science, clean energies, real stuff, not something about wizards turning water into wine.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

*tiptoes out*

[Annoyed]

Annoyed must love these because its as black and white as it comes, until something new comes along and changes everything, and guess what? Scientists actually enjoy being proven wrong because it's exciting!

That's exactly right. Until a clean, practical alternative to oil/gas/etc. is developed, that's all we have, no matter how much some people wish otherwise. Attempts to pretend otherwise are foolish.

It's black and white. At this point in our technological development, we simply can't replace our current energy sources.

At the same time, look at the various proposed solutions, most of which involve increasing the costs of energy via carbon taxes and other financial schemes. Hell, UN people have admitted that they want to use energy policy to levy taxes.

Such schemes are not going to be accepted by the people that pay the bills. Isn't France having a major dust-up because Macron wants to impose carbon taxes?

We can't replace fossil fuels at this point. (except Nuclear, which is just as hated) and attempts to force something we can't do simply damages our economy and lowers our standard of living.

If the enviros truly wish to progress in their agenda, they should expend their efforts, resources and such toward research, developing clean, practical alternatives that can take the place of existing energy sources rather than trying to force something that doesn't exist and enriching themselves and their chosen allies.

Who receives the tax revenue from carbon taxes? Is it refunded back to the payers? No. It's just a tax increase.

[Annoyed]

*tiptoes in*



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- Arthur C. Clarke

*tiptoes out*

*looks for something to drop on FH's toes*

[Chaka-Z0]

for me it's more about whether it would be economically feasible...

Good points, of course there are many obstacles to be figured out, and I think you put your finger on the major issue, which is that most people believe clean-energy initiatives are costly, when in fact, they create jobs. The ''green'' economy exist and is profitable. I understand some people don't believe this to be true because they are led by politicians that tells them no.

*tiptoes out*

You forgot to *drop the mic* !!

That's exactly right. Until a clean, practical alternative to oil/gas/etc. is developed, that's all we have, no matter how much some people wish otherwise. Attempts to pretend otherwise are foolish.

So you're saying we should bury our head in the sand and wait until the second coming of Christ or what? You're like a broken record, you've used this argument countless times yet refuse to understand that we're not going to pull the plug on every damn fossil fuel factories. We need to mix clean-energy sources with fossil fuels, and slowly reduce the polluting industries until in a few decades they are completely gone. I said it before, I'll say it again, it's no longer a matter of choice. If drastic actions are not taken right now, we are absolutely done in the near future. You can bet there will be countless more refugee crisis, natural disasters and huge coastal cities such as NYC will be wiped off the map due to the rise of the ocean level.

It's black and white. At this point in our technological development, we simply can't replace our current energy sources.

Is that so? Then please tell me WHY the Chinese, which are the 2nd most powerful economic force, are building IMMENSE solar panel parks? Why are the French banning combustion engines in the near future?

With some effort, any household can achieve auto-sufficiency in terms of energy. Why do you think countries with budget infinitely bigger cannot achieve it?

Who receives the tax revenue from carbon taxes? Is it refunded back to the payers? No. It's just a tax increase.

Wrong. Clearly you need to learn about this system. Let me draft you a basic outline *pulls out whiteboard*

Businesses / factories that reduce their GES can sell their extra credits on the carbon stock market, which is bought by businesses that weren't able to achieve their margins.

Say the limit is 100 units.

We're both CEO of clothes factories. This year, I changed my air ventilation system to reduce smoke coming out of my factory. This year, you didn't have the capital at the time so you weren't able to change yours.

I produced 80 units. That means I have 20 units available to sell.
You produced 120 units, but since the limit is 100 units per factories, you need to acquire 20 units to be conform.
You buy 20 units off me, I make money.
Maybe you did too, because you didn't have to invest in a new filtration system.

It is a win-win system, those that aren't able to adapt in the short term can borrow time buying credits off those that actually did it. The only reason why most of the industries of the US doesn't want in is because they DO NOT have to reduce their GES, since your President has a bowl of oatmeal for a brain. Why would companies impose restrictions on themselves if they're not required to?

[Gatefan1976]

for me it's more about whether it would be economically feasible...and for solar power it could actually be economically feasible in areas that see a lot of sunlight.....not so much in areas that don't

Well done for being a voice of reason MG.
What is feasible in A is not feasible in B, and that's a perfectly valid argument. You don't set up turbines in area's with no wind, nor do you set up solar in area's with no sun, or hydro with no tidal forces.
Here is the hitch.
ALL of these are deemed "alternate energy" and the general argument against alternate energy is "it won't work HERE, WHERE I AM" If an area still requires coal, or other normal energy production means, that's perfectly fine.
What I don't like is "it can't work anywhere because it won't work here" arguments, and if you look, really look at alternate energy sceptics, that's where their argument lives. It's not that solar power, or batteries CAN'T work, it's that it "doesn't work for me so it is bad"
In area's where it is physically, and economically feasible, why NOT do it?

to protect the photovoltaic cells the building uses to convert the visible light spectrum radiation to electrical energy an enclosure could be erected around them that would still let visible light through, vented appropriately to allow heat build-up to escape...the enclosure would probably still need to be cleaned though unless you treat it with something that repels dust and rainwater and other elemental annoyances

What Wiki did you cut and paste that from?
I know how you talk, and it's not like that.

[Falcon Horus]

*looks for something to drop on FH's toes*

Good luck!

You forgot to *drop the mic* !!

Woops...

[Annoyed]

Good luck!

*spies an old lead-acid car battery in the corner*

Woops...

[aretood2]

Wait!!! Awww Jeeze... this isn't *Kansas* any more?

hunh? Never heard of that silly stuff.
Chem-Trails... and that came from GWBush & Obama's presidential time eras...
BTW, "chem-trails" or something that looks like that can be seen on the weather radar maps. The straight lines that break up the rain and snow systems originate from airports. It looks bizarre, but it's supposed to be a natural reaction on the atmosphere from the airplanes' exhaust systems.

Hah! Her head seems to be too high in the clouds at the moment...
The scientists have had over 50 years to figure this stuff out and make it work properly. When the politicians in our land are fighting more over blocking reforms and letting protests go wild, they are NOT accomplishing anything helpful.

That's not how science works. How long did it take to get steam power right? Here's a hint, the Romans tried to do it...so that doesn't mean one should abandon it.

We have watched tornado alley rip out infrastructures in minutes and hurricanes and mudslides destroy businesses and homes in a matter of hours. Major wildfires in various places destroy living conditions, plus pollute the air. East coast USA is still breathing in soot particles from the California wildfires from a few weeks ago.

So, if smoke from many large "fireplace" or wood-burning stove areas in use at the same time, can cause respiratory problems to people already suffering with allergies, then find a clearer and cleaner way to heat homes and cook foods. This will NOT work on a larger, grand scale. It may have worked in the 1800's and prior, because there were less people in a broader spread out area. It will not work in the congested areas we have now.

It seems to me that Ocasio would actually be right up your alley then. You should be happy she's doing what she's doing.

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants the scientists to get to work, then stop the people from protesting and going on destructive rants, so positive work on these GREENER *goals* can get done to start with. Plus, do NOT rush the scientists and brainiacs from working on their amazing projects, because *rushing* a project NEVER accomplishes anything good... things fall apart too soon from half-baked jobs being done and performed.

That would be Trump's job, to bring about order. Not Ocasio's. Her job is to craft and vote on legislation that represents the good and/or will of the people who voted her into office.

Ummm... I may not know how all of the piping inter-connects beneath the ground, but I certainly see enough *residential* block areas with the trees growing on tiny curbsides that the towns have planted, where the sidewalks are being (uprooted) ripped up from the tree roots. My grandfather's block had some beautiful slate sidewalks, where one particular spot was moved so high off the level ground from nearby tree roots, that I used to use it as a "rock climbing" site.

Bad city planning is bad city planning, I really don't know why this is even a topic of conversation. There are plenty of towns and cities with trees in perfectly flat and stable sidewalks.

People in tiny urban plots of land cannot properly survive under what the new GREEN deal is suggesting. There is NO place suitable enough to store a generator. Solar panels on roof can only work some of the time, as well. If roof shingles get damaged in a storm or slates from slate roof starts breaking apart, it requires MOVING those solar panels to gain a proper spread to the damaged portions of the roof. Solar panels are inter-connected and wired together. They do not disassemble easily. I watched a solar farm be installed piece by piece... it was an interesting process. Maintaining it is another story (from the bird droppings and ice/snow, pollen dust, mud). Maintaining a solar setup on a house roof is even worse.

This is why we have power plants and powerlines. One needs not to generate power at home, it can be generated offsite. Marvels of modern technology, huh?

Guys guys, order! *knocks on table with a hammer* ORDER!

Seriously: Let's try to stay on topic, I understand it is hard to remain civil in the face of such illogical conclusions, yet we must do our best.

Sorry.

You say this...

This is science, clean energies, real stuff, not something about wizards turning water into wine.

Then you do this...Pot calling the kettle black?

for me it's more about whether it would be economically feasible...and for solar power it could actually be economically feasible in areas that see a lot of sunlight.....not so much in areas that don't

to protect the photovoltaic cells the building uses to convert the visible light spectrum radiation to electrical energy an enclosure could be erected around them that would still let visible light through, vented appropriately to allow heat build-up to escape...the enclosure would probably still need to be cleaned though unless you treat it with something that repels dust and rainwater and other elemental annoyances

Personally, I have two words. Nuclear Power. Dumb hippies have stunted research and development into this technology. It is far cleaner than purported and nuclear damage so far...well...it's been much more limited than Katrina, Maria, Irma et al...

By now we'd probably have better technologies to deal with the downsides of Nuclear power if it weren't for the hyper paranoia that it provokes in many people.

[Gatefan1976]

That's exactly right. Until a clean, practical alternative to oil/gas/etc. is developed, that's all we have, no matter how much some people wish otherwise. Attempts to pretend otherwise are foolish.

Coal is black, so it is evil.

It's black and white. At this point in our technological development, we simply can't replace our current energy sources.

Harness the forces of the universe, like unicorn horns and rainbows.

At the same time, look at the various proposed solutions, most of which involve increasing the costs of energy via carbon taxes and other financial schemes. Hell, UN people have admitted that they want to use energy policy to levy taxes.

Render unto Ceasar

Such schemes are not going to be accepted by the people that pay the bills. Isn't France having a major dust-up because Macron wants to impose carbon taxes?

Frog legs are cruel

We can't replace fossil fuels at this point. (except Nuclear, which is just as hated) and attempts to force something we can't do simply damages our economy and lowers our standard of living.

I hate snow, replace it with moonbeams

If the enviros truly wish to progress in their agenda, they should expend their efforts, resources and such toward research, developing clean, practical alternatives that can take the place of existing energy sources rather than trying to force something that doesn't exist and enriching themselves and their chosen allies.

Let's not enslave the binary code, it has feelings too.

Who receives the tax revenue from carbon taxes? Is it refunded back to the payers? No. It's just a tax increase.

The sky is green.

[Chaka-Z0]

Personally, I have two words. Nuclear Power. Dumb hippies have stunted research and development into this technology. It is far cleaner than purported and nuclear damage so far...well...it's been much more limited than Katrina, Maria, Irma et al...

By now we'd probably have better technologies to deal with the downsides of Nuclear power if it weren't for the hyper paranoia that it provokes in many people.

Nuclear power on the surface is the most attractive, BUT, you forgot to take into matter all the residues generated from nuclear power generation AND the risk of accidents, as remote as they may be, can leave a mark on our planet for 10k-20k years.

Nuclear isotopes factories, nuclear power plants, etc. generate radioactive waste which needs to be either buried deep at a few KM underground, which nobody does since its too expensive, or covered in ''coffins'', which are garbage dumps for nuclear residues.

These coffins have throughout our history been documented to leak when high tides occur, natural disasters, and the ''soup'' from the coffin affects all its surrounding area, mainly by tainting the water supply and the soil, which in turns contaminates the plants, then the animals eating it, then you eating the animals.

Even the best engineers of our planet cannot create a coffin that will last thousands of years, it is impossible with our level of technology and the materials, which is mainly concrete, at our disposition to build these coffins. Can you guarantee the succeeding governments will maintain the coffin for 2000 years?

Once a nuclear rod has served one fuel cycle it needs to be replaced, and this rod becomes a High-level waste. No administration currently have a borehole / deep underground facilities to store these HL wastes, and they are increasing exponentially each year. Plutonium takes 24,000 years to decay.

Radioactive elements should stay underground, where they belong.

[Annoyed]

Personally, I have two words. Nuclear Power. Dumb hippies have stunted research and development into this technology. It is far cleaner than purported and nuclear damage so far...well...it's been much more limited than Katrina, Maria, Irma et al...

By now we'd probably have better technologies to deal with the downsides of Nuclear power if it weren't for the hyper paranoia that it provokes in many people.

Nuclear power is indeed a more than adequate replacement for fossil fuels, and is as safe or safer than fossil fuels as well. But the enviros killed it.

What you fail to understand about some (not all, but some) of them is they really want to stifle the US's energy use, period, regardless of the source.

I won't live long enough to say "I told you so" on this, but you mark my words. If a clean, renewable source of limitless energy is developed, there will be howls of protests from the enviro crowd over that, too.

[Gatefan1976]

Nuclear power is indeed a more than adequate replacement for fossil fuels, and is as safe or safer than fossil fuels as well. But the enviros killed it.

That's because they are employing false logic. The dangers of Nuclear power ARE real, and you cannot deny they exist. What people deny is that they are manageable (which I will argue shortly with Chaka about). The problem with fossil fuels is that the dangers simply are not manageable at the levels we are using them.

What you fail to understand about some (not all, but some) of them is they really want to stifle the US's energy use, period, regardless of the source.

I see zero evidence for this conclusion. Do people not want to see the squandered resources in all "first world" nations based on greed? Yep.
For example, take the recent GM shutdowns. All the plants creating small, mid-range or sedan vehicles are the ones hit because selling SUV's or pick-up trucks garners more profit for GM because they market the gas guzzlers as a "need" so get away with more of a margin at point of sale. That's not to say there is no ACTUAL need for SUV's or 4x4's, you need one for your boat towing, and that's perfectly fine. The guy or gal who drive 5 miles a day to do the round trip to pick up the kids in a urban setting however, does not.
But they are told they do.

I won't live long enough to say "I told you so" on this, but you mark my words. If a clean, renewable source of limitless energy is developed, there will be howls of protests from the enviro crowd over that, too.

What you need to understand is that not all protest is either unthinking, or unsupported. What you also need to understand is that "the enviro's" care about clean. Solar is clean, as are wind farms, as are hydro-turbines. What they MIGHT argue is ecological damage to wildlife, which is not a "power generation" argument, but a "life based argument"

Nuclear power on the surface is the most attractive, BUT, you forgot to take into matter all the residues generated from nuclear power generation AND the risk of accidents, as remote as they may be, can leave a mark on our planet for 10k-20k years.

And continued reliance on fossil fuels has done it in a mere 200 years, in a more overt, telling and destructive way. Without a real alternative to fossil fuels, we're screwed in 100 years, let alone 10K years.

Nuclear isotopes factories, nuclear power plants, etc. generate radioactive waste which needs to be either buried deep at a few KM underground, which nobody does since its too expensive, or covered in ''coffins'', which are garbage dumps for nuclear residues.

Which means you need to work on alternative disposal.

These coffins have throughout our history been documented to leak when high tides occur, natural disasters, and the ''soup'' from the coffin affects all its surrounding area, mainly by tainting the water supply and the soil, which in turns contaminates the plants, then the animals eating it, then you eating the animals.

All true, so, how about that alternative?

Even the best engineers of our planet cannot create a coffin that will last thousands of years, it is impossible with our level of technology and the materials, which is mainly concrete, at our disposition to build these coffins. Can you guarantee the succeeding governments will maintain the coffin for 2000 years?

Once a nuclear rod has served one fuel cycle it needs to be replaced, and this rod becomes a High-level waste. No administration currently have a borehole / deep underground facilities to store these HL wastes, and they are increasing exponentially each year. Plutonium takes 24,000 years to decay.

Radioactive elements should stay underground, where they belong.

No, they should be used, then shot out into space rather than buried. Aim it at the next closest star system and by the time it gets there in a few hundred thousand years on low thrust, it won't even be a problem, it's how the universe deals with radiation, why should we not learn a thing or two from the universe?

[Chaka-Z0]

Lots to unpack here, I'll try to be brief.

That's because they are employing false logic. The dangers of Nuclear power ARE real, and you cannot deny they exist. What people deny is that they are manageable (which I will argue shortly with Chaka about). The problem with fossil fuels is that the dangers simply are not manageable at the levels we are using them.

I can agree with that. I just think its important to clarify notions in regards to radioactive waste, since most people think nuclear power plants don't pollute at all, unless an incident occurs.

I see zero evidence for this conclusion. Do people not want to see the squandered resources in all "first world" nations based on greed? Yep.
For example, take the recent GM shutdowns. All the plants creating small, mid-range or sedan vehicles are the ones hit because selling SUV's or pick-up trucks garners more profit for GM because they market the gas guzzlers as a "need" so get away with more of a margin at point of sale. That's not to say there is no ACTUAL need for SUV's or 4x4's, you need one for your boat towing, and that's perfectly fine. The guy or gal who drive 5 miles a day to do the round trip to pick up the kids in a urban setting however, does not.
But they are told they do.

Well I think this whole saga just proves how the corporate world has no moral, ethic or conscience. Its about the money, cold hard cash. They received a nice 700 million gift and as a welcome they shut down plants in both Canada and the US.

What you need to understand is that not all protest is either unthinking, or unsupported. What you also need to understand is that "the enviro's" care about clean. Solar is clean, as are wind farms, as are hydro-turbines. What they MIGHT argue is ecological damage to wildlife, which is not a "power generation" argument, but a "life based argument"

A perfect example would be hydro-turbines. To create dams with sufficient water flow, you need to either flood huge hectares of terrain, close rivers, etc. So its not a ''clean'' energy source, as the damage to the wildlife is extensive, plants and animals suffers a lot from this. Not to mention the natives, which saw their ancestral grounds become a literal pool. It's important to look beyond the appearance, to see if a technology is truly clean or not.

And continued reliance on fossil fuels has done it in a mere 200 years, in a more overt, telling and destructive way. Without a real alternative to fossil fuels, we're screwed in 100 years, let alone 10K years.

I remember a a child they said that we'd be out of oil in 2010's. But yea, its a finite resource.

Which means you need to work on alternative disposal.

All true, so, how about that alternative?

No, they should be used, then shot out into space rather than buried. Aim it at the next closest star system and by the time it gets there in a few hundred thousand years on low thrust, it won't even be a problem, it's how the universe deals with radiation, why should we not learn a thing or two from the universe

?

Any rail gun around big enough to shoot isotopes into space GF? This is not an alternative, the costs are just too high. I'm not saying its a bad idea, I'm saying its not a viable idea. I'm not sure you grasp the quantity of nuclear waste we currently have on earth.

Spoiler:

The IAEA estimates that 370,000 tonnes of heavy metal (tHM) in the form of used fuel have been discharged since the first nuclear power plants commenced operation.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/informa...anagement.aspx

Nuclear is a shortcut and should not be considered as an alternative. There is no cheap solution to get rid or store the ML-HL wastes, and considering the amount of countries that produce this trash, increasing in quantities each year, at some point accidents / negligence is bound to happen. Shooting them into space / burying deep underground is too costly. There is, simply put, no workaround disposing nuclear wastes.

[Chaka-Z0]

Also @Gatefan1976 about launching wastes to the Sun, it's not easy as it seems and requires slingshot maneuvers to get there.

Solar Probe Plus weighs 610 kg, or about 1,345 lbs. It needs a $375 million, 733,000 kg (1,616,000 lb) launch vehicle to get it out of Earth and into the right position at Venus to get within 6,000,000 km (3,700,000 mi) of the Sun — let alone whatever extreme requirements would be needed to fall into it.