yeah, Tesla's production is not up there enough for that, but, in either 2019 or 2020, Tesla is supposed to have their truck out. I think it will be interesting to see how well they do at that.
give us a link that shows majority of ppl buying 35K model 3. All the ppl I know are buying the current cars and are getting deliveries now and over the next couple of months.
Yeah, that is why it was hypothetical. All that mattered was to point out that it would take 2000-4000 years to strip the.012 atm back down to.006 atm.
And if it took 2 months to strip.012 atm down to.006 atm, then in another 2 months, all of the rest of the atmosphere would be gone. Mars would be fully exposed to space.
As it is, mars core shut down some 3.5 BILLION years ago. And even with that, it took 3.5-4.2 billion years to strip it from 1+ atm down to.006 atm.
Like always, never a clue. It is easy to design a system that would float up high in the atmosphere, avoiding the pressures and temps. In fact, USSR already did.with more to come.
You can stay in Oakland/San Jose, and some of us will go to Mars.
Given the choice of Amazon Prime vs the waiting new discoveries all over Mars, I would take the later.
The N2 for mars would come from exactly the same source as what Earths did. Ammonia and methane was on early asteroids. Loads of asteroids past jupiter esp. in the kuiper belt, is nothing but Ammonia, Methane, and a few other liquids that are frozen together.
With a nuke engine, we can get out to these asteroids, attach an engine to these and use a small amount of the asteroid to serve as propellant, and then crash it into Mars. Add some plants, and ammonia will be reduce from 2 NH3 to N2 / 3 H2, all while serving as fertilizer.
That level is loaded with sulfuric acid and IIRC, several other nasty elements.
The other issue is the radiation. There is no magnetosphere. As such, heavy radiation from the sun. OTOH, if you can stay on the backside of venus, OR can create a local magnetosphere (lots of energy), then it is possible to survive.
With that said, I am amazed that we have not put a number of 'sats', or buoys might be a better term, into venus' atmosphere. It really is a good idea.
sigh.
Lots say that we simply choose to go with CO2 and raise the pressure to.12 atm, which is double what mars is at. That would be around 15,000 m on earth or half again as high as K2. That is still within the armstrong limits (.6 atm), which means that we can be outside with lightweight suits, but, will need simple O2 for breathing. Now, if we do that, how long will it take to strip this back down to.6 atm of today's mars atmosphere?
2000-4000 years. IOW, as far back as when christ was on the planet, or clear back to when egypt was building pyramids. Thank Bronze age. This was all before the times of Greece and Rome.
How much did mankind move forward 4000 years? Yeah. HUGE. So, no, we could bring Mars up to 1 atm and it would take longer than mankind has existed. Plenty of time to figure out how to restart the core.
Seriously, if we are going to terraform, it was never about using just the CO2 at mars.
Instead, we will have to import various elements from asteroids. In particular, there are ice asteroids past Jupiter that contain a great deal of ammonia and methane. Both of these molecules are EXACTLY what are needed. Simply crash these into mars.
Both of these are strong GHG. Interestingly, the Ammonia will break down over time into H2/N2. However, it would break down faster with plants on mars.
Why bother mentioning America in there? We all know that America is too high. Should I also mention that Australia, Canada , in fact more than 10 other nations emit even more? The issue was not about America. It was about nations being too high and that we all have to work on bringing it down. America has been going in the right direction ( remains to be seen if we will continue with trump in place ). Western Europe, except recently Germany, is headed in the right direction. China is not. India is not. New coal plants are disasters in the making.
hmmm.
Neither I, nor the data, make an argument AGAINST wind/solar.
Both data and myself argue that depending 100% on wind/solar is foolish and will not work. In particular, both require the sun
OTOH, depending on things like hydro (sun-based), geo-thermal (nuke based), and nuclear power (intense nuke based), along with wind/solar, we can then have decent grid set-up.
totally agree.
In fact, I would like to see us drop the EV subsidies, and then have the feds increase gas/diesel tax by.01 / gal / month for the next 100 months. Yeah, bring it up by $1.00 / gal, but over 100 months. The gas portion needs to go to the state collected, while diesel goes to the feds. Then all of it must go to infrastructure.
There is one issue that will popup. In particular, as we head towards EVs, we have the grid/utility capacity. The problem is that ALL of AE, nuke, and even nat gas are at near 100% capacity. Turns out that the slack in our system, is the coal. I thought it was around 90%, but turns out that coal is the ONLY electricity that has major slack. As such, we MUST build out new nukes and geo-thermal. Wind/solar can not replace on-demand well enough.
And you continue to lie.
SHow us where I give America a pass on our CO2? Not a place. OTOH, you continue to lie and make up stuff. as both crimson tsunami and caffinated bacon.
The elephant in the room is NOT America. It is all the nations building out Coal plants. Coal plant will remain for another 40-60 years.
Secondly, Your hatred for America means that you continue to ignore the real issues. Even here, you lie by claiming that America is 2-4x what China is. China's CO2 is MUCH HIGHER than what is reported. Look at OCO2. Once OCO3 hits, real numbers will be posted. Heck, china was caught lying about their amount of coal consumed over the last 50 years and was forced to admit it because of OCO2. But even using these lies hitting your graph, America is slightly above 2x what China has per capita. And if we go look at the right normalization, which is emissions / $ GDP, China is in the bottom 5.
Third, no hatred of CHina. You accuse me of something that is NOT true. I simply point out the issues.
Fourth, America is at a high emissions / person. I have agreed many a times. BUT, America continues to go down. Your nation continues to rise.Worse yet, you are adding massive number of coal plants that will NOT be closed for another 40-60 years. In fact, China will add more coal plants capacity than America currently has, over the next 12 years.
Hey, idiot.
Efficient plants REALLY produce that level of pollution. Only a true idiot thinks that.
Your link for 'far more coal' shows that CHina shows the number of plants, with a title of CO2 generation. IOW, they do not match up.
More importantly, your data is actually about the number of plants. it shows that China has 4271 plants, with another 815 coming. OTOH, America has 1344 plants, and America has not built a new one in 0ver a decade.
And no, we use about the same amount of electricity as SIMILAR nations. We use less than Canada, Australia, and similar to most of europe, except for UK-germany region. The reason is that they have a very tempered weather. Of course, Western Europe is throwing in AC like no other nation.
Yeah, out of all your lies here and elsewhere, you actually have a decent point on our transportation. The good thing is, that Tesla is pushing America hard to switch to EVs.
Bull Shit.
Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis? Solar per capita in 2012;
Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person. Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia.
Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.
Lets do wind now.
Here is wind in 2012
We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person. Here is wind in 2014
America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.
All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.
Ok, here we have a far left that does not get it. India is likely at the level we all need to be at. China is already way over. Heck, most of Europe is still above where the globe needs to be.
Look, the single worst source of Co2 are coal plants. Even China's best coal plants is an absolute disaster in terms of pollution. These need to be stopped all over the world and replaced with AE or nuke power. The reason is that once built, we will certainly allow them to run for 40 years minimum.
The second worst source are vehicles, esp general purpose transportation. Thankfully, these are replaced relatively quickly, so as vehicle makers get onboard, and produce these, ppl, and more importantly, companies, will buy these. This will drop co2 in most nations.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey porky/red tide. You are always such a liar and a coward.
Last that I checked, a billion years is ' over a million years '.
yeah, Tesla's production is not up there enough for that, but, in either 2019 or 2020, Tesla is supposed to have their truck out. I think it will be interesting to see how well they do at that.
depends on who is in the WH, and who were the big losers on the shorts.
Lets see.
Here is a map of just Tesla Super Chargers. I see load in Texas.
Here is a map of all commercial electric chargers Keep in mind with EVs, most of your electricity comes from your own home since few trips are more than 100 miles.
Here is a graph of Tesla registrations by state, about a year ago. Since over 5% are in Texas, that would mean at least 20K cars are Tesla just in Texas.
The real issue is that you are noticing what you want to see.
give us a link that shows majority of ppl buying 35K model 3. All the ppl I know are buying the current cars and are getting deliveries now and over the next couple of months.
30 years of decreases? By who? Why do you lie so often.
Yeah, that is why it was hypothetical. All that mattered was to point out that it would take 2000-4000 years to strip the .012 atm back down to .006 atm.
.012 atm down to .006 atm, then in another 2 months, all of the rest of the atmosphere would be gone. Mars would be fully exposed to space. .006 atm.
And if it took 2 months to strip
As it is, mars core shut down some 3.5 BILLION years ago. And even with that, it took 3.5-4.2 billion years to strip it from 1+ atm down to
Like always, never a clue. It is easy to design a system that would float up high in the atmosphere, avoiding the pressures and temps. In fact, USSR already did. with more to come.
You can stay in Oakland/San Jose, and some of us will go to Mars.
Given the choice of Amazon Prime vs the waiting new discoveries all over Mars, I would take the later.
yeah, over a million years to strip it .
The N2 for mars would come from exactly the same source as what Earths did. Ammonia and methane was on early asteroids. Loads of asteroids past jupiter esp. in the kuiper belt, is nothing but Ammonia, Methane, and a few other liquids that are frozen together.
With a nuke engine, we can get out to these asteroids, attach an engine to these and use a small amount of the asteroid to serve as propellant, and then crash it into Mars. Add some plants, and ammonia will be reduce from 2 NH3 to N2 / 3 H2, all while serving as fertilizer.
That level is loaded with sulfuric acid and IIRC, several other nasty elements.
The other issue is the radiation. There is no magnetosphere. As such, heavy radiation from the sun. OTOH, if you can stay on the backside of venus, OR can create a local magnetosphere (lots of energy), then it is possible to survive.
With that said, I am amazed that we have not put a number of 'sats', or buoys might be a better term, into venus' atmosphere. It really is a good idea.
sigh. .12 atm, which is double what mars is at. That would be around 15,000 m on earth or half again as high as K2. That is still within the armstrong limits (.6 atm), which means that we can be outside with lightweight suits, but, will need simple O2 for breathing. Now, if we do that, how long will it take to strip this back down to .6 atm of today's mars atmosphere?
2000-4000 years. IOW, as far back as when christ was on the planet, or clear back to when egypt was building pyramids. Thank Bronze age. This was all before the times of Greece and Rome.
Lots say that we simply choose to go with CO2 and raise the pressure to
How much did mankind move forward 4000 years? Yeah. HUGE. So, no, we could bring Mars up to 1 atm and it would take longer than mankind has existed. Plenty of time to figure out how to restart the core.
Seriously, if we are going to terraform, it was never about using just the CO2 at mars.
Instead, we will have to import various elements from asteroids. In particular, there are ice asteroids past Jupiter that contain a great deal of ammonia and methane. Both of these molecules are EXACTLY what are needed. Simply crash these into mars.
Both of these are strong GHG. Interestingly, the Ammonia will break down over time into H2/N2. However, it would break down faster with plants on mars.
Why bother mentioning America in there? We all know that America is too high. Should I also mention that Australia, Canada , in fact more than 10 other nations emit even more? The issue was not about America. It was about nations being too high and that we all have to work on bringing it down. America has been going in the right direction ( remains to be seen if we will continue with trump in place ). Western Europe, except recently Germany, is headed in the right direction. China is not. India is not. New coal plants are disasters in the making.
hmmm.
Neither I, nor the data, make an argument AGAINST wind/solar.
Both data and myself argue that depending 100% on wind/solar is foolish and will not work. In particular, both require the sun
OTOH, depending on things like hydro (sun-based), geo-thermal (nuke based), and nuclear power (intense nuke based), along with wind/solar, we can then have decent grid set-up.
dropping less than 15% of total emissions solves nothing.
lol. Never heard that one before. Sadly, It is pretty much spot on.
totally agree. .01 / gal / month for the next 100 months. Yeah, bring it up by $1.00 / gal, but over 100 months. The gas portion needs to go to the state collected, while diesel goes to the feds. Then all of it must go to infrastructure.
In fact, I would like to see us drop the EV subsidies, and then have the feds increase gas/diesel tax by
There is one issue that will popup. In particular, as we head towards EVs, we have the grid/utility capacity. The problem is that ALL of AE, nuke, and even nat gas are at near 100% capacity. Turns out that the slack in our system, is the coal. I thought it was around 90%, but turns out that coal is the ONLY electricity that has major slack. As such, we MUST build out new nukes and geo-thermal. Wind/solar can not replace on-demand well enough.
And you continue to lie.
SHow us where I give America a pass on our CO2? Not a place. OTOH, you continue to lie and make up stuff. as both crimson tsunami and caffinated bacon.
The elephant in the room is NOT America. It is all the nations building out Coal plants. Coal plant will remain for another 40-60 years.
Secondly, Your hatred for America means that you continue to ignore the real issues. Even here, you lie by claiming that America is 2-4x what China is. China's CO2 is MUCH HIGHER than what is reported. Look at OCO2. Once OCO3 hits, real numbers will be posted. Heck, china was caught lying about their amount of coal consumed over the last 50 years and was forced to admit it because of OCO2. But even using these lies hitting your graph, America is slightly above 2x what China has per capita. And if we go look at the right normalization, which is emissions / $ GDP, China is in the bottom 5.
Third, no hatred of CHina. You accuse me of something that is NOT true. I simply point out the issues.
Fourth, America is at a high emissions / person. I have agreed many a times. BUT, America continues to go down. Your nation continues to rise.Worse yet, you are adding massive number of coal plants that will NOT be closed for another 40-60 years. In fact, China will add more coal plants capacity than America currently has, over the next 12 years.
Hey, idiot. .
Efficient plants REALLY produce that level of pollution. Only a true idiot thinks that
Your link for 'far more coal' shows that CHina shows the number of plants, with a title of CO2 generation. IOW, they do not match up.
More importantly, your data is actually about the number of plants. it shows that China has 4271 plants, with another 815 coming. OTOH, America has 1344 plants, and America has not built a new one in 0ver a decade.
And no, we use about the same amount of electricity as SIMILAR nations. We use less than Canada, Australia, and similar to most of europe, except for UK-germany region. The reason is that they have a very tempered weather. Of course, Western Europe is throwing in AC like no other nation.
Yeah, out of all your lies here and elsewhere, you actually have a decent point on our transportation. The good thing is, that Tesla is pushing America hard to switch to EVs.
Bull Shit.
Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis?
Solar per capita in 2012; Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person.
Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia. Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.
Lets do wind now. Here is wind in 2012 We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person.
Here is wind in 2014 America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.
All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.
Ok, here we have a far left that does not get it. India is likely at the level we all need to be at. China is already way over. Heck, most of Europe is still above where the globe needs to be. Look, the single worst source of Co2 are coal plants. Even China's best coal plants is an absolute disaster in terms of pollution. These need to be stopped all over the world and replaced with AE or nuke power. The reason is that once built, we will certainly allow them to run for 40 years minimum. The second worst source are vehicles, esp general purpose transportation. Thankfully, these are replaced relatively quickly, so as vehicle makers get onboard, and produce these, ppl, and more importantly, companies, will buy these. This will drop co2 in most nations.
lots do.
Basically, you have to adopt to it. There are organisms living on water that is at 98C.