Don't have time to read all the articles linked in the summary but I do recall a few inconvenient facts about global warming. I recall that the global temperature peaked in 1998 and has not broken that record since. I also recall that CO2 levels have reached a new peak. I recall that the temperature reached in 1998 was lower than that of 1934. There seems to be a certain difficulty to create a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
The bigger problem I have is all the government regulation based on this claim of man made global warming. The fact that the correlation has not yet been proven is only a small part. The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.
Just one example, federal buildings in DC are heated by one of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the federation. If they were serious about global warming then I would expect them to do something about this first before telling me what kind of heat I can use in my own home.
I'll take global warming seriously once the federal government does.
I'm not sure I feel safer with some of these "bureaucratic roadblocks" out of the way. As it is already in many states one is required to submit to a BAC test if asked by a police officer or they will lose their license. This is a complete violation of our right of presumed innocence. With the laws as they are now every driver stopped is assumed to be drunk until they prove otherwise to the officer.
I'm no fan of drunk driving laws. They've become less of a means to preserve safety and become more of a movement to reestablish alcohol prohibition. If a person is a danger on the road then stop them. I don't care how much alcohol is in their blood, and the law should not either.
I despise alternative energy subsidies just as much as the oil industry subsidies. To even the playing field we should not be subsidizing alternative energy, we should be removing the subsidies from oil.
Another thing, if solar energy were so great then we'd see the power companies paying people to put solar panels on their roof. I don't mean by buying the excess power from those that put up panels. I mean by driving around neighborhoods and offering to pay the owners to install the panels on their roofs.
A major problem with solar power, a weakness it shares with wind, is that the power it produces cannot be controlled. It adds another unknown to an already delicate system. Weather has a serious impact on the output of wind and solar systems and power companies cannot control them. With hydro, coal, nuclear, and natural gas the power companies have control of the throttle. There is no throttle on wind and solar, they can't turn up the wind and sun if they need more power.
This lack of control adds to the cost and people like cheap power.
A few people that put up solar panels to power their homes is not usually an issue because there is not enough solar power right now to significantly affect the system. The power they add to the system is in the noise floor.
Again, if solar power were so great more people would be using it. Business is business and the factories and stores can't just close up because the clouds decided to roll in that day.
Have people already forgotten that the police are holding a suspect under armed guard in a hospital? You know, the Saudi national? I heard nothing to remove suspicion of this guy being a participant to the crime.
What's happened to our news media? They were all over this Saudi national just hours ago but now we hear about a "first" suspect shot dead and a "second" being captured, both immigrants from Russia.
It seems both the large news media outlets and a large portion of the public have short memories. I want to know what's up with this Saudi guy. Do we have a name? How did he get in the country? Was he immigrating? Did he have a student visa? If so, what school did he attend? Was anyone watching him before the bombs went off? Do we have a picture?
If this Saudi is no longer a suspect then we should still have something on him. Even if that something is an explanation on why he's no longer a suspect.
And no, there's no reason you have to be part of the 1% to buy one. No more than any other car of the same value. Or did you think they're all high-end Tesla luxury vehicles?
You are right, they are not all made by Tesla. What they are is so limited in range, and take so long to charge, that they are only viable as a second car for a large portion of the population. Few people can afford two cars, with one of them being a decked out electric or hybrid. There are no low end electric cars, not yet.
Also, I live in a place where we have this thing called "winter". I met a group of people that converted electric cars when I lived closer to the equator and they did well there. Where I am now electric cars are not popular. Current battery technology does not allow for enough power to keep the cabin warm while also having enough power to drive through a snow storm.
Let me know when I can buy a four wheel drive electric vehicle, with a 50 mile daily range, and enough clearance to get through four inches of snow. (I was about to say six inches but I'll compromise.) Oh, and for about $15000. Until then I'll keep driving my "gas guzzler", and I suspect several million of my neighbors think the same.
Because fuel companies won't buy the cheapest ethanol they can get?
It appears you misunderstood. The problem is not the price of ethanol. The problem is the corn. There's not enough corn to go around so prices keep gong up until enough people are unwilling to buy it. The people that mix the ethanol into our fuel have to buy it no matter what the price is. That means higher price fuel, higher price food, and very little to show for it.
The anti-nuclear agenda comes from the Petro industry.
Why would the petroleum industry try to keep out nuclear? Oil is used for transportation fuel, not electricity. The coal industry might have something to say about it but they are selling enough coal to the Chinese that I doubt they care much anymore. I believe the resistance comes from the same people that don't like coal, because nuclear power is "scary" to them.
You probably don't know how much wind-baed energy has grown lately, do you?
It grows only because the government funds it. Pull the funding and wind power will have to sink or swim on their own merits, not because the government mandates the utilities buy it.
But no, to you it's just a sacred truth, the Free Market works, and nobody can question it.
If you like what a centrally managed economy looks like then I suggest you see how well North Korea, Cuba, and so many other similar vacation destinations look like. Stay there for a while then get back to me. That is assuming you survive the starvation, disease, and crime.
I'd reply to more of your points but you've gone too far into attacking me than what I said to bother.
I agree that Liberty and Freedom are what makes this country great. But right now, you are defending the Koch brothers' freedom to try to steal your freedom from you.
The problem lies in that any attempt to silence the Koch brothers is going to come back to bite us. We cannot infringe on their freedom to speak without putting our own freedom at risk.
I may not like what they say but I will defend to my last breath their right to say it.
Corporations are associations of people. You can't restrict the free speech of a corporation without infringing on the free speech of the people that make it up.
Sucks, but there it is.
Agreed. People are corporations and corporations are people. A person is a corporation, that is how we got the federal income tax. If we somehow agree that a corporation cannot speak then we will always have the problem of separating the silence of a corporation with the right of the individual to speak.
I have no mod points since I commented elsewhere already. All I can do is quote you to make you more visible.
There is a simple solution to this, you should know. Make carbon output unprofitable.
OK, well identifying the solution is easy but I know the implementation is much more difficult. Right now we don't burn fossil fuels because we want to fuck up the atmosphere. We burn fossil fuels because doing so makes us money. That money buys us coke and hookers. Maybe not coke and hookers, but we can buy food, clothing, and shelter. If we have money left over we can buy beer and porn, the cheaper alternative to coke and hookers.
Point is that people like the comforts that fossil fuels have brought us so far. If we can find a means to get that same comfort at a lower price than what fossil fuels can bring then no one needs to be convinced of the need to lower their carbon output, people will naturally move to that since it means more beer and porn.
We already have the technology to bring nuclear generated electricity to the nation at a price competitive with natural gas and coal. If the government would actually let more people build more nuclear power plants then we could seriously lower our carbon output.
If these people are successful in bringing more freedom to the energy market we could see some advancement in reducing carbon output. They need to see some profit in it too. So what if it means another private island for them. If they are successful then they get their mansion and I get more beer.
Right, let's just do away with that inconvenient First Amendment. Can't be having people speak freely, bring their concerns to the government, or assemble peacefully to discuss matters that concern them. Might as well, we've already tossed just about all of the Bill of Rights in the dust bin. About the only one that remains is the Third Amendment. These people believe in limited government and free enterprise, and they want to bring that concept to the District of Criminals. Perhaps they have the right idea but the wrong motivation.
The concept is that the carbon output from human activity is causing global climate change that is dangerous to future human activity of any kind. So, the government "solutions" so far have been to subsidize corn ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.
What we got from that are electric cars that start fires, don't move (as in need to have a forklift pick it up onto a flat bed truck since the wheels locked up), or are so expensive that only the hated "1%" can buy them. We get battery manufacturers that get government money but don't produce any batteries. We have government funded solar panel companies that, if they actually produce a solar panel, can get only government agencies to actually buy them.
We have corn ethanol mandated in our fuel which raise the price we pay for our fuel, have a tendency to damage certain vehicles, and have a reduction in CO2 output that is pathetic if it even exists. The consumption of corn by our cars means the food that we consume costs more since, as it turns out, people eat corn too. Since fuel companies are mandated to buy corn ethanol there is no motivation to actually reduce the price.
I could keep going on how the lack of a free market is doing little to nothing to actually reduce our carbon output. Some freedom returned to the marketplace is more likely to do more good for the climate than what we have now.
We could be building nuclear power plants, but the government won't let us. We could be using sugar beets or switch grass as bio-fuels but the government does not make that profitable. Perhaps if we introduced some real competition in the markets we'd see some real development in windmill technology. As it is right now the windmill manufacturers make money whether or not the windmills actually produce any electricity.
I believe we have a long way to go with solar power and electric cars before they are viable outside some very narrow niche markets. Instead of the government paying people to make products that don't work, and therefore do nothing for the environment, I'd suggest we let the market decide what is both profitable and has a lower carbon output.
The government has a poor history of picking winners in the market. The government has a poor history of picking winners in anything. Might have something to do with the fact that winners in the market don't need a government hand out to make a profit. The government can only pick losers in the economy. So long as the government is funding it then it won't work.
I say that if we want the climate to improve then get the government out of the climate business.
We can't conserve our way out of this mess. I agree that wise use of our energy is vital but it does nothing to address that a large portion of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.
b) Solar, especially Solar thermal
Solar power in every form still costs double to quadruple that of coal and nuclear. Until that price comes within spitting distance of nuclear it is not a viable option.
c) Wind, lots of it... would be a no brainer to start installing large scale wind farms like germany, denmark and the Uk and the netherlands do
Wind might work, some day. As of right now it costs about 50% more than nuclear and coal. I see great promise in wind and I suspect it will be a large part of our energy future. Problem is that the wind blows when it wishes. Lacking a viable storage method we could actually see our CO2 output increase as UK and Denmark discovered. Those coal plants just can't turn off when the wind blows, they burn coal whether the energy they produce is used or not. Too much wind and not enough storage, shedding of load, or fast back-up power (like natural gas turbines), and CO2 output goes up.
The nice thing about nuclear is that even if a nuclear power plant idles there is no additional CO2 output. Something has to back-up the wind for when it does not blow, nuclear is an obvious choice.
iii)) e.g. electric cars
Unless that power comes from nuclear you're going backwards. Wind might also work but it produces more CO2 than nuclear per watt-hour since constructing those concrete pedestals and those aluminum blades produces a lot of CO2.
iv) cars that use less fuel
We're reaching diminishing returns here. We've squeezed about all we could out of our vehicles. I propose natural gas vehicles, much less CO2 and it's locally sourced. Even better would be synthesizing fuels from nuclear power.
e) use your bike or public transport instead of commuting with a car
v) especially you could do car sharing and drive with more than one person...
Great idea. Except when someone needs to haul stuff. Or when the temperatures get below zero. And not so great when a call comes in that the servers took a dump and they need some one on site ten minutes ago. When that happens I hop in my 4x4 truck, barrel through the snow and wind, and arrive quickly, dry, warm, and ready to work. You ride your bike, I'm keeping my truck.
Reuse farming waste for bio gas energy generation...
Bad idea. That "farming waste" needs to go back into the fields as fertilizer and erosion control. If we keep this bio-mass nonsense going we're going to see another dust bowl. The only reason we've been able to keep this illusion of "farming waste" going is because of the large amounts of fossil fuel derived fertilizers we've been using. If we'd put that "farming waste" back into the fields we would not be using up so much natural gas to produce ammonia based fertilizers.
And most of all: before writing such nonsense: get some information about state of the art technology, stone age, bah, thats so 10,000 AD.
I have been reading a lot about state of the art technology. The problem is that these technologies are still state of the art. We need tried and true. Until this stuff can catch up with nuclear on price and reliability (mostly price) our choices are limited.
We've been using nuclear fission for energy now for half a century and we have it working for us, it currently provides about 10% of our total energy and about 20% of our electricity in the USA. We could use a whole lot more of it, we'd get cheap energy (or at least not have it keep going up) and much less CO2.
Bull fucking shit. For one reason or another you have a dog in this fight, and that dog is nuclear power, and you are willing to tell lies to support it. You are a liar, and you should STFU and tell the truth already.
My "dog in this fight" is my utility bills. My costs for food, fuel, clothing, and shelter (you know, those things we need to survive) are going up all the time. Much of this cost is based on regulations. These regulations are, IMHO, based on some really shaky science. This shaky science includes global warming from human activity and the hazards of nuclear power.
I did a lot of reading on the advancements in energy technology. I found out a lot of interesting things about them. One thing that sticks out is that none of them are in wide spread production yet. These energy sources are called "alternative energy sources" because if they were viable in the here and now we'd be calling them just "energy sources" instead. We don't refer to nuclear power as "alternative" since it works.
Algae sounds like a really interesting and potentially viable energy source but for right now the costs are too high to even consider. Nuclear power works. We are using it now and it is profitable. I'm convinced that if people really wanted to see our CO2 output get reduced then we'd see more people talking about it. These people aren't talking about nuclear power so they are not concerned about CO2 output. They have some other motive and they are finding as many "useful idiots" as they can to push their agenda.
I noticed that you did not dispute my claim that wind, solar, and bio-mass are more expensive than coal. That is because you cannot. I have become very tired of my bills going up to satisfy the tyrannical desires of some watermelon that claims to be my representative in government.
Wind is expensive. Solar is expensive. Bio-mass is expensive. All of these cost double or triple that of fossil and nuclear energy. The CO2 gains on these are open for dispute as well. Given the small energy gain from current bio-mass technology we might actually be going backwards. You can talk all you like about future gains in bio-mass technologies but that is meaningless for those of us that live in the here and now.
The only current energy technology that is both viable (as in profitable) and has a lower CO2 output that any fossil fuel is hydro and nuclear. We've dammed up all the rivers worth a dam. All we got left is nuclear.
I find it very upsetting that there is an abundance of people that are concerned about the CO2 output but very few that take the time to investigate and lobby for solutions that won't drive us back into the stone age. The only solution that we have now, with no need for new technological advancements, is nuclear power. We have not built a new nuclear power plant here in the USA for something like four decades. Those that are still running are undoubtedly reaching the end of their safe and profitable lifespan.
Alternatives like wind, solar, and bio-mass take considerable amounts of land. This land is expensive and competes with other vital needs like food. I recall a solar power plant that could not produce enough electricity to pay it's property taxes. They were allowed a discounted rate on the tax but they still went out of business since they couldn't pay their other bills. Bio-mass is a direct competitor to food as any land that can grow a plant suitable for energy is also land that is suitable to grow food. There just is not enough land, water, and sun to both feed us and provide our power needs. There might be enough to both fill our tummies and our fuel tanks on our vehicles but the biggest producer of CO2 is not our vehicles, it's our coal fired power plants.
Wind might some day be competitive with coal and be profitable. The problem with wind, as well as geothermal and hydro, is that it is highly sensitive to location. Wind power can share land with things like food crops but it shares a weakness with solar power, it is highly sensitive to weather.
There's a part of me that thinks this scare over CO2 output is largely a hoax. There is a part of me that just doesn't care. What I do want to see is all this arguing to stop and people put some real solutions to work. I want them to STFU and build some nuclear power plants already. I can see a perfect spot for one from my front door. It has a rail nearby, a small river flowing by for cooling water, and a ready market in the city that I can see from my back door. My only concern is that a power plant so close might shade my house.
Now imagine some six-year-old kid pulling that sucker out of her desk drawer, thinking that it's a toy, and killing somebody. Even in the best case, more guns in the hands of teachers would just replace a handful of occasional massacres with a much larger number of accidental shootings. The body count doesn't decrease; only the concentration does.
When I saw this the first thought through my mind was that the teachers should have the weapon in a proper holster on their body. Then you went on with this:
Now if you had said an armed guard, I might agreeâ"someone trained to use weapons, carrying that weapon on his or her person at all times. As soon as it is in the hands of someone who isn't physically in contact with the weapon at all times, however, it becomes a far greater threat to the children's safety than the threat it is trying to prevent, statistically speaking. Far, far greater.
There is no reason that any teacher or other adult at the school could not serve the role as an armed guard along with their usual duties. The training required to safely handle a handgun is simple. The training required to hit a target with that weapon is just slightly less trivial. The hard part is maintaining that skill over time. This takes practice. With the general lack of shooting ranges in many urban areas in this federation of ours this can be a problem.
I also dispute your claim that firearms in schools somehow pose some sort of statistically greater risk to students. If kids are picking up firearms and playing with them like toys then kids need to be trained. This seems like a good idea to me even if we don't arm the teachers since in this modern world we live in there are going to be firearms around.
I believe it is much easier to gun proof the kid than to kid proof the gun. Train the kids on firearm safety, whatever is appropriate for their age. In most states children of 12 years and older are allowed to hunt with a firearm. That tells me that the states have already decided on an appropriate age to teach children how to safely handle a firearm. Under that age they need to be told to not touch.
Locked away in a closet or cabinet somewhere, they're useless.
Agreed. Any school teacher that wishes to be armed in the classroom should be able to do so. I believe the school should set policies on the training and the holsters used in the school but that should be left to the school to decide. Leave the federal government out of local issues.
There is a fallacy that the federal government disallows firearms on school property. The law allows anyone to have a firearm so long as they first obtain permission to do so from the school. Now we have the President giving his VP the task of coming up with more gun laws to "protect" the schools. The problem is that the federal government has criminalized the act of self defense in our schools. We need to repeal some laws, not make new ones. I doubt this will happen since the tyrants in our government can not "let a good crisis go to waste".
I have been there and seen the "doctors" who will give you a prescription IN THE DISPENSARY.
I don't follow. Years ago I went to a clinic for a really bad cold. The "doctor" there prescribed antibiotics and cough syrup with codeine. I then went across the hall to get my prescription filled. Now, is this "doctor" guilty of feeding my opium habit? Are they breaking the spirit of the law on the laws controlling the trade of opiates?
Do you find it suspicious that a place dispensing opiates also contains people that are willing and able to prescribe opiates to anyone that walks in? If you do then I suggest you call the Department of Defense and tell them that they got drug dealers on their own bases.
I have noticed that the Army physicians are a bit more willing to prescribe some very potent medications than civilian physicians. I say this because of experiences with civilian clinics. For example, many years ago I went to a clinic also with a very bad cold. I was told to take some over the counter medications and come back if it gets worse. My guess is that with the laws as they are a civilian physician does not wish to have the scrutiny that prescribing opiates can bring. Military physicians will not get this scrutiny, or at least not likely be threatened with felonies for doing their job as they see fit.
Having the physician in the dispensary just sounds like a convenience to me. This happens in many other cases as well. For example, a store selling eyeglasses will often have an optometrist in the store. It works out well for the store, the optometrist, and the customers/patients. You've heard the three rules of a good business, right? Location, location, location. I'm thinking of opening a tire shop next to the scrap yard. I bet I'd do good business there.
Ah, but you see we don't live in a democracy. At least I don't. I'm in the USA, which is (theoretically at least) a republic. I don't know where you live. In a democracy the 49% have to do what the other 51% demand. In a republic the government is only empowered to perform those duties that it was constituted to do on the behalf of the people. This government, where I live, was never empowered to subsidize CFL bulbs or windmills. The federal government has just decided, despite the will of the people that created it, to usurp that power.
If 51% of this republic wants higher electricity prices to have the illusion they are saving the planet then let them pay full price for their windmills and electric cars. They have no right to demand my money to fund their pet projects.
I say "illusion of saving the planet" because I am not thoroughly convinced that windmills and CFL bulbs actually reduce CO2 output. CFL bulbs are very energy intensive to create and my own personal experience tells me that the operational lifespan of these bulbs are highly inflated. A "Mythbusters" episode also showed that CFL bulbs will not last near as long as advertised. The CO2 savings only arise if they can reach a lifespan that can offset the energy consumed in it's manufacture and transport when compared to other lighting options. Given what was shown on "Mythbusters" I have my doubts that we actually come out ahead with CFLs.
I say that windmills CO2 savings are highly inflated as well because the aluminum used in their construction is energy intensive and has a high carbon output. (This carbon output is mostly from the carbon reduction used to refine the ore to elemental aluminum, not just from the coal used to power the refineries.) When the wind does not blow then the slack has to be picked up with something else. That something else is usually with the very inefficient (by industrial electricity generating standards) natural gas turbines or with coal.
Assuming that I do live in a democracy and there are 51% of the public that believe that we can reduce our CO2 output with CFL and windmill subsidies then that just tells me that there are a lot of voters that were lied to and/or did not care to find the truth. They've been lied to about the dangers of nuclear power, the CO2 savings that CFLs and windmills give, as well as all kinds of lies about electric cars.
You are perfectly free to go out and evangelize nuclear to the masses.
My so called "pissing on others' yards" is the fault of the government. They are the ones not letting people build more nuclear power plants. If we replace all these coal plants with nuclear ones we would put a very significant dent in the carbon output we produce.
CFL bulbs are a band-aid on a gun shot wound. Electricity is used for many things other than lighting. If we put our efforts in building nuclear power plants then ALL electricity use gains. Electric cars are one example. Getting an electric car does not "save the planet" if we're burning coal to charge them up. Electric cars only make sense if the electricity comes from an energy source that has less carbon output than an equivalent gasoline or diesel car would.
For the record, I am for heavily taxing incandescent bulbs rather than banning them.
That's a distinction without a difference. The government would still be doing nothing about the real problem, carbon output from coal fired electric power plants. Replace those coal plants with nuclear and the light bulbs I buy should not matter to anyone.
Really? Since when has "big oil" been asking for nuclear power plants and natural gas vehicles?
I don't like oil because so much of my nation's money goes to other nations. These other nations are typically ruled by tyrants that don't like us very much. If we can get off of oil then we will no longer be funding our enemies.
Sure, LED lighting is a solution. The point is that I don't want the government telling me what lights I should buy. I most definitely don't want the government spending my tax money on subsidizing CFL bulbs for other people to buy. If these people want to feel better about themselves for "saving the planet" by buying a CFL bulb then they can do that with their own money.
I'll probably end up getting some LED bulbs in the future but for right now I enjoy the extra heat they provide during this cold weather.
Why are CFLs an issue when regular florescent lights are so prevalent?
I don't like those either. One difference is that where those exist are places that I do not own. Their house, their rules. In my house I like incandescent bulbs, they are inexpensive, light instantly in all kinds of weather/temperatures, contain no toxic materials, relatively tough, have a pleasant color, and do not require any special disposal when burned out.
Now we have government bureaucrats that think they know better than I do what is the best way to light my home. If the government was really concerned about carbon output and other pollution from coal fired power plants they'd be building nuclear power plants. I'm convinced that they are more intent on making a show to the public that the government cares about us than they are in creating effective legislation.
I believe that whether or not AGW is true the response should be the same. More nuclear and natural gas. Less ethanol and foreign sourced oil. Drop the stupid subsidies on windmills, solar panels, and electric cars.
Electric cars are now a mature technology. We no longer need to subsidize them since people are buying top dollar electric cars anyway. Electric car subsidies are just the wealthy legislating more more to the wealthy so they can by their status symbols. Also, until we replace coal power with nuclear these cars produce more carbon than a gasoline, diesel, or especially natural gas counterpart.
Windmills rarely produce a net carbon savings because they are still backed up by inefficient natural gas turbines or, the largest culprit of carbon output, coal.
End this insanity with CFL bulbs. I don't like the idea of having fragile, mercury filled, glass tubes hanging over where I eat and sleep. If we had nuclear instead of coal it would not matter what kind of lighting I chose when it comes to carbon output.
If we cannot figure out whether or not ethanol actually saves on carbon or not then perhaps we should not be dumping so much money into it. If people want ethanol then let them have it, just don't make me buy it so you can feel better about yourself. Like the CFL bulb example above this would all be moot if we could get some natural gas and electric (from nuclear) vehicles on the road.
The nice thing about all of this is that it involves reducing government influence on our lives, increases the choices of the consumer, lower taxes, greater wealth for all, and no painful transitions in infrastructure. This is also precisely why it will not happen. AGW is about bigger government, not saving the world.
Right, because I don't believe as you do I must have obviously been fed propaganda.
I have done considerable reading over the years on global warming. What I have come to see is that there are many on both sides that will benefit greatly in money and power if they get the public to believe them. Finding a truly independent and impartial source of information on this has been shown to be difficult.
What I have seen is that there is a large portion of the people that support the AGW theory tend to be motivated more by politics than anything. These people are either politicians themselves or are in positions where they can gain from government spending. This leads to "solutions" to AGW that involve the government dictating more of how I can live and how I can spend my money. I might be more willing to believe them if they spent more time educating me and less time insulting me.
I've come to believe that a large portion of the AGW crowd are "watermelons", green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. I'd be more willing to believe the AGW theory if the "solutions" they propose didn't involve more government and taxes. We don't need more government to save the world, we need people providing real solutions.
Take the CFL mandates for example. I had my choices in light bulbs reduced by government mandate. If the government was really concerned about carbon output from lighting then they'd allow for more nuclear power plants to get built. If our power came from nuclear power then it would not matter what kind of light bulb I had.
Even the greatest proponents behind AGW have had to admit things like we have not seen global temperatures rise for 15 years, and that corn ethanol might not actually reduce carbon output. The "science" has been falling apart but I'm willing to still believe in it if we see some actual science being applied here.
Science tells me that wind power does not reduce carbon output, nuclear power does. Science tells me that corn ethanol is a really bad idea to reduce carbon output compared to natural gas. If the problem is carbon dioxide then offer me some solutions that actually reduce carbon output. Give me my nuclear power. Let me buy a natural gas vehicle that isn't some tiny little tin can. I'm a big guy that has to drive over some rough roads. I'll buy a natural gas truck but someone has to make one first.
No. That is precisely why I believe that dumping my tax money into projects like wind and solar is a fool's errand. We cannot legislate new technology into existence. We must allow it to develop naturally through competition.
By subsidizing wind and solar we produce the illusion of a competitive technology. That wind power is only "cheap" to the consumer so long as the taxing and spending propping it up is ignored. The incentive to improve that technology is reduced because the market needs only meet the mandates created in law, not the greater rigors of a competitive market.
Subsidies for wind hold up not only wind development but also development in other technologies. Other technologies now have to compete with an energy source with an artificial advantage. They must compete for the consumers, manufacturing, materials, government contracts, and so on.
This is especially infuriating for me because we already have a technology proven competitive for electricity production, nuclear power. Nuclear power can be a direct replacement for coal as the physics behind it is very similar, boil water to spin a turbine. Wind does not replace anything since physics dictate that electricity must be consumed as it is produced. Wind is fickle and that adds instability to the electric grid. Counteracting that instability requires more cost. That cost represents waste. I don't like seeing my taxes wasted.
If by "short term" you mean "centuries" then, yes, I would agree. At some point we will no longer be able to extract fossil fuels in a way that is no longer cheaper than wind and solar. That is going to take a very long time, some estimates place that at 300 years.
The beauty of nuclear power is that there is no short term pain, we just gain. With nuclear power our electricity prices don't go up and our carbon output goes down. That's with no new technology.
Nuclear power does have a similar problem to wind and solar in that it does not react well to changes in demand. Right now that is dealt with by using natural gas turbines, which costs just as much as the wind and solar except that we control the throttle. With a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas our electricity prices double. With a mix of wind, solar, natural gas, and a large portion of nuclear our electricity prices do not change.
We can remove the carbon output from natural gas if we find an electricity storage device that can compete with natural gas turbines. We do that and we not only have the ability to go carbon neutral with nuclear power but also with wind and solar. Wind and solar prices might go down in the future but so could nuclear.
Short term pain for long term gain is stupid if there is an alternative that involves no pain. We have that in nuclear power. The gain isn't even long term, the gain is immediate in less air pollution.
A nuclear power plant might not be cheap but since a modern reactor requires little fuel over the nearly century long life span, and it can produce considerable amounts of power throughout that lifespan, the cost of the electricity produced is on par with a modern coal plant.
The reason more nuclear power plants haven't been built has far more to do with the fact that it's cheaper and faster to build a coal power plant (and now natural gas) than because of environmentalist's opposition.
Considering that the federal government has not issued a license to construct a nuclear power plant in decades is likely to be the largest reason. Can't build without a license. Sure, the initial cost of a coal plant is quite low but it takes a constant supply of large quantities of coal for that plant to operate. This coal costs a lot of money.
Wind and solar are cheaper or well on the way to becoming cheaper too.
If wind and solar were truly cheaper than coal and nuclear then it would not require government subsidies, carbon taxes, and other forms of carrots and sticks for people to buy them. The cost of wind and solar power is also highly dependent on location, the cost of nuclear power is not. I got an e-mail recently from my congressman on how he's going to fight more wind subsidies because so many jobs around here depend on them. If wind power needs subsidies before people will buy them then that just shows me that wind is more expensive than coal.
I remember getting a letter from my electric utility offering me the ability for higher electric rates so that I could buy my power from windmills instead of the coal and nuclear power plants. If wind is cheaper than coal then I should have received a letter telling me that my rates will be reduced because they added all kinds of new, cheaper to run, windmills.
Do even try to tell me that solar power is even close to becoming cheaper than wind, coal, nuclear, or natural gas. I worked on solar panels in college while studying electrical engineering and I've seen the math. I don't recall all the numbers now but we were a long way from viable solar power then and even though we've seen all kinds of new advances since we are still a long way from viable solar power.
Just like my wind examples above if solar power could compete with coal I'd get letters from my electric utility offering me lower rates if I switched to solar power. I'd probably see the utility offer to help me pay for panels on my roof so they could buy the power from me. If this were true then we would not have seen all those solar power companies that got billions of dollars of free government grants go out of business.
We don't see solar and wind companies make money but we do see companies willing to spend all kinds of money so they can get a license to build nuclear power reactors. They would not do that unless they thought they'd get a profit.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't have time to read all the articles linked in the summary but I do recall a few inconvenient facts about global warming. I recall that the global temperature peaked in 1998 and has not broken that record since. I also recall that CO2 levels have reached a new peak. I recall that the temperature reached in 1998 was lower than that of 1934. There seems to be a certain difficulty to create a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.
The bigger problem I have is all the government regulation based on this claim of man made global warming. The fact that the correlation has not yet been proven is only a small part. The problem is that the government is keeps getting bigger to supposedly fight global warming but they do nothing in their direct power to do something about it.
Just one example, federal buildings in DC are heated by one of the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the federation. If they were serious about global warming then I would expect them to do something about this first before telling me what kind of heat I can use in my own home.
I'll take global warming seriously once the federal government does.
I'm not sure I feel safer with some of these "bureaucratic roadblocks" out of the way. As it is already in many states one is required to submit to a BAC test if asked by a police officer or they will lose their license. This is a complete violation of our right of presumed innocence. With the laws as they are now every driver stopped is assumed to be drunk until they prove otherwise to the officer.
I'm no fan of drunk driving laws. They've become less of a means to preserve safety and become more of a movement to reestablish alcohol prohibition. If a person is a danger on the road then stop them. I don't care how much alcohol is in their blood, and the law should not either.
I despise alternative energy subsidies just as much as the oil industry subsidies. To even the playing field we should not be subsidizing alternative energy, we should be removing the subsidies from oil.
Another thing, if solar energy were so great then we'd see the power companies paying people to put solar panels on their roof. I don't mean by buying the excess power from those that put up panels. I mean by driving around neighborhoods and offering to pay the owners to install the panels on their roofs.
A major problem with solar power, a weakness it shares with wind, is that the power it produces cannot be controlled. It adds another unknown to an already delicate system. Weather has a serious impact on the output of wind and solar systems and power companies cannot control them. With hydro, coal, nuclear, and natural gas the power companies have control of the throttle. There is no throttle on wind and solar, they can't turn up the wind and sun if they need more power.
This lack of control adds to the cost and people like cheap power.
A few people that put up solar panels to power their homes is not usually an issue because there is not enough solar power right now to significantly affect the system. The power they add to the system is in the noise floor.
Again, if solar power were so great more people would be using it. Business is business and the factories and stores can't just close up because the clouds decided to roll in that day.
Have people already forgotten that the police are holding a suspect under armed guard in a hospital? You know, the Saudi national? I heard nothing to remove suspicion of this guy being a participant to the crime.
What's happened to our news media? They were all over this Saudi national just hours ago but now we hear about a "first" suspect shot dead and a "second" being captured, both immigrants from Russia.
It seems both the large news media outlets and a large portion of the public have short memories. I want to know what's up with this Saudi guy. Do we have a name? How did he get in the country? Was he immigrating? Did he have a student visa? If so, what school did he attend? Was anyone watching him before the bombs went off? Do we have a picture?
If this Saudi is no longer a suspect then we should still have something on him. Even if that something is an explanation on why he's no longer a suspect.
And no, there's no reason you have to be part of the 1% to buy one. No more than any other car of the same value. Or did you think they're all high-end Tesla luxury vehicles?
You are right, they are not all made by Tesla. What they are is so limited in range, and take so long to charge, that they are only viable as a second car for a large portion of the population. Few people can afford two cars, with one of them being a decked out electric or hybrid. There are no low end electric cars, not yet.
Also, I live in a place where we have this thing called "winter". I met a group of people that converted electric cars when I lived closer to the equator and they did well there. Where I am now electric cars are not popular. Current battery technology does not allow for enough power to keep the cabin warm while also having enough power to drive through a snow storm.
Let me know when I can buy a four wheel drive electric vehicle, with a 50 mile daily range, and enough clearance to get through four inches of snow. (I was about to say six inches but I'll compromise.) Oh, and for about $15000. Until then I'll keep driving my "gas guzzler", and I suspect several million of my neighbors think the same.
Because fuel companies won't buy the cheapest ethanol they can get?
It appears you misunderstood. The problem is not the price of ethanol. The problem is the corn. There's not enough corn to go around so prices keep gong up until enough people are unwilling to buy it. The people that mix the ethanol into our fuel have to buy it no matter what the price is. That means higher price fuel, higher price food, and very little to show for it.
The anti-nuclear agenda comes from the Petro industry.
Why would the petroleum industry try to keep out nuclear? Oil is used for transportation fuel, not electricity. The coal industry might have something to say about it but they are selling enough coal to the Chinese that I doubt they care much anymore. I believe the resistance comes from the same people that don't like coal, because nuclear power is "scary" to them.
You probably don't know how much wind-baed energy has grown lately, do you?
It grows only because the government funds it. Pull the funding and wind power will have to sink or swim on their own merits, not because the government mandates the utilities buy it.
But no, to you it's just a sacred truth, the Free Market works, and nobody can question it.
If you like what a centrally managed economy looks like then I suggest you see how well North Korea, Cuba, and so many other similar vacation destinations look like. Stay there for a while then get back to me. That is assuming you survive the starvation, disease, and crime.
I'd reply to more of your points but you've gone too far into attacking me than what I said to bother.
I agree that Liberty and Freedom are what makes this country great. But right now, you are defending the Koch brothers' freedom to try to steal your freedom from you.
The problem lies in that any attempt to silence the Koch brothers is going to come back to bite us. We cannot infringe on their freedom to speak without putting our own freedom at risk.
I may not like what they say but I will defend to my last breath their right to say it.
Corporations are associations of people. You can't restrict the free speech of a corporation without infringing on the free speech of the people that make it up.
Sucks, but there it is.
Agreed. People are corporations and corporations are people. A person is a corporation, that is how we got the federal income tax. If we somehow agree that a corporation cannot speak then we will always have the problem of separating the silence of a corporation with the right of the individual to speak.
I have no mod points since I commented elsewhere already. All I can do is quote you to make you more visible.
There is a simple solution to this, you should know. Make carbon output unprofitable.
OK, well identifying the solution is easy but I know the implementation is much more difficult. Right now we don't burn fossil fuels because we want to fuck up the atmosphere. We burn fossil fuels because doing so makes us money. That money buys us coke and hookers. Maybe not coke and hookers, but we can buy food, clothing, and shelter. If we have money left over we can buy beer and porn, the cheaper alternative to coke and hookers.
Point is that people like the comforts that fossil fuels have brought us so far. If we can find a means to get that same comfort at a lower price than what fossil fuels can bring then no one needs to be convinced of the need to lower their carbon output, people will naturally move to that since it means more beer and porn.
We already have the technology to bring nuclear generated electricity to the nation at a price competitive with natural gas and coal. If the government would actually let more people build more nuclear power plants then we could seriously lower our carbon output.
If these people are successful in bringing more freedom to the energy market we could see some advancement in reducing carbon output. They need to see some profit in it too. So what if it means another private island for them. If they are successful then they get their mansion and I get more beer.
You got a problem with more beer?
Right, let's just do away with that inconvenient First Amendment. Can't be having people speak freely, bring their concerns to the government, or assemble peacefully to discuss matters that concern them. Might as well, we've already tossed just about all of the Bill of Rights in the dust bin. About the only one that remains is the Third Amendment. These people believe in limited government and free enterprise, and they want to bring that concept to the District of Criminals. Perhaps they have the right idea but the wrong motivation.
The concept is that the carbon output from human activity is causing global climate change that is dangerous to future human activity of any kind. So, the government "solutions" so far have been to subsidize corn ethanol, windmills, electric cars, and solar panels.
What we got from that are electric cars that start fires, don't move (as in need to have a forklift pick it up onto a flat bed truck since the wheels locked up), or are so expensive that only the hated "1%" can buy them. We get battery manufacturers that get government money but don't produce any batteries. We have government funded solar panel companies that, if they actually produce a solar panel, can get only government agencies to actually buy them.
We have corn ethanol mandated in our fuel which raise the price we pay for our fuel, have a tendency to damage certain vehicles, and have a reduction in CO2 output that is pathetic if it even exists. The consumption of corn by our cars means the food that we consume costs more since, as it turns out, people eat corn too. Since fuel companies are mandated to buy corn ethanol there is no motivation to actually reduce the price.
I could keep going on how the lack of a free market is doing little to nothing to actually reduce our carbon output. Some freedom returned to the marketplace is more likely to do more good for the climate than what we have now.
We could be building nuclear power plants, but the government won't let us. We could be using sugar beets or switch grass as bio-fuels but the government does not make that profitable. Perhaps if we introduced some real competition in the markets we'd see some real development in windmill technology. As it is right now the windmill manufacturers make money whether or not the windmills actually produce any electricity.
I believe we have a long way to go with solar power and electric cars before they are viable outside some very narrow niche markets. Instead of the government paying people to make products that don't work, and therefore do nothing for the environment, I'd suggest we let the market decide what is both profitable and has a lower carbon output.
The government has a poor history of picking winners in the market. The government has a poor history of picking winners in anything. Might have something to do with the fact that winners in the market don't need a government hand out to make a profit. The government can only pick losers in the economy. So long as the government is funding it then it won't work.
I say that if we want the climate to improve then get the government out of the climate business.
a) better insulation to save
We can't conserve our way out of this mess. I agree that wise use of our energy is vital but it does nothing to address that a large portion of our electricity comes from fossil fuels.
b) Solar, especially Solar thermal
Solar power in every form still costs double to quadruple that of coal and nuclear. Until that price comes within spitting distance of nuclear it is not a viable option.
c) Wind, lots of it ... would be a no brainer to start installing large scale wind farms like germany, denmark and the Uk and the netherlands do
Wind might work, some day. As of right now it costs about 50% more than nuclear and coal. I see great promise in wind and I suspect it will be a large part of our energy future. Problem is that the wind blows when it wishes. Lacking a viable storage method we could actually see our CO2 output increase as UK and Denmark discovered. Those coal plants just can't turn off when the wind blows, they burn coal whether the energy they produce is used or not. Too much wind and not enough storage, shedding of load, or fast back-up power (like natural gas turbines), and CO2 output goes up.
The nice thing about nuclear is that even if a nuclear power plant idles there is no additional CO2 output. Something has to back-up the wind for when it does not blow, nuclear is an obvious choice.
iii)) e.g. electric cars
Unless that power comes from nuclear you're going backwards. Wind might also work but it produces more CO2 than nuclear per watt-hour since constructing those concrete pedestals and those aluminum blades produces a lot of CO2.
iv) cars that use less fuel
We're reaching diminishing returns here. We've squeezed about all we could out of our vehicles. I propose natural gas vehicles, much less CO2 and it's locally sourced. Even better would be synthesizing fuels from nuclear power.
e) use your bike or public transport instead of commuting with a car ...
v) especially you could do car sharing and drive with more than one person
Great idea. Except when someone needs to haul stuff. Or when the temperatures get below zero. And not so great when a call comes in that the servers took a dump and they need some one on site ten minutes ago. When that happens I hop in my 4x4 truck, barrel through the snow and wind, and arrive quickly, dry, warm, and ready to work. You ride your bike, I'm keeping my truck.
Reuse farming waste for bio gas energy generation ...
Bad idea. That "farming waste" needs to go back into the fields as fertilizer and erosion control. If we keep this bio-mass nonsense going we're going to see another dust bowl. The only reason we've been able to keep this illusion of "farming waste" going is because of the large amounts of fossil fuel derived fertilizers we've been using. If we'd put that "farming waste" back into the fields we would not be using up so much natural gas to produce ammonia based fertilizers.
And most of all: before writing such nonsense: get some information about state of the art technology, stone age, bah, thats so 10,000 AD.
I have been reading a lot about state of the art technology. The problem is that these technologies are still state of the art. We need tried and true. Until this stuff can catch up with nuclear on price and reliability (mostly price) our choices are limited.
We've been using nuclear fission for energy now for half a century and we have it working for us, it currently provides about 10% of our total energy and about 20% of our electricity in the USA. We could use a whole lot more of it, we'd get cheap energy (or at least not have it keep going up) and much less CO2.
We've been bui
Bull fucking shit. For one reason or another you have a dog in this fight, and that dog is nuclear power, and you are willing to tell lies to support it. You are a liar, and you should STFU and tell the truth already.
My "dog in this fight" is my utility bills. My costs for food, fuel, clothing, and shelter (you know, those things we need to survive) are going up all the time. Much of this cost is based on regulations. These regulations are, IMHO, based on some really shaky science. This shaky science includes global warming from human activity and the hazards of nuclear power.
I did a lot of reading on the advancements in energy technology. I found out a lot of interesting things about them. One thing that sticks out is that none of them are in wide spread production yet. These energy sources are called "alternative energy sources" because if they were viable in the here and now we'd be calling them just "energy sources" instead. We don't refer to nuclear power as "alternative" since it works.
Algae sounds like a really interesting and potentially viable energy source but for right now the costs are too high to even consider. Nuclear power works. We are using it now and it is profitable. I'm convinced that if people really wanted to see our CO2 output get reduced then we'd see more people talking about it. These people aren't talking about nuclear power so they are not concerned about CO2 output. They have some other motive and they are finding as many "useful idiots" as they can to push their agenda.
I noticed that you did not dispute my claim that wind, solar, and bio-mass are more expensive than coal. That is because you cannot. I have become very tired of my bills going up to satisfy the tyrannical desires of some watermelon that claims to be my representative in government.
Wind is expensive. Solar is expensive. Bio-mass is expensive. All of these cost double or triple that of fossil and nuclear energy. The CO2 gains on these are open for dispute as well. Given the small energy gain from current bio-mass technology we might actually be going backwards. You can talk all you like about future gains in bio-mass technologies but that is meaningless for those of us that live in the here and now.
The only current energy technology that is both viable (as in profitable) and has a lower CO2 output that any fossil fuel is hydro and nuclear. We've dammed up all the rivers worth a dam. All we got left is nuclear.
I find it very upsetting that there is an abundance of people that are concerned about the CO2 output but very few that take the time to investigate and lobby for solutions that won't drive us back into the stone age. The only solution that we have now, with no need for new technological advancements, is nuclear power. We have not built a new nuclear power plant here in the USA for something like four decades. Those that are still running are undoubtedly reaching the end of their safe and profitable lifespan.
Alternatives like wind, solar, and bio-mass take considerable amounts of land. This land is expensive and competes with other vital needs like food. I recall a solar power plant that could not produce enough electricity to pay it's property taxes. They were allowed a discounted rate on the tax but they still went out of business since they couldn't pay their other bills. Bio-mass is a direct competitor to food as any land that can grow a plant suitable for energy is also land that is suitable to grow food. There just is not enough land, water, and sun to both feed us and provide our power needs. There might be enough to both fill our tummies and our fuel tanks on our vehicles but the biggest producer of CO2 is not our vehicles, it's our coal fired power plants.
Wind might some day be competitive with coal and be profitable. The problem with wind, as well as geothermal and hydro, is that it is highly sensitive to location. Wind power can share land with things like food crops but it shares a weakness with solar power, it is highly sensitive to weather.
There's a part of me that thinks this scare over CO2 output is largely a hoax. There is a part of me that just doesn't care. What I do want to see is all this arguing to stop and people put some real solutions to work. I want them to STFU and build some nuclear power plants already. I can see a perfect spot for one from my front door. It has a rail nearby, a small river flowing by for cooling water, and a ready market in the city that I can see from my back door. My only concern is that a power plant so close might shade my house.
Now imagine some six-year-old kid pulling that sucker out of her desk drawer, thinking that it's a toy, and killing somebody. Even in the best case, more guns in the hands of teachers would just replace a handful of occasional massacres with a much larger number of accidental shootings. The body count doesn't decrease; only the concentration does.
When I saw this the first thought through my mind was that the teachers should have the weapon in a proper holster on their body. Then you went on with this:
Now if you had said an armed guard, I might agreeâ"someone trained to use weapons, carrying that weapon on his or her person at all times. As soon as it is in the hands of someone who isn't physically in contact with the weapon at all times, however, it becomes a far greater threat to the children's safety than the threat it is trying to prevent, statistically speaking. Far, far greater.
There is no reason that any teacher or other adult at the school could not serve the role as an armed guard along with their usual duties. The training required to safely handle a handgun is simple. The training required to hit a target with that weapon is just slightly less trivial. The hard part is maintaining that skill over time. This takes practice. With the general lack of shooting ranges in many urban areas in this federation of ours this can be a problem.
I also dispute your claim that firearms in schools somehow pose some sort of statistically greater risk to students. If kids are picking up firearms and playing with them like toys then kids need to be trained. This seems like a good idea to me even if we don't arm the teachers since in this modern world we live in there are going to be firearms around.
I believe it is much easier to gun proof the kid than to kid proof the gun. Train the kids on firearm safety, whatever is appropriate for their age. In most states children of 12 years and older are allowed to hunt with a firearm. That tells me that the states have already decided on an appropriate age to teach children how to safely handle a firearm. Under that age they need to be told to not touch.
Locked away in a closet or cabinet somewhere, they're useless.
Agreed. Any school teacher that wishes to be armed in the classroom should be able to do so. I believe the school should set policies on the training and the holsters used in the school but that should be left to the school to decide. Leave the federal government out of local issues.
There is a fallacy that the federal government disallows firearms on school property. The law allows anyone to have a firearm so long as they first obtain permission to do so from the school. Now we have the President giving his VP the task of coming up with more gun laws to "protect" the schools. The problem is that the federal government has criminalized the act of self defense in our schools. We need to repeal some laws, not make new ones. I doubt this will happen since the tyrants in our government can not "let a good crisis go to waste".
I have been there and seen the "doctors" who will give you a prescription IN THE DISPENSARY.
I don't follow. Years ago I went to a clinic for a really bad cold. The "doctor" there prescribed antibiotics and cough syrup with codeine. I then went across the hall to get my prescription filled. Now, is this "doctor" guilty of feeding my opium habit? Are they breaking the spirit of the law on the laws controlling the trade of opiates?
Do you find it suspicious that a place dispensing opiates also contains people that are willing and able to prescribe opiates to anyone that walks in? If you do then I suggest you call the Department of Defense and tell them that they got drug dealers on their own bases.
I have noticed that the Army physicians are a bit more willing to prescribe some very potent medications than civilian physicians. I say this because of experiences with civilian clinics. For example, many years ago I went to a clinic also with a very bad cold. I was told to take some over the counter medications and come back if it gets worse. My guess is that with the laws as they are a civilian physician does not wish to have the scrutiny that prescribing opiates can bring. Military physicians will not get this scrutiny, or at least not likely be threatened with felonies for doing their job as they see fit.
Having the physician in the dispensary just sounds like a convenience to me. This happens in many other cases as well. For example, a store selling eyeglasses will often have an optometrist in the store. It works out well for the store, the optometrist, and the customers/patients. You've heard the three rules of a good business, right? Location, location, location. I'm thinking of opening a tire shop next to the scrap yard. I bet I'd do good business there.
Ah, but you see we don't live in a democracy. At least I don't. I'm in the USA, which is (theoretically at least) a republic. I don't know where you live. In a democracy the 49% have to do what the other 51% demand. In a republic the government is only empowered to perform those duties that it was constituted to do on the behalf of the people. This government, where I live, was never empowered to subsidize CFL bulbs or windmills. The federal government has just decided, despite the will of the people that created it, to usurp that power.
If 51% of this republic wants higher electricity prices to have the illusion they are saving the planet then let them pay full price for their windmills and electric cars. They have no right to demand my money to fund their pet projects.
I say "illusion of saving the planet" because I am not thoroughly convinced that windmills and CFL bulbs actually reduce CO2 output. CFL bulbs are very energy intensive to create and my own personal experience tells me that the operational lifespan of these bulbs are highly inflated. A "Mythbusters" episode also showed that CFL bulbs will not last near as long as advertised. The CO2 savings only arise if they can reach a lifespan that can offset the energy consumed in it's manufacture and transport when compared to other lighting options. Given what was shown on "Mythbusters" I have my doubts that we actually come out ahead with CFLs.
I say that windmills CO2 savings are highly inflated as well because the aluminum used in their construction is energy intensive and has a high carbon output. (This carbon output is mostly from the carbon reduction used to refine the ore to elemental aluminum, not just from the coal used to power the refineries.) When the wind does not blow then the slack has to be picked up with something else. That something else is usually with the very inefficient (by industrial electricity generating standards) natural gas turbines or with coal.
Assuming that I do live in a democracy and there are 51% of the public that believe that we can reduce our CO2 output with CFL and windmill subsidies then that just tells me that there are a lot of voters that were lied to and/or did not care to find the truth. They've been lied to about the dangers of nuclear power, the CO2 savings that CFLs and windmills give, as well as all kinds of lies about electric cars.
You are perfectly free to go out and evangelize nuclear to the masses.
I know that. That is why I'm posting here.
My so called "pissing on others' yards" is the fault of the government. They are the ones not letting people build more nuclear power plants. If we replace all these coal plants with nuclear ones we would put a very significant dent in the carbon output we produce.
CFL bulbs are a band-aid on a gun shot wound. Electricity is used for many things other than lighting. If we put our efforts in building nuclear power plants then ALL electricity use gains. Electric cars are one example. Getting an electric car does not "save the planet" if we're burning coal to charge them up. Electric cars only make sense if the electricity comes from an energy source that has less carbon output than an equivalent gasoline or diesel car would.
For the record, I am for heavily taxing incandescent bulbs rather than banning them.
That's a distinction without a difference. The government would still be doing nothing about the real problem, carbon output from coal fired electric power plants. Replace those coal plants with nuclear and the light bulbs I buy should not matter to anyone.
Really? Since when has "big oil" been asking for nuclear power plants and natural gas vehicles?
I don't like oil because so much of my nation's money goes to other nations. These other nations are typically ruled by tyrants that don't like us very much. If we can get off of oil then we will no longer be funding our enemies.
Do I still sound like a mouthpiece for big oil?
Sure, LED lighting is a solution. The point is that I don't want the government telling me what lights I should buy. I most definitely don't want the government spending my tax money on subsidizing CFL bulbs for other people to buy. If these people want to feel better about themselves for "saving the planet" by buying a CFL bulb then they can do that with their own money.
I'll probably end up getting some LED bulbs in the future but for right now I enjoy the extra heat they provide during this cold weather.
Why are CFLs an issue when regular florescent lights are so prevalent?
I don't like those either. One difference is that where those exist are places that I do not own. Their house, their rules. In my house I like incandescent bulbs, they are inexpensive, light instantly in all kinds of weather/temperatures, contain no toxic materials, relatively tough, have a pleasant color, and do not require any special disposal when burned out.
Now we have government bureaucrats that think they know better than I do what is the best way to light my home. If the government was really concerned about carbon output and other pollution from coal fired power plants they'd be building nuclear power plants. I'm convinced that they are more intent on making a show to the public that the government cares about us than they are in creating effective legislation.
I believe that whether or not AGW is true the response should be the same. More nuclear and natural gas. Less ethanol and foreign sourced oil. Drop the stupid subsidies on windmills, solar panels, and electric cars.
Electric cars are now a mature technology. We no longer need to subsidize them since people are buying top dollar electric cars anyway. Electric car subsidies are just the wealthy legislating more more to the wealthy so they can by their status symbols. Also, until we replace coal power with nuclear these cars produce more carbon than a gasoline, diesel, or especially natural gas counterpart.
Windmills rarely produce a net carbon savings because they are still backed up by inefficient natural gas turbines or, the largest culprit of carbon output, coal.
End this insanity with CFL bulbs. I don't like the idea of having fragile, mercury filled, glass tubes hanging over where I eat and sleep. If we had nuclear instead of coal it would not matter what kind of lighting I chose when it comes to carbon output.
If we cannot figure out whether or not ethanol actually saves on carbon or not then perhaps we should not be dumping so much money into it. If people want ethanol then let them have it, just don't make me buy it so you can feel better about yourself. Like the CFL bulb example above this would all be moot if we could get some natural gas and electric (from nuclear) vehicles on the road.
The nice thing about all of this is that it involves reducing government influence on our lives, increases the choices of the consumer, lower taxes, greater wealth for all, and no painful transitions in infrastructure. This is also precisely why it will not happen. AGW is about bigger government, not saving the world.
Right, because I don't believe as you do I must have obviously been fed propaganda.
I have done considerable reading over the years on global warming. What I have come to see is that there are many on both sides that will benefit greatly in money and power if they get the public to believe them. Finding a truly independent and impartial source of information on this has been shown to be difficult.
What I have seen is that there is a large portion of the people that support the AGW theory tend to be motivated more by politics than anything. These people are either politicians themselves or are in positions where they can gain from government spending. This leads to "solutions" to AGW that involve the government dictating more of how I can live and how I can spend my money. I might be more willing to believe them if they spent more time educating me and less time insulting me.
I've come to believe that a large portion of the AGW crowd are "watermelons", green environmentalists on the outside but red communists on the inside. I'd be more willing to believe the AGW theory if the "solutions" they propose didn't involve more government and taxes. We don't need more government to save the world, we need people providing real solutions.
Take the CFL mandates for example. I had my choices in light bulbs reduced by government mandate. If the government was really concerned about carbon output from lighting then they'd allow for more nuclear power plants to get built. If our power came from nuclear power then it would not matter what kind of light bulb I had.
Even the greatest proponents behind AGW have had to admit things like we have not seen global temperatures rise for 15 years, and that corn ethanol might not actually reduce carbon output. The "science" has been falling apart but I'm willing to still believe in it if we see some actual science being applied here.
Science tells me that wind power does not reduce carbon output, nuclear power does. Science tells me that corn ethanol is a really bad idea to reduce carbon output compared to natural gas. If the problem is carbon dioxide then offer me some solutions that actually reduce carbon output. Give me my nuclear power. Let me buy a natural gas vehicle that isn't some tiny little tin can. I'm a big guy that has to drive over some rough roads. I'll buy a natural gas truck but someone has to make one first.
Letting the government find the solution to a global survival problem leads to tyranny.
The idea that only a government is the magic solution to everything is communism.
No. That is precisely why I believe that dumping my tax money into projects like wind and solar is a fool's errand. We cannot legislate new technology into existence. We must allow it to develop naturally through competition.
By subsidizing wind and solar we produce the illusion of a competitive technology. That wind power is only "cheap" to the consumer so long as the taxing and spending propping it up is ignored. The incentive to improve that technology is reduced because the market needs only meet the mandates created in law, not the greater rigors of a competitive market.
Subsidies for wind hold up not only wind development but also development in other technologies. Other technologies now have to compete with an energy source with an artificial advantage. They must compete for the consumers, manufacturing, materials, government contracts, and so on.
This is especially infuriating for me because we already have a technology proven competitive for electricity production, nuclear power. Nuclear power can be a direct replacement for coal as the physics behind it is very similar, boil water to spin a turbine. Wind does not replace anything since physics dictate that electricity must be consumed as it is produced. Wind is fickle and that adds instability to the electric grid. Counteracting that instability requires more cost. That cost represents waste. I don't like seeing my taxes wasted.
If by "short term" you mean "centuries" then, yes, I would agree. At some point we will no longer be able to extract fossil fuels in a way that is no longer cheaper than wind and solar. That is going to take a very long time, some estimates place that at 300 years.
The beauty of nuclear power is that there is no short term pain, we just gain. With nuclear power our electricity prices don't go up and our carbon output goes down. That's with no new technology.
Nuclear power does have a similar problem to wind and solar in that it does not react well to changes in demand. Right now that is dealt with by using natural gas turbines, which costs just as much as the wind and solar except that we control the throttle. With a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas our electricity prices double. With a mix of wind, solar, natural gas, and a large portion of nuclear our electricity prices do not change.
We can remove the carbon output from natural gas if we find an electricity storage device that can compete with natural gas turbines. We do that and we not only have the ability to go carbon neutral with nuclear power but also with wind and solar. Wind and solar prices might go down in the future but so could nuclear.
Short term pain for long term gain is stupid if there is an alternative that involves no pain. We have that in nuclear power. The gain isn't even long term, the gain is immediate in less air pollution.
Bwahahahaha! Nuclear power is anything but cheap.
A nuclear power plant might not be cheap but since a modern reactor requires little fuel over the nearly century long life span, and it can produce considerable amounts of power throughout that lifespan, the cost of the electricity produced is on par with a modern coal plant.
The reason more nuclear power plants haven't been built has far more to do with the fact that it's cheaper and faster to build a coal power plant (and now natural gas) than because of environmentalist's opposition.
Considering that the federal government has not issued a license to construct a nuclear power plant in decades is likely to be the largest reason. Can't build without a license. Sure, the initial cost of a coal plant is quite low but it takes a constant supply of large quantities of coal for that plant to operate. This coal costs a lot of money.
Wind and solar are cheaper or well on the way to becoming cheaper too.
If wind and solar were truly cheaper than coal and nuclear then it would not require government subsidies, carbon taxes, and other forms of carrots and sticks for people to buy them. The cost of wind and solar power is also highly dependent on location, the cost of nuclear power is not. I got an e-mail recently from my congressman on how he's going to fight more wind subsidies because so many jobs around here depend on them. If wind power needs subsidies before people will buy them then that just shows me that wind is more expensive than coal.
I remember getting a letter from my electric utility offering me the ability for higher electric rates so that I could buy my power from windmills instead of the coal and nuclear power plants. If wind is cheaper than coal then I should have received a letter telling me that my rates will be reduced because they added all kinds of new, cheaper to run, windmills.
Do even try to tell me that solar power is even close to becoming cheaper than wind, coal, nuclear, or natural gas. I worked on solar panels in college while studying electrical engineering and I've seen the math. I don't recall all the numbers now but we were a long way from viable solar power then and even though we've seen all kinds of new advances since we are still a long way from viable solar power.
Just like my wind examples above if solar power could compete with coal I'd get letters from my electric utility offering me lower rates if I switched to solar power. I'd probably see the utility offer to help me pay for panels on my roof so they could buy the power from me. If this were true then we would not have seen all those solar power companies that got billions of dollars of free government grants go out of business.
We don't see solar and wind companies make money but we do see companies willing to spend all kinds of money so they can get a license to build nuclear power reactors. They would not do that unless they thought they'd get a profit.