Climate in the 21st Century

Will Humankind see the 22nd Century?

  • Not a fucking chance

    Votes: 44 28.0%

  • Maybe. if we get our act together

    Votes: 41 26.1%

  • Yes, we will survive

    Votes: 72 45.9%
  • Total voters
    157
smokinrav

smokinrav

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
There are three or four windfarms within 20 miles of me. The last one that went in had a very hard time getting the right of ways for the transmission lines. And the huge one in the northern Midwest was still stalled as far as getting across Illinois.

It appears to be dead as the links here are. They are proposing an undergrounds one from Iowa to Illinois and on to the east but no one is interested politically it seems.

So there are a lot of windfarms around me, but good luck increasing that 4 fold.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can't get transmission lines built in central Illinois.

www.seattletimes.com

Unique underground power line would send renewable energy from Midwest to Eastern markets

The Soo Green Line would be a unique addition to the U.S. electricity grid. Running along a railroad corridor, the 350-mile-long underground power line would ship low-cost renewable energy.
www.seattletimes.com www.seattletimes.com
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
I'm not scoffing at it. But unless there is some huge change or innovation it's not going to happen by 2030 or whatever date they have set up. Illinois passed some stupid 100% renewable energy law and didn't even include the 7 nukes we have now.

Quite frankly I would expect a return to Tesla's patents that have been suppressed for 100 years.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not conveying well....I'm saying there *has* been a huge change, you just have to stop taking such a narrow snapshot. It's like saying that cars haven't made a huge change or had much innovation, which is true if you're looking at it from a 2020-2021 perspective, but then you can see how silly it would be to say when looking at it from a 1990-2020 perspective.

Maybe it's not going to happen by 2030, but think about how much any tech has changed in a twenty year span, maybe 2040 is night and day from now. Think about how cheap solar is now for the home, versus twenty years ago. Something like five years ago I bough ten used 190w panels for $400. That's crazy to think about in 2000.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
Anyone who thinks fossil fuels are going away or a 100% electric fleet is a fool. A new gasoline powered car has a lower carbon foot print than an electric. But as coal is phased out the cost will sky rocket. And that is the real goal so people reduce their energy usage. This is not a good thing especially with the added Mega load of replacing fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Anyone who thinks fossil fuels aren't going away is an idiot.

It's in the fucking name.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Anyone who thinks fossil fuels aren't going away is an idiot.

It's in the fucking name.
Click to expand...
We've got a few hundred of coal, a couple hundred of nuclear, a hundred of natural gas, but billions of years from the sun and an insane amount of silicon available. And of course the more we shift to sun/wind, the longer we're able to stretch out the others. The only thing that makes me sad is that I won't be around long enough to see americans be told "no" and hit a hard stop on energy consumption. We seem to think that endless resources and consumption is a right, and I'd love to be there to see the moment when they realize that mother nature is the true boss and they're her bitch.
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
Now the Mid East does it right. Nuclear to power the AC during the day and at night they use it to desalinate water. That's a sustainable situation.

The use of fossil fuels is not going away in any of our lifetimes.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
Now the Mid East does it right. Nuclear to power the AC during the day and at night they use it to desalinate water. That's a sustainable situation.

The use of fossil fuels is not going away in any of our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it's sustainable? How many years worth of uranium is there?

Agree that fossil fuels are not going away in our lifetimes, but....there is more to time and people than just us.
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
Are you sure it's sustainable? How many years worth of uranium is there?

Agree that fossil fuels are not going away in our lifetimes, but....there is more to time and people than just us.
Click to expand...
Well most of the world where nuclear fuel is used can convert the waste to fuel. We aren't that smart in the USA. But I'm sure it's enough for a hundred years or so in the ground in just the USA, er what wasn't sold to the Russians though Canada by Hillary......
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
The use of fossil fuels is not going away in any of our lifetimes.
Click to expand...
who says it has to?

The goal is 52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

It would be nice if radical right wingers would stick to facts when making accusations. Instead they get all angry and exaggerate in order to appeal to emotions instead of reason.

You should try being reasonable and rational like liberals are.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
Well most of the world where nuclear fuel is used can convert the waste to fuel. We aren't that smart in the USA. But I'm sure it's enough for a hundred years or so in the ground in just the USA, er what wasn't sold to the Russians though Canada by Hillary......
Click to expand...
No idea what percentage is recyclable, but it can't be anywhere near 100%..?

Man, it sure sucks that a woman democrat foiled all those awesome republican men. I guess she was just too smart for 'em.

(gotta think these things through, because if they're idiots and you're awesome and they did something you don't like, then you're in the lesser position, so if they're morons and they beat you, then....you get the idea)
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
who says it has to?

The goal is 52% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

It would be nice if radical right wingers would stick to facts when making accusations. Instead they get all angry and exaggerate in order to appeal to emotions instead of reason.

You should try being reasonable and rational like liberals are.
Click to expand...
Illinois new energy plan has no room for nuclear.
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
No idea what percentage is recyclable, but it can't be anywhere near 100%..?

Man, it sure sucks that a woman democrat foiled all those awesome republican men. I guess she was just too smart for 'em.

(gotta think these things through, because if they're idiots and you're awesome and they did something you don't like, then you're in the lesser position, so if they're morons and they beat you, then....you get the idea)
Click to expand...
Why would it have to be 100%? There is plenty or waste around and plenty of Uranium in the ground. We could run for a few decades on the nuclear warheads we have.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
I don't know, why would it? The point was that I'm sure you have to introduce new material, so is that new material significant or not? The amount you can recycle is obviously important, because if it's 1%, then it's virtually meaningless, that's why I asked what the percentage was.

I was a simple question, how many years worth of uranium is there? Because you said it's sustainable, but like all minerals on earth, supply is finite, which means that it's probably not sustainable.
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
I don't know, why would it? The point was that I'm sure you have to introduce new material, so is that new material significant or not? The amount you can recycle is obviously important, because if it's 1%, then it's virtually meaningless, that's why I asked what the percentage was.

I was a simple question, how many years worth of uranium is there? Because you said it's sustainable, but like all minerals on earth, supply is finite, which means that it's probably not sustainable.
Click to expand...
Well yes when the earth is all used up that's the end of the timeline. We will kill each other off thousands of years before we ever run out of uranium. And no one know how much there is. Just like oil they keep finding more. Some say oil is a naturally self sustaining product.

uranium and it's waste take 1000s of years to become non radiative.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
Well yes when the earth is all used up that's the end of the timeline. We will kill each other off thousands of years before we ever run out of uranium. And no one know how much there is. Just like oil they keep finding more. Some say oil is a naturally self sustaining product.

uranium and it's waste take 1000s of years to become non radiative.
Click to expand...
Does science support what you're saying?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Three Berries said:
Well yes when the earth is all used up that's the end of the timeline. We will kill each other off thousands of years before we ever run out of uranium. And no one know how much there is. Just like oil they keep finding more. Some say oil is a naturally self sustaining product.

uranium and it's waste take 1000s of years to become non radiative.
Click to expand...
After we kick the habit, it's going to take thousands of years for the earth to recover from our addiction to fossil fuels.

All toxic waste needs to be dealt with safely, not just nuclear. Take emissions from fossil fuels. Right now, we just dump them into the atmosphere. If cost of those fuels included the cost of mitigating the damage it would be too expensive. Nuclear is too expensive because we actually require the power be produced safely. Imagine that. Imagine if we required the coal industry to do no harm.
 
Three Berries

Three Berries

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
After we kick the habit, it's going to take thousands of years for the earth to recover from our addiction to fossil fuels.

All toxic waste needs to be dealt with safely, not just nuclear. Take emissions from fossil fuels. Right now, we just dump them into the atmosphere. If cost of those fuels included the cost of mitigating the damage it would be too expensive. Nuclear is too expensive because we actually require the power be produced safely. Imagine that. Imagine if we required the coal industry to do no harm.
Click to expand...
Renewables are not trouble free as far as waste and pollution during their manufacturing and scraping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top