3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

On 5/4/2019 at 3:09 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Got any data on the idea that not destroying the ozone layer increased global warming? Not being snarky, genuinely curious. It's pretty counterintuitive. Ozone blocks UV, which has far less heating effect than IR, which CO2 absorbs. The big issue with the ozone layer was the large increase in UV light reaching the surface. All sorts of interesting genetic mutations, not to mention skyrocketing skin cancer rates.

 

I too, remember several significant, serious ecological/environmental issues. The CFCs destroying the ozone layer was one. We stopped using CFCs indiscriminately as a result. I think banning R-12 as a refrigerant was a bit excessive (it was the aerosol cans that were the big issue), but I understand why. 

 

I also remember the raptors basically disappearing due to DDT. Since that was banned (and a huge repopulation effort undertaken) hawks, eagles and other raptors have made an astounding comeback. From nesting pairs in the lower 48 numbering below 100 to where we are now, where I can see dozens of eagles wintering on the river near my home. 

I also remember the air pollution in major cities in the late 60s/early 70s. And the lead poisoning that was taking place just from breathing the air. Lots of things made an impact, but reducing car emissions was probably the biggest. The lead issue was taken care of because the catalytic converters couldn't run it, it would clog them up. The cost was significant, but the results were worth it (and cost savings in reduced health care for people no longer falling sick from lung diseases from the bad air more than made up for it). 

I also remember acid rain. It cost some to stop using high sulfur coal, but the idea of having fish and amphibians actually living in the lakes and rivers has a certain amount of appeal. It was only a few years ago that the last 'dead' lake was declared 'recovered'. 

I also remember when industrial plants used rivers as convenient toxic waste dumps. While I don't specifically remember the Cuyahoga river catching fire, I do remember when the Fox river in Wisconsin was pretty much dead. No fish but carp, and nothing caught was edible. No ducks because the fish were toxic, as was the water. You couldn't even swim in it.
After the mills stopped polluting the river, it came back a long way. Fish were back and were somewhat edible (there were 'caution - Don't eat this fish more than xxx and not at all if you are pregnant' signs up at the popular locations). Ducks & geese came back, eagles came back too (in part because they were actually around, in part because the river wasn't toxic). 
There was subsequently a huge clean up, where the paper mills that polluted the river in the first place were sued to pay for it (long, drawn out suit - the mills lost). That had a significant cost (to the taxpayers as well as the mills) but having a river that isn't dead is worth it IMO. 

So do you mean to say it was worse then,so how do you contend with the fact that you believe the future will be worse than the past?

You and I seem to hate coal but, how do you justify the 11 new mining industries for rare earths elements to build your "renewable technologies".Seems pretty hypocritical to hate one form of mining and promote others?

The idea of unleashing  entire new mining industries on our planet all powered by fossile fuels in order to save her,seems ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that think we should spend millions, billion or Trillions to solve a potential problem in the future with Majical Thinking and the GND.

California has much, much  bigger problems than climate change,right here and now.For those that think California is so incredable the only thing we need to focus on is renewables come to L.A. and reval at our utopia.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, richravizza said:

So do you mean to say it was worse then,so how do you contend with the fact that you believe the future will be worse than the past?

You and I seem to hate coal but, how do you justify the 11 new mining industries for rare earths elements to build your "renewable technologies".Seems pretty hypocritical to hate one form of mining and promote others?

The idea of unleashing  entire new mining industries on our planet all powered by fossile fuels in order to save her,seems ironic.

Some environmental issues were a lot worse in the past. Through a lot of effort, new technologies. legislation and money, some of them were addressed. And, of course, those who were affected by new rules & laws (especially those who had to pay for them), claimed that these new rules would 'destroy' various industries (automobile, mining, power production, ect). 
Yet they went through and the auto industry survived emissions rules like catalytic converters and unleaded gas. The mining industry survived rules that stopped them from simply strip mining coal, then leaving behind nothing but a mess. The power industry survived not being able to use high sulfur coal. 

The benefits of breathable air, a landscape that wasn't just a mud field, rain that wasn't acidic were pretty clear. 

That has little or no bearing on the longer, slower process of AGW. Except to maybe show that we can change behaviors. that those changes can have a positive effect and that the people who claim that there's no problem and any solutions are 'magical' are full of shit. 

I don't 'hate coal'. I don't like the damage it causes, both from extraction and consumption. Especially when there are better alternatives. 
I do hate the corporate executives who have screwed over the miners, communities around the mines, the environment, ect, while lining their pockets, and the pockets of the politicians they buy to be able to do whatever they want. This has gone on for centuries, and continues to this day.


Similarly, I'm not against mining. But to do it safely and responsibly, to make sure it is done without destroying the surrounding environment is not cheap. And most mining companies are more interested in profit than being environmentally responsible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, richravizza said:

You and I seem to hate coal but, how do you justify the 11 new mining industries for rare earths elements to build your "renewable technologies".Seems pretty hypocritical to hate one form of mining and promote others?

?? Surely you realize that some things are better than others, right?  I mean, if you own a gun - and shoot at a range - but you object to people who use guns to shoot up pizza places, are you a hypocrite?   After all, both are shooting.  But most people think one of those things is bad, and the other isn't.

You need 45 kilograms of cobalt to make a 1 megawatt hour ESS battery.  They will last ~2000 cycles, so that's .02 kilograms of cobalt per megawatt hour that you need to mine.  And if that's too much cobalt, you can recycle it.

Compare that to coal.   You need 111 kilograms of coal per megawatt hour.  And you can't recycle that.

Which is going to be more damaging?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"RMI further explains that “Lesser cherry-picked the pollutants that support his narrative (in this case, SO2NOX, and PMs [particulate matter]) and ignored the pollutant (CO2) that contradicts his narrative"

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.  Consider your source to be debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

"RMI further explains that “Lesser cherry-picked the pollutants that support his narrative (in this case, SO2NOX, and PMs [particulate matter]) and ignored the pollutant (CO2) that contradicts his narrative"

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

Of course it is. A pollutant is any substance which, once introduced into the environment, has undesirable effects.  CO2 makes people sick in poorly ventilated buildings, and it is one of the things that causes climate change.  Those are a few of the undesirable effects of CO2 in higher concentrations.   Lead and arsenic are also pollutants at higher concentrations, even though they are both preset in drinking water naturally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polution aside, what do you have to say about this?

" Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) So it’s fair to say the subsidies disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor, who cannot afford to buy even subsidized electric vehicles or live in their own homes to take advantage of residential chargers or solar panels.

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates. And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so."

Sounds like they are talking about someone we all know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

By your logic, oxygen and water are also pollutants 

They sure can be.  Ask a winemaker if oxygen in his cellared bottles is a good, healthy thing - or a pollutant.  Ask a lithium battery manufacturer if water in his battery cells is just natural water or a dangerous contaminant.

There are natural amounts of CO2, methane, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and particulates in the atmosphere.  They come from decomposition, respiration, volcanic activity, trees and weathering.  Too much of any one of those things and it becomes a pollutant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Most electric-vehicle buyers are far wealthier than average Americans. A nationwide survey in 2017 found that 56% had household incomes of at least $100,000 and 17% had household incomes of at least $200,000. (In 2016, median household income for the US as a whole was less than $58,000.) 

If this surprises anyone, they aren't paying attention.  Any new technology is adopted first by the wealthy.

Quote

Not only that, the wires and charging stations needed to charge all those electric vehicles will be paid for by all ratepayers, further raising electric rates.

No, the charging stations (and infrastructure to support them) are paid for by the companies that install them, like any other user of electrical power.  The ratepayers then just pay for the subsidies to pay for poor people's power, like the SDG+E CARE program.

Quote

And as more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, the costs to provide them back-up power will fall on those who cannot afford to do so.

As more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, demand for gasoline and electricity will decline.  This is economics 101.  As a result, the poor will end up paying less for power and gas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, billvon said:

?? Surely you realize that some things are better than others, right?  I mean, if you own a gun - and shoot at a range - but you object to people who use guns to shoot up pizza places, are you a hypocrite?   After all, both are shooting.  But most people think one of those things is bad, and the other isn't.

You need 45 kilograms of cobalt to make a 1 megawatt hour ESS battery.  They will last ~2000 cycles, so that's .02 kilograms of cobalt per megawatt hour that you need to mine.  And if that's too much cobalt, you can recycle it.

Compare that to coal.   You need 111 kilograms of coal per megawatt hour.  And you can't recycle that.

Which is going to be more damaging?

Stop with your outlandish analogies,Please.

So you've made a fuel tank... increadable!!! Talk about Cherry picking,Coabalt Again. 

 I'm not here defending Coal,either.. thought that was pretty clear in my post "I seem to hate coal but,"

I beileve all States have renewable mandates. Today.  Right now.   Here in Ca.we have the highest.

So your doing it.    Congrads!!!
So What the plan Now?  "full on Progessive" 100% renewable? 

Just go full stupid like Germany?

 I invite you to Just look around LA and San Fernando, 8 out of 10 homes that do have solar systems have Pools.So if your fortunate enough to own a swimming pool you can buy a Solar system.Now you dont have to pay to power your pool.Just a few bucks more,just Climate Change.

Tesla subsidies were the best for those that could afford to take advantage of them, usuallyy the 4th or 5th car in their fleet.They are the one that will save us.Just loved the Idea of taking in money from Juans' Landscape business so the fortunate can enjoy the car pool lane.

SCE had 5 scales of payment base on usage the poorest,used the lease, payed less.Now we have 3?

I thought months ago Professor Mark Mills put some perspective in this debate? I guess not.

    SO IT'S ALL IN !!!          At any cost?? 

Binary.Fossile fuel evil.  Nenewable good.

On 10/7/2019 at 12:32 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Some environmental issues were a lot worse in the past.

ALL ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES WERE WORSE !!!!  We Agree.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 12:32 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

that the people who claim that there's no problem and any solutions are 'magical' are full of shit. 

nor is the problem catostophic, apocalyptic nor will it contribute to nucular war.

What AOC touts is Majical,100% renewable, a pipedream, only the self suffient hardy people of Vermont or Wyoming could suffer through such misery and servive a winter, in this day and age.

So that makes us BOTH  full of shit, I guess.

I LOVE FOSSILE FUELS

The ride from 320 ppm to 400 has been glorious,from the ass end of a Mule,to Clean Blue skies @12,5. The poorest of us Americans are 5000 times richer.The Air is cleaner, not inspite of fossile fuels but Because of them,right?

The ride from 400ppm to 800 will be even more spectacular, fear not.  

 So I guess in the alarmist eyes that makes me a maleficent shill of the fossile fuel, "industrial complex," or just an immoral deplorable.

How about some good news,The Hunting of Crain is back, becuse the population has rebounded so,Polar bears numbers at all time highs.Huge projucts under way to reestablish oyster beds even on staten Island which was once named Oyster Island in water so polluted it couldn't support life now being repopulated.

Hell!! just this morning,I saw a four  prong buck, 100yds from the 5 freeway,10 miles from the SFV.Five doe and faun last week.The local rangers got video on facebook (Towsley canyon Mountain Recreational Conservitive Athority,sorry no link) of four mountain lion normally solitary eating/hunting togrther on the abundant rabbit population, that's expoloded this year.

"I haven't seen as many mammals in my 25 years here,like we've seen it this year." 

"Get ready for the Santa Anna"s there coming next week."He said.

So if any of you say next week,that the wildfires which have always exised,were exasterbated by AGW. Then our ranger will need you, to pay him consumerate to an IPCC deligate.Becuse his pridictions are way better than theirs.

I hate wind projects, almost as much as coal,rather see giraffe looking oil dericks slowly moving up and down grazing on the field, than the last sight a frog has befor being dropper in a blender.The other ecological concerns in the Tehacheppi Valley Wind Farm get swept under the rug like the raptors.My concern, that you've only begun to build them at the scale you'd like.Even the Wiamea Valley, of Hawaii.Its indigunous peoples most sacred places, the peacfull valley of the Kings.Was polluted by a turbine..With the swish of 100 mph blades, a beaming white tower of progess always in sight.   Nothing like getting back to nature  So sad but I guess a win for the weather.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Of course it is. A pollutant is any substance which, once introduced into the environment, has undesirable effects.  CO2 makes people sick in poorly ventilated buildings, and it is one of the things that causes climate change.  Those are a few of the undesirable effects of CO2 in higher concentrations.   Lead and arsenic are also pollutants at higher concentrations, even though they are both preset in drinking water naturally. 

OMG ,Who getting sick from CO2?

What a rediculous statement.

All your toxicity bullshit comes from OSHA standards, from your State,It s only a measurement for HVAC industies.If indoor air Quality is poor  at 1200ppm it means the air is three times a stale as fresh,most Co2 monitors do nothing are shut off or inoperable those that do just turn on a FanThe do not  scrub Co2 but you know that.

Most Greenhouse workers live in 1200 ppm.. no ones falling asleep dropping dead on the job.

and God forbid  you were to trajicly fall asleep with the sheets over your head at 40,000 ppm you'd  be dead by the morning,by YOUR Standards. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As more wealthy customers install solar panels to charge their electric vehicles, demand for gasoline and electricity will decline.  This is economics 101.  As a result, the poor will end up paying less for power and gas.

Oh shit Ive got to stop reading this.I'm out to smoke a fatty.

In what world do you live in that tells you we will use less energy in the future and the poor will pay less? What is  the price for gas in California compared to the rest of the Nation?I just payed $4.49  DOUBLE the national averages.

by 2050  we wont be using less energy well be using 300% more.

You didnt take, Eco 101 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, richravizza said:

So semantics invalides my point? 

 

It would be semantics if there was a tax deduction for just Tesla related purchases and you referred to it as a subsidy. That is simply not the case. You are referring to EV tax credits as a "Tesla subsidy". That's not semantics, that is willfully incorrect or based on ignorance of facts.

My guess is that it is a willful misstatement. Which means that the rest of your commentary is very likely to be highly biased. Don't think there is much use in discussing science based issues with heavily biased opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

It would be semantics if there was a tax deduction for just Tesla related purchases and you referred to it as a subsidy. That is simply not the case. You are referring to EV tax credits as a "Tesla subsidy". That's not semantics, that is willfully incorrect or based on ignorance of facts.

My guess is that it is a willful misstatement. Which means that the rest of your commentary is very likely to be highly biased. Don't think there is much use in discussing science based issues with heavily biased opinions.

Taking Tax money from the poor and giving it to the rich.

A sort of Reverse Robin Hood,does that make it clearer.A lot of that happens here in the city of angles.

This thread is about The GND its about the future of energy in America.Highly Political so...

Will you be voting in the US? Because,

You haven't  dispelled any of my "talking Points", so whats your point?

I dont mind being offended, thats political discourse.

"Don't think there is much use in discussing science based issues with heavily biased opinions."

Science,dude.. the guy just said people get sick from CO2.

Are you so bias that you accept that?

 

 

Edited by richravizza
hi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, richravizza said:

OMG ,Who getting sick from CO2?

What a rediculous statement.

All your toxicity bullshit comes from OSHA standards, from your State,It s only a measurement for HVAC industies.If indoor air Quality is poor  at 1200ppm it means the air is three times a stale as fresh,most Co2 monitors do nothing are shut off or inoperable those that do just turn on a FanThe do not  scrub Co2 but you know that.

Most Greenhouse workers live in 1200 ppm.. no ones falling asleep dropping dead on the job.

and God forbid  you were to trajicly fall asleep with the sheets over your head at 40,000 ppm you'd  be dead by the morning,by YOUR Standards. 

 

 

It would be very nice  if you  would write in standard English; either American or British would be acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

LOL

I knew the ignorant thing was coming sooner or later.You can text. But can't read.

You must sleep at night with the sheets over you head.

Aint you the guy that calls me a ignorant Trump Voter

What part of what I wrote dont you understand?

edit HVAC systems in hospitals, nursing homes do not scrub co2.

 

Edited by richravizza
CO2 scrub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, richravizza said:

OMG ,Who getting sick from CO2?

People who breathe high concentrations of it.  In 1986, 1700 people around Lake Nyos died when the lake released some CO2.  That's why it's considered a toxic gas at high concentrations.

Of course that's not the problem here, as you well know.  The problem with CO2 is that it is a greenhouse gas, and at concentrations well below the levels that make us sick, it warms the climate - which results in things like rising sea levels, heat waves and droughts.  That's why it is a pollutant when it's in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
3 3