Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Global Warming - Page 200







Post#4976 at 01-27-2015 10:33 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-27-2015, 10:33 PM #4976
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Football teams in Idaho.



Idaho winters shrivel footballs. I'm surprised that deflate-gate-a-teers didn't use that excuse.


Let's use www.duckduckgo.com, a search engine that doesn't keep your searches so the NSA can't search it for your searches.


Vandal-72
http://espn.go.com/college-football/.../idaho-vandals

1-10 in 2014 Same record my high school team has, 1 win, all others, losers.

Bronco Time

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-state-broncos
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

12-2, top 20 team.
The football rivalry wasn't always lopsided in this particular direction. And in Idaho, the rivalry extends beyond the grid iron.







Post#4977 at 01-27-2015 10:46 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-27-2015, 10:46 PM #4977
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
Maybe the fact that you don't know basic terms off hand indicates that you shouldn't be trying to teach others all about the topic. Maybe your lack of familiarity with basic terms shows that you don't really understand the topics as well as you think you do.
Or maybe I am just discussing and sharing ideas in a mutual quest for knowledge and truth. Something you don't seem interested in, Mr. Barbarian.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4978 at 01-27-2015 11:07 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-27-2015, 11:07 PM #4978
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

EDIT: Well, crap! I rushed to post without checking more carefully who this response came from. I thought I was addressing Brian. So there are a lot of statements in the following that aren't really appropriate for B Butler. In the interest of honesty however, I'll leave my original post here with apologies to Butler.


Quote Originally Posted by B Butler View Post
Well, there are worldviews where all worldviews except one's own are based on assumptions. One's own worldview is based on Obvious Truths. Your statement above is based on an assumption that one's own world view isn't special.

Some consider Science to be special, that the nature of its core assumptions make it unique. Of course, some believe the Bible to be special too, as are worldviews based on an assumption of literal Biblical Truth. As a general rule of thumb, I sort of expect everyone to believe that their own worldview and values are special. This might almost be a Universal Truth, that all worldviews include a clause which states they are uniquely True. Simply stated, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

Vandal? There are rules of science that professionals ought to know to prevent them from falling into Error. Part of his schtick is rubbing layman's noses in these rules.
Pointing out that you are trying to pretend to know something when you don't isn't rubbing your nose in anything. You and Eric are constantly lying about what science has shown or demonstrated to be valid. You both constantly try to pass yourselves off as experts in the particular topic and attempt to bluff others into believing that what you say about the science is accurate. Pointing out that you and he constantly misuse or out right make up basic terminology is one way to show others that you don't really know as much as you want them to think you do.

The fact that you and he get your noses out of joint when I do "my schtick," is just your egos taking a hit due to the embarrassment. If you would simply stop pretending to knowledge you don't actually possess, none of my vitriol would be called for.

This diversion started with his denial that volcanic eruptions and hotspots can be roughly periodic.
Nice lie.

Care to back up that claim with an actual quote from one of my posts? I think you'll find, yet again, that your lack of understanding of the topic has led you to another erroneous conclusion.

Some of them obviously are. Eric might have improperly assumed that because some of them are, all of them are apt to be.
that isn't what Eric assumed at all. Check his actual posts. He was completely unaware of the fact that the Yellowstone hotspot had been active on and off for over 15 million years.

Why are you lying about what he said in order to defend him?

Yellowstone? We haven't enough data point to be sure, and even the most regular of periodic series might be expected to end eventually. We just don't know. No matter how long a hot spot has been inactive, one shouldn't ignore the possibility of a return to action.
This is what I said about the hotspot in question. Nice to see you trying to use my own claims to disprove my own claim.

This is not unrelated to a previous eruption of Vandal. As one storm can't prove global warming, three mega eruptions of Yellowstone can't establish a periodic behavior.
That particular hotspot is responsible for far more than three super eruptions. You are confusing caldera for hotspot.

Statistical methods have their limits. Vandal seems more obsessed than most with making people aware of the limits of statistics.
As well as the strength of statistics.

Still, at a common sense layman's level,
In other words, whatever bullshit nonsense Eric's source cares to make up.

if a threat has manifested in the past, it is fair game to assume that it might happen again, that the government has to consider whether to spend money and effort to prepare for such events. Past history is fair game as a tool for how many resources should be set aside for any given threat.
Eric isn't interested in the actual past history. He wants to live in a world filled with dramatic tension so he lies about the past or more accurately accepts the lies others have told him. It allows him to imagine himself as part of a huge blockbuster movie experience in real life! His ego is loving it. And that in the end is all that really matters to Eric and to you.

There was a big quake in New England in colonial times. There might or might not be a similar quake in my lifetime. How many building code clauses and emergency preparation measures should Massachusetts push? Boston has a lot of brownstone apartment buildings and old Victorian triple deckers. Should they all be reinforced or torn down? No? At the moment, the Massachusetts policy is to require California standards for new construction but not to require retrofitting stuff that has already been built. Is this the correct answer? That might depend on one's values. How does one balance lives against economics in the face of uncertainty?

Science can say nothing definitive at this time.
Based on your track record of lying and pretending to know anything about science, do you really think anyone should listen to what you think science can say?

They might be able to do better in another decade or three. The field is advancing. Until then, one has to look at the history, make an educated guess, and acknowledge that people with different values will want to make different educated guesses. When science fails, one has to use common sense.

In these forums, one might want to avoid using scientific language when using common sense.
Common sense is not actually all that common and based on the history of science it can't really be argued to be all that sensical.

Vandal is apt to throw a hissy fit and grind a thread to a halt for a time.
Pointing out when you and Eric are lying to others is not a hissy fit, but thanks for the fallacy demonstration.

As to grinding a thread to a halt: 1 - I can not force others to stop posting. I can not delete others posts. I can not force others to read my posts. Whether or not the thread halts is beyond my power. 2 - If one side of the discussion is just making shit up and lying the whole time, how productive will the conversation actually end up being in the end?

Any use of probability without dotting all "I"s and crossing all "T"s is apt to set him off. He seems to think he is the Mona Lisa Vito of statistics.
Please note for future reference that it was you and not I that brought up statistics in this thread. But you go ahead and keep on projecting your intellectual malfeasance onto me. We can all see what you are doing clearly enough.
Last edited by Vandal-72; 01-27-2015 at 11:21 PM.







Post#4979 at 01-27-2015 11:14 PM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-27-2015, 11:14 PM #4979
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Or maybe I am just discussing and sharing ideas in a mutual quest for knowledge and truth. Something you don't seem interested in, Mr. Barbarian.
No. You spend your time in here trying to tell others what truth is. More importantly, you lie about what you actually know or understand. A real seeker of truth would admit their ignorance from the start. Your ego simply won't allow you to do that.

The fact that you freak out and turn to name calling every time I catch you in another lie shows that you are really in this forum to stroke your own ego, not share some special quest.







Post#4980 at 01-27-2015 11:33 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
01-27-2015, 11:33 PM #4980
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
The football rivalry wasn't always lopsided in this particular direction. And in Idaho, the rivalry extends beyond the grid iron.
and

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72
Lighter issue? You and I both know that there is nothing light about it!
So is this sorta like if a tourist visiting Sweden goes to a pub and roots for the Finnish hockey team? That would make for quite a memorable trip due to some additional skin coloration of black and blue?



Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72
My moniker is a description of where I've been, not who I am.
You were at University of Idaho in Moscow. Is that the answer?
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#4981 at 01-28-2015 02:27 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-28-2015, 02:27 AM #4981
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
and

So is this sorta like if a tourist visiting Sweden goes to a pub and roots for the Finnish hockey team? That would make for quite a memorable trip due to some additional skin coloration of black and blue?
Passions run high, but because the majority of alumni from both schools live in the Boise area, your rivals are almost certainly your neighbors, friends or immediate family. That tends to defuse the darker side of the rivalry (less in-group vs. out-group bias). Makes for a very friendly but none the less serious feud.

You were at University of Idaho in Moscow. Is that the answer?
You've got it.







Post#4982 at 01-28-2015 05:09 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-28-2015, 05:09 AM #4982
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
that isn't what Eric assumed at all. Check his actual posts. He was completely unaware of the fact that the Yellowstone hotspot had been active on and off for over 15 million years.
And you gave no source for your assertion. We're just supposed to believe you because you are a science teacher. Argument from authority.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4983 at 01-28-2015 12:59 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-28-2015, 12:59 PM #4983
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Eric:

He's technically correct in that the Yellowstone hotspot has seen many minor eruptions over the millennia since the last super-eruption. The last minor eruption occurred a bit over 2000 years ago. I don't know if you were aware of that or not, but:

1) In terms of possible dangers presented by the hotspot, it's irrelevant, since the minor eruptions aren't especially dangerous unless you happen to be living nearby, and only the super-eruptions pose major dangers; and

2) His argument had nothing to do with geology anyway, and was only intended to say, "Dismiss anything Eric has to say."

Which means that he's not presenting argument from authority so much as ad hominem.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#4984 at 01-28-2015 03:37 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-28-2015, 03:37 PM #4984
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
Passions run high, but because the majority of alumni from both schools live in the Boise area, your rivals are almost certainly your neighbors, friends or immediate family. That tends to defuse the darker side of the rivalry (less in-group vs. out-group bias). Makes for a very friendly but none the less serious feud...
OK, but what about those folks in Pullman WA?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#4985 at 01-28-2015 10:49 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-28-2015, 10:49 PM #4985
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Eric:

He's technically correct in that the Yellowstone hotspot has seen many minor eruptions over the millennia since the last super-eruption. The last minor eruption occurred a bit over 2000 years ago.
I didn't know the details, so I just looked on some sites that seemed sources of knowledge. No-one else has posted any other sources. But it's just an interesting question, to which I don't know any certain answers, and sourced data is welcome. Brower appears right that the location could shift further east, but probably not as fast as he suggested. The real point I was making is (assuming we continue to progress technologically) that we will need to learn how to prevent such a super-eruption of the caldera eventually, if we can, and we cannot assume that we won't be able to when the time comes. After all, our survival is at stake, and posterity is always meaningful to us today.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4986 at 01-28-2015 11:47 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
01-28-2015, 11:47 PM #4986
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Eric: And of course that makes perfect sense, and you don't have to know your geology to be able to see that sense. All you need to know is "That sucker's gonna go boom big time eventually, and if we haven't done ourselves in by then we need to be able to fix it." Which means that pointing out that you're not an expert in geology (which of course you're not) is even more absurd, and clearly done for no purpose except to discredit, not what you were saying right then, but anything you say, just because it's you. And you're a vile infidel.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#4987 at 01-29-2015 12:20 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-29-2015, 12:20 AM #4987
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
OK, but what about those folks in Pullman WA?
Three teams I cheer for every weekend: 1-U of I, 2-WSU (unless they are playing U of I), and 3-whoever is playing BSU.







Post#4988 at 01-29-2015 12:22 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-29-2015, 12:22 AM #4988
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Eric:

He's technically correct in that the Yellowstone hotspot has seen many minor eruptions over the millennia since the last super-eruption. The last minor eruption occurred a bit over 2000 years ago. I don't know if you were aware of that or not, but:

1) In terms of possible dangers presented by the hotspot, it's irrelevant, since the minor eruptions aren't especially dangerous unless you happen to be living nearby, and only the super-eruptions pose major dangers; and

2) His argument had nothing to do with geology anyway, and was only intended to say, "Dismiss anything Eric has to say."

Which means that he's not presenting argument from authority so much as ad hominem.
Stop using terms that you don't understand. Pointing out that Eric did not actually know anything about the topic is not ad hominem. It's what you are supposed to do when your opponents are being dishonest.







Post#4989 at 01-29-2015 12:46 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-29-2015, 12:46 AM #4989
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I didn't know the details, so I just looked on some sites that seemed sources of knowledge.
This is exactly my point about New Agism being a mind fungus. It has so destroyed your critical thinking skills that you were unable to recognize your source was not being truthful about the Yellowstone hotspot. You have spent too much time accepting anything anyone states as long as it seems to confirm your previous beliefs or provides you an opportunity to spin a narrative. You have never practiced the skill of checking sources for bias and misleading statements. A relatively minor level of real knowledge about geology would have sent up all kinds of red flags concerning your source.

No-one else has posted any other sources. But it's just an interesting question, to which I don't know any certain answers, and sourced data is welcome.
You have already state over and over again that you will reject any sources that come from actual scientists (Wikipedia).

Brower appears right that the location could shift further east, but probably not as fast as he suggested. The real point I was making is (assuming we continue to progress technologically) that we will need to learn how to prevent such a super-eruption of the caldera eventually,
Mind fungus again. You simply have no comprehension of the scale of the events you are discussing. A VEI 8 eruption displaces at least 1000 cubic kilometers of material. That's a block of material 6.2 miles wide, 6.2 miles long and 6.2 miles tall blasted into the sky. Do you have the slightest idea what the energy necessary for such an eruption would be? Thousands of times more energy than the world's entire nuclear arsenal detonated at the same time!

if we can, and we cannot assume that we won't be able to when the time comes. After all, our survival is at stake, and posterity is always meaningful to us today.
The laws of physics don't give a rat's ass as to whether or not posterity is meaningful to us. You've tried to learn too much of your science from TV and movies and flavored it with mind fungus pablum of "anything is possible."







Post#4990 at 01-29-2015 12:58 AM by Vandal-72 [at Idaho joined Jul 2012 #posts 1,101]
---
01-29-2015, 12:58 AM #4990
Join Date
Jul 2012
Location
Idaho
Posts
1,101

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Eric: And of course that makes perfect sense, and you don't have to know your geology to be able to see that sense.
Knowing some geology would allow you to see that it doesn't make perfect sense. It flies in the face of sensical understanding of how the Earth works.

All you need to know is "That sucker's gonna go boom big time eventually, and if we haven't done ourselves in by then we need to be able to fix it."
That is the statement of an ignorant person. An informed person realizes that the frequency of such events is tremendously low. Incredibly low. Ridiculously low. Absurdly low. Spending any valuable time worrying about such an event is a waste of time. Sharing your concerns is nothing more than scare mongering for no other reason than because you think it's "cooler" to live in a world where such a threat is real.

Which means that pointing out that you're not an expert in geology (which of course you're not) is even more absurd,
I'm not pointing out that Eric isn't an expert. I'm pointing out that Eric doesn't even possess an elementary school level understanding of the topics he chooses to "share" with others. This is of course only one incident in a long series of events where Eric "shares" nonsense with others and expects us to take him serious.

and clearly done for no purpose except to discredit, not what you were saying right then, but anything you say, just because it's you.
I did discredit what he said. After months and months of repeatedly discrediting his statements on scientific topics a pattern has become very apparent. Eric doesn't understand science and so any statement he makes about it should automatically be placed in the suspect bin.

And you're a vile infidel.
Nice fallacy. Nothing like equating a concern for honesty with religious intolerance. Once again, your projection is showing.







Post#4991 at 01-29-2015 04:30 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-29-2015, 04:30 AM #4991
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Eric: And of course that makes perfect sense, and you don't have to know your geology to be able to see that sense. All you need to know is "That sucker's gonna go boom big time eventually, and if we haven't done ourselves in by then we need to be able to fix it." Which means that pointing out that you're not an expert in geology (which of course you're not) is even more absurd, and clearly done for no purpose except to discredit, not what you were saying right then, but anything you say, just because it's you. And you're a vile infidel.
Hey, I guess if we have a Vandal, we can have an Infidel. Maybe I should change my name; well no, I like my name

I have a mind fungus. Vandal is a mind eruption.

He still provides no source for his claims, yet denounces the ones I found.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 01-29-2015 at 04:33 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4992 at 01-29-2015 04:46 AM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
01-29-2015, 04:46 AM #4992
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Vandal-72 View Post
This is exactly my point about New Agism being a mind fungus. It has so destroyed your critical thinking skills that you were unable to recognize your source was not being truthful about the Yellowstone hotspot. You have spent too much time accepting anything anyone states as long as it seems to confirm your previous beliefs or provides you an opportunity to spin a narrative. You have never practiced the skill of checking sources for bias and misleading statements. A relatively minor level of real knowledge about geology would have sent up all kinds of red flags concerning your source.



You have already state over and over again that you will reject any sources that come from actual scientists (Wikipedia).



Mind fungus again. You simply have no comprehension of the scale of the events you are discussing. A VEI 8 eruption displaces at least 1000 cubic kilometers of material. That's a block of material 6.2 miles wide, 6.2 miles long and 6.2 miles tall blasted into the sky. Do you have the slightest idea what the energy necessary for such an eruption would be? Thousands of times more energy than the world's entire nuclear arsenal detonated at the same time!



The laws of physics don't give a rat's ass as to whether or not posterity is meaningful to us. You've tried to learn too much of your science from TV and movies and flavored it with mind fungus pablum of "anything is possible."
You sound like the science equivalent of people who call the vast majority morons because they don't know about some obscure hipster indie rock band. Holy Shit. When somebody makes a factual error I kindly correct them, you seem obsessed with proving how smart you are and thus how better you are than others.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#4993 at 01-30-2015 01:14 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-30-2015, 01:14 PM #4993
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

It is time to push nuclear until solar is fully developed.

Nuclear Power Needs to Double to Curb Global Warming


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...medium=twitter
…. "The International Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency suggest in a report released Thursday that nuclear will have such a significant role to play in climate strategy that nuclear power generation capacity will have to double by 2050 in order for the world to meet the international 2°C (3.6°F) warming goal.
With fossil fuels growing as sources of electricity across the globe, the IEA sees nuclear power as a stable source of low-carbon power helping to take polluting coal-fired plants offline.”







Post#4994 at 01-30-2015 02:25 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-30-2015, 02:25 PM #4994
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
It is time to push nuclear until solar is fully developed.
It seems the Russians are the only ones who might be making nuclear plants that can recycle waste. I don't know if we are going to have access to that. If not, then nucs are out. They are still dangerous, unless you don't mind making hundreds of square miles of our country uninhabitable for centuries to come.

Solar is developed; but it will be expanded and improved. It is less expensive to build, and is increasing exponentially. It's time to push solar, although we can't push it politically for a few years now. The subsidies and tax breaks will likely end soon, and so only market forces will push it for a few years. The barriers to solar are and have been entirely political.

But maybe the Republicans and Obama or Hillary can be pushed to do nuclear. It is still the most unpopular source of energy, and there's lots of legal delays and roadblocks to it in many places. It is expensive, and takes a while to build nuclear plants. It can be pushed, but there will be many who push against it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4995 at 01-30-2015 06:54 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-30-2015, 06:54 PM #4995
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
It seems the Russians are the only ones who might be making nuclear plants that can recycle waste. I don't know if we are going to have access to that. If not, then nucs are out. They are still dangerous, unless you don't mind making hundreds of square miles of our country uninhabitable for centuries to come.

Solar is developed; but it will be expanded and improved. It is less expensive to build, and is increasing exponentially. It's time to push solar, although we can't push it politically for a few years now. The subsidies and tax breaks will likely end soon, and so only market forces will push it for a few years. The barriers to solar are and have been entirely political.

But maybe the Republicans and Obama or Hillary can be pushed to do nuclear. It is still the most unpopular source of energy, and there's lots of legal delays and roadblocks to it in many places. It is expensive, and takes a while to build nuclear plants. It can be pushed, but there will be many who push against it.
We have problems in building new nuclear plants because we abandoned this area decades ago, unlike France.
This was a mistake , in my opinion, that has contributed to climate change.







Post#4996 at 01-31-2015 01:11 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-31-2015, 01:11 AM #4996
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
We have problems in building new nuclear plants because we abandoned this area decades ago, unlike France.
This was a mistake, in my opinion, that has contributed to climate change.
Perhaps, if the builders would have developed a way to recycle the waste, and somehow updated the plants overall to make them safe. But what guarantee do we have that they would have done this, or been able to?

One disasterous and non-renewable form of energy production replacing another is not a remedy.

The problem was that we have not been developing and building solar. The Republicans starting with Mr. RR delayed this for 30 years, and still want to delay it.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4997 at 01-31-2015 01:48 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-31-2015, 01:48 AM #4997
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Perhaps, if the builders would have developed a way to recycle the waste, and somehow updated the plants overall to make them safe. But what guarantee do we have that they would have done this, or been able to?

One disasterous and non-renewable form of energy production replacing another is not a remedy.

The problem was that we have not been developing and building solar. The Republicans starting with Mr. RR delayed this for 30 years, and still want to delay it.
I diasgree with your assessment on solar power. In my opinion , the technology is just now emerging to level to provide significant power. This technology continues to improve. it appears to me that the limitations have been technical/engineering issues and not politics.
On the nuclear front, it is probably too late for us to make much use of nuclear. We have been out of the game too long and there are too many obstacles.
Just have to wait for solar.







Post#4998 at 01-31-2015 02:02 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-31-2015, 02:02 PM #4998
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
I diasgree with your assessment on solar power. In my opinion , the technology is just now emerging to level to provide significant power. This technology continues to improve. it appears to me that the limitations have been technical/engineering issues and not politics.
Ronald Reagan stopped all support and progress for solar. The Republicans continue to block it as much as they can, because they think global warming is a hoax and all government action on it is socialism and taxes. It's politics.
On the nuclear front, it is probably too late for us to make much use of nuclear. We have been out of the game too long and there are too many obstacles.
Just have to wait for solar.
Well, I like that assessment better We don't have to wait, we need to build and improve it. But, we'll have to wait for better politicians in office, that's sure true.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#4999 at 01-31-2015 02:34 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
01-31-2015, 02:34 PM #4999
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Ronald Reagan stopped all support and progress for solar. The Republicans continue to block it as much as they can, because they think global warming is a hoax and all government action on it is socialism and taxes. It's politics.

Well, I like that assessment better We don't have to wait, we need to build and improve it. But, we'll have to wait for better politicians in office, that's sure true.
On the solar front, I think the limitations have been technical/engineering as opposed to politics. As solar power costs are reduced, the economics will dictate solutions.( The politicians can't stop it, unless they pass regulations to forbid it).
This article provides am interesting comparison of the solar with other power sources.

When Will PV Solar Reach Grid Parity?

http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html

… "chart showing the Levelized Cost Of Energy for various sources of electricity. The LCOE is a fair method of comparing the cost of different energy technologies. It is the total life cycle cost of electricity for a given technology divided by the total life cycle electricity production….. The LCOE for peakers is $.180 per kilowatt hour per the California Energy Commission. Nuclear power is at $.100 per kilowatt hour, coal is $.080, and combined cycle natural gas is $.064.
In 2010 the LCOE for PV solar was $.150 as calculated by cost expert Ken Zweibel of George Washington University (point $.150 on the red LCOE curve above). … the projection that PV costs (red line) will be reduced by 10% per year as forecast by analysts and will catch up to combined cycle natural gas by the year 2018. An aggressive reduction forecast of 15% per year would have PV solar catching up by 2015. A pessimistic forecast of a 7% yearly decrease would have PV catching up to natural gas by the year 2022.

How Much Solar Power Is Reasonable?

When we say that PV will be at parity with natural gas and coal, that does not mean there will not be any coal or natural gas generators thereafter. Because the sun shines only during daylight hours, and wind is most prevalent at night, and both are variable, we can not be totally dependent on renewables in the foreseeable future. A target of 20% solar and 20% wind by 2030 seems reasonable and is endorsed by quite a few organizations. 20% of US electricity is the equivalent of the energy now used by all the cars and light trucks in the US. The 20% figures could be larger if there were some "dramatic cost improvements" in grid storage, notably large battery systems. However at the moment, battery storage at the grid level looks a long ways off.

In addition, more than 20% of either solar or wind would require significant investments in transmission lines. Not only are transmission lines expensive, but they are hard to permit because of the NIMBY (not-in-my-back-yard) factor. Transmission lines also require three to four years to build, versus solar or wind plants which can be easily built in two years. If by 2030, 40% of our electricity came from solar and wind renewables,”…
I do think that solar will start to dominate after we have better power storage technology.







Post#5000 at 01-31-2015 02:53 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
01-31-2015, 02:53 PM #5000
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
On the solar front, I think the limitations have been technical/engineering as opposed to politics. As solar power costs are reduced, the economics will dictate solutions.( The politicians can't stop it, unless they pass regulations to forbid it).
Quite true; however, government support is needed to make the transition go faster. Costs for clean energy and would have been lower by now, and technical solutions achieved, even decades ago, if not for Republican obstruction. Only Obama has provided much of the needed support, and Gov. Brown in CA. Republicans resist it. New industries need breaks and support to get going. Perhaps there has been enough now so that the market can keep it growing, but it is still slower than it could be thanks to Republican obstruction, and they also insist on huge subsidies and permits for more fossil fuel production, which slows down the transition, helps lower fossil fuel costs, and keeps global warming accelerating. They also resist international treaties like Kyoto. Yes, it's politics. Republican, politics.
I do think that solar will start to dominate after we have better power storage technology.
Storage exists now, though I'm sure it could get better by the time transmission lines are built.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------