patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

Arguing about the solution means accepting that there is a problem.

Well yeah, fossil fuels are eventually going to become very expensive, even if there was no Greenhouse Problem. Nuclear and hopefully Fusion is the way forward, only way to reliably generate electricity, esp. in the absence of batteries.

California has 23 minutes of electricity storage at normal use rates, IF you chain every car and truck and marine battery together and nobody drives.

Solar and wind power are poised to become the cheapest forms of new electricity across large swaths of the globe.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-19/tipping-point-seen-for-clean-energy-as-monster-turbines-arrive

Heraclitusstudent says

Solar and wind power are poised to become the cheapest forms of new electricity across large swaths of the globe.

And they give off reliable power, with no need for very expensive and environmentally hazardous-to-produce batteries?

I know in advance that three days from now that I will have X input that will produce Y output at 7PM?

Heraclitusstudent says

Onvacation says

People got matches and want to stay warm.

Burning wood alone wouldn't cause global warming.

Really??

" However, many other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide; although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in the atmosphere."
https://www.transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/

Heraclitusstudent says

building better solar panels and batteries,

Does the process of manufacturing them give off pollution and greenhouse gases?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Heraclitusstudent says

Solar and wind power are poised to become the cheapest forms of new electricity across large swaths of the globe.

And they give off reliable power, with no need for very expensive and environmentally hazardous-to-produce batteries?

Exactly... I think that part is somehow neglected by the alarmists.

Heraclitusstudent says

CO2 greenhouse effect in details

Science ?

Science is religion. Kill all the intellectuals. Ignorance is intelligence. Only by finding bs on the internet to back what you fantasize to be true can we overtake the elite establishment types.

Only by making lies the truth can we ever live up to Orwell's predictions.

Seatbelts are a religion.

Can you offer proof that I am going to be in a fatal accident that wearing seatbelts would make less injurious ? I don't think so. The jury is still out over how much seatbelts might lower the number of accident fatalities. There are models that can predict the number of car accident fatalities, but different models come up with different numbers. We don't really know how many car accidents there will be let alone how many where seat belts would make a difference.

All forms of risk analysis are actually just religion. Risks can not be known. Nothing can really be understood with certainty. Knowing something within some kind of range of possibilities is obviously no different than an article of faith.

anon_d58f8 says

" However, many other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide; although the amounts may be small (200 g of CO2 equivalent per kg of wood burnt), the gas is 300 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and lasts 120 years in the atmosphere."
https://www.transitionculture.org/2008/05/19/is-burning-wood-really-a-long-term-energy-descent-strategy/

I didn't say that it is a replacement energy, or that it is a good idea to burn wood. No one is trying to power the world by burning wood. I know very few people heating their homes by burning wood.
Nonetheless the carbon in the wood is taken from the atmosphere. No extra CO2 in the atmosphere from burning wood.

anon_d58f8 says

Does the process of manufacturing them give off pollution and greenhouse gases?

So we should reject any solution if it's not perfect?
I know some people don't like change - any kind of change - but too bad... change happens. Deal with it.

anon_d58f8 says

However, many other chemicals are produced when wood is burnt, including one of the most potent greenhouse gases, nitrogen dioxide;

One of several sort things about that site is that this is incorrect. They are referring to nitrous oxide not nitrogen dioxide. Heraclitusstudent says

No one is trying to power the world by burning wood.

Europe subsidizes it. The us ships wood to Europe to be burned in power plants.
The bigger problem (rather than methane or nitrous oxide emissions) has to do with the length of time required to sequester all of that carbon in a new tree.

Heraclitusstudent says

I know very few people heating their homes by burning wood.

I doubt you'll see that in downtown LA.

ever visited anyone in flyover country?

Oh, but here's the dirty secret liberals won't tell you and won't even admit to themselves. They don't give a shit about the third world (neither do conservatives to be fair), but deep in their hearts, they are glad those people are dying because the earth is overpopulated and they need to die. Liberals have 90% of the media under their thumb, if they gave as much of a shit about preventable 3rd world diseases as they do about global warming we'd do another live aid concert and have this shit knocked out by Tuesday.

But they don't, and people are dying, and fucking hypocrites having the vapors about Donald Trump calling shitholes, shitholes are responsible for the shitholes, because we could fix them if we wanted to, yet we waste our resources building windmills and solar panels that we know for a fact won't solve the problem. Because they want them to die. Fuck you.