Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[Gregs24]

The US is getting rid of hydro due to the impact on fish.

Hello; You may not know of it but I live in a TVA area. (Tennessee Valley Authority.) There are several hydro-electric dams in this area. These dams were started in the 1930's in some cases. The power these hydro dams make is already earmarked for use. In fact if things are going as normal the water level is now being raised by rainfall. This happens every spring so there will be a full pool. That gives us some extra capacity during the AC use season.
It also is at full pool for the recreation side of the reservoir use. Boaters pull boats from several states away such as Ohio to have fun on the lakes. They like it with a full pool so the income to the state of TN is important enough so only so much water can be drawn down at any one time to make electricity. If we have plenty of rain there is not a problem. If, like this year, we are down a few inches of rain already then less water will be drawn out of the lakes. So to keep the recreational boaters happy we will get some less power from the dams.

There also is a big environmental push to do away with dams in many places. Save the salmon and such.

I notice what I think of as a "pat" answer. Yes all hydro power could be sent to make hydrogen so the hydrogen could be used to make "green" steel. But since making hydrogen this way takes a lot of electricity someone will have to do without seems a reasonable guess.
I mean that at night all the homes, EV's and other consumers will still need electricity and solar will not be working, right?
In my area with a good number of dams already in place there are times in the hot and cold seasons when the power companies already ask us to cut back during times of peak use. Not sure where the extra power will come from to specifically run a green steel plant.

I say extra power because to do a green steel type plant buy it's nature uses lots of power to break the bonds and release the Hydrogen. It has been the energy cost to make hydrogen that has kept it off the table for over a century. Now you champions imagine there will be huge amounts of extra electrical energy. Not saying it cannot happen but it is another of the "sometime in the future" speculations.

I don't always agree with @sk47 but at least the responses are detailed and informative rather than the 'it can't work', 'it'll never happen' type posts from some

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

You copy and paste an entire article from the CEI funded by the energy, tobacco, alcohol and automotive industry and yet you also spend half you life moaning that green climate funding is distorting the truth.

This is EXACTLY the problem you complain about and yet you are happy to quote it when it suits your narrative. This rubbish is no different from the extreme climate change claptrap - you extremists are as bad as each other.

 

[Gregs24]

But but but....... the sky is falling, just ask greg, burky and al gore.

Not here it isn't

 

[sk47]

So you’re upset at China for emitting roughly 50% less CO2 per capita than the US, even though the Chinese manufacture the panels that allow US citizens to reduce their emissions?

Hello; So you switched to the per-capita rate for this argument. Now that can be valid in some way of looking at it, not so much if we use the idea that the atmosphere of Earth does not stop at borders.
The facts appear to be the USA as a country has been lowering emissions overall while China as a country has been increasing emissions overall. China is emitting more than anyone currently. China is doing a two prong approach. They are making lots of solar panels to be sure and my guess is they are using some of them. The other prong is they are still building and putting into operation coal fired power plants. They even use these coal fired power plants to generate much of the electricity to make the solar panels they sell to the world.

I am concerned that the rules are being skewed to allow China for some reason to continue with ever greater total emissions, while my country is being demonized when it is in fact doing better. The USA started replacing coal fired capacity with natural gas power making units long ago. One way it works is the have a coal plant running at some base capacity which is less than it was in the past. Then when a sudden need for extra electrical power happens the natural gas can be fired up quickly to handle the surge.
I also think in some places the coal powered plants have been completely replaced by natural gas plants. Thing is a few decades ago the push was to reduce coal use and go to the "cleaner" natural gas. This did happen at some cost to customers. Now even the cleaner natural gas plants are being labeled as the evil CO2 emitters.
So we do as requested and it is not enough. I do not doubt if we somehow do all the "green" stuff you guys now want in a few years, that you will come up with new demands.

 

[Gregs24]

Thing is a few decades ago the push was to reduce coal use and go to the "cleaner" natural gas. This did happen at some cost to customers. Now even the cleaner natural gas plants are being labeled as the evil CO2 emitters.
So we do as requested and it is not enough. I do not doubt if we somehow do all the "green" stuff you guys now want in a few years, that you will come up with new demands.

I think the key word is highlighted. Gas is cleaner than coal. Unlike some people on here with their extreme views I understand that improvements are incremental and standards change with time. Nothing lasts forever.

Clearly it is not possible to switch to green sources overnight and clearly it costs money to do this. As I have said many times it is an incremental process bringing about those improvements in a planned and structured way. The lights will not go out (well no more than they do now for some people) we will not all freeze to death and we will need to support some other countries in this process.

The problem for a few on here is that you are either a fossil fuel burning extremist or a green activist extremist, but in fact there are very few of those people, and I'm sure not one of either.

 

[K4fxd]

Democracy respects the individual but carries out the wishes of the majority

I don't know about the UK but we are a representative republic. Not a democracy.

I thought the UK is a monarchy.

 

[sk47]

I don't know about the UK but we are a representative republic. Not a democracy.

I thought the UK is a monarchy.

Hello; I am sure he will correct this but some time ago power was taken away from the monarchy and the Queen is not in charge.

 

[Gregs24]

I don't know about the UK but we are a representative republic. Not a democracy.

I thought the UK is a monarchy.

I think you will find you are a federal constitutional democratic republic.

The United Kingdom is a unitary state with devolution that is governed within the framework of a parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy

Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Applies to both

 

[Gregs24]

Hello; I am sure he will correct this but some time ago power was taken away from the monarchy and the Queen is not in charge.

Correct. It is a constitutional monarch with no actual power

 

[K4fxd]

I think you will find you are a federal constitutional democratic republic.

We are a representative republic and will stay that way as long as the electoral college is in place. MANY want to change it to a democracy. Mostly people in major cities.
I'll leave it at this, otherwise it will involve politics. Read our founding documents if you want verification of what I say.

 

[sk47]

Hello; This is part a “follow the money” link and a “living with an EV” link and some good comments thrown in.



Let's not put all our cars in the EV basket (msn.com)

Quotes from the link:

“To this end, it wants to spend $174 billion on EV investments, including 500,000 charging stations and vehicle purchase incentives. In addition, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants Congress to approve $392 billion for 10 years of tax credits and vouchers for those who replace gasoline-powered vehicles with EVs.”

“think twice about putting all future cars and light trucks in the EV basket. First, it's not clear that "zero-emission vehicles" are environmentally benign, mainly because electric cars use far more critical minerals - lithium, cobalt, graphite, copper, nickel and rare-earths - than those powered by internal combustion engines”

“a typical electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car. Producing the battery for an electric car can emit almost a quarter of the greenhouse gases that a gasoline car will emit across its entire lifetime. What is more, the mining of these energy transition materials (ETMs) is energy and water intensive and occurs primarily in areas of high water stress, posing contamination risks through acid mine drainage, wastewater discharge, and the disposal of tailings.”

“internal combustion engine gets a bad rap. Personal vehicles powered by gasoline and diesel account for less than 10 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., and that percentage continues to fall as both American and foreign car manufacturers focus on improving fuel economy to reduce tailpipe emissions.”

“Focusing on a single transportation mode such as EVs may discourage innovation and competition that can bring about greater reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at a lower cost. If the ultimate policy goal is improved air quality, mandating vehicle electrification may, ironically, turn out to be both inefficient and expensive.”

Hello; Most of this has been mentioned before in one way or another. I do like the way personal transportation is mentioned. Only under 10% of emissions come from personal gas or diesel vehicles. Makes me think of some of the mask mandates we had and continue to endure during the covid19 pandemic. How, you may ask? Well in the sense a lot of the mask stuff was known from early on to be a way for the ruling class to enjoy having control with little to do with the actual science.
Early on in a different thread on another forum I posted that when being outside or alone you did not need a mask. Some chided me about this and warned me to listen to the experts. I stood by my take and lately have been shown to be correct. It was not that those in power did not know, it was in part a way of gaining submission. I was in a store a few days ago where the clerk had on a mask. I asked her how long she would have to wear it. She is vaccinated and told me she may wear one for a long time. Some of the governors and and other local leaders have even increased the mask mandates or extended them at this late date.

If we who use our personal vehicles are only 10% of the problem then why spend all the billions (more likely trillions) and force us to change? Let the climate champions buy the EV's and let me have an ever increasingly clean ICE. The cost of my fuel is being raised by actions of those in power. ( not just the Colonial pipeline stuff) Another ban on drilling was announced today. Sure some of the true believers are in it for the cause, but those in power often just like the power and the money involved.

 

[Burkey]

Hello; So you switched to the per-capita rate for this argument. Now that can be valid in some way of looking at it, not so much if we use the idea that the atmosphere of Earth does not stop at borders.

I didn’t “switch” to the per capita argument at all..
The per capita idea is the entire premise OF the argument, and I‘ve never tried to argue any differently.
At least try and be honest in your criticisms.

If, in your mind, each country should be able to have the exact same targets, regardless of population, your‘re an idiot.
If you think land mass should be the determining factor, you’re an idiot.

Tell you what, I propose that we move 90% of the population from Australia, the UK, and Europe to the US. Then you lot in the US can squabble over the tiny amount of carbon you each get to release while the 10% left behind in the other countries just continue on with life as usual.
Sound fair? Of course not.

Tell me why one person should be allowed to emit as much pollution as four people.
I’ll wait.

I think your bias is showing. Imagine for one moment that you were a Chinese citizen.
How would you feel about someone from the US trying to tell you that you should only be allowed to emit half as much pollution as they do?

Borders are imaginary when it comes to global problems.

 

[Balr14]

People in this thread surely realize that arguing is the best way to get somebody else to really cement existing beliefs? If you actually succeed in making a point, the focus simply changes to something else. It's like wack-a-mole. You would have better luck teaching your dog algebra than changing their mind. This thread is entertaining and even informative. But it's about as solid as jello. It's gone from moaning about threads being shutdown to global warming to the structure of the monarchy and who knows what else.

 

[sk47]

Hello; I have been questioned as to why a per capita view of pollution is less valid than a country view. The general answer is that individual citizens do not make policy or laws or executitive (sp) orders. These more broad policies of an entire country shape what individuals can and cannot do.

An example currently is the rising cost of gasoline and diesel fuel. Not because there is a supply shortage of crude oil, but because of decisions made recently at the top levels. Before the pandemic lockdowns the USA was a net exporter of fossil fuels. The resource did not go away, rather the actions of people of power changed the rules of the game.

I do not intend to indicate individuals are powerless to act on their own. Just that the range of choices for an individual is much more limited that the officers of a state or country.

Another example; individual citizens did not decide that no ICE vehicles will be sold in a few states after a 2030-35 date. Some may be in favor of those new rules but what can an individual in those states do about it if those rules stay in place? The closest an individual can come is to vote in an election.

Here is some speculation for sure, but perhaps a safe sort. I figure the citizens of China will live the same sort of lifestyle as a citizen of the USA given the chance. Do I know this for sure? No I do not. I do figure however if this idea is challenged or an attempt is made to try to dismiss the speculation, that the person who makes the challenge will not have any more proof on his side.

 

[sk47]

People in this thread surely realize that arguing is the best way to get somebody else to really cement existing beliefs? If you actually succeed in making a point, the focus simply changes to something else. It's like wack-a-mole. You would have better luck teaching your dog algebra than changing their mind. This thread is entertaining and even informative. But it's about as solid as jello. It's gone from moaning about threads being shutdown to global warming to the structure of the monarchy and who knows what else.

Hello; You are quite correct. However there is a point to taking a stand. If we remain silent then the dialogue is dominated by only the other voice. The last few decades some new concepts have become laws and rules which not long ago would not have been thought possible.

Perhaps a most telling thing is that now a person born as a biological male can compete in sports against biological females by simply posing as a female. The unfair physical advantage ought to be clear to all, but some how by domination of the dialogue this has come to pass. Perhaps like myself, others who understand how wrong this is just failed to speak out because it was such a bizarre idea. I just dismissed it as some foolish boneheaded notion that would never go anywhere. Well I was so very wrong and rue that I was silent.

A thread like this on a Mustang forum is not a major platform so perhaps will not make much difference. It is a place where I spend time. I do not at all pretend to believe I will convert the champions, that much is clear. Had a few of us not spoken up what discussion there has been would have been one sided. This must be important in some way, else why is there 129 pages of it.

Sponsored