And Texas's hatred of Mexicans.The hate on pot is brought to you by the alcoholic beverage industry.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Just a reminder about who controls our legislative proceedings.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=s
And why you have so many fighter jets.
I mean, that Lockheed Martin money screams "kickbacks" to me.
It does to the people they bribe, too.
Looking at the 2016 numbers I'm also seeing why your telecom is so expensive.
No the technology has not "been around for decades" to replace Fossil Fuels. Fossil Fuels are very nice, tightly packed bundles of energy. The whole "storage problem" for anything mobile is not a myth. Tesla is making good progress, and I hope they continue to do so, but we still need a cheap battery technology that is not super-dangerous and/or caustic, and won't screw up the environment even more. There are many worse pollutants than CO2, not to mention getting the rare materials for some of the leading candidates. Good research here, but that only solves the "car/truck" problem, which is NOT the majority of energy use.
Therefore, getting enough "alternative" sources for all non-transportation needs leads to all of the following:
- Bird buzzsaws by the millions (Windmillls). It's actually really freaky to see the images of the ground around these things. I'm NOT posting it. But even at saturation it wouldn't work as a full replacement.
- Anything and everything being covered by solar panels - and it still probably isn't enough because inefficiencies, and they COST MONEY. Also they need to operate for about 15-20 years to pay back the energy cost to MANUFACTURE them. So hope they don't get damaged by hail or the like. While the "artificial leaves" have some potential here, I'm skeptical on the land use perspective.
- More flooding than already (Hydroelectric) - This is actually one of the better options, but we're running out of the places to build them because we already HAVE built them in most places where it's practical. And other efforts are getting torpedoed by environmentalists (recent story in Canada here). So we should definitely keep doing it, but the additional load from it is not going to meet our needs.
- VERY unproven technologies taking the fore - Lots here, be it space-based solar, tidal, geothermal, or whatever else, the vast majority can't pick up the slack, even widely deployed, or the challenges are SO MANY that we're far away from it (space-based-solar manufactured in space from asteroids has so many unsolved problems that we will do it someday, but not soon!) and can't go that way anytime soon.
We HAVE much more efficient, safer, modern designs for reactors now. It's just no one wants to fucking pay for them because they are expensive and NO ONE wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard.
To be fair, Eriol, while I agree with your main point (mobile energy and batteries still need a lot of work, and modern nuclear is our best bet at replacing fossil fuels for static energy production at the moment), you are leaving out some of the better "green" technologies.
Geothermic and tidal power plants are both very possible and can be used to create consistent, permanent, power. Storage in the form of semi-floating water tanks is also a solved problem. As far as coastal areas are concerned, if we wanted to, most power issues could be covered by those.
Geothermic and tidal power plants are both very possible and can be used to create consistent, permanent, power. Storage in the form of semi-floating water tanks is also a solved problem. As far as coastal areas are concerned, if we wanted to, most power issues could be covered by those.
Geothermal: Widely used almost everywhere you CAN use it. See: Iceland. Most places? Not so much. I'm willing to be proven wrong though.
Tidal: Lots of promise, but I put it in the "needs a lot of work" category because even in the place with the highest tidal differences IN THE WORLD (The Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia, Canada), it's still just kinda "meh" on power. There is a power plant on it, and yes, there's lots of "ideas" for tidal, but no proven technologies that work right now. So yes, keep developing, but even then, I'm SURE it'll have the same problems as Hydro right now: environmentalists will find a way to stop it being widely deployed.
Edit: and both of those WERE in my "not right now" category. See above. That post hasn't been edited.
So they are. Huh. Missed that. Odd.
Anyway, tidal does work, it's been proven plenty, on small scale. There's really not much of a reason not to do it on a larger scale, except....They don't, for some reason. There's literally no reason.
Dave
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
It also spurs accelerated plant growth, which in turn takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and returns O2, all while solving a number of other problems as well ranging from food shortages to erosion control. Also taking into account that manmade CO2 is dwarfed by natural sources of CO2, and really, anthropogenic climate change is simply just the Crusades of the new secular religion.
GasBandit
Staff member
Where their grant money comes from.
Remember when there was scientific consensus that heat was a self-repellent fluid?
No, because I was not alive in the 19th century.
GasBandit
Staff member
They sure would. Unfortunately, the Church of Leftism has a stranglehold on academia, in which most scientists shelter themselves. But hey, tell me all about how many SUVs there are on mars, causing it to warm in parallel with us.
Every so often, something leaks through the cracks.
Also, there's the way that CO2 is a direct pollutant: acidification of the ocean. Oceanic water is naturally slightly basic, but due to the uptake of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the pH level of seawater is lowering. This is because 30-40% of atmospheric carbon dioxide released by industry binds with water vapor and condenses into oceans, rivers, and lakes, forming carbonic acid. The carbonic acid then reacts with water to produce a bicarbonate ion and hydronium ion, increasing oceanic acidity (H+ ion concentration). The Global Ocean Data Analysis Project estimates that the pH of surface ocean water has dropped from 8.25 to 8.14 - so it's more becoming neutral, rather than acidic. This could be disruptive to the spawning of some species of fish and to the survival of some varieties of plankton, which could be extremely detrimental to ocean life in general.[DOUBLEPOST=1470866303,1470865951][/DOUBLEPOST]Hey, fade's a geologist, right? We can just ask him how much he gets from Big Academia to pretend global warming is real, right GB?
GasBandit
Staff member
What stops naturally produced CO2 from doing the same thing?[DOUBLEPOST=1470866706,1470866605][/DOUBLEPOST]
So what you're saying is that one case proves (or disproves) all?
You're asserting that climate scientists are either bribed or pressured by Big Academia into toeing the line on climate change. Fade is a geologist, if I remember correctly, who has worked in Academia for most of his career. Surely he'd at least be aware of it.
Naturally produced CO2 does do the same thing, but it's not the process, it's the imbalance caused by industrial activity adding a lot more CO2 to the mix.
Naturally produced CO2 does do the same thing, but it's not the process, it's the imbalance caused by industrial activity adding a lot more CO2 to the mix.
GasBandit
Staff member
1) I did not assert that all scientists take bribes, I asserted that most scientific research is done in the realm of academia. I did imply that scientists who publish espousing anthropogenic models of climate change may have done so because it is in their own interest to do so. There's more to the culture than just "bribes and pressure." And yet despite that, there are scientists - a lot of scientists - who dispute it, as shown in my link.
Turns out, though, that this might be another area where data that didn't agree with the desired outcome was ignored.
America's hatred of black people*
oh man i love a good fight about whether the sky is blue, or if big scientists just released a paid-for study analyzing the color wheel
And paper, like @Null says.The hate on pot is brought to you by the alcoholic beverage industry.
I hear about many plans to "contain" the CO2 menace. Compressing it into caves, etc. I wonder sometimes why they don't just stockpile carbon black in compressed cakes in a warehouse or something. I mean, I also hear how valuable pure carbon is supposedly going to be "in the future," it might be nice to have a big pile of it somewhere.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Or caffiene. Or chocolate. Or...
bigger scam by scientists paid off by the evil leftist academia: vaccines or global warming? we ask our panel of angry white men next
Vaccines and autism *is* a scam. The data was falsified and the researcher admitted as much. But not before the original story leaked to the stupidsphere and became "truth".
GasBandit
Staff member
Curses! I've been discovered! Hold them at bay, minions, while I guzzle more of this sweet 10W30!
FTFY you oil-sniffing philistine.