Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Commonwealth refugees swilling chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 719
    MEMBERS
  • 33078
    MESSAGES
  • 45
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 74389 views.
ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

7/24/17

Fine for limited applications, but try using it to power an energy hungry 21st century economy.

Related image

Johneeo

From: Johneeo

7/24/17

The answer to energy is simple.  Coal and oil.

ElDotardo

From: ElDotardo

7/24/17

Bingo!

Especially as fracking has made a joke of 'peak oil.'

Image result for peak oil fail

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/25/17

Johneeo said:

The answer to energy is simple.  Coal and oil.

Simplest answer, yes.  No one is disputing that doing what we are already doing is the easiest thing to do.

But both are finite resources with ecological downsides.

Also, there's the rather stark reality that the Middle East is fucked up enough - could you imagine what would happen if the Western World no longer needed their oil?

Sure, all the troops would come home but only until World War III started.

The Philippines garners 27% of their national power usage from geothermal energy.  That's the highest rate I could find.

And while California has the biggest geothermal power station - it's only 0.3%.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, has much greater results.

France has the highest at 80%!

And while the US produces the most Nuclear energy, it only covers 19% of consumption.  

So... the most obvious thing to factor in is the size of the country.

Also, ALL of the US is filled.  Sure, there's some desert in Nevada and Texas, but it's nothing like Australia where 90% of the population is around the coast.

There is also a huge difference of power requirements from megacities like NYC and Tokyo, compared to rural areas.

The answer is diversity.  Yes, the staples of coal and oil will always be there.  But with the population growing everyday with projections that we will hit 8.5 billion by 2030 (thank you India), sustainability is not just about coal and oil.

Soon we won't have the luxury of feeling superior as we buy our free range eggs, as it just isn't practical for chickens to run free. More forests will have to be cut down for farmland.

Future wars will be about resources, not religious ideology.

Oh God this is depressing!

I need wine and veal!

Cheers,

Jenifer

Johneeo

From: Johneeo

7/25/17

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

Simplest answer, yes.  No one is disputing that doing what we are already doing is the easiest thing to do. But both are finite resources with ecological downsides.

Totally incorrect.  There is enough oil and coal to meet the demand for hundreds of years.  But, think about it.  Within 50 to 100 years we will be using energy that we cannot even imagine right now.

As far as ecological, that is also bullshit.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/25/17

Johneeo said:

But, think about it.  Within 50 to 100 years we will be using energy that we cannot even imagine right now.

This may well be the most intelligent thing you've ever said!  But that's not saying much.

It may well be the manufacturing industry that creates 'green' appliances and TVs and computers!

We may have 'smart tables' that download the daily newspaper while we make our breakfast.

But in order for this to happen we need leaders who don't cut funding to scientific research.  

Australia and the US are screwed in that department right now.  And just as Aussie scientists stumbled upon the cure for the common cold!

I guess the corporate sector is our only hope for any forward thinking.

Cheers,

Jenifer

Johneeo

From: Johneeo

7/25/17

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

This may well be the most intelligent thing you've ever said!

It is quite obvious that you are not smart enough to comprehend my incredible brilliance.

As for cutting funding for research, there should be no funding.  See, that is how capitalism works.  Entrepreneurs will find ways to create better mousetraps because in so doing, they will get rich, and society benefits from the fruits of their products and services.

Government funding creates things like Solyndra where $Billions$ of dollars wind up going down the giant rathole and the only thing accomplished is that those that got the funding got rich and nothing of value gets accomplished.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/26/17

Have you seen China's solar array?  It's in the shape of a Panda!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/25/chinese-energy-firm-builds-solar-farm-shaped-like-panda/

There was a bird there too - just perched on one of the panels cleaning it's feathers.

So far so good.

Jenifer

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

7/26/17

Johneeo said:

As for cutting funding for research, there should be no funding.  See, that is how capitalism works.  Entrepreneurs will find ways to create better mousetraps because in so doing, they will get rich, and society benefits from the fruits of their products and services.

While innovation can, and does, pay for itself - it leaves little time for theoretical research.  Without theoretical physics we would have no computers, TV or internet.  Also many discoveries are accidental.

I wouldn't trust a pharmaceutical company to find a cure for a disease when they can make more money selling the medicine to manage it.

A mix of both is necessary, but a purely capitalistic approach has scientists focused on clients and sales revenue, rather than pure research.

Cheers,

Jenifer

Johneeo

From: Johneeo

7/26/17

Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

While innovation can, and does, pay for itself - it leaves little time for theoretical research.  Without theoretical physics we would have no computers

If your objective is to irritate me, mission accomplished.

TOP