Green New Deal

[RealDave]

The irony is that planes are the most fuel efficient way to travel across the country! And fastest and least expensive, etc. Trains are actually the least efficient. But they can be cool in certain situations. Especially the one in the Wild, Wild West series in the 60's featuring James West and Artemus Gordon.

Fuel Efficiency: Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - prch

Holy shit are you an idiot.

DId you bother to read that piece?

Planes are only efficient when carrying 500 people...they're talking about fully loaded 747s.

How many of those are in service in Continental travel?

It also points out that trains in Japan and Europe are far more efficient because people USE them more.

And then you're ignoring the whole maglev thing.

They have maglev in Russia at least in theory...don't they Igor?

Yeah, my boss went to Europe for vacation. He said it would have been great if they didn't have to take public transportation everywhere. People don't use trains here because nobody wants to be on a bus or train with a bunch of other strangers coughing and sneezing unless you really have no choice. I like going into my car and going straight to work without having to leave 45 minutes earlier because a bus will make over a dozen stops along the way.

Say I work 20 miles from my work. I would rather hop a train than drive in the traffic & have to find & pay for parking.

You're leaving 45t minutes early because of traffic.

 

[Lesh]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

 

[RealDave]

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

Natural Gas not produced by fracing is certain better than coal or oil. It emits 50% less green house gases than coal and 25% less than oil which is why it is in most plans to eliminate fossil fuel. The problem with fracking is it emits greenhouse gases. The process releases large amounts of natural gas which consists of both CO2 and methane directly into the atmosphere. In fact, fracking wells leak 40 to 60 per cent more methane than conventional natural gas wells. This happens when water is forced down into a fracking well in order to fracture the rock formations. Methane flows up the well and is released into the atmosphere before it can be captured. The result is natural gas from fracking is only slight better than coal and worse than fuel oil. There are methods that are cleaner but they are more expense.

Converting to natural gas before fracking was considered to be a good first toward getting off fossil fuels. However with 60% of natural gas coming from fracking, that's not valid. If we can go to a better method of capturing greenhouse gases at the wells, then it might return as a good alternative.
https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

I disagree with your article.


Fracking expands the "collection area" of a well.

I do agree that the process wastes water (should be recycled) and uses harsh chemicals, etc (Green frack fluid are available). Any used water needs to be treated before releasing. I the past, producing companies have had numerous spills of this toxic material.

So I will say I support fracking if it is done the right way. That is not to say I support fossil fuels use & believe it should be reduced.

There is more danger to the environment during the drilling process than in the fracking process. Fracking reduces the number of well drilled to get the same production. The Deepwater Horizon spill was created by poor well construction. During any drilling for oil or natural gas, some gas is released. Obama out in regulations to help on this but I thin k Dumbass Trump has reversed them.

The problem, is fossil fues use & we should not blame fracking as it is just a method to make producing these fossil fuels more effective.

 

[RealDave]

Yes, metric tons of CO2 produced in the US have gone down thanks to strict environmental emission standards which Trump is reversing. However, atmospheric CO2 levels, which know no boarders are rising rapidly.

In the northern hemisphere Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii has continuing to report rising levels over last 3 decades and is currently reporting 411 ppm. The Cape Grime Baseline Air Pollution Station in Tasmania in the southern hemisphere is reporting 399 ppm confirming Mauna Loa. Also the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 confirms the rising trend CO2 levels.
CO2 Virtual Science Data Environment
Cape Grim greenhouse gas data - CSIRO
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

No fracking did not.

We have lots of gas because we developed methods to get it where we could not before.

Shale gas & shale oil became viable due to advances in steering & guidance during the drilling process. Say we hsave a 100 foot thick shale seam. Before, we would need to drill multiple holes to penetrate this.

Now we can drill vertically & then curve the hole to enter the seam & them drill a couple thousand of feet in the shale & them frack that to produce the product. It is this directional drilling that made natural gas better & cheaper than coal. The fracking technology changed little.

 

[RealDave]

So who deleted my post??? If I respond to a post & my post is about that post, then if you delete my post saying it is not on topic, then you best delete the post to which I responded.

 

[danielpalos]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

Subsidizing public transportation could help increase foot traffic for local vendors.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually it was fracking that really brought down our C02 levels in recent years. And what do you mean by atmospheric C02 levels? How is that any different?

Fracking impact on CO2 is a myth. See link.
Atmospheric CO2 is an actually measured using instruments such as an infrared CO2 sensor which determines the percentage of the air that is CO2.

Tons of carbon dioxide produced is calculated. We know how much carbon dioxide is produced by different fossil fuels when they burn. So we just determine how much is burned. The rest is just a calculation to convert tons.
How can carbon emissions be weighed?
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Data Loggers and Recorders
gclid=CjwKCAiAqaTjBRAdEiwAOdx9xobkL1t7nZ1B2NTCmWSHZTAlG0LmNljG72TgL_qkZh5_OpytQLxwexoCD4IQAvD_BwE
Fracking impact on CO2 cuts 'a myth'

What your story says is that C02 is related to economic activity. Well no shit. However when our economy started to boom, we are still emitting less C02 than if we used coal during the same period. Yes, it went up, but that was to be expected. You can't really believe that had we not been fracking and burning dirtier fuel for power, we would have the same results with C02.

Fracking has NOTHING to do with emissions.

We have been fracking for over 50 years.

The fracking process opens up pathways for oil or gas to flow to the borehole for extraction. It makes drilling more efficient.

If we burn a gazillion bbls of oil & cu ft of gas, it does not make a difference if fracking took place during production.

Sure it does because it created an abundance of natural gas. Which burns cleaner, gas or coal?

Yes, fracking has been going on for a long time, but new advancements in fracking allowed us to be an energy exporter instead of an importer. We get more product in one area in much less time than before. Supply and demand.

No fracking did not.

We have lots of gas because we developed methods to get it where we could not before.

Shale gas & shale oil became viable due to advances in steering & guidance during the drilling process. Say we hsave a 100 foot thick shale seam. Before, we would need to drill multiple holes to penetrate this.

Now we can drill vertically & then curve the hole to enter the seam & them drill a couple thousand of feet in the shale & them frack that to produce the product. It is this directional drilling that made natural gas better & cheaper than coal. The fracking technology changed little.

And that’s not advanced fracking?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

Imagine how much better my job would be. Now if you really want to save fuel, write to your representative and tell them we need to move our country to a four day work week. We would work an extra two hours a day and most of us would have a three day weekend every week. One less day of rush hour means we save 52 days a year of gasoline.

A few of our customers are on a four day work week. So far, I haven’t met an employee who didn’t love it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The irony is that planes are the most fuel efficient way to travel across the country! And fastest and least expensive, etc. Trains are actually the least efficient. But they can be cool in certain situations. Especially the one in the Wild, Wild West series in the 60's featuring James West and Artemus Gordon.

Fuel Efficiency: Planes vs Trains vs Automobiles - prch

Holy shit are you an idiot.

DId you bother to read that piece?

Planes are only efficient when carrying 500 people...they're talking about fully loaded 747s.

How many of those are in service in Continental travel?

It also points out that trains in Japan and Europe are far more efficient because people USE them more.

And then you're ignoring the whole maglev thing.

They have maglev in Russia at least in theory...don't they Igor?

Yeah, my boss went to Europe for vacation. He said it would have been great if they didn't have to take public transportation everywhere. People don't use trains here because nobody wants to be on a bus or train with a bunch of other strangers coughing and sneezing unless you really have no choice. I like going into my car and going straight to work without having to leave 45 minutes earlier because a bus will make over a dozen stops along the way.

Say I work 20 miles from my work. I would rather hop a train than drive in the traffic & have to find & pay for parking.

You're leaving 45t minutes early because of traffic.

Nah. I do work about 20 miles away. I just hop on the freeway and I’m there in about 25 minutes.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No one is taking away your car little fella.

That’s what liberals ultimately want.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Lesh]

I wish I could take a train to work. There isn't one close enough. I could sit back with my laptop and work, read the news, or simply sleep.

Instead I have to deal with autofetishists like Ray.

Personally I can't wait for self driving cars.

Imagine the fuel savings if we had cars that were smart enough to NOT rubberneck and change lanes erratically or make last minute decisions to cross three lanes to exit a highway...

Imagine how much better my job would be. Now if you really want to save fuel, write to your representative and tell them we need to move our country to a four day work week. We would work an extra two hours a day and most of us would have a three day weekend every week. One less day of rush hour means we save 52 days a year of gasoline.

A few of our customers are on a four day work week. So far, I haven’t met an employee who didn’t love it.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

I've worked that four day week and it was a joke.

Very little got done in those extra two hours a day and getting home 2 hours later BITES

 

[Lesh]

No one is taking away your car little fella.

That’s what liberals ultimately want.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

So now you are a seer and mind reader?

Oh

 

[sealybobo]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

 

[Thinker101]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

 

[dannyboys]

She sure is a dingbat.

She has no clue about what runs a economic groath or what destroys it.

No kidding. Solar is great but it just isn't viable Neither is wind.

I live in Florida and if solar were viable everyone in the state would be using it.

She ain't to bright. Just a dingbat who thinks she knows what she's doing.

Some small nations in Europe have has a limited sucess in green energy but have been developing it for decades . were talkung 350 million people huge industral base . shes a ding bat and has no clue with reality.
I do think by adding solar power to homes as a supplement is good and will help with reducing some energy need expecially when used to heat water and heat floors . but retrofiting millions of homes will cost trillions and trillions.
Solar and wind power are indeed usefull but to think it will be able to be developed in 10 years and provide 100 percent of our energy needs is a plan of a moron

You may be right but I think I read Spain went totally green and almost wrecked their country.

The Spanish corrupt gov. was paid off by 'Green' manufacturers. Every sentient person in the country KNEW it was bullshit!
Try to find a decent paying job in Spain if you are a young person.
Fucking corrupt SOCIALISTS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lesh]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

Climate Change will COST "everybody's money" if we don't deal with it rather quickly

 

[Thinker101]

Preliminary cost estimates are in, $7 Trillion. As with all government programs that estimate, no doubt, will double or triple.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a Green New Deal as the 'moonshot' of our generation. Here's everything we know about it so far.

It's worth it.

Instead of extreme weather disasters, famines and wars over natural resources, the Green New Deal envisions a future in which our nation overcomes its addiction to oil, gas and coal. The federal government would need so many workers to deploy renewable energy, retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient and construct more durable infrastructure that it could guarantee a job to every American who wants one. Those jobs would pay well and offer union protections. And because climate change touches on every facet of life, the transition away from fossil fuels would happen alongside a rapid expansion of safeguards for Americans already suffering the ill effects of dirty energy, from poisoned waterways to the coal industry’s monopolistic domination of entire regional economies.

Yup, I'm sure you feel it's worth it considering you want to use everybody else's money. What seems for you loons to have difficulty with is knowing that ALL countries would need to jump on that bandwagon for it to be worthwhile....and that ain't gonna happen.

Climate Change will COST "everybody's money" if we don't deal with it rather quickly

Great, get a job and start saving up.

 

[Lesh]

Great, get a job and start saving up.

That was a typically stupid response. Your record is intact

 

[Thinker101]

Great, get a job and start saving up.

That was a typically stupid response. Your record is intact

So that would be a NO absolutely not?

 

[Lesh]

So that would be a NO absolutely not?

Really?

ANOTHER retarded response?

Reported