Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.
A real Trumpster. All science is bad, all scientists are money grubbing assholes. Only Trump is pure as the driven snow and never lies or does anything that would damage the people of this nation. LOL
How many times do you have to post that idiocy before you realize that is what it is?
You are the one trying to preserve old dirty damaging tech. Solar and wind are both less costly now than even dirty coal. And with the grid scale batteries that are being built as we post, they are 24/7. No, we are moving forward, encumbered by kicking, screaming ignoramouses like you.Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?
In the real world.....
The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?
According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.
"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***
RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.
• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source
• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source
• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source
• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source
But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.
THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.
We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.
For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.
These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!
I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.
No matter how much you kick and scream we are not going back to the 1100s running around half naked hunting buffalo....
BTW don't you have an AGW cult March to go to in Washington in a few weeks to beg for some more grant money?
.
Take away the damn subsidies and no one could afford it, Jesus who are you trying to fool?
LOL! yet another foaming at the mouth gub'mint worshiper chimes in .......Goddamn, another totally dumb fuck with the meme that the government can do nothing right. What stupid asses you people are. I suppose that you think that the Corp of Discovery was a total waste of money as it came in ten times over budget, and way late.LOL, do you always get this angry when someone points out how flawed your idiotic arguments are? If so, you must spend your days in a constant state of agitation since I have yet to see you make an argument that isn't more full of holes than a ton of swiss cheese.LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?
Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard
OK I think I see what your dumb ass is saying.
Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.You agree that green technology is necessary to save the environment. In order to fund investment in green technologies, we need tax revenue.
On the bright side your childish tail wagging the dog arguments are amusing....
You are the one trying to preserve old dirty damaging tech. Solar and wind are both less costly now than even dirty coal. And with the grid scale batteries that are being built as we post, they are 24/7. No, we are moving forward, encumbered by kicking, screaming ignoramouses like you.Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.
I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.
No matter how much you kick and scream we are not going back to the 1100s running around half naked hunting buffalo....
BTW don't you have an AGW cult March to go to in Washington in a few weeks to beg for some more grant money?
.
Take away the damn subsidies and no one could afford it, Jesus who are you trying to fool?
Germany and Australia are finding out just what a scam "green" energy is.. If any energy is available, they are paying through the nose for it.
I guess someone should inform them of this "scam", because there doesn't appear to be one:
Germany Has Some Revolutionary Ideas, and They're Working
Although there is plenty of evidence of global warming, little is going to be done to avert disaster util it actually occurs.You could not be more wrong. We should be, by the natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, slowly cooling, not in a very rapid warming. So, you claim that this is part of a natural cycle? How about pointing out what that cycle is? And what is driving it?There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.
I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.
So now you believe we know all of the long term natural cycles, and know the precise timetable upon which they operate...and in addition, we know all of the shorter term cycles and how they effect the longer term cycles?...in short, you believe that we know exactly how energy moves through the system and how each various sub system effects the larger system?
You sound like a cultist who professes to know the unknowable...
And the only place the temperature is rapidly warming is in computer models and tortured data sets...
It appears that Trump has decided not to be a Christian now that he has been elected. He will again become a Christian during the 2020 election cycle, count on it.
Why do I say is he has decided not to be a Christian? Well, any true Christian understands that they are tenants of God's earth, all the way through the Bible it tells his followers take care of the environment. And the most profound warning in the Bible is God will destroy those who destroy God's earth. (Revelations 11:18).
Also, Christian are not to put money ahead of God's wishes.
Now look at Trump's and the GOP's actions and goals regarding the environment. What would Jesus do?
It appears that Trump has decided not to be a Christian now that he has been elected. He will again become a Christian during the 2020 election cycle, count on it.
Why do I say is he has decided not to be a Christian? Well, any true Christian understands that they are tenants of God's earth, all the way through the Bible it tells his followers take care of the environment. And the most profound warning in the Bible is God will destroy those who destroy God's earth. (Revelations 11:18).
Also, Christian are not to put money ahead of God's wishes.
Now look at Trump's and the GOP's actions and goals regarding the environment. What would Jesus do?
Take your bible thumping to another thread Libtard.
Its the whole OCD thing....
Resoundingly laughable........and every bozo progressive in here ( the alarmists ) will be screaming bloody blue murder this summer about tax reform. These people are mental cases.
You got it backwards. It takes a punitive tax to force people into what the government wants to sell, be that "green energy", Obama care or whatever. And it was not the government (as in Kennedy) that produced the hardware & technology to get man to the moon. That was not even the objective. The objective was to show our cold war rivals that nothing is out of rocket range. The man on the moon was for public consumption because the public at that time had no stomach for strategic dominance and the expensive sabres that had to be rattled to get there without actually fighting a real war....which happened later anyways in the many proxy wars that still go on.LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?Yeah but only if you believe that a weak economy generates the innovation and market incentives that lead to lower pollution production and goods & services.
If he had equivocated with that point, the remark MIGHT have been 3% less stupid. He did not. Fact is, the market is not designed to reduce carbon footprints, and reduce the size of the plastic island in the pacific.
Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?
Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .
"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard
OK I think I see what your dumb ass is saying. You agree that green technology is necessary to save the environment. In order to fund investment in green technologies, we need tax revenue. And the best way to get tax revenue is to pollute the environment further.
Your a fucking genius.
The Soviet Union collapsed because their economic model was unsustainable and because the Afghan War bankrupted them. They beat themselves. And solar farms and windmills would've kept us out of the middle east, and would've likely alleviated a great many of the weather consequences, flooding, pestilence and other side-effects of manmade global warming over the past 50 years. There's a huge opportunity there that was missed. We can still recoup some of the benefits now if we subsidize a jettison from the stone age.Where theF do you think we would be now if Kennedy had built wind mills and solar farms instead of building up the military while the Soviets installed missile launchers in Cuba?
We would have to address each other today with "Comrade" instead of Mr.
The Soviet Union collapsed because their economic model was unsustainable and because the Afghan War bankrupted them. They beat themselves. And solar farms and windmills would've kept us out of the middle east, and would've likely alleviated a great many of the weather consequences, flooding, pestilence and other side-effects of manmade global warming over the past 50 years. There's a huge opportunity there that was missed. We can still recoup some of the benefits now if we subsidize a jettison from the stone age.Where theF do you think we would be now if Kennedy had built wind mills and solar farms instead of building up the military while the Soviets installed missile launchers in Cuba?
We would have to address each other today with "Comrade" instead of Mr.
Instead, we continue to subsidize dirty fuels, while you pretend like the free market handed the oil industry a victory. That's a laugh.
