Climate Change Discussion

[teekay99]

Someone explain to me like I'm five why renewable energy is considered so evil by some folks.

The resistance to renewable energy may not be against the technology itself, but rather the perceived way in which it is being presented or forced upon us. For some, environmentalism has become state sanctioned religion to be undertaken at all costs, and these new renewable energies are one way to achieve it. Some people are likely resisting having this religion foisted upon them by fiat. In other cases, we are being told to curtail our consumption of fossil fuels by people who fail to live by their own example (looking at you Al Gore as you fly around the planet in your private jet.) And in some cases, it's smoke and mirrors, such as carbon offsets. And government is at the center of it all legislating what it thinks is best for all of us, picking winners and losers in the efficient way government always does (/sarcasm). (A government influenced by special interest and lobbyists will probably fail to pick the scientifically and economically best alternatives.)

To be clear, I don't care what technology we use to energize ourselves so long as it is cheap, consistent, and safe.

• So far, fossil fuels fit this bill.
  • I do consider the negative externalities generated by fossil fuel consumption to be inefficient, and I whole-heartedly support any private-investment approach to find another energy source that is not as dirty.
• If there is an economically viable way to achieve this with wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, or nuclear, then I have no issue with it.
  • Many of these renewable energies are inconsistent. Generally, solar works when the sun is out. Wind works when the wind is blowing. Wind, tidal and geothermal energy is not portable (you can't put it in a vehicle outside of storing the energy in large, toxic, expensive batteries).
  • Solar and wind require large amounts of land to make it work. If the US was powered by solar alone, we would require the space of Montana to accomplish this (source). And that is only if the wind is blowing ...
  • Maybe someday I will be able to outfit my DeLorean with a Mr. Fusion device that runs on household trash. But we are not quite back to that future yet.
• If people want to put a solar panel on their house or a windmill in their back yard, they can go for it. But they should pay for it. Not government. (I.e., I do not support renewable energy subsidies. If an industry requires a subsidy in order to exist, then to me, it is not economically viable. And if something is not economically viable, then it is not sustainable.

Lastly, even if we do find a miracle renewable energy to move towards, the political problems in oil producing regions will probably not be solved. In fact, they could get worse and there might be major employment and social issues. Saudi Arabia is attempting to diversify it's economy, but it's not like they have a lot of other resources to turn to. And it's conservative culture does not make the country a great host for progressive corporations serving western consumers. If consumers stop buying Saudi oil, nothing else comes in to fill the financial void, and the money runs out, does Saudi Arabia become a more or less stable country? US interests might wane in Saudi Arabia, who fills that power vacuum? Wahabi extremists? (I do not offer this as an argument to keep fossil fuels. I offer this as a counter argument that eliminating fossil fuels does not necessarily solve political problems in oil producing regions.)

 

[NuclearID]

Y'know, take climate change or global warming or whatever the new hip phrase is out of the equation for a second and answer this:

If we have the technology to switch from fossil fuels - which some nations have in abundance and other nations have zilch - to renewable energy sources that everyone can have equal access to, why would we not make that change? Wars have been fought and economies collapsed over oil. All that goes away with solar, wind, water, geothermal, and other limitless natural energy sources. The fact that we would leave a less-polluted world for our children and grandchildren would seem to be an obvious bonus.

I truly don't understand the resistance and even hostility towards this fundamental change in how we provide energy to everyone on the planet. In our county, we are constantly seeing signs in people's yards saying "NO SOLAR!" For the love of all that's unholy, WHY would anyone try to prevent me from putting solar panels on my own fucking house??? Why would they care? Solar panels on my house doesn't impact them in any way.

Someone explain to me like I'm five why renewable energy is considered so evil by some folks.

Preaching to the choir with me.

For me renewables isn't about climate change. No not at all.

It's about energy independence. If your transportation network & most of the economy doesn't depend on fossil fuels I'd say that is strategically necessary. Screw climate change we need to secure our countries future energy independence.

This way we don't have to submit to tyrants who threaten to cut oil and gas production when we do somthing they don't like.

 

[NuclearID]

We live in a capitalistic society where companies will do what is best for their pockets/shareholders & not the best for the country. There are in the immediate sence cheaper sources of energy so will be zero drive for the private sector to set out and achieve this. It needs government subsidies to encourage the innovation and drive needed to accomplish this.


Every year battery storage is becoming more and more practical. Just like when Wind & Solar was more expensive than fossil fuels BUT NOW CONSIDERABLY cheaper then fossil fuels as the supply chains for it became more practical and scalable.


Wind and solar energy didn't become cheaper than fossil fuels and more practical than fossil fuels on its own by private sector but took government help to get it there. Same will be said and done for renewables, battery storage, and EV vehicles. Sooner rather than later they will become more practical & scalable as we did see with solar and wind energy prices/production.


It's really not about climate change and could care less about climate change when it comes to renewables & electric vehicles. Again it's all based on a strategic point of view on the geopolitical chessboard. Energy Independence is and should be the only point with renewables & electric vehicles.

 

[RiffRaff]

• (I.e., I do not support renewable energy subsidies. If an industry requires a subsidy in order to exist, then to me, it is not economically viable. And if something is not economically viable, then it is not sustainable.

Then you would also be against the billions of dollars in subsidies that oil corporations have been taking advantage of for years, yes?

Oil companies line up for billions of dollars in subsidies under US climate law

Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits include technologies favoured by fossil fuel sector

www.ft.com

Either both energy sectors qualify for subsidies, or neither of them do. To believe otherwise in hypocrisy in its highest form.

 

[teekay99]

Then you would also be against the billions of dollars in subsidies that oil corporations have been taking advantage of for years, yes?

Oil companies line up for billions of dollars in subsidies under US climate law

Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits include technologies favoured by fossil fuel sector

www.ft.com

Either both energy sectors qualify for subsidies, or neither of them do. To believe otherwise in hypocrisy in its highest form.

And I am against such subsidies. Neither should be subsidized. In fact, I would be open to exploring a repeal of any tax credits or preferential tax policies that were implemented specifically to benefit the oil industry.

 

[RiffRaff]

And I am against such subsidies. Neither should be subsidized. In fact, I would be open to exploring a repeal of any tax credits or preferential tax policies that were implemented specifically to benefit the oil industry.

Then you and I are in full agreement. Someone mark the date on the DWS calendar, please!

 

[teekay99]

Then you and I are in full agreement. Someone mark the date on the DWS calendar, please!

In all honesty, while this is what I believe should be the case (no subsidies for anybody), I realize that it is a minority opinion that is not wrapped in any practical political reality these days. As such, your argument justifies subsidies for both oil and renewable energies.

 

[Publius]

Y'know, take climate change or global warming or whatever the new hip phrase is out of the equation for a second and answer this:

If we have the technology to switch from fossil fuels - which some nations have in abundance and other nations have zilch - to renewable energy sources that everyone can have equal access to, why would we not make that change? Wars have been fought and economies collapsed over oil. All that goes away with solar, wind, water, geothermal, and other limitless natural energy sources. The fact that we would leave a less-polluted world for our children and grandchildren would seem to be an obvious bonus.

I truly don't understand the resistance and even hostility towards this fundamental change in how we provide energy to everyone on the planet. In our county, we are constantly seeing signs in people's yards saying "NO SOLAR!" For the love of all that's unholy, WHY would anyone try to prevent me from putting solar panels on my own fucking house??? Why would they care? Solar panels on my house doesn't impact them in any way.

Someone explain to me like I'm five why renewable energy is considered so evil by some folks.

We do in some regards and I’m all for that.
The question is how much is switched out and is it done cost effectively and sustainably. Sustainable in the context of can the renewable sources deliver sufficient capacity reliably.
Or are ice storms going to kick them out and their is insufficient hydrocarbon generation available to come on line in during issues like this.

As far as EV’s go, well there are users and application where EV’s make total sense.
No relied upon for for longer distances.
Or reliable use in cold environments.

Renewables absolutely need to be explored and developed.
But the notion that they can replace hydrocarbons at this time is Pollyanna thinkin.


As far as resistance to the climate change narrative.
It all would be much more believable if “past the point of no return” pronouncements were not thrown around so causally.
The ice at thr artic is going to be gone by 2010.
Or Antarctica has a shrinking ice cap. When in reality that is not completely accurate. The ice cap on part of the continent has shrunk is true, but on other parts it has increase for a net gain.
Everyone has a kitten when a large chunk of glacier calves off, ignoring that thenum er one cause of caliving is ice accumulation inland forcing the glacier to push out over open water and calve.

Finally the use of phrase it’s settled science.
It is? There are a lot of climate scientists out there that question the validity of climate models. And no I won’t site them agan here. Any scientific opposition is only ignored because it does not match what people want to believ.
Is the study of physics and quantum activity settled science? Are archaeological discoveries and assumptions setttled science.

What caused the climate swings in the Middle Ages or the 1700’s
When exactly has earths climate ever been static or unchanging, including sea level fluctuations.
Or stupid ass laws like states demanding ranchers come up with a process to remove methane from cow farts and manure???? Or subsidies to put panels on homes, but no battery storage. So when the rolling black happen homes with solar panels still don’t have electricity because their still totally grid dependent.

Or only imposing greenhouse gas limits on developed nations while exempting China and India. Who now are major emissions produces.
So the argument isn’t renewable's are stupid.
It’s that renewables arnt sufficient nor reliable in many circumstances.

That by reducing the argument down to all hydro carbon sources are bad and climate deniers are stupid. Or all renewable energy quacks are naive or working with hidden agendas.

 

[Publius]

Then you would also be against the billions of dollars in subsidies that oil corporations have been taking advantage of for years, yes?

Oil companies line up for billions of dollars in subsidies under US climate law

Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credits include technologies favoured by fossil fuel sector

www.ft.com

Either both energy sectors qualify for subsidies, or neither of them do. To believe otherwise in hypocrisy in its highest form.

Ironic those subsidies covered here are for carbon sequestration and bio fuels. So they are not exactly subsidizing for drill baby drill.
But I would agree with teekay no subsidies

 

[Publius]

Here Kennedy makes a very good point with how the environmental movement has become co-opted by an economic profit mechanism.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/08/27/robert_f_kennedy_jr_the_environmental_movement_has_become_a_money-making_scheme_disconnected_from_the_divinity_of_nature.html

 

[Publius]

This is societal self-emolation

x.com

x.com

 

[william]

eVinci: US firm’s milestone 5MW nuclear microreactor ready for 2026 testing​

The small reactor can operate without water, allowing nuclear electricity to be distributed to remote places where water is scarce.

Westinghouse Electric Company has reached a significant milestone in the development of the eVinci nuclear microreactor.

The powerhouse has successfully completed the Front-End Engineering and Experimenting Design (FEEED) phase, according to a press release by the U.S.-based firm.

“Westinghouse is the first reactor developer to reach this milestone in support of siting its test reactor at NRIC’s Demonstration of Microreactor Experiments (DOME) test bed at Idaho National Laboratory. This achievement paves the way for potential testing and experiments with a 5MW microreactor in two years.

‘World’s first microreactor test bed’​

The FEEED process is a crucial step for speeding up advanced nuclear reactor technologies.

This phase helps developers plan, design, and fabricate experiments for testing at the DOME. Westinghouse eVinci microreactor is first among three other designs that could possibly start tests at the DOME lab in 2026.

The micro nuclear reactor has a 15MWth core design that can output 5MWe. As per Westinghouse, the reactor’s core is supposed to operate for at least eight years before needing to be refueled.

It can operate on sites as small as two acres, making it an ideal energy option for remote mining operations, data centers, etc., and cutting 55,000 tons of C02 emissions yearly.

The firm uses TRISO fuel in the eVinci, which is more resistant to incidents of corrosion, oxidation, and high temperatures than traditional nuclear fuels.

When the fuel runs out, the microreactor may be removed and disposed of, much like a battery, and replaced with a new one for continuous energy.

The microreactor is also equipped with shutdown rods for security during transit. Deep biological repositories (DGR) are suitable for long-term nuclear fuel storage.

Westinghouse's milestone 5MW microreactor ready for 2026 testing

Westinghouse has successfully completed the Front-End Engineering and Experimenting Design phase to test a prototype of the microreactor.

interestingengineering.com

 

[Yingyang]

This is societal self-emolation

View attachment 6152

x.com

x.com

Yeah now they recommend not having children due to parenting being a high risk of mental illness. Depopulation agenda in full swing. Then again I personally wouldn't recommend bringing children into this world considering the direction it is fast approaching. But my point is government and media shouldn't be saying such a thing at all. Disgusting. Population decline = easier Population control.

Moderator Edit: There are multiple "Depopulation Agenda" stories out there, all of which describe a global conspiracy to deliberately reduce the human population for different reasons, usually control or natural resources. None of these stories have been proven to be factual.

 

[Publius]

This is societal self-emolation

View attachment 6152

x.com

x.com

You know I’m 61 and if i wasn’t clipped and could find a young woman to have kids with. I would in a heart beat just to see them grow and teach and hold them till they no longer needed a dad to hold them.

People today say it’s somehow wrong to seek this.
Well then they do not believe in science. It is a natural evolutionary and social process and to some how try and kill it with ridicule and indoctrination is, well genocidal. Or just a perfect extrapolation of Huxley’s Brave New World.
First your kill the evolutionary mandate to procreate and then replace it with engineered societies.

 

[william]

Yeah now they recommend not having children due to parenting being a high risk of mental illness. Depopulation agenda in full swing. Then again I personally wouldn't recommend bringing children into this world considering the direction it is fast approaching. But my point is government and media shouldn't be saying such a thing at all. Disgusting. Population decline = easier Population control.

A nuclear exchange should work well for population decline and then control don't you think!

 

[NuclearID]

Maybe cereal or bread should be laced with lithium for the general population.

 

[NuclearID]

Here is some facts in a video about population decline and why it is happening. The scientific and proven explanation is actually quite interesting. No conspiracy is behind it.

It is not filled with false misinformation purposely fabricated for sick political games as posted above by others.

Plus its a fun a video, as they all are from kurzgesagt as they post sources for everything they say in the description:

 

[NuclearID]

 

[Publius]

A cartoon with no sources no rudimentary date?
Oh by all means it’s not even worth watching

 

[NuclearID]

A cartoon with no sources no rudimentary date?
Oh by all means it’s not even worth watching

Oh see, this video makes a prime rib example out of him and his comment too!