Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 6581 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline the_squid

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3125
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1050 on: April 10, 2020, 05:33:59 pm »
Some interesting new tech ideas...

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127720_put-the-ev-in-the-garage-solar-driveways-could-power-entire-households





https://electrek.co/2020/03/31/tesla-solarglass-roof-owners-manual-gateway/

I can see this tech being mandated in new home building codes in the not too distant future where there is significant amounts of sun and the power grid isn't renewables.  Looks really interesting.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5132
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1051 on: April 10, 2020, 07:22:46 pm »
Interesting.  Always wondered what the cost of solar panels on your house and how many years until the savings of generating your own electricity pay for it.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1052 on: April 14, 2020, 10:37:02 am »
Of course. Trump sent this snow to remind us that he knows better, and maybe to convince us to buy more coal.
The United States has done a better job cutting emissions than any country in the flawed Paris Accord.
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4060
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1053 on: April 14, 2020, 12:19:06 pm »
The United States has done a better job cutting emissions than any country in the flawed Paris Accord.

reductions are principally due to shale gas replacing coal - but that bubble won't last right? Wait, what... isn't it your boy Trump who is promising a resurgence in U.S. coal, promising to bring all those lost coal jobs back to work in what he's been coached to refer to as the, "clean coal industry"?  ;D

but hey now, do you have per-capita reduction figures for the U.S. versus other countries? Isn't the U.S. still... still the the world's second-largest emitter of CO2, with emissions at ~15% of the world's total?


badChina in 5, 4, 3, 2.....

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1054 on: April 14, 2020, 12:21:14 pm »
reductions are principally due to shale gas replacing coal - but that bubble won't last right? Wait, what... isn't it your boy Trump who is promising a resurgence in U.S. coal, promising to bring all those lost coal jobs back to work in what he's been coached to refer to as the, "clean coal industry"?  ;D

but hey now, do you have per-capita reduction figures for the U.S. versus other countries? Isn't the U.S. still... still the the world's second-largest emitter of CO2, with emissions at ~15% of the world's total?


badChina in 5, 4, 3, 2.....
Natural gas is cleaner and a valuable bridge fuel.  It has helped to significantly lower U.S. emissions.  Far bette than any of the Paris Accord countries.  Why are you so down on lower emissions?
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4060
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1055 on: April 14, 2020, 12:32:30 pm »
Natural gas is cleaner and a valuable bridge fuel.  It has helped to significantly lower U.S. emissions.  Far bette than any of the Paris Accord countries.  Why are you so down on lower emissions?

member Shady, you need to exercise caution in your broad, sweeping reliance on the term "bridge"... the bridge-to-nowhere labeling still applies to natural gas, save certain conditions being met in terms of, for example, methane leakage, impacts on aquifers, fracturing impacts, waste management, water diversion/reduction, etc..

'most environmentally friendly'... certainly not the waldo's choice of words; however, as a transition fuel (a bridge to replace coal) - yes. I previously aligned with the "bridge to nowhere" positioning for gas... a position based upon early research/studies (and one heavily influenced by concerns of related methane impacts). However, more recent research looking at overall life-cycle emissions (gas vs. coal) shows that, yes, when replacing coal in Chinese energy facilities, BC LNG produces lower total, life-cycle emissions. Research example: Country-Level Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Liquefied Natural Gas Trade for Electricity Generation

notwithstanding: the significant depth of BC natural gas deposits has advantages in dealing with methane (and other) impacts on aquifers (advantages in comparison to other areas of the world where hydraulic fracturing takes place closer to the surface).

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1056 on: April 14, 2020, 12:44:46 pm »
member Shady, you need to exercise caution in your broad, sweeping reliance on the term "bridge"... the bridge-to-nowhere labeling still applies to natural gas, save certain conditions being met in terms of, for example, methane leakage, impacts on aquifers, fracturing impacts, waste management, water diversion/reduction, etc..
So you’d rather higher emissions like the Paris Accord countries without the use of natural gas?  Because higher emissions is what you’re getting from the Paris Accord countries.
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4060
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1057 on: April 14, 2020, 12:59:08 pm »
So you’d rather higher emissions like the Paris Accord countries without the use of natural gas?  Because higher emissions is what you’re getting from the Paris Accord countries.

I'd forgotten how much you struggle with qualifications, contextual reference, caveats, interpretation, nuance, etc..

you're clearly struggling with the waldo qualifying the nature of U.S. reductions as fracking based, highlighting how your boy Trump wants to undercut fracked gas with a backward step towards a coal resurgence, referencing the eventual "bursting bubble" aspect of U.S. shale reserves, speaking to fracking concerns/problems, etc., cautioning you on the use of the "bridge" term, etc..

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1058 on: April 14, 2020, 01:02:39 pm »
I'd forgotten how much you struggle with qualifications, contextual reference, caveats, interpretation, nuance, etc..

you're clearly struggling with the waldo qualifying the nature of U.S. reductions as fracking based, highlighting how your boy Trump wants to undercut fracked gas with a backward step towards a coal resurgence, referencing the eventual "bursting bubble" aspect of U.S. shale reserves, speaking to fracking concerns/problems, etc., cautioning you on the use of the "bridge" term, etc..
Yes, they’ve significantly reduced emissions because of it.  Much more than any of the Paris Accord countries.  Especially the Trudeau led Canada.  We’re pretty pathetic when it comes to emissions reductions.  At least compared to the United States.
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8256
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1059 on: April 14, 2020, 01:03:18 pm »
So you’d rather higher emissions like the Paris Accord countries without the use of natural gas?  Because higher emissions is what you’re getting from the Paris Accord countries.

Well the US is number 2 behind China and I'm sure they'll begin to catch up now that Trump is withdrawing the US from the Paris Accord and getting those coal mines pumping again.

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1060 on: April 14, 2020, 01:06:08 pm »
Well the US is number 2 behind China and I'm sure they'll begin to catch up now that Trump is withdrawing the US from the Paris Accord and getting those coal mines pumping again.
No, you’re grossly misinformed.  The United States leads all Paris Accord countries in emissions reductions with Trump as president.  However, China has another 10 years before they’re supposed to reduce theirs.  What a sweet deal for such an urgent issue!
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8256
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1061 on: April 14, 2020, 01:32:18 pm »
No, you’re grossly misinformed.  The United States leads all Paris Accord countries in emissions reductions with Trump as president.  However, China has another 10 years before they’re supposed to reduce theirs.  What a sweet deal for such an urgent issue!

I think we know who is misinformed. Here's some reading for ya.

While not listed below, it should be noted that eight G20 countries, including the United States (59th), Japan (49th) and Australia (55th), scored incredibly poorly in the ranking.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-17-countries-that-have-done-most-to-curb-global-warming-since-2017-2018-12

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1062 on: April 14, 2020, 01:45:52 pm »
I think we know who is misinformed. Here's some reading for ya.

While not listed below, it should be noted that eight G20 countries, including the United States (59th), Japan (49th) and Australia (55th), scored incredibly poorly in the ranking.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-17-countries-that-have-done-most-to-curb-global-warming-since-2017-2018-12
Not true.
Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#55af5b923535
Trudeau is a f**king moron

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8256
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1063 on: April 14, 2020, 02:03:02 pm »
Not true.
Yes, The U.S. Leads All Countries In Reducing Carbon Emissions
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#55af5b923535

From your own article.

The Washington Post gets into per capita emissions, and indeed despite the decline, U.S. per capita emissions are still among the highest in the world. However, the Washington Post story claimed: "The United States may have had the largest decrease in carbon emissions, but it is still the largest per capita emitter."

Offline Shady

  • Truth Detector
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 712
  • Location: London, Ontario
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #1064 on: April 14, 2020, 02:06:00 pm »
From your own article.

The Washington Post gets into per capita emissions, and indeed despite the decline, U.S. per capita emissions are still among the highest in the world. However, the Washington Post story claimed: "The United States may have had the largest decrease in carbon emissions, but it is still the largest per capita emitter."
So what?  Do you think the climate knows the different between gross C02 and per capita?  It’s a fact that the largest cut in total C02 is from America.  I’m not sure why that bothers you so much.  Regardless, your buddy China still has 10 years left of increase!  Great deal huh!?
Trudeau is a f**king moron