Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that?


Off-Topic Discussions

4,501 to 4,550 of 5,074 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | next > last >>

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Despite ALL of this, there are "experts" on YouTube and in the news telling us that changing to renewables would absolutely obliterate global economies.

Oh no, quite the contrary, it will boost economies now at the expense of future economic growth. Think of the outsized lifestyle Grecians enjoyed and how forced austerity came home and set them back on course – slowly and painfully. Only with a GND it will be a much larger and therefore more painful reset.

Not sure what you mean by “experts” but Bjorn Lomborg has legit bona fides, and unlike Jeff Nesbit, he actually cites research by climate economists and others relevant to the topic at hand.

”CB” wrote:
The rates assumed are thus wildly out of date.

Says the person who cites no studies showing different rates in return. Excellent argument! #### you’re awesome!

”CB” wrote:
...the study was assuming massive amounts of year long storage... charging up lithium ion batteries with excess solar during the Summer to get through the Winter months. That's an absurd scenario.

Oh really?

”MIT” wrote:

Similarly, a study earlier this year in Energy & Environmental Science found that meeting 80 percent of US electricity demand with wind and solar would require either a nationwide high-speed transmission system, which can balance renewable generation over hundreds of miles, or 12 hours of electricity storage for the whole system (see “Relying on renewables alone significantly inflates the cost of overhauling energy”).

At current prices, a battery storage system of that size would cost more than $2.5 trillion.

A peak power plant like that underway at Moss Landing can be scaled to cover 6 hours of residential use in the SF area, for example. Okay then, we only need to build 10,000 more of those and California will be set. Oh, and the price seems to be a secret though they’re happy to tell us how much money will be "saved" 20 years from now.

”CB” wrote:
Though, at that... $2.5 trillion isn't even one year's worth of the US budget deficit at this point. That is, we're adding more in government debt EVERY YEAR than your absurdly inflated figure for permanently getting to 100% renewable energy would cost.

Li-Ion batteries are only a fraction of the renewables proposals in the GND, and if $2.5 trillion is trivial to you then by all means write a personal check to cover it. I love it how people who will be long gone in 2050 want to tell me how my future should be spent.

”CB” wrote:
Bjorn Lomborg doesn't debate. He deceives.

Oh! Very cogent and subtle use of ad hominem.

While you’re at it, tell us the Soho Forum are a bunch of RW shills.

”CB” wrote:
The 'OMG they are going to destroy the economy!' stuff is complete nonsense. Just like it was when fighting ozone depletion was going to destroy the economy. Just like when catalytic converters were going to destroy the economy. Stop the alarmist nonsense. Things that cost LESS do not bankrupt the economy.

See? I cite sources which no one either reads or watches and then I get back a spew of invective about how I’m an alarmist idiot.

Bjorn Lomborg wiped the floor with Jeff Nesbit and you can’t handle it. Too bad for you little man.


Quark Blast wrote:
A peak power plant like that underway at Moss Landing can be scaled to cover 6 hours of residential use in the SF area, for example. Okay then, we only need to build 10,000 more of those and California will be set. Oh, and the price seems to be a secret though they’re happy to tell us how much money will be "saved" 20 years from now.

I guess I'm not understanding,how is this a bad thing? The article cited is another Forbes blurb, about the Moss Landing battery bank, but buried in there is that BP and PG&E both are shifting away from fossil fuels to renewables already because they're "... responding to the growing societal and market pressures of climate change — including dropping costs for storage and renewable generation."

So yes, this reflects short term financial gains for these companies, however previous posters have shown over and over that for 10 years at least renewables have become MORE affordable, not less. If that trend continues, as 2 articles I've posted not seem to suggest, wouldn't this become a BETTER financial option, long term?

Also battery life continues to improve. This article says that the Moss Park stacks are a Tesla product and they're the number 1 in the world; the second best is ALSO a Tesla product, so they're outdoing themselves technologically. Wouldn't it stand to reason that, following current and prior capitalist trends, the more people put money and demand behind better battery and renewable technology, the better it will continue getting?

Remind me what the downside is here?


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:


It is... frustrating.

The trick isn't getting you to accept that they're right.

At this point the trick is getting people to accept that there's even a debate about it.

The trick to the shell game


BNW, of course you're right. The rage is real.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
A peak power plant like that underway at Moss Landing can be scaled to cover 6 hours of residential use in the SF area, for example. Okay then, we only need to build 10,000 more of those and California will be set. Oh, and the price seems to be a secret though they’re happy to tell us how much money will be "saved" 20 years from now.

I guess I'm not understanding,how is this a bad thing? The article cited is another Forbes blurb, about the Moss Landing battery bank, but buried in there is that BP and PG&E both are shifting away from fossil fuels to renewables already because they're "... responding to the growing societal and market pressures of climate change — including dropping costs for storage and renewable generation."

So yes, this reflects short term financial gains for these companies, however previous posters have shown over and over that for 10 years at least renewables have become MORE affordable, not less. If that trend continues, as 2 articles I've posted not seem to suggest, wouldn't this become a BETTER financial option, long term?

Also battery life continues to improve. This article says that the Moss Park stacks are a Tesla product and they're the number 1 in the world; the second best is ALSO a Tesla product, so they're outdoing themselves technologically. Wouldn't it stand to reason that, following current and prior capitalist trends, the more people put money and demand behind better battery and renewable technology, the better it will continue getting?

Remind me what the downside is here?

The current proven battery tech is right at it's theoretical maximum efficiency and therefore close to it's lowest price.

Yes that's good.

But it won't get significantly cheaper. Nor will covering 'peak power' fix more than a fraction of the problem of decarbonizing the energy infrastructure. In addition California needs between 1,000 and 10,000 more of these installations to cover their actual needs. Those won't all be built by 2030. Now Texas. Now New York. Now Illinois....

So why spend trillions to cover a fraction of the issue when the market process is already building out that part of the solution as fast as is practical?
Why go into debt fixing something not broke?

There's a reason Bjorn Lomborg wiped the floor with Jeff Nesbit and it has to do with a reasonable and careful consideration of pertinent facts presented intelligently to an audience that cares to listen and understand.


So Bjorn went from 60 to 80 percent of the vote; he won the Tootsie Roll. Also he did make some solid points that just throwing money at the problem wouldn't solve the problem. Spending smart is a good way to go.

Currently spending "smart" involves moving to renewables though. Bjorn even admitted as much. Currently it's financially lucrative to move in that direction as, he conceded, many industries are.

The debate was whether we go absolutely carbon-neutral by 2050 or not. I'm not a scientist so I don't know what's needed or possible. As to the smaller point of the financial inevitability of moving further toward renewables, both Bjorn and Jeff were in agreement.

I've said the same thing here, so has Quarkatron. But the larger argument YOU'RE making QB is that we shouldn't in the US endorse any of the GND, nor should we count on Biden's energy plan b/c that's throwing away our money.

Bjorn advocates a couple times for MORE policy, MORE government regulation, but removing incentives like subsidies for electric cars in favor of smarter incentives and such. Cool. Blasticus Maximus, you've actively argued that governments can't manage ANY big initiatives and should stay the heck out of the way of the movement that's already happening.

Also, something about Bjorn, on a personal level. Last year AOC claimed that Hurricane Dorian is "what climate change looks like" in a tweet. Bjorn argues against that fact here, and frankly I believe him when he says Rep Ocasio-Cortez is wrong. Hurricane Dorian, specifically, was not what climate change looks like.

However, what Bjorn doesn't fully explain is that, while research suggests that the frequency of hurricanes and major ones at that aren't increasing on the US nor is general death and property damage, there is some concensus that "more storms are reaching cat 4 or 5" and other negative effects. There are also some gray areas in storm science that make tracking all potential signals or indicators tough right now.

Now, this is NOT a smoking gun here and I'm not saying Bjorn is 100% wrong, but it seems like he's not always telling the whole truth, merely relating the bits that suit his argument. He's a very good debater with that skill, but science is about all points, good and bad.

Finally, on battery storage, I found this bit, again, from Forbes in Feb of this year, but it links to the EIA study suggesting that utility scale battery storage capacity could more than double by 2022. But let's say that we're at theoretical max capacity and batteries are going to be dumb, expensive and obsolete soon. Why then would both BP AND PG&E be investing in them for long-term growth?

All due respect Quark, master of Blast Town, it seems to me like on the one hand you're siding with Bjorn b/c he says AOC is wrong and the GND is throwing good money after bad, but then you're selectively disagreeing with more of the man's points when he says we NEED government to help step in and manage/incentivize/regulate continued growth in the climate change sector. You also seem to be saying that moving to renewables is inevitable, so don't waste your money, but also battery storage is bad and thus renewables are doomed.

So, don't trust the government to help, but trust the guy that says government should help. Don't throw money at renewables b/c battery storage is dumb, but also the switch to renewables is inevitable.

Irontruth said it perfectly: shell game.

The reality is that yeah, implementing every single thing in the GND is probably pie in the sky and might actually deeply impact the already crumbling middle class in America over the next 20 years. This is NOT a good argument to give the fed the middle finger though.

Biden's plan is another step. Several more are planned. Bjorn said it himself that this is mostly a "rich country" problem and as such we NEED agreements like the PA to bind us all together. No, I don't trust China any more than I can throw them, but if we do our part, as do the companies and tech we use our government to incentivize, it will continue to be in China's best financial interest to play along.

Since their economy is suffering too, China could use the savings.

And whether or not batteries are maxed or will double in storage capacity in 2 years remains to be seen, but if that's already the way companies are headed, why stop them? Renewables are safer; building their infrastructure brings short term gains; building mass battery stacks is entirely possible, if we're all committed, and this would ultimately lower the emissions which is the end goal.


Ahh! WoT!

@Mark Hoover This will be a selective reply as I have other things higher in priority than to give your latest post a play-by-play.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
So Bjorn went from 60 to 80 percent of the vote; he won the Tootsie Roll.

Alternately Bjorn won over all fence sitters and Jeff got none.

That is, of the portion of the audience in full play, Bjorn got them all because, unlike his opponent, he was reasonable, careful, pertinent, and intelligent thus winning over audience members who care to listen and understand.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
the larger argument YOU'RE making QB is that we shouldn't in the US endorse any of the GND, nor should we count on Biden's energy plan b/c that's throwing away our money.

Those advocating for a GND are not looking to compromise in the least. Theirs is a package deal. I don’t want the package, nor even half of it because it’s ill-guided (scientifically) and depends on the government to see things through by the trillions of dollars.

And to be clear, it’s throwing money away that we don’t currently have! Which is to say we will go into, yet more, massive debt for it and get nothing in return that we aren’t already getting. Except of course the financial impairment of mine and my peers late career and retirement years.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Bjorn advocates a couple times for MORE policy, MORE government regulation, but removing incentives like subsidies for electric cars in favor of smarter incentives and such. Cool. Blasticus Maximus, you've actively argued that governments can't manage ANY big initiatives and should stay the heck out of the way of the movement that's already happening.

Not true. Just up thread I declared right plainly that the government does ok with “carrots” when they reward on a level playing field. Government “sticks” always hinder the small (and usually most innovative) players because they can’t afford the lawyers and accountants to help them through the loopholes.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
But let's say that we're at theoretical max capacity and batteries are going to be dumb, expensive and obsolete soon. Why then would both BP AND PG&E be investing in them for long-term growth?

I struck through the mischaracterizations of my position.

The amount of ‘peak power’ battery storage needed is HUGE relative to the operating budgets of PG&E and is significant for players like BP and all the more so since the horizon for oil and gas is in view. Plus, under the current climate, this kind of project is easy money.

The proportion to the whole of ‘peak power’ battery storage is fractional for mitigating AGW. But now, right now, there’s bank to be made and the more so leveraging kooky government incentives. Why wouldn’t they take advantage?

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
You also seem to be saying that moving to renewables is inevitable, so don't waste your money, but also battery storage is bad and thus renewables are doomed.

Storage, given current tech and current needs, is limited. It’s being played, by certain parties who have the power to make things happen, as a no-brainer let’s-go-all-in-on-idea. But really it’s mostly a boondoggle waiting to happen and easy profit for early adopters.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Irontruth said it perfectly: shell game.

The metalhead has hardly said anything worth responding to. He can go for pages of posts with nothing but invective and handwaving over pointless hypotheticals. Good for him. Not my bag, baby.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Renewables are safer; building their infrastructure brings short term gains; building mass battery stacks is entirely possible, if we're all committed, and this would ultimately lower the emissions which is the end goal.

Perhaps, but the ultimate goal should be smart spending, not spending on all things because we can. Not, Let’s mortgage our children’s future so execs can presently virtue signal whilst lining the C-suite with sweet bonuses in reward for all their GND awesomeness that somebody else foots the bill for decades down the road.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying so hard not to get into a political, economic debate in this thread. Not only is politics against the rules on these boards but this thread was, ostensibly, about climate change. However, as I've been reading this morning both Lomborg and Nicholas Stern, 2 seeming opposites, have very similar views on climate change: it's real, its mostly driven by humans, and we need to drive towards more renewables while reducing carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels.

The main difference between both of them, and really most folks I'm reading on climate change, is where the money should be spent and the role of government. Specifically, across 2 of his books that seem to contradict one another in many points, the one consistent thing Bjorn suggests is that government regulation will help destroy small businesses and ultimately wipe out the middle class.

Here in the US we had rail barons run rampant until they were brought to heel by government; those caused a kind of monopoly that had to be broken up by the fed. More deregulation at the turn of the century until the government stepped in in the mid-to-late 30's. From the 30's thru the 60's you had a lot of federal government, but then you also had a boom of the middle class. Yes, this was also WWII but per my HS civics teacher it was also because of regulations, government programs and such.

Then you have a slow, steady deregulation through the late 70's and 80's, you see the growth of larger banks and corporations. This tug of war on government regulations has continued since, and over this period you've seen the stagnation of the middle class, heading the socio-economic group toward decline.

All of this seems to suggest the same thing, time and again: unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to consolidation of wealth, big companies controlling everything, and larger wealth inequality.

So, if the argument back here on climate change is that involving the government on the regulatory side and using them as a check on companies will ultimately only kill small businesses and the middle class, I respectfully dissent.

There is just no historical evidence that supports that more regulation will lead to the death of the middle class. Instead, everything in US history seems to indicate the opposite.

I still agree we need to spend responsibly on climate change and I have seen several sources now that suggest that even doubling battery capacity in the next couple years won't resolve intermittent energy issues from renewables long term, but on this issue I just do not see where government regulation is bad.


Quark Blast wrote:
The metalhead has hardly said anything worth responding to. He can go for pages of posts with nothing but invective and handwaving over pointless hypotheticals. Good for him. Not my bag, baby.

The previous few pages I presented no hypotheticals. I gave concrete data from credible sources.

You are the one who engaged in nothing but hypotheticals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
The metalhead has hardly said anything worth responding to. He can go for pages of posts with nothing but invective and handwaving over pointless hypotheticals. Good for him. Not my bag, baby.

The previous few pages I presented no hypotheticals. I gave concrete data from credible sources.

You are the one who engaged in nothing but hypotheticals.

Shell. Game.

I'm already in too deep. Save yourself.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

I'm trying so hard not to get into a political, economic debate in this thread. Not only is politics against the rules on these boards but this thread was, ostensibly, about climate change. However, as I've been reading this morning both Lomborg and Nicholas Stern, 2 seeming opposites, have very similar views on climate change: it's real, its mostly driven by humans, and we need to drive towards more renewables while reducing carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels.

The main difference between both of them, and really most folks I'm reading on climate change, is where the money should be spent and the role of government. Specifically, across 2 of his books that seem to contradict one another in many points, the one consistent thing Bjorn suggests is that government regulation will help destroy small businesses and ultimately wipe out the middle class.

Here in the US we had rail barons run rampant until they were brought to heel by government; those caused a kind of monopoly that had to be broken up by the fed. More deregulation at the turn of the century until the government stepped in in the mid-to-late 30's. From the 30's thru the 60's you had a lot of federal government, but then you also had a boom of the middle class. Yes, this was also WWII but per my HS civics teacher it was also because of regulations, government programs and such.

Then you have a slow, steady deregulation through the late 70's and 80's, you see the growth of larger banks and corporations. This tug of war on government regulations has continued since, and over this period you've seen the stagnation of the middle class, heading the socio-economic group toward decline.

All of this seems to suggest the same thing, time and again: unfettered capitalism inevitably leads to consolidation of wealth, big companies controlling everything, and larger wealth inequality.

So, if the argument back here on climate change is that involving the government on the regulatory side and using them as a check on companies will ultimately only kill small businesses and the middle class, I respectfully dissent.

There is just no historical evidence that supports that more regulation will lead to the death of the middle class. Instead, everything in US history seems to indicate the opposite.

I still agree we need to spend responsibly on climate change and I have seen several sources now that suggest that even doubling battery capacity in the next couple years won't resolve intermittent energy issues from renewables long term, but on this issue I just do not see where government regulation is bad.

I've no idea where you're going with bringing in Nicholas Stern to the discussion. Of course he talks about econ and climate change, and has for decades apparently, but I don't see a cogent argument here. Nor do I see a necessary link between him and Bjorn Lomborg.

Then it gets worse with ethereal statements about barons and governments under a socioeconomic regime scarcely related to our present one. This post (auto copied herein via the reply-to process on these forums) is a tasteless, odorless, word salad.

In an attempt to show progress in the discussion let's try this...

Going back a post or so from Mark Hoover there's a statement that I only touched on, because I can't make sense of it in the context of my prior post (my prior post being the one he's ostensibly specifically replying to), so let's narrow the focus of the discussion and look a little deeper at that particular.

To wit - "building mass battery stacks is entirely possible".

Okay, and if we did, three things:

1) It will take a decade or two, maybe three, depending on what "mass battery stacks" specifically means

2) Now we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars or perhaps a few trillion, depending on what "mass battery stacks" specifically means

3) You've solved, at best, 5% of the AGW problem in the US

Now what?


They're not trying to convince people that the evidence sense and reason is on their side.

They're trying to convince people that you're even using the rules of evidence sense and reason.

They're not. They make oodles of money off of oil. While "they" could make oodles of money off of other things, they've already spent all this money on rigs, land, and taking over governments, and you cannot monopolize the sun the way you can an oil field.

The answer they're giving is entirely based on not losing 11nty billion dollars because people stop buying their stocks as soon as they see that oil has less of a future than a present. That is the answer they will find no matter what.

We will "move on" from oil the same way we "moved on" from coal and wood. They're still used, just not as much. Which means less money. To some people that is unforgivable and if the planet needs to die oh well, at least you have your money while you were here.


The Cherokee Nation is handling covid-19 better than the rest of Oklahoma.

File this under "better government means better outcomes".


Smaller democratic governments tend to do better because they are more directly accountable. It also helps to be isolated from the rest of the world (Cf. Mongolia, Tanzania, New Zealand).

Germany, not a small government, is having a hard time with the virus presently even though they've mandated masks nationwide since May (was it April?) and do the lock down thing and generally ballyhoo their adherence to science and a citizenry still, on the whole, scarily compliant with government authority.

Relevant facts from a previous post follow.

In other news, government-style bureaucracy at work:
Coronavirus Outbreak at W.H.O. Headquarters in Geneva Switzerland.
:D
:D
:D

In other news, private sector bureaucracy at work:
At Disney World, ‘Worst Fears’ About Virus Have Not Come True


Quark Blast wrote:

Smaller democratic governments tend to do better because they are more directly accountable. It also helps to be isolated from the rest of the world (Cf. Mongolia, Tanzania, New Zealand).

Germany, not a small government, is having a hard time with the virus presently even though they've mandated masks nationwide since May (was it April?) and do the lock down thing and generally ballyhoo their adherence to science and a citizenry still, on the whole, scarily compliant with government authority.

Relevant facts from a previous post follow.

In other news, government-style bureaucracy at work:
Coronavirus Outbreak at W.H.O. Headquarters in Geneva Switzerland.
:D
:D
:D

In other news, private sector bureaucracy at work:
At Disney World, ‘Worst Fears’ About Virus Have Not Come True

Per 100k:

Infection rate: Germany 370 ---- United States 1484
Deaths: Germany 17 ---- United States 81

Germany is doing far better than the US.


Deaths Per 100k:
New Jersey------190
New York--------176
Massachutests-153
Connecticut-----135

That's what you get with "pro-science" governance I guess.

:D

.

In other happy news from earlier this year:
Rise of Carbon Dioxide Unabated

NOAA wrote:
The rate of increase during 2020 does not appear to reflect reduction in pollution emissions due to the sharp, worldwide economic slowdown in response to the coronavirus pandemic. The reason is that the drop in emissions would need to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability, caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the emissions reductions associated with COVID19 do not stand out. If emissions reductions of 20 to 30 percent were sustained for six to 12 months, then the rate of increase of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa would be slowed

Gaia is fighting back with the Coronavirus but it appears she's throwing only glancing blows. China in particular seems determined not to slow their economy by the requisite amount. But hey! They speak clearly from the public stage and regularly make "promises", so no worries.

:D


Just dropping in to call out how QB's deaths per 100k are just 4 locations, without the rest of the list or explanation. Such as, for instance, how many other locations have similar rates or if those are alone in being that high. It also neglects to account for population density, which is a major factor in communicable diseases.

Germany: 232/km2
USA: 36/km2 <- and doing WORSE than Germany, despite the disadvantage
New York City: 38,242/km2
New York State: 137.3/km2 (found est. population and area, did the math myself. Couldn't get it easily otherwise)
New Jersey: 466.68/km2
Massachusetts: 341.12/km2
Connecticut: 284.4/km2

Huh, all of those are denser than Germany. And doing worse. Almost as if that's how pandemics work.

EDIT: and I see pro-science in quotes. Let me be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR:
Science works. The entire scientific method boils down to, see what works and do that. Stop disparaging science, Quark Blast.


Quark Blast wrote:

Deaths Per 100k:

New Jersey------190
New York--------176
Massachutests-153
Connecticut-----135

That's what you get with "pro-science" governance I guess.

:D

Except those are all within the United States, a country that has not adopted a "pro-science" methodology. The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

Also, you excluded the next two states, probably because they don't fit your narrative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

QB - Here's how I got to Stern:

I watched the video of the debate between Jeff and Bjorn. I found myself really drawn to what Lomborg had to say, both positively and negatively, so I wanted to know more about him and I googled him. The main articles that came up all revolved around his piece several months ago right after his book False Alarm came out. I guess Sir Nicholas Stern is a detractor so I tried to read excerpts both for and against the author and ended up reading a lot about Stern's views in the process.

What I realized though was that both Bjorn and Sir Nicholas, or Bjorn and the larger scientific community, all seem to agree on a lot of basic points - climate change is human influenced, we need to reduce carbon emissions, and that the intermittency of renewables at present needs to be addressed and solved before they're fully adapted as a meaningful replacement of fossil fuels.

The BIGGEST point of dissent seems to actually be the money, the economics of it all. Bjorn and several other scientists do debate the severity of climate change as well, with the variable data on severe storms being one way to illustrate how interpreting data one way or another proves one point or another, but the hottest topic of difference seems to always come back to "yeah, we need to do SOMETHING on climate change, but how do we PAY for it?"

Thing is, that's the weird catch in all of this.

On the one hand even Bjorn during the debate said moving to renewables is inevitable and that we HAVE to make a meaningful switch b/c we're sort of doomed if we don't, yet there's this conversation about how this is going to financially ruin the middle class, and how governments shouldn't overtax to do it and so on; essentially, Bjorn and other folks in his camp say that the change to renewables will be driven by market forces.

Thing is, oil and gas lobbyists are very powerful, at least here in the US. That means that they will likely continue to delay the move to renewables. So if we let market forces manage this change, we'll all pay for inaction.

On top of that, the other rambling part of my last post was just to illustrate one, glaring point: when do un, or under-regulated corporations do things to care about the general public? In Virginia this year, after the current administration largely rolled back Obama era regulations, a mine owner was convicted of defrauding the air venting to make an extra buck or whatever.

My point is, companies run on profit and THAT is the motivator for changing to renewables or delaying that change. If we leave it to market forces, we'll only have whatever climate saving solutions pad the bottom line.

I'm sorry if I'm all over the place here Quarky. It just seemed like, in past posts, you were also focused largely on the economics of it and seemed to agree with those that think government should stay out of it. I was trying to use prior eras of deregulation and unfettered capitalism in American history to illustrate the point that just letting the market regulate itself usually ends in workers exploited to death on railroads, or in meat packing factories, or shirtwaist fires, or unfair hiring/pay practices, unsafe working conditions in coal mines or around nuclear reactors, and so on.

History has proven that money is not a positive motivator for bettering the populace. Or, weirdly, it is, but only in that when greed and corruption becomes such an obvious threat to life and limb people HAVE to step in and regulate things.

But again, I've been trying to AVOID talking about these things because 1. they're not actual climate change, and 2. I actually believe Ironicus Truthiness when they say that the economics of it all is a shell game. Just by engaging on the economic and political sides of this I'm distracted from the actual, salient facts.

As far as the stacks of batteries go, I was talking about Tesla's Megapack that they're doing with PG&E. This is one solution to the whole "batteries don't have enough storage" thing. Its not a perfect solution, but it shows that battery storage and innovations in that area have continued to improve just in the past 3 years and are kind of synching up with the Forbes piece above about how storage capacity may yet double again in the next 2 years.

So again, if PG&E and BP are moving to this model, maybe we could expand the use of megapacks or whatever to work towards solving the intermittency issues? Trying something is better than doing nothing.


Irontruth wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:

Deaths Per 100k:

New Jersey------190
New York--------176
Massachutests-153
Connecticut-----135

That's what you get with "pro-science" governance I guess.

:D

Except those are all within the United States, a country that has not adopted a "pro-science" methodology. The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

Also, you excluded the next two states, probably because they don't fit your narrative.

Plus those numbers all essentially date to the first outbreak in the US, when we were still getting a handle on treating the severe cases.

Though numbers are going back up even in those states, they're nowhere near the caseload we're seeing in much of the rest of the country. Death numbers lag a few weeks behind case numbers so it wouldn't be at all surprising if those rankings change well before the end of the year.


@Mark Hoover

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Thing is, oil and gas lobbyists are very powerful, at least here in the US. That means that they will likely continue to delay the move to renewables. So if we let market forces manage this change, we'll all pay for inaction.... If we leave it to market forces, we'll only have whatever climate saving solutions pad the bottom line.

Inaction?

Tesla is the world leader in battery tech and production with Chinese intellectual property stealing supporting production vying for the top spot in that and everything else. The world is spinning out solar and (unfortunately “bottom line padding”) wind power at the maximum possible speed.

And as for delaying things, well there’s this market force that will push them to action or they’ll be obsolete within two years as no one can afford to have that amount of extra capacity hanging out there.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
History has proven that money is not a positive motivator for bettering the populace.

True that ^, and it will never be. Now throwing trillions of dollars at a GND won’t make things better either but will make them worse.

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
So again, if PG&E and BP are moving to this model, maybe we could expand the use of megapacks or whatever to work towards solving the intermittency issues?

It’s a matter of scale and you’re missing something with this.

To wit - "building mass battery stacks is entirely possible".

Okay, and if we did, three things:

1) It will take a decade or two, maybe three, depending on what "mass battery stacks" specifically means

2) Now we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars or perhaps a few trillion, depending on what "mass battery stacks" specifically means

3) You've solved, at best, 5% of the AGW problem in the US

Now what?

”Mark Hoover” wrote:
Trying something is better than doing nothing.

Not if it detracts from doing better things and your point also depends on us “doing nothing” which is nothing like what is happening.

The whole thing is a matter of scale and somehow people keep missing that. We literally can’t build batteries fast enough as there are significant limitations along the entire process chain from mining/processing to installing finished product to upgrading the current power distribution infrastructure to a 'smart grid' to retraining hundreds of thousands for technical work in the new (mostly temporary) jobs. We are in fact moving forward about as fast as we can. To move at the speed of the GND would give us $5 of value for every $100 spent. We will end up in the same place at about the same time and have nothing to show for it except massive debt.


Quote:
The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

In what way?

Did we run out of ICU beds?
Nope.

Did we run out of respirators?
Nope.

Did we run out of PPE?
Nope.

Did state officials praise the feds help?
Yep!
Yep!
Yep!

Quote:
Plus those numbers all essentially date to the first outbreak in the US, when we were still getting a handle on treating the severe cases.

Tell that to Australia, Hong Kong, etc. And like we didn’t have plenty of warning from Italy and Spain on exactly what to expect.

Nope, the reason those states top the list is total ######## non-scientific decisions like sending very COVID-19 sick old people back to the nursing homes. That was a brilliant use of expert medical advice. . . oh wait, no it wasn’t. Not at all. But hey! You can write a bestselling book to cover up the ineptitude.
:D


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meanwhile South Dakota has the highest death rate per capita in the world, with new cases still going up fast.

And in many places: Yes, we did run out of beds, respirators and PPE.

The point on handling the severe cases is that we've gotten better across the world at treating severe cases. That drops the case fatality rate, even when we completely screw up prevention and the case numbers spike. What Australia and Hon Kong did correctly and what Italy and Spain warned us about was prevention and containment, not so much treating the severe cases.


thejeff wrote:

Meanwhile South Dakota has the highest death rate per capita in the world, with new cases still going up fast.

And in many places: Yes, we did run out of beds, respirators and PPE.

The point on handling the severe cases is that we've gotten better across the world at treating severe cases. That drops the case fatality rate, even when we completely screw up prevention and the case numbers spike. What Australia and Hon Kong did correctly and what Italy and Spain warned us about was prevention and containment, not so much treating the severe cases.

"many places"?

Okay wait, I need to read all the citations before responding to that... looks like it'll be a while.
:D

South Dakota is a problem. Is that because of the meat industry? You could give up eating meat and then not feel any future guilt about supporting that exploitative industry with your time and tummy.
:D


Quark Blast wrote:
Quote:
The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

In what way?

Did we run out of ICU beds?
Nope.

Did we run out of respirators?
Nope.

Did we run out of PPE?
Nope.

Did state officials praise the feds help?
Yep!
Yep!
Yep!

Quote:
Plus those numbers all essentially date to the first outbreak in the US, when we were still getting a handle on treating the severe cases.

Tell that to Australia, Hong Kong, etc. And like we didn’t have plenty of warning from Italy and Spain on exactly what to expect.

Nope, the reason those states top the list is total ######## non-scientific decisions like sending very COVID-19 sick old people back to the nursing homes. That was a brilliant use of expert medical advice. . . oh wait, no it wasn’t. Not at all. But hey! You can write a bestselling book to cover up the ineptitude.
:D

None of that indicates that the Trump administration has been supportive of scientific findings about covid-19.

The three cases of praise for Trump excludes the fact that the decision to support states was done in a non-scientific method. The decisions were made by Jared Kushner on his cell-phone and not in consultation with epidemiologists.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Meanwhile South Dakota has the highest death rate per capita in the world, with new cases still going up fast.

And in many places: Yes, we did run out of beds, respirators and PPE.

The point on handling the severe cases is that we've gotten better across the world at treating severe cases. That drops the case fatality rate, even when we completely screw up prevention and the case numbers spike. What Australia and Hon Kong did correctly and what Italy and Spain warned us about was prevention and containment, not so much treating the severe cases.

"many places"?

Okay wait, I need to read all the citations before responding to that... looks like it'll be a while.
:D

South Dakota is a problem. Is that because of the meat industry? You could give up eating meat and then not feel any future guilt about supporting that exploitative industry with your time and tummy.
:D

This citation seems to suggest the SD rural area is badly hit in particular. It goes on to call out that no mask mandate was issued and the governor there has specifically disputed federal numbers for her own state numbers that show things in a more positive light. It also notes the Sturgis rally as a spreader event contributing to dozens of cases in the state and one death.

There have also been issues with the Smithfield plant. A plant that the governor insists must remain open and active. Yes, the company is exploitative but as I've already pointed out above, unfettered capitalism = worker abuse, plain and simple. However, the governor is enabling that rather than enforcing more spot inspections and mask mandates.

So yeah sometimes the government is bad. Also, data can be spun how you want it to. The handling of Covid is not a good indicator of how government would handle climate change initiatives however.

Why?

Covid is happening right now, then there will be a vaccine and The Maker willing, we'll have one more layer of protection from further destruction. This is a 2020 event that is already on track to being handled in some capacity, with up to a 95% efficacy rating depending on the vaccine reporting you're seeing.

Climate change has been railed against and ignored by most since, I think the 1960's? Even Bjorn Lomborg says best case scenario we start seeing SOME kind of improvement by 2050 (if ever), so even under truly perfect conditions this over 50 year old problem will get some level of relief in another 3 decades.

That isn't a "wow, a pandemic just happened; we've got a vaccine in a year" kind of government problem. That's a "how do we deal with the ongoing and relentless degradation of our transportation infrastructure" kind of a problem.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

The handling of Covid is not a good indicator of how government would handle climate change initiatives however...

That's a "how do we deal with the ongoing and relentless degradation of our transportation infrastructure" kind of a problem.

It's not but how global humanity prepared for this virus is exactly how AGW will continue to get handled. Only there's more money at stake. Assuredly it will be inexpertly mishandled by 500 layers of bureaucracy and rampant face-feeding at the proverbial pork barrel.

I want the money spent well. That seems unlikely to happen given the hype, the heat, and the proposed size of the windfall. Just look at the way our transportation infastructure has been mishandled.


Trump administration abuses in pandemic response.

Quote:

Kushner himself has no training or experience managing public health issues or crises. The same is true of many of the shadow task force volunteers, many of whom come from private equity and consulting firms. None of the task force members, several of whom are healthcare industry investors, have complied with federal ethics disclosure requirements designed to protect against the influence of special interests. And volunteers on the task force often communicate with private email accounts, raising concerns about their compliance with federal records laws. (Volunteers were also required to sign nondisclosure agreements, making it even harder to conduct meaningful oversight over their activities.)

In addition to the shadow task force’s transparency issues, many private sector volunteers helping with its efforts to procure PPE and other medical supplies possess little to no experience in government procurement practices. This has hampered efforts to obtain and distribute critical equipment. Indeed, the United States continues to face supply shortages of needed materials and lacks an effective national strategy to procure and distribute supplies.

Additionally, the task force has a practice of “VIP” favoritism: the volunteers have sought materials from suppliers with connections to the president and his political allies rather than experienced vendors. This may have funneled taxpayer money to friends and associates of the Trump family and administration officials. For instance, at the recommendation of Kushner’s task force, the state of New York paid a Silicon Valley engineer with no relevant experience — who had tweeted in response to the president’s call for automakers to manufacture ventilators — $69 million for ventilators but terminated the contract when he failed to deliver.

It seems that reality disagrees with your assertion that Kushner did a good job.


Irontruth wrote:

I'm rejecting the entire post, since you had to resort to an ad hominem attack on me.

If you had actual evidence to support your position, you would have used that instead.

Trump administration abuses in pandemic response.

Quote:

Kushner himself has no training or experience managing public health issues or crises. The same is true of many of the shadow task force volunteers, many of whom come from private equity and consulting firms. None of the task force members, several of whom are healthcare industry investors, have complied with federal ethics disclosure requirements designed to protect against the influence of special interests. And volunteers on the task force often communicate with private email accounts, raising concerns about their compliance with federal records laws. (Volunteers were also required to sign nondisclosure agreements, making it even harder to conduct meaningful oversight over their activities.)

In addition to the shadow task force’s transparency issues, many private sector volunteers helping with its efforts to procure PPE and other medical supplies possess little to no experience in government procurement practices. This has hampered efforts to obtain and distribute critical equipment. Indeed, the United States continues to face supply shortages of needed materials and lacks an effective national strategy to procure and distribute supplies.

Additionally, the task force has a practice of “VIP” favoritism: the volunteers have sought materials from suppliers with connections to the president and his political allies rather than experienced vendors. This may have funneled taxpayer money to friends and associates of the Trump family and administration officials. For instance, at the recommendation of Kushner’s task force, the state of New York paid a Silicon Valley engineer with no relevant experience — who had tweeted in response to the president’s call for automakers to manufacture ventilators — $69 million for ventilators but terminated the contract when he failed to deliver.

It seems that reality disagrees with your assertion that Kushner did a good job.

Yes, very peculiar....

That's a lot of spam to "handwave" how wrong I am. But you know, state governors disagree with your "reality", don't they?

Yep!
Yep!
Yep!

I'll go with the governors who managed a moment away from the axe grinder and maybe you can write a sequel to the bestselling book to "help" cover up the ineptitude.
:D


So you're going to appeal to authority, with no evidence, against actual evidence. Your reasoning skills leave much to be desired.


Irontruth wrote:
So you're going to appeal to authority, with no evidence, against actual evidence. Your reasoning skills leave much to be desired.

So you're calling the governors liars. Where's your evidence?*

* I mean "evidence" besides some hack journalism from an openly biased policy institute/think-tank and not the considered opinion of medical scientists. Because if opinion is all you've got, and it is, I'll take the opinions of the supposedly aggrieved governors who are nonetheless NOT aggrieved.


I didn't call them liars. Therefore, I don't have to defend the strawman that you've created.

I specifically said that you made an appeal to authority. If you want to make the case that that isn't what you are doing, you can use evidence to support what they say.

Also, I'd point out that you previously pointed out that NY had one of the highest death rates, and are now claiming that as a success for Jared Kushner. These are contradictory claims. Something cannot be both one of the worst examples AND a success.


Irontruth wrote:

I didn't call them liars. Therefore, I don't have to defend the strawman that you've created.

I specifically said that you made an appeal to authority. If you want to make the case that that isn't what you are doing, you can use evidence to support what they say.

No creation on my part. I was merely answering your absurd claim. As follows:

IT wrote:
The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

In what way?

Did we run out of ICU beds?
Nope.

Did we run out of respirators?
Nope.

Did we run out of PPE?
Nope.

Did state officials praise the feds help?
Yep!
Yep!
Yep!

Irontruth wrote:
Also, I'd point out that you previously pointed out that NY had one of the highest death rates, and are now claiming that as a success for Jared Kushner. These are contradictory claims. Something cannot be both one of the worst examples AND a success.

As you well know, I was pointing to Kush's success as what the governors claimed it to be. They literally had no complaint about federal help - as I documented above.

That your 'logic' is too perverse to see a viewpoint other than the one you bring to the discussion is all on you.

Solipsism is a ##### eh?
:D


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I didn't call them liars. Therefore, I don't have to defend the strawman that you've created.

I specifically said that you made an appeal to authority. If you want to make the case that that isn't what you are doing, you can use evidence to support what they say.

No creation on my part. I was merely answering your absurd claim.

You've constantly created strawmen in response to my posts. Since they aren't what I said, I'm not defending them.


Quark Blast wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

I didn't call them liars. Therefore, I don't have to defend the strawman that you've created.

I specifically said that you made an appeal to authority. If you want to make the case that that isn't what you are doing, you can use evidence to support what they say.

No creation on my part. I was merely answering your absurd claim. As follows:

IT wrote:
The response in the US has been hampered by an anti-science federal administration.

In what way?

Did we run out of ICU beds?
Nope.

Did we run out of respirators?
Nope.

Did we run out of PPE?
Nope.

Did state officials praise the feds help?
Yep!
Yep!
Yep!

Irontruth wrote:
Also, I'd point out that you previously pointed out that NY had one of the highest death rates, and are now claiming that as a success for Jared Kushner. These are contradictory claims. Something cannot be both one of the worst examples AND a success.

As you well know, I was pointing to Kush's success as what the governors claimed it to be. They literally had no complaint about federal help - as I documented above.

That your 'logic' is too perverse to see a viewpoint other than the one you bring to the discussion is all on you.

Solipsism is a ##### eh?
:D

You asked if we ran out of ICU beds. Go back and re read the article I sent on SD above. The woman in the article had her husband flown to MN b/c they didn't have capacity to take him in SD.

This is frustrating. You two are arguing whether or not we followed science during the pandemic in a thread about climate change. Then you're getting into some pi**ing match over whether or not the fed got praised for the response to said pandemic.

The reality is that America did NOT handle it well, as a complete nation. They still aren't. Whether we like it or not and no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself on, the pandemic has been spun into a political issue which means that, while some may or may not have followed science, everyone followed their politics on it.

I would assert, again, that this has no bearing on climate change other than conceding that the current political climate is extremely gridlocked and polarized which means that enacting and supporting long term climate change legislation is a Herculean effort right now.

Rein it in folks. Stop attacking each other on whether or not the US made the right choices. My country tis of thee made the choices it did, at the federal, state, and local level. Anecdotally, despite wearing her mask religiously and encouraging others to do the same, a good friend of mine ended up in the hospital b/c others in her building complex felt their rights were being "infringed" upon.

FYI, the US has had quarantines declared at the federal level as far back as the 1790's. Whether or not they work is another matter, but the politics of it, the precedent has been there since Washington.

But again, that isn't what this thread is about. The only thing that the US's handling of the Coronavirus tells me is that politics are divided and cruel right now in America. It also tells me that some people on all sides of the divide are interested in following science but that all of our body politic is driven by whoever donates the most to their campaigns.

However, I could pick ANY scientifically driven initiative and say the same thing. Education, healthcare, transportation infrastructure, climate change, and so on. The pandemic didn't reveal anything new or shocking.

That, IMO, doesn't mean we STOP trying for bold legislation to address climate change. It means we try HARDER. We, as the electors, fight MORE to get the people we put in office to make the world safer.

You two fighting over who's more right about political talking points looks like a couple of little boys in a schoolyard fight. Its embarrassing. Get yourselves together and address the thread.


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
You asked if we ran out of ICU beds. Go back and re read the article I sent on SD above. The woman in the article had her husband flown to MN....

So we didn't run out of beds. At least not yet.

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
You two fighting over who's more right about political talking points looks like a couple of little boys in a schoolyard fight. Its embarrassing. Get yourselves together and address the thread.

Impossible based on past experience. And not just in this thread. The metalhead never concedes he is wrong about anything; not in the least.

Tell you what though, I'll directly ignore his inanity for at least the remainder of the year. Just for you.

This pandemic is an encapsulated example of why the AGW issue will end up being a +2.5°C year 2100. Humans can't coordinate at this scale. Except of course in order to blow #### up. It's why way, way, way up thread that Wrath posted he was more concerned about nuclear weapons than AGW.


I have conceded I've been wrong.


So, QB admits when he's wrong, except he hasn't since I've joined the thread. IT does the same thing, only same since I've been here. So you're BOTH right.

Great. I love watching 2 people stand on either side of a fence yelling at each other.

So far in this thread I've met Blast-o-Butter halfway several times on their points and tried to pose many of my discussion points as questions, not facts that I demand you dispute me on. I'm trying to foster a conversation, not a debate.

Debates have winners and losers. Right and Wrong. Now I have the 2 of you stating you're both Right.

And by the way Quarky, don't patronize me with

Quark Blast wrote:
Tell you what though, I'll directly ignore his inanity for at least the remainder of the year. Just for you.

If you genuinely think that someone is being petty and you're choosing to ignore it and rise above, do it because its the right thing to do. Don't make yourself petty by calling THEM out for it, then claim you're rising above it to placate someone else.

But what are we left with? You're BOTH right, all the time, since neither of you is willing to concede, based on both of your statements. Does that feel good to you both? Do you enjoy this outcome?

I want an education on how to fix climate change. QB has given me ways to do this on a personal level, which I'm pursuing. Beyond me though I'm looking for some kind of hope and direction.

At every turn, outside that personal one, QB seems to be suggesting that there really isn't one. Yes, market forces are already turning to renewables, but that's for naught b/c battery storage will NEVER be up to pace with need and thus it will fail. Fossil fuels SHOULD reduce emissions but no government can ever manage the long term initiatives to enforce this and besides in 20-30 years it will have negligible impact. Corporations and money, QB actually agrees, will not fix the problem on their own. Bjorn Lomborg however suggests that many of the individual level changes are not consistent enough to have serious impact and government incentives for consumers, like subsidizing electric cars, again will only deliver about 3% of the impact needed.

So... individuals can't solve this, governments can't, tech innovations are doomed to fail and corporate money is not a reliable solution.

QB, what is your final assessment here? You've refuted, discarded, or outright seemed to laugh at every possible avenue of long term hope that suggests a path out of the inevitable heat death of the planet. If we're all incorrect, what IS the solution?


Mark Hoover wrote:
But what are we left with? You're BOTH right, all the time, since neither of you is willing to concede, based on both of your statements. Does that feel good to you both? Do you enjoy this outcome?

I call'em as I see'em. He's gone round and round with anyone who cares to disagree with his pontifications. I can tell when he knows he's been proven wrong because he ignores the correcting post entirely. Otherwise, what you see recently in this thread is normal behavior for him.

As for me, typically people are trying to make me say something I'm not by taking my post out of context or just plain old making #### up (like repeatedly calling me a libertarian when I've flatly declared I'm not - because I'm not).

I've admitted I'm wrong from time to time (and I don't argue unless I believe I'm right and know why I'm right)
and even thanked others for their enlightening response when appropriate.

Mark Hoover wrote:
QB, what is your final assessment here? You've refuted, discarded, or outright seemed to laugh at every possible avenue of long term hope that suggests a path out of the inevitable heat death of the planet. If we're all incorrect, what IS the solution?

The year 2100 will be about +2.5°C unless there's a tipping point crossed between now and then. The Amazon forest is the most likely one IMHO but there could be others.

The actual science based approach that The Nature Conservancy uses is the best I've seen. Everyone should be using it. If <--big if) so, then a +1.5°C year 2100 is totally doable.

Otherwise all you can do is what you can do. Which is why I harp on personal action so often and deride some authority "making" everyone do the right thing (as if authorities aren't also #### ### humans), in which case you're only enhancing the likelihood of global failure.


Quark Blast wrote:


I've admitted I'm wrong from time to time (and I don't argue unless I believe I'm right and know why I'm right)
and even thanked others for their enlightening response when appropriate.

Were you wrong about computational irreducability?

Dark Archive

Quark Blast wrote:


As for me, typically people are trying to make me say something I'm not by taking my post out of context or just plain old making #### up (like repeatedly calling me a libertarian when I've flatly declared I'm not - because I'm not).

When someone calls for a revolution to overturn the capitalistic order, end the bourgeoisie and its grip on the capital and give the workers of the world all the power of the government - then that person is a communist. I don't care if he calls himself conservative or social-democrat or furry-enthusiast. If you say communist stuff, and want communist things, you are a communist. That is how this works.

And that is the reason, as mentioned before, why I called you a libertarian. Because you say the things libertarians say and don't say the things that libertarians don't say. That isn't even an attack, that's just stating the obvious. Go to Gary Johnsons homepage and tell me what part of his political program you fundamentally disagree with, if you so strongly disagree with that idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Who hurt you QB?


Mark Hoover 330 wrote:
Who hurt you QB?

Nobody. Why?

Liberty's Edge

New study looking at renewable energy potential within each state relative to energy use in that state

They find that all 50 states could affordably meet their energy needs, even assuming electrification of transportation and other fossil fuel industries, with utility scale solar alone.

Even excluding utility scale solar, 47 states could affordably meet their needs (and 24 states more than ten times their needs) with in state renewable power of other types (primarily wind). If energy intensity were improved nationwide (e.g. via efficiency improvements) to match that of New York state then all 50 states could meet 100% of their needs with in state renewables other than utility-scale solar.

In short, they have confirmed (again) that there is more than enough cheap renewable energy available to cover all of our power needs... even if we excluded multi-state transmission lines and utility-scale solar power.

Fun facts
Alaska is the only state that could affordably cover 100% of its energy needs with geothermal OR small hydro. They, like many other states, could also do so with onshore wind or utility-scale solar. Ironically, they have more OFFshore wind potential than the other 49 states combined, but the remote arctic conditions make developing that vast potential power source unaffordable currently.

Renewable energy jobs now account for 40% of all energy jobs in the US.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that solar technicians and wind installers will be the fastest growing jobs (in ANY industry) over the next decade.


Unless teslas cloud based transmission of energy works, I don't think alaska using shore based energy production is practical. You have to GET that power somewhere , somehow, and permafrost is hell on powerlines and poles.

4,501 to 4,550 of 5,074 << first < prev | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Conspiracy theories surrounding human influenced climate change, what's up with that? All Messageboards