ExxonMobil knew global warming was coming in 1985


Off-Topic Discussions

51 to 100 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

MMCJawa wrote:

Greenpeace has little if any actual influence over major governments nor does it form a significant basis for funding of sciences. Complaining about the undue influence of Greenpeace while the Koch brothers spend hundreds of millions on US elections is just silly.

Also, I would argue that climate change is, for many people, far to esoteric a threat to push for increased governmental control of the populace. If that is an aim for any nefarious group, you would be better off selling stuff like terrorism, crime, or immigration if you want to rally people for freedom strangling regulations. Hell we can notice in the USA those fears being using to push several dodgy National Security bills through in recent memory, not to mention campaign promises from certain candidates for presidency.

I have seen it pushed (with more than a little justification) as one of the contributing factors to the crisis in syria.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
this is the same mentality that says that bullies pick on you and will stop if you change your behavior.
Dunno -- changing my behavior sure worked for me. Sometime in junior high school I stopped trying to avoid fights and instead started appearing eager to get into them, and very soon all the bullies completely stopped targeting me.

Doing what I did to get the bullies to stop to Exxon CEos and conspiracy theorists is unfortunately, illegal in all 50 states and most of mexico.

And as we can't advocate illegal activities on the boards....

I didn't realize that M80/Tobasco suppositories were illegal. Frowned upon? Sure. But illegal?

Liberty's Edge

I'm starting to think that if the fossil fuel company's were smart they'd actually push for a RICO investigation on themselves now while they've got the entire Republican party, and half the democrats, in their pocket. The longer they wait, the weaker they will be. Coal is nearly dead already. Natural gas enjoyed a brief surge, but it is already over... and gasoline has clearly seen the writing on the wall and opted for fire sale prices to clear out as much inventory as they can before the market folds. In twenty years global warming will be MUCH worse and fossil fuel companies will have just enough money to be attractive targets... without being able to compete with 'big renewable' in legislative power.

Of course, if they were smart they wouldn't have gone running to The Heartland Institute and the rest of the 'tobacco fraud squad' and said, 'Hey, you know how you manufactured doubt for the tobacco industry? We need you to do that for us!' In writing no less.


CBDunkerson wrote:

I'm starting to think that if the fossil fuel company's were smart they'd actually push for a RICO investigation on themselves now while they've got the entire Republican party, and half the democrats, in their pocket. The longer they wait, the weaker they will be. Coal is nearly dead already. Natural gas enjoyed a brief surge, but it is already over... and gasoline has clearly seen the writing on the wall and opted for fire sale prices to clear out as much inventory as they can before the market folds. In twenty years global warming will be MUCH worse and fossil fuel companies will have just enough money to be attractive targets... without being able to compete with 'big renewable' in legislative power.

Of course, if they were smart they wouldn't have gone running to The Heartland Institute and the rest of the 'tobacco fraud squad' and said, 'Hey, you know how you manufactured doubt for the tobacco industry? We need you to do that for us!' In writing no less.

Since they apparently did this in 1985 and have probably made billions (trillions?) more than they would have otherwise, I'm not sure it wasn't smart. 30 years of oil company profits makes up for a lot of stupid.

As the saying was on Wall Street in the run up to the 2008 crash: "I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone", so why should we care?


Climate change is useful for other things than terrorist threats. Terror gets you ridiculous police powers, ubiquitous surveillance, etc... But not really a reason to sharply reduce the economic expectations of people. Climate change motivates that, and makes heavy controls on what people buy, throw away, how much energy people spend, and so on sound far more reasonable. The idea of three Earths? Yeah. Accordingly, climate change will be (and is already) used for heavily increased taxation. Thing is, an aging population throughout the West can't provide for adequate pensions, which is already felt as an economic disaster to large groups. But it is going to get worse. As a politician, then, it is worth anything to be able to say "yeah, well, we must all be ready to sacrifice for The Cause".

If they wanted to solve the carbon emissions situation, heavy investment in nuclear power would need to be on the table. The greens aggressively lobby to keep it away as a possible solution.


Sissyl wrote:
Climate change is useful for other things than terrorist threats. Terror gets you ridiculous police powers, ubiquitous surveillance, etc... But not really a reason to sharply reduce the economic expectations of people. Climate change motivates that, and makes heavy controls on what people buy, throw away, how much energy people spend, and so on sound far more reasonable.

... to what end?

Control what people buy ----> something happens-----> Profit

You are not making ANY sense here. There are huge gaps in logic here that seem to have no purpose or evidence except to shore up the conspiracy theory that is itself evidence of the desire for profit.

Quote:
As a politician, then, it is worth anything to be able to say "yeah, well, we must all be ready to sacrifice for The Cause".

You do not get taxes by cutting and lowering services and economic opportunity. You get more taxes by expanding them.

If you want people to fall in line you give them beer and circuses. Appealing to peoples sense of honor, duty, and need is a sure path to failure.

Quote:
If they wanted to solve the carbon emissions situation, heavy investment in nuclear power would need to be on the table. The greens aggressively lobby to keep it away as a possible solution.

There are so many ways this is wrong.

First off the logic doesn't work. Its a false dilemma. If the problem is "how do i provide power" option 1 ruins the environment, option 2 ruins the environment... you find option 3. (likely a combination of wind,solar, fish safe hydro, geothermal, power reduction etc)

Secondly pro nuke environmentalists aren't exactly unheard of


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Since they apparently did this in 1985 and have probably made billions (trillions?) more than they would have otherwise, I'm not sure it wasn't smart. 30 years of oil company profits makes up for a lot of stupid.

Actually, I doubt their profits would have been much different. The technology to replace fossil fuels is only now becoming practical. Sure, if they hadn't obfuscated the dangers we might have gotten to this technology sooner, but certainly not so long ago as to wipe out "30 years of oil company profits".

Thus, it isn't really their profits which are different... but their liabilities.


BNW: You obviously didn't read what I wrote, and if you did, you still answered something else. Please cut down on your aggression.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

As a politician, then, it is worth anything to be able to say "yeah, well, we must all be ready to sacrifice for The Cause".

If they wanted to solve the carbon emissions situation, heavy investment in nuclear power would need to be on the table.

Funny, the only politicians I hear saying that we need to cut back / 'sacrifice for the cause' are the same ones claiming that global warming doesn't exist.

We need to cut social security... Republicans
We need to cut Medicare... Republicans
We need to cut food stamps... Republicans
We need to cut disaster relief... Republicans (except when it is in their state)
There is no global warming... Republicans

Exactly what is it that Democrats and other 'reality based global warming policy' types are looking to 'sacrifice for the cause'? Even higher profits for billionaires?

As to heavy investment in nuclear power... it costs more than wind OR solar power. Why should we spend more for an inferior solution?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Since they apparently did this in 1985 and have probably made billions (trillions?) more than they would have otherwise, I'm not sure it wasn't smart. 30 years of oil company profits makes up for a lot of stupid.

Actually, I doubt their profits would have been much different. The technology to replace fossil fuels is only now becoming practical. Sure, if they hadn't obfuscated the dangers we might have gotten to this technology sooner, but certainly not so long ago as to wipe out "30 years of oil company profits".

Thus, it isn't really their profits which are different... but their liabilities.

That's because for for decades the products had no government support. If 70s levels of funding for solar was continued through the 80s and 90s, we would have had profitable solar 20 years sooner.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
BNW: You obviously didn't read what I wrote

I obviously did. I quoted exactly what you said I responded to exactly what you said.

Quote:
Please cut down on your aggression.

If you do not want someone to point out your factual errors, make fewer of them.

If you do not want someone to point out your logical errors, make fewer of them.

If you do not want someone to point out your huge leaps in logic you make then rationally connect someone's goals with their actions.

If you can't do that then try to examine the possibility that its not someone's "aggression" thats the problem but that your beliefs are fundamentally at odds with reality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Option 1:

Global warming is real

Exxon et all know this. If governments acted on this information it would cut into their profits as people would seek alternative energy sources that Exxon does don't own.

Exxon launched a public relations campaign to cast doubt on global warming (including the old saws about climate scientists being in this for tenure and the money) in order to keep their profits up.

Option 2:

Global warming is a conspiracy.

exxon et all are championing pure science, but are helpless against the onslaught of better funded and more influential groups like Greenpeace.

Greenpeace is part of a right wing conspiracy to get people to drastically lower their economic expectations so corporations (like exxon) can keep more profit as tax payers pay more and get less.

Option 1 is both sensible and more importantly, evidenced every single step of the way.

The only thing holding option 2 together despite its factual and internal inconsistencies is the near apriori belief that global warming isn't real. If you even make that remotely questionable the entire thing falls apart.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Just to point out, this has been discussed at length at wattsupwiththat.

Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
That's because for for decades the products had no government support. If 70s levels of funding for solar was continued through the 80s and 90s, we would have had profitable solar 20 years sooner.

Sure, but the fossil fuel companies could still have lobbied against funding for renewable energy R&D. Bribing government officials to support you and oppose your business rivals is actually legal in the US... so long as you all promise to pretend that there was no quid pro quo.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:

Just to point out, this has been discussed at length at wattsupwiththat.

Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

The fear mongers aren't doing a very good job... When Americans are surveyed about the big issues they worry about, climate change still isn't in the running.

Liberty's Edge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

The satellite data you refer to has consistently proven to contain significant errors... and measures less than 2% of global warming in any case. Global warming has continued unabated the past 18+ years.

Antarctic ice is at record LOWS. Antarctic sea ice has hit highs in recent years, but that tiny increase in no way offsets the massive loss of ice overall worldwide.

I haven't seen attempts to silence 'people who disagree' so much as people who lie.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

The satellite data you refer to has consistently proven to contain significant errors... and measures less than 2% of global warming in any case. Global warming has continued unabated the past 18+ years.

Antarctic ice is at record LOWS. Antarctic sea ice has hit highs in recent years, but that tiny increase in no way offsets the massive loss of ice overall worldwide.

I haven't seen attempts to silence 'people who disagree' so much as people who lie.

The highs of Antarctic Sea Ice are a direct result from the highly accelerated calving of Antarctic land ice.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Just to point out, this has been discussed at length at wattsupwiththat.

When the discussion includes comments like "it's not a proven theory yet," you can pretty safety discount everything being said.


Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up" -- although one did melt down, which is an entirely distinct thing; (b) Chernobyl was the direct result of a known design flaw that was corrected in U.S. reactors and not Soviet ones.

I would be very shocked if the UK could ever gather enough sunlight to meet more than a tiny fraction of its energy needs through solar. Even with wind thrown in, you're not even coming close. So, if the options are to turn off all the lights, burn a lot more coal, or keep a few nuclear reactors, what's the best choice of the three?


I remember several scientists coming out and saying the only thing that can produce enough energy fast enough is nuclear power. Of course, there are better ways we can do it that the way we are now.

Even trying to put myself into a right wing point of view I still end up thinking we need something other than fossil fuels. Oil and natural gas are where Russia gets much of the leverage it has - you want to truly cripple Putin? Destroy oil prices. Besides, paying money (even indirectly by adding to demand) to people who oppose US interests (no matter your opinion of them) is what I call bad foreign policy. Oil is a large part of our interest in the Middle East, and I don't think that has worked out well for the US either.

And no matter what you think, the truth is that oil, natural gas, even coal are all finite resources - one day they will run out. Best to start preparing for that certainty before they day gets too close.

There are plenty of reasons to support alternative energy even if you buy into the lies about global warming being bunk.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up" -- although one did melt down, which is an entirely distinct thing; (b) Chernobyl was the direct result of a known design flaw that was corrected in U.S. reactors and not Soviet ones.

I would be very shocked if the UK could ever gather enough sunlight to meet more than a tiny fraction of its energy needs through solar. Even with wind thrown in, you're not even coming close. So, if the options are to turn off all the lights, burn a lot more coal, or keep a few nuclear reactors, what's the best choice of the three?

Then again on the other hand, there are people in New Jersey that are making very good use of solar power. My friend Tom in Morris County, uses solar panels not to power his house, but to feed the grid, earning energy credits which entirely offset his electric bills Bayonne actually has one large windmill in operation, and Paterson of course, has it's waterfall.

The most idiotic stance to take when it comes to dealing with future energy needs would be an insistence that ONE and ONLY ONE right answer exists out there. As opposed to a region by region evaluation of mixes of solutions. Solar technology has improved to the point that electricity can be generated even on cloudy days.

Present technology NOW exists that we can start shifting much of our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy. An Apollo scale research effort put into this can expand and improve our toolbox.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Just to point out, this has been discussed at length at wattsupwiththat.

Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

I'm not sure which satellite data you're referring too, but the "pause" in warming is pretty much a myth from everything I've seen. 2014 is the warmest on record, well above 1998. (2015 is on track to be hotter.) The top 10 years are now all since 1998. The 5 and 10 year running averages are solidly up.

The ice cover may be broad, but it's thinning.

I didn't read the whole discussion at that site, but the post itself misses the point: It's not that Exxon was supposed to have done some revolutionary secret research that no one else knew about, but that Exxon's internal research and correspondence showed that they knew what was already becoming clear to the scientific community, but maintained the PR stance that the science was bad.
The whole argument that "Exxon didn’t know anything that wasn’t already known, published and available to the public" is irrelevant. They were denying that they knew that.


LazarX wrote:
The most idiotic stance to take when it comes to dealing with future energy needs would be an insistence that ONE and ONLY ONE right answer exists out there. As opposed to a region by region evaluation of mixes of solutions.

No argument.

LazarX wrote:
Present technology NOW exists that we can start shifting much of our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable energy.

All in favor. But it would sure be nice to keep the lights on in the meantime.

Liberty's Edge

Grey Lensman wrote:
I remember several scientists coming out and saying the only thing that can produce enough energy fast enough is nuclear power. Of course, there are better ways we can do it that the way we are now.

Yeah, there has always been a very vocal 'nuclear is the only option' crowd for some reason... but it doesn't hold up.

Nuclear power is just about the slowest deployment option. Getting a new nuclear plant up and running in a decade would be incredibly fast by current standards. An equivalent size solar plant could be done in a year. Distributed solar on building roofs and the like is doing the same several times per year.

Nuclear could certainly help, but it just doesn't seem likely that it will be a significant factor given that it is slower, more expensive, higher risk, et cetera. Basically, it is the worst of several options now available.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Grey Lensman wrote:
I remember several scientists coming out and saying the only thing that can produce enough energy fast enough is nuclear power. Of course, there are better ways we can do it that the way we are now.

Yeah, there has always been a very vocal 'nuclear is the only option' crowd for some reason... but it doesn't hold up.

Nuclear power is just about the slowest deployment option. Getting a new nuclear plant up and running in a decade would be incredibly fast by current standards. An equivalent size solar plant could be done in a year. Distributed solar on building roofs and the like is doing the same several times per year.

Nuclear could certainly help, but it just doesn't seem likely that it will be a significant factor given that it is slower, more expensive, higher risk, et cetera. Basically, it is the worst of several options now available.

The equivalent to 2 nuclear power reactors that take up 1.1K acres is 13K acres.. And that assumes that the solar power can generate power equivalent to peak 90% of the day. Even if you assumed near perfect energy storage, you would need to at minimum triple that number for solar to be generate close to the same energy. Then that doesn't include power distribution losses from your 60 square mile plant.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up" -- although one did melt down, which is an entirely distinct thing; (b) Chernobyl was the direct result of a known design flaw that was corrected in U.S. reactors and not Soviet ones.

No... nuke plants do not blow up. That is correct. What they do, is make large areas of land uninhabitable for a time scale longer than the existence of any country now on the planet. And we still do not have a long term solution for the waste... which is pretty damm long lived in and of itself.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
The equivalent to 2 nuclear power reactors that take up 1.1K acres is 13K acres.. And that assumes that the solar power can generate power equivalent to peak 90% of the day. Even if you assumed near perfect energy storage, you would need to at minimum triple that number for solar to be generate close to the same energy. Then that doesn't include power distribution losses from your 60 square mile plant.

So we've switched from deployment time to land use?

Ok, 60 square miles is about 0.1% of the man-made hard surface area in the contiguous United States. So distribute the solar panels on those hard surfaces in areas where electricity is used and you've got zero additional land use and zero power distribution loss. Beating nuclear power hands down on both of those criteria as well.


The nuclear waste is a problem because the fissile cycle was never completed. The breed reactor is the missing link that would put used fissile material back in the cycle.

As stated, wind and solar are outclassed by several orders of magnitude today by nuclear. A similarly herculean research effort on fission and fusion would make energy problems truly a thing of the past. Even using the new technology that exists today, unbuilt, would outclass the steam engine plants used now in energy production.

Yes, solar and wind is nice. Nuclear power remains better.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sissyl wrote:

The nuclear waste is a problem because the fissile cycle was never completed. The breed reactor is the missing link that would put used fissile material back in the cycle.

Breeder reactors still produce waste. They also produce material that is perfect for atomic bombs which is the only reason they were created in the first place. The inherent result of making breeder reactors is that bomb material becomes available for any crank group that feels blowing up our cities is something that God just told them to do. There is no shortage of zealots willing to give up their own lives to do just that.

Breeders do not feed on the waste from conventional plants... All they do is to turn radioactive isotopes which are not suitable for power use into fissile material. However the material that they make that is suitable for power, is also eminently suitable for bombs.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Caineach wrote:
The equivalent to 2 nuclear power reactors that take up 1.1K acres is 13K acres.. And that assumes that the solar power can generate power equivalent to peak 90% of the day. Even if you assumed near perfect energy storage, you would need to at minimum triple that number for solar to be generate close to the same energy. Then that doesn't include power distribution losses from your 60 square mile plant.

So we've switched from deployment time to land use?

Ok, 60 square miles is about 0.1% of the man-made hard surface area in the contiguous United States. So distribute the solar panels on those hard surfaces in areas where electricity is used and you've got zero additional land use and zero power distribution loss. Beating nuclear power hands down on both of those criteria as well.

this still doesn't fix the energy storage problems, the cost problems, peak load problems, inclement weather problems, production problems, materials problems.

Even then, those 2 nuclear reactors power 1/3000th of Arkansas's electrical output. Distributing them across the country would be a drop in the bucket.
Currently, we are estimated to double existing solar output in the US in the next 3 years. If we assume that record trend continues for the next 10 years, Solar power will be generating 200GW, 1/4 what the current nuclear power plants generate. In that same time, average increases in consumption will be over 300 GW, so growth in solar is unlikely to even match increases in demand.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Chief Cook and Bottlewasher wrote:
Personally, I'm a lot happier with the wind farms and fields of solar panels we have appearing here in Kent, UK, than I would be with nuclear power stations. They don't produce nuclear waste and there's no risk of them blowing up if things go wrong. I'm old enough to remember Chernobyl very clearly, and the extent of the fall-out.

Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up" -- although one did melt down, which is an entirely distinct thing; (b) Chernobyl was the direct result of a known design flaw that was corrected in U.S. reactors and not Soviet ones.

I would be very shocked if the UK could ever gather enough sunlight to meet more than a tiny fraction of its energy needs through solar. Even with wind thrown in, you're not even coming close. So, if the options are to turn off all the lights, burn a lot more coal, or keep a few nuclear reactors, what's the best choice of the three?

Solar panels can probably make a bigger contribution than you think. It seems feasible at least in the South to put enough solar panels on the roof of your house to provide all your domestic electricity and feed some surplus back into the grid (and nobody can turn your lights off). And there are a lot of domestic properties in the South of England. One of the local schools has 1 wind turbine that I believe also runs a surplus. Thousands of households contributing to the grid instead of draining it is surely more than a tiny fraction.

I haven't looked for the figures, though, or the breakdown between commercial and domestic, and I'm feeling too lazy to look for them when I'll probably be told they're unreliable anyway.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I am kind of professionally obligated to side with nuclear power, though I agree that we have several major problems, the largest of which being the amount of time it takes to get new reactors operational, though I don't know if it's significantly more time than wind or solar power plants, I'll have to look that one up. But the other major problems certainly do exist, but they aren't insurmountable, the technology already exists to solve them, it's just expensive. Waste can be processed, reused, treated, or even stored in special facilities in ways that can avoid any long term problems, but each method has it's own expense.


Honestly, the biggest problem with Nuclear power is we don't have the trained personnel to operate significantly more facilities than currently exist, the training time for new personnel is measured in years after being approved for a security clearance, and many of those personnel are underpaid and can't internally advance because they are required and there is a shortage.


Then again, none of that is impossible to change.


Sissyl wrote:
Then again, none of that is impossible to change.

The 2-4 year training time for safety personnel wont change any time soon, and unless there is a huge drive to recruit people into a job before the positions actually exist, its going to be a problem for a while.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Then again, none of that is impossible to change.
The 2-4 year training time for safety personnel wont change any time soon, and unless there is a huge drive to recruit people into a job before the positions actually exist, its going to be a problem for a while.

Well, you could lower the standards. Both for the training and for the permitting and building process.

There wouldn't be any problems with that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caineach wrote:
this still doesn't fix the energy storage problems, the cost problems, peak load problems, inclement weather problems, production problems, materials problems.

The New Jersey model is a perfect example of how solar power can be used RIGHT NOW to give us more breathing space to address the longer term issues.

In Morris County homeowners who use solar don't have to worry about battery storage or those other issues. Their solar panels feed directly into the grid which helps lower fossil fuel use during peak periods. The homeowners get energy credits which pay for their own utility use.

The lesson is that we don't have to make a total wrenching switchover which we're not ready for in present logistics, but we do have technology that can stretch our supply of fossil use.

If we can get this much use of solar power in New Jersey, there are states that are suited to get a lot more.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Then again, none of that is impossible to change.
The 2-4 year training time for safety personnel wont change any time soon, and unless there is a huge drive to recruit people into a job before the positions actually exist, its going to be a problem for a while.

Well, you could lower the standards. Both for the training and for the permitting and building process.

There wouldn't be any problems with that.

Weren't the folks who ran Three Mile Island into a melt down trained at that level?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Then again, none of that is impossible to change.
The 2-4 year training time for safety personnel wont change any time soon, and unless there is a huge drive to recruit people into a job before the positions actually exist, its going to be a problem for a while.

Well, you could lower the standards. Both for the training and for the permitting and building process.

There wouldn't be any problems with that.

Weren't the folks who ran Three Mile Island into a melt down trained at that level?

There may have been a hint of sarcasm in that post.


LazarX wrote:
Caineach wrote:
this still doesn't fix the energy storage problems, the cost problems, peak load problems, inclement weather problems, production problems, materials problems.

The New Jersey model is a perfect example of how solar power can be used RIGHT NOW to give us more breathing space to address the longer term issues.

In Morris County homeowners who use solar don't have to worry about battery storage or those other issues. Their solar panels feed directly into the grid which helps lower fossil fuel use during peak periods. The homeowners get energy credits which pay for their own utility use.

The lesson is that we don't have to make a total wrenching switchover which we're not ready for in present logistics, but we do have technology that can stretch our supply of fossil use.

If we can get this much use of solar power in New Jersey, there are states that are suited to get a lot more.

Unfortunately it isn't working that way other places. In Texas if you add electrical augmentation technology to your home you have to get your home re-metered. One meter for "up" and one for "down." The electrical company will default the system to be 100% of your power draw comes from the grid and 100% of your generation goes up. (Rather than just sell excess and drawing when needed.) Then they only pay you wholesale for the power you put on the grid but charge you retail to bring it right back into your house. On top of that, the entire process requires transferring to a digital "smart" meter which are widely reported to grossly over meter the power you draw.

This puts many people who spent $10s of thousands on electrical augmentation for their home in the awkward position of having HIGHER electric bills than before the process.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

But all that really shows is that Texas couldn't find its rear end with GPS, a ten figure grid reference, some flares, and a trained dog.


Krensky wrote:
But all that really shows is that Texas couldn't find its rear end with GPS, a ten figure grid reference, some flares, and a trained dog.

Cheap quips are good for a giggle and a distraction. Nothing substantive.

If you think think that INS'T happening everywhere without regulations specifically forbidding it, you should think again.


Dammit, so the regulations necessary do not exist. Well, that's that, solar is pointless, and we can never change that either. Oh well.

Regarding training of nuclear plant personnel: With a substantial program for developing nuclear power in place, none of that would remain a problem. It will take more time to build the plants than it will to train the first generation of new workers. There will be more advancement positions available. Paychecks will go up. Seriously, did you really think I meant lowering the standards? Honestly?

People have a tendency to judge everything on the immediate situation today. Sure, given all that, it's not feasible, as you say. But I sincerely thought we were discussing CHANGING that situation, hmmm? Regulations are the least possible problems.


Matthew Morris wrote:

Just to point out, this has been discussed at length at wattsupwiththat.

Factor in 18+ years of no significant temp change from the satalite data, Antartic ice hitting record highs, and the general attempts to silence people who disagree with the global warming fear mongers... I feel pretty safe.

Right-wing echo chambers shouldn't be your security blanket.

The supposed "no warming since 1998" (it's not actually no warming, just less than the average) is likely because 1998 was an unusually warm year. If you take 1999 as your starting point instead, the warming trend since then has been higher than the average since 1979 of 0.175 °C per decade. Both deviations are within the statistical error range of the trend, however. Choosing short ranges of time to focus on distorts long-term trends.

More about the supposed 'pause'.

Consider this as well: if temperatures really are leveling off, we'll find out as the actual temperatures fall outside of the error range of the current trend. At that point, we'll be able to recognize what's going on. CO2 hasn't stopped going into the atmosphere, so warming will continue eventually after whatever effect is offsetting the rise is overwhelmed -- unless we stop increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. So if there is something slowing the rise, that will be incredibly good news, because it will give us a buffer period to overcome our addiction to fossil fuels. As it is, without any buffer, if the rise in temperatures keeps going, we're looking at truly devastating changes to the world.


By the way, three miles island did not have a meltdown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greenland's glaciers also seem to not have heard the news about warming being 'paused'.


Scary that the name Greenland is in danger of being an apt description and not just the most famous case of false advertising ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Just wanted to point out that (a) nuclear plants do not "blow up"

You can't say this. This is merely a model based on past experience which is no guarantee of future results....:)

*ow ow ow ow* snark with a geologist always gets a rock to the head *ow ow ow....*


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Caineach wrote:
this still doesn't fix the energy storage problems, the cost problems, peak load problems, inclement weather problems, production problems, materials problems.

The New Jersey model is a perfect example of how solar power can be used RIGHT NOW to give us more breathing space to address the longer term issues.

In Morris County homeowners who use solar don't have to worry about battery storage or those other issues. Their solar panels feed directly into the grid which helps lower fossil fuel use during peak periods. The homeowners get energy credits which pay for their own utility use.

The lesson is that we don't have to make a total wrenching switchover which we're not ready for in present logistics, but we do have technology that can stretch our supply of fossil use.

If we can get this much use of solar power in New Jersey, there are states that are suited to get a lot more.

Right. Except when you replace too high a percentage of your grid with solar and wind you need storage or wasted overlap with something more stable because you need to provide for shifts in weather. Our increase in weather prediction capabilities have allowed areas to increase the amount they can safely convert to solar, but it still caps I believe around 30% for highly studied areas. Above that you need to run traditional generators in parellel and end up wasting the energy because of the delay it takes in bringing generators online can make you unable to respond to load changes. Beyond that, you need to be able to handle evening load, where wind can help but solar will not. Solar can mitigate the need for traditional plants, but exponential growth in solar over the next 10 years wont keep up with average increased energy demands. At best we can mitigate the need to expand our traditional plants.

We need something that can actually replace traditional fossil fuel plants. Right now, nuclear is the only technology that can do that on a large scale, and because of the wind up time for production we should be focusing on getting more plants operational.

51 to 100 of 206 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / ExxonMobil knew global warming was coming in 1985 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.