Climate Change, school kids vs. Sen. Feinstein

[Salvador]

warming takes time. Even if we stopped adding CO2 today the Earth would continue to warm.

Hopefully, more people like me will leave this planet having taken away more CO2 than we've produced. I've planted many trees and gardens that have absorbed far more CO2 than I've exhaled. I also currently drive a Tesla electric powered car whose electric energy comes from nuclear power; half the electricity in my state of Illinois comes from nuclear energy. I care deeply about the future of my fellow man, and I've shown this by having left a smaller carbon foot print on our mother Earth than the carbon footprints I've erased. ...

 

[Salvador]

Plentiful they are mostly certainly not.
As for the word "substitutes", yours is a blatant false dilemma argument.

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2016, there were about 2,462 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2016 of about 27.5 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 90 years."

How much natural gas does the United States have, and how long will it last? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

How long will the world's uranium supplies last?

Surface area? Is it your contention that large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would hurt the ecosystem?

Please explain this..

Another obvious false dilemma.[/QUOTE]

Large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would take away much land from animals and wildlife there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that as of January 1, 2016, there were about 2,462 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of technically recoverable resources of dry natural gas in the United States. At the rate of U.S. natural gas consumption in 2016 of about 27.5 Tcf per year, the United States has enough natural gas to last about 90 years."

How much natural gas does the United States have, and how long will it last? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

According to the NEA, identified uranium resources total 5.5 million metric tons, and an additional 10.5 million metric tons remain undiscovered—a roughly 230-year supply at today's consumption rate in total. Further exploration and improvements in extraction technology are likely to at least double this estimate over time.

How long will the world's uranium supplies last?

Surface area? Is it your contention that large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would hurt the ecosystem?

Please explain this..

Another obvious false dilemma.

Large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would take away much land from animals and wildlife there.

No matter how we get our energy we are going to have an impact on nature. Ideally we will choose the one with the lowest impact. Not just for nature, but for us as well.

 

[icehorse]

technically recoverable

Well "technically recoverable" doesn't mean "good idea". We've seen many downsides to fracking, which certainly falls into the "technically recoverable" category. And it's a good guess that other similarly categorized techniques have even more negative consequences than fracking.

And even if recovery was easy, your extremely optimistic estimates are for 90 more years... What then? It seems to me that as stewards of the planet, our approach should NOT be to totally tap out every natural resource and leave future generations high and dry.

As for fission reactors, how about if we instead poured all the current fossil fuel subsidies into fusion?

Large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would take away much land from animals and wildlife there.

Of all the ecosystems we could impact, the deserts - kind of by definition - are home to far, far fewer creatures than most other ecosystems.

 

[Salvador]

My goodness.
Can you please stop dressing up your opinion as facts?

NIPCC funding is from Heartland, and Heartland funding includes various corporations with a vested interest in the sort of 'science' you're peddling.
And then you have the gall to state here that their funding is not corporate or government funding?

Sure, they funnel the coal and gas money through Heartland. That's what Heartland does, much like when they took tobacco money.

Sheesh.

Heartland Institute - SourceWatch

"The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, as its name suggests, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.

NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution."

About the NIPCC

"The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit public policy research and educational organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at any level, domestic or foreign, nor does it perform any government or other contract work.

During 2016, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $5.5 million in support from approximately 5,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters. Its 2016 income came from the following sources: Foundations 67%, individuals 19%, corporations 11% . No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its total receipts."

Funding | Heartland Institute

"The Heartland Institute often is the target of misinformation and even outright lies about its mission, funding and donors, and members and staff. These attacks come overwhelming from left-wing advocates who object to our principled stand in defense of individual liberty and limited government.

This page rebuts some of the most widely spread attacks on our reputation. The Heartland Institute welcomes alerts from allies about other attacks that should be confronted with facts. Please contact Jim Lakely, communications director, at [email protected].

Additional information about The Heartland Institute's programs, people, and funding is available in our 2018 annual report."

Reply to Critics | Heartland Institute

 

[Salvador]

Of all the ecosystems we could impact, the deserts - kind of by definition - are home to far, far fewer creatures than most other ecosystems.

Unfortunately, desert solar power farms would be too far away to deliver electricity for the vast majority of us who'd live outside their electrical power transmission range

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unfortunately, desert solar power farms would be too far away to deliver electricity for the vast majority of us who'd live outside their electrical power transmission range

Make hydrogen, ship the hydrogen.

 

[Shad]

large solar arrays in the middle of deserts would hurt the ecosystem?

Not all deserts are the iconic sand swept stretches of the Sahara. Keep that in mind.

 

[icehorse]

Unfortunately, desert solar power farms would be too far away to deliver electricity for the vast majority of us who'd live outside their electrical power transmission range

Wait what? Why wouldn't they feed the same grid we already have?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, as its name suggests, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.

NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution."

About the NIPCC

"The Heartland Institute is a national nonprofit public policy research and educational organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. It is tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no funds from any government at any level, domestic or foreign, nor does it perform any government or other contract work.

During 2016, The Heartland Institute raised approximately $5.5 million in support from approximately 5,000 individual, foundation, and corporate supporters. Its 2016 income came from the following sources: Foundations 67%, individuals 19%, corporations 11% . No corporate donor contributes more than 5 percent of its total receipts."

Funding | Heartland Institute

"The Heartland Institute often is the target of misinformation and even outright lies about its mission, funding and donors, and members and staff. These attacks come overwhelming from left-wing advocates who object to our principled stand in defense of individual liberty and limited government.

This page rebuts some of the most widely spread attacks on our reputation. The Heartland Institute welcomes alerts from allies about other attacks that should be confronted with facts. Please contact Jim Lakely, communications director, at [email protected].

Additional information about The Heartland Institute's programs, people, and funding is available in our 2018 annual report."

Reply to Critics | Heartland Institute

Wait...that's your rebuttal?
Posting from Heartland itself?

Heartland Institute - Media Bias/Fact Check

You should either get better at trolling, or get better at critically analysing source materials.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not all deserts are the iconic sand swept stretches of the Sahara. Keep that in mind.

Exactly. We have well over 500,000 square miles of desert, and most is flat red earth, and scrub bush. Nary a grain of yellow sand to be seen.

 

[Shad]

Exactly. We have well over 500,000 square miles of desert, and most is flat red earth, and scrub hush. Nary a grain of yellow sand to be seen.

I was considering the south Okanagan myself. It is Canada's only desert but is tiny. Development of solar panel power generation will require more land than is available in the area. In my view Canada will need to develop those systems in the Prairie provinces lest we lose energy independence. Maritime development will also have issues with ecosystems in general consider Canada's views and regulation in maritime industries for the last few decades.

A RF user posted information about a new type of nuclear reactor. I do not remember who. That design seems like a possible solution to balance land issues.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I was considering the south Okanagan myself. It is Canada's only desert but is tiny. Development of solar panel power generation will require more land than is available in the area. In my view Canada will need to develop those systems in the Prairie provinces lest we lose energy independence. Maritime development will also have issues with ecosystems in general consider Canada's views and regulation in maritime industries for the last few decades.

A RF user posted information about a new type of nuclear reactor. I do not remember who. That design seems like a possible solution to balance land issues.

I think y'all should start importing clean energy from some massive solar panel farm we could cover the desert with.

*Conveniently ignores how many countries have been importing dirty coal from some massive mines we tore the ground apart with*

 

[Shad]

I think y'all should start importing clean energy from some massive solar panel farm we could cover the desert with.

*Conveniently ignores how many countries have been importing dirty coal from some massive mines we tore the ground apart with*

I rather have energy independence instead of creating new "energy" states which occurred with "petrol" states.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I rather have energy independence instead of creating new "energy" states which occurred with "petrol" states.

The rational side of me agrees. The less rational side hopes our desert becomes the 21st century version of 500000 square miles of black gold.

 

[Salvador]

Wait what? Why wouldn't they feed the same grid we already have?

As electricity is transmitted over long distances, there are inherent energy losses along the way.

 

[Salvador]

Wait...that's your rebuttal?
Posting from Heartland itself?

Heartland Institute - Media Bias/Fact Check

You should either get better at trolling, or get better at critically analysing source materials.

Wait...that's your rebuttal?
Posting from Heartland itself?

Heartland Institute - Media Bias/Fact Check

You should either get better at trolling, or get better at critically analysing source materials.

I as well as the Heartland Institute have been wrongly dubbed as "climate change deniers", but none of us have ever claimed the climate never changes. ....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I as well as the Heartland Institute have been wrongly dubbed as "climate change deniers", but none of us have ever claimed the climate never changes. ....

Sure, but that's not what I'd meant by 'climate change deniers'. As you well know.

 

[Shad]

Wait what? Why wouldn't they feed the same grid we already have?

There are issue regarding solar power people never bring up from an engineering side. Line capacity is one. Night power usage is another. Solar generation will require massive battery systems to cover power usage at night. Hence it would better to follow France's development which includes nuclear and not Germany's which was destroyed by clueless activists.

 

[icehorse]

There are issue regarding solar power people never bring up from an engineering side. Line capacity is one. Night power usage is another. Solar generation will require massive battery systems to cover power usage at night. Hence it would better to follow France's development which includes nuclear and not Germany's which was destroyed by clueless activists.

Well I'd guess that we'll end up with hybrid systems, not black and white. As for batteries, I'd say we have to diversify there as well. One example is to pump water uphill when the sun is shining, and then release that water back through dams when energy is needed (say, at night).