Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:07 am

mdb1958 wrote:Please start posting your dollar amount to global warming or move on to another thread. Maybe Oprah will throw out a couple billion LOL.

Speaking of costs, check out this article...

The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables, Exposed
The National Academy of Science refutes Mark Jacobson’s dream that our economy can run exclusively on ‘green’ energy..
By Robert Bryce — June 24, 2017

The idea that the U.S. economy can be run solely with renewable energy — a claim that leftist politicians, environmentalists, and climate activists have endlessly promoted — has always been a fool’s errand. And on Monday, the National Academy of Sciences published a blockbuster paper by an all-star group of American scientists that says exactly that.

The paper, by Chris Clack, formerly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado Boulder, and 20 other top scientists, appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It decimates the work of Mark Jacobson, the Stanford engineering professor whose wildly exaggerated claims about the economic and technical viability of a 100 percent renewable-energy system has made him a celebrity (he appeared on David Letterman’s show in 2013) and the hero of Sierra Clubbers, Bernie Sanders, and Hollywood movie stars, including Leonardo DiCaprio.

Jacobson became the darling of the green Left even though his work was based on Enron accounting, alternative facts, and technology hopium. Nevertheless, his claims were politically popular, and his academic papers routinely sailed through peer review. In 2015, Jacobson published a paper, co-written with Mark Delucchi, a research engineer at the University of California, Berkeley, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper, which claimed to offer “a low-cost solution to the grid reliability problem” with 100 percent renewables, went on to win the Cozzarelli Prize, an annual award handed out by the National Academy. A Stanford website said that Jacobson’s paper was one of six chosen by “the editorial board of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences from the more than 3,000 research articles published in the journal in 2015.” The fact that the National Academy would bestow such a prestigious award on such weak scholarship greatly embarrass the Academy, which gets 85 percent of its funding from the federal government.

In their scathing takedown of Jacobson, Clack and his co-authors — who include Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Dan Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley, former EPA Science Advisory Board chairman Granger Morgan, and Jane Long of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory — concluded that Jacobson’s 2015 paper contained “numerous shortcomings and errors.” The paper used “invalid modeling tools, contained modeling errors, and made implausible and inadequately supported assumptions.” Those errors “render it unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100 percent wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system.”

Among the biggest errors — and one that should force the Academy to withdraw Jacobson’s 2015 paper — is that Jacobson and Delucchi overstated by roughly a factor of ten the ability of the United States to increase its hydropower output. Furthermore, the paper ignores two key issues: electricity storage and land use. Jacobson claimed that the U.S. can store energy underground or store it in the form of hydrogen. Clack and his co-authors wrote that “there are no electric storage systems available today that can affordably and dependably store the vast amounts of energy needed over weeks to reliably satisfy demand using expanded wind and solar power generation alone.”

But the most obvious flaw in Jacobson’s scheme involves his years-long refusal to admit the massive amount of land his proposal would require; his myriad acolytes have repeated his nonsensical claims. For instance, last year, Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org and one of America’s highest-profile climate activists, wrote an August 2016 cover story for The New Republic in which he lauded Jacobson’s work and repeated Jacobson’s erroneous claim that his all-renewable program would need only “about four-tenths of one percent of America’s landmass.”

Clack et al. correct the record by pointing out that Jacobson’s scheme would require “nearly 500,000 square kilometers, which is roughly 6 percent of the continental United States, and more than 1,500 square meters of land for wind turbines for each American.” In other words, Clack found that Jacobson understated the amount of land needed for his all-renewable dystopia by a factor of 15. But even that understates the amount of territory needed. Jacobson’s plan requires nearly 2.5 terawatts (2.5 trillion watts) of wind-energy capacity, with the majority of that amount onshore. The Department of Energy has repeatedly stated that the footprint of wind energy, known as its capacity density, is 3 watts per square meter. And so 2.5 trillion watts divided by 3 watts per square meter equals 833 billion square meters (or 833,000 square kilometers): That’s a territory nearly twice the size of California.

The idea of using two California-size pieces of territory — and covering them with hundreds of thousands of wind turbines — is absurd on its face. And yet, Jacobson’s 100 percent renewable scenario has become energy gospel among left-leaning politicians. For instance, in January, New York governor Andrew Cuomo touted his renewable-energy goals and declared that his state was not going to stop “until we reach 100 percent renewable because that’s what a sustainable New York is really all about.”

In February, 54 Massachusetts lawmakers — representing more than a quarter of the members of the state legislature — signed on to a bill that would require the Bay State to get 100 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. The bill (S. 1849) says that the goal is to “ultimately eliminate our use of fossil fuels and other polluting and dangerous forms of energy.”

In April, U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Edward J. Markey (D., Mass.), and Cory Booker (D., N.J.) introduced the 100 by ’50 Act, which calls on the United States to be completely free of fossil fuels by 2050. The bill, available here, is a laundry list of terrible ideas, including a “carbon duty” on any foreign-made goods that are made by energy-intensive industries. And as is standard with all-renewable promoters, the bill doesn’t contain a single mention of the word “nuclear” even though some of the world’s highest-profile climate scientists, including James Hansen, have said nuclear must be included in any effort to reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions. The 100 by ’50 legislation was — of course — endorsed by a who’s who of all-renewable cultists, including actor Mark Ruffalo; Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club; and May Boeve, the executive director of 350.org.

Jacobson’s response to the Clack paper (and to the ensuing Twitter storm attacking his work) would have made Captain Queeg proud. He has claimed, among other things, that his paper contains no errors; that Clack and the other authors are simply shilling for the nuclear and hydrocarbon sectors; and that the Department of Energy’s capacity data on wind energy (3 watts per square meter) is wrong and that, instead, the figure should be 9 watts per square meter.

The late David J. C. MacKay, a physics professor at the University of Cambridge, would have been horrified. In 2008, MacKay published Sustainable Energy — wthout the Hot Air, one of the first academic books to look at the land-use impacts of renewables. MacKay, who recognized that nuclear must be part of any effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, also calculated that wind energy needs about 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site. Three years ago, shortly before his death at age 46 from cancer, MacKay talked with British author and writer Mark Lynas about his work. During that interview, MacKay called the idea of relying solely on renewables an “appalling delusion.”

The punch line here is clear: The Clack paper proves that it’s well past time for the green Left and their political allies to quit claiming that we don’t need hydrocarbons or nuclear energy. Alas, it appears they prefer appalling delusions about renewables to real science and simple math.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7645
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby RedLeader » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:16 am

mightyleemoon wrote:Image


Winner this round! Lol.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby NYBF » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:17 am

RedLeader wrote:
mightyleemoon wrote:Image


Winner this round! Lol.


Yeah, this one was perfect.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4053
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 365 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:28 am

Buc2 wrote:Speaking of costs, check out this article...


That article reads like someone who has been dumped by a liberal. Extremes will almost always sound ridiculous. The world needs renewable energy to play a major role in our future. Yet, the other side of that "100 percent renewable" coin is filled with people writing articles like this who want to downplay the importance of renewable energy.

The punch line here is clear: It’s well past time for the old fart GOP right and their political allies to quit claiming that we don’t need renewable energy. Alas, it appears they prefer appalling delusions about coal.


We're going to need some nuclear and some solar. Per usual, the right path is the one that doesn't jump either crazy fence on the sides.
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:34 am

I'm in favor of nuclear energy to supplement renewables. Nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gasses. In fact, a large portion of scientists have suggested nuclear power as a supplement until such time that technology makes 100% renewables a possibility. There's really only a few fringe people that want 100% renewable TODAY. Sure they suggest it long term, as I'm sure we'd all prefer that (at least I hope).

I guess I just don't understand the anger directed at trying to put the focus on clean energies instead of burning fossil fuels. The ONLY people that benefit from dropping regulations on fossil fuels is the people that produce fossil fuels. They're the ones that have gotten so in the heads that trying to reduce pollution is somehow a massive waste of taxpayers dollars on something that will never happen.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:39 am

Rocker wrote:Best thread on the board ATM.


I like how its not understood who is winning. Take the poop post, that is to highlight how everyone is for doing something about global warming but dont expect us to give a damn dime for it.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7030
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Rocker » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:45 am

Don't quote me boy, I ain't said ****.
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Valrico
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 119 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:52 am

Image
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3020
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 133 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:53 am

Image
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7645
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:54 am

Buc2 wrote:Speaking of costs, check out this article...

I got to this part of the article and stopped reading. Maybe I'll try to circle back and read later when I have more time, but it's hard to take this serious.

Jacobson became the darling of the green Left even though his work was based on Enron accounting, alternative facts

Alternative facts? Enron accounting? I scanned the paper the article referenced and I don't see any reference to Jacobson using mark-to-market accounting in the paper.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:57 am

My guess is he was being figurative, not literal. Anyway, don't read. I honestly dgaf.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7645
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mightyleemoon » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:57 am

Image
User avatar
mightyleemoon
 
Posts: 3397
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:35 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Pewterslimsme » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:59 am

Image
Image
User avatar
Pewterslimsme
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:17 am

Buc2 wrote:I honestly dgaf.

You say this a lot when your views are met with resistance.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:18 am

mightyleemoon wrote:Image

Mdb just came in his adult diapers.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:18 am

Corsair wrote:
Buc2 wrote:I honestly dgaf.

You say this a lot when your views are met with resistance.

I say that a lot because I honestly dgaf. Now if we were talking about real life friends, I'd probably gaf.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7645
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:23 am

It seems like a defense mechanism is all. Instead of engaging with people who disagree, you resort back to "not caring".

If you don't care enough to back up your views, why post them at all?

Seems childish, but whatever. It's obvious you just parrot whatever you read on Breitbart or see on Hannity.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Buc2 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:26 am

Corsair wrote:It seems like a defense mechanism is all. Instead of engaging with people who disagree, you resort back to "not caring".

If you don't care enough to back up your views, why post them at all?

Seems childish, but whatever. It's obvious you just parrot whatever you read on Breitbart or see on Hannity.

What's to back up? My point is all laid out in the article already. I'm not going to run all over the Internet looking for additional articles to back up the article when there are perfectly good ones already linked within the article itself.

So, again... Read it. Don't read it. It's up to you. Feel free to refute it with your own words or an article. Again. It's up to you.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 7645
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 717 times
Been thanked: 256 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:54 am

Rocker wrote:Don't quote me boy, I ain't said ****.



You land on my branch and start chirping, expect a fee tied to it. Now indulge in a little ice tea on that there front porch, beforin your nap...
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7030
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Pewterslimsme » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:58 am

This is more fun than it should be.

Image
Image
User avatar
Pewterslimsme
 
Posts: 2618
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 395 times
Been thanked: 546 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:01 am

He's just feeding into now...
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby PrimeMinister » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:06 am

mightyleemoon wrote:Image


Best thread in the last month going on here.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 151 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby PrimeMinister » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:27 pm

Pewterslimsme wrote:Image


So perfect.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 6044
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 151 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby mdb1958 » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:31 pm

Pewterslimsme wrote:This is more fun than it should be.

Image
mdb1958
 
Posts: 7030
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 136 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby SDBucs » Fri Jun 30, 2017 1:48 pm

No matter where you stand on this the argument really should be as to whether or not we need big brother to save the environment for us. Most of my life has been being conditioned to think that these expensive regulations are the only answer and that without big govt we would never change. If Climate change is as bad as people say, surely they will do their part to help fight it? As a society we have, for the most part, accepted that we may be doing damage. So naturally people will buy green products, use less, etc. We DO NOT need big brother doing it for us.

Political news and lately liberals in large like to freak out when something is cut. Maybe, just maybe, the government didn't need to be there in the first place? PBS is a perfect example. They're crying that they might lose funding... but they're profitable. They can exist without government.

If enough of the world believes clinate change is an issue, society and therefore the free market will head that direction. We don't need to give more money in taxes to do so. If people are TRULY honest about loving science, nature, etc. and if it's SO import To them, they can use their voice and higher income from lower taxes to push it. Or, like liberals, they'll just virtue signal about caring but not actually want to take any personal responsibility, that's govts job.
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:00 pm

Here's a pic of that one time when Lake Erie caught on fire from all the chemicals and **** floating in it.


Image



If only the free market were allowed to function....this whole thing could have been avoided.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 495 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Corsair » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:04 pm

What's funny is that the free market is speaking. Energy companies are transitioning to renewables and clean energy jobs.

It's the government that is attempting to prop up a gone coal industry and inventing new ways and places to drill for oil.

Big brother (As you call it) is the one interfering in the market.
Image
User avatar
Corsair
 
Posts: 5420
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:25 am
Has thanked: 154 times
Been thanked: 285 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:43 pm

Lake Erie never caught on fire
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby deltbucs » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:22 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Lake Erie never caught on fire

Pretty sure you missed the point.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 4204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: Climate chg/global warming/climate disruption/carbon...

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jun 30, 2017 3:23 pm

I didn't miss anything. I corrected a mistake.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 2648
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 93 times
Been thanked: 165 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron