A Message for Children about Climate Change

[JohnLarue]

Denial is all you've got these days, eh?

Nope I have physics and common sense

Germany killed their nukes too early and have to use coal for now. That wasn't so smart.

Gee and killing off fossil fuels too early will not be a problem, then will it?
You are not the sharpest tool in the shed

Australia is run by an incredibly right wing, climate change denying, government. And they're suffering through massive droughts and heatwaves.

They had to boot the loomie lefts who made a god awful mess based upon the same scare mongering occuring in Canada.

Australia is still the biggest exporter of coal but cant use it at home and everyone's electricity bill has sky rocketed Loonie left logic at its worst

Here's the list of the top 11 countries for renewable energy.
Its doable and cheaper, once you get rid of the incredibly expensive subsidies we pay for fossil fuels.
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/

What a joke
Your 11 includes China & the rest are some of the most expensive places on the planet

China is promoting green , but building massive coal power plants elsewhere
https://www.npr.org/2019/04/29/716347646/why-is-china-placing-a-global-bet-on-coal

Edward Cunningham, a specialist on China and its energy markets at Harvard University, tells NPR that China is building or planning more than 300 coal plants in places as widely spread as Turkey, Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Egypt and the Philippines.

But the Chinese engineers, metalworkers and laborers who built coal-fired power plants must be kept employed. And, Cunningham says, "many are going abroad." They are building energy projects for developing nations, largely as part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.

China has made more than $244 billion in energy investments abroad since 2000, much of it in recent years, according to a Boston University database. The bulk is in oil and gas, but more than $50 billion has gone toward coal. A report in January found that more than one-quarter of coal plants under development outside China have some commitment or offer of funds from Chinese financial institutions.

"I think that is where many of us are concerned," said Harvard's Cunningham, who attended the recent forum and has been invited back by Chinese officials to speak to academic panels in the country. "For every large solar farm that is being built or wind farm that is being built [by China], there are also significant investments going into the fossil [fuel] side. .

 

[JohnLarue]

Globally, fossil fuel subsidies are $5.2 trillion USD.
https://www.vox.com/2019/5/17/18624740/fossil-fuel-subsidies-climate-imf

Imagine if we spent that on renewables or even nuclear.

I bet if one looks closely at how they calculate subsidies , it is really depletion allowances against taxable income.
That is not a subsidy, as every company gets to apply depreciation allowances of capital costs against taxable income.

Where as the ridiculous green energy program was a forced subsidy which drove electricity rates sky high
Without these revenue subsidies the solar generators would never need depreciation allowances because they wold not make any before tax profits

One thing the climate crazies have got every good at is generating misleading headlines

No way in hell solar or wind are economically close to equivalent natural gas or oil on any basis without subsidies
Not even close

 

[oil&gas]

You seem to think it is a binary choice. It is not. Conservation and energy efficiency will have to be part of any solution.

Conservation enforced by government policy won't work.
Any government that promote conservation will be voted
out. In the free world conservation and austerity is a lifestyle
decision up to individual citizens not the government to make.

If you listen to all the talks and solutions offered in
the climate summit you won't likely hear the word
conservation stressed as part of the solution. The
mayor of Montreal who gave the city's key to
Greta Thunberg promised a 55% cut of emission
by 2030. Her solution as far as I understand is to
preserve parks from real estate expansion.
Angela Merkel who flew to the summit with the
defence minister in two separate jets also pledged
to spend something like $54 billion Euro to fight
climate change. None of the political leaders
or the activists in the summit would dare to
tell people to deliberately cut down driving
and travelling. Meanwhile open-pit coal mining
expansion in Germany is swallowing up more than
a few historic villages.

In a way these political leaders in agreement
on climate plan are worse than Donald Trump.
At least Trump wouldn't stoop to making ludicrous
promise of cutting emission for political gains.

 

[oil&gas]

Wind and solar are only productive 20% of the time. You can’t power a world at night with an energy source that only works 20% of the time. China and India cannot afford the non-existent battery tech it would take to supply a billion people 80% of the time. It’s a fools errand.

If there is enough of remaining natural gas resources
to sustain the world long enough successful transition to
a world powered by renewable energy may be possible.
Research in nano-material science has been progressing steadily. But we need to buy time for our research
scientists to realize their goal. Until then crude oil
will remain an essential and irreplaceable
source of industrial chemicals. It's use for transportation
must be phased out by natural gas within the 1st half of this century.

 

[Frankfooter]

I bet if one looks closely at how they calculate subsidies , it is really depletion allowances against taxable income.
That is not a subsidy, as every company gets to apply depreciation allowances of capital costs against taxable income.

Its not, its largely tax breaks on extraction and development.
$3.3 billion a year for Canada.

On top of that, the oil industry doesn't pay for damages caused by climate change or for cleaning up their messes.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/07/03/canada-oil-gas-subsidies-g7_a_23473843/

 

[Frankfooter]

If there is enough of remaining natural gas resources
to sustain the world long enough successful transition to
a world powered by renewable energy may be possible.
Research in nano-material science has been progressing steadily. But we need to buy time for our research
scientists to realize their goal. Until then crude oil
will remain an essential and irreplaceable
source of industrial chemicals. It's use for transportation
must be phased out by natural gas within the 1st half of this century.

Tesla announced they have a million mile battery now.
https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-may-soon-have-a-battery-that-can-last-a-million-miles/

 

[onthebottom]

If there is enough of remaining natural gas resources
to sustain the world long enough successful transition to
a world powered by renewable energy may be possible.
Research in nano-material science has been progressing steadily. But we need to buy time for our research
scientists to realize their goal. Until then crude oil
will remain an essential and irreplaceable
source of industrial chemicals. It's use for transportation
must be phased out by natural gas within the 1st half of this century.

NG isn’t zero emissions.

I simply don’t understand the resistance to a zero carbon, always on, safest energy source.

 

[oil&gas]

NG is the only viable choice of transition fuel to use before
nuclear and renewable take over entirely as the world's
zero-emission energy source.

 

[Frankfooter]

NG isn’t zero emissions.

I simply don’t understand the resistance to a zero carbon, always on, safest energy source.

Nuclear isn't zero carbon, mining, processing, building plants, dealing with waste.....
Its low, but not zero.

 

[onthebottom]

Nuclear isn't zero carbon, mining, processing, building plants, dealing with waste.....
Its low, but not zero.

That’s fair, but it’s decades of operation is. The new reactor design runs off spent fuel (in KY there is a storage facility that has the equivalent of 100+ years is US electricity production). This is the silver bullet for electricity, we should be building it. All the current reactors are from the slide rule age....

 

[Frankfooter]

That’s fair, but it’s decades of operation is. The new reactor design runs off spent fuel (in KY there is a storage facility that has the equivalent of 100+ years is US electricity production). This is the silver bullet for electricity, we should be building it. All the current reactors are from the slide rule age....

True, but there still is no long term storage plan for spent fuel and you'll have to get past perception after 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

[onthebottom]

True, but there still is no long term storage plan for spent fuel and you'll have to get past perception after 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The new reactors burn the old spent fuel.

People are not thinking (very typical), the Germans made and the California’s are making a tragic mistake.

 

[Frankfooter]

The new reactors burn the old spent fuel.

People are not thinking (very typical), the Germans made and the California’s are making a tragic mistake.

And you're saying that what comes out is not radioactive at all and doesn't need long term storage?

 

[onthebottom]

And you're saying that what comes out is not radioactive at all and doesn't need long term storage?

It does need storage it’s just far less dangerous and can’t be refine to weapons grade.

Fossil fuels also store spent fuel, in the atmosphere, that includes cleaner NG.

China and India will be building power plants, now they are building coal plants, we need to develop a cheaper zero emissions model. That’s nuclear.

 

[onthebottom]

I’m loath to provide a YouTube link but this is worth watching, start at the 2min mark.....

8:40 for the wind solar disappointment

Bill Gates will make you smarter

https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k

 

[toguy5252]

I’m loath to provide a YouTube link but this is worth watching, start at the 2min mark.....

8:40 for the wind solar disappointment

Bill Gates will make you smarter

https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k

Just because it has been a disappointment does that mean that we should not be looking for alternatives to carbon?

 

[onthebottom]

Just because it has been a disappointment does that mean that we should not be looking for alternatives to carbon?

You didn’t watch it

 

[toguy5252]

You didn’t watch it

You are correct I did not but what does that have to do with alternatives to carbon?

 

[onthebottom]

You are correct I did not but what does that have to do with alternatives to carbon?

You are clearly free to not watch that video (I hate posting YouTube) but if your not going to watch it you probably shouldn’t comment on it. If you do spend the time you will encounter someone who has an incredibly wholistic view of the carbon challenge and is spending more than $1b on the problem.

I’m becoming more convinced that post #39 is accurate.

 

[JohnLarue]

True, but there still is no long term storage plan for spent fuel and you'll have to get past perception after 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The last two of the three incidences were due to pressure explosions
Molten Salt reactors do not use pressure, & generate a fraction of the waste
The Chinese have a hundred scientists researching this
The US had a test reactor running for 20 years like a clock in Tennessee, but went with the Uranium pressure model because it allowed them to generate ......weapons grade plutonium

Greenpeace is dead set against anything nuclear & they appear to be running the show (IPCC) so I guess it is back to the dark ages