Solar variation ruled out in global warming

[NickD]

How would we "Reduce carbon output to reestablish carbon equilibrium."

I was looking for a more "This is how we' should do it" rather then a "This is what will happan once we do it" statement Mulu. Sorry for the confusion.

Increasing the price of petrol in America would be a very big step. Double the price and you're still paying less than in England. And that would have a huge knock on effect on consumarism.

Then you can go plant some trees.

[NickD]

Huh. *looks at other topic and sees some contradiction* I don't see any reason in us, as a race, surviving anyways. I mean, what's the point? To see our grandchildren well off with families of their own, the satisfaction of our DNA still floating around the world, and the prospects of a "good life" for our descendants? That's as shallow as anyone else's thinking, much less an ape's.

How about: "Why not?"

And as for reducing climate change: "I intend to live forever and would like a decent quality of life."

[Mulu]

There are numerous ways to reduce carbon emissions. One of the best IMO would be to subsidize the installation of solar panels on buildings throughout the sunbelt, as an investment in infrastructure. That would reduce both our carbon output and reliance on foreign oil, and allow homeowners to charge an electric car for free. I almost did this out of pocket myself when I built my house, and plan to when I can afford it.

Taxing the heck out of gas guzzling SUV's, instead of giving big tax rebates, would help too. Gas economy isn't exactly rocket science. Heck, in 1955 the VW Beetle got 32 mpg. That's better than most cars on the road in the US today.

Two stroke motors are largely unnecessary. I would outright ban things like leaf blowers (use a rake), and heavily tax other gas using equipment. It's amazing how much of our carbon output is the product of sheer laziness.

Basically anything that conserves fuel (wood, oil, gas, ethanol) also reduces carbon output. One thing I wouldn't do is increase nuclear power production, I just don't trust it to be safe. Nor would I bother with corn ethanol, which doesn't much reduce carbon output anyway, or hydrogen pellets (unless you're making the pellets from solar/hydroelectric/wind power, it still requires burning oil to generate the power initially). Hydrogen pellets in particular should be no different than just charging an electric car, since both involve moving the tailpipe. So why create a new industry and associated increased costs for no net gain? I see hydrogen as a dead end.

[HATEFACE]

There are numerous ways to reduce carbon emissions. One of the best IMO would be to subsidize the installation of solar panels on buildings throughout the sunbelt, as an investment in infrastructure. That would reduce both our carbon output and reliance on foreign oil, and allow homeowners to charge an electric car for free. I almost did this out of pocket myself when I built my house, and plan to when I can afford it.

I
would have to be really impressed by an electric car in order to even consider buying one. Even still - Where would I refuel it?

Taxing the heck out of gas guzzling SUV's, instead of giving big tax rebates, would help too. Gas economy isn't exactly rocket science. Heck, in 1955 the VW Beetle got 32 mpg. That's better than most cars on the road in the US today.

SUVs usually belong to large families, however much I loath the soccer moms I don't think taxing SUVs is a good idea.

Two stroke motors are largely unnecessary. I would outright ban things like leaf blowers (use a rake), and heavily tax other gas using equipment. It's amazing how much of our carbon output is the product of sheer laziness.

I live in minnesota, which usually means plenty of leaves during the fall season and it's even more awful if you have a large property. Screw racking by hand and screw taxing gas equipment. Come up with other ideas that don't involve taxes.

Basically anything that conserves fuel (wood, oil, gas, ethanol) also reduces carbon output. One thing I wouldn't do is increase nuclear power production, I just don't trust it to be safe.

I'm fine with nuclear power. In fact nuclear power is the best thing you mentioned thus far and the only thing that works well. Your fears of it are pretty fucked up considering you can't build them near strong sceismic areas (even though they are built to withstand earthquakes.) and they have to be built away from the public. In fact the only devastating thing I can think of is Chernobyl and the lulzworthy three mile island thing.
Now you can yap about how there have been people with radiation sickness and how the waste can be used as a zomg terrorist weaponz. - Well whatever, it's still a pretty clean, pretty reasonable source of power and if you cant stand the thought of having a nuclear power plant next to you, maybe you should look at floating power plants.

Nor would I bother with corn ethanol, which doesn't much reduce carbon output anyway, or hydrogen pellets (unless you're making the pellets from solar/hydroelectric/wind power, it still requires burning oil to generate the power initially). Hydrogen pellets in particular should be no different than just charging an electric car, since both involve moving the tailpipe. So why create a new industry and associated increased costs for no net gain? I see hydrogen as a dead end.

What type of power source can we use that is affordable, clean, and abundant?

[Mulu]

I would have to be really impressed by an electric car in order to even consider buying one. Even still - Where would I refuel it?

There are some really nice ones now, and where I live you can recharge it while you shop, as the parking spaces have chargers available. Make them more common and that would be true everywhere.

SUVs usually belong to large families, however much I loath the soccer moms I don't think taxing SUVs is a good idea.

No, SUV's usually belong to small families, and are usually driven by single occupants. There's nothing wrong with a gas conserving minivan.

I live in minnesota, which usually means plenty of leaves during the fall season and it's even more awful if you have a large property. Screw racking by hand and screw taxing gas equipment. Come up with other ideas that don't involve taxes.

*shrugs* Learn to live with less, or suffer the consequences. Grossly consumptive lifestyles are a luxury we can't afford anymore. It was't all that long ago that leaf blowers didn't exist. I remember doing a lot of raking as a kid. It didn't kill me.

I'm fine with nuclear power. In fact nuclear power is the best thing you mentioned thus far and the only thing that works well. Your fears of it are pretty f*cked up considering you can't build them near strong sceismic areas

Please show me the place on this planet that isn't seismic.

In fact the only devastating thing I can think of is Chernobyl and the lulzworthy three mile island thing.

That's because you don't live near a nuclear waste facility.

if you cant stand the thought of having a nuclear power plant next to you, maybe you should look at floating power plants.

I already do have one next to me. It's called Diablo. There are evacuation zones and warning sirens all over the place. It's an unnecessarily risky way of generating power when the sun already does it for you.

What type of power source can we use that is affordable, clean, and abundant?

Look up. If roof tiles were solar panels, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Joos]

One thing I wouldn't do is increase nuclear power production, I just don't trust it to be safe.

I found this highly interesting:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm

Its good to see that people are researching things like the CANDU reactor and the "fast breeder reactor". Give's you hope!

And Killthorne, for fuck sake. Stop being such a wingy emo goth loser and grow up already. hate in, love out!

[ayergo]

Nuke power is your friend!

It has been successfully used in the US Navy for years without incident. A nuke sub makes enough energy to power everything in the boat, purify water, and has more to spare.

The worst nuke incident in the US was 5 mile island, where no one was injured or killed.

Even one of the founders of Greenpeace now says that nuke energy is much better than the alternatives.

[Grand Fromage]

Anyone have the link to the study?

Check the link I posted.

Anyway. Nuclear power + electric cars, 95% of driving is well within the range of those. That would cut out emissions enough that it wouldn't be an emergency anymore.

Check into new nuclear technology, Mulu. It's completely safe. They literally cannot melt down anymore, and the nuclear waste concern is bullshit. It's less radioactive than it was when it came out of the ground in the first place, and even in the absolute worst case scenario tests the containment units don't crack. Also, modern reactors reuse most of the waste as fuel. Drop the rest in Yucca Mountain and forget about it. Coal power plants put out a lot more radioactive waste than a nuclear reactor, and that waste goes right into the air.

Solar power is nice and all roofs in sunny areas should be covered by solar cells, but without crazy efficiency upgrades and orbital platforms, it's a supplement, not a primary energy source. This is where I get angry at environmentalists. "hey let's stop using fossil fuels!" Great. We should, you're absolutely right, it's a good idea. We have this nuclear power technology that will let us do it. "NO NUKES FOR OIL WHAT THE FUCK " derrrrrr wut. If nuclear power were OMG DEATH TO EVERYONE then France and Japan should be uninhabitable by now. Fission is a perfectly good stopgap measure until fusion is worked out.

And if you mention Chernobyl I will make it my life's goal to invent a way to strangle you through this DSL line, as you should know better.

[Killthorne]

And Killthorne, for f*sk sake. Stop being such a wingy emo goth loser and grow up already. hate in, love out!

What's wingy? Miss a key there? As for emo goth loser... hah. You don't know me at all, and your definition of me is about as close to the mark, as me calling you a pansy-ass, conformist, greedy bootlicker. So.. why don't you grow up with that middle school, name-calling mentality of yours?

On a side-note: I think it's hilarious that if you don't agree with someone or have an opinion, you're a god damn emo. Heh. If there's ever a reason to be emo, it would be the sadness I get from your lame, habitual responses. " You're emo!" LOL

I have no hate, just wondering (and slightly disturbed) about Mulu's fascist thinking. Seems alot less broad-minded to me than he's actually professing himself to be. I am really starting to believe extremist liberals are all a bunch of subversives. And I never really wanted to believe that, given I lean towards the left. Nice happy middle road.

~Killthorne~

[Charlie]

Chernobyl is doing quite well, and there's an old lady living there, eating the radioactive fruit. Sounds like the perfect 5 years left to live colony to me. The Soviet system was also run mostly on cow paddies and good intentions, along with vast quantities of corruption.

It costs two to fourty thousand dollars to hook up a few solar panels onto your home. Jo Dirt doesn't have five grand to blow on free juice for everybody.

Fusion is being seriously researched. I read an article in an Energy-Industry quarterly periodical that noted a full sized fusion reactor was to be built in Europe (I don't know exactly where) and that it was an international project including the USA, though I don't know if China is involved.

[Mulu]

It costs two to fourty thousand dollars to hook up a few solar panels onto your home. Jo Dirt doesn't have five grand to blow on free juice for everybody.

He does if it's subsidized by a tax rebate and it's easy to obtain loans. Currently solar pays for itself in about 7 years in a sunny area. With a tax subsidy, you could cut that down to 3 easy, at which point you'd be a fool not to solarize. With enough solar rooftops, our oil consumption drops to safe levels. Seriously, this is a no brainer. Too bad our policy makers have no brains. Heck, for the money we spent on Iraq, we probably could have made it free.

As for nuke safety, well it's precisely as safe as the monkeys running it. All it takes is one corner cutter with no oversight and it's time to move and leave your stuff behind, and take lots of iodine pills. Besides, what if terrorists blow it up? I seem to recall a Homeland Security statement that it would be impossible to protect all of our nuclear facilities, and currently it's up to the owners to protect them. Granted they are "robust" structures, but they aren't indestructible.

[Nekulor]

Mulu, I'll keep this short.


I like my leafblower, riding lawnmower and atv. All of them make doing chores a hell of a lot easier. I will not cut them out of my lifestyle simply because we are adding roughly 70 gigatons to the annual 220-300 gigatons produced naturally in terms of carbon. The true problem lies in methane (mostly ag emissions from animals like cows) and the high levels of output from large vehicles like Hummers, planes, tour busses, ect. My lawnmower is making a very low level contribution to that, almost immeasurable compared to the daily effects of an SUV or a heard of cattle. I'll stop my "consumptive consumerist lifestyle" when I see definitive proof that me cutting my grass or blowing the tons of leaves every fall is causing global warming trends. Until then, I'll continue using those and the government has no right to intrude on that. That is nearly infringement upon personal freedom, something you are usually a proponent of. Call me a libertarian, but that is way out of government's necessary function IMO.

Also, I'd like to see proof that you're 100% carbon neutral before you preach at us about the horrors of our lifestyles. However, your link to solar panels has made me consider that when my parents next redo the roof. I think I need to show that to them, because I single handedly rack up about $100 in electric costs a month.

Its late, so I'll post the newscientist article I got my info from tomorrow.

[Mulu]

Well, despite your protestations, you do not have a constitutional right to own and use a leafblower. That's reserved for guns, which have a very low carbon output. In fact, guns probably count as a carbon saver, given that their only function is to kill people, thus reducing carbon consumption.

As to the rest, you are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Another type of engine, typically found in lower power machines, is known as a two-stroke engine and is commonly found in the following equipment:

Lawnmowers
Garden tractors
Grass trimmers
Leaf blowers
Chain saws
Dirt bikes
Jet skis
Small outboard motors

Two-stroke engines are less fuel efficient and pollute more than 4-stroke engines. For example, a personal watercraft that uses a 70-horsepower, two-stroke outboard motor, emits the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution in one hour as the engine of a new car would if it were driven 8,000 kilometers.

The true problem lies in people like you.

I don't have to be 100% carbon neutral to show that you're grossly wasteful. But my electric bill for a family of three is less than your contribution to your parents electric bill, which says a *lot.*

[HATEFACE]

It costs two to fourty thousand dollars to hook up a few solar panels onto your home. Jo Dirt doesn't have five grand to blow on free juice for everybody.

He does if it's subsidized by a tax rebate and it's easy to obtain loans. Currently solar pays for itself in about 7 years in a sunny area. With a tax subsidy, you could cut that down to 3 easy, at which point you'd be a fool not to solarize. With enough solar rooftops, our oil consumption drops to safe levels. Seriously, this is a no brainer. Too bad our policy makers have no brains. Heck, for the money we spent on Iraq, we probably could have made it free.

As for nuke safety, well it's precisely as safe as the monkeys running it. All it takes is one corner cutter with no oversight and it's time to move and leave your stuff behind, and take lots of iodine pills. Besides, what if terrorists blow it up? I seem to recall a Homeland Security statement that it would be impossible to protect all of our nuclear facilities, and currently it's up to the owners to protect them. Granted they are "robust" structures, but they aren't indestructible.

Once we kill all the fuckin' terrorists there wont be that fear of terorists blowing it up! No worries! I know how much you love that idea Mulu.

Mulu, again, for the solar pannels, not REALISTIC. I said before that I live in minnesota. The only cloud free days are in June, July, and Augest if it doesn't rain frequently. Honestly, what the fuck am I going to do through winter? I'll burn down a fuckin forest to heat my house is what I'll do while those nice warm solar pannels are doing jack shit covered in a foot of snow on the top of my house. I would have to wait until they thaw. Maybe I'll have to crawl up there and scrap the shit out of them with my shovel. - Right, I don't own a snow blower in Minnesota. I guess I'm too lazy to go out and buy one. It doesn't kill me to shovel frequently. Besides, I'm a michigander at heart. Gotta love the giant scoop shovel.

*shrugs* learn to live with less, or SUFFER the consquences

LOL wut? OOoh right, the whole global warming thing, yeah. huge oceans massive floods, doomsday armegeddon. . . etc.

Anyway, using yard equipment isn't that "grossly consumptive" if we begin to rely on cleaner energies and cleaner running cars like GF has previously mentioned.

Now let's go back to Nuclear power. Either you're pushing some sort of (sounds like liberal) agenda or you're spewing some mindless drivel you heard somewhere else. Maybe you don't like it because George W. often pushes for more nuclear power in order to free us from foreign dependence. . . Who knows.

Please show me the place on this planet that isn't seismic.

You need learn how to troll better but in case you were actually being sincere. I was talking of course about earthquake areas, geologic fault lines, volcanos, and barbra streisand. You know, the reasons you should stay away from california? That sort of thing.

[HATEFACE]

Well, despite your protestations, you do not have a constitutional right to own and use a leafblower. That's reserved for guns, which have a very low carbon output. In fact, guns probably count as a carbon saver, given that their only function is to kill people, thus reducing carbon consumption.

As to the rest, you are clearly part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Another type of engine, typically found in lower power machines, is known as a two-stroke engine and is commonly found in the following equipment:

Lawnmowers
Garden tractors
Grass trimmers
Leaf blowers
Chain saws
Dirt bikes
Jet skis
Small outboard motors

Two-stroke engines are less fuel efficient and pollute more than 4-stroke engines. For example, a personal watercraft that uses a 70-horsepower, two-stroke outboard motor, emits the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution in one hour as the engine of a new car would if it were driven 8,000 kilometers.

The true problem lies in people like you.

I don't have to be 100% carbon neutral to show that you're grossly wasteful. But my electric bill for a family of three is less than your contribution to your parents electric bill, which says a *lot.*

How are those straws coming? Are they easy to get a hold of? They're hard to grasp but if you keep it up, I'm sure your opposable thumb will do the work.