U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-16-2016, 08:27 PM
 
17 posts, read 4,763 times
Reputation: 14

Advertisements

Climate change may be escalating so fast it could be 'game over', scientists warn | The Independent

We seem to be near ending up in a loop, a chain-effect, as cannot be stopped, when it gets warmer and more emissions gets up so it will be warmer and so on.

For our children, time to tell Donald Trump, or he knows and will tell soon?

Last edited by Regima; 11-16-2016 at 08:57 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-17-2016, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,705 posts, read 18,145,786 times
Reputation: 3828
We have till 2035 to get off fossil fuels and that is plenty of time.

A report from Climate Action Tracker notes that buying gas-powered cars will have to stop by 2035. That's if we want to achieve the 2 degrees Celsius target aimed by world leaders at the Paris summit last year.

The link: Report: We Only Have Until 2035 to Get Rid of Gasoline Engines
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 10:57 AM
 
Location: nYC
684 posts, read 297,202 times
Reputation: 327
There is a bigger issue there, human population is increasing, and so is related pollution. In nature all creatures have population control, we seem to bypass ours with science and technology.

in USA, we lead the world in pollution humanity produces. I do not think it is realistic to say that we will get off fossil fuels in 20 years, and I also do not think that we will start producing more bio-degradable waste.

i am thinking about the new light-bulb that consumes less energy, it is also less biodegradable... products made from PETA UN-approved materials are less polutive then their plastic alternative.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,705 posts, read 18,145,786 times
Reputation: 3828
^

With how fast information technology is advancing we will be off fossil fuels. Just look how fast solar is advancing alone.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 01:57 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
4,716 posts, read 4,212,988 times
Reputation: 4856
2035 is not much time. You must be young. It seems like yesterday it was 1995. A decade goes by fast and honestly in 10 years I still see us mostly driving internal combustion engines with no batteries unless they can improve battery technology by at least double it's current capacity and durability which I doubt.

Throw in the fact that all these third world nations are going to start industrializing, and it's a recipe for disaster, really. We need investment in clean tech and we need it fast, in my opinion. I don't think we're going to destroy the planet from a runaway greenhouse effect, but the CO2 level rise is not something that will be slowed easily.. even our clean emission vehicles put out CO2 so we need a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere... more trees for example.. get those barbarians in Africa and Central America to stop clear cutting their forests.

Point three.. more and more stuff these days is built to be "disposable" .. if your washer only lasts 3-4 years instead of 15 years like many cheapo washers lasted not that long ago, all those extra resources to go building more "junk" to keep the corporation profitable and the fractional reserve system from imploding all put out pollutants. Steady economic "growth" and a stable environment are not really compatible.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,705 posts, read 18,145,786 times
Reputation: 3828
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
2035 is not much time. You must be young. It seems like yesterday it was 1995. A decade goes by fast and honestly in 10 years I still see us mostly driving internal combustion engines with no batteries unless they can improve battery technology by at least double it's current capacity and durability which I doubt.

Throw in the fact that all these third world nations are going to start industrializing, and it's a recipe for disaster, really. We need investment in clean tech and we need it fast, in my opinion. I don't think we're going to destroy the planet from a runaway greenhouse effect, but the CO2 level rise is not something that will be slowed easily.. even our clean emission vehicles put out CO2 so we need a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere... more trees for example.. get those barbarians in Africa and Central America to stop clear cutting their forests.

Point three.. more and more stuff these days is built to be "disposable" .. if your washer only lasts 3-4 years instead of 15 years like many cheapo washers lasted not that long ago, all those extra resources to go building more "junk" to keep the corporation profitable and the fractional reserve system from imploding all put out pollutants. Steady economic "growth" and a stable environment are not really compatible.
I agree that 2035 is right around the corner but this technology is advancing exponentially and look how much information technology has advanced since 2000. Why I plan on having a electric SUV by 2018 and be on solar by 2020.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Sector 001
4,716 posts, read 4,212,988 times
Reputation: 4856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
^

With how fast information technology is advancing we will be off fossil fuels. Just look how fast solar is advancing alone.
I hope you're right. Although I don't like the idea of subsidizing wind farms and having farmers get nice payouts merely for having one installed on their land, wind energy really could solve all our energy problems.. there are as many places that get steady, strong winds in areas that are desolate where nobody lives as there are places that get lots of sun, maybe even moreso.

I would keep the wind energy tax credit in place because I believe in wind, even though in theory I shouldn't support subsidies or handouts.

We could power this entire country by just playing wind energy in strategic places in states like South Dakota and Nebraska, in areas where nobody lives and nobody would care about them supposedly making the scenery look bad. If I seem biased where I live there are several wind farms within 20-30 miles.

WINDExchange: Utility-Scale Land-Based 80-Meter Wind Maps
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2016, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
11,705 posts, read 18,145,786 times
Reputation: 3828
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
I hope you're right. Although I don't like the idea of subsidizing wind farms and having farmers get nice payouts merely for having one installed on their land, wind energy really could solve all our energy problems.. there are far more places that get steady, strong winds in areas that are desolate where nobody lives than areas that get large amounts of sun year-round.

I would keep the wind energy tax credit in place because I believe in wind, even though in theory I shouldn't support subsidies or handouts.

We could power this entire country by just playing wind energy in strategic places in states like South Dakota and Nebraska, in areas where nobody lives and nobody would care about them supposedly making the scenery look bad. If I seem biased where I live there are several wind farms within 20-30 miles.

WINDExchange: Utility-Scale Land-Based 80-Meter Wind Maps
I am biased with sun as I live in the dessert southwest (Pueblo, Colorado) and wind as we are home to Vesta's North American HQ and tower manufacturing plant. In fact demand is so high they just expanded it and employ over 900 people now.


PUEBLO, Colo. - Vestas announced Friday plans to expand its facility and add jobs in Pueblo.

The company says it will add 108 new full-time jobs in Pueblo by October 1.

The total cost of the expansion is approximately $18.5 million. The city kicked in $2,484,000 from its half cent economic development tax as an incentive.

The link: Vestas announces Pueblo expansion - KRDO

Since of these technologies are a form of information technology look for them to advance a lot in the next 14 years.

Pueblo, also, has the largest solar field east of the Rockies in the USA.

Sun-drenched Pueblo’s quest for a large solar farm has finally paid off.

The solar farm will cover 900 acres of privately owned land.

It will feature more than 450,000 small solar panels that move in tandem to track the sun as it crosses the sky.

The link: http://www.chieftain.com/news/pueblo...pueblo-project
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2016, 03:11 AM
 
32,360 posts, read 31,972,665 times
Reputation: 12648
Here is the scenario you need to meet with wind and solar. It's 0 degrees out in the Northeast, it's cloudy, not much wind, utilities are hitting record demand overnight and it's going to stay like that for the next two weeks. This scenario is not implausible.

Trying to meet this demand with solar and wind by itself is going to make your capacity and storage requirements spiral out of control. Suppose you have requirement to power one 20 watt light bulb, you buy a solar panel that has enough capacity to do this. During an ideal day you can power it for about 8 hours, what about the other 16 hours? Now you need 3 panels and enough storage for two of them. Next day is cloudy? Now you need 6 panels and storage for 5 of them. You can see where this is going, yes?

Quote:
We could power this entire country by just playing wind energy in strategic places in states like South Dakota and Nebraska,
This would require massive deployment of new infrastructure AND the further you send electric the more that is lost in transmission. Even if such an area could provide somewhat reliable power generation how much do you want to bet on that? This isn't some kind of game where you can say "oops!" if it cannot meet demand.

If you are going to advocate for taking fossil fuels out of the mix what I would suggest is advocating for things that can reliably provide base power. Nuclear, hydro or even the possibility of geothermal.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2016, 03:14 AM
 
32,360 posts, read 31,972,665 times
Reputation: 12648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
....and be on solar by 2020.
If your solar sytem is net metered it's reliant on fossil fuel generation.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top