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.
Embracing nuclear power again along with installing new wind and solar would be the smart thing to do for people who actually look at the science. Nuclear has come a long way from the plants of old and can be done very safely.
You are not going to get people to stop consuming. People want to experience everything and visiting all these countries and doing all this "stuff" that well adjusted progressives like to do takes energy. If you want to experience everything without adding to the carbon footprint, nuclear (and more wind and solar) are the ideal solution. I also personally believe hydrogen and fuel cells are the future for things like aircraft and as a replacement for large diesel engines... but that's 20 years off yet. There's too much profit in maintaining the status quo.
That's what they're saying: If you did the most drastic thing you can do - stop the citizenry from moving about, practically world wide - you'd change the pollution by...5%.
Right.
5% in a matter of weeks, which is pretty impressive, but understandable since lot of people are driving a lot less. It is an example of what kind of impact reducing car emissions would have. As the article explains, there are other sources, which still contribute.
I dont think anyone is under the impression that cars are the only source, and I don't think anyone does not like cleaner air. I am not a 'warmer', but I am for less pollution if it can be done using reasonable approaches. Nuclear power is very clean, and produces a lot of energy. Why not utilize more of that for heating? As you can see from the posts some people celebrate the fact that more people might convert to using more oil. Why? That is a pure partisan view.
A couple things we might look forward to. With oil prices at record lows, more home heating systems will be converted to oil and removed from an expensive electrical system. And with record low oil prices, more electrical power generation will be converted to oil driving prices down. And "renewable" energy crashes due to it's high (relative) cost and instability.
I would disagree to a large extent, (although we just topped of tanks with 2.00 diesel @20 k gallons).. We are too busy installing natural gas generation assets to put in diesel units. The permit process and the cost to run will hold back oil fired units. Particularly with the advent of very modern natural gas recips that have the ability to respond to dramatic load changes the way diesel does. You are correct regarding your renewable comments.... While I'm hardly a fan of Michael Moore if you have nothing better to do in lock down his newest production puts the green industry in a very bad light.....And has the leftist/environazis up in arms!!
Depending on your perspective, Finn, that was kind of the point: That with the "biggest drop" on record - meaning, most folks aren't driving right now, that's about it, with some companies shut down, so less electrical demand - with all that going on - the "biggest drop" is - hm...eh, it ain't that big. 5%. That's it.
That's what they're saying: If you did the most drastic thing you can do - stop the citizenry from moving about, practically world wide - you'd change the pollution by...5%.
Every little bit helps.
So it’s not a lot and likely not sustainable but nice while it lasts.
“Delhi residents are used to looking up to see a hazy, gray sky. Now they're posting pictures of clear blue horizons on social media.
The air is typically so polluted that it leaves an acrid taste. ”
Embracing nuclear power again along with installing new wind and solar would be the smart thing to do for people who actually look at the science. Nuclear has come a long way from the plants of old and can be done very safely.
You are not going to get people to stop consuming. People want to experience everything and visiting all these countries and doing all this "stuff" that well adjusted progressives like to do takes energy. If you want to experience everything without adding to the carbon footprint, nuclear (and more wind and solar) are the ideal solution. I also personally believe hydrogen and fuel cells are the future for things like aircraft and as a replacement for large diesel engines... but that's 20 years off yet. There's too much profit in maintaining the status quo.
Realistically, nuclear is the only way to take a significant bite out of carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector. To rely on wind and solar we’d need massive amounts of storage capacity, and that’s just not economical (at least not yet).
Energy is energy. 100GW of power from a solar farm (with batteries) is just as useful as 100GW from a coal plant, and these days a solar farm is cheaper too.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,317 posts, read 80,639,850 times
Reputation: 57331
So despite the far lower traffic, and some factories shut down, air and sea shipping goes on, and more importantly, everyone is at home. Here where it's in the 50s and 4os at night, we are burning the furnace all day, normally it's off when we are at work. Neighbors are even burning wood and enjoying their fireplaces while working from home. At my office they still have the HVAC running as usual since a few people are there. Some cities still have freezing weather, others are running AC due to the 80s. So any increase in electricity and natural gas means a bigger effect on greenhouse gas, despite the cities looking like the air is much cleaner.
Energy is energy. 100GW of power from a solar farm (with batteries) is just as useful as 100GW from a coal plant, and these days a solar farm is cheaper too.
Didn't watch or didn't understand what was being said here did you?
Logically this post makes no sense and anyone expecting a Maricle in 1 month is nuts as well. CO2 and mother nature is more like gaining and losing weight. You didn't gain it all overnight so I cannot expect to lose it overnight.
The start of the industrial revolution was over 100 years ago. You cannot expect to significantly drop 100+ years of constant pollution buildup and emissions in 1 month where big emissions like power plants and industrial industries are still running (they're essential), that is just stupid.
I have no idea how much CO2 would lower during this time but again I don't think anyone who thinks logically would have expected anything the OP is stating should have happened.
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 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.
