Climate change discussion

Spaceships don't have to do it through a magnetic field and thick atmosphere... Solar and wind are limited by physics and chemistry. They fail for those reasons when used on Earth.


Off the grid? Depends on how much power you propose to have and whether you want it 24/7 or not. Although I can't legally do it, I could put a small reactor in my swimming pool and power the neighborhood. In Idaho, the best choice would be micro-hydro on several acres of land with a perennial stream going through it--assuming the EPA doesn't come and deny you using a weir and the stream to generate power like they've done before and would likely do if the Waters of the US legislation goes into full effect--another idiot thing Biden might well do.

Can't power vehicles with solar either unless you want something totally impractical.

Tidal energy is even more impractical. Not only does it require absolutely massive systems to generate power, they are in the worst combination of conditions: Saltwater pounded by waves.

Mars has next to no atmosphere either. But it is further away from the sun so solar is less efficient there. On Earth the average watt density of sunlight is 1.4 kw / m^2 versus 590 watts / m^2 or only 42% on Mars what we get on Earth.

Solar and wind are losers. Follow the science. You Lefties keep saying that...

So? That's a technical problem like making better paint for boats or reducing the weight of a motor and structural materials to enable a heavier-than-air machine to fly. I was around for the XV-15 in the early 80s. The V-22 didn't come about for over 20 years later because they didn't have the R&D money to make the alloys necessary to handle the stresses of rotating the motors from fixed-wing to rotary-flight. It's always a bad day when one breaks free.

I'm talking about legal, reliable and low-cost means to go off the grid. Mass production reduces costs which is why LED flashlights and big screen TVs are so cheap this days. Remember paying over $500(in 1999 dollars, now $776) for a yuuuuge 27 inch CRT TV? Now you can buy a 40 inch for $129.

Harnessing tidal waves is just finding a better mousetrap.

The robots running around Mars do okay. Better tech improves efficiency. Again, all are technical issues. Personally, I'm waiting for my jetpack and Mr. Fusion, butt that may take awhile waiting for private industry to do it. If we had a war with Space Pirates, no doubt the problems would solved much quicker.

Only fucking morons sucking political cock call me a "lefty".
 
Fishing should be done responsibly. China goes around with super fishing vessels and decimates fish stocks wherever they can get away with it.

It's like warfare against nature's food supply and the world's fishermen. Not long ago they caught one off of Argentina.

I refuse to buy any Chinese-caught fish because of their methods.
(also the quality is poor)
I live in an area that is bountiful for fish and can get my own if need be.

Chinese ships can't get up in here..lol!

A lot of fish are farmed now. Snapper, flounder, cod, bass, trout, salmon, crab, clams, mussels, even squid. Sure, we still go out and catch fish and crab in the sea, but modern fish farms can produce an amazing amount of food.
 
Then the solution is nuclear backed by natural gas with hydrogen or ammonia as a portable fuel. That's the cautious solution because it is available, and can be shown to work. The irrational and dangerous one is going to solar, wind, and batteries.

Why does there have to be a solution? What is the problem?
 
A lot of fish are farmed now. Snapper, flounder, cod, bass, trout, salmon, crab, clams, mussels, even squid. Sure, we still go out and catch fish and crab in the sea, but modern fish farms can produce an amazing amount of food.

For some reason I'm a Flounder magnet..an inordinate percent of my catches are Flounder. I want Reds, Yellows, or Angelfish..and end up hooking a Flounder alla time.
 
Of course, Vera. Now then , sit quietly and ponder on the new battery technologies while you play with your Chinese dollies.

If- as they believe- CO2 is the life-or-death issue then why should they tolerate any time-wasting, self-serving and spurious opposition to survival ?

Do you really believe that the condemned man should listen to the hangman's reasons for pulling the lever ?

The entities mentioned by the member I was addressing , Vera. Don't fret- the nurse won't let them get you.

Have a little look in your grammar book too, where it says that ' they ' is plural.


Haw, haw.............................haw.

Back on ignore, arsewipe!
 
Spaceships run on solar.
Nope. Spaceships run on anything. Fuel cells, plutonium power packs, solar panels, etc. It depends on the craft's mission and available sources of power. Solar cells are utterly useless for a deep space probe, for example. Once you get past Mars, you just don't get sufficient power from them.
The wind and tides are free.
Harnessing them is not.
The whole "the man who builds a better mousetrap will see the world will make a beaten path to his door" idea.
Then why force the market? You are arguing against yourself.
How many of our brothers in Idaho would like to be 100% off the grid?
What's wrong with the grid?
Can't do that with nukes or natural gas.
So you don't like nukes, despite the fact that Idaho was the first State to have nuclear power.
So you don't like natural gas, despite the fact that it comes free with every landfill, most oil wells, and is a renewable fuel
How much money would be saved by trucks, trains and ships which do not require refueling?
ALL vehicles require refueling. Even electric cars. They require recharging. That is refueling.

Trucks cannot run on solar power. They carry heavy loads. Solar power isn't enough energy to carry them.
Trains cannot run on solar power. They carry even heavier loads. Solar power isn't enough energy to carry it.
Some ships already run on solar power. They're called sailboats. Such ships to carry cargo are, however, slow and can't carry very much of it.
Practical aircraft cannot run on solar. The only aircraft that are solar powered can't carry anything else but the aircraft and the pilot. Also solar powered aircraft must come down after hours. They don't have enough power to carry a ballasting system like batteries.
Then, of course, there's the Mars and Lunar colony thing.
The Moon's surface has been known to reach temperatures ranging from +250 deg F to -250 deg F. The atmosphere on the Moon is extremely thin. There is no food. There is no practical water source. You will have to take EVERYTHING you need to survive with you from Earth. Those supplies will have to be renewed from time to time as well. This for a view of basically a dusty lifeless moonscape and a glorious view of how hospitable Earth really is.

The surface of Mars is pretty inhospitable too. It's temperatures range from -220 deg F to +70 deg F at the poles in summer (when the Sun is continually visible). There is no food, no practical source of water, solar power is weak, and the atmosphere is very thin and contains only trace amounts of oxygen. Again, you will have to bring EVERYTHING from Earth just to survive there. All this for a red colored sandbox, a cold distant Sun, and a distant bright star in the sky that appears from time to time which is Earth, just to remind you of how good you had it back home.
 
I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 5% of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

club of rome.
 
maybe all the excess shipping and energy waste required by the hyper-globalist model could he reduced with self reliance and local production.
 
There really aren't that many places around the world where tidal is even justifiable. I can only think of the Pentland Firth, Strangford Lough and the Bristol Channel.

Quite right.

Tidal power requires a solid place to anchor the power plant. The ocean currents are damn strong, and will rip any power plant we build from it's base over time unless that plant is rooted in solid (and I mean VERY solid) foundation. This thing has to be built in a better foundation than most any dam. Saltwater is ruinous to equipment. That salt vapor is a constant problem for anything electrical such as copper wiring, aluminum frames and wiring, switches and controls, and batteries (tides are not always flowing...it's intermittent power). Ships at sea protect this stuff by NOT letting water get into it, and even then require high maintenance and replacement of equipment from time to time.
 
maybe all the excess shipping and energy waste required by the hyper-globalist model could he reduced with self reliance and local production.

Mr. Fusion and a Star Trek replicator (3D printer). Fill Mr. Fusion with dirt, print whatever you like.
 
don't idiotify the thread.

Pull out your piercings, cover your face tats and get a grip on reality. The tech you are using right down didn't exist 20 years ago much less 40 years ago.

All the naysaying about tech on this thread is as stupid as those who claimed man would never fly or reach the Moon. It's self-blinding defeatism.

While we may still be 50 years from Mr. Fusion, anyone claiming it's impossible and will never happen is a fucking moron.

Mr.-Fusion-Close-Square-1024x1024.jpg
 
Pull out your piercings, cover your face tats and get a grip on reality. The tech you are using right down didn't exist 20 years ago much less 40 years ago.

All the naysaying about tech on this thread is as stupid as those who claimed man would never fly or reach the Moon. It's self-blinding defeatism.

While we may still be 50 years from Mr. Fusion, anyone claiming it's impossible and will never happen is a fucking moron.

Mr.-Fusion-Close-Square-1024x1024.jpg

so what? climate alarmism is still a ploy to control everything.
 
Renewables are dangerous ?

Haw, haw......................................haw.

Now- battery technology is the weakness- so let's crack on and solve that. Meanwhile, there are many aspects of renewables to explore without resorting to elderly, failed and extremely dangerous fossils and nuclear.

All sources of power are dangerous.

Solar power plants take one of two forms: direct conversion and thermal conversion. Direct conversion is your typical home solar panel system. Thermal conversion are molten salt and water boiler systems.
Solar panels are dangerous. They are capable of producing voltages that are lethal, when combined into a home system. Such systems are typically roof mounted. You cannot walk on the panels. You will damage them and they are as slick as walking on sloped glass. The ballasting system is batteries, which make use of toxic chemistry and can catch fire easily, especially if mishandled in any way. Depending on the type of battery, this may involve either a class E or class D fire, necessitating discharging massive amounts of CO2 to put it out (for class E), or the use of special and expensive methods to put out class D fires (basically LOTS of sand will work, but that's not easily managed in an emergency). Putting water on either type of fire is a BAD idea.

Thermal conversion systems make use of mirrors to focus the Sun's rays on a container of molten salt (or in smaller systems, a water boiler). Salt melts at 1474 deg F. This stuff is dangerous to handle and is very corrosive. Water boilers are safer. They can only explode if their safety systems fail, or the boiler can be permanently damaged or destroyed if water is allowed to leak out of it.

Oil is dangerous. Drilling it has hazards to personnel, it can damage local environments temporarily if spilled, refinery plants are not pleasant places as they are filled with noise and hazardous vapors, transporting it can be hazardous, It reaches high temperatures when burned, and if a leak develops that is exposed to flame, can cause a difficult to stop wildfire (a class B fire, again, water is a BAD idea).

Natural gas can be dangerous. Like oil, it reaches high temperatures when it burns. It can also leak without much warning, or build up in some areas in the home or business causing an explosion. Wildfire with this stuff is a class C fire, which cannot be put out with water. Shutting off the gas flow is the best technique here (if you can), and the use of a dry chemical extinguishing system.

Hydroelectric power can be dangerous. These systems are typically dealing with large currents and high voltages (up to 800kv). The penstock feeding the generator house requires valves that operate under extremely high pressure hydraulics (about 3000psi). Leaks in these hydraulic systems are extremely dangerous. Further, the dam holds back a tremendous pressure against the headwaters. These reservoirs often contain trillions of gallons of water. That's all pressing on that dam, trying to break it. Heavy rains can overwhelm a dam and it's safety systems. Just such an emergency is taking place in China right now, and is threatening a catastrophic failure of the Three Gorges dam. Below this dam is the central industrial heart of China. The reservoir is large enough to wipe those cities off the face of the map. There is nothing the Chinese can do about the already severely damaged Three Gorges dam. It's still raining heavily upstream.

Wind power is dangerous. While those blades turning on the horizon look sedate and slow moving, their tips are actually moving quite fast. These propellers are joined only at the hub, like any propeller. Propellers MUST be balanced at all times. They can not be allowed to exceed a certain speed. Imbalanced blades or over speeding blades cause catastrophic failure, destroying the entire machine and throwing large debris as much as a mile away. The machines are susceptible to ice buildup (leaving the blades unbalanced) and dirt buildup (leaving the blades unbalanced). Thus, wind generators cannot operate in freezing conditions. If their governor systems fail, the propeller blades will follow, with disastrous results. Animals too are in danger, as hawks and eagles find the blades will generate lift for them. Circling in the path of the blades, however, sooner later whacks a bird, with fatal results. Gusting or severe winds can destroy these towers easily, as they are hollow (for service access) and the blades are a high drag up high (even if the blades are feathered). Collapsing towers are dangerous.

I believe that covers most of the renewable energy sources.
 
maybe all the excess shipping and energy waste required by the hyper-globalist model could he reduced with self reliance and local production.


of course. better tell Biden, he just switched oil transportation from safe ;pipelines to dangerous trucks and trains.
 
Of course, Vera. Now then , sit quietly and ponder on the new battery technologies while you play with your Chinese dollies.

What new battery technologies?

ALL batteries require differing conductors that have a different work function between them, and an electrolyte that provides for ion passage between them.
That electrolyte is usually a nasty salt, an acid, and alkaline. Lithium oxide batteries are no exception.

Further, a battery is NOT an energy source. It must be charged. It is more like a tank than an energy source. A tank for electrons.
 
All sources of power are dangerous.

Solar power plants take one of two forms: direct conversion and thermal conversion. Direct conversion is your typical home solar panel system. Thermal conversion are molten salt and water boiler systems.
Solar panels are dangerous. They are capable of producing voltages that are lethal, when combined into a home system. Such systems are typically roof mounted. You cannot walk on the panels. You will damage them and they are as slick as walking on sloped glass. The ballasting system is batteries, which make use of toxic chemistry and can catch fire easily, especially if mishandled in any way. Depending on the type of battery, this may involve either a class E or class D fire, necessitating discharging massive amounts of CO2 to put it out (for class E), or the use of special and expensive methods to put out class D fires (basically LOTS of sand will work, but that's not easily managed in an emergency). Putting water on either type of fire is a BAD idea.

Thermal conversion systems make use of mirrors to focus the Sun's rays on a container of molten salt (or in smaller systems, a water boiler). Salt melts at 1474 deg F. This stuff is dangerous to handle and is very corrosive. Water boilers are safer. They can only explode if their safety systems fail, or the boiler can be permanently damaged or destroyed if water is allowed to leak out of it.

Oil is dangerous. Drilling it has hazards to personnel, it can damage local environments temporarily if spilled, refinery plants are not pleasant places as they are filled with noise and hazardous vapors, transporting it can be hazardous, It reaches high temperatures when burned, and if a leak develops that is exposed to flame, can cause a difficult to stop wildfire (a class B fire, again, water is a BAD idea).

Natural gas can be dangerous. Like oil, it reaches high temperatures when it burns. It can also leak without much warning, or build up in some areas in the home or business causing an explosion. Wildfire with this stuff is a class C fire, which cannot be put out with water. Shutting off the gas flow is the best technique here (if you can), and the use of a dry chemical extinguishing system.

Hydroelectric power can be dangerous. These systems are typically dealing with large currents and high voltages (up to 800kv). The penstock feeding the generator house requires valves that operate under extremely high pressure hydraulics (about 3000psi). Leaks in these hydraulic systems are extremely dangerous. Further, the dam holds back a tremendous pressure against the headwaters. These reservoirs often contain trillions of gallons of water. That's all pressing on that dam, trying to break it. Heavy rains can overwhelm a dam and it's safety systems. Just such an emergency is taking place in China right now, and is threatening a catastrophic failure of the Three Gorges dam. Below this dam is the central industrial heart of China. The reservoir is large enough to wipe those cities off the face of the map. There is nothing the Chinese can do about the already severely damaged Three Gorges dam. It's still raining heavily upstream.

Wind power is dangerous. While those blades turning on the horizon look sedate and slow moving, their tips are actually moving quite fast. These propellers are joined only at the hub, like any propeller. Propellers MUST be balanced at all times. They can not be allowed to exceed a certain speed. Imbalanced blades or over speeding blades cause catastrophic failure, destroying the entire machine and throwing large debris as much as a mile away. The machines are susceptible to ice buildup (leaving the blades unbalanced) and dirt buildup (leaving the blades unbalanced). Thus, wind generators cannot operate in freezing conditions. If their governor systems fail, the propeller blades will follow, with disastrous results. Animals too are in danger, as hawks and eagles find the blades will generate lift for them. Circling in the path of the blades, however, sooner later whacks a bird, with fatal results. Gusting or severe winds can destroy these towers easily, as they are hollow (for service access) and the blades are a high drag up high (even if the blades are feathered). Collapsing towers are dangerous.

I believe that covers most of the renewable energy sources.



you left out one thing about wind power. Those towers require gallons of oil for lubrication which can leak into the ground around them. they also kill birds. and the worn out propellers are an environment hazard. there is no way to get rid of them so they are cut up and buried.

Your general theme is correct. there are dangers with all forms of energy. There are dangers in life, we just need to try to minimize them.
 
so what? climate alarmism is still a ploy to control everything.

Meh. The ASPCA worries about animals. There's always someone alarmed about something including you being alarmed about climate alarmism. ;)

I'm talking about the tech needed to get to Mars. Like the tech we are all benefitting from due to the Space Race and wars, renewable energy sources for spacecraft and colonies can be used by those who stay on this planet.
 
Back
Top