Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[Deleted member 848]

I have heard that the building of a modern windmill adds more carbon to the atmosphere and uses more resources than what that windmill will ever compensate for in its lifespan.

source?

Don't worry, I'll post one:
https://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/AME MoreWind Report.pdf

In 2013, wind power displaced more than 132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Since 2001, wind power has displaced more than 620 million metric tons of carbon dioxide – more than a year’s worth of CO2 emissions from the entire country of Canada.
After more than a decade of rapid growth, wind energy now accounts for 4 percent of total U.S. electricity generation.
Nine states – Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Oregon – now generate more than 12 percent of their total electricity production with wind power.
Wind power capacity in Iowa and South Dakota now supplies more than a quarter of all in-state electricity generation.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Two incidents stretched over half a century, and using ancient and outdated technology. The risk/return trade off is a no-brainer. Using modern techniques, the risks are minimal, and the rewards are astronomical. But like GMOs, it's an irrational fear with little scientific basis.

Well, I think I made it clear that I support the idea of nuclear energy.

It's not just the frequency of 'events' that figure into the cost/benefit calculation, it's the damage, or potential damage, of such events.

Is it really as simple and straightforward as you argue?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nice straw man. I'm not going to burn it down for you as I don't see the point. You seem to be more disturbed by my classification of 'liberal' than anything. Guess what, political types exist and liberals are indeed stuck in antiquated tax law. Nothing you wrote disputes that but only speaks from inside that generalization that a type would.

How so strawman? I don't think this word means what you think it means.

I dispute your argument that liberals are stuck in an antiquated tax law. (I assume you are referring to some form of progressive taxation.) You seem to think that the term 'antiquated' is well defined and has universal consensus as to its meaning. I disagree. So, tell me, just how progressive taxation is antiquated, particularly given that it is still practiced all over the developed world outside the US?

 

[Deleted member 848]

jimmy eat jazz has totally had frank's number these last couple of months.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I have seen over and over again proof that scientists have skewed data. Does that prove global warming is not real? No, it just proves you can't trust scientists with an agenda (to get paid). "Normalized data" being used instead of raw data but compared to raw data in years past to show warming does not compute and a fair comparison to me. I do think humans have an impact on warming, but it is hard to determine what the actual impact is based on the data reported.

What I do know is that humans have a massive impact on the planet. And the mass pollution we put in the oceans imho, is much worse that global warming. Many countries dump all of their unprocessed waste directly into the ocean. Over time this is going to have a massive impact.

History shows that humans prosper in periods of warmth, and suffer in periods of cooling (dark ages). An ice age or mini ice age would wreck much more havoc than a few degrees of warming. Over polluting our oceans will wreck havoc on the food supply.

I would much rather spend the money on global warming research to go towards the lowering of pollution in general.

In regards to wind and solar power, while helpful, it is not a complete solution. Solar power only works during the day, and human peak demand is in the evening. So unless we change to a DC power plan with batteries (which will cause more pollution as they wear out, and the cost to change structures would be too high) solar is not all it is cracked up to be. Wind power works while there is wind (some areas are obviously better for wind power than others). Thermal energy and hydro are good, but we have limited resources in this country, and the creation of dams creates other environmental issues. At this stage, nuclear energy is probably the best bet until other forms of renewal energy can be efficiently harnessed. The problem is most people are OK with nuclear energy, they just don't want it in their backyard...

 

[moevillini]

I have heard that the building of a modern windmill adds more carbon to the atmosphere and uses more resources than what that windmill will ever compensate for in its lifespan.

source?

Don't worry, I'll post one:
https://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/AME MoreWind Report.pdf

OK, maybe I'm just confused, but displacing carbon or CO2 means moving it from one spot to another - - that's not the same as a net addition of carbon or CO2, is it?

Two incidents stretched over half a century, and using ancient and outdated technology. The risk/return trade off is a no-brainer. Using modern techniques, the risks are minimal, and the rewards are astronomical. But like GMOs, it's an irrational fear with little scientific basis.

perhaps I'm wrong, but I think part of the fear has less to do with nuclear accidents and more to do with a fear of unstable/unfriendly foreign powers stockpiling reactor grade material and turning it into weapons grade material and then creating nuclear weapons
(at least if considering it as a world-wide power source)

Plus areas that still depend on coal production are not going to favor something that may impinge upon their livelihood

 

[Siro]

Well, I think I made it clear that I support the idea of nuclear energy.

It's not just the frequency of 'events' that figure into the cost/benefit calculation, it's the damage, or potential damage, of such events.

Is it really as simple and straightforward as you argue?

Shouldn't there be a risk/reward calculation for everything? Coal power plants have the reward of cheap and abundant energy source, versus the risk of increased CO2 emissions. Solar Panels require energy storage infrastructure and take up vast swaths of land (which why Japan is struggling to meet its power need. Not enough surface area). Why is this risk versus reward only brought up when discussing nuclear power? It's curious is all.

 

[Siro]

perhaps I'm wrong, but I think part of the fear has less to do with nuclear accidents and more to do with a fear of unstable/unfriendly foreign powers stockpiling reactor grade material and turning it into weapons grade material and then creating nuclear weapons
(at least if considering it as a world-wide power source)

Plus areas that still depend on coal production are not going to favor something that may impinge upon their livelihood

Those are entirely separate concerns. Nuclear Power in developed countries typically have NIMBY opposition, mainly from liberals.

 

[♪alt13]

Another concern that I have regarding people's impulsive rejection of nuclear power is that we're likely close to achieving commercial fusion power. Although fusion is even safer than current fission technology, and although it produces little nuclear waste, I am sure there will be opposition based on the existence of the letters "n, u, c, l, e, a, r" in that particular order. Which is unfortunate, because fusion power would literally solve the world's energy needs safely and cleanly.

We're likely not close at all.

 

[Siro]

We're likely not close at all.

I disagree. Some entities, like Lockheed, claim to have working small-scale prototypes that are nearly ready for deployment. A large number of other groups have demonstrated very promising approaches to achieving above unity reactions in the past few years. Even if all of those efforts end up short, the 20b+ ITER effort should yield workable results before 2040, which is still in the relatively near future.

 

[♪alt13]

I disagree. Some entities, like Lockheed, claim to have working small-scale prototypes that are nearly ready for deployment. A large number of other groups have demonstrated very promising approaches to achieving above unity reactions in the past few years. Even if all of those efforts end up short, the 20b+ ITER effort should yield workable results before 2040, which is still in the relatively near future.

I was under the impression that the ITER was an experiment that would run for the most a few seconds. I don't believe Lockheed. To my knowledge no one has ever achieved more than a second and no one has ever pulled out more energy than they used to get the damn thing going. It seems to me that physicists without a financial incentive are crazy cynical about it. Could somebody make it work? sure. Is it likely? I don't think so.

 

[moevillini]

Those are entirely separate concerns. Nuclear Power in developed countries typically have NIMBY opposition, mainly from liberals.

I definitely agree. But I do think negative reactions to things such as the current Iran deal can impact the overall opinion in a negative direction.