Climate Change Thread

[Soda]

The problem isn't a naturally warming climate though; but instead, a runaway effect of global warming / climate change that is specifically being caused by man-made pollutants.

I just want to make clear that I'm not saying it's your POV specifically. I agree with this.

As far as how you address the issue, I mentioned it above. Anything short of a huge shift in consensus opinion (that would be both liberal America and conservative America) won't make a huge difference. The decision makers have to feel the effect, or realize the immediacy of the problem first-hand to trump the money they get to lie.

 

[MalTalm]

If you want to take a serious look at the issues and solutions. Number one Oil isn't the largest offender. Its coal burning power generation and Natural Gas power generation. There are other forms of power the largest issue is still power storage, there really is no way to store it currently. It isnt only storage though, when you transmit power ( move it from source to consumer) you loose it, it bleeds out and derates itself.

It is sad, we could probably move 80% of our power needs to renewable, water, air and sun but the costs and returns would literally shut power companies down. None of them are going to fall on the sword and we shouldn't expect them too.

There was a lot of talk about switching to Natural Gas would lower emissions and lots of reports that were reporting a 50% reduction in emissions, well now they have come out and said there really isn't much difference. Those studies and articles were done when we thought there was an oil shortage. Guess what happened when we discovered all this oil the last 8 years in America? That is right about when they said guess we were wrong the emissions aren't half for LNG.
So who do you believe? The misdirection the last 15 years is mind boggling from "scientists" .

The automobile side of the equation is already being fixed, it takes time for change but its happening much faster than a most people care to recognize. The difference in emissions from 10 years ago to today is night and day difference (auto related)

I don't think the conservatives I know really argue against climate change per se, I think they just feel like there are bigger issues to them going on right now. They don't do a great job looking 50 - 100 years down the road. For that matter human beings for the majority don't look that far down the road.

We collectively fail everyday every single one of us.

Do you ride share every day?

Do you plan your trips so your minimizing your drive times?

Do you run to the grocery store 2-3 times a week for last minute items?

Collectively there is a lot we can do with out our government telling us to do it but as typical Americans the vast majority of us will wait until they make us do it.

I drive in my Truck 70 miles a day one way to work and back, I could probably ride share, but I can afford the gas and honestly i don't want the hassle. BTW i stopped and went a mile or two out of my way last night to get beer to watch the game. So you see my point.

Some good points in here. Battery inefficiency is a big deal. We also have an issue with home solar panels: Solar panels generate DC, but home outlets are AC, thus they require DACs. Yet some of our biggest appliances use DC, which already have ADC converters built in. That means, as it stands, solar panels waste energy through two conversions, and until Trane starts making DC HVAC units which can be directly wired to a solar panel, that's not going to change. Those loses fly in the face of home solar efficiency, delaying it's ability to become more cost-effective than natural gas or coal-burning electric companies.

 

[Jack Brickman]

But why is it that we are lying to ourselves just within the confines of these 2 threads?

I find that astonishing.

I mean, why is it we can't have a critical, rational, fact-based discussion about this issue - just in this thread?

I mean, what can you really do when one side of the debate totally disregards scientific facts?

 

[Soda]

Also, it's worth noting that companies like Exxon are at the cutting edge of producing alternative solutions. I would bet good money that it won't be new industry that supplants the oil companies, but rather savvy oil companies will pivot and transition at the very second it becomes economically feasible to do so.

My roommate's dad in my senior year of college was the CEO of BP Solar for a long ass time (after starting with Standard Oil here in Cleveland) before moving back to the US to sit atop Virent Energy, whom I believe is working on turning sugar into fuel. Point being, alternative energy R&D (or at least "R") has been happening for a long time.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Also, it's worth noting that companies like Exxon are at the cutting edge of producing alternative solutions. I would bet good money that it won't be new industry that supplants the oil companies, but rather savvy oil companies will pivot and transition at the very second it becomes economically feasible to do so.

Your whole post was outstanding, and I know the bolded part is just you speaking metaphorically, but there is a point in there worth additional emphasis.

That pivot/transition won't occur at a particular second (and I know you know that). Rather, it will actually be occuring at a gradual rate over decades (and has already started), and it's a big enough target that companies like Exxon should be able to hit it rather easily.

Each little advancement in a particular alternative source will nudge it along. Every oil price spike or gradual trend will do the same. Every consumer that looks to buy a new car will consider the alternatives, and decisions they make will also help that change. Likewise, power companies that need to replace capacity for plants that are reaching the end of their useful life will also be weighing that ever-changing calculus in making their decisions.

The point is that we don't need some massive government fiat, or collective, group decisionaking for that transition to occur. The transition itself will consist of hundreds of millions of decisions made by different people, at different times, and different places. Manufacturers of alternative cars and power plants, and producers/generators of power will be reacting to all those price signals and purchases, and adjusting their ability to meet that increasing demand as well.

This isn't something the government needs to "manage". The odds are they'd just fuck it up and make it worse than it would otherwise be than if they just left all those decisions to the people who produce and consume that energy.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I mean, what can you really do when one side of the debate totally disregards scientific facts?

You may not have noticed, but there are actually people in this thread having a discussion that does not involve totally disregarding scientific facts.

The problem is that some people just lump together everyone who doesn't agree with their solutions into the broad category of being "deniers""

 

[KI4MVP]

Q-Tip brings up some excellent points that are more or less being disregarded: We as a nation can not move away from fossil fuels faster than other developed/ developing nations while it is a cheaper alternative for energy today. If we do, we price ourselves out of a competitive market, we would force production overseas.

Except that the argument is backwards, the country that figures out how to switch over to cheaper renewable energy will be at a competitive advantage. Other nations will be forced to catch up to compete.

Renewable energy has to ultimately be cheaper, even Q-Tip agrees with that. Ultimately everything except geothermal is solar powered. Fossil fuels are powered by sunlight that hit the earth many years ago. Instead of digging up old sunlight and burning it, it has to ultimately be more efficient and cheaper to use new sunlight as well as the wind and flowing water that are also a result of that sunlight.

It's pretty close to as cheap today and eventually will be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Electric cars are already cheaper to power than gas powered cars. Eventually they'll be pretty close to free to power when things start to look like this

or in the interim like this

 

[KI4MVP]

Also, it's worth noting that companies like Exxon are at the cutting edge of producing alternative solutions. I would bet good money that it won't be new industry that supplants the oil companies, but rather savvy oil companies will pivot and transition at the very second it becomes economically feasible to do so.

we have environmental reasons to spend some money to speed that process along. Our country has a history of solving some very big technological obstacles when we make it a national priority.

And there is reason to believe some transition could already be accomplished in a net economically beneficial way if the lack of infrastructure wasn't holding it back.

And the problem with old companies being in charge is the same conflict of interest problem we have with pharmaceutical companies being the only source of new drug development. If a new cheap solution with no recurring revenue makes their old solution with a steady stream of recurring revenue obsolete, just how quickly are they going to push it forward?

 

[gourimoko]

we have environmental reasons to spend some money to speed that process along. Our country has a history of solving some very big technological obstacles when we make it a national priority.

And there is reason to believe some transition could already be accomplished in a net economically beneficial way if the lack of infrastructure wasn't holding it back.

And the problem with old companies being in charge is the same conflict of interest problem we have with pharmaceutical companies being the only source of new drug development. If a new cheap solution with no recurring revenue makes their old solution with a steady stream of recurring revenue obsolete, just how quickly are they going to push it forward?

I agree.

It is not economically unfeasible to transition a large portion of the nation's energy needs to renewable energy.

While it would not be profitable in the short-term, I don't think that necessarily is the goal is it?

 

[Soda]

Except that the argument is backwards, the country that figures out how to switch over to cheaper renewable energy will be at a competitive advantage. Other nations will be forced to catch up to compete.

Without conflating points, does the first mover actually have an advantage in this scenario? How?

If the company that moves first spends billions upon billions to get to a point where they can offer alternative energy, it's almost undoubtedly going to cost more than just using the crude oil available today for a company not moving first. While every other company is profiting off of the oil, the first mover is expending substantial funds that will probably not produce high profit margins in the short-term. Eventually, you can expect large organizations to adopt the technology you've moved first on & I think there is going to be more demand than one company can provide. In short, the first mover doesn't always win.

 

[gourimoko]

Without conflating points, does the first mover actually have an advantage in this scenario? How?

If the company that moves first spends billions upon billions to get to a point where they can offer alternative energy, it's almost undoubtedly going to cost more than just using the crude oil available today for a company not moving first. While every other company is profiting off of the oil, the first mover is expending substantial funds that will probably not produce high profit margins in the short-term. Eventually, you can expect large organizations to adopt the technology you've moved first on & I think there is going to be more demand than one company can provide. In short, the first mover doesn't always win.

I think to @KI4MVP 's point, which is absolutely correct, is that government (i.e., taxpayers) need to foot the bill for these advancements. Relying on ExxonMobil to make advances in effective renewable energy and hoping the free market will move us in the right direction, I think, is laughable.

Historically, the space program, and the Departments of Energy and Defense were largely responsible for such large-scale innovations.

We don't even have a space program in this country any longer; and we make very little investments in potentially useful technologies.

Our fusion budget is a perfect example of this. It's just not something our society spends resources on, and that's really the core issue here.

The concern isn't whether or not we should be putting solar panels on our homes, or how inefficient inverters are; but why can't we as a society put them into space? Why can't we as a society invest into an unlimited and untapped resource?

Oh wait.. we don't have a space program.. We'd need to ask the Russians to help us.

Are we so impotent and feeble that we can't move our nation technologically forward?

So to answer the question; if we are waiting around for some oil conglomerate to transition to renewable energy, then it will be too late.

 

[KI4MVP]

Without conflating points, does the first mover actually have an advantage in this scenario? How?

If the company that moves first spends billions upon billions to get to a point where they can offer alternative energy, it's almost undoubtedly going to cost more than just using the crude oil available today for a company not moving first. While every other company is profiting off of the oil, the first mover is expending substantial funds that will probably not produce high profit margins in the short-term. Eventually, you can expect large organizations to adopt the technology you've moved first on & I think there is going to be more demand than one company can provide. In short, the first mover doesn't always win.

Did you just ask why it would be a competitive advantage to adopt cheaper energy (where the price doesn't depend on the stability of the middle east) because other countries can eventually catch up?

The first adopter not only gets the cost savings from cheaper energy, since they developed the technology, they become the ones to sell it to the other countries.

 

[Brandname]

The point is that we don't need some massive government fiat, or collective, group decisionaking for that transition to occur. The transition itself will consist of hundreds of millions of decisions made by different people, at different times, and different places. Manufacturers of alternative cars and power plants, and producers/generators of power will be reacting to all those price signals and purchases, and adjusting their ability to meet that increasing demand as well.

But this isn't just a purely economic situation. The cost of producing energy right now is artificially deflated because externalities aren't properly accounted for in the cost. So we're getting cheap energy at the expense of the environment.

The whole point is that we can't keep doing that. Waiting for the natural economics of fossil fuel cost increase vs. alternative energy cost decrease will take too long -- we will have put way too much CO2 into the atmosphere by then. I mean, that's the whole point of this discussion. As some have mentioned before, oil is even less of a problem than coal, which we have hundreds of years' worth of supply at our current rate of consumption.

Private companies, left to their own devices, are going to burn fossil fuels until it is no longer the most profitable method because their sole existence is to make money. We can't rely on them to take the best path forward for the environment.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Without conflating points, does the first mover actually have an advantage in this scenario? How?

You're not the one conflating the points. KI4MVP did, when he argued that one reason in favor of switching over first is we'll make the most money on it.

.....In short, the first mover doesn't always win.

And very likely won't in this case, especially given KI4MVP's emphasis on research/technology as a main bottleneck. For two reasons.

First, does anyone actually think the Chinese would respect our patents on the shiny new technology in which we've invested all these hundreds of billions in research? They'd copy all that shit in a heartbeat. Advantage lost.

But second, the primary purpose of this investment is to stop global warming, right? So wouldn't we want to turn all that tech over to them so they could convert all the faster? Are we really going to hold out on environment-saving tech just to make more money?

So I also don't see the big economic payback from being "first" in this instance.

 

[macbdog]

How about this for all of you:

I am a card-carrying Republican. I don't believe one iota in global warming or man-made climate change. I do, however, know that our pollution in the environment is leading to climate alterations. You believers can stick to your silly climate religion and your beliefs, I just want facts.

My issue is quite simple- since so many are following their beliefs while claiming it is what they know- from both sides of the aisle- we get a bunch of technologies where the benefits are overblown and the downsides glossed over. We are told that electric cars are the Way, the Truth and the Light but those cars require batteries full of rare-earth metals mined from poorer countries in a horribly polluting fashion. We are told that wind power and solar power will no negative effects yet I am also told that energy does not come from 'nothing'. So if a few degrees change in the jet stream can completely fuck up wind patterns on the other side of the US, leading to super hurricanes... how the hell would increased wind use, sapping energy out of the wind streams, not have a profound effect on weather? Look, I am not doubting human-caused climate change. I know it is occurring. What I am sick of is hearing about alternative' energy ideas flouted as being harmless in a way that makes their advocates sound like 1920s oil barons. I have to read lengthy discussions of 'chaos theory' and cow farts leading to typhoons but yet a several square mile wind farm sucking a bunch of kilowatts out of the air on the Great Plains apparently does jack to the weather patterns down wind.

So that being said- which of the energy options give us: the highest rate of efficiency? The best studied, most analyzed negative results so we can actually extrapolate what those will be and if they will be better in the long run? Can any of these technologies be 'simplified' and made cost-effective so a developing country can actually utilize these to enter the 21st century? Because I look at every step we take towards more fuel efficiency, for example, being essentially undone by the five steps 'forward' taken by developing countries like China and India.

I'm all for diversity, so spending on research into wind, solar, cattle, whatever power is fine with me. But I want honest analysis of the downsides instead of sugar-coating because their respective advocates fear backlash.