Energy is a balancing act

[TexasTiger 14,499]

Is this the right balance?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/12/willow-alaska-biden-climate-change/

[creed 1,816]

For you engineering folks on here, couldn’t we apply the law of conservation of energy to attack global warming? For instance, take heat and use it as energy to for some mechanical purpose? Thus changing existing global warming into something else?

Edited March 13, 2023 by creed

[TexasTiger 14,499]

1 hour ago, creed said:

For you engineering folks on here, couldn’t we apply the law of conservation of energy to attack global warming? For instance, take heat and use it as energy to for some mechanical purpose? Thus changing existing global warming into something else?

Not an engineer, but the scale required seems far too massive to do.

[aubiefifty 18,429]

i have read that cows are one of the biggest problems among many with global warming. so who know what will work? i believe if we all found a super cheap and sustainable fuel would be great in many ways. no fighting over oil to me is a biggie as well as pollution. i still get sad on somedays they advice not swimming in certain rivers. the coosa is one. And that brings up the fact how harmful coal is.

[johnnyAU 3,745]

Geothermal, hydro, nuclear, etc... to go along with fossil fuels until they can safely be switched over. Wind, solar and biomass are fleeting, unreliable and are not the answer. Believing that cows are one of the biggest issues is absurd. We don't need idiotic, irrational "solutions" that actually cause more harm than good. We need to maintain affordable, reliable and available energy sources. Trying to move away from fossil fuels too quickly without adequate energy replacements will result in the opposite. 

Edited March 13, 2023 by johnnyAU
typo

[Mikey 16,781]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

i believe if we all found a super cheap and sustainable fuel

We have such an energy source. It's nuclear. Bungling Biden just recently returned from a trip to Poland where he touted nuclear plants for that country. Why doesn't he want them in the USA? Oh, wait! If the USA builds nuclear we would be able to reduce imports of rare earth elements from China and that won't do at all.

[Mikey 16,781]

The climate is changing, that's certain. Climate change has been a constant since the beginning of this planet. In times past the earth has been so warm that palm trees and other tropical plants lived in Antarctica. South Florida was under water long and deep enough for a great coral reef to be formed. If one digs around in the sandy soil just south of Auburn, one can find sea shells. The beach used to be there.

At other times the climate was so cold that glaciers a mile thick covered North America as far south as St. Louis and the oceans were so low that there was a land bridge between Russia and Alaska.

To think that bankrupting the country by eliminating fossil fuels will somehow effect climate change is folly. We can't control climate change any more than the palm trees in Antarctica could stop global cooling or the woolly mammoths could stop global warming.

Are we in a warming cycle or cooling cycle right now? There is no answer at this time. These things take millennia to develop, not years, decades or centuries. Ask again in 1,000 years and maybe the truth can be known by then. If humans are still around they can build boats or igloos and the need may be.

In the meantime, we should not let those who worship at the alter of the Great God Global warming destroy or way of life.

[AU9377 6,093]

Climate change is very real.  That said, I'm not convinced that there is much we can do to reverse what is already under way.  That doesn't mean that fossil fuels are good for the air we breathe or that they won't run out one day anyway and need to be replaced to reduce our dependence on them.  Drilling in our oceans has consequences and drilling in places like the wild of Alaska has consequences. We just need to do what we can to minimize those impacts and reduce our need to be there.

[SaltyTiger 8,638]

Seems to be reasonable. Some will always disagree.

In recent weeks, Biden administration officials had suggested to environmentalists that they might pair approval of the Willow project with new conservation measures in Alaska, but their proposals largely failed to win over leading green groups. On Sunday, the leaders of at least two environmental groups told The Washington Post the new protections were not an acceptable compromise.

[DKW 86 7,945]

If we had stayed with building Nuclear Plants, we would be in a profoundly better state today than we are now. 

[AU9377 6,093]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If we had stayed with building Nuclear Plants, we would be in a profoundly better state today than we are now. 

We are building new reactors in Georgia.  Of course, the people are being gouged for billions on top of billions in cost overages.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/georgia-nuclear-plant-begins-splitting-atoms-time-97671122

[Leftfield 3,412]

Sounds like the administration was backed into a corner due to the leasing rights that had already been granted. Maybe they would have been willing to try to fight it, but I wonder how much the increased tension with China played into this. It's terrifying to think of war breaking out, but if it does, domestic energy production will be crucial.

I hate the environmental impact that this will have, but I can't fault the Biden administration on this one.

[cole256 17,085]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

If we had stayed with building Nuclear Plants, we would be in a profoundly better state today than we are now. 

3 mile island incident really hurt nuclear.....but it was making a very strong come back and then natural gas getting so cheap hurt. Then the fact people couldn't see if you just try to rely on one particular source they are going to super up the price hurt.

And the nail in the coffin has been solar and wind getting subsidies while nuclear doesn't get anything even though they are carbon free. 

But every time a crisis hits it's nuclear that saves the day. Places in the country with regulated energy markets are still flourishing, non regulated market plants are struggling though

[cole256 17,085]

4 hours ago, AU9377 said:

We are building new reactors in Georgia.  Of course, the people are being gouged for billions on top of billions in cost overages.

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/georgia-nuclear-plant-begins-splitting-atoms-time-97671122

The only people building new reactors is plant vogtle and they actually started quite a long time ago.  There are a bunch of plants that wanted to and still have the space to but funding was taken away. Now most plants are just something like a low pressure turbine breaking away from closing

[cole256 17,085]

And it's not all on the President. INPO and the NRC fine and tax every little thing to a point where you can hardly make profit if you wanted to upgrade anything

[AU9377 6,093]

21 hours ago, cole256 said:

The only people building new reactors is plant vogtle and they actually started quite a long time ago.  There are a bunch of plants that wanted to and still have the space to but funding was taken away. Now most plants are just something like a low pressure turbine breaking away from closing

My point was to point out the terrible management in building those at Vogtle.  The amount of wasted money and over runs there is on an epic scale.  I don't dislike Nuclear energy, but there is some serious fleecing going on.

[cole256 17,085]

34 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

My point was to point out the terrible management in building those at Vogtle.  The amount of wasted money and over runs there is on an epic scale.  I don't dislike Nuclear energy, but there is some serious fleecing going on.

I understood what you were saying, I'm saying it's much more than their planning. It's so many variables that go into it, like pubic acceptance, non regulated/regulated markets, the price of natural gas dropping super low, etc that plays a part. Vogtle's management probably isn't that bad at all. I don't know what you mean about your fleecing statement. And I didn't make any perception about you liking or disliking nuclear energy, I was trying to show you how much more to it than general public knows

Edited March 15, 2023 by cole256

[homersapien 12,289]

On 3/13/2023 at 12:22 PM, Mikey said:

The climate is changing, that's certain. Climate change has been a constant since the beginning of this planet. In times past the earth has been so warm that palm trees and other tropical plants lived in Antarctica. South Florida was under water long and deep enough for a great coral reef to be formed. If one digs around in the sandy soil just south of Auburn, one can find sea shells. The beach used to be there.

At other times the climate was so cold that glaciers a mile thick covered North America as far south as St. Louis and the oceans were so low that there was a land bridge between Russia and Alaska.

To think that bankrupting the country by eliminating fossil fuels will somehow effect climate change is folly. We can't control climate change any more than the palm trees in Antarctica could stop global cooling or the woolly mammoths could stop global warming.

Are we in a warming cycle or cooling cycle right now? There is no answer at this time. These things take millennia to develop, not years, decades or centuries. Ask again in 1,000 years and maybe the truth can be known by then. If humans are still around they can build boats or igloos and the need may be.

In the meantime, we should not let those who worship at the alter of the Great God Global warming destroy or way of life.

The shear ignorance of that post is breathtaking.  

I was about to point out that we have at least reached the point where AGW is no longer simply denied.  Then you chime it with that nonsense......

Edited March 15, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,289]

On 3/13/2023 at 11:57 AM, Mikey said:

We have such an energy source. It's nuclear. Bungling Biden just recently returned from a trip to Poland where he touted nuclear plants for that country. Why doesn't he want them in the USA? Oh, wait! If the USA builds nuclear we would be able to reduce imports of rare earth elements from China and that won't do at all.

But why should we change anything if this is all part of a natural cycle - as you assert in your very next post?  

In that case, nuclear has no benefit.  Might as well keep burning coal.

 

[Mikey 16,781]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

The shear ignorance of that post is breathtaking.  

I was about to point out that we have at least reached the point where AGW is no longer simply denied.  Then you chime it with that nonsense......

What nonsense? That the earth's climate has been in constant change since the beginning of the planet? That's fact, whether the climate change religionists like it or not.

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

But why should we change anything if this is all part of a natural cycle - as you assert in your very next post?  

In that case, nuclear has no benefit.  Might as well keep burning coal.

 

Burning coal suits me. I suggest nuclear as an alternative because so many have their panties in a wad over something that's been going on since this planet was formed and will continue to go on until it falls into the sun. Build nuclear plants and the whiners will be mollified until they can identify their next non-crisis.

[homersapien 12,289]

15 hours ago, Mikey said:

What nonsense? That the earth's climate has been in constant change since the beginning of the planet? That's fact, whether the climate change religionists like it or not.

 

Climate change over geologic time epochs have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.  It's totally irrelevant.

[homersapien 12,289]

15 hours ago, Mikey said:

Burning coal suits me. I suggest nuclear as an alternative because so many have their panties in a wad over something that's been going on since this planet was formed and will continue to go on until it falls into the sun. Build nuclear plants and the whiners will be mollified until they can identify their next non-crisis.

Of course it suits you.  You are totally ignorant as to the consequences.

[cole256 17,085]

On 3/14/2023 at 2:31 PM, cole256 said:

The only people building new reactors is plant vogtle and they actually started quite a long time ago.  There are a bunch of plants that wanted to and still have the space to but funding was taken away. Now most plants are just something like a low pressure turbine breaking away from closing

Oh and coincidentally plant Vogtle is named after a famous war veteran and pilot who graduated from Auburn university. He was captured by Germany and held in prison camps. He broke away five times.

I respect a man who refused to just lie down and cooperate.

Edited March 16, 2023 by cole256

[SaltyTiger 8,638]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Climate change over geologic time epochs have nothing to do with anthropogenic global warming.  It's totally irrelevant.

We understand that AGW by definition does not equal NGW. Of course you were ticked with the “altar and global warming” comment from Mikey. 

I do agree with Mikey and “altar”. It is often presented similar to a religion and considered a leftist Ideology. 
 

You do understand that the majority of Christian’s will never accept the progressive left ideology don’t you?
 

 

 

[TexasTiger 14,499]

20 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

 

You do understand that the majority of Christian’s will never accept the progressive left ideology don’t you?
 

 

 

Probably not, but they’ll readily embrace a serial adulterer who lies like rug, fails to pay Caesar what he’s owed, cheat his own brother and even lies to them about his deep and abiding faith and even proclaim God anointed him— interesting bunch, heh Salty? 😉