What if I told You

[caze]

I have family who live near fracking and they say otherwise

 

I was on the phone a couple of weeks ago to someone in the area and there was a small earthquake while we were talking

 

Love & Light

 

People believe all kinds of dumb shit, as you have demonstrated earlier in this very thread.

 

The quake thing is real, not that it's a threat to anything, they're teeny tremors (in a range of 1-3 on the scale, mostly people can't even feel them). They have regulations in place to prevent larger ones (and not even that large, still wouldn't cause any damage, they only start getting serious around 6). Also they're pretty rare, and their efforts to curb their occurrences are working pretty well.

[diatoms]

 

People believe all kinds of dumb shit, as you have demonstrated earlier in this very thread.

 

Haha!

 

Love & Light

[Hugh Mughnus]

[caze]

 

 

People believe all kinds of dumb shit, as you have demonstrated earlier in this very thread.

 

Haha!

 

Love & Light

 

 

This shit isn't funny, millions of people are going to die because of attitudes like yours. Good job.

[Braintree]

Really, the main thing you should be considering is the fallibility of humans and how this will impact your environment.

 

Because we've made some mistakes.

 

Renewable energy is already available and becoming cheaper annually.

But sure, you're welcome to ignore that and form an opinion based on a radio show you heard once.

[diatoms]

 

 

 

People believe all kinds of dumb shit, as you have demonstrated earlier in this very thread.

 

Haha!

 

Love & Light

 

 

This shit isn't funny, millions of people are going to die because of attitudes like yours. Good job.

 

 

what?

 

Love & Light

[caze]

Really, the main thing you should be considering is the fallibility of humans and how this will impact your environment.

 

Because we've made some mistakes.

 

Renewable energy is already available and becoming cheaper annually.

But sure, you're welcome to ignore that and form an opinion based on a radio show you heard once.

 

My opinions weren't formed by a radio show, that was just a demonstration that that guy was a bit of an asshole.

 

Renewable energy will never replace fossil fuels for base load energy generation, would be nice if it were true, but it's a pipe dream sadly. It's not just a matter of price either, sure the fact that they're heavily subsidised is a problem, but the main problem is just being able to provide enough reliable power to run the grid, and that isn't ever going to happen at base load levels, so instead we're just going to keep burning coal and oil. Germany has one of the largest installed renewable programs in the world, how much CO2 do you think they've managed to remove from their output in the last 20 years? (basically zero is the answer, and they're likely to start increasing in CO2 output in the future as the rest of their nuclear gets shut down, they're already pushing up on limits of what their renewables can contribute to the grid). There's a place for renewables in a diverse grid network, but we're only talking about 10-30% input at most (that range largely dependent on geographic concerns, local resource availability, feasibility of pumped storage, etc.).

what?

 

Love & Light

 

 

Climate change is happening, millions of people will be affected, at worst millions of people will die. Well meaning ignorance will have played a big part in that coming to pass.

[diatoms]

Well, I'm glad there won't be any fracking in Ireland to add to climate change :)

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/29/fracking-contribute-climate-change

 

https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/fracking-climate-change.pdf

 

Love & Light

[Braintree]

 

Really, the main thing you should be considering is the fallibility of humans and how this will impact your environment.

 

Because we've made some mistakes.

 

Renewable energy is already available and becoming cheaper annually.

But sure, you're welcome to ignore that and form an opinion based on a radio show you heard once.

 

My opinions weren't formed by a radio show, that was just a demonstration that that guy was a bit of an asshole.

 

Renewable energy will never replace fossil fuels for base load energy generation, would be nice if it were true, but it's a pipe dream sadly. It's not just a matter of price either, sure the fact that they're heavily subsidised is a problem, but the main problem is just being able to provide enough reliable power to run the grid, and that isn't ever going to happen at base load levels, so instead we're just going to keep burning coal and oil. Germany has one of the largest installed renewable programs in the world, how much CO2 do you think they've managed to remove from their output in the last 20 years? (basically zero is the answer, and they're likely to start increasing in CO2 output in the future as the rest of their nuclear gets shut down, they're already pushing up on limits of what their renewables can contribute to the grid). There's a place for renewables in a diverse grid network, but we're only talking about 10-30% input at most (that range largely dependent on geographic concerns, local resource availability, feasibility of pumped storage, etc.).

what?

 

Love & Light

 

 

Climate change is happening, millions of people will be affected, at worst millions of people will die. Well meaning ignorance will have played a big part in that coming to pass.

 

 

 

So your plan is to just let it all go to shit. You're pro fracking because you think the energy from renewable energy cannot surpass that of fossil fuels? Wunderbar. The logical fallacy here is pretty overt.

 

Also, this: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it.

[diatoms]

 

Also, this: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it.

 

 

That's awesome, I didn't know that :)

[caze]

 

 

So your plan is to just let it all go to shit. You're pro fracking because you think the energy from renewable energy cannot surpass that of fossil fuels? Wunderbar. The logical fallacy here is pretty overt.

 

Also, this: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it.

 

 

There's no fallacy and no, my plan, if I were benevolent dictator of all Earth, would be to not let it all go to shit. I would accomplish this by closing all the dirty coal and oil plants (and the peat plants too, we have a few of them in Ireland, not only do they help bugger up the global environment, they're locally ecologically destructive as well) and replacing them with nuclear power. Natural Gas powered plants (from either regular drilling or fracking, it's all basically the same in terms of the negligible environmental impact - as long as the wells are capped properly to prevent methane from escaping), as the least carbon polluting, by far, of the fossil fuels would remain in order to help regulate peak demand, pumped storage from renewables would also help out there (most onshore wind would be banned though, because it's really dumb, offshore can make sense in certain regions, as can solar if done right - and there's a lot of potential for growth in solar, unlike wind). Geothermal and Hydro are obviously great if you can build them, but they're highly geographically dependant. Biofuels are a really dumb idea too, they'd be banned as well. The idea that renewables alone are going to replace all our fossil fuels in the next few decades is so ridiculously nonsensical a notion it really is amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to fall for it, it's blindly optimistic stupidity of the highest order. It's important that we remember that we're only talking about a window of a few decades here, we're already passed the point where we're actively causing sea-level rise, the next few decades will merely decide by how much, and how many millions of people will end up being effected.

Edited June 29, 2017 by caze

[diatoms]

 

The idea that renewables alone are going to replace all our fossil fuels in the next few decades is so ridiculously nonsensical a notion it really is amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to fall for it, it's blindly optimistic stupidity of the highest order.

 

 

sounds like me

 

Love & Light

[Braintree]

 

 

 

So your plan is to just let it all go to shit. You're pro fracking because you think the energy from renewable energy cannot surpass that of fossil fuels? Wunderbar. The logical fallacy here is pretty overt.

 

Also, this: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it.

 

 

There's no fallacy and no, my plan, if I were benevolent dictator of all Earth, would be to not let it all go to shit. I would accomplish this by closing all the dirty coal and oil plants (and the peat plants too, we have a few of them in Ireland, not only do they help bugger up the global environment, they're locally ecologically destructive as well) and replacing them with nuclear power. Natural Gas powered plants (from either regular drilling or fracking, it's all basically the same in terms of the negligible environmental impact - as long as the wells are capped properly to prevent methane from escaping), as the least carbon polluting, by far, of the fossil fuels would remain in order to help regulate peak demand, pumped storage from renewables would also help out there (most onshore wind would be banned though, because it's really dumb, offshore can make sense in certain regions, as can solar if done right - and there's a lot of potential for growth in solar, unlike wind). Geothermal and Hydro are obviously great if you can build them, but they're highly geographically dependant. Biofuels are a really dumb idea too, they'd be banned as well. The idea that renewables alone are going to replace all our fossil fuels in the next few decades is so ridiculously nonsensical a notion it really is amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to fall for it, it's blindly optimistic stupidity of the highest order. It's important that we remember that we're only talking about a window of a few decades here, we're already passed the point where we're actively causing sea-level rise, the next few decades will merely decide by how much, and how many millions of people will end up being effected.

 

 

 

From the article above:

 

Perhaps the most glaring example: The California Legislature has mandated that one-half of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030; today it’s about one-fourth. That goal once was considered wildly optimistic. But solar panels have become much more efficient and less expensive. So solar power is now often the same price or cheaper than most other types of electricity, and production has soared so much that the target now looks laughably easy to achieve.

[usagi]

don't bother arguing with caze.

[baph]

Caze is a fracking cylon.

[diatoms]

the goverment doesn't want u to see this graph

 

Haha!

 

that graph just about covers everything :)

 

Love & Light

[caze]

 

 

 

 

So your plan is to just let it all go to shit. You're pro fracking because you think the energy from renewable energy cannot surpass that of fossil fuels? Wunderbar. The logical fallacy here is pretty overt.

 

Also, this: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it.

 

 

There's no fallacy and no, my plan, if I were benevolent dictator of all Earth, would be to not let it all go to shit. I would accomplish this by closing all the dirty coal and oil plants (and the peat plants too, we have a few of them in Ireland, not only do they help bugger up the global environment, they're locally ecologically destructive as well) and replacing them with nuclear power. Natural Gas powered plants (from either regular drilling or fracking, it's all basically the same in terms of the negligible environmental impact - as long as the wells are capped properly to prevent methane from escaping), as the least carbon polluting, by far, of the fossil fuels would remain in order to help regulate peak demand, pumped storage from renewables would also help out there (most onshore wind would be banned though, because it's really dumb, offshore can make sense in certain regions, as can solar if done right - and there's a lot of potential for growth in solar, unlike wind). Geothermal and Hydro are obviously great if you can build them, but they're highly geographically dependant. Biofuels are a really dumb idea too, they'd be banned as well. The idea that renewables alone are going to replace all our fossil fuels in the next few decades is so ridiculously nonsensical a notion it really is amazing that otherwise intelligent people seem to fall for it, it's blindly optimistic stupidity of the highest order. It's important that we remember that we're only talking about a window of a few decades here, we're already passed the point where we're actively causing sea-level rise, the next few decades will merely decide by how much, and how many millions of people will end up being effected.

 

 

 

From the article above:

 

Perhaps the most glaring example: The California Legislature has mandated that one-half of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030; today it’s about one-fourth. That goal once was considered wildly optimistic. But solar panels have become much more efficient and less expensive. So solar power is now often the same price or cheaper than most other types of electricity, and production has soared so much that the target now looks laughably easy to achieve.

 

 

yes, because the rest of the world is just as sunny as California. maybe when climate change really gets going it could work

[Braintree]

[Lada Laika]

[caze]

 

you can't facepalm at your own stupidity, that doesn't make any sense.

 

solar power can only work where it's sunny a lot of the time, wind power only works when it's windy, these aren't complicated concepts.

 

the only way to get around this, in order to reach global renewable usage greater than 10-15%, is to have some way of storing and transporting the energy. storage by itself might push up usage to 20-30%, but in order to get higher than that you need vast interconnected energy networks, and a means of transporting the energy without losing half of it in the process, this is the really hard bit, and not only would it require massive capital investment (which would dwarf the amount required to build a bunch of nuclear stations to achieve the same thing), it also requires significant technological advances which still look like they're a long way off (e.g. superconducting power lines). even then it's not likely to meet all our global energy needs, which continue to grow significantly every year.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_super_grid

[Hugh Mughnus]

What makes Germany a special case? 

 

Isn't near 40% of their total energy usage from renewable sources?

[beerwolf]

Can we swap Love & Light for Fucking Savage Cunt Beast?

[Salvatorin]

No

[caze]

What makes Germany a special case? 

 

Isn't near 40% of their total energy usage from renewable sources?

 

No. It was only around 12% in 2016 (fossil fuels were still responsible for around 80%, nuclear had decreased to about 7% from around double that in previous years). You need to be very careful when looking at figures from biased sources, where they tend to use installed capacity and similar measures, which don't tell you how much power was actually generated and used. Not only do you have to discount unused capacity, but you also have to discount excess unused generated power (e.g. there are times when very large amounts of energy are generated but can't be used, like when there's a peak in wind production in the middle of the night, or on a very sunny day, often they have to pay suppliers to turn off the power to prevent blowing the grid). Even of the renewable power that was used, biomass actually provided the majority that year, not solar or wind, and biomass is a very bad idea environmentally (if you want to scale it up, requires lots and lots of land use). The most important fact about Germany is that they haven't been able to decrease their use of fossil fuels at all in their recent expansion of renewables, when they turn off their remaining nuclear this will just stress the system even more.

[beerwolf]

No

 

Fair enough

 

Love & Light