Jump to content

Paris agreement


Spaceception

Clean energy  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. What should be the main power source for Earth?

    • Renewables
      13
    • Nuclear
      19
    • A balanced mix of both
      37


Recommended Posts

A healthy mix of both is probably the best. Nuclear is very safe, but requires large buildings. And renewables aren't amazing power sources. Wind needs wind. Solar needs sunlight. Hydro needs lots of water. Really, though, if we can get great energy storage tech, we should be all set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, WedgeAntilles said:

The Paris talks are a joke. Whatever is promised, won't be followed-through-on, and nothing will come of it.

How do I know? Because that's how every other climate summit has ended.

Yes. The default expectation has to be that the problem will be ignored until it's causing serious harm, and then governments will go into panic mode to try to do something about it, starting sometime in the 2030s. By then it will be too late. Because that's how governments always deal with problems.

On the plus side, half of what we need to meet Paris targets is for existing trends to continue. European and USian coal and oil consumption are starting to fall, and China's coal use looks near peaking as it replaces old inefficient power stations (mainly due to smog concerns, that's true) and ramps up wind and nuclear.

The trends are helped a lot by population ageing - as the baby boomers retire they will use less fossil fuel.

On the minus side, we may already be past a climate tipping point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear. Renewable energy in its' current state requires a lot of heavy metals (particularly with solar) and is too inefficient. But if you wanna put up a couple turbines or some panels for yourself and you're willing to pay for them go ahead.

As for the climate change debate, I think it IS changing, but we can't do anything about it. I think it's just a cycle of warming and cooling. We affect the planet in all kinds of ways, but in this way I think we're just along for the ride. In the words of George Carlin: "The planet is fine, the people are f---ed!" And I think that some sources of data might also be edited by those with agendas to push and government bribes to be had rather than science to do. And you have certain hypocrites who push this agenda while they take private jets everywhere and have multiple homes.As you can see I don't trust the evil, lying, thieving organization known as the UN and the US Government. Nor do I trust ANY Government, nor do I trust the corporations or the mainstream media.

1 hour ago, WedgeAntilles said:

The Paris talks are a joke. Whatever is promised, won't be followed-through-on, and nothing will come of it.

How do I know? Because that's how every other climate summit has ended.

*applause*

Edited by Flymetothemun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, manaiaK said:

Yes. The default expectation has to be that the problem will be ignored until it's causing serious harm, and then governments will go into panic mode to try to do something about it, starting sometime in the 2030s. By then it will be too late. Because that's how governments always deal with problems.

Which points to where the solution needs to be: if governments can't (or won't) handle it, the solution needs to be outside governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*in*

sea snake, sea balloon ... of course thoose 2 won't make rockets fly away ... without speaking of relocating others energies sources and markets workers, and various linked industries to an acceptable quota/ratio ...

Environmental/business/research sides do i need to reiterate the explanations for the bazillion(th) times ... nope i m bored to do so ...

*out, don't ask ... kinda ...*

Edited by WinkAllKerb''
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear vs. renewable threads allways end in a bloody mess, as you can see both sides are about the same strenght (in numbers) and wont move from their position one bit. So simply dont start such a conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

Guys, we mods are already aware of this thread. So far, you've stayed polite and kept politics out of things. Now please stop discussing us and get back to the topic. :D

Sir, yes sir, sorry sir! :)

 

22 hours ago, WedgeAntilles said:

Which points to where the solution needs to be: if governments can't (or won't) handle it, the solution needs to be outside governments.

Unfortunately we need governments to act. In economics there's this phrase: "a co-ordination problem". It means that if everyone behaves a certain way, everyone will be better off, but each person individually does not have an incentive to do the right thing. 

If you are a electricity generator and your competitors stop using coal, say, then coal gets really cheap (by supply and demand), so by continuing to use coal you will make bigger profits. Of course your competitors reason the same way, so nobody stops using coal. We need governments to say "no, not allowed" to stop that kind of thing happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2015‎ ‎4‎:‎57‎:‎00‎, WedgeAntilles said:

The Paris talks are a joke. Whatever is promised, won't be followed-through-on, and nothing will come of it.

How do I know? Because that's how every other climate summit has ended.

I have to agree, but not exactly for the reason you state.

The reason I think this sort of a joke is because it's not enforceable.  If you can't back it up, find a mechanism to make countries that signed on comply, it means nothing.  They can just keep doing whatever they want. 

As for what power source I prefer, I really wish they could get solar panels to be more efficient.  There is so much energy pumping out of that giant flaming ball of gas, we should be able to harness it better.

Edited by Just Jim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Paris talks are a joke. Whatever is promised, won't be followed-through-on, and nothing will come of it.

How do I know? Because that's how every other climate summit has ended.

I couldn't have said it better myself. These talks don't mean anything, and I doubt any serious action is going to take place until it is several decades too late.

As for the poll question, I think a mix of renewables and nuclear is optimal so long as someone who I'm not going to name here doesn't use the uranium for... other purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, manaiaK said:

Unfortunately we need governments to act.

Irrelevant. Governments won't act.

You know the real reason your agenda (well, almost all agendas, actually) fails all the time? One word. That word is "should".

Governments "should" do this or that, nations "should" switch to clean energy, people "should" get off coal and oil. But they don't. You sit around waiting for forty years, and the "should" doesn't happen. Forty years later, you find yourself still at square one, and one day, rather suddenly, the light bulb comes on and you realize forty years of your life has been wasted.

You're going to have to get off the "should" and focus on "will". (that's what you "should" do..........:lol:)

2 hours ago, Just Jim said:

I have to agree, but not exactly for the reason you state.

The reason I think this sort of a joke is because it's not enforceable

In the strict technical sense, I didn't state any reasons. :)

But, yes. Enforcement is the big issue. Even if there was enforcement, it would get completely flouted; many nations have already demonstrated again and again that they're willing to defy the ENTIRE PLANET, risk sanctions, risk war, in order to pursue whatever agenda they happen to want to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one topic where i rely on the power of free markets. Renewables get cheaper every day, with almost zero running costs compared to convetional power its only a matter of time until they are a better choice even if you put enviromental long-term costs aside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be some sort of proper treaty signed by the major industrial countries, something that CAN be enforced. Some sort of requirements that must be met otherwise the country will face severe sanctions. While China seems to be reducing their use of coal, now it is India that is starting. What needs to be done is also less money spent on advanced weaponry and more money spent on energy. If most governments spent on researching fusion what they spent on developing high tech stealth craft it would probably be achievable in the very near future.

One thing that I don't get is why major powers such as USA, Russia, China, keep on spending billions in developing stealth technology, when this would only be needed when fighting against countries that are equipped with high tech radars. But pretty much the only military action these forces have seen recently is against terrorists (a.k.a. A bunch of idiots with guns in the deserts) and Middle Eastern dictatorships using Soviet equipment from the 60s, which I'm sure does not require billion dollar stealth aircraft to destroy.

Edited by A35K
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, A35K said:

There should be some sort of proper treaty signed by the major industrial countries, something that CAN be enforced. Some sort of requirements that must be met otherwise the country will face severe sanctions. While China seems to be reducing their use of coal, now it is India that is starting. What needs to be done is also less money spent on advanced weaponry and more money spent on energy. If most governments spent on researching fusion what they spent on developing high tech stealth craft it would probably be achievable in the very near future.

One thing that I don't get is why major powers such as USA, Russia, China, keep on spending billions in developing stealth technology, when this would only be needed when fighting against countries that are equipped with high tech radars. But pretty much the only military action these forces have seen recently is against terrorists (a.k.a. A bunch of idiots with guns in the deserts) and Middle Eastern dictatorships using Soviet equipment from the 60s, which I'm sure does not require billion dollar stealth aircraft to destroy.

Until countries get over this stupid cold war mentality, and I mean all sides, mine included, I don't think you'll see defense spending come down soon.  It's a sad, pathetic fact we have to live with for now, I guess.

You are spot on about this and other treaties being enforced.  And countries like China and India, as well as the U.S. have to be completely onboard.  I'm not trying to put down what they were trying to do in Paris, the goal is admirable.  I just think if the deal doesn't have any teeth, then it was a huge waste of time and money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a solution!

Most homes in the desert or near equator should get solar, but for high-energy needs nuclear fusion or thorium salt reactors are needed, they are safer and some I think can use nuclear waste as fuel. Molten salt reactors were being developed in the 50's or 60's but uranium was favored for some reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think realistically, the next step has to be nuclear fission. There is a problem with wind and solar in particular that I never see talked about where, to keep the power grid reliable, you always need to have enough capacity on standby to replace any source of energy you can't depend on. Now, you use a lot less fuel keeping that capacity in standby, but the infrastructure to cover all that capacity still has to exist and be active. Basically, whenever you add wind or solar to the mix, you also have to back it up with something else that can take over when the wind stops blowing.

If your goal is to stop using fossil fuels, then you need something else that can fill that role of reliable backbone power generation, and the reality of earth's geography means that you can't do it with more reliable hydro or geothermal power because the opportunities just don't exist everywhere in the magnitude we need them to. If you want to entirely replace fossil fuels, and you want to do it now, nuclear is the only option that has you covered. Where you have other options, that's fantastic, use them, but I really think nuclear power needs to be embraced.

 

I am disappointed that the Paris treaty will not be binding, and I don't think any of these treaties will be anyone's grand legacy until that happens. On the other hand, as painful as it may be, I think this is a process we are going to have to go through, and it's going to take time. It sounds like we have at least some new provisions over older treaties that allow us to embarrass each other politically, and that is a step in the right direction. On the one hand, people can say "hey, we took a step in the right direction" and that takes the pressure off them to commit to something better, but on the other hand, it allows you to get all these countries to sign onto something that is better than past efforts, and it sets the bar closer to "meaningful" the next time we go through this, hence a process we just have to work through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...