• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Climate Contrarian Predictions - How have they done?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9998 said:
Gas is average $4.50 a gallon where I live. So we're already well past that in certain places.
Click to expand...

IIRC you live in CA. We aren't that far behind you tax wise but I buy diesel at the local Costco pretty much on a monthly basis, so my next fill up might shock me.
 
National average for regular gas is $3.18. The west has risen faster well above $4 but the rest of the country isn't really seeing that outside a few anomalies.
 
I don't understand why we didn't go nuclear a long time ago. No reason really. Just the fears if uneducated people keeping society from moving forward.
 
Sunburn74 said:
I don't understand why we didn't go nuclear a long time ago. No reason really. Just the fears if uneducated people keeping society from moving forward.
Click to expand...
Cost vs risk. Private funding groups just said no. The only way to bring nuclear back is with smaller scale Gen 4 reactors. No huge pressure containment dome, walk away safety (automatic shutdown in case of overheating - even if the backup electrical systems fail) and so on. The NRC is finally getting their heads around Gen4 reactor design, construction and operation. IIRC, largest system nearing deployment is 375MW, so no more GW+ reactors. No more PWR or BWR - that crap should be launched into the sun. No more concerns for reactor waste products with half lives of up to 4 billion years. *Some* gov't funding is involved - we'll see how well this goes.
 
And now effects are showing up in the Pacific Ocean.

A major Pacific current system is poised to heat up — with potentially devastating repercussions | Salon.com

Now, a new study reveals that the Pacific Ocean may be having its own problems with a comparable, albeit slightly smaller current system. It is known as the Kuroshio Current and Extension, or KCE, currents snaking from the South China Sea past the coast of Japan and into the Northern Pacific Ocean. Adriane R. Lam, a paleoceanographer and Binghamton University postdoctoral fellow, described the Kuroshio Current and Extension as "the workhorses of the ocean."
 
Sunburn74 said:
I don't understand why we didn't go nuclear a long time ago. No reason really. Just the fears if uneducated people keeping society from moving forward.
Click to expand...
I favor roof top nuclear so enemy terrorists can't take out megawatts of our electrical supply by targeting isolated locations.
 
Just look at these forums. 2010 we would have plenty of climate change deniers. Today we have people who don’t like the cost of going green but are generally okay with reducing carbon.
Also who here currently advocates for coal power? Yes people say the coal miners need jobs or whatever but nobody claims burning coal is a good thing.
Progress has been made. I admire people who are aware enough to change their opinions even if they don’t admit to being previously incorrect.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Just look at these forums. 2010 we would have plenty of climate change deniers. Today we have people who don’t like the cost of going green but are generally okay with reducing carbon.
Also who here currently advocates for coal power? Yes people say the coal miners need jobs or whatever but nobody claims burning coal is a good thing.
Progress has been made. I admire people who are aware enough to change their opinions even if they don’t admit to being previously incorrect.
Click to expand...
Super, now how do we extract 43B tons of CO2 from the atmosphere to offset yearly emissions, as well as the ~1.5T tons of CO2 emitted so far to get us back to pre-industrial levels?
 
Personally my favorite argument from the climate change deniers was the, “it’s going to kill jobs and the economy!”.

Anyone want to take a guess at how well the alternative energy industry did with the very little investment it got from the federal government (relatively speaking)?
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Just look at these forums. 2010 we would have plenty of climate change deniers. Today we have people who don’t like the cost of going green but are generally okay with reducing carbon.
Also who here currently advocates for coal power? Yes people say the coal miners need jobs or whatever but nobody claims burning coal is a good thing.
Progress has been made. I admire people who are aware enough to change their opinions even if they don’t admit to being previously incorrect.
Click to expand...
there's less than 70,000 coal miners in the US. we'd be much better off just paying them not to work.
 
Ajay said:
Yeah, but what is the product of fracking....
So, no.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's a step in the right direction at least. Like it or not, we're never going to get completely away from fossil fuels, so making it more carbon neutral will help.
My own personal solution FWIW is to go all-in on wind and wave generation, combined with localized hydraulic storage solutions for off-peak generation and grid inertia.
 
Vic said:
Like it or not, we're never going to get completely away from fossil fuels, so making it more carbon neutral will help.
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, what will we *absolutely* need to power with fossil fuels by 2100?
 
Something I'd like to point out is that a more carbon-rich and thus a more energetic atmosphere isn't necessarily a bad thing. What's bad is that we don't currently know how to effectively harvest that excess energy, and balance it to our environmental needs. But someday we will. Hopefully sooner rather than later, right?
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Super, now how do we extract 43B tons of CO2 from the atmosphere to offset yearly emissions, as well as the ~1.5T tons of CO2 emitted so far to get us back to pre-industrial levels?
Click to expand...
Solar powered electrolysis. Make a bunch of sodium hydroxide with solar, use it to capture CO2 in carbonate.

Voila.
 
Paratus said:
www.reuters.com

World's largest plant capturing carbon from air starts in Iceland

The world's largest plant that sucks carbon dioxide directly from the air and deposits it underground is due to start operating on Wednesday, the company behind the nascent green technology said.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

There’s ways to direct air capture CO2 operating today - but they are currently a drop in the bucket.
Click to expand...

Because all these techniques are too expensive by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Just look at the article. This plant removes the equivalent of "790 cars" worth of carbon emissions per year. You'd need about half of million of those plants to negate the emissions from all the cars in the world. Then there's all the rest of the emissions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top