Global Warning/Climate Change

[Robert]

Something is happening and we are seeing the effects of dramatic changes in weather. There is a significant increase in forest fires in the West, in both frequency and severity.

I agree. However, I think the current crop of climate scientists are corporate puppets who are generating hysteria, and intentionally pushing policies that have no hope of making any difference and pad corporate balance sheets (see carbon credits).

It is obviously a corporate plot to get everyone panicking about carbon (which we can't do anything about), instead of pollution, pesticides, deforestation, and the root problem, exponential increase in energy consumption.

What we should be talking about, is how we revert to a pre-industrial society, since that's the only thing that would actually stop the active harm.

Actually, like so many other things, technology can help us through this. It, like all other things, needs balance as we progress.

Some of the climate change is caused by humans. Some of it is good. Some is caused by natural cycles. There is little we can do about that. Owning our affects and working to minimize them is good, but we can do little for the natural cycles that are happening, nor am I convinced we should. It has worked well and for a long time without us. We do have a tendency to mess things up more than make them better. Not sure we really know enough to know what to do to affect the natural cycles.

Deforestation, desertification, pollution, and burning of the Amazon are not good things. We do need to address them. Some are with good results. If we would put our focus on the things that are working instead of finding ways to limit people, I think we would see much better results.

I do not see excess co2 as a problem. I see it as a benefit. I do not see temperature raise of 2-4 degrees as a problem. I do see a 10 degree raise as a problem ... if it is human caused.

[nett]

Something is happening and we are seeing the effects of dramatic changes in weather. There is a significant increase in forest fires in the West, in both frequency and severity.

I agree. However, I think the current crop of climate scientists are corporate puppets who are generating hysteria, and intentionally pushing policies that have no hope of making any difference and pad corporate balance sheets (see carbon credits).

It is obviously a corporate plot to get everyone panicking about carbon (which we can't do anything about), instead of pollution, pesticides, deforestation, and the root problem, exponential increase in energy consumption.

What we should be talking about, is how we revert to a pre-industrial society, since that's the only thing that would actually stop the active harm.

Actually, like so many other things, technology can help us through this. It, like all other things, needs balance as we progress.

Some of the climate change is caused by humans. Some of it is good. Some is caused by natural cycles. There is little we can do about that. Owning our affects and working to minimize them is good, but we can do little for the natural cycles that are happening, nor am I convinced we should. It has worked well and for a long time without us. We do have a tendency to mess things up more than make them better. Not sure we really know enough to know what to do to affect the natural cycles.

Deforestation, desertification, pollution, and burning of the Amazon are not good things. We do need to address them. Some are with good results. If we would put our focus on the things that are working instead of finding ways to limit people, I think we would see much better results.

I do not see excess co2 as a problem. I see it as a benefit. I do not see temperature raise of 2-4 degrees as a problem. I do see a 10 degree raise as a problem ... if it is human caused.

I mostly agree, but I no longer technology solutions as viable. They seem to just make things worse. I now see large-scale tech as the problem in and of itself.

[temporal1]

nett:
I mostly agree, but I no longer technology solutions as viable. They seem to just make things worse.
I now see large-scale tech as the problem in and of itself.

As i drive by miles+miles, acres+acres of wind farms across the prairies, now including a large field that appears to be dedicated to huge wind farm salvage materials, i have to wonder about “net” results. (no pun intended, but there it is.)

“Everything that goes up, must come down.”
Huge salvage business to follow. These human constructs are massive. sigh.

[Josh]

nett:
I mostly agree, but I no longer technology solutions as viable. They seem to just make things worse.
I now see large-scale tech as the problem in and of itself.

As i drive by miles+miles, acres+acres of wind farms across the prairies, now including a large field that appears to be dedicated to huge wind farm salvage materials, i have to wonder about “net” results. (no pun intended, but there it is.)

“Everything that goes up, must come down.”
Huge salvage business to follow. These human constructs are massive. sigh.

If it's like the rest of "progress", all that will be left is derelict structures once the scrappers get any valuable scrap metal out of the turbines. And then they'll just remain standing there - forever, just like derelict factories in brownfields.

[Ken]

nett:
I mostly agree, but I no longer technology solutions as viable. They seem to just make things worse.
I now see large-scale tech as the problem in and of itself.

As i drive by miles+miles, acres+acres of wind farms across the prairies, now including a large field that appears to be dedicated to huge wind farm salvage materials, i have to wonder about “net” results. (no pun intended, but there it is.)

“Everything that goes up, must come down.”
Huge salvage business to follow. These human constructs are massive. sigh.

If it's like the rest of "progress", all that will be left is derelict structures once the scrappers get any valuable scrap metal out of the turbines. And then they'll just remain standing there - forever, just like derelict factories in brownfields.

Yes, the way they do things in Ohio is so much better. 70% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.

First you mine the coal by chopping the tops off of mountains



Then you burn it spreading toxic air pollution across a 10-state region.



Then you dump the fly ash waste back on the ground in giant toxic lagoons that have a habit of flooding and contaminating downstream communities.



But of course windmills are ugly so that is so much worse.

[ohio jones]

Then you dump the fly ash waste back on the ground in giant toxic lagoons that have a habit of flooding and contaminating downstream communities.

Actually we use the fly ash in the production of concrete, in place of about a third of the cement that we would otherwise ship across the country from Portland.

[Ken]

Then you dump the fly ash waste back on the ground in giant toxic lagoons that have a habit of flooding and contaminating downstream communities.

Actually we use the fly ash in the production of concrete, in place of about a third of the cement that we would otherwise ship across the country from Portland.

Not all of it

https://energynews.us/2019/07/18/wetter ... es-report/

Wetter weather worsens risks from coal ash ponds, environmental advocates report

Ohio’s wettest 12-month period on record highlights the risk flooding can present to power plants’ coal ash ponds, but groundwater contamination remains a continuing concern for environmental advocates.

“We know that there’ve been many coal ash spills because of floods in the past,” said policy analyst Gideon Weissman at the Frontier Group in Boston. Just last year, floodwaters from Hurricane Florence swept coal ash into North Carolina’s Neuse River, for example.

Coal ash ponds can cause contamination from arsenic, mercury, selenium, lead, boron, bromine and other compounds, Weissman said. Those chemicals can harm human health. Some of them also build up in fish over time. And in some circumstances, coal ash spills can blanket riverbeds and smother species, according to a 2019 report from Frontier Group, Environment America and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund.

In the Midwest, 21 coal plants have ash ponds within a quarter-mile of the Ohio River, that report noted. “And five of those coal plants were in 100-year flood zones,” Weissman said. “The Ohio River is a critical piece of our landscape. And it also supplies drinking water for more than 3 million people.”

Ohio plants near the river include the W.H. Zimmer power plant in Moscow, the J.M. Stuart plant in Aberdeen, the General James M. Gavin plant in Cheshire, and the W.H. Sammis plant in Stratton.

BTW, Portland cement doesn't come from Portland OR and has no connection to this city. I don't think there are any cement plants in Portland OR, at least no big ones. Portland cement was invented in England and the name comes from the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England. Your Portland Cement probably comes from Texas, Michigan, or Missouri if it isn't made in cement plants right there in Ohio.

[RZehr]

[

Are these two the same mine?

[ohio jones]

Then you dump the fly ash waste back on the ground in giant toxic lagoons that have a habit of flooding and contaminating downstream communities.

Actually we use the fly ash in the production of concrete, in place of about a third of the cement that we would otherwise ship across the country from Portland.

Not all of it

No, but they keep finding new uses for the stuff and recycling is promoted.

BTW, Portland cement doesn't come from Portland OR and has no connection to this city. I don't think there are any cement plants in Portland OR, at least no big ones. Portland cement was invented in England and the name comes from the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England. Your Portland Cement probably comes from Texas, Michigan, or Missouri if it isn't made in cement plants right there in Ohio.

Oh I'm well aware, and now that you've looked it up we all know. Around here the cement is sourced from Ohio and Ontario.

[nett]

Yes, the way they do things in Ohio is so much better. 70% of Ohio's electricity comes from coal.

Who said Ohio is any better? Personally, I love wind power, I love hydro power, and I even like some wood burning, but the scale is the problem.

Wind is super efficient when it runs a ram pump to pump water into a water tower for local use.

hydro power is super efficient when it runs a line shaft to power a grain or saw mill.

You can build both of these structures entirely with green wood or reclaimed lumber.

Utility-Scale wind on the other hand, consists of enormous contraptions that require massive energy and rare resource inputs to build, transport and maintain, and have a limited lifetime. Generation often takes place far from consumption, meaning massive transmissions loss, and the inevitable timing mismatches between generation supply, and consumption demand will require expensive, destructive storage facilities. Like everything else the Ponzi scheme known as industrial society has produced; this is short term benefit in exchange for long term debt.

Hoping that exponential growth in energy consumption can be sustained by nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, or w/e unicorn that comes along next is sure to result in disappointment. The consumption will have to decline at some point.