The Global Warming Scam!

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
First off I want make clear I deeply care about keeping the planet clean! I used to be for global warming when I was kid my parents even voted for Al Gore. I found out later it was really a scam to make money, just another tax. And they even more scumbag thing about it, is they don't actually address real issues like mercury, heavy metals, arsenic, etc coming out of these factories. Instead they want to filter "CO2", which is psychotic because plants actually release CO2 at night. So basically it's madness to cut CO2 down, in theory you had to cut more trees down. Also everyone breathing right now is outputting CO2! Global warming is also NOT supported by the independent scientist, only "POLITICAL SCIENTIST".

I was watching a debate with an irish scientist in the UK and she said the american educational system it teaching complete falsehoods on the support of global warming from many respected scientist around the world. Now there is real climate change caused by the suns solar rays. Scientist have been measuring increased solar flares from the sun. And of course our scum bag gov in the 1950s blew up atomic bombs in the ozone layer, causing the hole they blamed on CO2! They brainwashed my generation in elementary school this was our fault. This is the actual cause of temps rising NOT CO2. I care deeply to keep this planet clean especially water. Oil needs to go, I don't argue with that! It's dirty and pollutes the oceans. They have hydrogen generators that can run on water straight from a pond. Magnetic generators also could be further researched! There's no need for oil. And actually hemp could replace all oil based products cause the seeds can be pressed for oil. Hemp is also excellent lumber natural pest resistant and stronger then wood, and fuel. But do we hear any these points from the so called paris agreement activist or environmentalist? You got read the fine print with these so called "humanitarians". It just angers me once again the government is twisting a good movement into once again creating another tax and do NOTHING to solving the real problem!
 

Sapphyre

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,172
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Incontinent
It seems there are many misconceptions being rolled together here. Too many to talk through exhaustively, but I will ask about a few mainly because I am curious as to your thought process.

You do realize that plants, via photosynthesis, absorb more CO2 than they emit? This is why deforestation increases atmospheric CO2. For the record, this is demonstrably not a myth propagated by the US educational system, but common knowledge worldwide.

Next, it is important to understand that the mere presence of CO2 is not a problem, the danger is in dramatically changing its rate of production, as human activity has clearly done for the past few hundred years. One of the topics I studied under the American educational system is Differential Equations, which is ultimately where the oft-touted notion of a "tipping point" comes from: complex dynamical systems, such as Earth's climate, will often gravitate toward stable or semi-stable "solution" states. Given small perturbations, they will return to the same stable state. Given larger perturbations, however, they might gravitate to a new point of stability, a new normal. This is very commonly how dynamical systems work, and in modeling them one typically finds multiple stable solutions, and can map out what conditions will cause the system to gravitate toward which fixed point. Now, I don't think anyone will argue that Earth's climate is a very complex system that is not well understood yet, and may never be given the issues associated with chaotic dynamics, etc. Given the above, I would point out that any scientist claiming that there is no risk of shifting Earth's climate to a new normal by dramatically altering CO2 production is irresponsibly overestimating their grasp of the atmosphere. Caution is simply common sense, here.

Lastly, I am curious as to the identity of the scammer(s) you believe are profiteering by spreading psedoscience. Al Gore? Manufacturers of solar panels or wind farms? Who's cashing in well enough to grease the palms of scientists from hither and yon?
 

PCPilot

Est. Contributor
Messages
184
Role
Diaper Lover
And they even more scumbag thing about it, is they don't actually address real issues like mercury, heavy metals, arsenic, etc coming out of these factories.
That's a pleasant byproduct of shutting down coal plants. Fortunately, the economics are killing coal plants faster than Al Gore could ever dream. More coal plants are being shut down under Trump than were under Obama.

And of course our scum bag gov in the 1950s blew up atomic bombs in the ozone layer, causing the hole they blamed on CO2!
The reason why scientists have more credibility than kooks is that they have evidence.

We banned above-ground atomic tests in 1962. The ozone hole continued to grow, until we banned chloroflourocarbons in 1986 - the ozone hole over the South Pole has been consistently shrinking since then. We understand why CFCs attack stratospheric ozone, it has nothing to do with CO2. You've just been tricked by someone with an agenda, or you have one to spread.

They have hydrogen generators that can run on water straight from a pond.
Except you have to split the hydrogen and oxygen from the water, which takes energy, more than what is generated from burning the hydrogen, as any high school chemistry student can tell you. There are no perpetual motion machines, although every few years some people are duped into investing in one.

Magnetic generators also could be further researched!
How do you think generators work? They run wire through a rotating magnetic field, inducing a current in the wire.

You realize as well that the carbon tax was a proposal from the right wing, against cap and trade? Like Obamacare, it was a great idea until the left agreed with it.
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,928
Role
Diaper Lover
Lol, Global Warming is definitely not a Scam.

Us as the Human Species are wrecking the planet in many ways, one of them being by deforestation (because plants actually absorb CO2 and release breathable air), but also by dumping waste irresponsibly, and of course heavy dependence on Fossil Fuels.

what I find the most Damning, is that we could do so much better on the energy front, but the Big Governments of the world have something going on with Fossil Fuel CEOs (likely a kickback or bribe to shut down alternative fuels and energy sources) that don't want us to go against using Fossil Fuels as that is making the Fossil Fuel CEOs Billions, even Tens or Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.

Any type of super efficient alternative energy sources are not being used anywhere near the scale they are and we could do much better, especially with cars than these recent Hybrids getting up to 50-60 or so MPG (given they have been making cars capable of half of that or better on just Gas decades ago).
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
901
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
First off I want make clear I deeply care about keeping the planet clean! I used to be for global warming when I was kid my parents even voted for Al Gore. I found out later it was really a scam to make money
I stopped here, here is why.

Republican politicians like to rattle off propaganda to do their campaign donors favors. You may claim it is all about the money for "believing in global warming" to call man made global warming a hoax is also all about the money, so Republican donors can make more money from deregulation, all it is.

Also you are being very short sided why a tax exists for polluting. Businesses are only motivated by cost and profit margins. Lets say it takes solar power to generate power at a cost 10 dollars per kilowatt hour (I am making all this up to demonstrate a point how taxes come into play) while coal is 8 dollars per kilowatt. So Republicans push for deregulation because their donors want the 8 dollar kilowatt hour cost. Now with a tax in place, we make coal cost 15 dollars per kilowatt per hour. Because coal costs more with the tax, the businesses go clean. That is the purpose, has NOTHING to do with greed.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Global Warming is happening, however it is also being overblown with a lot of doomsday predictions. What we can say for certain is that the effects of Global Warming, a natural phonema that has been accelerated by Human Industrialisation, is affecting the planet in many ways, such as the melting of permafrost in the Arctic and Syberia regions, which is releasing large amounts of not just CO2 but a greenhouse gas that is much worse in the long run, Methane. Syberia itself is aso unfreezing a virus we know as Anthrax which is extremely deadly.

Of course those that say they are going to tackle the issue, like those at the Paris Climate Agreement are not there for the environment, and most activists are too scared of first generation Nuclear Reactors to even consider Nuclear power, even though 3rd Generation reactors are far safer and we have a means of using up the Nuclear waste as energy, however we have a very big misunderstanding going round about Nuclear power.


But like I said the effects of Global Warming are being overblown specifically by the Media.
 

egor

Est. Contributor
Messages
3,915
Role
Diaper Lover
Ok I have read all of the post and am talking from a BS in Biology with an emphasis in Botany and Ecology.

To one point the OP is correct. The arguments that are used is all up to interpretation.

Yes global warming as a whole is very real. The outcome and results is where the opinions start and evidence gets iffy.

First we first went through a global cooling and is why the scientist are looking into the possibility for life on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
Then we have good through a climate change that poisoned the entire planet and changed life for ever. That gas poisoning was Atmospheric Oxygen. To the best of my knowledge (my some timers is acting up) there has been at least two global warming events where the deep ocean methane gasses where released into the atmosphere, and eventually reversed.

This is where the no global warming advocates come from.

With the break up of Pangea the global climate was changed dramatically and is the argument for the down fall of the Reptilian/avian reign. However there is also the virus and meteor impact aspects that muddle that theory.

So to actually come to a conclusion.

Yes there is global warming and based on what the environmental scientist I studied under said There will be higher temperatures at the equator but colder temperatures at the poles. This will cause major climate shifts at the 45th parallel by more hurricanes in the tropics and major drought and wet seasons in the upper latitude.

So yes the OP is correct in that there is and always will be "doom and gloom" scammers on both sides of the research.

The main thing is to verify the references and follow the money for the studies. And yes we need to slow or stop the toxic emission and pay attention to other environmental indicators and ????????

At this point anything else I say would be personal opinion and grounds for debate that would high jack the thread.

Thank you.

Egor
 

dogboy

Est. Contributor
Messages
18,808
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I recently read an article in The Washington Post saying that 90% percent of the "old ice" in the arctic circle has melted. That sounds like global warming to me. Even Antarctica is losing ice.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I stopped here, here is why.

Republican politicians like to rattle off propaganda to do their campaign donors favors. You may claim it is all about the money for "believing in global warming" to call man made global warming a hoax is also all about the money, so Republican donors can make more money from deregulation, all it is.

Also you are being very short sided why a tax exists for polluting. Businesses are only motivated by cost and profit margins. Lets say it takes solar power to generate power at a cost 10 dollars per kilowatt hour (I am making all this up to demonstrate a point how taxes come into play) while coal is 8 dollars per kilowatt. So Republicans push for deregulation because their donors want the 8 dollar kilowatt hour cost. Now with a tax in place, we make coal cost 15 dollars per kilowatt per hour. Because coal costs more with the tax, the businesses go clean. That is the purpose, has NOTHING to do with greed.
Yes I totally understand Republicans also play the other side of the coin. Thats why im an Independent! I'm not defending Republicans, I'm pointing out both sides have missed the main point is to stop pollution! What I'm saying is they twisted a good movement into something that's merely to make money and also to stop United States from expanding. In my opinion its about money and power. Instead of focusing on stopping oil spills, chemical runoff, spraying pesticides.... were talking about frickin CO2! Their priorities are completely backwards! That's why I never agreed with neither Republicans or Democrats. Most Republicans are also on the other extreme that basically says screw planet and animals! Than the other extreme we also got the Democrats perverting the movement by focusing on CO2, which wasn't the original environmentalist goal! There's just no balance in this world that's what drives me nuts. I really hate both parties! The war on CO2 is war on life! My biggest eye opener was when they wanted to tax cows farting!
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
I recently read an article in The Washington Post saying that 90% percent of the "old ice" in the arctic circle has melted. That sounds like global warming to me. Even Antarctica is losing ice.
Yes I'm not saying its not real im saying its NOT caused by, "CO2'. If you reread my original post you will see I mention this. More evidence is leading its caused by increased solar activity from the sun. The Democrats used CO2 because it was easy to make money off of. They can't make money off the sun.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Lol, Global Warming is definitely not a Scam.

Us as the Human Species are wrecking the planet in many ways, one of them being by deforestation (because plants actually absorb CO2 and release breathable air), but also by dumping waste irresponsibly, and of course heavy dependence on Fossil Fuels.

what I find the most Damning, is that we could do so much better on the energy front, but the Big Governments of the world have something going on with Fossil Fuel CEOs (likely a kickback or bribe to shut down alternative fuels and energy sources) that don't want us to go against using Fossil Fuels as that is making the Fossil Fuel CEOs Billions, even Tens or Hundreds of Billions of Dollars.

Any type of super efficient alternative energy sources are not being used anywhere near the scale they are and we could do much better, especially with cars than these recent Hybrids getting up to 50-60 or so MPG (given they have been making cars capable of half of that or better on just Gas decades ago).
It's a scam in the sense that they derailed a real concern for the environment and instead blamed basically everything CO2 instead of the real culprit increased solar flares from the sun! I 100 percent agree humans are a problem though. And especially believe deforestation is causing problems. To be honest I don't like the human race much lol! In fact if our government wasn't so twisted we wouldn't be cutting down any trees we be using hemp lumber! Stronger and more resistant to wood. But no we have live in there twisted and perverted world!
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
It seems there are many misconceptions being rolled together here. Too many to talk through exhaustively, but I will ask about a few mainly because I am curious as to your thought process.

You do realize that plants, via photosynthesis, absorb more CO2 than they emit? This is why deforestation increases atmospheric CO2. For the record, this is demonstrably not a myth propagated by the US educational system, but common knowledge worldwide.

Next, it is important to understand that the mere presence of CO2 is not a problem, the danger is in dramatically changing its rate of production, as human activity has clearly done for the past few hundred years. One of the topics I studied under the American educational system is Differential Equations, which is ultimately where the oft-touted notion of a "tipping point" comes from: complex dynamical systems, such as Earth's climate, will often gravitate toward stable or semi-stable "solution" states. Given small perturbations, they will return to the same stable state. Given larger perturbations, however, they might gravitate to a new point of stability, a new normal. This is very commonly how dynamical systems work, and in modeling them one typically finds multiple stable solutions, and can map out what conditions will cause the system to gravitate toward which fixed point. Now, I don't think anyone will argue that Earth's climate is a very complex system that is not well understood yet, and may never be given the issues associated with chaotic dynamics, etc. Given the above, I would point out that any scientist claiming that there is no risk of shifting Earth's climate to a new normal by dramatically altering CO2 production is irresponsibly overestimating their grasp of the atmosphere. Caution is simply common sense, here.

Lastly, I am curious as to the identity of the scammer(s) you believe are profiteering by spreading psedoscience. Al Gore? Manufacturers of solar panels or wind farms? Who's cashing in well enough to grease the palms of scientists from hither and yon?
My problem is with Political scientist vs Independent Scientist! A political scientist studies science based on politics and can be swayed by opinion and many cases is funded by conflict of interest. An Independent scientist is not swayed on politics, independently funded. and presents the data no matter what his/her political belief is. My problem is mixing politics with science and conflicts of interest funding experiments. Yes I won't say CO2 does not have any effect on the planet and do NOT agree with them cutting down trees. I just believe they politically exaggerated CO2 to make money and take the focus off the real problem. You do know the suns solar flares have an extreme impact on our climate right? In fact we should be using hemp lumber. It only takes about 3-4 months to grow hemp, it takes 100 years to grow trees. Why arent we talking about using hemp for lumber and replanting the trees they cut down? No instead were talking about the big bad CO2 bully!
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
That's a pleasant byproduct of shutting down coal plants. Fortunately, the economics are killing coal plants faster than Al Gore could ever dream. More coal plants are being shut down under Trump than were under Obama.



The reason why scientists have more credibility than kooks is that they have evidence.

We banned above-ground atomic tests in 1962. The ozone hole continued to grow, until we banned chloroflourocarbons in 1986 - the ozone hole over the South Pole has been consistently shrinking since then. We understand why CFCs attack stratospheric ozone, it has nothing to do with CO2. You've just been tricked by someone with an agenda, or you have one to spread.



Except you have to split the hydrogen and oxygen from the water, which takes energy, more than what is generated from burning the hydrogen, as any high school chemistry student can tell you. There are no perpetual motion machines, although every few years some people are duped into investing in one.



How do you think generators work? They run wire through a rotating magnetic field, inducing a current in the wire.

You realize as well that the carbon tax was a proposal from the right wing, against cap and trade? Like Obamacare, it was a great idea until the left agreed with it.
Yes I know the ozone layer has nothing to with CO2 thats what im pointing out. Its more likely the Ozone hole was created by testing nuclear missiles up in the ozone layer. And I agree with most of your points and yes I don't know 100 percent if a magnetic generator is possible so you could be right on that. But my main point there is so many other alt options available then oil like hemp oil!
 

BabyTyrant

Est. Contributor
Messages
1,928
Role
Diaper Lover
Yeah I am definitely agreeing with you that it's a lot more than just CO2 commissions and of course politicians will push their agenda, especially on topics someone is paying them to push; which essentially is what most of the problems are - without the government saying we cant do all these things that would have slowed down global warming significantly it wouldn't be as huge a problem as it is.

And that list is huge from using a number of different energy sources instead of using Fossil Fuels, to deforestation (part of that being for paper, housing, etc), to irresponsible waste dumping.

Sure some of that has seen changes in legality and isnt done to the scale it was before; but still they shouldn't be able to take these bribes by oil company CEOs to shut down any kind of alternative energy sources, or at least limit their effectiveness just like it is illegal for cops to take bribes.

And I'm sure they probably get the money in indirect ways so on paper they aren't taking a bribe, they are taking "campaign funding" or whatever it is down on paper as to make it legal to do.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
901
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Yes I totally understand Republicans also play the other side of the coin. Thats why im an Independent! I'm not defending Republicans, I'm pointing out both sides have missed the main point is to stop pollution! What I'm saying is they twisted a good movement into something that's merely to make money and also to stop United States from expanding. In my opinion its about money and power. Instead of focusing on stopping oil spills, chemical runoff, spraying pesticides.... were talking about frickin CO2! Their priorities are completely backwards! That's why I never agreed with neither Republicans or Democrats. Most Republicans are also on the other extreme that basically says screw planet and animals! Than the other extreme we also got the Democrats perverting the movement by focusing on CO2, which wasn't the original environmentalist goal! There's just no balance in this world that's what drives me nuts. I really hate both parties! The war on CO2 is war on life! My biggest eye opener was when they wanted to tax cows farting!
keep in mind this only applies to the modern age, some past Republican presidents did pass environmental protections, including the only one to almost fully get impeached, Nixon.

There is also other pollution to be very mindful of, like the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico.

I found it interesting it auto completed "dead Z" to reference this when I was going to give a reference to this issue, but it appears it is more common then I expected.

But ya I am disagreement it is done so for pure greed, it is just an economic incentive to use other resources.
 

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
128
Age
31
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
keep in mind this only applies to the modern age, some past Republican presidents did pass environmental protections, including the only one to almost fully get impeached, Nixon.

There is also other pollution to be very mindful of, like the dead zone in the gulf of Mexico.

I found it interesting it auto completed "dead Z" to reference this when I was going to give a reference to this issue, but it appears it is more common then I expected.

But ya I am disagreement it is done so for pure greed, it is just an economic incentive to use other resources.
Yes your right some the past Republican presidents did support environmental issues. Yeah it is the neo Republicans that are the polluters.
 

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
Mr. Gnome,

Search engines and sites combine to create echo chambers where inaccuracies and flat-out falsehoods proliferate. Plain and simple: you're 100% wrong and frankly, you should step out of that echo chamber. Now, I'm not interested in "debating", but I happen to know a TON about climate, so if you want information, if you want to learn, then I'll be happy to educate you. But for now, I'll just paint a picture:

Remember the geeks/nerds in high school? The ones who talked science and wondered which top tier college they'd choose? Yeah, big brains and often socially inept. Much of their problem was that they had trouble with lying, so much trouble that they'd stammer out caveats to ensure that their statements were accurate.

But they had big brains and could write their own ticket anywhere. They could become hedge fund multi-millionaires. They'd work in an amazing office with grand views (especially of the hot chicks who'd fetch whatever the Master of the Universe desires). But instead they chose to become climate scientists because they were so greedy that they upgraded to working in a cramped cinderblock office and getting their own stale brew.

Essentially all climate scientists say you're wrong. Do a Google on "97%" and remember that that figure is way out of date. I'm sure it's closer to 99% by now. So, your stance is that 99% of these folks who have an incredible aversion to lying and who check and shred each other's work looking for errors, any errors to triumphantly expose, and who desperately fear having an error in their paper that will get revealed (the shame! You soiled your paper), and chose to forego great wealth are greedy liars who DON'T compete with each other for fame but conspire to all fail miserably in a way that WILL inevitably be exposed? ALL climate scientists are corrupt AND don't care that their reputations will be shredded?? Well, except the three or four same old players who also claim that cigarettes are harmless?

So, if you're not 100% sure that cigarettes are harmless start with:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Dude, your story reeks more than a week-old diaper and is so full of holes, well, you got the floor wet.

Again, if you want to learn about climate science, just let me know.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
409
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Now, I'm not interested in "debating"
I think you just invalidated anything in your actual comment.

Edit: Also if you think you know so much about Climate change, then what do you think we should have as a source of widespread power? Chances are you'll go with Wind and Solar energy which are more expensive in terms of energy production than Nuclear power.
 
Last edited:

DocBrown

Est. Contributor
Messages
167
Role
Diaper Lover, Little, Incontinent
It seems there are many misconceptions being rolled together here. Too many to talk through exhaustively, but I will ask about a few mainly because I am curious as to your thought process.

You do realize that plants, via photosynthesis, absorb more CO2 than they emit? This is why deforestation increases atmospheric CO2. For the record, this is demonstrably not a myth propagated by the US educational system, but common knowledge worldwide.

Next, it is important to understand that the mere presence of CO2 is not a problem, the danger is in dramatically changing its rate of production, as human activity has clearly done for the past few hundred years. One of the topics I studied under the American educational system is Differential Equations, which is ultimately where the oft-touted notion of a "tipping point" comes from: complex dynamical systems, such as Earth's climate, will often gravitate toward stable or semi-stable "solution" states. Given small perturbations, they will return to the same stable state. Given larger perturbations, however, they might gravitate to a new point of stability, a new normal. This is very commonly how dynamical systems work, and in modeling them one typically finds multiple stable solutions, and can map out what conditions will cause the system to gravitate toward which fixed point. Now, I don't think anyone will argue that Earth's climate is a very complex system that is not well understood yet, and may never be given the issues associated with chaotic dynamics, etc. Given the above, I would point out that any scientist claiming that there is no risk of shifting Earth's climate to a new normal by dramatically altering CO2 production is irresponsibly overestimating their grasp of the atmosphere. Caution is simply common sense, here.

Lastly, I am curious as to the identity of the scammer(s) you believe are profiteering by spreading psedoscience. Al Gore? Manufacturers of solar panels or wind farms? Who's cashing in well enough to grease the palms of scientists from hither and yon?
I think you just invalidated anything in your actual comment.
I think you just invalidated anything in your actual comment.
Hi there! No, I'm quite serious. Should Mr. Gnome attempt to engage me further other than to ask for information, then I'll let him have his last word. There is no point in "debate" because few have ever lost an argument in the history of humanity. In fact, the vast majority of arguments end with each party entirely convinced that they devastated their opponent with irrefutable and crystal-clear logic.

Now, you are changing the subject from climate change, which is science, to energy systems, which is engineering. That's cool with me.

Nuclear is a flash point, for sure. Let's split it into two: existing and future. For existing plants I'm of the mind to keep them in service until coal is gone. I'd rather take the small risk of a meltdown instead of the guaranteed harm of coal. Just look at Germany. They're going renewable but keeping not just coal but lignite coal, which is highly polluting, instead of keeping the nukes. Backwards, IMO. Kill coal first, then retire the old nukes.

New nukes have serious NIMBY problems (of course, NIMBY killed that Cape Cod offshore wind farm, too). I've done what research I could online and, of course, everyone's got an opinion and they're all over the map. It's "above my pay grade".

A recent study showed that wind resources are lower than previously thought because once you go to scale with a wind farm the turbines start interfering with each other. Not a huge thing, just a bummer. On a brighter note, wind is getting way cheap.

Solar is getting there, too. Molten salt thermal storage works really well and cells are getting cheaper and more efficient.

Of course, solar and wind aren't enough. Fortunately, hydro can be dispatched as needed. Not gonna look it up, but IIRC it's about a 10% wedge in the USA.

Next, or really should be first, is a backbone for the grid. When Chicago isn't windy but Phoenix is sunny you need to move electrons northeast. The next day, when Chicago blows and Phoenix is cloudy the electrons go the other way.

And then there's biofuel and synfuel. All that underbrush and overcrowded weak trees that burns so bright about what, nine months a year nowadays? Harvest the garbage and turn it into fuel (as opposed to corn kernels, which is "training wheels" biofuel, not useful but a way to learn how to ride). And when excessive renewables are available turn the KWHs into synfuel. Now, you have hydro and internal combustion engines to provide power when needed. Plus, vehicles will become energy storage units. Your car can feed the grid as needed.

And the internal combustion engine of the future? The Insulated Hot-Wall-Ignition 3-Stage-Combustion 2-4-2-Stroke Piston Engine gets above 60% efficiency and produces essentially no non-CO2 emissions.

So, do we need a nuclear wedge? Dunno. Sounds like you think so. Are you into the thorium cycle, micro nukes, or the stuff like the AP1000? IIRC the Southern Company in the southeastern USA is choking on a pair of those.


Edit: BTW, guessing what I am going to say is unlikely to result in any accuracy at all. For better or worse, I'm unique.

And if you'd like to skip the media and interact with the top climate scientists in the world visit RealClimate.org
Note the .org. These guys donate their time and their dollars to provide a non-biased place that regular folks can learn about the science and where $$$ aren't welcome. Greedy jerks, eh? (and yes, RealClimate.org is where I learned much of what I know about climate.)
 
Last edited:
Top