www.ditl.org

Foxfyre wrote:I have viewed both sides of the debate, and have found that there is a ton of evidence in climotogical records that the earth is indeed warming. While some are uncertian wether or not is has been cuased by man the fact is we ain't helping the matters with our practices. The US is FAR behind other nations, and before some say it will further hurt the economy let look at the EU and nations with stronger Enviro polices (like Japan), There economies for the most part are far stronger than ours (The Japanese yen has been stronger than the US dollar for a while, only occasonally does the dollar top it.) Japan has very strict envriomental polices (such as you can only set out certian types of trash on certian days) and has a very very well developed recycling program. Yeah you might get higher taxes but you also can make a few jobs which puts more people to work, which puts more money out there to be circulated, which if I'm not mistaken is good for the Economy.

You might create jobs in one place, but at the same time you're torpedoing them in other places.

Also, trash legislation? Anything more significant that requiring they sort their trash?

Tyyr wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:I have viewed both sides of the debate, and have found that there is a ton of evidence in climotogical records that the earth is indeed warming. While some are uncertian wether or not is has been cuased by man the fact is we ain't helping the matters with our practices. The US is FAR behind other nations, and before some say it will further hurt the economy let look at the EU and nations with stronger Enviro polices (like Japan), There economies for the most part are far stronger than ours (The Japanese yen has been stronger than the US dollar for a while, only occasonally does the dollar top it.) Japan has very strict envriomental polices (such as you can only set out certian types of trash on certian days) and has a very very well developed recycling program. Yeah you might get higher taxes but you also can make a few jobs which puts more people to work, which puts more money out there to be circulated, which if I'm not mistaken is good for the Economy.

You might create jobs in one place, but at the same time you're torpedoing them in other places.

Also, trash legislation? Anything more significant that requiring they sort their trash?

It was an example that I had readly avail, a bit busy to dig deeper honestly.

Tyyr wrote:Well, technically we're overdue for one.

If North America has drifted far enough away from Europe we might not ever have one again.

Here we go!

Now, Tyyr does have some points; however, his fellow engineer(-ing student) must comment on a few things. While there would be some cost (especially in the short term) I've read some analyses which suggest that the long-term economic effects would not be catastrophic. These studies posit that the initial setback would be offset by savings due to less wasteful practices and the implementation of more efficient technology.

I can't speak further as to the accuracy of these studies (only time really can anyway) but I tend to appreciate the sentiment expressed in the argument: that is, there are reasonable things Americans could do to adopt "cleaner" ways without severely impairing our standard of living. Over time it is certain that our standard of living should only improve further anyway. It doesn't seem to me that the massive disparity in the material and energy-cost per capita between America and the other first-world countries is needed, or that it can't be trimmed without bringing us back into the stone age.

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating extreme, draconian measures, either.

Also, as some of our good friends across the pond might tell us, there could be a cultural aspect at play as well. To wit, Americans might be accused of harboring a certain sense of "entitlement," for lack of a better term. We seem to have had a spendthrift mentality in comparison to our similarly rich brethren in Europe and Japan (which wasn't quite incidental in leading to the current economic climate either...) and a certain nonchalance about the cost of it all. I don't see that a shift in how we view our place in the world need necessarily be accompanied by any massive drop in wealth!

Another plus side is wouldn't it be nice to see a city's skyline in a summer day? Smog sucks yo

I'm sure this will die for one simple reason; taxes. As soon as it's implied that taxes might go up then no one will want any part of it, American's seem to live in perpetual fear of a tax increase. I suppose I can't much blame them, looking at what they get for their money compared to Western Europe or Canada.

There was talk up here of how going green could give the economy a boost by creating new jobs in R&D and trades because all this kit needs to be developed, installed and maintained but I haven't heard anymore about it.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:While there would be some cost (especially in the short term) I've read some analyses which suggest that the long-term economic effects would not be catastrophic. These studies posit that the initial setback would be offset by savings due to less wasteful practices and the implementation of more efficient technology.

Some cost is putting it mildly. Most studies I've seen are ridiculously optimistic and seem to be that way in order to try and make this insanity palatable. Al Gore estimated that the cost of going green over the next decade would be about 3 trillion dollars. As someone who actually works in the power industry, he's off by an order of magnitude, on the low side.

that is, there are reasonable things Americans could do to adopt "cleaner" ways without severely impairing our standard of living.

There are reasonable things, this is not one of them. This is full on throwing ourselves under the bus for no good reason.

I don't see that a shift in how we view our place in the world need necessarily be accompanied by any massive drop in wealth!

Which is not what this is about. It's about buying into something that is best poorly understood and then drafting totally divorced from reality legislation to "fix" it and making it law while a sadly misinformed, at best, populace cheers you on. Admittedly it's not that different from most government ideas where the costs are grossly underestimated, benefits are overstated, and the need for it is questionable at best, but this is going over the top.

Cpl Kendall wrote:I'm sure this will die for one simple reason; taxes.

At this point I don't know. A lot of people seem to think that carbon taxes will be paid by companies. They don't realize that companies get their money from consumers and this tax increase will get passed directly on to them. Additionally people have it in their head that green power is cheap and free. Try and tell someone that it's expensive and they look at you like you're crazy. Unless a massive education campaign is launched I don't think the general populace will actually comprehend what it is they're so eager for.

Cpl Kendall wrote:There was talk up here of how going green could give the economy a boost by creating new jobs in R&D and trades because all this kit needs to be developed, installed and maintained but I haven't heard anymore about it.

Because it's pretty much bullshit to the core. Yes, an increase in green power will stimulate the green power industry and create jobs. The problem is that it comes at the cost of jobs in fossil power. Not to mention that the initial cost of going green is... well its fucking phenomenal. Green power options are the most expensive ways to make electricity. For all the bad rap nukes get about being expensive on a kilowatt per kilowatt basis green is more expensive. Hell, last figures I saw, and these are real numbers because my company helped a local group install a large solar array, solar is running at $7,000 a kilowatt just for panels, that's not including installation. A nuke costs around $3,500 a kilowatt. The real bitch, the nuke has an availability rating in the neighborhood of 90%+, the solar right about 15%. Due to the difficulty of landing generation over the last two decades most power generators in this country desperately need to get some power production on the ground. If all they can get approved is green the bill is going to be absolutely ungodly and guess who gets to pay it, the consumer.

Tyyr wrote:Some cost is putting it mildly. Most studies I've seen are ridiculously optimistic and seem to be that way in order to try and make this insanity palatable. Al Gore estimated that the cost of going green over the next decade would be about 3 trillion dollars. As someone who actually works in the power industry, he's off by an order of magnitude, on the low side.

Fair enough. Despite our closeness in age, I haven't had the same experience in the field (for various reasons) so I can't contest this.

Which is not what this is about. It's about buying into something that is best poorly understood and then drafting totally divorced from reality legislation to "fix" it and making it law while a sadly misinformed, at best, populace cheers you on. Admittedly it's not that different from most government ideas where the costs are grossly underestimated, benefits are overstated, and the need for it is questionable at best, but this is going over the top.

Oh, I get that - I just wanted to throw in this point: that it doesn't NEED to be "all or nothing." I'd like to throw this in partly because this sort of debate tends to polarize things this way whilst there are reasonable and appropriate compromises in the middle.

Captain Picard's Hair wrote:Fair enough. Despite our closeness in age, I haven't had the same experience in the field (for various reasons) so I can't contest this.

Gore's numbers were based off some really really bad assumptions as best I can tell. The first is that you only need to do a 1 to 1 replacement of existing power with green. It doesn't work. As I've said on multiple threads here most green power systems are not reliable. They do not produce a constant stream of electricity on demand. They produce it in spurts based on the tides, winds, sun, etc. (Geothermal and hydro not withstanding, love those). In general you see between 15 and 25% capacity factors on most green installations. That means that only 15 to 25% of the time when you want power they are making it. Now, assuming (and even that's a gross over estimation) you can manage to distribute your green generators in such a way that you get 100% capacity factor from the combined group you still have to build 4 to 8 megawatts of green for each megawatt of fossil. And in reality you'll still need a fossil back up because there's no way to actually achieve a guaranteed 100% CF with green power.

Second, the electrical grid is not set up to handle bulk power movements. While the grid is interconnected it is still designed under the principle of most power being supplied by a local producer. Hell the grid isn't even based on the right kind of technology for bulk power movement. If we move to green power bulk power generation we will have to overhaul the entire electrical grid of the US, that alone will easily cost more than the 3 trillion he ridiculously claimed.

Oh, I get that - I just wanted to throw in this point: that it doesn't NEED to be "all or nothing." I'd like to throw this in partly because this sort of debate tends to polarize things this way whilst there are reasonable and appropriate compromises in the middle.

Believe me, I am not all or nothing. I have no problem with the concept of moving away from fossil fuels, conservation, and all that. What bothers me is that we're not doing it rationally. We're not doing it in a manner that is primed to succeed. I see a lot of this stuff like I see ethanol. A great way to waste a lot of money for no real benefit, with the side effect of helping increase the number of people starving in the world. If you want to go green in an intelligent manner we'd be building nukes, not windmills.

Tyyr wrote:I like facts and proven theories.

I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science.

The acceptance of ANY theory is always provisional. We never, ever stop and say "hey, this theory here is now a confirmed fact". So if what you want is a theory of global warming over which there will be no debate or argument, then you will still be sitting and waiting when the penguins start catching on fire.

You also need to stop flying on aeroplanes since we don't have a definitive theory of how gravity works. And you need to turn your computer off since we're still arguing about particle and quantum physics.

In the real world, we go with the evidence and the scientific consensus. Yes, it might be wrong; that's why science keeps on testing and debating it, and always will no matter how well supported it is. But if you want to wait for the "I am certain never to be wrong" options to come along, then you are never going to do anything about anything, ever.

GrahamKennedy wrote:I'm sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as a "proven theory" in science.

Yes, I mis-stated. However it doesn't change the spirit of what I've said. That even if the planet is heating up there's insufficient evidence that humans are the cause to start putting massive sweeping legislation into effect.

So what are you going to do in 200 years if we're still running off carbon fuels? The mentality was always that we'll fix that when technology allows. Well guess what technology allows now and its time to fix it.

Monroe wrote:So what are you going to do in 200 years if we're still running off carbon fuels? The mentality was always that we'll fix that when technology allows. Well guess what technology allows now and its time to fix it.

Wouldn't surprise me if we were really. Technology is at a point where we could get away from carbon fuels, if we go nuclear. As Tyyr has stated, green sources aren't relible enough at this point to take over our power needs.

And to be honest, tech isn't really the primary problem, cost is. We have the technology to do a lot fo incredible things, but the cost of it keeps it from being common place. Space travel comes to mind in that regard.

Oh I agree the way of the future is nuclear. Its a simple common sense. BUT green technologies can provide a lot of middle ground until we're able to build those fusion reactors everywhere.

Plain ol' fission is fine as a stopgap before fusion.